PhD Programs for Mathematical Physics (Experimental Condensed Matter Physics)

[WWGD]

Not every undergraduate, but rather those with piqued interest in going further into research. You would expected them to take the initiative to go that extra mile or two.

Sorry if this was too harsh, but I think I'm making a valid point. I recommend a bookin the topic that was helpful to me : " Getting what you came for".

 

[CrysPhys]

Not every undergraduate, but rather those with piqued interest in going further into research. You would expected them to take the initiative to go that extra mile or two.

Not too harsh at all. This is precisely the point that I and others have been arguing. A PhD program is not the right choice for every undergrad. In particular, it would be a mistake for an undergrad who does the minimum or just a bit above the minimum for their undergrad program. It works best if an undergrad decides, "This is my future goal, and a PhD program is the way to achieve it," rather than, "I'll enroll in a PhD program, and hope it has value."

 

[CrysPhys]

I recommend a bookin the topic that was helpful to me : " Getting what you came for".

Could you clarify what you mean here? I haven't a clue.

 

[WWGD]

Could you clarify what you mean here? I haven't a clue.

Sure, it was a recommendation for a book that outlines the process of getting a Masters or PhD, for the OP. Hopefully it will shed some light on how the process works and what's expected of them. :

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanks. All clear now.

 

[jbergman]

HI,

I am an International Student studying in the US (at a "liberal arts" small college ranked in the Top 20 as per US News Rankings). I will graduate in 2024 and intend to apply for PhD programs in Mathematical Physics starting October 2023 for admission in 2024.

GPA: I am a double major in Physics (3.9 GPA) and Mathematics (3.8 GPA), with an overall GPA of 3.85.

Research: As an international, I was not qualified for any REU. However, I have worked part-time as a research assistant with a college professor during the school year (May 2022 to now), including working full-time during the two summers (2022 and 2023). The 2021 summer was a washout due to Covid restrictions.

Recommendation Letters: I have three recommendation letters from Physics professors, including one for whom I have worked as a research assistant. I can also muster a 4th recommendation letter from a Maths professor who will be my senior thesis advisor in Maths.

GRE: I have not done any GREs. Should I focus on the subject GREs (Maths and Physics) as I will not have time to do all 3 (General, Physics and Maths)? At first glance, the requirements of most universities state that GRE is optional.

I found finding universities focusing on Mathematical Physics tough, so I tried to find professors who spend time in this area. I have managed to identify a few professors, generated a list of universities, and have no idea how to shortlist them. I haven't written to any of these professors, so I won't name them below (where two departments are listed, the same professor works in both).

1. Princeton (Mathematical Physics)
2. Chicago (Physics)
3. U Penn (Physics)
4. Duke (Physics)
5. Brown (Physics)
6. MIT (Physics and Applied Maths)
7. Columbia (APAM and Physics)
8. Harvard (Physics)
9. Stanford (Physics and SITP)
10. Cornell (Physics and Applied Maths)
11. Yale (Physics and Maths)
12. Northwestern (Maths)
13. Northwestern (ESAM and Physics)
14. Dartmouth (Physics)
15. UIUC (Physics)
16. U.C.LA (Physics)
17. Georgia Tech (Maths)
18. Georgia Tech (Physics)
19. University of Maryland - College Park (Physics)
20. University of Colorado - Boulder (Physics)

I haven't had time to research Johns Hopkins, U. Mich (Ann Arbor), Carnegie Mellon, Washington St. Louis, U.N.C Chapel Hill, U. Wisconsin (Madison), Penn State, Arizona State, Purdue, U.C Santa Barbara, U. Minn Twin Cities, N.C. State Uni, and U of Colorado Boulder.

Are there other universities I should be considering?

It has been exhausting, and I felt my list was very "dream heavy". That's partly because I started using the US News Ranking system to make this list.

Any pointers on how to reduce this list? Should I have started from colleges ranked 50-100 instead of 1-50?

And lastly, what are the opportunities in Mathematical Physics? I understand that academia is crowded, but does the industry hire PhDs in Mathematical Physics?

Thanks in advance.

I just wanted to say that as I understand it, in Physics departments, most of what I would call mathematical physics is done in high energy physics with work related to quantum field theory, string theory, and AdsCFT stuff. So you really should be looking into those fields and seeing which excite you.

However, in general, I think mathematical physics is more commonly done in math departments. So, in my opinion, you should look at what some mathematical physicists do in math departments and some people working on QFT or something similar do in physics departments and decide which you find more interesting.

 

[CrysPhys]

I just wanted to say that as I understand it, in Physics departments, most of what I would call mathematical physics is done in high energy physics with work related to quantum field theory, string theory, and AdsCFT stuff. So you really should be looking into those fields and seeing which excite you.

However, in general, I think mathematical physics is more commonly done in math departments. So, in my opinion, you should look at what some mathematical physicists do in math departments and some people working on QFT or something similar do in physics departments and decide which you find more interesting.

Your Post #76 is replying to the original question (Post #1). But this has been a long, convoluted thread, and the OP started shifting direction in Post #32 and changed course in Post #38. Mathematical physics is no longer the end goal; experimental condensed-matter physics is.

Since my only exposure is in Condensed Matter Physics, I started looking for professors working in Experimental Condensed Matter at universities known for their condensed matter programs, even if the research being done wasn't in what I have worked on at my research assistant internship.

After talking to the professors at my college, I understand that I should focus on my primary interest (Physics) as I can still study Mathematical Physics at University as part of my PhD Prep (pre-PhD). So there is no need to select universities because they have Mathematical Physics as part of the Physics department. A college like Northwestern (for example) would permit me to study Mathematical Physics (MP) as part of (or alongside) my PhD in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics even though MP is part of their Mathematics Department. So MP is not an issue.

I would be much obliged if anyone could offer any input on the universities mentioned in my earlier post or suggest other universities known for their work in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics (E-CMP).

 

[advhaver]

experimental condensed-matter physics

LOL. Fixed that for you.

The ones at which you are a strong research fit. Admissions is holistic.

Otherwise, your best shot is to do that work, rather than to try and convince us to do the work for you.

Sorry for disappearing for several months. I was busy.

To end this thread, I finished my applications by the 15th of December. I got my first admit (U Chicago) yesterday. I await responses from the other universities before making up my mind. Thanks for all your help.

My takeaways:
1. Manage your time. I did not do a perfect job. I need a lot of improvement. I missed out on a few applications due to poor time management.
2. Talk to every professor you know. Don't be afraid to "cold call." I emailed several and was surprised that so many responded. Many of them asked me to read up on a topic and set up a second remote meeting to question me on the matter they asked me to read. This was a very pleasant exercise.
3. Keep your head down and work. Even after my applications were all out (December 15th), I continued to work on my research through Christmas. I suspect that professors get an intuition about the depth of your interest when they talk to you.
4. Do not forget to thank every professor you talk to sincerely. Many have very busy lives, and taking 20-30 minutes to help an unknown student should be considered a privilege.

I am now praying that at least a few other responses are also positive.

Thanks again.

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanking people who have helped you is a good habit to develop. You're welcome. Hope you receive more positive responses. I wish you great success in your PhD program.

 

[advhaver]

Thanking people who have helped you is a good habit to develop. You're welcome. Hope you receive more positive responses. I wish you great success in your PhD program.

I know that the program at U Chicago is excellent, but when I told my family about the Chicago admission, a couple of them were upset that I did not apply to MIT or Princeton (but I must qualify that by clarifying that everyone was happy) because they are more "reputed" whatever that means.

To be honest, I did not apply because I assumed my resume wasn't strong enough. So, I would add a 5th takeaway to the 4 listed above.

5. Do not assume anything. Apply, apply, apply. Do not let your "profile" or "resume" limit you. If you manage your time well and start early, applying to as many as 20 universities can be done. I have three friends who applied to 15, 17, and 20 universities (all in physics).

I hope this helps others.

P.S. Can an admin or moderator change the title from "Mathematical Physics" to "Experimental Condensed Matter Physics"?

Thanks.

 

[berkeman]

P.S. Can an admin or moderator change the title from "Mathematical Physics" to "Experimental Condensed Matter Physics"?

I've appended that information to the title, so that comments about Mathematical Physics by responders are still valid.

 

[gwnorth]

Congrats on your first admit OP! U Chicago is a fantastic option. Best of luck on hearing back on the rest of your apps!

I'm still anxiously awaiting to hear if my son will get into the programs he's applied to.

 

[advhaver]

I've appended that information to the title, so that comments about Mathematical Physics by responders are still valid.

Thanks!

Congrats on your first admit OP! U Chicago is a fantastic option. Best of luck on hearing back on the rest of your apps!

I'm still anxiously awaiting to hear if my son will get into the programs he's applied to.

Thanks.

Which programs did he apply to?

 

[StatGuy2000]

Sorry for disappearing for several months. I was busy.

To end this thread, I finished my applications by the 15th of December. I got my first admit (U Chicago) yesterday. I await responses from the other universities before making up my mind. Thanks for all your help.

My takeaways:
1. Manage your time. I did not do a perfect job. I need a lot of improvement. I missed out on a few applications due to poor time management.
2. Talk to every professor you know. Don't be afraid to "cold call." I emailed several and was surprised that so many responded. Many of them asked me to read up on a topic and set up a second remote meeting to question me on the matter they asked me to read. This was a very pleasant exercise.
3. Keep your head down and work. Even after my applications were all out (December 15th), I continued to work on my research through Christmas. I suspect that professors get an intuition about the depth of your interest when they talk to you.
4. Do not forget to thank every professor you talk to sincerely. Many have very busy lives, and taking 20-30 minutes to help an unknown student should be considered a privilege.

I am now praying that at least a few other responses are also positive.

Thanks again.

To the OP:

Congratulations on your admittance to the University of Chicago! It is an excellent school with outstanding research in various areas of physics.

I wanted to wish you much success in your PhD studies and research!

 

[advhaver]

Congratulations ....I wanted to wish you much success in your PhD studies and research!

Thanks.

I am getting bombarded by relatives who are "demanding" to know why I did not fancy my chances at MIT or Princeton. I should have managed my time better and sought out professors at MIT and Princeton. MIT, especially, was on my radar. One of my advisors told me that the environment at Princeton is toxic (his daughter is doing her Ph.D. in Physics there), so I do not regret that so much.

I did approach professors at UChicago, Cornell, UPenn, Northwestern, Yale, Rice, WUSTL, Georgia Tech, U. Michigan (Ann Arbor), U.Maryland, Georgetown, Penn State, Rutgers, and U.T. Austin and interviewed with the ones in bold. In some cases, I had multiple interviews. I could have started earlier (I started chasing professors only in November). I just ran out of time.

Best of luck on hearing back on the rest of your apps!

I got WUSTL and Georgia Tech but was rejected by Univ. of Minnesota (Twin Cities). I don't want to act like a "dog in the manger," so I will write to WUSTL and GT and ask them to take my name off their list so that other students can be offered a position.

Did your son get any responses yet? I have put up my list above. I am happy to help.

P.S
I talked to U. Chicago, and they told me that they would be happy to let me work on developing my Mathematics skills while doing my Ph.D. in Physics. Over Christmas, I developed an interest in Mathematics, specifically "Mathematical Finance" (universities also call it Quantitative Finance, Financial Mathematics, etc.; see links below). It involves knowing multivariable calculus, linear algebra, probability, topology, etc.

U. Chicago: https://finmath.uchicago.edu/admissions/admission-requirements/
Stanford: https://bulletin.stanford.edu/programs/CME-MS
Carnegie: https://www.cmu.edu/mscf/academics/index.html
NYU: https://math-finance.cims.nyu.edu/academics/
Oxford: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/msc-mathematical-and-computational-finance
LSE: https://www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Graduate/degree-programmes-2024/MSc-Financial-Mathematics
Imperial: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/study/courses/postgraduate-taught/mathematics-finance/

Oh well. There is so much to learn and only one life to do it in.

 

[DeBangis21]

Congratulations, @advhaver . Best wishes.

 

[advhaver]

Sure, it was a recommendation for a book that outlines the process of getting a Masters or PhD, for the OP.

View attachment 330471

Now that I got an admit, I ordered this book. It would have been a bit presumptuous of me to order it without an admit.

Thanks.

 

[advhaver]

Congratulations, @advhaver . Best wishes.

Thanks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Congratulations.

Tell your relatives they should be happy for you, and not moan that you should have gone somewhere else.

1. If you get a PhD from Chicago and don't reach your goals, its not Chicago's fault and things are unlikely to have been different had you gone to Princeton.
2. Rankings are a blunt instrument even at the undergraduate level. And admissions is not a monotonic function of "potential physics greatness". Your relatives would probably pooh pooh Minnesota, bur they have a very strong program, even though they don't have the prestige amongh the uninformed than Chicago does.
3. The "big names" may not be the best overall. I can think of one area where the best in the world is Washington (Seattle). Stanford is a distant second. Another, Michigan State is tops. In another, Utah. In another, Rochester.
4. Programs improve and fall behind all the time. You can't predict where a given school will be 7 years now when you graduate, and it is foolish to try. Recently, Santa Barbara has moved up, and Wisconsin has moved down. Maybe in a few years it will be the other way around, New hires, retirements, projects starting, projects finishing, and such happen all the time. You can drive yourself crazy trying to prediect where a school will end up.

 

[CrysPhys]

I got WUSTL and Georgia Tech but was rejected by Univ. of Minnesota (Twin Cities). I don't want to act like a "dog in the manger," so I will write to WUSTL and GT and ask them to take my name off their list so that other students can be offered a position.

You might not want to withdraw your applications right away, unless you're absolutely certain that Chicago supersedes them. You also want to consider financial support packages. The most common is a teaching assistantship. Some do offer research assistantships to incoming newbies (at many universities, you need to pass the quals first, so they are not available to incoming newbies). But if a university really wants you, they will offer you a fellowship (no teaching or research responsibilities). Just something to consider, ceteris paribus.

You also want to consider locale,. At some point, there will be life outside the classroom and lab.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I can't resist. From The Simpsons episode Brother from Another Series:

Sideshow Bob: What about the buffon lessons? The four years at clown college?
Sideshow Cecil: I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.

 

[CrysPhys]

Decades ago, when I was a senior in high school, I applied for early action (there was no early decision then) to MIT. I got in. I told my guidance counsellor that I was going to withdraw all my other applications, including the one to Harvard. Shortly thereafter I was summoned by the headmaster, who insisted that I not withdraw my other applications. I got accepted to Harvard (and all the others). My headmaster hauled me into his office again. I told him I was going to MIT and turning down Harvard. He was livid. Probably cost me several prizes (some with money attached) that I would have otherwise been awarded.

 

[advhaver]

1. The "big names" may not be the best overall. I can think of one area where the best in the world is Washington (Seattle). Stanford is a distant second. Another, Michigan State is tops. In another, Utah. In another, Rochester.

Wow, I'd like to learn which programs these are. Where do I find this data?

FYI, Georgetown also admitted me. With so many offers, one can't help but feel that I was too conservative in my applications.

You also want to consider financial support packages. The most common is a teaching assistantship. Some do offer research assistantships to incoming newbies (at many universities, you need to pass the quals first, so they are not available to incoming newbies). But if a university really wants you, they will offer you a fellowship (no teaching or research responsibilities). Just something to consider, ceteris paribus.

You also want to consider locale,. At some point, there will be life outside the classroom and lab.

Of the ones I have, Chicago offered me the best "package," including a small fellowship (in addition to a TA). I am waiting for other options, but I am trying not to be selfish and release those admissions so others can be considered. Chicago has invited me to visit them in a couple of weeks, so let's see.

I have other interests (outside physics), like mathematics, so I would be interested in programs that allow me to pursue both, even if I do not get official degrees. It's the knowledge that's important; the degree only serves to inform your first employer that you have some qualifications.

Decades ago, when I was a senior in high school, I applied for early action (there was no early decision then) to MIT. I got in. I told my guidance counsellor that I was going to withdraw all my other applications, including the one to Harvard. Shortly thereafter I was summoned by the headmaster, who insisted that I not withdraw my other applications. I got accepted to Harvard (and all the others). My headmaster hauled me into his office again. I told him I was going to MIT and turning down Harvard. He was livid. Probably cost me several prizes (some with money attached) that I would have otherwise been awarded.

Wow! You got MIT and Harvard! That must have been a tough decision.

 

[CrysPhys]

Wow! You got MIT and Harvard! That must have been a tough decision.

No; easy decision. As I mentioned above, once I got accepted to MIT on early action, I had planned to withdraw all pending applications, including the one to Harvard. The only reason I didn't was because my guidance counsellor and headmaster pressured me not to. Number of students who went on to Harvard was a key metric (bragging point) in my high school.

 

[gwnorth]

Congrats on getting more admits @advhaver. That's fantastic news!

Which programs did he apply to?

He wasn't sure if he wanted to a do a PhD so decided to test the waters by applying exclusively to master's programs. As it was most cost effective for him to attend programs in Canada he applied to thesis-based programs at UofT, UBC, McGill, and York Universities, as well as Perimeter (Waterloo).

I still hold out hope that he'll eventually decide to do a PhD and will then apply internationally .

Did your son get any responses yet?

Yes, this past week to my great relief! He has received offers from UofT (direct admit to the PhD) and UBC. At UBC he was contacted by a researcher at TRIUMF who could potentially be his advisor.

He also has interviews next week with 2 different researchers at McGill.

York and Perimeter had later application due dates so he may not hear back from them for a bit.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'd like to learn which programs these are. Where do I find this data?

You read journals, you see who is publishing, and you see who is citing what.

You will not find a US News ranking of "The best places to study Langmuir-Blodgett films:,

 

[Ege Artan]

Now that I got an admit, I ordered this book. It would have been a bit presumptuous of me to order it without an admit.

Thanks.

Hello, I am a first year student that eventually wants to pursue mathematical physics as well (especially HEP), therefore, I also want to get a PhD as well.

However, I have been just demotivated thinking that I won't get a good learning experience with a good advisor because I won't be as competitive during applications. If you don't mind me asking what was your resume like? What are the great takeaways that I have to keep in mind as well?

 

[advhaver]

Hello, I am a first year student that eventually wants to pursue mathematical physics as well (especially HEP), therefore, I also want to get a PhD as well.

However, I have been just demotivated thinking that I won't get a good learning experience with a good advisor because I won't be as competitive during applications. If you don't mind me asking what was your resume like? What are the great takeaways that I have to keep in mind as well?

From 8th/9th grade, I had equal interests in physics and mathematics; hence, I wrongly believed that mathematical physics would give me the opportunity to pursue both. I later realised I could pursue Maths alongside my Physics.

My resume:

• 12th grade (IB) 44/45 in 6 subjects and a 7/7 in an additional subject of Further Maths.
• SAT was 1480 (800 Math/680 English), partly because I wasn't comfortable with the electronic format as it was the first year the SAT board implemented it in my home country.
• Subject SAT: 800 in Physics and Maths, but I discovered that no one cares about this.
• My first year of college was remote. It's a long story that involves Covid and Visa issues.
• For my sophomore year, I was a TA in the Physics Lab, and from the same summer on, I worked as an RA in a Condensed Matter Research Lab.
• Since I came into college with some credits (thanks to my IB results), I got the opportunity to take a few advanced courses in math and physics. My overall GPA was about 3.85, and my Physics GPA was 4.0. The college I attend is not known for grade inflation. I did NOT take the GRE.
• When I applied, I had 2.5 years (Fall 2021) of TA and a little over one year (Summer 2022) of RA experience. I also had a few months of internship experience in 2019 (between 11th and 12th grade). During my RA, I helped develop new testing mechanisms and protocols using skills I had learned during my 2019 internships. I suspect the RA experience was my "calling card."

I hope this helps.

 

[Ege Artan]

From 8th/9th grade, I had equal interests in physics and mathematics; hence, I wrongly believed that mathematical physics would give me the opportunity to pursue both. I later realised I could pursue Maths alongside my Physics.

My resume:

• 12th grade (IB) 44/45 in 6 subjects and a 7/7 in an additional subject of Further Maths.
• SAT was 1480 (800 Math/680 English), partly because I wasn't comfortable with the electronic format as it was the first year the SAT board implemented it in my home country.
• Subject SAT: 800 in Physics and Maths, but I discovered that no one cares about this.
• My first year of college was remote. It's a long story that involves Covid and Visa issues.
• For my sophomore year, I was a TA in the Physics Lab, and from the same summer on, I worked as an RA in a Condensed Matter Research Lab.
• Since I came into college with some credits (thanks to my IB results), I got the opportunity to take a few advanced courses in math and physics. My overall GPA was about 3.85, and my Physics GPA was 4.0. The college I attend is not known for grade inflation. I did NOT take the GRE.
• When I applied, I had 2.5 years (Fall 2021) of TA and a little over one year (Summer 2022) of RA experience. I also had a few months of internship experience in 2019 (between 11th and 12th grade). During my RA, I helped develop new testing mechanisms and protocols using skills I had learned during my 2019 internships. I suspect the RA experience was my "calling card."

I hope this helps.

Thank you a lot.

Indeed, it seems like the research experience is incredibly crucial for the applications.

However, aside from the previous topic, the "need" to have research experience for theoretical physics applications feels kind of weird don't you think? I mean, I am someone who wants to focus on the theory, equations, and predictions, not on the measurement side of things. Considering your past experience, do you think practical research and lab projects translate much to theoretical physics apart from the general scientific methodology? Isn't the purpose of the "need" of these qualities and experiences to choose an applicant that is the most ready for the program, if there is no direct translation then why are they "requiring" it in the first place? It feels kind of like a "burden" being obligated to do practical research to get into a theoretical program, which also seems to be a little paradoxical. What do you think?

Note: By "need" and " requiring" I tried to mean the practical need for these qualities. Correct me if I am wrong, none of the top programs ask for these directly afaik but they are pretty much mandatory to have a good chance to even be considered. Also, by "burden" I meant that these experiences are still fun but not as fun as the theory, at least for me. So it feels like a "burden" in a relative sense.

 

[Choppy]

However, aside from the previous topic, the "need" to have research experience for theoretical physics applications feels kind of weird don't you think? I mean, I am someone who wants to focus on the theory, equations, and predictions, not on the measurement side of things. Considering your past experience, do you think practical research and lab projects translate much to theoretical physics apart from the general scientific methodology? Isn't the purpose of the "need" of these qualities and experiences to choose an applicant that is the most ready for the program, if there is no direct translation then why are they "requiring" it in the first place? It feels kind of like a "burden" being obligated to do practical research to get into a theoretical program, which also seems to be a little paradoxical. What do you think?

I'm not sure where to start with this. There's a lot more to experimental work than just the measurement of things.

One of the observations that I've made over the years is that the most successful students tend to be the ones who take full advantage of the opportunities in front of them, over those who are just going through the motions because they see getting involved in research as a hoop that's required to jump through.

Another observation is that students earlier in their education who believe they have a preference for the theory side of things over the experimental side of things are basing this on experiences in first year labs where they're given three hours to run through a cookbook experiment they probably haven't read ahead of time, and write it up with partners they may or may not have chosen based on the order in which they arrived in the room.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not sure where to start with this.

Neither am I.

The typical textbook tells one of two stories about how physics is done. OIne story is that a bunch of knuckleheaded experimenters measure a bunch of points but don't understand anything until the brilliant theorist comes along and explains it to them. The other is that the brilliant theorist comes up with an idea, which is then verified by hist hunchbacks a team of dull experimenters. Both are gross oversimplifications.

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

"I did research and got into graduate school, therefore research is critical" is a logical fallacy, and honestly, I question how good a scientist someone who thinks this way will be. Is research important? Yes, but not overwhelmingly so. If you had an opportunity and didn't take advantage of it, will this be a problem? Probably - you certainly need to explain why you waited so long. Will doing a good job make your letters stronger? Absolutely.

But if you are doing research merely to check a box, it will backfire. You will not be able to hide this, it will come out in your letters, and it will be a big big negative in the admissions process. You should do thios because you are genuinely interested in it. If you are not, why the devil do you want another seven or more years of it?

 

[gwnorth]

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

 

[Ege Artan]

One of the observations that I've made over the years is that the most successful students tend to be the ones who take full advantage of the opportunities in front of them, over those who are just going through the motions because they see getting involved in research as a hoop that's required to jump through.

That is what I was trying to ask tbh. I was trying to ask what the exact relevance of early more experiment focused research projects had on a theoretical career apart from learning the scientific method. I really do want to make use of extensive opportunities given by my university but I have no idea what to strive for or look for in undergrad research. Could you please explain what I should be learning or looking for during my undergrad research, what will be the main takeaway points?

Another observation is that students earlier in their education who believe they have a preference for the theory side of things over the experimental side of things are basing this on experiences in first year labs where they're given three hours to run through a cookbook experiment they probably haven't read ahead of time, and write it up with partners they may or may not have chosen based on the order in which they arrived in the room.

Not really, this is not that close. My uni is somewhat close to the Perimeter Institute and as a first year I attend their public lectures/seminars and if I cannot due to a time constraint, I listen to their online seminars and I must say I am hooked. The ideas and mathematics discussed and explained over at PI is probably and most likely what I want to pursue in the future. So, I mostly know what I will be dealing with in theoretical physics and am already accepting towards it. However experimentation, designing and setting up an experiment, conducting it, analyzing data, comparing it to current expectations, looking for unexplained phenomena; I do not find it as interesting as theory.

 

[Ege Artan]

The typical textbook tells one of two stories about how physics is done. One story is that a bunch of knuckleheaded experimenters measure a bunch of points but don't understand anything until the brilliant theorist comes along and explains it to them. The other is that the brilliant theorist comes up with an idea, which is then verified by hist hunchbacks a team of dull experimenters. Both are gross oversimplifications.

Oh trust me, I know the incredible importance of experiments. I read a lot of philosophy of science and history of science from Kuhn, Popper, and others during high school so I know the clear and utter importance of experiments. In fact, I get offended by people who disregard experimental side of science (yes, I am talking about you string theorists, pursuing the same theory even though it is unfalsifiable and unprovable just for the sake of an end goal). So definitely, I get what you are saying and agree with it but I cannot see the relevance to what I asked.

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

I agree completely, the reason why I want to pursue theoretical does not stem from these "reasons", it stems from what I have seen during bunch of theoretical seminars, lectures, and articles in my undergrad and the theoretical research-like competitions in high school.

"I did research and got into graduate school, therefore research is critical" is a logical fallacy, and honestly, I question how good a scientist someone who thinks this way will be. Is research important? Yes, but not overwhelmingly so. If you had an opportunity and didn't take advantage of it, will this be a problem? Probably - you certainly need to explain why you waited so long. Will doing a good job make your letters stronger? Absolutely.

But if you are doing research merely to check a box, it will backfire. You will not be able to hide this, it will come out in your letters, and it will be a big big negative in the admissions process. You should do thios because you are genuinely interested in it. If you are not, why the devil do you want another seven or more years of it?

That was what I was trying to ask, I mean I do not want to do it to merely check a box. I want to get something out of it that will be relevant to the theoretical career I want to pursue. I was specifically asking what takeaway points I should be looking for. I know how wrong it is to just working for a result and not a process. I mean in thep for example, what if the research you are pursuing turns out to be wrong? Are you going to give up research? No, because its ultimate goal is not to find something, it is to learn something on the way, a new idea, and in the worst case to eliminate a road towards a completed theory. All in all, I get and agree with what you are saying, I was asking for what to look for, maybe I did not word it correctly.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Look, you are already screwing up. Rather than waste time trying to find a research project worthy of you, you should find one now. Yes, as a freshman you will likely be metaphorically washing test tubes rather than Solving The Mysteries of the Universe.

You should do whatever you can. Be grateful. Be humble. Be helpful. Learn.