6 ms·

I went to university intending to study computing science, but switched to physics half way through under the assumption that you could teach yourself computing

I went to university intending to study computing science, but switched to physics half way through under the assumption that you could teach yourself computing science more easily than physics. I wouldn't change what I learned for the world, and I'm now in physics academia, but it's funny how my job these days involves using some of the algorithms, mathematics and data structures that I was just about to start learning if I had stayed the course in computing. My few years of study and general interest in computing has already given me a huge advantage in solving certain types of problem. I think computing science (not just software engineering) is slowly but surely becoming an essential part of many areas of modern physics research.

nyc111 8y ago
I agree. It seems to me that in those huge physics projects like CERN what most physicists do is programming or data analysis.
- nyc111 8y ago
  > computing science ... is slowly but surely becoming an essential part of many areas of modern physics research. Also, this means that fundamental assumptions and the calculations are hidden from view. Recently, some physicists questioned the findings of LIGO but if I understand correctly all is decided by data analysis software and outside teams have a disadvantage to decipher it.
  - snops 8y ago
    The LIGO result is actually excitingly available as an IPython notebook, which provides a tutorial to verify the data yourself, using entirely open source software. https://www.gw-openscience.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tutorial.html https://www.gw-openscience.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tu... The actual signal processing isn't that complex IMO. I don't know how open the LIGO hardware is, but it's very unlikely you would build one yourself to verify.
- pge 8y ago
  This is very true - I was a physics undergrad and learned to code working in a project at cern. While the underlying physics was the foundation of the project, the day to day work was all coding: processing and analyzing the huge amounts of data coming out of the experiment.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    > a physics undergrad Now imagine dozens of people with a PhD in physics doing the same. (Earning a degree in physics is hard.)
    - pge 8y ago
      yes, that was one of the insights of the work. The people working alongside me were post-docs that were still having to put in their time as workers on other people's research projects. Particularly, in the area of experimental high-energy physics, where accelerators were needed to do the work, everyone had to jockey to get time on the accelerator (even nobel laureates like the leader of the project I worked on). It seemed like every experiment was a compromise of different people's goals in order to combine together to get enough collective clout to get access to the accelerator to even do the project. That meant the guys who had already completed PhDs at prestigious schools were still pretty low on the hierarchy (but ten years older than me). The time spent working with those guys definitely influenced my decision not to continue with a PhD...
renjimen 8y ago
Not just research, but applied physics too - at least, that was my experience working in the defence and energy sectors. Looking back, it’s remarkable how little of my physics studies were devoted to learning about the computational techniques I spend the majority of my time working with.
naasking 8y ago
> I think computing science (not just software engineering) is slowly but surely becoming an essential part of many areas of modern physics research. I like to say that physics, mathematics, and computer science are the three pillars of human knowledge. There's some overlap between each pillar, and we don't yet fully understand how each of them fully relate to the others, but each is essential to gathering a full picture of any phenomenon.
- Engineering-MD 8y ago
  I think there must be more pillars than that. Biology and chemistry while related to physics are distinct (in the same way physics is not maths). More broadly, humanities and the arts are still valid areas of knowledge. Hacker news has a bias towards your three pillars, but I think it is important to acknowledge that human knowledge does go beyond CS, maths and physics.
  - naasking 8y ago
    I disagree re: biology and chemistry. Certainly they are epistemically useful simplifications of the other pillars, but they are not foundational or fundamental. Physics is not math because it's an empirical rather than a priori exploration. We are trying to reproduce the function governing natural laws, where in mathematics we are exploring the properties of functions. Computer science in turn is concerned with the construction of mathematical structures via algorithms, and so physics will be one such construction. I think trying to place humanities and the arts under "knowledge" is a category error. These fields don't produce knowledge as its commonly understood, as a corpus of mind-independent facts and their relationships. Certainly facts appear in these fields, such as historical facts and authorship, but I don't think building a corpus of facts is not the main purpose.
    - Koshkin 8y ago
      > simplifications of the other pillars This fallacy is called "reductionism."
agumonkey 8y ago
Wait a bit, in a few years physical and computing models will merge. #my2ctsbet

nyc111 8y ago

I agree. It seems to me that in those huge physics projects like CERN what most physicists do is programming or data analysis.

nyc111 8y ago
> computing science ... is slowly but surely becoming an essential part of many areas of modern physics research. Also, this means that fundamental assumptions and the calculations are hidden from view. Recently, some physicists questioned the findings of LIGO but if I understand correctly all is decided by data analysis software and outside teams have a disadvantage to decipher it.
- snops 8y ago
  The LIGO result is actually excitingly available as an IPython notebook, which provides a tutorial to verify the data yourself, using entirely open source software. https://www.gw-openscience.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tutorial.html https://www.gw-openscience.org/s/events/GW150914/GW150914_tu... The actual signal processing isn't that complex IMO. I don't know how open the LIGO hardware is, but it's very unlikely you would build one yourself to verify.
pge 8y ago
This is very true - I was a physics undergrad and learned to code working in a project at cern. While the underlying physics was the foundation of the project, the day to day work was all coding: processing and analyzing the huge amounts of data coming out of the experiment.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  > a physics undergrad Now imagine dozens of people with a PhD in physics doing the same. (Earning a degree in physics is hard.)
  - pge 8y ago
    yes, that was one of the insights of the work. The people working alongside me were post-docs that were still having to put in their time as workers on other people's research projects. Particularly, in the area of experimental high-energy physics, where accelerators were needed to do the work, everyone had to jockey to get time on the accelerator (even nobel laureates like the leader of the project I worked on). It seemed like every experiment was a compromise of different people's goals in order to combine together to get enough collective clout to get access to the accelerator to even do the project. That meant the guys who had already completed PhDs at prestigious schools were still pretty low on the hierarchy (but ten years older than me). The time spent working with those guys definitely influenced my decision not to continue with a PhD...

renjimen 8y ago

Not just research, but applied physics too - at least, that was my experience working in the defence and energy sectors. Looking back, it’s remarkable how little of my physics studies were devoted to learning about the computational techniques I spend the majority of my time working with.

naasking 8y ago

> I think computing science (not just software engineering) is slowly but surely becoming an essential part of many areas of modern physics research. I like to say that physics, mathematics, and computer science are the three pillars of human knowledge. There's some overlap between each pillar, and we don't yet fully understand how each of them fully relate to the others, but each is essential to gathering a full picture of any phenomenon.

Engineering-MD 8y ago
I think there must be more pillars than that. Biology and chemistry while related to physics are distinct (in the same way physics is not maths). More broadly, humanities and the arts are still valid areas of knowledge. Hacker news has a bias towards your three pillars, but I think it is important to acknowledge that human knowledge does go beyond CS, maths and physics.
- naasking 8y ago
  I disagree re: biology and chemistry. Certainly they are epistemically useful simplifications of the other pillars, but they are not foundational or fundamental. Physics is not math because it's an empirical rather than a priori exploration. We are trying to reproduce the function governing natural laws, where in mathematics we are exploring the properties of functions. Computer science in turn is concerned with the construction of mathematical structures via algorithms, and so physics will be one such construction. I think trying to place humanities and the arts under "knowledge" is a category error. These fields don't produce knowledge as its commonly understood, as a corpus of mind-independent facts and their relationships. Certainly facts appear in these fields, such as historical facts and authorship, but I don't think building a corpus of facts is not the main purpose.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    > simplifications of the other pillars This fallacy is called "reductionism."

agumonkey 8y ago

Wait a bit, in a few years physical and computing models will merge. #my2ctsbet