Career Week

>Do I have to give everything to rise in the field of physics?

Abhimitra, a student at Sherwood High in India writes:

Hi, I am from India and have seen the there's an Indian in the Quantum Diarists, so I'd like to ask a question to Anuj. Do you have to be a all nerd-y and studious to become a popular physicists? Does it require you to spend all the waking time on equations and formulae? I've got a passion for Quantum Physics, especially in the elementary particle physics. I like to keep up with all the new news and stuff. I am a good students of physics, and have always been applauded for my talent. But, sometimes when people expect me to spend all my time in studies, I tend to mess up. I've got other hobbies, which I like to pursue. Do I have to give everything to rise in the field of physics?

Dear Abhimitra,

First of all I apologise for taking so long to answer your question, I have been busy helping to organize the PANIC (Particles and Nuclei International Conference) here in Santa Fe with my colleagues at Los Alamos. And here is the answer:

No, you don't need to be nerdy or devote all your time to physics! If you look at my blog you will notice that I obviously don't spend all my time in physics, I go out for hiking and camping (see Quantum Diaries entry: Camping in a volcano), go to concerts (see Quantum Diaries entry: Megadeth ). As for spending all your time in physics: "All work and no play makes a good physicist into dull physicist". In order to do good physics you have to enjoy it. It shouldn't become just another chore. I hope that this removed any misconceptions you might have had about physics! I hope that you continue to pursue your interests in physics.

So you want to be a physicist...

Francois, a student at McGill University in Canada, writes:

Good afternoon, I am presently enrolled in an undergraduate physics program at university and have a little less that two year before to complete my degree. Right from the start I found out that I was the right place, I was enjoy most of my courses and especially laboratory work. I had the chance to talk with graduate student supervising our lab work and got excited by idea of becoming one day a grad student myself. The only problem is that I have no idea what I want to do. I seem to be enjoying several fields but cannot pin point my favourite subject. I think I am more an experimentalist than a theorist but even that raises questions. How can we know where we belong in the world of physics? Following that train of thought how do you pick a grad school? Is it better to stay in the same University you did your undergrad? I know those are a lot of questions, but I figure I am probably not the only one with those queries since they are at the back of mind pretty much everyday since my arrival at university. But there is one good point in my story: I WANT TO BE A PHYSICIST!!

Great to see such enthusiasm from an undergrad! Knowing that you prefer experimental work over theoretical work is a big step towards deciding on a sub-field. Of course it is still possible to combine the two. The best physicists have a good understanding of both sides of the game; though, in reality, these days few do active research in both theory and experiment.

It's very difficult to know what subfield you would enjoy most before your last year of undergrad. Usually, you don't get to take courses in "modern" physics (i.e. physics in which research is still currently done) until your final year. I had no idea what area of physics I wanted to pursue until my fourth (last) year. A fantastic particle physics prof made me see the light!

As far as a choice in subfield goes, you have to choose what interests you most. Talent in a particular area is nice, but what matters most is passion for the subject. You don't get paid big bucks to do physics, so you better love what you do!

How do you pick a grad school? My strategy was first to decide on a field. Once you decide on a field, find out what universities have good groups involved in your field of choice. You can do this by talking to profs in your department. Of course, they might be tempted to tell you that their university has the best groups... I also looked at the size of groups at various universities. My reasoning was that if I went to a university with a large group in my field of interest, my odds of finding a good prof whom I liked would be better than at a university where my choices were more limited. This seems unfair to smaller groups, but when you choose a grad school, you have to look out for yourself first and foremost. This strategy worked out well for me as I was very happy with my supervisors for both my MSc and PhD.

I recommend switching schools for grad school if you can. Experiencing new environments is usually very stimulating. Variety is the spice of life! Spending all your time at one place can make you less appreciative of the different ways that things can get done.

Hope these answers help! Best of luck in your future studies.

Cheers,
David

Keen to learn more about physics

A high schooler from Canada writes:

I've always enjoyed science in school. In the past five months I have realized that I want to get to know science as intimately as possible and improve my mathematics. I was excited to be going back to school so I could learn more. However I was very disappointed- the material my teachers are currently going through is minimal. I have tried reading books but I find that i am incapable of understanding the mathematics it explains things in, or it jumps  quickly into something I kn1ow nothing about. I want so much to improve my math and learn as much about physics as I can while developing my thinking skills, do you have any recommendations? m i not intelligent enough to understand the books, or am
i choosing the wrong ones?

It is very possible that you are choosing the wrong books. If you are going into a university library and randomly pulling books off the shelves, the odds are that you are choosing books that are meant for researchers in a specific sub-field - I would expect these to be far too advanced for 99.9999% of high school students.

I sympathize with your disappointment with your high school science classes. My high school physics classes bored me to tears. It's a miracle that I ended up in physics (a great junior high school teacher and first-year university professor helped offset the high school experience).

It's great that you are so interested in science/physics/math. Yes, math is vital to understanding physics. You do need to know a fair amount of math to learn the details about most areas of physics. If you are super-keen about math, I recommend reading ahead in your high school math books. Once you have learned some calculus (especially integration) a much larger fraction of physics becomes much more accessible. As my high school calculus teacher used to say "Calculus is real math. Calculus is powerful math.".

If you don't feel like being too ambitious with math for now, there are some good popular physics books out there for some of the more fashionable fields (e.g. string theory, cosmology). Search the web for reviews that suggest the better ones.

Good luck with your studies!

Cheers,
David

Physics Fraction

Andrew from Virginia asks: 

How much of a researcher's workday is part of his/her research (like conducting experiments or free time to come up with ideas), and how much is other work necessary but not directly related to the research (writing grant requests, teaching, preparing a lecture, etc.?)

The best answer to this question comes from reading the Day in the Life blogs from April 15:  it was a random day and people were asked to just pick that day and write about what they over the entirety of that day.  But to try to save you a little time, I can tell you at least my experience at different stages in my carreer (so far, anyway). 

As a graduate student, I spent about 99% of my time doing things that could be considered "directly related to research".    As a post-doc, I had to help writing the yearly grant request and travel to my home institution once a year to report on progress the group I was in was making, so maybe the physics fraction dropped to 95%. 

Once I started as a staff scientist at Fermilab my physics fraction was "nominally" at only 33%, since my job offer letter said I had a 33% "research fraction".  However, in reality I did a lot of work that to me seemed very directly related to getting the experiment I was on designed, built, or run:  yes, it was a small subset of the total number of things that needed to be done, but without someone doing this work we wouldn't be doing the physics!  Since I have no teaching responsibilities, I would say that I spent roughly 10-15% of my time either going to conferences, writing or giving talks, or going to meetings not directly related to research, so a "physics fraction" of 85-90%. 

Now (at the tender age of 38) I'm what's called a "project manager", so in reality I am not designing anything, I'm not building or testing anything, and I'm not taking or analyzing data (except for my three weeks of shifts per year on the MINOS experiment).  But I am trying to keep track of an experiment I think is really important to do in the very near term, and trying to understand how much it will cost and how long it will take to design and build that experiment (with the help of lots of folks doing the designing, testing, building).  Some might say that now my physics fraction has dropped to roughly 3 weeks/48 weeks (assuming 4 weeks of vacation per year) or 6%, but since I feel like managing this project is directly related to doing physics, it's still up at something like 80-85%.  I think the longer you're in this field the more you realize how much work has to happen behind the scenes so that the youngest folks in the field can just "sit back and do physics".  How did I get this old?   

What, me work?

Andrew from Virginia asks: 

How many hours does one usually work a week at various stages in a physics career (from grad school to post doc work to tenure)?

This is a very hard question to answer (which doesn't keep people from asking it frequently!):  the answer depends more on you and what your definition of work is than it depends on what stage you are in during your carreer.  There is no doubt that when you're in physics you spend much more than 40 hours a week doing something someone would call "work":  but on the other hand, you don't think of it as work so much as doing something you want to do:  from figuring out how to pull some signal out of background in your detector, to figuring out how to build the detector or make the measurement in the first place! 

Given my kids' school and lesson schedules I can honestly say that I am not physically at the laboratory where I am employed for even 40 hours a week:  but I also "work" once my kids go to bed sometimes, and there are occasional meetings on weekends that I end up attending even though I'd rather be jumping in the leaves with my kids (she writes, looking outside at the fall colors).  But because I have this kind of schedule, I don't have any qualms about taking time off during the week to volunteer in my son's class, or celebrate Columbus Day even though it wasn't a lab holiday. 

The advice I always give whenever I talk to groups of students is that a job should not be something you do so that you can pay the bills and then have fun on the weekends: life is too short to have a job you don't enjoy. If you can find something you enjoy doing and get paid to do it, then go for it, and you won't think about how many hours a week you are "working". 

The Motivation for Research in Physics

Abhimitra, from Sherwood High in India, writes:

The amount of money required to probe this universe or the aub-atomic particles is undoubtedly huge. Though we do talk about the applications of Elementary Particle Physics in the future, how right is it in this world,plagued with terrorism, evil and poverty, that such HUGE quantity of money is spent on something which may take DECADES or maybe even CENTURIES to really show some practical application. Instead, shouldn't we divert our resources to more immediate and necessary priorities, and try to eradicate ignorance from this world before we venture into these fields which we actually probe out of sheer curiosity? As a scientist, isn't it your moral responsibility to look into the consumption of resources and limit them according to properly set priorities? How do you really justify the money being spent on LHC?

Hi Abhimitra,

I really do not work on anything to do with the LHC in particular, but I will endeavor to answer your questions from the viewpoint of basic research in general.  Someone else can justify the LHC in particular.

To begin with, the amount of money spent on these projects, although quite sizable compared to my graduate student salary, is actually pretty small compared to the amounts that governments spend on a regular basis on other programs.  Also, the cost of these projects is also often shared between governments and organizations.  The bulk of my thesis experiment (The G0 Experiment), for example, was funded by the United States (the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation), by CNRS in France, and by NSERC in Canada, along with manpower, hardware, and technical support from the collaborating universities, TRIUMF, and Jefferson Lab. 

It is true that many of the investments in basic research in such areas as nuclear and particle physics are long-term, and that applications of the research can take a long time to show up in everyday life.  However, that is not always true, especially for the technology designed for these experiments.  X-rays were almost immediately used for medical imaging after their discovery.  I just recently went to a seminar by General Electric on advances being made in medical imaging using the advances we are currently making in detector designs in nuclear and particle physics.  For that matter, advances have been steadily been being made in medical imaging as new developments have been being made through the past century!  (If you ever need an x-ray, CAT, PET, MRI or any medical scan, or radiotherapy to combat cancer, remember, physicists had to research all that before it could be applied to anything and the imagining techniques have been steadily getting better as our knowledge about these things grows.)

Even for the discoveries and developments that do take a long time to have a practical application, if those things had never been researched, there would never be any application at all.  If all the money had not been put into developing theories about electricity, magnetism and solid-state physics, into doing experiments to verify those ideas, into discovering new materials with specific properties, and into designing better technology to make use of all of these in the last century, you and I would not have computers and the internet to communicate with about this question!  How would you even be informed of the evils of the world that need to be dealt with if it was not for all of the research that went into the devices that allowed that information to be conveyed to you so rapidly (televisions, radios, telephones, etc.)?  And how will you work toward a better world without the tools that such research has provided?   Where do you think that all the amazing things in our present age came from?  They came from the investments of people, organizations, and governments into the work of scientists of the past and present!

I find it interesting that you say that we should eradicate ignorance before we allocate resources for research based on "sheer curiosity", since it is the curiosity and creativity of the human spirit that are the greatest tools we have in banishing ignorance.   Without striving for knowledge, if we become complacent and believe ourselves to be already 'knowledgeable enough,' then how can we possibly fight ignorance?  Fighting ignorance is not simply an act you go out and do; it is a constant journey to better yourself and to make more information available so that others can better themselves as well.  The entire point of a career in any research field is to find out things we did not know and tell it to others so it can be used effectively for the betterment of mankind.  Research is about more than just "sheer curiosity".  It is about enriching the lives of everyone by understanding our universe better and by the advances we can make through that better understanding.  My job as a research scientist is in the very beginnings of a chain that connects to just about every aspect of life, and just because the windings of that chain are not immediately obvious all the time does not make my link unimportant.  Without this vital link, there is no further chain to advance on, nothing for others to build on to help make a better world. 

Sadly, the evils you speak of are not unique to our world in this time.   Poverty, terrorism, and evil have been with us since the dawn of humanity, and persist despite the endeavors of many great people throughout the ages.  (That's a lot longer than the application of any physics discovery I know of.)  Everyone should do all that they can to combat such darkness.  But does that mean that all other advances of society should be halted to focus entirely on one or two issues?  That does not seem like a very balanced way to approach things.  Poverty is a much larger issue than just throwing money at it will solve, and diverting money from physics research will not help combat terrorism based on ideological disagreements.  If all research funding was diverted to other uses, who would be doing the research to collect the knowledge that will be needed to come up with better and lasting solutions to these problems?   

Everyone (not just physicists or scientists in general) has a moral responsibility about the consumption of resources according to "properly set priorities".  Why do you think that we set up governments where we elect people that we think will set those priorities along what we think is right and important? (I'm not saying that the system is perfect, though.)  And although the practical benefits are often long-term for physics, it is clear that there are tangible benefits that come from all the areas of physics.  What about areas of life that have no clearly practical benefits?  Does this mean that art, music, and movies should no longer be produced since they offer little practical benefit, but the production of these things consumes resources?  They are clearly beneficial in the enrichment, entertainment, and inspiration of lives, but they do not have much in the way of practical application.  Are you saying that there is a moral responsibility to cut out all things that consume resources but do not have immediate practical applications to life?

Like much of life, it is a balancing act, though.  It is wrong to neglect the present and the current issues that surround us.  As an illustration, if you ignore your responsibilities and never hand in homework in your history class in high school, you'll get in trouble, get detention and fail the class.  However, it is dangerous to do just enough to survive the present: to pass the class.  If you do not bother to learn more than you have to know to just squeak through with a passing grade in your classes, you will probably not pass the standardized college entrance exams, so you will not be able to go to college and progress in your education.  Though you addressed your immediate problems, you did not invest in your future wisely, so you are now limited in your options and will have to work much harder and longer to reach the same goal. Ideally, there should be work done both for the present and for the future so that we are prepared for what we do not even know is coming!

If you do not invest in the future, then there will not be as bright a future to look forward to, and when that future becomes the present, there will not be any tools or knowledge available to improve that present.

Best of luck to you in your future endeavors!

With Regards,

             Sarah K

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Vipuli Dharmawardane, for sharing her knowledge about the discovery of x-rays; to Jason Moscatello, for his careful proof-reading and astute editing comments; and to Kent Paschke, for his thoughtful proof-reading and the fun conversation that ensued.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update from Friday, October 14: This question and my answer to it are now also posted in the Einstein: What's the Big Idea? blog and my own blog, so if you would like to see more comments about this post, be sure to check the comments posted in the other blogs.  - SKP

Biology+Physics = Biophysics

Anupama from India writes:

"Thinking about it is always there in my mind rt from my tenth std. Later a twist of decision made me to take another field-Biology. Now that i've completed my masters in it i realized that i can't stop thinking of physics. Ever since tenth to now i always tried to understand concepts on my own through different sources. The carrier and my interest want me to blend both the things. Use and understand biological concepts in terms of physics.

I would like to know whether i'm right or simply floating in air? Can a biologist  become a physicist? I want an equilibrium state between biology and physics. Is this possible?"

Dear Anupama,

Absolutely! The equilibrium state you are looking for is a field called Biophysics, a very happening field right now. I don't know much myself about the field, but I will point you to some useful websites where you can find lots of information.

Firstly, what is Biophysics? Well, the Biophysical Society defines it, in a nutshell, as: "that branch of knowledge that applies the principles of physics and chemistry and the methods of mathematical analysis and computer modeling to understand how the mechanisms of biological systems work." Here's the full article on What is Biophysics?

In July we had our annual South African Institute of physics conference. Each year the day before the conference is a "winter school" and this year's school was on biophysics. I didn't attend the winter school, but a friend of mine did, and he said it was very interesting. Some of the topics that were included were Magnetic Nanoparticles for Cancer Detection and Treatment, Artificial Intelligence, Neurons and networks - the brain as a complex system, and The Biophysics of Cell Adhesion and Tissue Engineering. That might give you a bit of an idea on the topics covered in biophysics. For a more complete list of topics, go here.

As far as I know, biophysics is studied at graduate school level. Many universities and colleges around the world offer biophysics, you just need to ask around. Here's a page of biophysicists part of the Biophysical Society, with their institutions, research disciplines, and degrees. You will see that their first degrees are from anything from biology or physics, to electrical engineering. So you are in a good position. I also did a quick search and found these universities in India that offer an MSc in Biophysics.

Finally, take a look at the International Biophysics Congress held in France in August this year.

And dowload this Career Booklet (right click, save target as) from the Biophysical Society for a description on what a career in biophysics involves.

Good luck!
Claire

Career in Particle Physics

Rohan, a student at Moti Lal Nehru College in India, writes:
I am pursuing Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Physics from the Univeristy of Delhi, IN. Currently, in the 1st year of this 3 year degree course. Please help me explore my career towards becoming a Particle Physicist.

Dear Rohan,

Your question immediately caught my eye because 10 years ago as a college student doing B. Sc (Hons) at Hansraj College in University of Delhi, I was asking myself exactly the same question! And today I am working as postdoc at Los Alamos National Lab doing exactly that sort of research. So here is your answer: Get good scores in your tests and try to get a masters from a good institute like IISc (Indian Institute of Science) or one of the IITs. After that give your GRE exams and apply to Ph.D programmes in US and do a Ph.D in particle physics. If you prefer to stay in India, places like IITs, IISc & TIFR have very good doctoral programmes.

Physics or not Physics ?

Majid, from Indonesia, asks:

I am a University student of Physics. What kind of work is suitable for me ? I very much like Computer Science.

If you study Physics at the University, I assume you do like it (although I am aware of exceptions to this rule). I think the question you should ask yourself is whether you like more the job of a researcher in Physics (and you'll probably know a few, of just look around in your Physics Department), or the kind of job you could get in the industry after you graduate.

Starting a career in Physics at a University is not a walkover. You will need connections, somebody who believes in your potential, and a lot of patience. I think the best way to answer your question is, it depends on how much you are willing to suffer, and whether you are looking for a dream job after years of tough times or whether you prefer to settle for a reasonable fulfillment with less hassle.

Is HEP employment competitive?

Mike, a college senior from Texas, asks:

I'm starting the last year of my physics degree, and I want to enter high energy physics. Is HEP employment very competitive? What skills are graduate programs looking for in applicants?

I will answer the first question: is HEP employment very competitive? That's a good question. Actually, it might be either of two good questions:

1. Is it difficult to get employment in HEP?
2. Is the compensation (monetary, etc) in HEP competitive with other fields?

My answer to (1) is "it depends". If you want to find a post-doc after a PhD, then it's usually not too hard to find a position (if you are diligent in your studies and looking for a job). If you want to find a permanent position (e.g. university professor), that's when it gets more difficult. If you simply look at the number of HEP PhDs granted each year and the number of permanent job openings each year, it is obvious that most PhDs don't become professors. This is a fact of life that isn't likely to change anytime in the forseable future. Yes, there are more senior faculty retiring now than in the past couple of decades, but the number of PhDs far outstrips the number of faculty openings. Of course, if you are a super physicist, you will likely get a job - but most physics PhDs are not super physicists.

My answer to (2) depends on what you think matters in a job. If you can land a permanent job in physics, there's little doubt you could make more money outside of academia if you chose to. To offset the smaller pay, I think the greatest advantage of a job as a physicist (university or national lab) is independence. You have a lot of choice in how you spend your time doing research. You can choose what you study, and you can choose your own hours. Do don't have complete independence (sometimes you must be on committees or teach a course you are not thrilled about), however you have far more independence than in almost any other job.

I hope my anwers help out with which ever question you intended to ask.

Regards,

David