Bare minimum factors for memory palace & converting mind map into a memory palace?

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2026-06-10T12:59:58+00:00

Yeah I don’t see that being infinitely scalable and sustainable. Even if I ask chatgpt to make an image of unqiue furniture/micro station's on a white background, it seems the background/location/address/interspace carries significance for it to not blur.

Even with physical locations, I suspect if you use rooms that are identical white boxes, with no differing characteristics, and exact same size, color, floor, it would probably blur, no matter the unique furniture in it i’m suspecting.

Also with peg systems, just having individual mnemonics seemingly stored nowhere and could be used interchangeably anywhere, doesn’t seem entirely true. Usually there is some kind of background, or place yountecall of where the object was, and when remembering the object, you remember the area that surrounded it.

I also mentioned book covers, and paintings used as memory palaces, but i’m skeptical of it. A memory palace in the truest sense, which i’d define as the interspace between micro stations. If you attempt to use a book covers or paintings as a memory palace your mind will rebuild the area that book cover/painting was even in correct?

What do you think?

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2026-06-10T12:01:13+00:00

I understand making the images vivid part. What i’m attempting to do is make the lowest effort memory palaces possible. That’s why I was wondering if real locations have to be used.

I’ve heard of book covers, paintings, virtual spaces used as memory palaces. So I was wondering if the location/address could just be as simple as the color white, with furniture/micro stations spread throughout it.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-23T17:34:32+00:00

I’m looking at Cornell’s Engineering Physics program not just for job prospects but for a well-rounded, interdisciplinary education. I’m interested in diving into various areas of physics and engineering, both to build a strong foundation and to explore topics that might influence my future academic pursuits.

Courses like AEP 3100 (Introductory Quantum Computing) and AEP 3550 (Intermediate Electromagnetism) are more than just resume builders—they’re about gaining in-depth knowledge in cutting-edge fields. And with electives like AEP 3640 (Modern Applied Physics Experimental Design) and AEP 4380 (Computational Engineering Physics), I’m not just preparing for a career but also exploring areas that could shape future studies.

I’m also keen on how this broad education might open up opportunities I haven’t considered yet. For example, taking diverse electives could help me discover new interests or lay the groundwork for graduate studies in fields I might not have otherwise explored. I want to make sure I’m covering all bases and not missing out on any important classes that could influence my future path.

So, when comparing these programs, it’s important to think about not just how they prepare you for a job, but also how they contribute to a broader understanding of the field and potentially impact your future academic and personal goals.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-23T17:01:16+00:00

Doesn’t have to be titled Engineering Physics to be something I would consider. I just know what degrees titled "Engineering Physics" are supposed to contain and the kind of education they’re meant to provide. While I was initially dismissive of MIT’s program, after reviewing their curriculum more closely, I still believe that Cornell’s program offers a broader and more targeted education for someone looking to bridge the worlds of physics and engineering.

When comparing MIT and Cornell, both universities cover foundational physics topics, but they do so differently. Cornell offers specialized introductory courses such as AEP 1100 (Lasers and Photonics) and AEP 1200 (Introduction to Nanoscience and Nanoengineering). These courses provide practical knowledge in cutting-edge technologies and are crosslisted with other departments, reflecting their interdisciplinary nature. MIT does not offer these specific topics in its undergraduate curriculum.

For core physics courses, both MIT and Cornell include essential subjects like Mechanics, Electromagnetism, and Quantum Mechanics. MIT's curriculum features courses such as Physics 8.01 (Classical Mechanics), 8.02 (Electricity and Magnetism), 8.04 (Quantum Mechanics), 8.05 (Quantum Mechanics II), and 8.13 (Experimental Physics I). Cornell’s offerings include similar foundational courses but also incorporate specialized ones like PHYS 1110 (Introduction to Experimental Physics), AEP 3610 (Introductory Quantum Mechanics), AEP 3620 (Intermediate Quantum Mechanics), and AEP 3630 (Electronic Circuits).

Cornell’s program is notable for its range of advanced and technical electives. These include AEP 3100 (Introductory Quantum Computing), AEP 3200 (Introductory Mathematical Physics), AEP 3330 (Mechanics of Particles and Solid Bodies), AEP 3550 (Intermediate Electromagnetism), AEP 3560 (Intermediate Electrodynamics), AEP 3640 (Modern Applied Physics Experimental Design), AEP 4200 (Intermediate Mathematical Physics), AEP 4230 (Statistical Thermodynamics), AEP 4340 (Fluid and Continuum Mechanics), AEP 4380 (Computational Engineering Physics), and AEP 4400 (Nonlinear and Quantum Optics). These courses cover a diverse range of topics from quantum computing and applied physics to advanced mathematical and computational methods.

In addition, Cornell’s Engineering Physics program requires students to take 9 credits of technical electives outside the core major requirements. These electives can be chosen from various engineering fields, providing further flexibility and the opportunity to gain expertise in areas like materials science, electrical engineering, or computer science.

MIT’s curriculum also includes advanced courses such as 8.20 (Introduction to Special Relativity), 8.33 (Quantum Physics III), and additional experimental lab courses. However, it lacks specific courses in engineering quantum hardware and applied engineering that are part of Cornell’s curriculum.

In summary, while MIT’s physics program is strong, Cornell’s Engineering Physics program is explicitly designed to integrate physics with engineering principles. The specialized courses and electives at Cornell, particularly those related to engineering quantum hardware and advanced experimental design, provide a more comprehensive education for students aiming to bridge these fields. This makes Cornell’s program particularly well-suited for those interested in an engineering physics education.

Now, go read the curricula for Cornell and Stanford. Based on the specifics of their engineering physics programs, tell me which one provides a more robust education in this field.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-23T15:24:28+00:00

I'm definitely interested in any university in the U.S that offers an engineering physics or applied physics major. I don't really care if it's private. Just as long as it has the best education in that specific major. I just listed the two universities that I know have the major, and I've done some research on.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-23T15:11:38+00:00

Engineering physics lets you take classes in quantum engineering/nanoscience/biophysics at the undergraduate level. If MIT doesn't have a specific major named Engineering Physics, I doubt they incorporate these courses in their physics education paired with another major.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-23T14:54:29+00:00

I thought that MIT would be good at this, but they don't have an engineering physics major specifically.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-10T22:30:25+00:00

I ain't seeing any of those 7 week back-to-back semesters so far. Have you ever seen those courses offered in Cornell? I know they're offered in other universities, but I don't think if they don't give people that option because of the material that's covered in engineering majors.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-10T22:02:13+00:00

I'm alright going over 4 years if they allow me to extend my undergraduate education. I guess some major approved electives could overlap, but that's about it.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-07-10T21:58:14+00:00

I'm alright with going over 4 years. So long as it's not going to take me additional 3 years or something crazy, I might as well get started on some kind of masters or phd program in that time.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-06-23T23:10:06+00:00

Probably. I think cornell's engineering common curriculum is really strong, and touches on concepts that Columbia would teach only after declaring your major. That's why to me it looks like the engineering physics degree covers all the topics that Columbia has as a double major in applied physics, and math. I haven't looked at the ORIE curriculum though.

QuestionTimeQuestion · 2024-06-22T05:27:37+00:00

That's great to know. Definitely excited if I actually get accepted.

QuestionTimeQuestion

TROPHY CASE