01 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by RamnedHowever, I do not enjoy particle / theoretical physics
Alot of this advice was useful. The repetitive idea was to mesh both of them.
AW - your post was especially informing. However, I do not enjoy particle / theoretical physics as much as the physics you see more (i.e. why one gets the intoxicated feeling through sitting in a hot tub for hours). This is why astrophysics interests me: It explains phenomena of ...[text shortened]... , thanks for the advice all. For senior seminar perhaps I can demonstrate my writing somehow....
Heresy!!!! Theoretical physics rocks!!! 😵 The good theoretical physics that is. Seriously now: what I always enjoyed was theoretical and mathematical physics, but I always like to see some confrontation of what's being studied and how things really behave.
then again, I have little knowledge of particle physics - it is probably closer related to chemistry...possibly at studying the big bang theory?
Particle physics as in high energy physics hasn't much to with chemistry. Normally in chemistry very low energies are sufficient to get a good idea of what's going on. In another way particle physics has a lot to do with what's elementary and the propertie of a given object being elementary depends on what energy scale you are in. For much aplications is chemistry the atom is the nucleus and the electrons around it. Of course we know that considering the nucleus as something elementary is wrong but if you are on a low enough energy scale you can't excite protons and neutrons and so they do behave very closely as being a whole. Big Bang physics and other early universe related topics is very high energy physics. So high that it must have to be taken into acount that protons and neutrons have an internal structure. Or saying this stuff on a maybe more simple way. We know that protons are made of quarks but on a chemistry course are treated as being elementary and there is not wrong with that operationally (the final result is the same in both cases for experimental accuracy) but conceptually we know that this is a flawed model. I hope I got the right idea across.
And I'm sure you're writting skills will do wonders while you are trying to communicate your ideas.
And once again good luck to you. 🙂
02 Feb 08
Think about a day in your future, your perfect day. You can be anything and anywhere, go into detail.
If your perfect day involves science, do that. If it involves writing then do that.
If it is winning the superbowl or being rich/famous/popular then those are the things you truly want.
Thankyou pop pyschology over!
02 Feb 08
double major.
it's not easy to become a mission specialist.
i think they get several thousand applications per 2-year cycle and only accept 80. or something like that. wiki doesn't say, except:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#NASA_candidacy_requirements
NASA candidacy requirements
Be citizens of the United States.[38][35]
Pass a strict physical examination, and have a distant visual acuity no greater than 20/50 uncorrected, correctable to 20/20. Blood pressure, while sitting, must be no greater than 140 over 90.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'm in good physical health. I will not be able to apply for that until I am completely a certified physicist of which then it will require me to stand out. Which is why joining Air Force Academy is not a bad idea.
double major.
it's not easy to become a mission specialist.
i think they get several thousand applications per 2-year cycle and only accept 80. or something like that. wiki doesn't say, except:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#NASA_candidacy_requirements
NASA candidacy requirements
Be citizens of the United States.[38][35]
Pass a str ...[text shortened]... ted, correctable to 20/20. Blood pressure, while sitting, must be no greater than 140 over 90.
02 Feb 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotMuch as wikipedia is great, I'm not entirely sure that any of it is completely true.
double major.
it's not easy to become a mission specialist.
i think they get several thousand applications per 2-year cycle and only accept 80. or something like that. wiki doesn't say, except:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#NASA_candidacy_requirements
NASA candidacy requirements
Be citizens of the United States.[38][35]
Pass a str ...[text shortened]... ted, correctable to 20/20. Blood pressure, while sitting, must be no greater than 140 over 90.
This might be, but it is a fair warning.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by FlyingDutchmani had a book a long time ago that described nasa astronaut training. but i think the numbers i remembered (not the ones quoted from wiki) probably come from a nasa website or houston chronicle article i looked at several years ago.
Much as wikipedia is great, I'm not entirely sure that any of it is completely true.
This might be, but it is a fair warning.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by RamnedIt is so damn hard to predict what are the right decisions in life.. You never know, too many variables, predictible and unpredictible.. Chess is simplistic compared to life.
I'm stuck between 2 choices as the decision comes. For my life work.
Whilst I am interested and like physics, and see the possibility for working as an astrophysicst, then possibly as a specialist on a space mission. Very cool I think. In Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the physics professor was/is a ranked chess player. However physics and chemisty ...[text shortened]... de. WHICH PATH MUST I TAKE??
Seriously, I need good advice, not biased. I'm kinda split.