fiN01

I know it might seem self-explanatory, but what is the difference between the two? I'm assuming in Applied Physics they don't teach you a lot of quantum/theoretical/astrophysics but instead focus more on optics and things that are more practical, correct?

DocT

Depends on the school, but I expect that in both cases you need to take quantum mechanics - its fundamental to our understanding of the universe. I would say that applied physics is midway between theoretical physics and engineering.

SolarPrincess

"Applied physics means spending time in lab crunching numbers, estimating errors, writing reports, and such. Theoretical physics means spending that time instead with the theoretical side of things, and problem sets, and advanced math courses, and the like.

If it's a good university, either one will mean that you've worked your *** off on physics. And both will have lab time et cetera. It's just a question of what you'd rather focus on: would you rather work in a particle accelerator, or would you rather work in string theory and other more-theoretical more-pure-math work?"

jessiehl

This is a slightly misleading way to put it. Most of my friends who are physicists, including the theorists, would claw their own eyes out (or become analysts on Wall Street) before they'd work in string theory.

DocT

If you major in physics (not applied physics), it doesn't mean that you are in theoretical physics or involved in string theory.

ken285

Why would you major in a pure science if you weren't interested in theory?

DocT

Being interested in theory and being a theoretician are two different things. Experimental physicists are physicists also. I should point out that string theory represents a small fraction of even theoretical physics never mind physics as a whole.

jessiehl

To be an experimental scientist, perhaps? And no, that is not the same thing as applied.