No Career with Physics: Is it True?

[giann_tee]

Dear all,
This fall I finished my favorite - physics college and all is bright. Although, I got an idea for early bragging about how bad it is :-) My professor of class methodology (how to lecture at school) says physics is for nothing. It has no use any longer except as a historical thing used to teach at school. Technology already accepted and used all things that physics has to offer, not including few leading edge innovations in just a few countries/places. I suspect he's an alcoholic and I don't foresee any global crisis including economic. Anyhow, if anyone wants to comment?

I'd like to say that I distinctively remember in the era of Maxwell that they claimed all that exists was already discovered in physics.

 

[Topher925]

Technology already accepted and used all things that physics has to offer, not including few leading edge innovations in just a few countries/places.

For the most part I believe this is true. With regards to current modern technology there really isn't a whole lot else that physics can do since most usable physical phenomenon has already been discovered and modeled. For example, we have just about hit the wall with semi-conductors, optics, and electromagnetism. Now is sort of the time of the engineer to take over and use these new found laws of physics to develop and improve technology.

That isn't to say that there still isn't work to be done. For example, sustainable fusion has yet to be accomplished, and there is still a lot of work to be done in photovoltaics. Physics is still a needed field of science, although I would agree with your professor that a lot of the research being performed today is completely useless.

 

[giann_tee]

For the most part I believe this is true. With regards to current modern technology there really isn't a whole lot else that physics can do since most usable physical phenomenon has already been discovered and modeled. For example, we have just about hit the wall with semi-conductors, optics, and electromagnetism. Now is sort of the time of the engineer to take over and use these new found laws of physics to develop and improve technology.

That isn't to say that there still isn't work to be done. For example, sustainable fusion has yet to be accomplished, and there is still a lot of work to be done in photovoltaics. Physics is still a needed field of science, although I would agree with your professor that a lot of the research being performed today is completely useless.

Well good, I'm pleased that I wrote such a bad post so I can correct it. For example, a good career in my opinion can be made by implementing mathematics via programming in Matlab for use in areas of statistics and analysis. It sounds smart eh? I can't get certified for that though. Still I think it is completely wrong what that man said. There is endless play to be done with simple elements. Its mathematically there.

 

[ZapperZ]

For the most part I believe this is true. With regards to current modern technology there really isn't a whole lot else that physics can do since most usable physical phenomenon has already been discovered and modeled. For example, we have just about hit the wall with semi-conductors, optics, and electromagnetism. Now is sort of the time of the engineer to take over and use these new found laws of physics to develop and improve technology.

That isn't to say that there still isn't work to be done. For example, sustainable fusion has yet to be accomplished, and there is still a lot of work to be done in photovoltaics. Physics is still a needed field of science, although I would agree with your professor that a lot of the research being performed today is completely useless.

Oh dear... have you looked into, say, Journal of Applied Physics lately?

I can rattle off quite a few things that are still at the physics research front that have direct impact on just the world of technology alone: spintronics, carbon nanotubes, graphene, 1D conductors, etc. I mean, have you even looked at this week's Nature, for example? What do you think is the implication of the ability to have a complete control of a quantum dot using optical pulses? These are not some esoteric exercises with no direct ramifications in terms of applications.

No agency will fund "useless" research. Try getting some money for doing that if you can. You simply cannot guarantee that every single line of pursuit will end up with something useful, but if you don't try it, you just don't know. So no one start off wanting to use useless research. Anyone who thinks that he/she can predict that such a line of research is "useless" should get out of physics and go work for the psychic hot line as a career.

Zz.

 

[Choppy]

This (the idea in the original post) sounds like the kind of talk that comes from a person who doesn't have any ideas of his or her own. As you already pointed out, people have been making similar claims for years. I'm sure there were students of Aristotle who believed they had discovered everything worth discovering and their function was simply going to be to pass that information on to the next generation.

 

[shoehorn]

Dear all,
This fall I finished my favorite - physics college and all is bright. Although, I got an idea for early bragging about how bad it is :-) My professor of class methodology (how to lecture at school) says physics is for nothing. It has no use any longer except as a historical thing used to teach at school. Technology already accepted and used all things that physics has to offer, not including few leading edge innovations in just a few countries/places. I suspect he's an alcoholic and I don't foresee any global crisis including economic. Anyhow, if anyone wants to comment?

What utter, execrable rubbish.

 

[mbisCool]

How can you even consider the research going on today as being useless...? There are so many technologies being researched with so many amazing possibilities for the future. Forgive me if i am wrong but I believe technology has been developing at an exponential rate not a diminishing one..

I think if anything, the potential for useful research and applications has only gotten ever greater as we discovery more and more physical phenomena

 

[Topher925]

Oh dear... have you looked into, say, Journal of Applied Physics lately?

I can rattle off quite a few things that are still at the physics research front that have direct impact on just the world of technology alone: spintronics, carbon nanotubes, graphene, 1D conductors, etc..

I guess I just have my own unique definition of physicist. I consider things such as nano-tubes and graphene to fall under material science and material engineering. I see physicists as people that discover the laws of nature, not use those laws in order to develop technology. But for example research such as combining Newtonian mechanics with special relativity or developing a big bang model: http://web.mit.edu/physics/research/areasofresearch/astrophysics/theoretical_astrophysics.html

Maybe I'm just arrogant but is research such as this going to help fix the energy crisis, cure diseases, or put a man on mars? I'm not saying pursuing such things should not be done, but how is it going to benefit society or in other words be "useful"?

 

[ZapperZ]

I guess I just have my own unique definition of physicist. I consider things such as nano-tubes and graphene to fall under material science and material engineering. I see physicists as people that discover the laws of nature, not use those laws in order to develop technology. But for example research such as combining Newtonian mechanics with special relativity or developing a big bang model: http://web.mit.edu/physics/research/areasofresearch/astrophysics/theoretical_astrophysics.html

Maybe I'm just arrogant but is research such as this going to help fix the energy crisis, cure diseases, or put a man on mars? I'm not saying pursuing such things should not be done, but how is it going to benefit society or in other words be "useful"?

Maybe you should look at the American Physical Society, and see that the LARGEST division there is the division of Condensed matter/material science! This means that the largest number of practicing physicist (and this ratio is consistent in Europe and Asia) are in the field of Condensed matter/material science! I'd like to see you tell Robert Laughlin, Phil Anderson, etc. that they are not really physicists (even though they won the Nobel Prize in physics) just because they don't work in some esoteric areas that YOU defined as being physics!

You have too many things left to learn. I suggest you go easy on your own "world view" till you learn a bit more, unless you are willing to look foolish.

Zz.

 

[flying fish]

Got to agree with Zapper. The company I work for does femtosecond laser micromachining and laser waveguide writing...There's some pretty hardcore condensed matter/mat sci related physics right there. There's a reason why almost half the employees are physicists.

 

[Topher925]

I'd like to see you tell Robert Laughlin, Phil Anderson, etc. that they are not really physicists (even though they won the Nobel Prize in physics) just because they don't work in some esoteric areas that YOU defined as being physics!

I never said they weren't. I just stated when I think of a physicist I think of a scientist that practices physics in its purest form such as Brogli or Heisenberg. Thats it. It doesn't mean it is suppose to be everyone else's definition and I only stated that so we are not considering the gray area where physicists, engineers, and chemist can all perform similar work. Following this logic, I think of topics such as special relativity, quantum chromodynamics, cosmology, etc. as topics only studied by physicists. These areas are not esoteric and I consider them to be an example of physics in its purest form.

So back to the topic. Carbon nano-tube technology and laser micro machining will involve scientists and engineers from almost all disciplines of science and not physics alone. The example I gave is work being done by physicists and only physicists. I know I'm arrogant and have a lot to learn, so can you tell me how can the example I gave be considered "useful" and those topics be researched under a non-academic career?

 

[ZapperZ]

I never said they weren't. I just stated when I think of a physicist I think of a scientist that practices physics in its purest form such as Brogli or Heisenberg. Thats it. It doesn't mean it is suppose to be everyone else's definition and I only stated that so we are not considering the gray area where physicists, engineers, and chemist can all perform similar work. Following this logic, I think of topics such as special relativity, quantum chromodynamics, cosmology, etc. as topics only studied by physicists. These areas are not esoteric and I consider them to be an example of physics in its purest form.

But this is silly and unnecessary. Why? Because you have no idea that what is being studied in, say, a magnetic spin system, can actually be of a FUNDAMENTAL value to our basic understanding of the universe. For example, the study of spontaneous broken symmetry is now VERY big in all of physics. They give Nobel Prize for those this year. Yet, look at one of the earliest pioneer of broken symmetry principle - Phil Anderson! He was studying some condensed matter system and formulated such theory that is now adopted in elementary particle, field theory, etc.

Another example? Look at where Peter Higgs got the idea for the Higgs mechanism! It was "hijacked" right out of Nambu's analogy of the BCS theory of superconductivity. Yes, from a condensed matter theory!

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/19750

Or would you like to hear about the Kondo effect in materials with magnetic impurities that exhibits the first example of "asymptotic freedom" BEFORE it was formulated for the quarks?

The imprint from the advances in condensed matter physics permeate all over physics, and it provides some of the most fundamental understanding of the universe as anything you can throw at. Just because you are not aware of it does not mean that it doesn't exist, and doesn't mean that it has the same level of fundamental understanding as all of those fields you mentioned. And I haven't even gotten yet to the idea of emergence phenomena that people like Anderson, Laughlin, David Pines, etc. are all proposing that in essence strikes down the philosophical idea of reductionism that is being sold as the "TOE". It goes straight to a different world view on how we should understand the world we live in.

If that is now important, fundamental stuff, than nothing is!

Zz.

 

[Topher925]

Well, I can't argue with that. But you still haven't really answered my question. I won't argue that a TOE isn't important, because it obviously is. However let's say that the Higgs Mechanism does actually exist and the founding of its existence is because of a condensed matter theory. Is this really going to change anything? Is it going to improve the quality of life for people around the world, or more realistically in a wealthy first world country? Will it give us the ability to achieve things that will define our existence as human beings other than gathering another piece of knowledge about the universe? These aren't rhetorical questions, I really don't know.

Again, how can a model of the big bang and relating Newtonian mechanics to SRT be considered useful?

It goes straight to a different world view on how we should understand the world we live in.

Is there a name for this? I would like to read about it.

 

[Modey3]

Got to agree with Zapper. The company I work for does femtosecond laser micromachining and laser waveguide writing...There's some pretty hardcore condensed matter/mat sci related physics right there. There's a reason why almost half the employees are physicists.

In order to do cutting edge research in Materials Science you need to be a physicist. However, condensed matter physics isn't a pure branch of physics like quantum mechanics. It's an area of applied physics. I think giann_tee's professor was trying to convey that we are at the point where there are no significant discovery's in the areas of pure-physics and that studying pure physics was a waste of time. I'm pretty sure that poor attitude towards pure physics was the alcohol talking.

modey3

 

[shoehorn]

While I'm at it, I'm surprised the mods have allowed this

I suspect he's an alcoholic...

to pass without any apparent comment. Statements like this achieve little else than to make you appear cretinous. Alcoholism is a serious illness and not one to be taken lightly. I suggest you try imagining what it's like to be an alcoholic before so casually throwing such airheaded remarks around.

 

[Hippo]

Over here we consider Material Scientist as Engineers, sometimes we just call them Material Engineers, that has a good knowledge of both Chemistry and Engineering fundamentals, not to say Physics doesn't play a major role in it. I know it does but it doesn't really require the super duper crazy physics as in people that are studying in Physics.

 

[Locrian]

It doesn't mean it is suppose to be everyone else's definition. . .

Just understand that your definition of physics cuts out 50-66% of the entire group of people who work in physics and call themselves physicists. Your definition of physics is the one people get from reading Brian Greene novels, not one that actually has any place in the discipline or any discussion of it.

The truth is almost nobody works on the stuff you call physics. As long as you understand you're using the word differently than most of the people who actually work in the field, I guess you can define it as you like.

People like Fert get their work trivialized by the media when they win the Nobel; somehow it gets boiled down into making a better ipod. Have you actually heard him speak? His work is real physics. It happens to be both deep and practical.

Also, everything Zz said.

 

[Topher925]

Your definition of physics is the one people get from reading Brian Greene novels, not one that actually has any place in the discipline or any discussion of it.

The truth is almost nobody works on the stuff you call physics. As long as you understand you're using the word differently than most of the people who actually work in the field, I guess you can define it as you like.

No, I'm using that definition subjectively for this thread alone. People do work on the things that I called physics, I posted examples of research being done at MIT. I know that physics covers a lot of areas including the ones ZZ mentioned, I wasn't born yesterday. However, given the context of the thread, I don't believe you should consider fields of science and research that are interdisciplinary. If you do, then technically you can not completely classify that field as physics even though physicists may be performing their work in it. The OP stated;

Technology already accepted and used all things that physics has to offer, not including few leading edge innovations in just a few countries/places.

He did not state;

Technology already accepted and used all things that material science, material engineering, quantum chemistry, applied mathematics, electrical engineering, chemistry, and nuclear engineering has to offer, not including few leading edge innovations in just a few countries/places.

 

[TMFKAN64]

The bottom line is that no one knows what bits of information will be useful in the future. That's why it's all important and it all needs to be protected and extended.

To think that you know otherwise is a clear sign of ignorance.

 

[ZapperZ]

In order to do cutting edge research in Materials Science you need to be a physicist. However, condensed matter physics isn't a pure branch of physics like quantum mechanics. It's an area of applied physics. I think giann_tee's professor was trying to convey that we are at the point where there are no significant discovery's in the areas of pure-physics and that studying pure physics was a waste of time. I'm pretty sure that poor attitude towards pure physics was the alcohol talking.

modey3

This is completely false. Superconductivity in the cuprates and now, the iron-arsenide compound is pure NEW physics. Fractional quantum hall effect is purely NEW physics. Spin-charge separation is purely NEW physics. Quantum spin liquid is purely NEW physics! Need I go on?

People seem to be equating "applied" with "not fundamental". I've already given pertinent examples to totally falsify such a notion. Each one of those produced a new physics that became a bedrock of many other physics. In fact, it is what attracted many people to the field. It has each feet in both aspects - application and basic knowledge of physics. Unlike high energy/astronomy/etc, we seldom have to SELL the importance of condensed matter as far as having practical implications. However, the bonus here being that we can also point out why it is also a study of basic knowledge since it deals with how "correlated systems" behave. There are no clearer demonstration of the basic validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity than from condensed matter experiments (read Carver Mead's article on collective electrodynamics if you don't believe me). And one can easily point to the fundamental concept of quantum phase transition. Where do you think quantum phase transition is manifested in the clearest form? At the Tevatron or some neutron star? Think again!

Furthermore, one should look at where the accepted values of "e" and "h" came from. As http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1998/laughlin-lecture.pdf" , once you point out that these values were derived out of condensed matter experiments, then the whole argument that condensed matter/emergent phenomena aren't fundamental goes moot.

Zz.

 

[jhigbie]

Zapper seems to be talking from the vantage point of the Big Time Physics Days when money was in plentiful supply (40 years ago). In 1997, the University of Queensland (Australia) effectively shut down its physics department and fired half the academic staff. They transitioned to a liberal arts university. And I think this trend will continue. There will still be bastions of raw pure physics, but the trend seems to be to incorporate physics directly into the disciplines which need and use it such as medicine, engineering, pharmacy, etc. It still exists, but in combination with other disciplines. In many places, the departments of physics per se are being swallowed up.

In the end, we will retain the things which are useful and support esoteric activities only so long as we can afford them.

 

[ZapperZ]

What "big time physics"?

Compare to high energy physics, condensed matter physics is done on the CHEAP! I've produced at least 3 papers done from an experiment that can fit inside a closet!

Zz.

 

[kodiakghost]

In the movie "Young Einstein" staring Yahoo Serious, Einstein tells his father, a rural Tazmanian farmer, that he wants to do physics...

Young Einstein: Dad. I've decided... I want to be a physacist!
Dad: What do they grow?
Young Einstein: Well they don't grow anything...
Dad: Well then what good are they?

Somehow I feel the rest of the world's perception is not far off from this.

 

[ZapperZ]

Somehow I feel the rest of the world's perception is not far off from this.

That is VERY true, and that's why when there's such a serious misconception going on in this forum, I feel obliged to correct it. People somehow think that "physics" means high energy, nuclear, string, astrophysics, etc. It isn't, especially when the LARGEST part of the physics community works in an area that have direct impact on our lives. To lump everything else to be "physics" without including condensed matter/material science is like using Hawaii and Alaska as the representative of the US and ignoring the rest of the contiguous states that make up the largest part of the US!

Zz.

 

[jhigbie]

In response to the comment that university physics research is meaningless, I will say that it doesn't need to be meaningful or ground-breaking. The entire purpose of university research is to teach future scientists how to perform research and the research topic is not all that important so long as they learn the methodology. So, don't be dismayed if your research topic appears to be *so what*, you can do meaningful research later in your career; maybe in an Applied Physics lab.

 

[Topher925]

People somehow think that "physics" means high energy, nuclear, string, astrophysics, etc.

Yes. Hence, my definition specifically for this thread. I think everyone on this forum knows that modern physics impacts our lives and will in the years to come. But someone such as a methodology professor may have never heard other branches of physics such as condensed matter/material science as main stream society paints the picture of black holes and Einstein being what physics is all about. Which is why I considered the statement from only his, I'm assuming layman, perspective. Do we really need to bring up the controversy over the LHC to remind us what most people think about physics and how that compares to what it actually is?

You can even take this step further and say that physicist is really no longer the correct term for many scientists. The lines between the main subjects of science are fading and things are becoming more gray. For example, ZZ stated "condensed matter/material science" indicating a hybrid of two different fields, not just physics alone. You also now have such things as biophysics, biomedical engineering, electromechanics, etc. The research I do (if you can even call it that) involves a lot of chemistry and material science even though my degree is in ME.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes. Hence, my definition specifically for this thread.

But it doesn't mean that it is RIGHT! I mean, think about it! You're excluding the LARGEST part of the physics community! How accurate do you think is your revised definition when a significant part of your "data" has been excluded?

I think everyone on this forum knows that modern physics impacts our lives and will in the years to come. But someone such as a methodology professor may have never heard other branches of physics such as condensed matter/material science as main stream society paints the picture of black holes and Einstein being what physics is all about.

Just because they based their information on ignorance doesn't mean that it is valid! That is why it needs to be corrected and people needs to be educated! Yet, what you are doing is to PROMOTE such ignorance and give it validity. Do you think this is a wise thing to do? What's next? Validate pseudoscience just because more than half of the population believe in such a thing? That's absurd!

Ignorance is not an excuse to dumb down the accuracy of something. It never is!

Zz.

 

[Topher925]

But it doesn't mean that it is RIGHT!

But it doesn't make it wrong either. I only considered the people that I believe he was referring to. That being mostly the astrophysicists, relativists, and hard core theorists, in which case I think most of their research is "useless" (don't read as pointless). As jhigbie pointed out, most institutions that supported this type of "useless" research are now becoming scarce because there isn't really any place for it in today's world. If he would have said "all forms of modern physics" then yes I would definitely disagree with him.

 

[Modey3]

This is completely false. Superconductivity in the cuprates and now, the iron-arsenide compound is pure NEW physics. Fractional quantum hall effect is purely NEW physics. Spin-charge separation is purely NEW physics. Quantum spin liquid is purely NEW physics! Need I go on?
Zz.

I'm not trying to argue against doing fundamental research. I was just playing devils advocate.

I've always considered condensed matter phys to be a non-pure physics since it uses ideas from all the other branches. Every area of research has fundamentals. Applied areas such condensed matter phys and mechanical engineering also have their own fundamentals pertinent to the field of study.

modey3

 

[ZapperZ]

But it doesn't make it wrong either. I only considered the people that I believe he was referring to. That being mostly the astrophysicists, relativists, and hard core theorists, in which case I think most of their research is "useless" (don't read as pointless). As jhigbie pointed out, most institutions that supported this type of "useless" research are now becoming scarce because there isn't really any place for it in today's world. If he would have said "all forms of modern physics" then yes I would definitely disagree with him.

I highly disagree that you have the ability to predict the usefulness or uselessness of anything we do now. If you do, then maybe you're confusing your physics with your psychic. No one could have predicted the usefulness of SR and QM when they first were formulated. Could you?

Astrophysics going away? I don't think so. Considering the emergence of particle astrophysics in many institutions, I'd say it is alive and doing quite well. Furthermore, and this is another example of how I say that you can't predict the usefulness of anything in physics, look at how our knowledge of particle and astrophysics may actually come into play in using neutrinos to study the inside of our earth. Look at the http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~sdye/hanohano.html" if you don't believe me.

Anyone who thinks that he/she knows which parts of physics are useless and which aren't are deluding him/herself.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm not trying to argue against doing fundamental research. I was just playing devils advocate.

I've always considered condensed matter phys to be a non-pure physics since it uses ideas from all the other branches. Every area of research has fundamentals. Applied areas such condensed matter phys and mechanical engineering also have their own fundamentals pertinent to the field of study.

modey3

What I mean as "fundamental" is that it affects PHYSICS itself, and that its ideas actually can influence what goes on in field theory, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. This is amply demonstrated in many of the phenomena that I've mentioned already. So it isn't just "applied"!

Furthermore, if Laughlin-Anderson-et al. are true, it may also affect the way we view our world, whereby ALL of the so-called fundamental particles are nothing more than vacuum excitations out of some many-body interactions (see Laughlin's article). This means that the principle that is central in condensed matter physics IS the dominant "rule" of our universe itself! It cannot get more fundamental than that! So it goes to the core understanding on how we should view our universe itself!

Zz.

 

[giann_tee]

Due to monopoly on waste disposal and recycling, mafia in Italy earns 16 billion euros a year. I however come from the other side of Adriatic sea where I am now considering the garbage industry as my preferred business. (Or holistic detective agency).

People seem to be equating "applied" with "not fundamental".

When I was writing the graduation work (major) professors pushed me into that kind of dilemmas. Their criticism was that the allowed way of writing is sticking to the "fundamental" physics. Oddly, I wrote 150 pages about ice ages in a year without much consulting. I wanted to smuggle in the opportunity to read and write about chaos theory in fact. The crime instead was that we are not allowed to create works that are like books, textbooks or works that process complex issues. All "papers" must be narrow in topic. The solution was that I was allowed to write that topic as a part of Astronomy (aha! complex science). The only important content for discussion was Fourier analysis.

The culture of working with something defined as fundamental is well established matter in college. It persists through their own fierce talks and debates among the stuff, but more importantly I notice that the fundamental areas of physics provide a sense of simplicity and beauty. Empirical, complex and applied papers don't seem to match so well the enjoyment of younger students and professors - or maybe I have the wrong picture in my head.
Advanced papers are plentiful, hard, quote too many articles, they simply look bad and in continuation its hard to publish anything wider or much different on the new frontiers.

Condensed matter physics has arrived with steam and funds, as far as I know. Personally, I don't like that area. Quantum mechanics is generating too big and ugly complexity contained in theories of condensed matter. Also, people say that usually very few people work efficiently to become problem solvers.

At the time of learning the topic of ice ages, there were two questions I made. The wrong question is what moves the climate. Its wrong because if I take a look at the climate record I don't know if that record is like a recording-tape that was taped over with some small periodical influence on the climate. The good question is: what is it there on the climate record. In this way there is much less work to write about... At different scales of time and space different physical phenomena become important. Over some range then questions shift. In analogy I believe that it is the same shift when it comes to quality of education and how it can relate to business. Proclaim one question less important and another one better. If being a student would complicate matters more, the definition of physics and the choice of career would arrive more easily, I should say.

Cosmology still can not print out the final reasons why that ought to explain nature. The science still goes on, classes too. Academia would be reminded through learning cosmology that they aren't REALLY working with fundamental. Loving some topic, beauty, time, rationality are a major role although they back off due to social or partially economic availability.

I don't like the end of my college because it certifies we are all jackasses again just like before. I like the pleasurable sensation of working something inside the atmosphere of personal education. My conclusion is that studies should be complex and extend to surrounding activities. :-)

 

[ZapperZ]

When I was writing the graduation work (major) professors pushed me into that kind of dilemmas. Their criticism was that desirable, customary way of writing is sticking to the "fundamental" physics. Oddly, I wrote 150 pages about ice ages in a year without much consulting. I wanted to smuggle in the opportunity to read and write about chaos theory in fact. The crime instead was that we are not allowed to create works that are books, textbook or that process complex issues. All "papers" must be narrow in topic. The solution was that I was allowed to write for the subject "geophysics" as part of Astronomy (aha! complex science). The only important content for discussion was Fourier analysis.

The culture of working with something defined as fundamental is filtered with fierce talks and debates among the stuff, but more importantly I notice that the fundamental areas of physics provide a sense of simplicity and beauty. Empirical, complex and applied papers don't seem to match so well the enjoyment of younger students - or maybe I have the wrong picture in my head.

Condensed matter physics has arrived with steam and funds, as far as I know. Personally, I don't like it. Quantum mechanics is generating too big and ugly complexity contained in theories of condensed matter. Also, people say that despite intelligence which is widespread usually very few people work efficiently to such extent that they are the new problem solvers (plus their age & experience).

At the time of learning the topic of ice ages, there were two questions I made. The wrong question is what moves the climate? Its wrong because if I take a look at the climate record I don't know if that record as a recording-tape has taped over some small periodical influence. The good question is: what is it there on the climate record. In this way there is much less work to write about... At different scales of time and space different physical phenomena become important. Over some range questions shift, therefore I think it is the same shift when it comes to quality of education and how it can relate to business. Proclaim one question less important another one better.

Cosmology still can not print out the final reasons why and the science still goes on, classes too. I don't like the end of college because it certifies the street life, the idea that we are the same. I like the pleasurable sensation of working something inside the atmosphere of education. My conclusion is that studies should be complex. :-)

Your post is, in itself, complex and confusing.

You said that studies should be complex, yet you don't like condensed matter (I doubt you even know what condensed matter really is). This is strange because condensed matter DEALS with complexity, because it deals with the many-body interactions that are the most common interactions we observe every single day.

My aim here is NOT to make you or anyone else "like" it. I really don't care if someone likes CM or not. Liking something is such a subjective argument. I don't like your favorite color either. However, but I do want to do is to get rid of this misconception that "physics" is predominantly an esoteric, "useless", and irrelevant subject. It isn't! String theory, high energy physics, quantum gravity, etc. do not even make the largest part of what practicing physics community do!

Here are two things to consider:

(1) Open Phys. Rev. Lett. You will see that the subject of condensed matter not only has the largest number of publications in each issue, it is also the ONLY subject area that has TWO different sections, while other subject areas either have just ONE, or are combined with other subject matter.

(2) Look at all the different volumes of the Physical Review journals (A, B, C, D, and E). Now look at the number of publications in each of these journals. You'll notice one peculiar thing. While all the journals come out with one volume per month, Phys. Rev. B not only comes out with 2 volumes at the first of the month, but it also comes out with ANOTHER 2 volumes at the 15th of the month, a total of four different volumes of very thick journals each month! And I give you one guess on what subject matter is covered in Phys. Rev. B.

Moral of the story: condensed matter/material science subject matter is a HUGE and significant part of physics and the physics community. It can't be ignored and trivialized. It is not a coincidence that when the APS celebrated its Centennial celebration in 1999, that it decided to do its biggest celebration during the APS March Meeting when the Division of Condensed Matter Physics meets.

Zz.

 

[G01]

People seem to be equating "applied" with "not fundamental". I've already given pertinent examples to totally falsify such a notion. Each one of those produced a new physics that became a bedrock of many other physics. In fact, it is what attracted many people to the field. It has each feet in both aspects - application and basic knowledge of physics. Unlike high energy/astronomy/etc, we seldom have to SELL the importance of condensed matter as far as having practical implications. However, the bonus here being that we can also point out why it is also a study of basic knowledge since it deals with how "correlated systems" behave. There are no clearer demonstration of the basic validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity than from condensed matter experiments (read Carver Mead's article on collective electrodynamics if you don't believe me). And one can easily point to the fundamental concept of quantum phase transition. Where do you think quantum phase transition is manifested in the clearest form? At the Tevatron or some neutron star? Think again!

I would like to chime in and add my own two cents. I agree with Zapperz. It seems that if some physics is applied, people want to call it something other than physics?! Why is this? I think it stems from this false belief that physics can't be applied and that it doesn't relate to the real world. (I blame the history channel and string theory.) This is completely untrue. Even when presented with physics research that is applied and experimental, some people just say that it isn't "real" physics.

Spintronics research, research into experimental quantum computation, research on low dimensional electron systems, research into superfluids, high Tc superconductors.

Someone explain to me how any of these topics are not "real physics" even though they are based on physics theories and principles like quantum mechanics (spintronics) or help to fundamentally explain novel physical systems (low dimensional systems, superfluids, superconductors).

Yes, you may need some knowledge of of chemistry or materials to do research in these areas, but that doesn't mean it isn't physics! You need knowledge of atomic physics to explain the light spectrum from stars, but it doesn't mean that astrophysics is a subset of quantum mechanics!

Physics is, in the end, experimental. All sciences are. The theory is important, but no science is completely theoretical. All sciences, including physics must apply to the real world by definition. As the above mentioned research topics show, physics research can be applied, experimental, and fundamental all at the same time.

 

[cubeleg]

I add my two cents. From wikpedia

Physics (Greek: physis - φύσις) is the science of matter[1] and its motion.[2] It is the science that seeks to understand very basic concepts such as force, energy, mass, and charge. More completely, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world around us and, more broadly, the universe, behaves.[3][4] Note that the term 'universe' is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term 'universe' may also be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting concepts such as the cosmos, the world, and nature.

I have bolded which I think is important for the discussion. In my opinion the division of physics in applied and fundamental is arbitrary, all physicists are interested in explaining some physical event, if it is useful or not is another thing. I think that the discussion about the aim of physics could be fruitful, but this thread is not about that.

I've always considered condensed matter phys to be a non-pure physics since it uses ideas from all the other branches.

This is a bit unfair. But even if it were true, that thing is not bad, taking other points of view of others fields is sometimes the best that you can do to understand something.

About the first post, I would say to that professor that maybe he should look at a new computer and think about the differences between an old one, for example in the hard drive.