Medical Physics is an exciting field

[Shoe]

Congrats, Devin.

 

[kejiu]

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]

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]

alot of these posts coincide with nuclear medicine.

 

[kejiu]

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.

 

[Choppy]

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]

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?

 

[Choppy]

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]

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]

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 I am trying to write my personal statement. Would you recommend 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]

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 I am trying to write my personal statement. Would you recommend 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)

 

[Choppy]

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]

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

 

[qball]

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

 

[Norman]

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.

 

[qball]

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.

 

[Choppy]

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.

 

[qball]

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]

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]

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.

 

[qball]

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.

 

[qball]

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.

 

[qball]

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.

 

[Norman]

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...

 

[qball]

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]

Wow... I thought hard-line jihadists were confined to religion.

 

[Choppy]

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.

 

[qball]

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 bullgarbageting 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]

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.

 

[Choppy]

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 bullgarbageting 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.

 

[Choppy]

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..

 

[qball]

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...

 

[qball]

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]

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.

 

[qball]

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.