What is the role of funding in the field of astrophysics?

[Bear-bear]

Hello, I'm a high school senior from Ontario Canada and I think I want to become an astrophysicist. My career's class said I should be an astronomer or an agronomist because I'm not very social, so I upgraded that to astrophysicist. I'm just wondering what astrophysicists do to become an astrophysicist, and what they do every day on the job. Know any helpful articles I can read?

Note: I'm still working on understanding how universities work, but I think I want a doctorate in astrophysics.

 

[eri]

Not being social can really hurt you in research fields - no person is an island. You need to work with collaborators, possibly students, other researchers. You need to give talks at conferences and interview well if you want a job. Social skills are very useful, and most scientists have them. If the reason you're considering astronomy is because you don't want to interact with people, forget it - not to mention that's a really bad reason to go into the field, considering how few jobs there are even if you do have a PhD. If you're not very passionate about astronomy, it's not worth it.

What do we do? Well, you'd start with a physics major and classes in astronomy, math, and computer science (and everything else). Grad school is another 4-8 years of advanced physics and learning how to do original research, which hopefully you'll like because you need to do that for most of the jobs in the field. Then you'd spend 3+ years in a post-doc position if you want a shot at an academic job of some sort, or you'd leave the field to get an unrelated job because there aren't enough academic jobs for everyone.

Astrophysicists study the universe and pretty much everything in it that doesn't fall under biology instead (there's a lot of chemistry in some fields of astrophysics). It can be a very fun and rewarding job - if you really, really love it.

 

[Bear-bear]

What do we do? Well, you'd start with a physics major and classes in astronomy, math, and computer science (and everything else). Grad school is another 4-8 years of advanced physics and learning how to do original research, which hopefully you'll like because you need to do that for most of the jobs in the field. Then you'd spend 3+ years in a post-doc position if you want a shot at an academic job of some sort, or you'd leave the field to get an unrelated job because there aren't enough academic jobs for everyone.

Astrophysicists study the universe and pretty much everything in it that doesn't fall under biology instead (there's a lot of chemistry in some fields of astrophysics). It can be a very fun and rewarding job - if you really, really love it.

1. About school: I want to go to the University of Toronto to get my bachelors degree. I'm thinking I'm going to take the astronomy and physics specialist program. Link: http://www.artsandscience.utoronto.ca/ofr/calendar/prg_ast.htm#programs [The one at the bottom (not the major or minor program)]. So my first year is all about physics and such, and I think I'm also supposed to take chemistry and whatever else I need to graduate and then just continue with the astronomy and physics specialist program. Is that how it works?

Just to check my understanding now that I've finished reading:
So I need 40 half classes to get a bachelors of science? and the specialist program has 28 half classes. So this means I also need like 12 other half courses that I just pick whatever I want for? (this probably includes other mandatory credits?)

2. What is meant by Astrophysicists "Study" the universe? How? For example if I were to become a researcher (which I think I need a PhD for) I would probably have to specialize in something after I get my bachelors and then I research its properties or something?

Sorry about being so confusing, my thoughts are very scrambled.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Do you actually want to be an astrophysicist? Do you want to do numerical analysis, computer simulations and telescope observations? Or do you want to be an astrophysicist because you were told that's what suits your personality the best? I was in that same class and was told that I should become an M.D and I absolutely dislike Medicine except for certain branches of biophysics. Do research. I thought that I wanted to be a theoretical physicist and get into areas such as Quantum Gravity but ultimately discovered that it would be a waste of time. So I decided that once I complete a physics undergraduate degree I want to get into something more applicable, productive and is in greater demand. Condensed Matter Physicists meet all of these qualities.

 

[Bear-bear]

I'm trying to figure out what they do before I decide if I want to become one completely or not, but it is definitely my main career objective. I couldn't be a doctor either because I'm squeamish and sick people make me laugh. Other jobs are just really unappealing, for example business and law and too "dirty" for me. I want to pursue something academic and futuristic, which I what space says to me. I love space! I dislike the earth. I took Earth and space science and I only liked half the semester (lol). Chemistry these days is too small and I'd rather look at the bigger picture. Environmental/biology jobs are too depressing and engineering is a possibility, but I like astronomy better. Another thing I love about space is the artistic elements involved and the beauty of the universe (My msn display pic is a quasar :D). I do like space, and I was hoping I could work more independently on my research and stuff, but a good, productive team would also be acceptable (I dislike slackers).

Atm, I'm not exactly astronaut material ;D so astrophysics seems like the job for me :uhh:

Edit: And yeah, I'm sure next year I'll have a better point of view on my future, at the moment though I'm just trying to pick a starting goal. I may change my mind in the future. Astrophysics just seems to fit everything I like at the moment: Math, physics, and art! ... and sometimes chem and bio.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

You won't be an astronaut because you need intensive training also you must have a status in the military, unless you plan on doing that. I'm sorry if this sounds mean but your perspective on astrophysics seems slightly naive. I'm not completely sure, but what use does an astrophysicist have to the world? I'd imagine it to be very difficult to find a job even after graduate studies. But of course, you can work at NASA and the like. Also, don't be driven to study astrophysics because of the magnificent pictures Hubble takes, yes it does illustrate the absolute beauty and awe of the universe but doesn't really reflect what it is to be an astrophysicist. Astrophysics requires one to be very good in math, physics, and programming. I'm not asking you to reconsider your decision but to just to better inform yourself.

 

[Bear-bear]

Hence the title of my thread :)
ps. the astronaut thing was a joke. I want to sit in front of a telescope and plot the course of asteroids to see if they'll hit earth, or help to finish mapping where the deep space objects are in the sky. The artistic part is a bonus, but I am very concerned about the job availability, I don't think it matters though because if I like what it is I'll do really well at it and then have a better chance at someone hiring me.

Anywho, what do astrophysicists do? articles anyone?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

You could be a telescope salesman!

I had a Summer job working in theoretical astrophysics. What I did was programming. I typed in physics equations to calculate how many atoms of specific kinds there were at certain altitudes within the Sun. And compared the results with observations made by another team (experimentalists). The general goal here was to make the model and the observations fit together, and tweak either as needed. It was a long term project of which I was only a small part. Much of the job when full time is to keep funding coming while you keep tweaking the models and the observations. So programming can be a big part of it, as well as designing instruments for specific purposes.

BTW, modern astrophysicists don't spend their time eyeballing telescopes. Cameras do that. The people then process the data or images and interpret the results, matching them with theory and combining with other independent observations.

 

[Bear-bear]

BTW, modern astrophysicists don't spend their time eyeballing telescopes. Cameras do that. The people then process the data or images.

Thank God! I can't stand the microscopes in biology class. "Is that an eyelash?... no it's the measuring thing... it's in my way..." Lol thanks for your answer :D

 

[symbolipoint]

Bear-bear might be naive, but that is what could be expected of a high school student. Bear-bear, you will find college or university courses more impressive, and probably more interesting. Maybe your interests will change. You will know more about what you want to do after two or three years of college/university studies. You need a chance to grow and learn. Your feelings about Biology and Chemistry may also change.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...I can't stand the microscopes in biology class...

That was actually an important factor that made me choose physics instead of biology. And I never succeeded in figuring out binocular telescopes. :grumpy: My eyes hurt just thinking about them!

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I just find it strange that in one post the OP states that he would love to sit in front of a telescope and plot the trajectories of comets, and as soon as someone says "cameras do that", the OP states "Great! I hate looking through [optical devices]" in comparison to biology microscopes.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

because I'm not very social, so I upgraded that to astrophysicist.

Then you need to find a new careers class. Success in science, particularly research, requires one to be very sociable. Perhaps in a different way to other disciplines like business, but you need to be good at working with other people - and of course it helps if you like people, and they like you.

I'm just wondering what astrophysicists do to become an astrophysicist, and what they do every day on the job.

First, get a degree in physics or astronomy, or both. Physics on it's own is fine. Next, there are two main paths: either find a job in industry, or stay on an academic path. In industry, you'll be looking at big companies, say, Selex Galileo, that do a variety of things - designing and building satellites, for one. On the academic path, you'll need to first get your doctorate. Enrol in a graduate programme, for which you should receive some small (small) amount of money - enough to live on but not really any more. You'll be in this position for a number of years, until you're ready to graduate for the second time. Then, apply for post-doc positions, basically temporary researchers. Paid better than before, but not greatly.

Both industry and academia have a huge variety of day-to-day work for people that might call themselves 'astrophysicists'. There isn't a whole lot of use for you in considering the job title, since there are so many hundreds of areas that will come under this realm. Essentially, you'll probably be looking at working *a lot* with computers. Difficult math and physics should be enjoyable to you, and programming/using computers generally too. Jobs of this type aren't particularly well paid (depending on your perspective - as twofish quant says, you won't starve) - since the people that are doing them generally enjoy what they do, so they don't *need* to have the money as the selling point.

 

[Bear-bear]

Essentially, you'll probably be looking at working *a lot* with computers. Difficult math and physics should be enjoyable to you, and programming/using computers generally too. Jobs of this type aren't particularly well paid (depending on your perspective - as twofish quant says, you won't starve) - since the people that are doing them generally enjoy what they do, so they don't *need* to have the money as the selling point.

Thanks!
So do you think I should major in Physics and minor in Computer Programming(?)? Or just take the Astronomy and Physics specialist program? I love math and physics (92/93) and don't know much about computer programming (except carpel tunnel). I don't care a lot about money, and my education is being paid for. I just want to do something I like with my life and I'm just very slow in deciding what exactly it is that I like and don't like.

Don't worry, my career isn't based off of "what I'm good at" either, or else I'd be a biologist (95). I don't think the courses at my school accurately reflect what you're "good at" anyway.

Ps. I thought the observatory telescopes would be bigger - like the size of my face so I don't have to squint. I do however enjoy sitting and I'm not allowed to sit in front of the biology microscopes.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Well, grade 11 changes a lot. I had a terrible teacher for science in grade 10, I would hand in labs with full charts (for instance emission spectrums in relation to temperature and frequency of photons. Also a description of higher energy-level photon emissions from electrons) I'd go above into first year university reasoning and he'd give me a 70 for "too much effort" a completely insulting teacher. I have an 86 in chemistry, divided into two parts I have an 96 on all of my quizzes and tests and a 78 on my labs which just shows you I probably won't be an experimentalist. What part of Ontario are you from?

 

[fasterthanjoao]

which just shows you I probably won't be an experimentalist.

It certainly does not!

This is one common misconception for high school and undergraduate students to have. Even final year undergraduate students - in fact, I would say some graduate students as well. Experimental research isn't all about standing in a lab. If you go into an astronomy department, for instance, you might find a group that consider themselves experimentalists, and a group that consider themselves theoretical. The experimentalists are the ones that work with real data. They might get data about solar activity sent to them from some satellite, and spend their time doing image processing, modelling or something else. What is considered 'Experimental' varies in disciplines - just so you don't discount work that is labelled 'experimental' later on in your career, maybe think of it more as 'in the real world' than anything to do with a lab, or necessarily hands-on work. I haven't 'worked' in lab since high school - and I was awful at it.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Thanks!
So do you think I should major in Physics and minor in Computer Programming(?)? Or just take the Astronomy and Physics specialist program? I love math and physics (92/93) and don't know much about computer programming (except carpel tunnel).

I wouldn't necessarily worry about a minor in computer programming, unless you want to - you should already have some computer programming orientated classes through the fact that you're on a physics degree. How much extra you want to do is up to you - obviously extra programming skill won't be a bad thing, but it depends if you want to extend your degree time for it.

Ps. I thought the observatory telescopes would be bigger - like the size of my face so I don't have to squint. I do however enjoy sitting and I'm not allowed to sit in front of the biology microscopes.

My undergraduate degree is in physics and astronomy, and I have never used a telescope. I did some post-grad work in astronomy, and I only met one guy that had used a telescope, to do some astrophotography in his spare time. Looking through telescopes (likely) isn't something you will do as an astronomer

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Well, I'm presuming Condensed Matter Physics relies more intimately on experimental data then say String Theory and Quantum Gravity.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Well, I'm presuming Condensed Matter Physics relies more intimately on experimental data then say String Theory and Quantum Gravity.

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to the "I'm bad in the lab, so I won't be an experimentalist" line? Condensed matter theory has a basis in reality, whereas string theory... who knows. In TCM you may use experimental data to construct models, but you don't have to have anything to do with gathering that data. For instance, the data I use is often biological, but I don't know anything about biology. To me, it's just a matrix of numbers that I can apply my algorithms to.

Anyway, we digress from the OP's original question.

 

[Bear-bear]

Anyway, we digress from the OP's original question.

No no! I'm enjoying the conversation and learning what an astrophysicist does! So i can be experimental or theoretical? That's something I can probably choose when I graduate :tongue2:. I think I'm going to stick to with the specialist program, but apply for both anyway. I have to pay $120 and then I get three choices, so I might as well throw in engineering physics on the end as a back up (though I hear U of T's engineering program makes you crazy!:rofl:).

What else do astrophysicists do? Sometimes they gather data, sometimes they don't. They make models and do equations regarding things from the universe. Some of them make satellites to gather the data. I think I want to become an astrophysicist!

 

[hadsed]

Aerospace engineers are the ones who build the satellites and rockets to take things up to space.

 

[Megasundato]

I heard of a man named Jason Leslie who has a PhD in astrophysics and watches solar activity.

 

[fasterthanjoao]

Aerospace engineers are the ones who build the satellites and rockets to take things up to space.

Some of those people will be aerospace engineers. It isn't as cut-and-dry as you might think in industry. Most companies will be happy to take physicists, or other types of engineers into graduate programmes and train them in whatever the company actually needs. Have a look at some graduate program entry requirements, you'll see that most of them are quite general - usually a 'mathematical science' or 'engineering' degree. Whether the person that gets the job, and ends up working on satellite design would then consider themselves to be a physicist or aerospace engineer is a different question.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

What else do astrophysicists do? Sometimes they gather data, sometimes they don't. They make models and do equations regarding things from the universe. Some of them make satellites to gather the data. I think I want to become an astrophysicist!

You'll eventually supervise students, teach, read papers, write papers, correct papers, and you'll have to apply for funding, because you'll still have to eat, and you'll probably want to buy big telescopes and powerful computers.

 

[hadsed]

Some of those people will be aerospace engineers. It isn't as cut-and-dry as you might think in industry. Most companies will be happy to take physicists, or other types of engineers into graduate programmes and train them in whatever the company actually needs. Have a look at some graduate program entry requirements, you'll see that most of them are quite general - usually a 'mathematical science' or 'engineering' degree. Whether the person that gets the job, and ends up working on satellite design would then consider themselves to be a physicist or aerospace engineer is a different question.

Of course, I didn't think to go into specifics. Electrical, computer, and mechanical engineers will be working on satellites too. Perhaps the astrophysicist who does computational work can design software for satellites or telescopes (as my research advisor did for the Hubble), so I forgot about that. Though the actual building of the satellites I would think wouldn't encompass astrophysicists, though maybe other types of physicists would work on them.

 

[Simfish]

Interesting responses.

Whenever people ask me what I want to do after grad school, they always ask me "so, are you going to work at NASA or something?" And I'm not sure how to reply to that (since NASA is mostly engineers, not astrophysicists). How do you guys all reply to that?

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Very interesting, many people don't recognize that space is only a division of where their research is but nevertheless, one of the most important. Astrophysicists could collaborate with engineers in designing appropriate materials by analyzing solar activity.

 

[harcel]

OK, I don't exactly know why, but really almost none of you has said what an astrophysicist does in everyday life. As I am one, I can.

My career path started in Europe, where the university system is slightly different. I did a BSc in physics and astronomy, then an MSc and PhD in astrophysics. Now I am (a common next step for people who want to stay in academic research) a postdoctoral researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute, basically Hubble's home base. Every few years I will have to change jobs until I get sort-of permanent somewhere.

I am a theorist/simulator. This means that in everyday life I do basically the following: using rather complicated computer programs and powerful computers (I think a minor in computer science is a very good idea!) I run simulations of the large scale evolution of the universe. That is a rather small fraction of the job. The main work is in analyzing these, and for that you will need to take a specific topics from all of the many possibilities with these computer models. I choose to focus on the galaxies forming in the Universe (but could as well have chose on intergalactic gas, galaxy clusters, radiative effects, you name it) and I have to formulate questions to answer using my analysis.

Once the analysis is underway you will find that some questions can be answered using the simulations, some can not. You pick the ones that give an interesting new finding in the field of galaxy evolution and you write that in a paper, that will be submitted and eventually published in a scientific journal. Formulating the question is something that you will learn, not particularly easy, but not time consuming either. The first investigation, that shows whether or not it is an interesting thing to do that will lead somewhere is (for me) the most fun part. Most time goes in figuring out all the details, testing whether you really understand the problem and writing it up concisely for the publication.

The same will hold for observational astrophysicists, who use data from large telescopes (sometimes they will go there, sometimes they won't but they will never look through telescopes, only at computer screens). Writing grant proposals starts later in your career.

For an example of the research I and others did and what you write up about it (the 'new' ideas are usually in introductions of papers), you can have a look at http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph/new where new papers are posted every day (note: these papers are technical and far from easy to read). My own stuff is at http://marcelhaas.com/work.html and http://thesis.marcelhaas.com

Hope this was of any use. Cheerio,

Harcel

 

[twofish-quant]

Hello, I'm a high school senior from Ontario Canada and I think I want to become an astrophysicist. My career's class said I should be an astronomer or an agronomist because I'm not very social, so I upgraded that to astrophysicist. I'm just wondering what astrophysicists do to become an astrophysicist, and what they do every day on the job. Know any helpful articles I can read?

Start with the Los Alamos Preprint Server at http://www.arxiv.org/. Pick a few random articles and read them. Don't worry if a lot of the math doesn't make sense to you. You'll probably be able to understand fragments of those papers, and writing those papers is what astrophysicists do.

A lot of it involves programming computer simulations to try to model something about space.

 

[Bear-bear]

Awesome! Thanks Marcel and Fish, I will read those articles! You guys have all helped me so much and made me very confident in applying to university. This discussion has some really interesting points and the only thing that concerns me now is finding a job if by some chance all I'm able to get is my bachelors. My dad in particular is worried that I'd be getting a degree in a field that won't hire me, so... what do I tell him to ease his worries?

 

[Nspyred]

You could be a telescope salesman!

I had a Summer job working in theoretical astrophysics. What I did was programming. I typed in physics equations to calculate how many atoms of specific kinds there were at certain altitudes within the Sun. And compared the results with observations made by another team (experimentalists). The general goal here was to make the model and the observations fit together, and tweak either as needed. It was a long term project of which I was only a small part. Much of the job when full time is to keep funding coming while you keep tweaking the models and the observations. So programming can be a big part of it, as well as designing instruments for specific purposes.

BTW, modern astrophysicists don't spend their time eyeballing telescopes. Cameras do that. The people then process the data or images and interpret the results, matching them with theory and combining with other independent observations.

Hey.
I think the part in bold was glossed over by everyone. Everything else: working with computers, optical instruments, colleagues, etc. are things you'd probably get enough practice at in school. What about the "keeping funding coming" part. Could someone elaborate on that? Is that like asking for grants? How tough/competitive is that?

Thnx, and happy holidays everyone.

 

[twofish-quant]

What about the "keeping funding coming" part. Could someone elaborate on that? Is that like asking for grants? How tough/competitive is that?

For junior faculty, it mainly involves writing grant proposals, which is a non-trivial exercise. For more senior scientists it means going up to Washington D.C. and doing hard core lobbying for more money on certain projects. For some projects, like telescopes, it's a matter of making friends with people with money and convincing them to give.

How tough it is depends on the season. Right now, everyone is cutting so it's a pain to get money for anything.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

...What about the "keeping funding coming" part. Could someone elaborate on that? Is that like asking for grants? How tough/competitive is that?

An example may be to get the funds needed to build a new telescope. If for some reason, they aren't available, it should be possible to find a lab that has similar equipment, in which case the equipment can be rented as needed. In all cases, one has to be imaginative enough to make the best of what is available. When enough researchers believe that non-existing equipment has to be built, they come together, and things get done.

Time spent on grant proposal by faculty members can easily take up 10-40% of their time. Naturally, a mature faculty member having many graduate students may put more care into this. The students do the actual research, while the professor can possibly spend his entire "research" time in his office (i.e. never in the lab) seeking funding, being there for his students only to answer questions and give out guide lines as needed.