This way please Dr. Crummy
Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
51–60 of 88 posts
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the pay; the pressure as a graduate student and not-yet-tenured professor is immense. The darkly humorous "A (de)motivational letter", purportedly by one "Prof. Hardass Slavedriver", sums it up: https://lifesciencephdadventures.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/a-...
> The darkly humorous "A (de)motivational letter" It's not just darkly humorous, it could almost be satire: > It has to the the kind of chemistry that people read and then jizz in their pants, they’re so excited about it. That’s right: we only do jizz-worthy chemistry I'll assume due to the nature of chemistry, the field doesn't suffer as much from non-reproducible data, but overall, this sentence alone might explain…
I think any system that rewards high performance also has the potential to reward (good enough) cheating. This letter can be motivational, and show the intense pressure to cheat in academia at the same time.
I'm not a PhD student, but I stopped after a masters exactly because I didn't want the pressure we're discussing.
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#53[flagged]
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#54> I should've declared CS. I still wouldn't have any women, but at least I'd be rolling in cash.
True dat.
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#55jokes apart, this is real, right?
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#56[flagged]
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#57Pretty funny. Having taught low-temperature condensed matter labs, a big part of the grade is figuring out what went wrong, and either correcting for it, or at least acknowledging that it went wrong. The student needed to give more information about the experimental setup (what instruments did they use? four point or two point resistance? resistivity vs resistance? what is R_0?) and why they think the experiment didn…
My understanding of undergrad lab work is that the point is not to get results, it's to learn how to do lab work.
Indeed, a scientist should have some exposure to experimentation. Experiments don't always work on the first try, and often require some knowledge and skill.
The ones who can't solder go into electrical engineering and sit at a computer terminal all day. (joking of course)
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#58Exactly my experience back in the days doing the mandatory "advanced experimental physics laboratory semester" where you had to do like 14 vastly different experiment of the caliber described in that post in the course of one semester on old equipment that would break during the experiment, with less than motivated PhD students or post grads as teachers. Of the 14 experiments only two worked and we got the expected r…
Yeah I don't quite understand how the physics curriculum is set. There is more and more physics discovered over time and yet the time you get to study remains the same. 4 years is not enough time to learn the math and physics you need to do anything real, not counting the other important stuff you need to do (like English comp and partying and getting your heart broken).
At my uni (and probably and most others) undergrad physics just ends around 1930s. Then for master's you get some of the mid-20 century (phase transitions and intro to qft). Then you specialize and learn the remaining 50 years
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#59Exactly my experience back in the days doing the mandatory "advanced experimental physics laboratory semester" where you had to do like 14 vastly different experiment of the caliber described in that post in the course of one semester on old equipment that would break during the experiment, with less than motivated PhD students or post grads as teachers. Of the 14 experiments only two worked and we got the expected r…
> on old equipment that would break during the experiment Isn’t that closer to the real conditions in a research lab? I met some NASA scientists doing atmospheric sampling on a plane, and they had to accompany their equipment to manage any equipment glitches during the expensive sampling process (a custom modified 747 flying from Hawaii to New Zealand IIRC)
Can confirm, work in a top physics university in the lab. It is not a rare sight to see equipment from 10, 20, 30 years ago still in operation. Though it really depends on the equipment. Optics? They don't really go bad if you treat them right. Electronics? You'd be surprised as the quality of design and fab went into that plastic box that looks older than you.
Really physics discovery is partially limited by equipment, but in my time in the lab I have seen great physicists get remarkable results with equipment or setups that I personally thought was not up to the task.
As to college level experimental physics lab: the goal is not to get you to reproduce the nobel winning results, but to learn how to think like an experimental physicist. To hunt down issues, to calculate sources of error, to find out that some guy keeps running the microwave while you are taking sensitive measurements and that it actually impacted them and how.
It is the unimaginative or poorly taught that think the experimental physics lab in undergrad isn't important.
Re: Electron band structure in germanium, my ass (2000)
#60Exactly my experience back in the days doing the mandatory "advanced experimental physics laboratory semester" where you had to do like 14 vastly different experiment of the caliber described in that post in the course of one semester on old equipment that would break during the experiment, with less than motivated PhD students or post grads as teachers. Of the 14 experiments only two worked and we got the expected r…
Yeah I don't quite understand how the physics curriculum is set. There is more and more physics discovered over time and yet the time you get to study remains the same. 4 years is not enough time to learn the math and physics you need to do anything real, not counting the other important stuff you need to do (like English comp and partying and getting your heart broken).
Physics course is set to do two things
(1) 'to teach you to think like a physicist' as my professor was fond of saying to us. No one is going to be able to learn all of the subjects knowledge in 4 years, let alone a complex and rigorous field like physics.
(2) to give you a core foundation of understanding on which all other physics is built upon.
By teaching the core subjects and lessons of physics, you can get a pretty good understanding of the world, how it works, and how to derive equations to explain it.
As for it not being able to learn enough to do anything real. I beg to differ, like all fields you tend to learn the most in 'the field'. Most physicists learn by doing just like any other field. Take for instance engineering, there are some exceptions but most of the engineers I have known in my life have really only become fully viewed as engineers once they had some years of experience under their belts... Same thing goes for comp sci, and same goes for physics.
It's hard to explain because the field is viewed as an abstraction to those outside of it. The goal of understanding something new, discovering some new phenomenon, or better understanding an old one. But what that looks like in practice is years of working in a lab failing, trying things, taking results, tilting your head and going 'thats weird', and charting to colleagues about how to get something to work. Those who have done experimental physics, this is just experimentation and it makes sense, those who haven't, this probably sound simplistic and it is. Like your own fields, it's hard to really capture the depth of what experimentation looks like because even in physics it varies from sub field to sub field.
So it goes, sorry for the rambling from an experimental physicist