"I Want To Do Theoretical Physics"
I see that statement surprisingly often enough on the Academic Guidance forum. I also hear this often whenever I talk to high school students who are interested in doing physics, or even new undergraduate students thinking of majoring in physics, I often ask what they would like to eventually go into. The response I get is of the type "I want to do theoretical physics". When I ask them what they mean by "theoretical physics", I often get a reply that to the effect that they want to study string theory, elementary particles, etc.. etc. In other words, to many of these people
theoretical physics = string theory, elementary particles, and that type.
This, of course, is a highly faulty understanding of what "theoretical physics" is. It is no different than this very poorly written "guide" on becoming a physicist.
For better or for worse, physics has many different fields of study. If you look at the various division of the APS, you will get a good overview of all the different areas of physics that currently covers most, if not all, of the professional physicists in the US. So these are the different types of physics that people are working on. But also note that, in many cases, a person could be working in more than one field of study, i.e. the work involves more than just one field.
Now, within each field, we have both experimental and theoretical areas, well, all except string, which has no experimentalists! :) So if you are working in, say, nuclear physics, you can be either an experimentalist, or a theorist. Even so-called "applied" field, such as condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, etc., you can have both theoretical and experimental work.
So what this means is that, if you say you want to do theoretical work, that's rather vague and puzzling, because, it means that you haven't made up your mind what area of physics you want to work in. That's similar to someone saying "oh, I want to do experimental work", and someone would then reply "yeah, but doing WHAT?" Now, it's OK if what you mean by saying such a thing is that you don't quite know what field you want to work in, just as long as you are doing theoretical work. If this is really what you intended, that's fine. But most of the people who claim that they want to do "theoretical physics" don't mean that. They have a very narrow view of what physics is, and more importantly, what "theoretical physics" is. I've seen a look of surprise when I told them that Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, John Bardeen, are all theorists in condensed matter physics (which is often thought to be an "applied" physics), and they all have won Nobel Prizes in physics!
I think this is one of the "myth" about physics (and about physicists) that I try to constantly smash to pieces. Physics isn't just the LHC, and physicists aren't just the Brian Greene's. It is also the iPods, the MRIs, etc.. etc. And for someone who still don't know that "theoretical physics" does not automatically mean what they think it means, it is highly advisable that they hold off on focusing on what they want to do before they have done sufficient "window shopping" to see what physics really is and what it has to offer. At some point, there need to be a dose of reality injected into a decision on what one wants to do.
Zz.
theoretical physics = string theory, elementary particles, and that type.
This, of course, is a highly faulty understanding of what "theoretical physics" is. It is no different than this very poorly written "guide" on becoming a physicist.
For better or for worse, physics has many different fields of study. If you look at the various division of the APS, you will get a good overview of all the different areas of physics that currently covers most, if not all, of the professional physicists in the US. So these are the different types of physics that people are working on. But also note that, in many cases, a person could be working in more than one field of study, i.e. the work involves more than just one field.
Now, within each field, we have both experimental and theoretical areas, well, all except string, which has no experimentalists! :) So if you are working in, say, nuclear physics, you can be either an experimentalist, or a theorist. Even so-called "applied" field, such as condensed matter physics, accelerator physics, etc., you can have both theoretical and experimental work.
So what this means is that, if you say you want to do theoretical work, that's rather vague and puzzling, because, it means that you haven't made up your mind what area of physics you want to work in. That's similar to someone saying "oh, I want to do experimental work", and someone would then reply "yeah, but doing WHAT?" Now, it's OK if what you mean by saying such a thing is that you don't quite know what field you want to work in, just as long as you are doing theoretical work. If this is really what you intended, that's fine. But most of the people who claim that they want to do "theoretical physics" don't mean that. They have a very narrow view of what physics is, and more importantly, what "theoretical physics" is. I've seen a look of surprise when I told them that Phil Anderson, Bob Laughlin, John Bardeen, are all theorists in condensed matter physics (which is often thought to be an "applied" physics), and they all have won Nobel Prizes in physics!
I think this is one of the "myth" about physics (and about physicists) that I try to constantly smash to pieces. Physics isn't just the LHC, and physicists aren't just the Brian Greene's. It is also the iPods, the MRIs, etc.. etc. And for someone who still don't know that "theoretical physics" does not automatically mean what they think it means, it is highly advisable that they hold off on focusing on what they want to do before they have done sufficient "window shopping" to see what physics really is and what it has to offer. At some point, there need to be a dose of reality injected into a decision on what one wants to do.
Zz.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
Hello ZapperZ,
I find your entry quite interesting as I think it is very similar to a thread that I started a long time ago, and you may have also read it.
I know I am not a Physics professor, but I know what Physics is. I have been learning Physics for three years, and in that three years, I learned by myself most of the time. However, I know the "dangerous aspect" of Physics compared to Math. I understand that in Physics, getting the right answer does NOT mean one understands a concept/formula/etc. fully. That is why I have to remind myself so many times to study from the very basic of Physics (motion, circular motion, fluid mechanics). You see that those are very basic topics of classical Physics? Gradually, I started an interesting in Quantum Physics and Astrophysics through popular science books. However, again, this is NOT the things I tell to scare people or to gain admiration. I have a serious attitude towards my interesting, and my Physics teacher, who knows me well, suggested me to study Theoretical Physics from tenth grade, even though I majored in Computing.
I know the extremely high level of Math required in Theoretical Physics as many Theoretical Physicists told me, I know Quantum Physics is crazy and Astrophysics is extraordinary. I know what lies ahead, but I also know I have something to do with them.
I am trying my best to be a Physicist, I am quite young and do not have much experience. If you want to give me a helping hand or give some advice, you can contact through my email (nbthanhhuyen@gmail.com). I would really appreciate that!
LovePhys,Posted Feb16-12 at 11:41 PM by LovePhys 
-
I agree, to some extent -- for some reason, "theoretical physicist" sounds way sexier right now than "experimentalist".
But I feel like it's also necessary to say, for some people, the choice between theory/experiment actually is more important than the actual subject matter. For me, I became an experimentalist because I wanted to learn to use equipment and "practical skills". I knew I wanted to do condensed matter, but that's about all I cared about in that respect. My friend wanted to do theory, because he wanted to continue learning higher math and physics, but again he didn't care much what the theory was in, he just liked the way the work would be.
While it may be a little frustrating to have these people be under a false impression, it doesn't seem like such a bad thing if it gets them doing physics. Someone's idea is gonna be warped so much in highschool, it doesn't really matter as long as they're interested. In undergrad, they'll get more educated but (at most schools) you still don't really have a choice to do research in theory or experiment (most schools give undergrads a silly experiment monkeywork job), and by the time you get to grad school you should actually have a good idea of what it is. So to me, it doesn't seem like such a horrible thing to let them think what they want to get them in. I doubt that many will be like "Heyyy...this isn't like Big Bang Theory at all!" and be really upset.Posted Aug5-12 at 09:59 AM by VortexLattice
