Physics often transforms

me into this guy:

You've studied hard; you think you've learned something; the question shifts (ever-so-slightly) and WHAM!--you know nothing.

With the help of my physics prof, Dr. Schelp, I've struggled to answer an unasked question centered around a Griffith's Electricity and Magnetism problem. They (who?) call this research. So far, I've failed to answer the question. I have learned some physics, however, and some abstractly philosophical lessons. I share one:

Physics curricula never attempt to thoroughly connect the studied physical principles with the phenomenological world. In physics class, you study laws, theorems, etc. Then, you study the mathematics necessary to apply those laws in idealized circumstances. Well, it turns out that no small gap lies between this physics-happy-land math and the math necessary to apply physical principles in more realistic (i.e. less ideal) circumstances.

I'm OK with that. I don't need to know everything right away. In fact, this revelation of the obvious instructs my understanding of physics (philosophically). Physics doesn't exist primarily as a tool for describing individual phenomenon (indeed, physics does this), but as a framework upon which to build an understanding of the material universe.

I like that. Pictures of the universe interest me more than the non-uniform distribution of surface-bound charge in a dielectric cupcake.