Accelerator Physics - A field where jobs go begging

[ZapperZ]

I know that Electrical Engineering and Physics are preferred degrees but how can a person with a Mechanical Engineering degree (Which I'm working on getting) get into this field?

Do you have sufficient knowledge in E&M up to Jackson's "Classical Electromagnetism"? Can you go into graduate school by switching to EE? Can you find an advisor to support you in this field?

These are questions that only you can answer.

Zz.

 

[PPFusion]

What are good UK institutions to do a PhD in accelerator physics?

 

[ZapperZ]

What are good UK institutions to do a PhD in accelerator physics?

I should have pointed out this document early on when someone asked me in general about the various institutions in the US that have accelerator physics program.

http://web.mit.edu/Lns/news/RAST_Education_Paper.pdf

This document contains that, and also programs in the UK, in Russia, Japan, and even Turkey. It has info about the USPAS, the CERN Particle Accelerator school for students in Europe, and the Joint Accelerator Schools.

Zz.

 

[ChristinaJ]

What are good UK institutions to do a PhD in accelerator physics?

The John Adams Institute, which is a collaboration between Oxford, Imperial college and Royal Holloway, and the Cockroft Institute which is a collaboration between Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster Universities.

 

[ChristinaJ]

I personally champion the John Adams Institute as I had a great experience and was given the chance to perform parts of my graduate work in Japan and the USA.

 

[thecage]

I have been in contact with the John Adams Institute (Oxford) for a summer internship, and I will be interviewed next week for the final selection. Now, I'm wondering about what sorts of qualifications they are looking for; I'm currently doing my bachelor's diploma project at CERN in (theoretical) accelerator physics and I have taken master courses in optics, though I don't have much experience in experimental physics or working with optical tables etc. They told me that the project most likely will be about lasers, is hands-on experience necessary to be selected?

 

[ChristinaJ]

I'm pretty sure hands on experience is not necessary for such a position but if you come up against candidates of similar academic calibre but also with hands on experience you may loose out.

Good luck!

 

[Theoretical]

What are the chances that someone would be accepted to do a PhD in Physics when i haven't really covered it as an undergrad? The closest I got was working on an antimatter trap for a project.

 

[Theoretical]

That should say PhD in Accelerator Physics. Edit function won't let me change it.

 

[ZapperZ]

One often does not major in "accelerator physics" at the undergraduate level. Those who got into a PhD program in accelerator physics did not have a B.Sc. physics/EE degree in "Accelerator physics". Such a major/specialization usually doesn't exist at the undergraduate level.

This means that you get into accelerator physics with your standard physics/EE/engineering degree.

If you have time, please read through the thread. There are numerous entries here that might answer your question.

Zz.

 

[ChristinaJ]

Accelerator physics is rarely offered at undergraduate level, it is often just an aside in particle physics studies. I had a grand total of 4 hours of Accelerator physics lectures at undergrad, I actually found my interest during my final year project.

I would say that most of my formally taught accelerator physics came from my first year graduate education and summer schools.

Btw, I studied in England, it may not be the same story everywhere.

 

[Theoretical]

Sorry I should have clarified that I am aware people don't do a degree Accelerator Physics. It is just with all of the talk of attending the accelerator schools it sounded like that was required.

 

[ChristinaJ]

Introductory accelerator schools such as CAS (CERN accelerator school) and USPAS (US particle accelerator school) are generally attended early in a graduate degree, though you can attend as an undergraduate, and can in some cases be used for credit. More specialized schools, which deal with specific areas of accelerator physics are often attended by postdocs and graduate student's who are further into their degree.

 

[Theoretical]

Okay thank you for clearing that up!

 

[Duderonimous]

Hello,

I have read this post closely as well as most of the links and I am extremely interested. If I decided to attend a graduate program that offers accelerator physics ideally I would like to go to Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA.

I am 25 and about to start my junior year (transfer) at cal poly pomona and I was admitted for electrical engineering.

Say if I want to be admitted to the applied physics department at Stanford as a doctoral student. Am I at a disadvantage being a EE student (with focus on RF engineering) as opposed to being a physics student when I apply? (The department website says they do encourage students from engineering fields to apply to the department)
In addition to the general and physics GRE scores (which I am sure I will do well on) that must be submitted there is also a qualifying exam that grad students must take within six quarters of being in the Stanford applied physics program. Will this qualifying exam be beyond me with my EE knowledge (it is an oral exam so no practice exams were available to look at). I planned on minoring in physics along with EE. Will this suffice? Or should I just jump ship and major in physics?

In addition how does one go about looking for jobs hiring someone with accelerator knowledge. I see only job listings for national laboratories (via the USPAS website). I am kind of excluding medical physics because it doesn't catch my interest. Would I really be guaranteed a job out of school in this "field where jobs go begging"?

Thanks.

 

[ZapperZ]

You may want to read and participate in this thread;

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=746396

Zz.

 

[Duderonimous]

An update on Stanford's program-

I e-mailed the applied physics department in regards to whether or not their department has a qualifying exam that grad students must take just like the physics department does there.
This was their response:

"The Applied Physics Department does not have a comprehensive exam in the first year (or ever!) like the Physics Department does. Our basic philosophy is that if one is admitted into our PhD program, he or she is fully qualified in the basic undergraduate physics fields we expect of our students to be able to succeed in the required graduate level courses and to be successful in their research program.

Our students do need to pass a so-called PhD candidacy review before the end of the 2nd year. It does not include a written exam but rather an oral presentation on a research advance selected by the student in front of a faculty committee of 3. It is called the PhD qualifying exam."

So that must be good for EE undergrads concerned with going to a top accelerator program for grad school.

 

[Duderonimous]

Hello,

Aren't photonics and plasma electronics highly applicable to accelerators as well? Is RF engineering related to these subjects?
At UCLA the subset of the EE department that deals with accelerators are the photonics and plasma electronics group. They have a separate group for RF engineering and it seems that they focus on things unrelated to accelerators.
I know RF cavity design are a major part of accelerators but is this emphasized when an undergrad is taking RF classes? I feel more like these classes are tailored to students who want to study wireless communication.

Basically I want to figure out what upper-divsion undergrad EE classes are relevant to accelerators.
Are the following courses relevant (these are electives)?

ECE 402 Electromagnetic Fields and Applications (4)
Electrodynamics, wave equations, and reflection and scattering of waves. Radio frequency applications of transmission line techniques, and impedance matching. S-parameter design techniques. Couplers, hybrids, and filters. Experiments on impedance matching, RF circuits, antennas, and S-parameter measurements using Network Analyzers. 4 lectures/problem-solving.
Prerequisite: ECE 302.

ECE 408 Digital Signal Processing (3)
The analysis, design and implementation of Finite Impulse Response (FIR) and Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters. 3 lectures/problemsolving.
Prerequisite: ECE 306.

ECE 410 Microwave Engineering (3)
Principles of waveguide devices, and active microwave devices. Scattering parameter techniques. Design of microwave circuits and components. Design of receivers, transmitters, and radar systems. Microwave network analysis and system level testing. 4 lectures/problem-solving.
Prerequisites: ECE 402.

ECE 420 Lasers (4)
Introduction to ray optics, beam optics, diffraction, coherence, and phoronoptics. Fundamental principles and applications of lasers, energy levels and mechanisms of excitation, basic types of lasers. Q switching and modes. Modulation and detection. 4 lectures/problem-solving.
Prerequisites: ECE 302.

ECE 437 Introduction to Photonics (4)
The nature of light. Simple geometric optics. Thermal and atomic-line light sources, modulation of lights. Nonlinear optics and parametric oscillations. Luminescence. Display devices. Laser and laser light. Photodetectors, optical waveguides.
ECE 302 prerequisite, ECE 330 prerequisite, or corequisite.

ECE 448 R.F. Design (4)
Principles of R.F. design of transmitters and receivers utilizing solid state electronics devices and integrated circuits. RF design techniques including S-parameters, design of amplifiers, oscillators, mixers and detectors. 4 lectures/problem-solving. Prerequisite: ECE 402.

thanks

 

[ZapperZ]

In case some of you missed this, how would you like to get a free copy of a 335-page book on a guide to electron photo injectors? Yes? No?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7539

It covers the photoinjector system and basic physics of photocathodes.

Zz.

 

[ChristinaJ]

Are the following courses relevant

Yes. All of them.

 

[TheKracken]

I am currently a mathematics major looking to minor in economics and physics. I would love to go on to do my Phd in a employable and interesting field. Would a Applied mathematics degree be enough to get into one of these programs?

Also, what other courses should I add? I would have to take around 5 upper division physics classes and I am think ing 1 classical, 1 Em and 1 QM with 2 electives.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm going to highlight an upcoming workshop related to accelerator physics. This is the third Photocathode Physics for Photoinjector workshop, and will be held at LBNL this year. This is one of the area that I specializes in.

I've emphasized the "marriage" between physics and electrical engineering throughout this thread. In this one, I will emphasize the emerging relationship between the applied side represented by "accelerator physics", and the purely-physics side of "condensed matter physics". There are many problems encountered in accelerator physics that are essential material science problems. This means that accelerator physicists will now have to either consult, or to bring in, those who are experts in that area. This is why there are now accelerator physicists who started off their career as material scientists or condensed matter physicists.

This workshop focuses on the electron source for accelerators. With the increasing demand on beam quality for new, more demanding applications and facilities, the community decided a while back that a systematic, well-planned gathering of experts from both sides is required to address and tackle this issue. So if you look at the aim of the workshop and the program, you will see both the basic, fundamental physics of photoemission being discussed as the same time as the beam quality of the emitted electrons that are being accelerated. This is where both sides will learn from each other; accelerator physicists need to know what is possible and can be engineered, condensed matter physicists need to learn what characteristics are needed out of these material.

The workshop starts Monday, and I fly off to Berkeley tomorrow. :)

Zz.

 

[td21]

I am also interested in accelerator physics also. I have been following your advice and guideline for a long time. But I found it quite difficult to get admitted to programs where accelerator physics is included or applied physics program.

 

[JJminusI]

Long time listener, first time poster on physics forums, here. Although, I have avoided the careers section until now.

Since I went to grad school for accelerator physics and have been working, post graduation, for several years now I'd like to share my perspective on jobs in this field. I quite enjoy working in the field, however, there are a number of systematic problems which lead to the so-called 'begging for accelerator scientists.' Summary: The shortage of candidates in this field is almost entirely due to a mix of job market frictions that are a result of institutional and personal biases among those with the money to employ people.

1) Most of the jobs in this field in the US are at national labs and the turn over is really, really low. You'll almost certainly be working your entry level job 5 years after you start and likely for much longer, so make sure there is a laboratory somewhere you want to live the rest of your life. Also, there are very few academic positions for accelerator scientists, if you want to be a professor, don't come into this field. Because turn-over is so low, a lot of the hiring at the labs is done informally, if you are applying cold and you don't know the person who needs the position filled (and they haven't encouraged you to apply) it is likely you are applying to a job that is posted to satisfy some posting requirement rather than a legitimate interest in applicants. This appears to relax at the very high level where labs poach project managers from each other. This is less so in industry, but not by much. See #4.

2) The article from 2010 is incorrect now (if it was ever correct), you must do a postdoc if you want to go to a lab. Some labs may take you on in a temp scientist position if you worked at the lab during grad school. If you go to a school without an associated national lab, you must do a postdoc. If you decide to go into industry, the labs won't take you in any position other than a postdoc until you are very experienced and they have a specific need for your skills and there is no one at the lab who wants to do the job. I have been told this by a number of people who do the hiring at the labs and my former PI. The view is that you cheated your way out of paying your dues, took a (marginally) larger paycheck and then didn't do anything of real value anyway. See also #1 about the job hunt. Further, labs will require you to submit 3 references at the start of an application, or they won't even consider your application. In other words, you practically have to tell your current boss you want to quit before you can even apply for another job. In my opinion, this is why companies like AES has trouble finding candidates, you are either stay at AES for a long time, or you leave accelerator physics.

3) This field suffers from the same problem that a lot of jobs that require physics PhDs do: the pay is mediocre compared to other jobs available to physics PhD holders.

4) A large majority of the funding still comes from other fields that want something and this money comes from governments. So, a majority of the jobs that will be available when you graduate will be at a small number of labs because some steering committee chose that project for funding in their 7-year plan. Right now, a lot of the job postings are coming from FRIB (Michigan State) and ELI (locations in Europe) with a smaller number from LCLS-II (SLAC) and ESS (Sweden/Spain). Because of the way the funding process works, these projects are placed at labs that already have a large fraction of the people they need (they were required to write the proposals and do the initial science), so there isn't a lot of room for new bodies from other places even when a billion dollar facility gets funded.

 

[ZapperZ]

Here is another crucial application of accelerators:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...cal-isotope-breakthrough-made-at-canadian-lab

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Particle accelerators - current and future applications. This is in response to the new DOE Stewardship program in Accelerator Science.

This is another opportunity for someone who isn't aware of it yet, to learn that accelerators have uses in a large number of areas outside of high energy physics experiments.



Zz.

 

[JJminusI]

Particle accelerators - current and future applications. This is in response to the new DOE Stewardship program in Accelerator Science.

This is another opportunity for someone who isn't aware of it yet, to learn that accelerators have uses in a large number of areas outside of high energy physics experiments.



Zz.

This talk is a perfect example of what is wrong when people say that we (the US) need more accelerator physicists. The business model for the examples given is to have some company take technology that Fermilab has developed and do something with it. There are no new jobs in accelerator physics here. To take the flare gas example. They want someone to design the truck, and power plant and do the chemistry on the flare gas and heavy oil and so on and then point a Fermilab SRF linac at the problem. That is a perfectly fine goal and Fermilab is very knowledgeable, but there aren't going to be any new jobs for accelerator physicists created because of the Stewardship program, which funded 6 proposals out of more than 60 in the first go around. The HEP accelerator topics in the DOE Office of Science SBIR program are extremely competitive, the program area is perhaps the most competitive program area of all.

To bring it back to the subject of this thread and the sub-forum: accelerators are great and all, but the world does not need more accelerator physicists and readers are far better off learning to work with the technologies surrounding the accelerators (cryogenics, pulsed power, power distribution, etc) than the accelerator physics itself.

 

[ZapperZ]

This talk is a perfect example of what is wrong when people say that we (the US) need more accelerator physicists. The business model for the examples given is to have some company take technology that Fermilab has developed and do something with it. There are no new jobs in accelerator physics here. To take the flare gas example. They want someone to design the truck, and power plant and do the chemistry on the flare gas and heavy oil and so on and then point a Fermilab SRF linac at the problem. That is a perfectly fine goal and Fermilab is very knowledgeable, but there aren't going to be any new jobs for accelerator physicists created because of the Stewardship program, which funded 6 proposals out of more than 60 in the first go around. The HEP accelerator topics in the DOE Office of Science SBIR program are extremely competitive, the program area is perhaps the most competitive program area of all.

To bring it back to the subject of this thread and the sub-forum: accelerators are great and all, but the world does not need more accelerator physicists and readers are far better off learning to work with the technologies surrounding the accelerators (cryogenics, pulsed power, power distribution, etc) than the accelerator physics itself.

I find that to be a rather narrow-minded opinion on what "accelerator physics" is.

First of all, the Stewardship program is not a regular, yearly funding proposal opportunity. Rather, it is an additional opportunity to fulfill a specific need.

Secondly, the very fact that the technologies surrounding accelerator physics are quite useful in other areas means that someone who majored in this area has a greater flexibility and opportunity to seek jobs elsewhere and not confined to just this field. This is not a bad thing and it is really a strong point for that field. The merging of engineering and physics in that field is a significant factor here.

But coming back to this video, I do not see how this is actually a promotion for needing more accelerator physicist. I may have posted this video in the thread having that theme, but I posted this video here as part of an effort to show how accelerators are used in a wide variety of area and not just in HEP experiments. There is a continuing myth that "accelerator physics" equal "high energy physics". I try to debunk that myth whenever I can, and thus the reason I highlighted this video.

Zz.

 

[JJminusI]

I find that to be a rather narrow-minded opinion on what "accelerator physics" is.

First of all, the Stewardship program is not a regular, yearly funding proposal opportunity. Rather, it is an additional opportunity to fulfill a specific need.

Secondly, the very fact that the technologies surrounding accelerator physics are quite useful in other areas means that someone who majored in this area has a greater flexibility and opportunity to seek jobs elsewhere and not confined to just this field. This is not a bad thing and it is really a strong point for that field. The merging of engineering and physics in that field is a significant factor here.

But coming back to this video, I do not see how this is actually a promotion for needing more accelerator physicist. I may have posted this video in the thread having that theme, but I posted this video here as part of an effort to show how accelerators are used in a wide variety of area and not just in HEP experiments. There is a continuing myth that "accelerator physics" equal "high energy physics". I try to debunk that myth whenever I can, and thus the reason I highlighted this video.

Zz.

Taken out of the context of jobs, I agree with you about what people in academic accelerator physics think of the field (that it is all HEP), but I can assure you that Varian, Smiths, IBA and many more see accelerator physics very differently depending on their focus: medical systems, cargo scanning, whatever.

At any rate, my point is that "accelerator physics", broadly defined to mean anyone who works near an accelerator, doesn't mean that the people involved need to learn anything more than the very basics of what particles are doing inside them, if even that. They are working on the inputs (cryogens, power, vacuum systems) or the results (x-ray optics, material chemistry) but have little to do with making a beam of charged particles do something. So yes, someone working on accelerators might find work in other fields, but it is rarely the people who use words like emittance or phrases like "betatron phase advance" and is instead the people who design and build the cryogenic plant or the modulators. Further, my experience is that the people who most loudly proclaim how fit they (or those like them) are to work in other fields haven't actually applied outside the field.

Also, I'm well aware of what the accelerator stewardship program is, I applied.

If you want to chat about how awesome the field of accelerator physics is (it can be great fun!), I'm totally game. But I disagree that the field is ripe with jobs, especially in the US, nor does it produce candidates who are readily accepted outside the field.

 

[ZapperZ]

Taken out of the context of jobs, I agree with you about what people in academic accelerator physics think of the field (that it is all HEP), but I can assure you that Varian, Smiths, IBA and many more see accelerator physics very differently depending on their focus: medical systems, cargo scanning, whatever.

At any rate, my point is that "accelerator physics", broadly defined to mean anyone who works near an accelerator, doesn't mean that the people involved need to learn anything more than the very basics of what particles are doing inside them, if even that. They are working on the inputs (cryogens, power, vacuum systems) or the results (x-ray optics, material chemistry) but have little to do with making a beam of charged particles do something. So yes, someone working on accelerators might find work in other fields, but it is rarely the people who use words like emittance or phrases like "betatron phase advance" and is instead the people who design and build the cryogenic plant or the modulators. Further, my experience is that the people who most loudly proclaim how fit they (or those like them) are to work in other fields haven't actually applied outside the field.

Also, I'm well aware of what the accelerator stewardship program is, I applied.

If you want to chat about how awesome the field of accelerator physics is (it can be great fun!), I'm totally game. But I disagree that the field is ripe with jobs, especially in the US, nor does it produce candidates who are readily accepted outside the field.

I think you have understood the intention of this thread totally wrong.

Let's get this clear once more. The video that I showed, and the one you quoted, is not a "job recruitment" video.

Secondly, it isn't people in academia who are confusing "accelerator physics = high energy physics". It is people OUTSIDE of academia, and students who are just entering college, who are confusing the two. Stick around this forum and you'll eventually stumble upon that fact. This is one of the impetus for me to start this thread a long time ago.

Thirdly, and again this was due to what I commonly read on here, many students somehow do not know or not aware of accelerator physics field in which they can do both physics and engineering. I've lost count on how many threads I read in the Academic Guidance and Career Guidance forum of students not knowing what to do because they can't choose between doing physics or doing engineering. In this thread, I've highlighted not only accelerator physics, but also device/detector physics field of study in which someone who is either a physics or engineering major gets to study both. This is one of the few area of studies where one can have one's cake and eat it too!

And that last point is what I had tried to focus on, that a graduate in this area are not bound by the usual trappings of research and academia to look for jobs, and that the field trains students in a wide area that are desirable in many industries. It isn't a guarantee of a job, but even during the severe funding crisis facing physics, graduates in accelerator physics tend to have a greater chance of applying what they know in a wider area of employment. I know for a fact that all of the students that went through our programs went on to gain employment in areas that are not totally unrelated to their expertise. We have physics PhD's who went on to be RF engineers and EE PhD's who are now designing positron sources.

If you had gone through this thread, you would have noticed that I had highlighted medical accelerators, accelerators for security purposes, etc.. as various applications of not only the actual beam, but the kinds of engineering that are associated with the design and maintenance of such systems. So yes, those have already been covered.

Zz.

 

[JJminusI]

Of course that video isn't a recruitment video, the DOE required the labs to make those presentations to dive into the Stewardship process. Clearly, you just want to use this thread to trumpet what you see as the virtues of accelerator physics, so I'll leave you to it. However, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the relative ability of accelerator physicists to leave "the usual trappings of research and academia" as compared to other physics and engineering fields. Nor do I agree with your statement that it is people outside of academia who are confusing accelerator physics and HEP as students are, after all, within academia.

 

[ZapperZ]

Of course that video isn't a recruitment video, the DOE required the labs to make those presentations to dive into the Stewardship process.

But look at your first post here. You specifically attacked the video.

Clearly, you just want to use this thread to trumpet what you see as the virtues of accelerator physics, so I'll leave you to it.

No, I was trying to open up another area of physics that many people are ignorant to. I also highlighted the areas of detector physics and device physics. These are areas of studies that many incoming students are ignorant of, and areas of physics where many in the general public are not aware of.

However, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the relative ability of accelerator physicists to leave "the usual trappings of research and academia" as compared to other physics and engineering fields.

More than half of the students that when through our program went on to gain employment in SBIR companies and other private sectors.

Nor do I agree with your statement that it is people outside of academia who are confusing accelerator physics and HEP as students are, after all, within academia.

Stick around longer. You'll see it for yourself. Or, http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/local/inside-newport-news/2011/11/tour_of_jeff_lab_in_newport_ne.html after a reporter took a tour of the JLab's FEL facility. He thinks it is a showcase for "particle physics" and had a "particle physics headache" at the end of it, even when a FEL is really a light source! There are many more examples of that.

Zz.

 

[JJminusI]

But look at your first post here. You specifically attacked the video.

The video does not need to be a recruitment video, nor do I need to think it is, for me to think that is an excellent example of what is wrong with how the job market in accelerator physics works.

More than half of the students that when through our program went on to gain employment in SBIR companies and other private sectors.

SBIR stands for Small Business Innovation and Research, that hardly qualifies as leaving research. Further, the largest funding agency for SBIR topics on accelerator research is DOE SC HEP (although nuclear physics is starting to catch up a bit what with the large number of eRHIC based calls lately), who is also the largest funder of academic accelerator physics. My point with this is that these workers are still getting a sizable chunk of their research money from HEP, they aren't leaving the field in any meaningful sense. My company gets a very large fraction of funding through HEP.

Stick around longer. You'll see it for yourself. Or, http://weblogs.dailypress.com/news/local/inside-newport-news/2011/11/tour_of_jeff_lab_in_newport_ne.html after a reporter took a tour of the JLab's FEL facility. He thinks it is a showcase for "particle physics" and had a "particle physics headache" at the end of it, even when a FEL is really a light source! There are many more examples of that.

Zz.

This is a really bad example, CEBAF is a particle physics machine first and an FEL second so the author isn't far off the mark. And the upgrade is concentrating entirely on the HEP mission (although it may not have been in 2011). Also, to the general public "particle physics" means "making particles do things" which is exactly what accelerator physics is, it does not mean high-energy physics, like it does to you and I.

 

[ZapperZ]

The video does not need to be a recruitment video, nor do I need to think it is, for me to think that is an excellent example of what is wrong with how the job market in accelerator physics works.

So a video about all the possible practical applications of accelerators is an example of what is wrong with the job market in accelerator physics? Er... OK then!

SBIR stands for Small Business Innovation and Research, that hardly qualifies as leaving research. Further, the largest funding agency for SBIR topics on accelerator research is DOE SC HEP (although nuclear physics is starting to catch up a bit what with the large number of eRHIC based calls lately), who is also the largest funder of academic accelerator physics. My point with this is that these workers are still getting a sizable chunk of their research money from HEP, they aren't leaving the field in any meaningful sense. My company gets a very large fraction of funding through HEP.

How does "research" somehow negates the fact that these are private companies? Does that make Apple a part of academia as well because they do "research"? My point is that accelerator physics, detector physics, and device physics graduates have a wider area to choose from than many other areas of physics if they want to stick to a career that is related to their expertise and knowledge. Is this point in dispute?

This is a really bad example, CEBAF is a particle physics machine first and an FEL second so the author isn't far off the mark. And the upgrade is concentrating entirely on the HEP mission (although it may not have been in 2011). Also, to the general public "particle physics" means "making particles do things" which is exactly what accelerator physics is, it does not mean high-energy physics, like it does to you and I.

But just because that is how the general public thinks doesn't mean it is correct and should be left uncorrected. Leaving it as such is a prime reason why what scientists say need not necessarily be how the public understands it. You mean one thing, but the public thinks it means something else. But more than that, you are contradicting yourself, because accelerator physics is MORE than just "making particles do things". We had just finished discussing that this field involves more than just beam physics!

Zz.

 

[JJminusI]

So a video about all the possible practical applications of accelerators is an example of what is wrong with the job market in accelerator physics? Er... OK then!

Yes, and I explained why in my first post.

How does "research" somehow negates the fact that these are private companies? Does that make Apple a part of academia as well because they do "research"? My point is that accelerator physics, detector physics, and device physics graduates have a wider area to choose from than many other areas of physics if they want to stick to a career that is related to their expertise and knowledge. Is this point in dispute?

A large fraction of the money these private companies take to do research related to the expertise of accelerator physicists comes from the same source that the academics take to do research: the DOE Office of Science, High Energy Physics. So, the job titles are different, I suppose, but the funding source, and thus the programmatic goals, are the same. You have attempted to use research primarily funded by DOE SC HEP as evidence that not all accelerator research is HEP. In that light, perhaps you can understand my skepticism that the areas these graduates have to choose from are indeed all that separate. They can choose to work at a national lab or they can choose to work for a private company, but in both cases they are getting most of their money from HEP. Even the Stewardship program is HEP funded!

But just because that is how the general public thinks doesn't mean it is correct and should be left uncorrected. Leaving it as such is a prime reason why what scientists say need not necessarily be how the public understands it. You mean one thing, but the public thinks it means something else. But more than that, you are contradicting yourself, because accelerator physics is MORE than just "making particles do things". We had just finished discussing that this field involves more than just beam physics!

Zz.

This is a different argument than the one you were making when you first posted that article (that the general public thinks that all accelerator physics is HEP). I'm not going to touch moving goal posts.

It is clear that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on a great many things in this field.