I want to do research in Fluid Mechanics, mainly in Riblets. I have already started studying basic Fluid Mechanics like Integral and Differential Relations and Viscous Flow. Going to do Boundary Layer Physics next. But what else would I need to know? Is the topic too advanced? Which would be unfortunate if it was as it really interests me. I am quite lost on what to do.

Just a few weeks ago I was enthralled with physics, the formulas were coming naturally and I felt genuine zeal whenever I thought and read about the subject. I think encouragements from professor and assistant, also played the huge role here. 

First exam ruined me. That week, instead of learning about the new upcoming idea, I sat with constant anxiety, not knowing to what exactly prepare myself. My fears actualized, when  came the stuff on the exam was completely different from what I was preparing for. Additionally, me spending days, reviewing the past topics made me fell sharply behind for the upcoming topics that kept pouring in and in. 

I understood the concepts and could solve problems, still there were many more problems from the book, that I yet couldn't solve intuitionally, like 70% more. I could solve them but not under the timing, for I would spend whole two hours solving just one problem with my abilities. I wonder who could solve them under an hour!? Why aren’t we taught to solve fucking problems that we will be tested on!? Best of minds our species are capable of producing have spend days thinking discussing about them, even if it was in the 17th century, it happened. Now, we just need to see how they solved such problems and just copy their method. No understanding and appreciation is required. We are just expected to just fucking swig the fucking thing in two gulps, and copy paste, do so for 60 more problems and you should be set. 

For the midterm exam I started doing problems without paying much attention to the theory and ended up not mastering either. What a fucking disappointment I am! Ah, I want to relinquish everything. I hate myself; I hate my professor; I hate their assistant. I hate their looks on their faces as if I have deceived, led them astray, surprised them with my revealed stupidity! 

No,
my dears, you are misconceiving here. It is not I, who deceived, but you, who made
me believe in this nonsense. This is utter nonsense! Only fools and miserable
people will spend their time on, slaves, who trade their ability to be happy to
solve, solve, solve and bow and bow.

Now, that I feel like total disappointment! And have nothing else to lose. I want to fucking pay it back with the same coin. I don't want to give a flying fuck about it, never, never! I want to do something extravagant. To show how much I don’t give a fuck, and that I never did, and that I’m rather bored with the subject and unimpressed, that I was misled into believing that there was any worth in it. That it is I who reject it, and that is I who chooses not to spend my precious energy on it. I'm mad, I know, but I can't overcome this feeling, I can’t help it, I’m such a disappointment! I have wasted my time, I have wasted money, and now I will not be accepted to any grad school it will be on my records😭. There is no more spark, I have disappointed. Nothing, nothing in it evokes same feelings of drive and philosophical wonder😭. 

I also fucking hate how many professors from stem fields have turned their courses into the one huge iq bottleneck. Compared to other professors from other departments who seem to go thoroughly into their fields and take their professorship seriously, stem professors seem like they are so eager to write off any shortcomings of their pupils to their iq, without ever questioning their teaching practices. It maybe surely does, but that would be stupid waste of students money and social potential if we were to only give people with certain brain structures a chance to pass through. They are not professors, they cannot profess, they are in it for the title. 

I wanted to do it for my career, now I just want to freaking hurl every thing related to this shit.

I want to do research in quantum materials. The professor I want to do research under is asking for CV that would include my gpa. Should I put any Upper Level physics courses that I have taken?

My supervisor has recently gotten on the AI hypetrain, and he uses Claude Code and Codex a lot to run simulations.

I'm a mathematician that's now ended up in theoretical physics (plasma physics to be specific), and I run simulations to see what happens in different regimes. My lecturer tested the capability of AI, and created a whole repository on MHD simulations, then shared it to me so I can run a simulation in a specific regime. The code is insanely hard to read, but works well with so many features attached. I've been kinda hesitant using chatgpt/claude for my project, but it has been insanely difficult to read and add since it's a huge repository.

My supervisor told me he doesn't really care if I use AI for my project, and kinda advised he'd rather get the physics results than struggle through coding and told me I can rely on AI (it sounded like he was telling me I should use AI). He said he's happy if I just keep on telling Claude and get it to make tests and simulations that work, and I understand chunks of code (but I don't have to understand every single line of code).

Is it fine to use AI for research? It feels so weird to be put in a place where I don't know how my code exactly works, but I run multiple tests to make sure the regime is working accordingly, so this method seems to be working fine.

He told the future of coding seems to be dead so I shouldn't worry about understanding the code, especially as a physicist (although he does admit he is no expert so it could backfire in the future).

What does everyone think of relying on AI to run simulations? Is it fine or should I not rely on it?

Don't remember how or when I thought of this scenario, but it keeps popping back into my head and I can't seem to work it out satisfactorily. Lot more questions than answers.

Setup :

Say you are in a sufficiently large and deep swimming pool. The pool itself is suspended sufficiently high up in the air, and has a hatch for a floor that can open instantaneously.

There is some mechanism by which during 'free fall', you fall slower than the water, and the difference is exactly equal to the buoyancy you would otherwise experience. Essentially, an observer falling with the water would see you float up just as you would in a regular swimming pool.

You start off by swimming at the very bottom of the pool. At some point while you are swimming, the hatch opens and both the pool and you are now in free fall. No air resistance. What happens?

My thoughts :

- The opening of the hatch will nullify the hydrostatic pressure as the pool is now in free fall, so I'm sure you would be able to feel exactly when the hatch was opened. It would probably be akin to suddenly teleporting into a vacuum.

- You would still be able to displace the water and 'swim'. But without the walls, the water will just be pushed by your hands and deform so I presume you wouldn't be propelled the same distance as usual.

- Not sure how exactly, but I the cohesion of water has an effect too. I think the pool will roughly retain its cuboid shape. The pushed water's internal resistance would slow the current down enough to not deform the shape of the pool since it is sufficiently large right?

Questions :

- Would you still be capable of swimming? Would it feel different? How so?

- Would an observer who always falls with the water be able to tell when the hatch opens since you still appear buoyant?

- What would even actually happen?

This is such a weird question I have no idea how to begin putting it on paper. Every person I've asked seems to have a different answer as to what would happen when the hatch opens.

As for the buoyancy mechanism (since I spent time thinking about this too), say it's an electromagnet only attracted to you, suspended high above the pool. It is dropped at the same time as the hatch opens, and dynamically adjusts its attraction force as it falls such that you experience an upwards force alongside gravity for the duration of your fall, mimicking buoyancy.

I'd love some feedback on my CV from an academic pov.

Context:

• I'm in experimental physics, rising junior, interested in AMO/quantum, don't have any journal publications yet
• I primarily use this CV to 1) apply for academic/research internships, 2) cold email professors or 3) apply for any scholarship opportunities.
• I keep a Master document that I update regularly for future grad school applications (about 3 pages)
• I tailor and shorten the Master doc, depending on the opportunity
• I know for undergrads one-page Resumes are recommended but I do like CVs better and I think there is no problem sharing a CV as long as I actually have enough solid stuff to fill

Also, I know there's a very common academic CV/resume format that everyone seems to use (especially the Google Docs), but I intentionally went with something a bit different because I personally find it cleaner and easier on the eyes. I'm curious whether it still looks professional from an academic perspective or if I should conform more to the standard format.

Feel free to roast it. (still show some encouragement lmao)

In quantum mechanics (QM), measurement is a (mathematically) well defined operation of projecting a state on to the measured eigenstate of the measured quantity (This is my current understanding of measurement in QM, please correct me if I’m wrong).

Now, when going from QM to quantum field theory (QFT), I have recently heard that the previously described definition of measurement doesn’t work and can cause a bunch of issues with FTL communication and the like (have heard it referred to as Sorkin’s Paradox). Because of this, the typical definition of measurement in QM no longer works allegedly and you need what’s called a “local definition” of measurement.

When I first heard about this recently, I was very surprised because based on some basic prior research I’ve done on QFT (I’m currently a rising 3rd year undergrad in physics; I’ve completed two semesters of QM atp), I have only ever seen the traditional QM definition of measurement which is apparently wrong.

Because of this, I was wondering if someone could explain to me the correct “local definition” of measurement, how it differs from standard QM measurement, and why is it almost never discussed?

I’m an undergraduate physics student working on an experimental nanophotonics project. My summer project focuses on designing and building an automated optical characterization setup for screening integrated photonic devices before cryogenic measurements.

The project may be too limited in scope for a conventional research journal as a standalone paper, but I recently found the Journal of Undergraduate Research in Physics and Astronomy (JURPA) by SPS , which is peer-reviewed and specifically publishes undergraduate research. Its papers include experimental design, instrumentation, proof-of-concept projects, and review-style work, so my project seems much more aligned with its expectations.

I am considering asking my PI whether she would support turning the project into a manuscript. I would take primary responsibility for the writing and literature review, with supervision.

But I have seen very mixed opinions about undergraduate journals. Some people say that a peer-reviewed undergraduate publication is still valuable experience and better than having no publication. Others say they would not view it as a meaningful publication (undergrad only, likely has a less rigorous review process, and very low impact factor). They argue that the time would be better spent trying to contribute to a standard research paper, and that it is fine if no publication comes from the project.

I am not expecting it to be treated like a publication in a major field journal. I am mainly trying to understand whether it is a worthwhile way to document an undergraduate project and gain experience with scientific writing and peer review.