So You Want To Be A Physicist Discussion

[ZapperZ]

Zapper's last entry was 6 years ago did the man die?

Yes, he's dead and presently is decaying away.

Zz.

 

[weld]

Hey Zapperz, what does doing experimental work involve?

Is it aesthetically satisfying? What would the average physicist say in that regard? Cause I think it sounds kind of boring, tinkering with machines, running experiments over and over again, just to verify a hypothesis. It get worse when such experiments may take a month or so to complete 100%.

Are there any places where one can do pure, theoretical research outside of academia, such as certain corporations or research institutes? How hard will you say it is to get a job at such places?

Regarding condensed matter physics, do most consider it boring and dull, or at least aesthetically inferior to that of other physics subfields?

If one gets tenure as theoretical physics prof, how much of one's time do you estimate one gets to do research? 90%, 80%?

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey Zapperz, what does doing experimental work involve?

Is it aesthetically satisfying? What would the average physicist say in that regard? Cause I think it sounds kind of boring, tinkering with machines, running experiments over and over again, just to verify a hypothesis. It get worse when such experiments may take a month or so to complete 100%.

Er... I'm not sure where to start to dismiss such myth. That's like saying doing theoretical work is boring because one does nothing else but sit with a pen and paper solving equations!

Regarding condensed matter physics, do most consider it boring and dull, or at least aesthetically inferior to that of other physics subfields?

Wow!

I strongly suggest you go look at, say ArXiv, and see the huge range of topics covered under condensed matter physics. As for it being "inferior", I can quote Robert Laughlin in his Nobel Prize speech:

One common response in the early stages of learning is that superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect are not fundamental and therefore not worth taking seriously. When this happens I just open up the AIP Handbook and show the disbeliever that the accepted values of e and h are defined by these effects, and that ends that. The world is full of things for which one’s understanding, i.e., one’s ability to predict what will happen in an experiment, is degraded by taking the system apart, including most delightfully the standard model of elementary particles itself. I myself have come to suspect most of the important outstanding problems in physics are emergent in nature, including particularly quantum gravity.

Considering that the Higgs mechanism came out of condensed matter (see Anderson's work on spontaneous broken symmetry), and the fact that condensed matter system might be the first system to exhibit Majorana fermions ahead of any particle physics experiments, I don't know how anyone could even think of it being "inferior".

Zz.

 

[GregJ]

Fantastic read ZapperZ! Will re-read it tomorrow again :)

I haven't gone through the whole thread yet however.

 

[ZapperZ]

Fantastic read ZapperZ! Will re-read it tomorrow again :)

I haven't gone through the whole thread yet however.

Thank you.

Since I was asked this a couple of times this week already, let me again post the link to the entire essay in its present form:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=df5w5j9q_5gj6wmt

I actually wrote a new entry for the essay a few weeks ago where I intended to put in my 2 cents on what it means to be a good and useful Academic Advisor. However, after writing it, I thought it became more of my own personal, idealized vision. Although I do have a graduate student that I mentor, and have had a few students here and there over the years, I don't think I have achieved the idealized version of an Academic Advisor. The main reason for this is that, as someone who isn't at an academic institution, we do not have a role as an academic advisor.

So what I ended up doing is rewriting the chapter on what I want an Academic Advisor to be, and posted it as a blog entry.

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2011/08/so-i-am-your-academic-advisor.html

Zz.

 

[GregJ]

Re-read the essay again today along with your blog entry.

I am finding it all very useful as I will eventually move someday from the UK to the US to continue my studies (although that will be in quite some time). So it is nice to know what's ahead and perhaps avoid any mishaps that may arise.

The T.A. section was especially useful to me (something I never knew of until I read it in your essay) and something that I will certainly have to look at in more detail, so that someday I may actively aim for it.

The blog entry sounds what every Academic Advisor should be like. I imagine you're not too far off from that version ;)

 

[ZapperZ]

This is a report on a panel discussion held at SLAC on how to find jobs outside of Academia.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...e-students-how-to-land-jobs-outside-academia/

Many of the advices being given echoes what I had previously stated on here and in my essay, especially that on acquiring skills and knowledge in experiments/instrumentation.

Zz.

 

[Condensate]

Hi ZapperZ!

Are the courses in college going to be similar to the way high school AP courses are structured?
I ask because my interest in the Physics and Chemistry AP classes is low.

 

[Brown Arrow]

hey Greg

the links you have posted in your first post are not working,

 

[Brown Arrow]

hey Greg

the links you have posted in your first post are not working,

for me I took university chem..physic..bio..math in HS...

for all my courses at university(UofT) we reviewed first semester for the intro courses..

AP in HS can make you hate the subject... Had experience with AP did not like it

PS: I'm doing specialist in Astrophysics... got a good sense of the physics part of the course going to be taking the Astor part in the winter

 

[ZapperZ]

hey Greg

the links you have posted in your first post are not working,

Those were posted on a sister forum that is no longer running.

Again, and I should do this periodically, I suppose, the complete version of the essay (as of this moment) can be found at https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=df5w5j9q_5gj6wmt.

Zz.

 

[PookDo]

I printed it up and read parts of it this morning before work. I am focusing on brushing up on my math skills before I start school. A lot of it addressed some questions I have but I am sure other ones will be answered when I get to read it all the way through. I still question my ability to do it just starting school at 43 but it's something I want to do really bad

 

[algaidaman]

Thanks for the write-up ZapperZ! That was some really good information.

 

[algaidaman]

I printed it up and read parts of it this morning before work. I am focusing on brushing up on my math skills before I start school. A lot of it addressed some questions I have but I am sure other ones will be answered when I get to read it all the way through. I still question my ability to do it just starting school at 43 but it's something I want to do really bad

No time like the present!

 

[ZapperZ]

It's official! Physics is Hard!

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/its-official-physics-is-hard.html

Zz.

 

[Condensate]

Thanks Brown Arrow!
That was very helpful.

 

[ZapperZ]

How Physics Careers Compare To Others

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=3597949717892784113

It's difficult to take these "studies" seriously, but it is still an amusing read. Even if we give them large error margins, physics still doesn't come out too bad.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Another reminder that the complete "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay can be found at https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=df5w5j9q_5gj6wmt.

Zz.

 

[Jack21222]

I've been accepted to grad school at Northeastern University, Zz, and you can take partial credit for that. It wasn't until reading your essay that I realized I would be able to go to grad school. At the time, I assumed it wouldn't be possible financially. I'm sure I would have learned about assistantships eventually, but your essay was the first place I heard about them. This lead me to buckle down and work harder at my classes, knowing that grad school was a possibility.

Now, it's a reality. Thank you, Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I've been accepted to grad school at Northeastern University, Zz, and you can take partial credit for that. It wasn't until reading your essay that I realized I would be able to go to grad school. At the time, I assumed it wouldn't be possible financially. I'm sure I would have learned about assistantships eventually, but your essay was the first place I heard about them. This lead me to buckle down and work harder at my classes, knowing that grad school was a possibility.

Now, it's a reality. Thank you, Zz.

You're very welcome. I'm glad the essay was useful in some parts for you. Thanks for the feedback.

And congratulations!

Zz.

 

[Albereo]

Hey I haven't read through all 8 pages of the replies so forgive me if this has come up before. In your "Undergraduate Preparation" section you note that a student should have working knowledge of two programming languages, minimum, and recommend that these are Fortran and C.
I think this needs updating. Most experimental work these days uses Matlab (well discounting LabView but that can be learned in a particular setting). And the importance of Mathematica cannot be overstated for graduate classes and theoretical work. I'd say that by and large these two have replaced Fortran, but C remains as a useful base language.
I would strongly recommend Matlab because it's a pretty intuitive language if one has a basic grasp of vector algebra, it's easy to start off with some basic differentiation/integration programs, numerical analysis, etc. And it's fast and powerful and very widely used.

 

[Astronuc]

Hey I haven't read through all 8 pages of the replies so forgive me if this has come up before. In your "Undergraduate Preparation" section you note that a student should have working knowledge of two programming languages, minimum, and recommend that these are Fortran and C.
I think this needs updating. Most experimental work these days uses Matlab (well discounting LabView but that can be learned in a particular setting). And the importance of Mathematica cannot be overstated for graduate classes and theoretical work. I'd say that by and large these two have replaced Fortran, but C remains as a useful base language.
I would strongly recommend Matlab because it's a pretty intuitive language if one has a basic grasp of vector algebra, it's easy to start off with some basic differentiation/integration programs, numerical analysis, etc. And it's fast and powerful and very widely used.

A lot of programs are now written in C++, but Fortran is still around. Python would be useful.

Computational physicists use either C++ or Fortran.

 

[ZapperZ]

In case someone had problems with the previous links to the essay, this alternate link should work:

So You Want To Be A Physicist

Zz.

 

[rqureshi24]

Nice work man, my physics teacher who we joke is a physicist would appreciate that link.

 

[roluohao]

I'm currently reading Feynman Lectures on Physics.
And maybe I am wondering~

 

[cow051213]

Hi roluohao I'm also on Feynman Lectures on Physics.
Can someone send the Essay to me please? I am in China right now and I guess the link is somehow flitered out.

 

[ZapperZ]

This post can also be sub-titled as "So You Want To Be A Theorist?"

I did a quick count on the job advertisements listed in the April and May 2012 issues of Physics Today. I categorized the nature of the job advertisement into 3 types:

1. Jobs looking for experimentalists
2. Jobs looking for theorists
3. Jobs looking for either or both, or the description wasn't clear. These are often higher-level administration position and thus, usually not open to new PhDs and postdocs.

I did a quick count, and I also did not double count for repeated listing for the same job in May issue. So here's what I found:

1. Number of advertisements looking for experimentalists = 19
2. Number of advertisements looking for theorists = 5
3. Number of advertisements looking for either/both or unclear = 14

So if you look at the ratio of jobs specifically for experimentalists to the job specifically for theorists, it is almost 4:1! The nature of the jobs that are seeking experimentalists also tend to be quite varied. It ranges from Academia, National Labs, Industries, etc., whereas the overwhelming majority of theorists jobs are from Academia. This should come as no surprise to most people.

So, still want to be a theorist?

Zz.

 

[George Jones]

So if you look at the ratio of jobs specifically for experimentalists to the job specifically for theorists, it is almost 4:1!

What is this ratio for Ph.D. graduates?

 

[ZapperZ]

What is this ratio for Ph.D. graduates?

That, I don't have the number for.

Zz.

 

[Mépris]

Say one is interested, or rather they think they are, in fields areas related to physics such as oceanographic physics and complex systems (neurological networks, mushroom clouds, supernovae). Would it be sensible to do an undergraduate degree in physics or one in mathematics with a focus on those computational and mathematical techniques (I'm guessing lots of PDEs, probability) required for those fields, and then some physics courses?

 

[chazza74]

First day and first reply/question here.
Really robust and well researched/answered thread here.
I love physics and have had a life long interest but, unfortunately my almost mathematically dyslexic mind steered me away from it during high school into other pastures where I qualified in chemistry and biology before going into pharmacy.
I have long since left this behind for a career in the emergency services but have never lost interest in science and have researched many of my hypotheses with a view to what unifies all that we know.

Probably sounds a bit self inflated and pretentious from someone without a professional qualification in the field but:

My basic question is this:

Are we losing good ideas by training our students how to think?

I firmly believe that we are. I spend a great deal of time discussing various subjects with a geologist and my lack of training in his field has often lead me to have insights which have escaped him because he was given knowledge which was taken to be concrete as it formed part of the course.

I realize that the skill and tools must be given to all students to allow them to communicate and work together but I think that more time and effort should be spent in exercises of lateral thought and information sharing and argument between students in different disciplines.

In this way the true unification threads (no pun intended) will have more chance of being picked up as diversity in ideas will be maintained without so much isolation and compartmentalisation resulting.

I would be interested to know if any professional physicists here have exercises which encourage free thinking and challenging of core ideas and, if so, what they are.

 

[moonman239]

First day and first reply/question here.
Really robust and well researched/answered thread here.
I love physics and have had a life long interest but, unfortunately my almost mathematically dyslexic mind steered me away from it during high school into other pastures where I qualified in chemistry and biology before going into pharmacy.
I have long since left this behind for a career in the emergency services but have never lost interest in science and have researched many of my hypotheses with a view to what unifies all that we know.

Probably sounds a bit self inflated and pretentious from someone without a professional qualification in the field but:

My basic question is this:

Are we losing good ideas by training our students how to think?

I firmly believe that we are. I spend a great deal of time discussing various subjects with a geologist and my lack of training in his field has often lead me to have insights which have escaped him because he was given knowledge which was taken to be concrete as it formed part of the course.

I realize that the skill and tools must be given to all students to allow them to communicate and work together but I think that more time and effort should be spent in exercises of lateral thought and information sharing and argument between students in different disciplines.

In this way the true unification threads (no pun intended) will have more chance of being picked up as diversity in ideas will be maintained without so much isolation and compartmentalisation resulting.

I would be interested to know if any professional physicists here have exercises which encourage free thinking and challenging of core ideas and, if so, what they are.

Interesting insight. The fact that public schools are teaching our kids how to think is why I hate the system. It needs to be completely revamped. No more of this "conveyor-belt education." The children should be reading classics, not those crappy textbooks. They should be taught by people who know the subject they're teaching at least well enough to teach it to their students.

 

[ZapperZ]

First day and first reply/question here.
Really robust and well researched/answered thread here.
I love physics and have had a life long interest but, unfortunately my almost mathematically dyslexic mind steered me away from it during high school into other pastures where I qualified in chemistry and biology before going into pharmacy.
I have long since left this behind for a career in the emergency services but have never lost interest in science and have researched many of my hypotheses with a view to what unifies all that we know.

Probably sounds a bit self inflated and pretentious from someone without a professional qualification in the field but:

My basic question is this:

Are we losing good ideas by training our students how to think?

I firmly believe that we are. I spend a great deal of time discussing various subjects with a geologist and my lack of training in his field has often lead me to have insights which have escaped him because he was given knowledge which was taken to be concrete as it formed part of the course.

I realize that the skill and tools must be given to all students to allow them to communicate and work together but I think that more time and effort should be spent in exercises of lateral thought and information sharing and argument between students in different disciplines.

In this way the true unification threads (no pun intended) will have more chance of being picked up as diversity in ideas will be maintained without so much isolation and compartmentalisation resulting.

I would be interested to know if any professional physicists here have exercises which encourage free thinking and challenging of core ideas and, if so, what they are.

I'm not sure if this is a suitable topic for this thread, or if it should have been in a separate thread.

1. You can't use one example and make wholesale deduction of our educational system. Just because you could offer an insight into something a professional in one field couldn't come up with says nothing about (i) the knowledge of that person (ii) your own knowledge (iii) the educational process in that particular field (iv) the educational process in general. That is just extrapolating WAAAAY too much based on ONE data point!

2. Advanced in knowledge is made EVERY SINGLE DAY! These are made predominantly by scientists trained in the educational system from the last 20-40 years. Unless you are claiming that the current system is different than it was back then, then I would say that the system has, indeed, produced scientists able to solve many of the problems in science, and continue to produce very good work!

3. Teaching kids to think is a bad thing? Since when? In fact, I would say that the most IMPORTANT aspect of an educational system is to train the skill to think! I would even say that rote memorization and dumb repetition dulls one's ability to think. Being able to think things through is THE most important skill that one can have.

Zz.

 

[Alex1]

What's up everyone,
I was wondering how difficult it is to get a B.S. in physics at an average college. I've always been interested in science and in the past years I've been very interested in physics, specifically black holes. I have not had the best work ethic in high school. I consider myself of average intelligence seeing that my sat score was a 1600/2400 (without studying). My question is if I develop an above average work ethic, do I have the mental capacity do be a successful physicist and move on to get my Phd in physics?

 

[seaofghosts]

What's up everyone,
I was wondering how difficult it is to get a B.S. in physics at an average college. I've always been interested in science and in the past years I've been very interested in physics, specifically black holes. I have not had the best work ethic in high school. I consider myself of average intelligence seeing that my sat score was a 1600/2400 (without studying). My question is if I develop an above average work ethic, do I have the mental capacity do be a successful physicist and move on to get my Phd in physics?

One thing that I've heard over and over in the past several years while planning my physics degree is that physics is a skill, like most things. While you definitely need a certain level of "talent" in math and science (though that "talent" has to be cultivated and nurtured), I think the #1 thing the average person needs to succeed well in math and physics is to genuinely love it and want to succeed. Even be stubborn about it. :p Be willing to put in the time and effort, because there will be a lot of that.

Short answer is that yes, a physics BS anywhere is going to be difficult. But to me, at least, and probably to most people who chose physics, the difficulty is part of the appeal. I love physics and math, but my first degree was in history. I graduated with honors with almost no effort, and I discovered that I learned more in my personal reading than I ever did in my history classes. So now I'm switching to my original love for a challenge and because I know that I won't be able to reach the same level of understanding by myself as I would taking all the classes, doing REUs and eventually working in the field.

My opinion is that your work ethic in high school isn't always a good indication of what your work ethic will be in college and beyond. I didn't do well in high school because I learned more on wikipedia and reading science books. I also didn't do well on the SAT (my math score was a 590/800, though I had barely taken algebra by that time, so it's no surprise--my HS experience was weird). Around ages 18-25, I think, is when you REALLY start growing into who you are, because you've reached a certain level of independence.

Anyway, the really short answer is: I think if you really want to do physics and are serious about it, you'll do great. :) Just remember that you're not in school because you know everything, you're there to learn it, and you can't let yourself give up.

There's also a thread in this section where someone asked if they'd have to be a prodigy to do well in physics. Check that out for some extra tips and opinions. :)