View Full Version : Medical Physics
jonnylane
Oct6-03, 08:07 AM
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
I’m familiar with Radiotherapy from the bioengineering aspect and would agree that medical physics could be an exiting field. Besides the various positions in a hospital environment, there is also a bio-industry need. From my own experiences, working with a physician on a daily basis can be frustrating. Hospital politics is unique to say the least. The medical physicist, I think, would benefit from having an introductory circuit and mechanical design course included in their curriculum. Of course today’s world requires as much computer expertise as one can manage.
Chi Meson
Oct6-03, 02:21 PM
As a teacher I would love to follow interesting threads on the lastest uses of physics in the medical realm. Lasers, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, ultrasound, etc etc... It seems that the most worthwile outcome of physics is in the medical applications. I see it as something to counter the stigma of "The Bomb."
Chi Meson – There is no artifact that lacks an underlying knowledge of physics in its creation. Actually all the devices you mention have been in use since the 1970’s, and the supporting physics known decades earlier. Imaging technologies owe their existence to the mathematical algorithms, programmers, and faster almost single chip computers (less expensive to manufacture) that became available then.
While PET produces an image of body metabolism it is not an anatomical image. The superimposing of its image with that of an MRI or a CT is really impressive. The early use of ultra sound in medicine was to precisely locate the pituitary gland as an aid to diagnosing a concussion. Visiting the NIH (1972), I met a pioneer in the field of ultrasound. He had PhD’s in physics, and engineering, a doctorate in medicine and looked to be less than 25 years old. To image with ultrasound the beam must be moved similar to an automobiles windshield wiper’s pattern. Then it was done mechanically. Now some 64 or more transponders are used with beam steering done by controlling the phase relationship of the sound pulses. This technology probably is derived from a process to direct the radar beam in military aircraft. I once toyed with a surgical laser. The device used a helium laser as an aiming beam (visible red) and an 80-watt, infrared CO2 laser for the knife. The beams were transmitted through an articulated arm and focused on a point several inches away. I removed the focusing optics, and using some other borrowed optics, I achieved a focal point about 10 feet away. I was able to burn tiny holes in IBM cards at that distance. I hid under a desk as I did this because I did not know if the IR beam would be focused using normal optics or if they would crack from the heat. Without any optics, it made the paint discolor on the ceiling. I always wondered what the painters thought about all those little round spots on the ceiling. Surgery is also done with high frequency electric currents. Tissue and muscle response to high frequency current is almost non-existent, whereas at 60hz there is a lot of twitching with a high probability of causing cardiac fibrillation. Hi currents are achieved at the surgical site by use of a very pointed instrument. Exit current density is kept low by using a large dispersing plate and conductive gel.
I could go on forever as there’s so much material.
jonnylane
Oct7-03, 07:14 AM
I have to agree about hospital politics. I haven't been working in my current place of work very long and so try not to get involved, but it always ends up affecting you.
Although my work involves routine things; calibtrations of linacs used for RT, QA etc. I also involve myself in project work quite significantly. My dissertation for my degree for example involved 3D image registration via different algorithms when applied to MRI, CT and SPECT images. I am currently working on a gynae brachytherapy (insertion of radioactive sources to treat cancer of the ovaries and cervix) related-project, which is mainly programming at the moment.
When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.
Teachers could (and should!) throw in the odd comment about MP when teaching. It's very easy to come up with examples related to space science or televisions or other technology, but the first time I heard my own blood flowing in my neck (doppler ultrasound) I was instantly hooked, and wanted to know how it worked.
I dont think enough time is spent promoting physics and all of the things that it can be applied to. Lack of links with real-life applications leads to a lack of interest from students. The more applications they are exposed to, the better.
Ok, end of ranting. [6)]
Jonathan
Chi Meson
Oct7-03, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by jonnylane
When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.
This is partly due to many physics teachers spending too much time on mechanics, never getting to heat, light, sound, and electricity. TO most of the country (US) Physics is associated with cars crashing, and cannonballs being fired off mountains. I always make a point of truncating mechanics as soon as we hit the halfway point. I'm thinking of ditching projectile motion completely because optics, sound, and thermodynamics seems to be more applicable.
So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.
Originally posted by Chi Meson
So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.
It depends on which organ they were looking at. Different organs take up different chemicals better than others. 131I, 132I, and 123I are all used, but for instance 131I has a half-life of 8 days which is longer than any test will last so its more ideal to use 123I. Different compounds containing these iodine isotopes can be taken up by different organs. There are other elements beside iodine that are used but I'm not familiar with them all. I think Tc is used also.
LSU ( where I go to school ) has a medical physics program. Here is their "links" page http://www.nuclear.lsu.edu/links.htm
jonnylane
Oct8-03, 04:43 AM
You are absolutely right:
It really depends what the area of interest was in your body. Isotopes of Iodine are commonly used, especially for testing (and sometimes treating) thyroid gland function. Cr-51 also often used.
By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m. It is especially used in conjunction with gamma cameras since it offers the best overall tradeoff between the factors that make up the "ideal" medical isotope (shortbut usable halflife, fairly monoenergetic gammas with no betas or alphas, easily made etc.). It can also be bound to different molecules, and so can be sent to whichever bit of the body is required.
I've never had one, but have had a few beasty injections, and they were damn cold. It feels weird, I must admit.
Most people who have iodine usually have to drink it. By all accounts it just tastes like water. They should mix it with coke or something...
Jonathan
Originally posted by jonnylane
By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m.
I wonder why 99mTc has an "m" in the mass number. Does anyone know?
jonnylane
Oct9-03, 04:27 AM
The m stands for metastable, as I mentioned in one of my above posts.
A metastable state is effectively a quantum mechanical energy state which has an unusual exited > ground relaxation process. I think it has something to do with a quantum number mismatch. Anyway, the basic effect is that the half-life changes. Tc-99 has a halflife of about 20000 years; Tc-99m has a half-life of around 6 hours.
It is produced via a radioisotope generator (we have one here in this hospital), the "parent" being Mo-99.
The generator is simply a big ol' shielded thing, in which Mo-99 is placed (it gets replenished periodically). It has a half life of about 3 days I think, and the daughter, Tc-99m, is flushed away from the core with saline, which can then be taken away for activity measurments before going into a patient. It needs to be made on site because it has such a short effictive lifetime; good for the patient, but creates transit problems.
Here in the hospital I work in, we supply about 4 other hospitals with the radioisotopes they need, genally on a daily basis. They are all a fairly short distance away, so they can be sent off in the early hours and used that day.
I don't actually work in radioisotopes (I did last summer for a few months at a different hospital); I work in radiotherapy, so please forgive any mistakes in the information. [:D]
Jonathan
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct9-03, 09:51 AM
In my watching of TV I recall having seen the first of the images, made by a PET scan, of the active dynamics of the Human brain, at work. I suspect that, since then, they have changed the radioisotope employed, as the original one was a dual photon(*) emitter and it was not the "safest" but the dynamic pictures of the brain, actively thinking, were really neat to watch, and does it ever act fast.
(*)(They used a dual positron(?) or photon(?) emitter which they later found out had some rather not so nice side effects)
Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?
jonnylane
Oct9-03, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?
Absolutely. I dont know a great deal about it, but I know that it is particularly useful in cardiac monitoring. They commonly use Rb-82 as the radioisotope. I don't know about the brain application.
PET is chiefly used to monitor function an metabolism, as opposed to anatomy. You can guess this just by looking at a PET scan because it looks vaugely like what you would expect but with very poor resolution.
The process is actually very interesting: The radioisotope decays into (among other things) an unstable positron, which travels for a short distance before destructing into a photon pair, which in turn travel in opposite directions (to conform to the conservation of energy).
The dectector array design is very clever because it utilises this fact in order to create the 3D image (it knows where the destruction has taken place because of comparison of time of flights for the photons).
Interestingly, the lack of resolution is mainly due to the short distance travelled by the positron before it destructs.
SPECT scans are similar, but I'm sure you can guess what the 'S' stands for...
Jonathan
Who wants a medical physics forum on this site? Meeeeeee!!
Fullhawking
Oct10-03, 03:41 AM
I enjoy mechanics and things of this nature. It is really easy to forget the other branches of physics like the medical field. ATB for starting a thread on it. Medical physics has lead to great devices like the MRI. IMO it is among the most interesting devices in physics only topped by tesla coils and particle accelerators. Anyway, besides the hair raising name like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it has really aided in the diagnosis of ailments which is never a bad thing.
jonnylane
Oct10-03, 04:26 AM
MRI is indeed very clever.
One great expereince that always sticks in my mind about MR is when I was in my first year undergrad. My MRI/CT lecturer took me (I was the only one on my course!) to the hospital, the very one at which I now work, to show me the MR scanners. There are 2, one 1T machine and one 1.5T machine, which I'm sure you all know is a rather strong magnet. I had to remove all metal from my person and fill out a form about pacemakers and past surgery as well.
He showed me the hidden bits of the machine, such as the liquid He cooling system and the power generator. Then he took me into the room, taking out of his pocket a pair of scissors on a piece of string. I swear that thing lept up and pointed at the core of the scanner, and the string was pulled tight (and twangable). Next he took out a paperclip and told me to hold it in my hand. I then put my hand into the scanner, and it squirmed insode my hand and was twisted beyond recognition.
The images we gain from MRI these days are very high definition, and you can pick out individual cross sections of small veins and the like. It is invaluable in oncology and diagnosis of many nerve and brain disesases like multiple sclerosis and alzheimers disease.
What I do remember is that it was also the hardest and most complicated medical physics module I studied. Very intersting, but applied quantum mechanics and fourier transforms made for a daunting combination.
Jonathan
renedox
Oct10-03, 06:28 AM
Personally, I enjoy mechanics because it has helped me many times in everyday life.
Medical Physics is what I'd like to read up/study a bit sometime but I think I'm more into the Physics that will be "seen"/used in everyday life. Every once too often, I will indulge in the Philosophical/Theoritical side of Physics but to be quite honest, haven't looked too deeply into the medical side of things. While I plan to, it doesn't seem quite as interesting to me. Maybe you can prove me wrong?
So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct10-03, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by renedox
(SNIP) So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer? (SNoP)
Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)
jonnylane
Oct10-03, 09:27 AM
No problem, it's a forum. Your opinion and knowledge is valued.
I ahve to agree with Mr. R.P, because ultimately that's right. Unfortunately there are many cancers for which this is not possible. A lot of cancer conditions are unrelated to lifestyle, and so some people are just unlucky.
As for the best treatment for cancer? I'm a physicist, not an oncology doctor, so I'm not in a position to answer that, especially since chemotherapy plays an important part in cancer treatment: this of course has nothing to do with medical physics.
It also depends on the type of cancer. There are several forms of radiotherapy, each having different pros and cons for different cancers in different parts of the body.
Unfortunatley, many patients receive radiotherapy with no hope of ever being cured; the treatment is simply prolonging life or pain management. These cases are always the hardest to work with because you know (and they know) that they do not have long to live. It's a matter of making them comfortable and maximising the time they have left.
On the other hand, you can be impaired by a patients wishes. Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us. She is only 20 years old, and refuses stright up to lose her hair. She went on an unusual course of chemotherapy to prevent hair loss, knowing it would make her sterile, which it did. She now has the choice (radiotherapy) of 95% survival with 80% hair loss, or certain death (within 15 years or so) with no hair loss. I'm not kidding. It's maddening to see things like that. A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.
Jonathan
renedox
Oct11-03, 06:15 AM
A life for a bunch of hair?! Thats rediculus.
There was this thing we learnt in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.
Gamma rays?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct11-03, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by renedox
There was this thing we learnt in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.
Gamma rays?
Know someone that that was performed upon, as experimentation, (Stereotactic was what it was called then) "cured" (rather stopped the growth, killed the tumor) the cancer, but left the person in, well, not the best of 'living' realities.
My Dad Died of cancer, lung then brain, and given that it is genetically based and very idiosyncratic, "curing" cancer seems a little bit of a misnomer as it is a part of the systems built in protection(s) just with an 'error' in place.
As for the hair part, did something like that when I was younger, twice actually, shaved my head bald to see if I had the strength of character to live like that, it was interesting.
Originally posted by jonnylane
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
Hi Jonathan. I'm wicked glad you brought this up. At the moment I'm trying to get into the field. I'm educated as a physicist and due to my recent bout with cancer I've been wanting to get into the field you're in. In particular I'd like to get into Radiological Oncology, but I'm flexible. I'm up for a position as a dosimetrist (waiting for second interview) and am crossing my fingers.
Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.
Pete
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)
Some cancers cannot be prevented. I have Leukemia and there is no known cause of all case (some are caused by radiation and others are caused by benzene exposure) of it and no way to prevent it from happening.
Chemo worked for me and bone marrow transplants work for others when coupled with chemo.
Pete
A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.
Geeze! That's pretty sad. I knew I was going to loose all my hair and was not fond of the idea at all. However when it started to fall out reall bad I just got a crew cut. It wasn't as bad as I thought I'd be to be honest. Then again I'm a guy. It's worse for women. But to trade that off for life is pretty silly.
In fact I think my worst mistake during the whole thing was not to get the crew cut right off the bat. Slowly loosing it and trying to hope to keep it was more painful than it was worth. Watching your hair fall out slowly is a horrible thing to have to go through. If a next time comes then off to the barber shop for that crew cut. Who knows? Maybe I'll dye my hair pink just for fun first.
Pmb
jonnylane
Oct13-03, 04:51 AM
Multi beam radiotherapy is in common use. You can use more than one beam to maximise the dose to the tumour and minimise the dose to other areas.
Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.
Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Pete. Glad to see some interest in the field, though I am amazed at how many responses Ive had to my initial post.
I take it from your location that you are from the USA. I'm from UK, so I dont know a great deal about your system over there (although I did apply for a PhD there at one point). Here in UK we have a postgraduate training scheme. Graduates with a degree in physics can apply, and the training consists of an intense 1 year MSc and 15 months hospital training in fields you choose.
I have taken a rather rocky route through the system (its a long story). My degree was in medical physics anyway, but I took up (unpaid) voluntary work experience for 3 months during my degree (over a summer) I learnt a lot, and I applied for the training scheme shortly after. The main thing was the experience, and of course getting to know people in the field and getting a reference. I now work in oncology/medical physics in radiotherapy.
The situation in this country is that there is a country wide shortage of physicsists who want to go into the medical side. I got my place and experience by applying to as many hospitals as possible. I was prepared to work for free, and I did. It was hard, but the experience, and that "foot in the door" was invaluable.
With it being such a small field, the phsyicists country wide oftern know each other through conferences and the like, so word gets passed around through the community. Within months of my work experience, people were writing to ME and asking me to work for them, even before I had finished my degree. I was very lucky.
So, good luck for the job. If you don't get it, don't worry. Start writing to a few hospitals in your area and tell them your situation. Tell them you have an interest and make sure they know your skills. There is always project work going on in medphys, and a helping hand is always very useful for any hospital. If (last resort) they tell you that they cant afford to take you on, and you can afford it and dont mind doing it, tell them you are willing to work for free or just travel expenses or something. As I said, working for 3 months for nothing was hard, but it was very valuable and worthwhile.
If you want any more information, especially about the radiation/radiotherapy side of things, just let me know. Best of luck with the job; let me know how it goes on:
johnathan.lane@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
Jonathan
renedox
Oct13-03, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by jonnylane
Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.
lol don't be angry you clicked the back button, be happy for it tells you that you are still human :)
And yes, I would like to know more about the multi-beam treatment. Somewhere in your explination, you could include the "scientific" or "actual" term for it? That is of course, if "multi-beam treatment" isn't its actual term. :D
jonnylane
Oct13-03, 05:57 AM
The term you are looking for is Conformal Beam Therapy (CBT). It was in the original post, but I omitted it in my (very!) condensed version of the explanation of using more than one beam.
The treatment is planned using complex software that models how the radiation passes through tissue and how it contributes to the total dose at any particular point. This information is turned into a sort of 3D contour map (isodosimetry curves), allowing the treatment planner to see which areas of the anatomy are receiving what doses; the aim being to maximse dose to the cancer and minimise the dose to healthy tissue, especially radiosensitive areas such as the spinal cord, the optic nerve and reproductives.
The contours can be altered by using various techniques, which include using a device known as a multi leafed collimator, allowing the alteration of the planar shape of the beam. The other main technique is the use of metal wedges to alter the beam profile e.g. to make the beam "stronger" at one side than the other. Beam shaping is very important and makes radiotherapy a very versitile tool in oncology.
Conformal beam therapy is commonly used these days; in fact, I know of few cases where a single beam is used. The technique, although complicated, saves a lot of damage to healty tissue.
Jonathan
eek. New email = havoc. Totally messed up my account here. Now have new user name, but the same avatar.
Whoops..
Originally posted by jonnylane
Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us.
That is incorrect. Hodgkin's disease, aka Hodgkin's lyphoma, is a cancer of the lymphatic system.
See
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/hodgkins#2
http://www.lymphomainfo.net/hodgkins/description.html
Pete
You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.
Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.[6)]
Originally posted by jono
You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.
Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.[6)]
We live and learn! :-)
Its very sad that the girl chose to try to save her hair. When I look back I can't believe that I was so worried about it. It was nothing. The only trauma is knowing you'll lose your hair. The actuallyt loosing of the hair isn't that bad. I got tired of my hair following out so I got a crew cut. It was nothing.
I can't believe that girl choose hair over health. Especially since it's so temporary. And now she's sterile? Very very very sad.
Here is something which I think is very true. Pass it on to those whom you meet who face fear during their fight with cancer
From --
http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.n sf/d50a617f5ac75ae085256856004f3afc/667caa5642a0eeff85256a55005e1462?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,fear
Courage is not the absence of fear, but is our personal assessmenet that something else is more important than fear which confronts us.
...
Courage is the determination to make the best effort of whatevery circumstances you find yourself in ... regardless of the cost.
C.C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
For those of you who get cancer in the future - pay the cost of temporarily losing your hair. The possible benifits far out weigh what will later appear to you as a very small sacrifice. Especially since your hair grows right back. The alternative is not worth it.
Pete
I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.
The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.
The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.
Jonathan
She's really going to die
May I suggest something? If you can - suggest that she visit the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Discussion Board. Maybe they can talk some sense into her.
She just goes to http://www.leukemia.org/ and clicks on "Discussion Boards"
Or she can call them and asl to talk to someone who has been in her situation. They have what's called a 1-to-1 program for this. Tell it to her nurses and maybe it might help.
Pete
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct14-03, 10:30 AM
At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.
That is very true. I was taken aback when I heard this and may have over reacted. I don't like to judge unless I've walked in their shoes. And I have never been a 20 year old girl with cancer.
And to be honest - I'm not 100% sure what I'd do if my AML came back. That is nasty stuff to go through and I'm not sure if I'd have that fight in me. I think I do but wouldn't know for sure unless it actually happened.
Pete
Yes, a very fair point.
For whatever reason, treatment can always be refused. It is, however, very unusual in a situation (such as this) where the treatment will invariably lead to total recovery.
It's difficult to conceive making such a decision without being faced with the situation oneself; a situation I have never found myself in.
The chemo/radiotherapy process is daunting and unpleasant. I feel for the patients that have to go through it.
I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.
http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.
http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?
Jonathan
Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.
Tell me - is it possible to get in to the medical physics field with just a BA?
Pete
I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)
I (being the only exception I know of), on the other hand, have a BSc and am a physicist, albeit a new one. I had some experience, and there is a staff shortage, so they made an exception. I am studying my MSc part time.
I was put on a probationary 6 week period (on pretty poor pay) to see if I was up to the job. I was deemed to be, so they offered me a proper salary and a fully funded MSc and a training period after that.
Basically, I have worked hard and have been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
Experience and higher education are important, but the hospitals in this country mainly look for evidence of interest and committment to the field.
Just try to get involved in things, read up on some medphys topics, learn the basics of how things work, and then you should be armed with knowledge and evidence of interest when it comes to approaching places about getting a job.
I've only just joined that forum as well: take a look at my recent post to see what I'm working on at the moment.
For any more advice, don't hesitate to ask. I'm glad to see people interested in what I consider to be a very worhwhile application of physics.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)
I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?
re - applications of physics to medicine
If I could do just one thing with physics in the medical field before I left this life then I'd like to find a way to do a bone marrow biopsy which does not give the patient such an enourmous amount of pain. That pain is one of the traumatizing things about fighting Leukemia. I never reached pain levels that high before this roller coaster started. And during a one year period I had to have 8 of them.
Any thoughts folks?
Pmb
Originally posted by pmb
I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?
You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Many are part time lecturers at universities as well.
Bone marrow biopsies are particularly unpleasant, as you mention. I also find lumbar punctures pretty awful.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Jonathan
That's interesting. It isn't like that in the US. But that's all titles. For example: To get a job as a dosimetrist here you need at least a BA/BS in physics. But the title of the job is not physicits but dosimetrist.
Did you know that Einstein didn't officially have his PhD when he published relativity and other stuff in 1905?
In fact the work which won him the Nobel prize is the work done before he had a PhD. Way to go Al!
Pete
A dosimetrist here is a specialist technician. Technicians are actualy known as MTO's, medical technical officers. You dont actaully need a BSc to be a MTO (although it helps); you can begin as an ATO (assisstant technical officer) and progress to MTO through experience.
Jonathan
I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?
Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.
Tell me - is it possible to get in to the medical physics field with just a BA?
Pete
It isn't easy to get a medical physics related job with a Bachelor's level degree. There just isn't very much demand for it aside from in the dosimetry and radiation therapy technician areas
Board certification in a medical physics field (diagnostic, therapy, nuclear medicine) by either the American Board of Radiology (http://www.theabr.org/) or American College of Medical Physics (http://www.acmp.org) currently requires a minimum of a Master's degree in one of the physical sciences (preferably Physics or some related Engineering discipline) and 3 years of experience in the field. In the near future it will also require completion of a CAMPEP (http://www.campep.org/) accredited medical physics residency program. Then you will be able to call yourself a medical physicist. As of 2001, certifications by either board have a 10 year limit, during which you are expected to obtain a certain number of continuing education credits of various forms in order to maintain certification.
There are similar requirements to become board certified to call yourself a health physicist too.
I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?
you should at least have most of the physics courses taken at the undergraduate level (mechanics, EM, thermo, modern physics, nuclear physics). You will need a good background in EM and circuitry. Plenty of math. Calculus (at least 2 years), linear algebra, statistics, differential equations.
Medical physicists typically end up being something of a jack of all trades, so they need to know a little bit about everything, and be able to quickly learn how to use lots of things.
That is my perspective on some of the things you will need.
reyg1080
Dec4-08, 09:32 PM
what are my chances of getting into a medical phyics masters program with a BS in Physics and Math minor???
mikemarino87
Feb15-09, 11:21 PM
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
hey i'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics.... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michael
turbo-1
Feb16-09, 02:43 AM
hey i'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics.... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michaelI used to work for an ophthalmic practice as a network administrator, and for some reason the doctors managing the practice took the attitude that if they had a problem with something that was high-tech (or beyond them anyway) they would pass it off to me. There are a lot of really pricey non-invasive surgical procedures that are done with lasers and when those lasers would start to drift out of calibration, sometimes they would ask me to re-calibrate them instead of getting a pro to come up from Boston. In the case of the big surgical lasers used for retinal procedures, I would just perform checks on the power draw, cycle time, etc. In the case of the smaller lasers that were used to zap stuff in the anterior portion of the eye, I would calibrate the converging aiming beams and ensure that the laser's power was directed at the aim-point. I'd make a target out of copy paper to track the calibration. Every actuation of the laser (at high enough power levels) resulted in a "snap" and a neat little hole in the target.
There are valuable positions in the medical field for engineers/technicians. You have to do some research to figure out where you might want to work. I gave my examples because laser surgery is a really high-billing field in ophthalmology and if the lasers crap out, the doctors running the practice freak out. They don't mind paying you $$$$ to fix the machines, because they are losing much more in receivables if they don't have their machines. Just a thought.
Edit: If you want to do this kind of stuff full-time, you'll have to hook up with the companies that manufacture and/or service surgical lasers, get very equipment-dependent training, and be prepared to be deployed (within reason) anywhere there is equipment that is malfunctioning. Working in support of ophthalmic surgery is a pretty secure field and pretty high-paying, in large part because maintaining a patient's vision is seen (by the insurance companies and by the general populace) as a very high priority.
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
1. There are lots of jobs available in medical physics to qualified personnel. Generally speaking a master's degree is the minimum needed to get into the field these days. Ideally, you want a Ph.D. from a CAMPEP-accredited program followed by a CAMPEP-accredited residency to be competative for the most desirable jobs. There is some talk about moving towards a "Doctor of Medical Physics" degree, but to my knowledge it has not yet been invoked.
2. The job title is "medical physicist."
3. http://www.campep.org/campeplstgrad.asp
4. Certification requirements vary and even if you don not require certification now, there is a good chance this could change of the next few years (ie. while you're getting your degree) so it's best to aim for certification with an organisation like the American Board of Radiology (ABR).
Does anyone here know anything about transitioning into medical physics from nuclear physics? I am finishing a PhD in experimental nuclear physics and recently became very interested in medical physics, specifically radiation oncology.
alexofander
Mar7-09, 06:31 AM
I'm currently in my third year of undergrad in the US looking to go on to grad school, but I'm not exactly sure what direction to go in. I've read this entire thread and found it very interesting. Is there a place to read articles about medical physics so that I could get a better idea of what medical physics entails?
Also, I looked for programs in the US and noticed that some are CAMPEP accredited and others aren't. If I go to a program that's not accredited will I not be able to find a job after I graduate?
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
hello sir,
i am c.p.bhatt, from india also working as medical physicist.
medical physics is a challenging field.
radiation treatment is name and game of precise and accuracy.
so medical physics has a important role in radiation treatment.
as this field is depending on advance treatment procedure so we also have to do more work on this so that we can be confident on our work.
nice to see you in this.
Does anyone here know anything about transitioning into medical physics from nuclear physics? I am finishing a PhD in experimental nuclear physics and recently became very interested in medical physics, specifically radiation oncology.
One of my colleagues did an M.Sc. in nuclear physics before pursuing a Ph.D. in medical physics and did quite well with the transition. These days it's becomming more and more difficult to get into the field if you don't have a graduate education that's specific to medical physics. The physics isn't so far different as is the context of application. I know of multiple cases where people with PhDs in other areas of physics have done a 2 year M.Sc. and then moved into residency positions. In some cases it is possible to get directly into a residency, but the bottom line is you are less competative compared to those with graduate degrees in medical physics.
I'm currently in my third year of undergrad in the US looking to go on to grad school, but I'm not exactly sure what direction to go in. I've read this entire thread and found it very interesting. Is there a place to read articles about medical physics so that I could get a better idea of what medical physics entails?
Also, I looked for programs in the US and noticed that some are CAMPEP accredited and others aren't. If I go to a program that's not accredited will I not be able to find a job after I graduate?
You might want to check out:
http://medicalphysicsweb.org/cws/home
With respect to CAMPEP accreditation, there is a move to make it so that in the near future you will need to come through a CAMPEP program in order to write your board exams. I don't know when or if this is going to come into effect. Essentially coming from a CAMPEP program makes you that much more competative in residency/job hunting, but you can still get a job if you graduate from a non-accredited program. Different employers place different weights on this.
So am I correct in this order of the education track for medical physics?
BS
MS/PhD
2-year residency
Employment
Also, does lack of college level chem or bio put a medical physics grad applicant at a significant disadvantage? I have a BS in physics but did not take any chem/bio in college.
And finally, I've read that this is a field that is fairly reliable for employment. Will most new medical physicists have to relocate, or is there a decent chance that you could find employment in this field in your given area (assuming you live in a major city)?
So am I correct in this order of the education track for medical physics?
BS
MS/PhD
2-year residency
Employment
Also, does lack of college level chem or bio put a medical physics grad applicant at a significant disadvantage? I have a BS in physics but did not take any chem/bio in college.
And finally, I've read that this is a field that is fairly reliable for employment. Will most new medical physicists have to relocate, or is there a decent chance that you could find employment in this field in your given area (assuming you live in a major city)?
The order is generally correct. Not everyone does it that way. Some people skip the residency, for example, although this is becoming less and less common. Others will fit some post-doctoral work in there. Between residency and 'employment' I would insert board exams.
Ideally you should take first year biology and chemistry, although this isn't necessarily a requirement for admission to most graduate medical physics programs. Some of the core components of medical physics such as radiobiology and radiation protection will draw on the basics, so if you don't have these, you will have some remedial work to do (although you can do it). First and foremost a medical physicist is a physicist.
The last question is a good one. In general, there is a significant demand for qualified medical physicists. For the forseeable future there will be work available. But you won't always get your pick of city - especially when you're first starting out. Not every center has a standing opening and you have to take your pick of what's available when you're finished your program. That beind said, there's no reason you can't eventually end up where you desire.
Freddy_Turnip
May11-09, 03:14 PM
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
yes tell me some
homonide
May24-09, 05:26 PM
i would love to know more about oportunities for graduate studies available in medical physics.i am an undergraduate physics student graduating this year from nigeria,i'm looking to do my Msc in a relatively "new" field.
Shooter2
May24-09, 09:35 PM
I have been reading this thread with great interest; thank you all for your valuable discussion. As an undergraduate, I am trying to best prepare myself for graduate studies in physics. I am currently leaning toward medical physics, but would like to leave my options open at this point in time. Which classes would be most helpful for my graduate study preparation, other than the traditional physics curriculum (which I will be graduating with a BS in)? Should I take math courses? If so, which ones? I have taken calc 1-3, differential equations, and will be taking linear algebra. Should I take introductory biology or chemistry? Should I take an electronics course? Thank you all for your feedback.
I have been reading this thread with great interest; thank you all for your valuable discussion. As an undergraduate, I am trying to best prepare myself for graduate studies in physics. I am currently leaning toward medical physics, but would like to leave my options open at this point in time. Which classes would be most helpful for my graduate study preparation, other than the traditional physics curriculum (which I will be graduating with a BS in)? Should I take math courses? If so, which ones? I have taken calc 1-3, differential equations, and will be taking linear algebra. Should I take introductory biology or chemistry? Should I take an electronics course? Thank you all for your feedback.
The courses in a traditional undergraduate physics curriculum are usually sufficient for admissions to a medical physics program, but I would look closely at the entry requirements for any graduate school you might be interested in. In general medical physics is very interdisciplinary: drawing not only on physics, but elements of medicine, engineering, biology and chemistry, so having a diverse background is to your advantage.
As for your specific questions: with respect to math, I would recommend a "mathematical methods for physicists" course that has applications to signal/image processing. Both first year biology and chemistry would be ideal to have, as they are important in understanding the radiobiological aspects of medical physics. Electronics would also be very useful. If it's available, you may also want to look into a basic anatomy and phyisiology course.
I am a second-year Ph.D. student in Electrical Engineering in US. I am also very interested in Medical Physics. I was told that the job market is quite saturated right now and it is difficult to find entry level job. If I have a Ph.D. of EE, is there any help for me to find a accredited medical physics program then find a job later on?
I am a second-year Ph.D. student in Electrical Engineering in US. I am also very interested in Medical Physics. I was told that the job market is quite saturated right now and it is difficult to find entry level job. If I have a Ph.D. of EE, is there any help for me to find a accredited medical physics program then find a job later on?
Entry-level positions are very competative these days, however, there is still a significant demand for qualified medical physicists and I don't see this going away any time soon.
In theory, you can cross over from EE into medical physics. However, you will not be as competative for residency positions as a graduate from an accredited medical physics program. So you may be able to find a job, but it likely won't be an ideal one (ie. you may end up having to move to a less-than-desirable location, there won't be any guarantee that you'll receive appropriate training, and you could even end up in a position where your responsibilities outweigh your qualifications).
One trend I've seen lately is people with Ph.D.s in other fields taking a 2 year M.Sc. in accredited medical physics programs. This essentially makes them as competative as Ph.D. med phys graduates.
Another option is to keep an eye on the AAPM job positings for post-doctoral positions. To attract top quality candidates to these positions, employers will sometimes be willing to balance post-doctoral research with part-time clinical training.
Entry-level positions are very competative these days, however, there is still a significant demand for qualified medical physicists and I don't see this going away any time soon.
In theory, you can cross over from EE into medical physics. However, you will not be as competative for residency positions as a graduate from an accredited medical physics program. So you may be able to find a job, but it likely won't be an ideal one (ie. you may end up having to move to a less-than-desirable location, there won't be any guarantee that you'll receive appropriate training, and you could even end up in a position where your responsibilities outweigh your qualifications).
One trend I've seen lately is people with Ph.D.s in other fields taking a 2 year M.Sc. in accredited medical physics programs. This essentially makes them as competative as Ph.D. med phys graduates.
Another option is to keep an eye on the AAPM job positings for post-doctoral positions. To attract top quality candidates to these positions, employers will sometimes be willing to balance post-doctoral research with part-time clinical training.
Thank you very much for your reply. It will be my honor that we can discuss through my email I sent you in the message too.
Does anyone know if Resident-Scientist programs for Medical Physics exist (for physicians in their residency)? How difficult would it be for a physician with no physics background to enter these programs?
Does anyone know if Resident-Scientist programs for Medical Physics exist (for physicians in their residency)? How difficult would it be for a physician with no physics background to enter these programs?
A medical physicist is a physicist and as such a background in physics is necessary for entry into the field. Usually, physicians with an interest in medical physics will pursue either radiation oncology or radiology. In known radiation oncology there is a research component to the residency at the facility I work in and many of the residents end up working rather closely with medical physicists. Beyond this, many radiation oncologists partake in a research fellowship for one year after the residency. So if one has the interest, the opportunities will be there.
Also, just for clarification, a 'medical physics residency' is not a medical residency. It encompasses the clinical component of medical physics training and entry-level work beyond graduate school.
Thanks Choppy. What I was referring to is that instead of doing an MD/PhD curriculum in medical school, some programs (Stanford, VCU) allow an MD to pursue a PhD during their medical residency (hence Resident Scientist), but are usually restricted to Molecular/Cellular Biology.
Also, just for clarification, a 'medical physics residency' is not a medical residency. It encompasses the clinical component of medical physics training and entry-level work beyond graduate school.
When you go to the job market, will the 2-year-residency account for the 2-year working experience?
Thanks Choppy. What I was referring to is that instead of doing an MD/PhD curriculum in medical school, some programs (Stanford, VCU) allow an MD to pursue a PhD during their medical residency (hence Resident Scientist), but are usually restricted to Molecular/Cellular Biology.
Yes, I don't know too much about these programs, but biology isn't too far of a jump from medicine - especially if one already has an undergraduate degree in the subject of interest. This kind of thing might be plausible if one has an undergraduate/graduate degree in physics, but I haven't heard of anyone doing it.
When you go to the job market, will the 2-year-residency account for the 2-year working experience?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, in a lot of ways a residency can be better than 2 years of work in a generic 'entry-level' position, because residencies are usually set up to expose the resident to as many different aspects of the field as possible, whereas some entry level work is essentially QA 24/7. (The down side is that residents typically are paid less).
Thank you very much for your reply, again. I also go to www.aapm.org, do you think it's possible for me to get a student account even if I am EE student? Thanks
Thank you very much for your reply, again. I also go to www.aapm.org, do you think it's possible for me to get a student account even if I am EE student? Thanks
I think so, but you'll have to check out their membership rules. From what I recall, you need a letter from your supervisor or department stating that you are indeed a registered student, but I don't think they're too picky about actual program content or title.
NeoDevin
Jun8-09, 11:46 AM
Go Me! I just got accepted to the MSc. Medical Physics program here (Univ. of Alberta).
Go Me! I just got accepted to the MSc. Medical Physics program here (Univ. of Alberta).
Congratulation NeoDevin, could you please share some details of your application? Thank you so much!
NeoDevin
Jun8-09, 10:42 PM
Congratulation NeoDevin, could you please share some details of your application? Thank you so much!
What details would you like? I filled out the application forms, got letters of reference from my past research supervisors, submitted my transcript and wrote a cover letter. Nothing terribly special, standard application procedure. They took their time with the admissions decisions though (only heard back from them a couple of weeks ago).
If you want to know anything specific, let me know and I'll post it.
Ian_Brooks
Jun18-09, 04:43 AM
alot of these posts coincide with nuclear medicine.
I think so, but you'll have to check out their membership rules. From what I recall, you need a letter from your supervisor or department stating that you are indeed a registered student, but I don't think they're too picky about actual program content or title.
Hi, Choppy, how are you these days? I asked one professor of Medical Physics at LSU, he replied me that I can direct apply the Medical Physics Residency if I have my PhD in EE. What do you think? Thank you.
Hi, Choppy, how are you these days? I asked one professor of Medical Physics at LSU, he replied me that I can direct apply the Medical Physics Residency if I have my PhD in EE. What do you think? Thank you.
There's no reason that you can't apply for a residency position with a PhD in a seperate, but related field. The issue that would come up would be that you wouldn't be as competative for the positions available as someone from an accredited medical physics graduate program (and residencies are quite competative to get into).
I know multiple graduate students who already have their PhDs, but have decided to enter a medical physics M.Sc. program because they wanted to get into the field, but weren't able to get hired on as residents or junior physicists anywhere.
A lot can depend on what's available at the time you graduate.
SonyAlmeida
Jun19-09, 01:35 PM
Couple of questions. I'm a senior undergrad.
- Is undergrad research that important? I don't really have any of it and will only have a very little bit before I start applying.
- How does the financial aid angle usually look for master's students?
- Is a master's sufficient to go straight for a residency?
Couple of questions. I'm a senior undergrad.
- Is undergrad research that important? I don't really have any of it and will only have a very little bit before I start applying.
- How does the financial aid angle usually look for master's students?
- Is a master's sufficient to go straight for a residency?
1. The more research experience you have, in general, the more competative you will be when applying, but it's not really necessary. Lots of students are accepted without it. I might recommend doing a senior thesis project if that's an option for you. That counts as research experience and more importantly it will likely lead to a good letter of recommendation.
2. This is highly dependent on the program. When I went through, I was supported by a teaching assistanceship and research stipend. But not all programs guarantee this for a master's student. In some places you can also get part-time work doing quality assurance, which is very valuable, not just from an immediate financial point of view, but it makes you more competative for residency positions.
3. Sufficient - yes. Especially in the US. In general, a Ph.D. will make you more competative, but this depends on the institution you want to work in.
SonyAlmeida
Jun21-09, 05:20 PM
Thanks. I've been really worried about my career lately, since I don't feel like I'm 'passionate' about physics even though I'm doing really well in the classes.
lovelife136
Aug31-09, 10:28 AM
I am a year 13 student in the UK. I am very interested in medical physics as I have until recently been planning on doing biochemistry at uni and heading for some pharmaceutical company. However, my AS results (despite being good, 3As and a B) have rather pushed me in the physics direction. I find the medical applications of other science subjects facinating and therefore think that medical physics would be a good destination to aim for. I am in the process to applying to unis through UCAS, at the moment im trying to write my personal statement. Would you recomend doing a pure physics degree with some optional modules of medical physics, or a degree that specialises more heavily on medical physics? I plan on doing an Msc. Any advice would be welcomed.
Thanks
alexgmcm
Aug31-09, 12:18 PM
I am a year 13 student in the UK. I am very interested in medical physics as I have until recently been planning on doing biochemistry at uni and heading for some pharmaceutical company. However, my AS results (despite being good, 3As and a B) have rather pushed me in the physics direction. I find the medical applications of other science subjects facinating and therefore think that medical physics would be a good destination to aim for. I am in the process to applying to unis through UCAS, at the moment im trying to write my personal statement. Would you recomend doing a pure physics degree with some optional modules of medical physics, or a degree that specialises more heavily on medical physics? I plan on doing an Msc. Any advice would be welcomed.
Thanks
These are the MSc degrees accredited by IPEM so it would probably be easier to study at these universities, http://www.ipem.org.uk/ipem_public/default.asp?id=998 there are lots of them as you can see with a whole range of UCAS grade offers, but with your grades I'd advise Surrey or Imperial etc. (i.e the decent ones)
LoveLife136,
I recommed doing a pure physics degree. Specializing too early can sometimes close more doors than it opens.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist. Sometimes 'medical physics' undergraduate programs can water down the physics side of things, limiting the number of traditional advanced physics classes such as E&M, quantum, stat mech, mathematical methods, etc., for survey-type courses that introduce topics that you'll cover in necessary detail once you get into graduate school. Not all programs do this, but it's just something to be aware of.
mushpuppy
Sep15-09, 02:04 PM
Hi LoveLife
I concur with the previous post - don't narrow your options too much as you can always specialise later. You should study what you are interested in & that will sustain your motivation, but remember that general physics topics are relevant to many areas, whereas studying specific areas narrows you down immediately.
If you choose to do an MPhys for example, that's 4 years including the Masters but you would need to do an accredited MSc in Medical Physics as part of your training anyway. So you either need to apply to the Universities which provide this or choose a good generic physics / physics with subspecialty (or less ideally, physics joint honours unless it's something along the lines of physics and maths) or else just choose a good BSc course at the place of your choice and go on a year earlier direct to focusing on an accredited MSc.
At this point you may not have work experience, but that's another good way to demonstrate commitment once you start applying for training posts. In the meantime, concentrate on finding a physics course in a uni that you feel is right for you - extracurricular, place, course, tutors...you want to keep your namesake attitude for sure.
all the best with your search
You guys are joking, right?
Differential equations for medical physics? Been in the program for a year and never saw one. Advanced EM? If you knew advanced EM you'd be able to one-up the professors. Graduate course work in physics? Almost unnecessary, and I'm in a Ph.d. program.
Obviously the people writing on this forum have no experience in medical physics and are basing their posts off of school homepages that boast the rigor of their programs.
For a realistic take on medical physics education at the graduate level, see posts here:
http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2466#p24320
You guys are joking, right?
Differential equations for medical physics? Been in the program for a year and never saw one. Advanced EM? If you knew advanced EM you'd be able to one-up the professors. Graduate course work in physics? Almost unnecessary, and I'm in a Ph.d. program.
Obviously the people writing on this forum have no experience in medical physics and are basing their posts off of school homepages that boast the rigor of their programs.
For a realistic take on medical physics education at the graduate level, see posts here:
http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2466#p24320
While you are probably right for some posts in this thread, Choppy actually works in medical physics if memory serves. Don't be so quick to dismiss and assume. Just because your experience is one way, does not mean everyone else's will.
While you are probably right for some posts in this thread, Choppy actually works in medical physics if memory serves. Don't be so quick to dismiss and assume. Just because your experience is one way, does not mean everyone else's will.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist? This makes me think he either doesn't work in medical physics, as claimed, or that he is covering for the fact that medical physicists are little more than over-glorified medical technicians.
This is, in fact, the great secret of medical physics. You don't need to know anything about medicine or physics.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist? This makes me think he either doesn't work in medical physics, as claimed, or that he is covering for the fact that medical physicists are little more than over-glorified medical technicians.
This is, in fact, the great secret of medical physics. You don't need to know anything about medicine or physics.
This makes me think this poster has yet to pass his or her qualification exam.
I think some people look at the first, basic courses in medical physics and form their opinion about the entire field based on those. They see for example some basic dosimetry calculations that use the inverse square law, some TMRs and a wedge factor and think that's all there is to the field. But that's like basing your opinion of astrophysics on a first year astronomy course.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
One of the problems my research group is interested in for example is combining a linear accelerator with an MRI unit. Try solving some of the RF issues that come up without any background in E&M. Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
What about medicine? To the physicist, a human being is just an irregularly shaped bag of water with a few heterogeneities, right? We don't ever have to account for tissue tolerances when checking treatment plans, or estimate dosimetric uncertainties based on patient motion, or assist physicians with contouring, or write up clinical protocols and procedures, or fuse anatomical images. In fact an argument could be made that medical physicists know more about anatomy and physiology than physicians in some medical disciplines.
I would close by saying that just because we aren't working on a neutrino oscillation problems, does not mean that medical physicists aren't doing physics.
I do worry because there are some medical physicists who hold similar opinions to this poster. These are largely the ones who have done the minimum required to get into the field, contribute little or no research, and who trust manufacturers of medical equipment to get it right and follow pre-defined check-lists for their QA without question.
That sound you hear is Harold Johns rolling in his grave.
And if you have any questions about my credentials, feel free to PM me.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
Solving engineering problems does not make you a physicist.
Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Electrical engineering is not physics.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
Radiobiology is not physics.
To the physicist, a human being is just an irregularly shaped bag of water with a few heterogeneities, right?
An unfortunately reductionist viewpoint of the human body.
We don't ever have to account for tissue tolerances when checking treatment plans, or estimate dosimetric uncertainties based on patient motion, or assist physicians with contouring, or write up clinical protocols and procedures, or fuse anatomical images.
None of which are physics.
In fact an argument could be made that medical physicists know more about anatomy and physiology than physicians in some medical disciplines.
This is a joke, right?
I would close by saying that just because we aren't working on a neutrino oscillation problems, does not mean that medical physicists aren't doing physics.
To which I would add: just because you are solving mathematical problems or doing research doesn't mean you *are* doing physics.
Andy Resnick
Sep17-09, 07:48 PM
Um, qball? Who are you to tell Choppy (or anyone else) that what they do is or is not physics? I didn't know you held claim to the subject.
Solving engineering problems does not make you a physicist.
Electrical engineering is not physics.
Radiobiology is not physics.
You must have a VERY narrow view of what physics is and what it means to be a physicist. Are you one of those types who believes that condensed matter physicists don't do physics either?
Engineering is a profession that directly derives from the application of physics to real world problems. (I mean, last I checked, engineers had to take some pretty rigorous physics classes. I know I'm getting older, but have things really changed that much?)
The question, maybe, is where one defines the border between physics and engineering. Whenever you have to explore the physics behind a problem to derive a solution, you're DOING physics. Yes engineers do this as a part of what they do. Physicists, professional ones anyway, are those who specialize in this process, often to the point of going so far as to formulate new theories and laws.
With respect to radiobiology not being physics, I suspect you're thinking along the lines of survival curves. You should look up the words "microdosimetry" and "nanodosimetry." Or better yet, try to figure out why it is Monte Carlo approaches to these calculations almost always use a medium of density-scaled water vapor rather than water.
None of which are physics.
In your rush to retort, you must have missed the spot where I was arguing these were aspects of medicine (radiation oncology specifically), not physics.
This is a joke, right?
Not at all. When you take someone who spends a career studying medical images, and compare him or her with someone who spent 4 years in medical school and then specialized in something like psychiatry I think the MD would have some pretty hearty competition.
Good luck on your quals.
Um, qball? Who are you to tell Choppy (or anyone else) that what they do is or is not physics? I didn't know you held claim to the subject.
Choppy can believe whatever he wants, but if he believes that electrical engineering is physics then he is wrong.
You must have a VERY narrow view of what physics is and what it means to be a physicist. Are you one of those types who believes that condensed matter physicists don't do physics either?
Engineering is a profession that directly derives from the application of physics to real world problems. (I mean, last I checked, engineers had to take some pretty rigorous physics classes. I know I'm getting older, but have things really changed that much?)
The question, maybe, is where one defines the border between physics and engineering. Whenever you have to explore the physics behind a problem to derive a solution, you're DOING physics. Yes engineers do this as a part of what they do. Physicists, professional ones anyway, are those who specialize in this process, often to the point of going so far as to formulate new theories and laws.
With respect to radiobiology not being physics, I suspect you're thinking along the lines of survival curves. You should look up the words "microdosimetry" and "nanodosimetry." Or better yet, try to figure out why it is Monte Carlo approaches to these calculations almost always use a medium of density-scaled water vapor rather than water.
In your rush to retort, you must have missed the spot where I was arguing these were aspects of medicine (radiation oncology specifically), not physics.
Not at all. When you take someone who spends a career studying medical images, and compare him or her with someone who spent 4 years in medical school and then specialized in something like psychiatry I think the MD would have some pretty hearty competition.
Good luck on your quals.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a purist. But by your definition pretty much any technical profession can be called a physics career. Let's be clear:
Physicists discover the laws of nature. Engineers apply them. Anytime you use existing physics to solve a problem you are not engaging in physics. There is no "often" in the definition. Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new. In that sense there is no "physics" in "medical physics."
If you think that solving problems is physics then you are operating with an undergraduate mindset.
If you want to include radiobiology under the heading of medicine, that's fine by me. My point is that you don't need to be a physicist to solve differential equations.
Monte Carlo calculations aren't physics either, by the way. Monte Carlo is a technique used to make predictions based on known laws of nature. You can't get any new physics out of Monte Carlo because you have to put all the physics you know *into* Monte Carlo. If there is a new law that's more than just a statistical property of the system you will not discover it with Monte Carlo.
Good luck on your quals.
I'm assuming this is your attempt to discredit me by making the community believe I've yet to pass the quals. Good luck playing that angle.
Let's be clear:
Physicists discover the laws of nature. Engineers apply them. Anytime you use existing physics to solve a problem you are not engaging in physics. There is no "often" in the definition. Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new. In that sense there is no "physics" in "medical physics."
Yes, you are definitely not a physicist if this is what you believe a physicist is. But try telling this to all those experimentalists out there trying to test theories with their experiments. Yeah... they are not doing physics. By your definition, one of the main goals of the largest physics collaboration on Earth is not physics. You know the LHC is just looking for the Higgs, which has theoretically been understood for some time now... definitely just applying existing physics to solve a problem.
And just to be clear...
Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new.
is laughable. You can talk to me after you have done a few years of research and tell me about all the new things you have discovered and have your name on them...
Yes, you are definitely not a physicist if this is what you believe a physicist is. But try telling this to all those experimentalists out there trying to test theories with their experiments. Yeah... they are not doing physics. By your definition, one of the main goals of the largest physics collaboration on Earth is not physics. You know the LHC is just looking for the Higgs, which has theoretically been understood for some time now... definitely just applying existing physics to solve a problem.
And just to be clear...
is laughable. You can talk to me after you have done a few years of research and tell me about all the new things you have discovered and have your name on them...
They are doing physics, because the Higgs may or may not exist. It doesn't matter if it's understood theoretically if it doesn't exist actually. This falls within the scope of my definition, because they are working to understand a part of nature that has never been understood before.
Contrast that with ANY branch of medical physics. In imaging research medical "physicists" work to improve existing medical imaging modalities by designing better detectors or better reconstruction techniques. This is applied math, or engineering, but it is not physics. In radiation oncology the main problem is to calculate the dose distribution better. In research you might come up with a new algorithm to do it, or run some Monte Carlo simulations, but in any case all the physics is known. There is nothing new here. The other major area that's growing in popularity is CAD, which involves only image processing and observer studies.
If you think that medical physics is physics then contrast what's happening presently in physics departments with what's going on in medical physics departments. If medical physicists are really doing physics, as you claim, you will find some overlap in the research because both would be working to uncover new physics. Except you don't find any overlap, because medical physicists are working to improve existing technologies, and physicists are looking for new and/or better descriptions of nature.
So in that sense you always discover something new if you are doing physics. Isn't that what the physics Ph.d. is all about -- making an original contribution to knowledge? My friends in physics are constantly testing the laws of nature, trying to figure out why things are the way they are. In medical physics you can make some novel phantom measurements and get your Ph.d.
I may not discover anything new, but then again I don't claim to be a physicist either.
There is a limited amount of useful information on medical physics available. Little has been written that is directed at the student. My goal is only that students interested in medical physics should have a realistic view of what the field is all about, and a realistic view is not given by the graduate colleges that offer degrees in medical physics.
I used to explain to my friends what I did in the lab, and they would say to me, "so why can't a technician just do that?" I was offended, but the more I would try to explain why a physics degree was necessary to do the work the more I realized there really was no good justification. My friends were of course correct in their assessment of the field, and it was I who was deceiving myself.
Andy Resnick
Sep17-09, 11:31 PM
Wow... I thought hard-line jihadists were confined to religion.
Just a few thoughts before I go to bed for the evening...
This has somehow drifted towards what is and what is not physics. I can't change your mind if you're going to walk around with your own personal definitions.
This discussion started out as a challenge about whether medical physicists need to understand graduate level physics. Simply put, I would not be able to perform my job without it. The same is true for my colleagues.
You argue that you are somehow looking out for students coming into this field by telling them they are essentially going to become "glorified technicians" and your posts would imply that they don't need to know any advanced physics (or even senior undergraduate physics for that matter). I don't see this as looking out for anyone because not only is it false, but it can lead new students into positions where they don't have the tools to pursue the career they want, or even worse place them in a position where they could do serious harm to someone if they slip through the cracks and manage to get into the profession.
Not to mention, as a person who spent the last year busting my hump to complete a residency, pass board exams, mentor students and carry on with a research program (all of which seemed to involve everyone else's definition of "doing" physics), being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
Just a few thoughts before I go to bed for the evening...
This has somehow drifted towards what is and what is not physics. I can't change your mind if you're going to walk around with your own personal definitions.
This discussion started out as a challenge about whether medical physicists need to understand graduate level physics. Simply put, I would not be able to perform my job without it. The same is true for my colleagues.
You argue that you are somehow looking out for students coming into this field by telling them they are essentially going to become "glorified technicians" and your posts would imply that they don't need to know any advanced physics (or even senior undergraduate physics for that matter). I don't see this as looking out for anyone because not only is it false, but it can lead new students into positions where they don't have the tools to pursue the career they want, or even worse place them in a position where they could do serious harm to someone if they slip through the cracks and manage to get into the profession.
Not to mention, as a person who spent the last year busting my hump to complete a residency, pass board exams, mentor students and carry on with a research program (all of which seemed to involve everyone else's definition of "doing" physics), being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
If you still think you are right, look at the graduate programs and see how many of them require graduate physics. I think the number of programs that require more than 2 or 3 courses is close to zero, and those courses are electives. Apparently the departments don't think it's important what physics students takes, no doubt because they won't be applying any of it.
You can believe what you want to believe, but you're still wrong. My medical physics department is populated by biology, chemistry, physics, and engineering students. All of them are doing quite well without any knowledge of graduate physics. That includes the professoriate, many of whom have degrees in pure medical physics with little graduate education in physics.
Think about what you're saying. If graduate physics were REALLY a requirement, wouldn't medical physics programs require a masters in physics instead of a bachelor's in physics, chemistry, engineering, or other related disciplines? And if it were really important, wouldn't graduate programs require students to take a full sequence of graduate level physics courses?
If you want to go with your all-encompassing definition of physics, be my guest. But you are bullshitting only yourself and maybe a few others who desperately want to believe they are physicists when they are not.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that under any circumstances in medical physics are graduate level QM, E&M, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory or classical mechanics applicable.
Also, don't worry about people "slipping through the cracks" and threatening the field. To prevent the encroachment of biomedical engineers into the field (and one can easily argue that they are at least if not more qualified for the field than a medical physicist), the ABR and AAPM are working hard to make physics degrees a requirement to take the board exams. Anyway, let the graduate programs decide who they think is qualified for their programs.
By the way, using Jackson as a paperweight for QA forms is not the same as using graduate physics in your day to day work...
Locrian
Sep18-09, 04:25 PM
being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
Certainly understandable. I (and likely others) have found the discussion interesting and have found your input valuable, so thanks for being willing to take the time to post.
If you still think you are right, look at the graduate programs and see how many of them require graduate physics. I think the number of programs that require more than 2 or 3 courses is close to zero, and those courses are electives. Apparently the departments don't think it's important what physics students takes, no doubt because they won't be applying any of it.
That's what you're basing your argument on?
All CAMPEP accredited programs have extrermely heavy courseloads in the first year. These are graduate level courses offered through departments of physics, engineering and medicine that cover radiation physics, nuclear physics, radiobiology, medical imaging, instrumentation, anatomy and physiology, etc. that require senior undergraduate physics (and mathematics) courses as prerequisites. Finishing these courses establishes a minimum level of didactic learning necessary to graduate with an MSc.
All programs that I'm familiar with require PhD students to complete additional coursework. Some explicitly require graduate quantum, or E&M or whatever (mine did), others will leave this to the discretion of the supervisory committee, hence leaving open options for a student to take, for example, a graduate electrical engineering course in signal processing.
Now here's the thing. The debate about whether or not to include "core" physics classes as part of the cirriculum came up from time to time at the institution I used to work at. (It doesn't at our current institution because the department director would laugh in your face if you suggested taking them out). The argument against these courses is based only on TIME, not futility. Medical physics graduate students are overloaded with courses in their first year, and one of the CAMPEP requirements is that it should be reasonable for a student to finish an MSc program in two years. At some point the students have to do research (although from what I understand there are programs moving away from even that idea).
If you want to go with your all-encompassing definition of physics, be my guest. But you are bullshitting only yourself and maybe a few others who desperately want to believe they are physicists when they are not.
From dictionary.com:
phys·i·cist (fĭz'ĭ-sĭst)
n. A scientist who specializes in physics.
From AIP:
http://www.aip.org/careersvc/pify/yellow.html
From Wikipedia:
A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics. Physicists study a wide range of physical phenomena in many branches of physics spanning all length scales: from sub-atomic particles of which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology).
From CAP: (requirements for professional designation as a physicist)
http://www.cap.ca/cert/req.asp
I would be glad to see some references supporting the 'qball' definition of physicist.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that under any circumstances in medical physics are graduate level QM, E&M, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory or classical mechanics applicable.
Something else that a lot of people only learn with time is that a field like medical physics isn't static. The technology in use now is not going to be the technology in use for the rest of one's career. We can train our new students very well in the technology we have, but no one can tell the future. The best means we have for preparing ourselves for the unknown is to hammer home the fundamentals.
Anyway, let the graduate programs decide who they think is qualified for their programs.
Yes. Let's. And while we're at it, let the senior physicists in medical physics departments decide who they think is qualified for their jobs..
From dictionary.com:
phys·i·cist (fĭz'ĭ-sĭst)
n. A scientist who specializes in physics.
From AIP:
http://www.aip.org/careersvc/pify/yellow.html
From Wikipedia:
A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics. Physicists study a wide range of physical phenomena in many branches of physics spanning all length scales: from sub-atomic particles of which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology).
From CAP: (requirements for professional designation as a physicist)
http://www.cap.ca/cert/req.asp
I would be glad to see some references supporting the 'qball' definition of physicist.
You just listed them. None of them say, "technician."
The CAP site is a ****ing joke, by the way. Be of good character? Hey, guess Feynman wasn't a physicist by YOUR definitions....
Something else that a lot of people only learn with time is that a field like medical physics isn't static. The technology in use now is not going to be the technology in use for the rest of one's career. We can train our new students very well in the technology we have, but no one can tell the future. The best means we have for preparing ourselves for the unknown is to hammer home the fundamentals.
Yes. Let's. And while we're at it, let the senior physicists in medical physics departments decide who they think is qualified for their jobs..
I didn't say you weren't qualified, I just said you weren't a physicist. I'm sure you're an excellent "medical physicist."
symbolipoint
Sep18-09, 09:39 PM
Would all the medical physicists reading this thread please tell your definitions of "medical physicist" and how your job conforms to the meaning/definition? I ask this after now reading the posts between Choppy and qball.
Some people seem to misinterpret the meaning of "technician". A technician might be albe to do and understand an unpredictable variety of specific things. The word, having only the most general of reliable definitions on its own, is very imprecise. I have seen job advertisements for "technician" with the stated educational qualifications fo PhD. Too, I've seen some "technician" job ads listing qualifications as "M.S. degree and 5 years experience". I really do not know how all this relates to medical physics, since I am not one, nor am I any physicist. Still, if any medical physicist is titled in his job as "Technician", he may very well have a bachelor's degree or higher. There is nothing bad about having elaborate technical skills and conceptual decision-making power while also functioning in a job as a technician. Along this line, a technician may also be either a scientist or an engineer.
Would all the medical physicists reading this thread please tell your definitions of "medical physicist" and how your job conforms to the meaning/definition? I ask this after now reading the posts between Choppy and qball.
Some people seem to misinterpret the meaning of "technician". A technician might be albe to do and understand an unpredictable variety of specific things. The word, having only the most general of reliable definitions on its own, is very imprecise. I have seen job advertisements for "technician" with the stated educational qualifications fo PhD. Too, I've seen some "technician" job ads listing qualifications as "M.S. degree and 5 years experience". I really do not know how all this relates to medical physics, since I am not one, nor am I any physicist. Still, if any medical physicist is titled in his job as "Technician", he may very well have a bachelor's degree or higher. There is nothing bad about having elaborate technical skills and conceptual decision-making power while also functioning in a job as a technician. Along this line, a technician may also be either a scientist or an engineer.
I am in medical physics, and my definition of a physicist doesn't include what I do.
HungryChemist
Oct9-09, 03:07 AM
Very interesting discussion. First of all, let's say both Choppy and qball is doing their best to represent their own personal views regarding the profession called 'medical physicist' and this is very educational and fulfilling the purpose of internet forum. So I thank you both. Hearing from Choppy, I can only guess he is up in the ladder of this medical physics community(pass the board and all, congrat!) while qball only began his carrier. Perhaps, the disagreement b/t them is only natural since they're in different stages of their carrier path.
I'm also a medical physics student at an well-known CAMPEP accredited program and I did finish a lot of didactic courses work while participating research actively. So let others hear my opinions regarding what's been discussed so far by Chubby and qball.
Regarding whether or not medical physicist is real physicist. In my personal opinion I must back qball in saying that medical physicist is not physicist (in academic sense) for the reasons qball stressed so much already. Now, I'm sure there are some great physicist working as a medical physicists (or used to be great physicist either by education or their previous work), but being a medical physicist doesn't automatically mean that you are a physicist (it's not backward compatible!).
Of course, everyone's definition of being physicist is little different. But I must say, making medical physicist a subset of physicist is almost equivalent to making TV repair technician a subset of electrical engineer. Heck, I could even call a high school kid taking physics class a physicist just because he's applying laws of physics to solve his physics problem? But it really doesn't matter what the two medical physicists (I reckon one's a student yet) here say on how they should call each other. What matters is what others think of medical physicist (again personal opinion).
Let's do some thought experiment. Can you imagine a typical physics department hiring a medical physicist (let's say someone who has Ph.d in medical physics from CAMPEP) to do any of typical physics research work that gets published in any of typical physics journals like physics reviews? I myself certainly can't. Can you imagine a typical physics department hiring a medical physicist to teach Quantum Mechanics class or even an general physics class? Again, I can't.
For all practical purpose, let's just call medical physicist a medical physicist and physicist a physicist and don't mix them up.( but if the physicians want to call us by physicist, we let them, just because physicist sounds much smarter than medical physicist).
Now, back to qball's comment about medical physicist just being "Glorious Tech". I think that was unfair call for all the medical physicists out there who strive to investigate and research to improve the clinical outcome and even advance the field of medicine as well as some of its involved engineering fields( EE, NE, and what not, but definitely not HEP). I can only infer qball meant the word for clinical physicist who is not involved in any type of research activity. But still, we should call them by clinical medical physicist.
I still strongly disagree. A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist.
In your thought experiment, you seem to have somehow equated "physics professor" with "physicist." I would agree that all physics professors are physicists, but I would not agree that all physicists are professors. Just because one doesn't teach quantum mechanics, doesn't mean one is not a physicist. (For the record, however, I could certainly imagine PhD graduates from the CAMPEP programs I am familiar with teaching at these levels if they chose to do so, based on having taken the same level of E&M and QM as every other PhD student in their physics departments and having passed qualifying/candidacy exams.)
Secondly, I don't understand what's practical about refusing to call yourself a physicist. If you don't want that title, then that's fine. But don't tell me that I can't use it and don't limit an ENTIRE PROFESSION because of it. Like qball, you're a student and you have limited scope of what it means to be a practicing physicist - even if you have taken some courses in a CAMPEP program.
One day, if you continue in medical physics, you're going to be working with radiation therapists and treatment planners. What makes you, as a medical physicist, different from them? The answer is your background in physics. If medical physicists ever forget that, our profession will disappear.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
One of the problems my research group is interested in for example is combining a linear accelerator with an MRI unit. Try solving some of the RF issues that come up without any background in E&M. Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
Choppy; I enjoy your posts. Could you give some more detailed examples from your work where you used trainning in mathematics or physics to solve the problem (an unusual problem where the trainning was useful)? I'm curious at what level a person needs to be in these areas to really be effective in the clinic.
HungryChemist
Oct11-09, 11:45 PM
In your thought experiment, you seem to have somehow equated "physics professor" with "physicist."
No, I didn't. I simply picked physics professor in my thought experiment because they are mostly physicist (you and I both agree to that one) As it is with any experiment, I simply chose one design over the other to test. I could have as well chose 'semi-conductor research lab looking for a physicist' which again, a person with didactic medical physics education/work background would not be (in general) a good candidate. (Now, don't go on and saying that you and others you know can definitely do semi conductor physics research, cuz I know, since I believe you, but I'm talking in general!)
I would agree that all physics professors are physicists, but I would not agree that all physicists are professors.
I did not said all physicists are professors. You can't disagree with me on the things that I did not claim.
Just because one doesn't teach quantum mechanics, doesn't mean one is not a physicist.
Again, I did not say that.
(For the record, however, I could certainly imagine PhD graduates from the CAMPEP programs I am familiar with teaching at these levels if they chose to do so, based on having taken the same level of E&M and QM as every other PhD student in their physics departments and having passed qualifying/candidacy exams.)
Again, let me remind you that most of existing CAMPEP program dose not require any of graduate level physics classes. Many of ABR approved physicists never had physics education at the level that is equivalent to graduate level physics degree. So, while I fully admit that you and your colleges can indeed teach physics courses at the graduate level and all, there are many fully qualified medical physicist(who are great at what they do) but who can't teach graduate level physics(myself included). And this is no way of degrading or looking down on any of the medical physicists who can't. I'm simply acknowledging that our professional training and education as a medical physicist is quiet different from that of typical physicists.
Secondly, I don't understand what's practical about refusing to call yourself a physicist.
Well, its practical because by calling different name for medical physicist, we acknowledge our training and skills are very special, and indeed unique from general physicists. For all practical purpose, this is why when radiation oncology department post their job opening to fill a clinical medical physicists they will (and should) say medical physicist wanted rather than physicists wanted. This not only eliminates some confusion to general physicists wondering about the job position, it also gives sense of special professionalism for medical physicists.
But don't tell me that I can't use it and don't limit an ENTIRE PROFESSION because of it.
Again, I did not say you CANT call yourself a physicist. Whether you're a physicist or not is not my concern. My concern was to whether or not the term medical physicist should be considered subset of physicists. And again, you make it sound like I'm against my own profession. I'm a medical physicist wanna be. That is why I'm spending significant youth of my life studying the didactic courses as well as actively participating research that might bring some benefit to the clinics. I'm proud of what I'm doing. As for you're claiming that I'm limiting my profession because I want 'medical physicist' to be called 'medical physicist' is nonsense. How is calling our profession by special name is limiting? By ensuring others to acknowledge us as a very specialized professionals called 'medical physicist' we're doing ourselves a favor. This way we can keep our professionalism intact from some rogue physicists who are not properly trained in medical physics to think that he can do what we do.
Like qball, you're a student and you have limited scope of what it means to be a practicing physicist - even if you have taken some courses in a CAMPEP program.
You may be right. Maybe one day, I will go to linac to prepare for my water phantom QA and find a new particle called 'medphy-trino' and become a particle physicist.
One day, if you continue in medical physics, you're going to be working with radiation therapists and treatment planners. What makes you, as a medical physicist, different from them? The answer is your background in physics. If medical physicists ever forget that, our profession will disappear.
Wow, so all my professors and fellow collegues who doesn't have that 'physics background' you claimed to have are not different from other professions you mentioned? Medical physicist job is different from other jobs you listed above because what medical physicist 'do' is different from others. Certainly not because you know more physics than them.
Choppy; I enjoy your posts. Could you give some more detailed examples from your work where you used trainning in mathematics or physics to solve the problem (an unusual problem where the trainning was useful)? I'm curious at what level a person needs to be in these areas to really be effective in the clinic.
Hi SbF5,
The most interesting problems are the ones that we tackle for research, or when have to introduce a new technology into the clinic. One of the first tasks I got involved in after finishing my graduate studies was developing an in-house Monte Carlo-based treatment planning and verification system. The nuts and bolts of that were largerly computer-science type stuff (like parallel computing optimization), but then I got into variance reduction and de-noising algorithms where courses like signal processing and mathematical methods helped considerably. This then served as a platform for a number of research investigations, where in some cases, even the formulation of the basic cross-sections cames into question.
It's hard to say exactly what one would "typically" encounter. Developing the kind of system I just mentioned isn't exactly typical in a smaller facility with only a few working physicists. But even these physicists could be asked to do things like develop an in-house monitor-unit calculator, or do some deformable image registration so that the oncologists can compare images from different modalities. Or they might need to figure out questions that come up when a new technology enters the clinic. Say for example, your facility is getting an X-band linac - is the RF generated by the machine the same as for an S-band - are there potential consqeuences for pacemaker patients? Or they might need to figure out why a properly calibrated well chamber consistently gives a low reading during brachytherapy seed QA.
The kinds of problems that come up clinically (especially those in smaller centres) are often discussed on medical physics list servers such as:
http://lists.wayne.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=medphys&A=1 (global)
http://lists.wayne.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=medphysusa&A=1 (USA)
Personally, I think students/residents should subscribe to these, but as a warning, on some days they can rather quickly fill up your inbox.
Thanks, I'll check those out.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.