As it is known currently matter cannot be created nor destroyed Due to conservation of mass law, and the same goes for energy and often times We explain matter and energy as the same but on opposite sides of a coin.So my proposal is that is it possible with enough information would we be able to create atoms using energy Via 3D printing. I mean Imagine being able to create an oxygen atom and hydrogen atoms and combining them to make water the question I ask is would this be possible. I mean We could in theory solve all of earths problems food just print it. water just print it. We could easily inhabit other planets, just print out a new Ozone with water and make generators to sustain total climate control. and even with the second Law of thermo Dynamics as long as we were to find a way that increases entropy enough so that the surrounding universe to be achieved outside of this 3D system could this feasibly be done?

I’m from India and I’m talking about the National Standard Examination in Physics (NSEP) which is a stepping stone for the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO).

I’m also doing a coaching for IIT JEE, so I’m super confused on how to prepare for the olympiad in a manner to add to my JEE preparations.

I barely get anytime to do extensive research plus I don’t understand the structure of these websites(HBCSE), it doesn’t load half of the time.

Is I.E. IRODOV a good book to prepare with?

What steps should I take?

I love to browse and ask questions on the math and physics stack exchanges to help me understand things I’m learning in university, but I admit most of the questions that I don’t ask myself and the answers for them have a depth that looks, in most cases, almost like complete jargon to me. Although I’m still relatively new to university, I’ve developed a lot of enthusiasm for math and physics, and with it, a pride for it that makes me a bit perplexed when almost all the questions asked on those boards I couldn’t hope to be able to answer right now, let alone understand myself. I want to go into quantum mechanics or special relativity — some theoretical physics field when I can, but looking at some of the questions on it seem to have an exceptionally advanced understanding of underlying physics and maths that I’m not even close to coming up to yet, and I can only hope and work to achieve.

Essentially, there seems to be a large knowledge gap between my “Derivation for wavelength bandwidth” question and another’s “integrating out W-boson fields” question that makes me feel like a complete simpleton. And even trying to follow the questions or answers is a very difficult task, if ever possible.

I wasn’t very motivated in high school and never applied myself in mathematics until college, but I inclined towards English courses being more naturally easy. Now, in uni, I’m doing only mathematics and physics courses. So far they’re definitely do-able and understandable, but they’re also leagues below some of the questions I see on these websites.

My main concern is whether this field can accommodate a person like me to be able to comprehend these types of things one day – that I can mentally comply with the concepts and apply the knowledge like a physicist or mathematician, despite not growing up convinced I was some mathematical prodigy, even thinking English courses came more naturally to me. I realized in uni I never allowed myself to fill in very general knowledge gaps that made mathematics not seem natural to me because my apathy prevented me from falling in love with it and pursue understanding unlike English which covered topical things I was interested in and didn’t necessarily discover interest in, so now I’m not sure which I’m more naturally inclined to anymore, since math certainly is not something that simply does not work for me. Applying myself so far has paid its dues and I may or may not have naturally a knack for it, but, with the complexity of some of the things I’ve seen on this site, I hope enthusiasm and sufficient effort is enough alone. I thought I was relatively smart until I came across these media. I’m just a bit intimidated at what my future holds, and I’m hoping effort and love is enough.

So to recap my question is: is pursuing a career in the most involved areas of theoretical physics logistical for someone without necessarily a prodigious mind in mathematics but one that has seen success in early years of university with enough enthusiasm and hard work?

I’m at the end of a 2 year post-Bacc at Columbia. My goal when I started was quite clear: I wanted to study atmospheric science through the lens of dynamical systems. However, as I’ve moved along, it’s become clear to me that my interest is really in the approach, and that I care relatively little about the particular field to which it is applied. That is: I’m much more interested in the process of modeling with dynamical systems than I am in what I’m modeling (though I would prefer to stay in the physical sciences). This is great in some senses, because it means that I can apply to a wealth of different sorts of programs, but I’m suffering from paralysis of choice; how can I even decide?

Some pertinent background:

-My undergraduate degree is actually in linguistics from Georgetown (it’s how I got interested in complexity science in the first place)

-I’ve been working with a research team in climate science, although it hasn’t been very mathematics heavy.

-My first project has begun to conclude, and so I’ve recently begun working with an physical oceanography research team doing very mathy stuff

-One of the theoretical climate scientists in the department (who started his career with a very theoretical fluid mechanics/dynamical systems approach) told me that the use of dynamical methods in atmospheric science has been largely mined out: there aren’t many tractable questions remaining and it will be difficult to find work doing that even if I do get funding for a PhD.

-My quantum mechanics professor recommended looking into either plasma physics or ion transport in batteries. She says these methods are being used there (and I trust her on this; she has her own lab doing work closely related to the later and is generally quite brilliant all the time).

I really need two things

a) Specific advice about how to navigate this choice and to finesse the applications: Are these fields all equally likely to allow me to play with these techniques? Should I be applying to math programs or science programs given my interests? Are there scientific fields I should consider beyond those recommended to me above (p. oceanography, atmospheric science, plasma).

b) General advice about organizing this choice, selling myself as a legit candidate in a diversity of fields (my background is at this point equivalent to a bachelors in Mathematical Physics kinda; more analysis than most physicist undergrads but less calculations.

Thanks

I’m a fresh junior student doing some amo research. But my professor kept having me focus on the optics stuff. Although I learned plenty of skills, I’m also worried that this can negatively reduce my chance in applying to any real quantum optics/atomic physics labs? Since I had no real experience dealing with atoms, it might be harder to get accepted by those AMO groups? But I’m aimed to work in quantum physics.

So in short, I was just wondering how hard it would be to get into an applied math masters program at a school like University of Washington? I don’t think UW is in the same tier as schools like MIT, but they sure have a great Math program, and I was wondering if it would be a hard one to get into?

Im actually a physics major, with a math minor, with three years of research experience under my belt and a 3.5 GPA

Would a Masters program at a school like UW be a realistic option?

I’m in physics where the order of authors is meaningful. The first author is the lead author and the last author is the principal investigator. I am an undergraduate who has collaborated on a topic with two post docs and a professor. We are nearly ready to submit the paper to a top journal (Nature physics).

I proposed the topic after I discovered a huge idea in the field. I proved a variety of theorems and generated the supporting data independently. I used post doc 1s previous work in the paper – but it has already been published. Post doc 2 made a very small contribution, the other has contributed significantly more. I wrote the “main results”, “applications” and “technical discussion” section. Post doc 1 wrote the intro, conclusion, abstract and a minor background section. The appendix is very long and I wrote 90% of it. The proof techniques and methods are my own creation with no input from any one else. Post doc 1 has helped greatly in improving my presentation since he has far more experience than me in writing papers (I have never written one). Post doc 1 made a lot of edits and helped restructure some arguments for clarity of presentation.

The paper has just been posted online to Arxiv. I am second to last author. Post doc 1 made himself first author. I have read a number of articles on the topic and since I contributed the most I believe I should be first author. What is the best way for me to approach the situation? I really feel like I am being ripped off. 3rd author could be given to any undergrad and I imagine the difference for grad school/future career could be substantial.
Thanks!

I want to start research in the field of Computational Cosmology. It includes the galaxy formation and reionization era. I know it involves extensive computing techniques including parallel and high performance computation but do I need to study General Relativity (detailed course) or I can work without it (or having its basic concepts)?
For the physics part, I have to study Astrophysical Hydrodynamics and galactic compact objects and their X ray sources etc.
Do I need complex differential geometry of General Relativity for this?
P.S: I have a physics background and right now in course-work phase at graduate level in Computational Science degree.