Recomendations for Physics Specializations

[A. L. Bruce]

Hello all,

I'm a physics major just finishing the lower division and loving it so far, but I know that eventually I will have to specialize in one branch of physics. I'm writing this to see what the people here on physics forums (who are very intelligent and well thought out on the whole) have to say about the different specializations, what the main areas of research in said specializations are, and anything else you think is helpful.

So far I've questioned one of my professors quite a lot, but he, like all of us, has a certain opinion and I'd like to hear some others. As far as my own interests go, it's hard to say exactly. I know I want to be a researcher or a research professor, and I've always been fascinated by space and space exploration, but also by fundamental physics and GUTs. I'd say the optimal specialization for me would be one with a little wiggle room; one with a useful applied side but also fundamental significance, and, of course, something employable would be nice as well.

 

[Iforgot]

Oooh. I've been wanting to vent my frustrations for a while. You can, learn from my mistakes.

1) If no one has told you this yet, the most important thing is money. Unless you already have it. I too bought into all sorts of noble science bovine manure for many years. In fact, in order to good science, you need to convince many people to give you money (grants). The bigger your pay check, the more people will consider giving you more money.


2) It doesn't make a difference what you study. If you are well connected, you can get a job almost anywhere. But don't use those connections until you've got some interview experience under your belt.

3) If you want a backup career in software or finance, do a PhD in theory/simulations. Doesn't matter what. Just make sure you get to pick up a decent amount of C++, stats, parallel processing, some database stuff (SQL), and any other stuff you see on the job boards. Compared to vacuum equipment, replacing broken computers is really fast, and you can expect to graduate in 5 years or less. You also get more publications. They might not be as definitive as an experimental paper, but few people actually check for quality (only GS grills you on your thesis). Publications are important for getting a professorship.

4) If you go into experiments, you will be stuck in your field, unless the skill set is highly transferable. PhD will take at least 5.5 years. 7 years is not uncommon. That's an extra two years to getting your career started. A little experience in many things isn't good. Specialization is the key word. Pick two or three if you can.

5) Make sure whoever you work for has money to support you. Has graduated students who can hook you up with a job when you graduate. And has a sizable group. Too few students means he has no money, or scares people away. No one will ever say anything bad about an advisor. If the students reviews are not glowing, it's horrible,

 

[Sheets]

Iforgot's advice is pretty good. To counter his theory bias I should point out all the people I know who were on the very applied experimental side got positions easily in industry. Whether they like those positions a few years out, I don't know.

Stay away from low energy nuclear physics unless you like the idea of working at a national lab or living in East Lansing.

 

[Simfish]

3) If you want a backup career in software or finance, do a PhD in theory/simulations. Doesn't matter what. Just make sure you get to pick up a decent amount of C++, stats, parallel processing, some database stuff (SQL), and any other stuff you see on the job boards. Compared to vacuum equipment, replacing broken computers is really fast, and you can expect to graduate in 5 years or less. You also get more publications. They might not be as definitive as an experimental paper, but few people actually check for quality (only GS grills you on your thesis). Publications are important for getting a professorship.

Isn't it harder to get into grad school for theory? What about simulations? Do simulations count as theory?

Especially since a lot of experimental physicists are now doing simulations too (especially in the field of high-energy particle physics)

 

[Iforgot]

Sheets:
It's only easy for an experimentalist to get an industry position if the skills they have are highly sought after.

Simish:
Yes, graduate school for theorists is harder to get into. You just need to pretend that you like experiments more in your letter to the school. Either way, it makes no difference. As you said, experimentalists are doing simulations. Just find an experimentalist that has open projects on simulations

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think Iforgot's advice is very good - certainly not to lie on your application. Apart from being unethical, the absolute last thing you want in science is a reputation for dishonesty.

It's probably true that if you want to do the exact same thing in industry as you did for your thesis, you need to choose very carefully. But that is not your only option. I've often said (as have others) that most of my day is spent on tasks that didn't even exist when I was in grad school.

 

[twofish-quant]

I don't think Iforgot's advice is very good - certainly not to lie on your application. Apart from being unethical, the absolute last thing you want in science is a reputation for dishonesty.

On the other hand it's possible to change what you like. If someone asks you whether you prefer A or B, and you find out that A pays more/has jobs/has nicer people, then that changes what you like.

 

[twofish-quant]

You also get more publications. They might not be as definitive as an experimental paper, but few people actually check for quality (only GS grills you on your thesis).

If you want a job in any investment bank, people will check for quality of your papers.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm writing this to see what the people here on physics forums (who are very intelligent and well thought out on the whole) have to say about the different specializations, what the main areas of research in said specializations are, and anything else you think is helpful.

In the end it depends a lot on the people that you meet. I got interested in astrophysics because my father worked on the Gemini space program so he had tons of astronomy books lying around the house, and I got interested in the particular specialty of astrophysics because I found an advisor that I was personally compatible with.

I know I want to be a researcher or a research professor, and I've always been fascinated by space and space exploration, but also by fundamental physics and GUTs.

Something that has helped me a lot is that I'm curious about lots of things and it turns out that there are more curious things in the universe than I have time to think. Curiosity has been really useful because when someone talks about GUT, I wonder "hmmmm... I wonder how that works." However, at the same time when someone talks about labor markets, constitutional law, derivative pricing, or economics, I also wonder "hmmmm... I wonder how that works.

At one point I came to the conclusion that it's all about money, and at that point it made sense for me to go somewhere that I could learn about money. I like asking deep questions which seem to be simple but really aren't. "What is time?" "What is space?" This money thing seems pretty important. So what is it and how does it work? As with most other things, the more you learn, the less you understand.

I'd say the optimal specialization for me would be one with a little wiggle room; one with a useful applied side but also fundamental significance, and, of course, something employable would be nice as well.

I think that you'll find is that the most important thing is to find something that you enjoy doing and people that are supportive. As far as the employablity part, what's less important is the specialization than whether your can market what you have. Something that I found useful is to go to the campus bookstore, by a book on intro sales and marketing and then figure out how to apply that to your situation.

Also, in trying to figure out employability, it's a good idea if you read up on economics.

Something also that I found useful was to read history and philosophy so that I could figure out how I ended up the way that I did. Someone brainwashed me into thinking that astrophysics was important. My father had a lot to do with it, but who brainwashed him? It took me a while, but I got names and dates.

It's all about the "ask lots of questions" and "so how did I end up here" thing.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, people change their minds. That's a different thing than dishonesty.

 

[hadsed]

Stay away from low energy nuclear physics unless you like the idea of working at a national lab or living in East Lansing.

Why?

 

[Simfish]

Does anyone know if it's also harder to go into theory for astronomy? OTOH, most astronomy departments seem to outsource most of the theory to physics departments, so maybe this is mostly a moot questions?

 

[twofish-quant]

Yes, people change their minds. That's a different thing than dishonesty.

And pretending is not necessarily dishonesty.

To give an example, suppose I've had a rotten day, and a student comes up during office hours asking the same silly question that everyone else in the class has asked. I'm really annoyed at the student. But I have to pretend that I'm not annoyed at the student, even though I am. If the student asks me "am I bother you with these questions." The "real" answer is "hell yes" but my duty as a teacher is to pretend that I'm not annoyed and to have the student keep asking me questions.

Another example. I'm in the department and I happen to find a person of the appropriate gender extremely attractive and my subconscious is firing "you must breed with this person" messages. But being the person I am, I pretend that those messages don't exist.

There are so many instances in graduate school and in life where you have to pretend something that pretending that you like experimental physics more than theory isn't a big sin, or any sin in my book.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, I guess we have different standards then.

 

[Iforgot]

Vanadium 50:

Based on the advice your giving, it sounds like your an honest guy, and expect that in return.
(based on your other advice to "listen to your mother", it also sounds like your some 53 year old physics professor with one child in college and another is high school. I say 53 year professor b/c I think that you don't realize how the job market is now a days:-)

Either way, I treated grad school like you suggested and graduated with slim prospects. In my book, before a professor takes on a student, he should have some connections so he can hook them up when they graduate. In my book, it's more unethical for a professor to do so, than for a student to pretend to be interested in experiments. Cause at the end of the day, spamming or mailing your resume doesn't get you any interviews or a job, and the student is the one without the job, not the professor.

two-fish:

your comments always make me LMAO! Though 1/100 times, using direct approaches towards the appropriate gender gives me the opportunity to pro-create (don't ask what happens the other 99 times).

 

[twofish-quant]

Well, I guess we have different standards then.

We probably do. For me. Plagarism - bad. Stating false information about objective facts - bad.

The fact that we do have different standards is very important information. If on a job application, you say that you have a 3.8 GPA when in fact you have a 3.2, then you are toast. If you are able and willing to pretend to like something that you really don't, this is actually something that is likely to make me *more* willing to hire you.

Pretending to like something that you don't is something that people have to do every day that I just can't regard it as dishonest. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you can't or won't "pretend" then your shelf life in the business world is likely to be extremely low. Unless you are tenured, your shelf life in the academic world is likely also to be low. One reason that being tenured is such a major prize is that at that point, you can stop pretending to be happy when you aren't.

When some at a Jiffy Burger smiles and says "Welcome to Jiffy Burger, how can I help you?" or "Have a nice day." They are pretending. Most people I know of in that situation, actually hate their jobs, and they sort of hate you, but to keep the burgers moving, they have to pretend to be happy when in fact they aren't. Keep in mind that graduate students and adjuncts are the burger flippers of the academic world.

There's a standard HR question that intended to ask how good you are at pretending. "Tell me about your last job." In fact most people when they are looking for work, it's because they totally hate their last job, but the purpose of that question is to see if you have the self-control to say "I hated my last job" in the standard corporate-speak ways.

The problem with pretending is less a moral issue, than with the fact that if you do it for too long, you will go bonkers. It's really important to find people that you trust enough so that you can admit what you really feel.

Also, once you are in a situation when pretending isn't always a bad thing and sometimes a good thing, you have to think carefully about when it really *is* a bad thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think I see sort of what your saying, but for me at least, economics is only marginally interesting.

People are different, but one thing that I've found that is useful for me is that it's not that hard to get me interested in something. Part of the reason it was useful for me to think about "so why am I really interested in astrophysics" is that in thinking about this, I figured out what else could be interesting to me.

I know the traditional back-up career for a lot of particle physics people is finance, but I don't want to spend my life counting someone else's quarters.

For me, a lot of what drives me is "math-ego." I get a thrill about being able to do math puzzles, and showing how smart I am to myself and other people. If my job involved spending 12 hours a day putting together powerpoints, then I'm not interested. However, it doesn't, and a good part of my day is studying math.

If that means making less money, I'm prepared to do that.

One reason that physics Ph.D.'s get hired in finance is that physics Ph.D.'s generally like to do math. Because my job involves doing a ton of math, I'm willing to do it for much less money than an MBA would to do the same thing. That's good, because the less money they pay me, the more money goes into the people that hired me.

I share your interest in my own intellectual and cultural roots--both American and European (I'm of Scottish descent for the most part).

One thing that is interesting is that people that are interested in science and engineering tend to come from mountainous areas (Greece, Scotland, Eastern Europe, Southern China). If you are in fertile plains, you really don't need much in the way of science and technology to eat, and there isn't that much demand for bridge builders or miners.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say about it. What are the main directions of research?

There are about fifty. Something that you'll find is that there are lots of open problems, and it's a good thing because you'll find a lot of paths end up being closed for reasons out of your control.

Something that is important is not to prejudge what is out there. One thing that I find interesting is that when I mention that I work in finance, the reaction I get is "ugh, I'd never do finance" when in fact that really have not much clue what I really do. People tend to make decisions based on preconceptions. Now if you find out what I do and you hate it, that's fine. But there seems to be this instant gut reaction, which closes off choices early.

The reason I mention this is that this also hurts people when they look at research topics. There is a vast oversupply of people that go into the field wanting to do "Stephen Hawking" like research, when in fact there has been almost no progress in that area in the last two decades, and there are a ton of interesting research outside that tiny area. For example, the physics of the interstellar medium or the physics of nebula are interesting topics. In cosmology, the area where there has been really progress has been galaxy formation.

What did you pursue and how did it turn out?

Supernova collapse. One major mystery which still has not been solved is how do supernova work. Every few years someone comes up with a new idea, and then after working for a few years, people figure out that that's not the right answer. One thing that I was able to pretty conclusively establish was that just moving energy from point A to point B using mixing processes would not work.

Last I heard people were making progress with 2-d/3-d simulations. Really interesting work, but thus far, all of that has smelled too much like the early phases of "here's a new idea, hmmm... looks interest, darn it doesn't work" cycle.

But it so happens that the equations that describe neutrino diffusion just happen to be identical to the equations that describe the behavior of stock options.

 

[twofish-quant]

I say 53 year professor b/c I think that you don't realize how the job market is now a days:-)

I'm 41, and I'm pretty shocked at the job market for people that are just graduating. There is a generation gap because I graduated in the middle of the dot-com boom, and so "do what you find interesting and every things will fall into place" was good advice. People were so desperate for computer programmers, that you had physical therapists, real estate brokers, and physics Ph.D.'s getting pulled in for jobs.

What alarms me is that given the lack of investment in the US, I think things will get worse for young job seekers before they get better. The problem is that it's not enough for unemployment to stay the same, it has to go down before entry level people get hired. The other problem is that the longer you are without a job, the more your skills rot.

In my book, before a professor takes on a student, he should have some connections so he can hook them up when they graduate.

For that matter, there are deep, deep ethical issues with admitting large numbers of people so that you can get teaching assistants and then making it mathematically impossible for them all to find advisers.

Though 1/100 times, using direct approaches towards the appropriate gender gives me the opportunity to pro-create (don't ask what happens the other 99 times).

And then you have a huge number of social institutions (i.e. marriage) that exist to deal with the aftermath of procreation. Marriage involves a certain degree of pretending. You are eating lunch with your wife, and suddenly you see a very, very attractive waitress. At that point you'd better pretend that you didn't notice the waitress.

 

[Iforgot]

Aftermath of procreation? Seriously? The word "aftermath" has been reserved for nuclear fallout and natural disasters. Basically, you're comparing kids to nuclear fallout? I think you'd love this commercial