4 ms·
It's certainly also true for astronomy, quantum gravity, and most of the condensed matter physicists that I know. Which subfields don't involve at least Monte C
by foob 9y ago
It's certainly also true for astronomy, quantum gravity, and most of the condensed matter physicists that I know. Which subfields don't involve at least Monte Carlo simulations or writing code to analyze data and/or control experimental apparatus?
- jessriedel 9y agoMy claim isn't that most physicist never write code, it's that most physicists spend most of their time not writing code. Analytical work dominates in high-energy theory, quantum information, mathematical physics, cosmology theory. I'll also dispute your characterization of quantum gravity with my own anecdotal experience. If we wanted to solve this, I think we'd just open up an issue of Physical Review and count whether more than half the papers are numerical. Outside big collaborations (e.g., particles, astronomy), my impression is that most experimental work is not writing code even though rudimentary code is of course needed for data analysis and equipment control. We're on a site for programers, so I think the former physicists who happen to be here are unrepresentative.
- T-A 9y ago> Analytical work dominates in high-energy theory, quantum information, mathematical physics, cosmology theory. Yes, but most physicists are not theorists.
- jessriedel 9y agoMy comment doesn't assert or assume that.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoAll true physicists are theorists, the others are engineers. ;oP
- cozzyd 9y agoThere are way more experimental physicists than theoretical physicists, and even theorists usually at least write Mathematica code...
- jessriedel 9y ago"Way more" is an exaggeration. I'd estimate it's a 2:1 ratio (of profs and postdocs, not techs). Second, I am not disputing that most theorists use code from time to time. Lord knows I do. The claim is that this is nothing like 80% of their job.