Is cosmology theory a meme subfield? Applying to grad schools

>>7810752
You are absolutely sounding bitchy if you're complaining about baby real analysis of all things.

The math eventually required is so much more intricate and high-level that you'll wish you're doing baby's first Cauchy sequences again.

>Is cosmology theory a meme subfield?
No. In some aspects it's a lot like particle physics but the time lines are a bit different. 30 years ago there was still big debate going on and hot new theory was being produced. Observations sucked however. In the past decade though, like particle physics, the standard model (of cosmology) has become irritatingly good. The field simply isn't developing as it once was so theory is either in the subtle details or is working on speculative models. Observational cosmology progresses but again, not like it once did. Observation is now very technical as large innovation in methods is few and far between (also like particle physics). Observers have the benefit that they can also do galaxy evolution (most of them) which is related but much more poorly understood.

It is an interesting and big field but it depends what part you get into. Some field within it are saturated and you will struggle to have an original idea.

>>7810783
Sorry senpai
It's not that I dislike real math or anything, I've even self-studied out of Rosenlicht and Krantz (mostly the former) that my friend gave me, but I just don't have the space to take a formal course in analysis here (not to make another excuse; if I could go back two years and change my plans I would, but that's just how it is for now).

>>7810789
Alright, thanks for the perspective, that's just what I was looking for. Obviously I'll be talking to my advisers about this once school opens up again but that helped me get my thought processes running clearer.