Best PhD to stay in physics research?

[scribblekibble]

Hi, I'm an incoming first year undergrad physics student at a US institution. I want to be an experimental research physicist desperately; the fields I love the most are particle physics and astrophysics (and even a combination of the two: astroparticle physics, DM/DE detection, neutrinos, you get the gist), though I have heard that those fields aren't secure and it can be difficult to stay within the subfield (I also enjoy cosmology and accelerator physics).

After attending some summer camps, lecture series, and a masterclass at national labs (SLAC and LBNL), I can say confidently that I want to become a staff scientist researcher/physicist at a national lab. Honestly, I'm open to fields other than HEP-EX and astrophysics (for example, a PhD in accelerator/beam physics or optics would be suited well for SLAC), so long as I get to do impactful experimental scientific research for the rest of my life--I do NOT want to end up in some insurance bank or financial job (side note-the constant travelling that a scientist gets to do sounds awesome).

I am as passionate about physics as all of you are, and I want to dedicate the rest of my life to tirelessly pursuing it. How can I stay in physics research my whole life?

 

[Dr Transport]

get thru your undergrad degree first.....the chances of a slot at a national lab is about the same as tenure track, very slim at best.

 

[CrysPhys]

There is no guaranteed path. Period.

 

[Vanadium 50]

People's interests change. You are talking about 4 years undergrad plus 7 years to a PhD plus one or two 4-year postdocs. You could conceivably be twice as old as you are now. Future You may have other ides.

 

[gleem]

Aaah, the unbridled exuberance of youth. As noted above there are no guarantees only ways of putting yourself in the best position to take advantage of opportunities as they arise, No one can know where they will be in twelve or more years into the future. The absolute earlier that you might be looking for a permanent position is 2037. You do your best, learn all you can, and follow developments in fields of interest, As you progress one step at a time possible paths will be revealed.

 

[CrysPhys]

Also, by then, the government could slash funding to (some or all) national labs, or disband (some or all) national labs entirely; i.e., some previously possible paths will be closed.

 

[f95toli]

With the caveats listed above. The "best" field right now (which will change) if you want to stay in research is quantum technology, in particular quantum computing.
This is a rapidly growing field, and because there are so many companies hiring universities and national labs are struggling to find the people they need (and retain the people they have).
There was a similar situation in AI a few years ago.

Again, this might have changed in a few years; although considering the number of multi-year programs that are being announced around the world I suspect it will continue for at least the next 5 years.
That is, the "boom" might very well be over by the time you graduate

 

[TeethWhitener]

I can say confidently that I want to become a staff scientist researcher/physicist at a national lab.

From my viewpoint as a staff scientist at a national lab (not DOE), the easiest route to a staff scientist position is through a postdoc at that lab. If you're successful as a postdoc there, you're a known quantity and hiring you as a staff scientist becomes a much easier argument to make.

The easiest route to get a postdoc at a national lab is to be an impressive candidate for a sponsor at that lab. That means doing good PhD research (in whatever field you choose) and having research goals that align with that of your sponsor. Also, generally your sponsor needs to have the resources available (funding, time, etc) to take you on as a postdoc. E.g., if they've just taken on 5 postdocs, they're not likely to hire a sixth. That's largely out of your control (as are many other variables, partially enumerated in previous posts).

 

[jbergman]

Hi, I'm an incoming first year undergrad physics student at a US institution. I want to be an experimental research physicist desperately; the fields I love the most are particle physics and astrophysics (and even a combination of the two: astroparticle physics, DM/DE detection, neutrinos, you get the gist), though I have heard that those fields aren't secure and it can be difficult to stay within the subfield (I also enjoy cosmology and accelerator physics).

After attending some summer camps, lecture series, and a masterclass at national labs (SLAC and LBNL), I can say confidently that I want to become a staff scientist researcher/physicist at a national lab. Honestly, I'm open to fields other than HEP-EX and astrophysics (for example, a PhD in accelerator/beam physics or optics would be suited well for SLAC), so long as I get to do impactful experimental scientific research for the rest of my life--I do NOT want to end up in some insurance bank or financial job (side note-the constant travelling that a scientist gets to do sounds awesome).

I am as passionate about physics as all of you are, and I want to dedicate the rest of my life to tirelessly pursuing it. How can I stay in physics research my whole life?

Piggy backing on what @TeethWhitener said, your best bet to pursue this path is to just be an outstanding student as an undergrad and similarly in graduate school, etc.

For now you should focus on doing well in your class and in addition try and look for opportunities to join a lab and/or do some undergraduate research. I assume you have a faculty advisor. Your best course of action is to discuss exactly this with them and see what courses, labs, they suggest you take. They may also be able to help you find research opportunities.

 

[StatGuy2000]

There is no guaranteed path. Period.

There are no guarantees, but even you would agree that certain choices are more likely to lead to positive financial outcomes.

For example, you would agree that pursuing a career in, say, popular music is a riskier move than, say, accounting.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The OP is asking which research area within physics will most likely lead to full-time research opportunities (e.g. national labs, academia).

I will follow up with a different (but related) question.

Which research area within physics will most likely provide the best full-time career opportunities post-PhD? And by career opportunities, I am not just talking about research -- I am also talking about industrial or business opportunities.

 

[CrysPhys]

There are no guarantees, but even you would agree that certain choices are more likely to lead to positive financial outcomes.

For example, you would agree that pursuing a career in, say, popular music is a riskier move than, say, accounting.

I was addressing the OP's specific question concerning physics research, not careers in general:

I am as passionate about physics as all of you are, and I want to dedicate the rest of my life to tirelessly pursuing it. How can I stay in physics research my whole life?

<<Emphasis added>> I originally did have an answer, but didn't post it as being too morbid. Since I'm here, however ...

If I read the question literally, there is a way for someone to stay in physics research for their entire life: complete a PhD, get a job in a research lab, ... and die young, before funding cuts, reorgs, or meltdowns force a change in career.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I was addressing the OP's specific question concerning physics research, not careers in general:

I am aware of that. But your reply is implying that because there is no guaranteed path, what you choose to pursue (in physics or elsewhere) does not matter. I think that is a wrong message to send.

Hence my original reply to your post still stands, and is followed up with my own question in post #11.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Some fields. like experimental solid state, have great industrial demand. However, they also have a large supply. Trying to guess whether in 10 years time how supply and demand match up, well, if I could do that, I'd be a commodities trader and fund physics research out of petty cash.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Some fields. like experimental solid state, have great industrial demand. However, they also have a large supply. Trying to guess whether in 10 years time how supply and demand match up, well, if I could do that, I'd be a commodities trader and fund physics research out of petty cash.

Trying to guess supply and demand in a 10 year time frame is impossible. At the same time, someone who has graduated with a physics BS and is applying for a PhD must ultimately choose a research field.

Let's say you meet someone finishing their bachelor's degree in physics and is interested in pursuing further graduate studies (let's assume for the moment that this student has earned top grades, conducted undergraduate research, and can obtain strong recommendations from their professors -- all conditions you look for).

If someone came to you and asked what research field within physics you would recommend, how would you reply?

 

[CrysPhys]

The OP is asking which research area within physics will most likely lead to full-time research opportunities (e.g. national labs, academia).

I will follow up with a different (but related) question.

Which research area within physics will most likely provide the best full-time career opportunities post-PhD? And by career opportunities, I am not just talking about research -- I am also talking about industrial or business opportunities.

We've addressed many flavors of this question before. I personally think this is the wrong approach to career planning; i.e., trying to identify what fields are currently hot and will remain hot many decades out is rather fruitless when historically specific job markets have inverted within a relatively short time span of a year or two. Whereas (in the US), a student graduating high school is looking at typically 4 yrs for a bachelor's. And upon completion of a bachelor's, if they should choose to pursue grad school, they are looking at another 1 or 2 years for a master's, or at another ~6 yrs for a PhD (in physics).

And, even if they do luck out and land in a hot market upon graduation (with whatever degree they decide to pause or stop at), a lot will likely change over the ensuing ~3 - 5 decades of their working life (assuming they don't meet an untimely demise). So the specific research area is not as critical as the ability--and willingness--to adapt and pivot in response to fickle changes in the job market. This (in general, not limited specifically to physics research) has definitely become apparent over the last 3 yrs or so: who crashed and who thrived in the transition from pre-pandemic to pandemic and from pandemic to post-pandemic markets?

 

[CrysPhys]

If someone came to you and asked what research field within physics you would recommend, how would you reply?

I would say pick the research area that you love in and of itself. Consider the PhD program as a standalone phase of your life, and not necessarily as a means to an end.

ETA: By "research area" I mean a relatively broad research area, such as experimental solid-state physics vs theoretical high-energy-particle physics, not a narrow topic for a thesis. If the student responds, "I don't have a research area that I love in and of itself. I want your advice on what research area will maximize my chances of landing a job when I graduate and maintaining a job for X decades to come," I would reply, "Don't pursue a PhD in physics."

And what if the student does have specific research areas at heart, but they don't align with what is (best anyone can tell) marketable? Should a student pursue experimental solid-state physics because it is likely to be more marketable than theoretical high-energy-particle physics, if the student has a burning passion for theoretical high-energy-particle physics and little interest (or aptitude) in experimental solid-state physics?

 

[StatGuy2000]

We've addressed many flavors of this question before. I personally think this is the wrong approach to career planning; i.e., trying to identify what fields are currently hot and will remain hot many decades out is rather fruitless when historically specific job markets have inverted within a relatively short time span of a year or two. Whereas (in the US), a student graduating high school is looking at typically 4 yrs for a bachelor's. And upon completion of a bachelor's, if they should choose to pursue grad school, they are looking at another 1 or 2 years for a master's, or at another ~6 yrs for a PhD (in physics).

And, even if they do luck out and land in a hot market upon graduation (with whatever degree they decide to pause or stop at), a lot will likely change over the ensuing ~3 - 5 decades of their working life (assuming they don't meet an untimely demise). So the specific research area is not as critical as the ability--and willingness--to adapt and pivot in response to fickle changes in the job market. This (in general, not limited specifically to physics research) has definitely become apparent over the last 3 yrs or so: who crashed and who thrived in the transition from pre-pandemic to pandemic and from pandemic to post-pandemic markets?

While I agree with you that the ability and willingness to adapt to changing job markets is important, it is still the case that certain fields and certain degrees (not to mention certain research fields) better equip their graduates to be able to adapt to such changes. I hate to say this (as someone who has a great appreciation for arts and literature), but a degree in music or English literature does not (at least on its own) provide the skills to equip their graduates with that ability. Physics presumably does, but certain research fields may provide more of this than others.

As for who crashed and who thrived in the transition from pre-pandemic to pandemic and post-pandemic -- I would argue that very few to any people (or for that matter companies) actually thrived during the pandemic (with the exception of Amazon and certain pharma companies like Pfizer and Moderna). Plenty of people and companies survived during the pandemic, but there are people and companies that did not. As for post-pandemic, it is not clear which companies or people actually are thriving.

 

[Vanadium 50]

someone who has graduated with a physics BS and is applying for a PhD must ultimately choose a research field.

I would advise her to pick a field she is interested in , and as far as she can tell good at. I would not advise her to try and guess what the hot fields will be.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I would advise her to pick a field she is interested in , and as far as she can tell good at. I would not advise her to try and guess what the hot fields will be.

Fair enough. At the same time, someone who is completing a bachelor's degree in physics may not necessarily be aware of all of the different research fields or subfields within physics by the time they graduate. Presumably such a student can narrow down their interests near graduation, but do we really want the student to know exactly what they want to research in prior to applying for their PhD program, without any room to change?

 

[CrysPhys]

Presumably such a student can narrow down their interests near graduation, but do we really want the student to know exactly what they want to research in prior to applying for their PhD program, without any room to change?

I've re-read this thread in its entirety. I don't see any post that even hints at such a narrow conclusion.

As a practical matter, a student needs to identify target research areas (again, broad fields, not specific thesis topics) in order to generate a list of candidate grad schools. Some physics departments are strong across many branches; others are strong in a few branches, but not strong overall. If a student is interested in experimental solid-state physics, e.g., a university with a comprehensive Materials Research Lab (MRL) would be advantageous. If a student is interested in experimental nuclear physics, a university with a research reactor would be advantageous. If a student is interested in simulation of complex systems, a university with a supercomputer would be advantageous. .... If a student hasn't a clue what they're interested in when they are applying, they stand a higher probability of ending up at the wrong place (plus having a weaker application).

My personal perspective is that a student should apply for a PhD program in physics only if they are internally driven to do research ("passion" is so overused these days that I'll avoid it). And typically you are not internally driven to do physics research in general, but to do physics research in X. If a student can't really identify a broad target research area (or a few areas), they shouldn't be applying for a PhD physics program in the first place. I don't remember my exact words from a previous post. But they are along the following lines: I like the US undergrad system, in which a high-school grad can take a year, maybe two, at a university to find themselves. But if a student enters a PhD physics program with the goal of finding themselves, they will likely lose themselves. It's a long, hard journey.