Can one successfully be an Engineer AND a Physicist?

[Cathr]

What I meant in the title is Theoretical Physicist (character limit).

A year ago, when I decided to get a Physics bachelor degree, I was 100% sure I'm going to do theoretical research. Since high school, I was always searching stuff about particle physics, relativity and other topics on the internet, out of curiosity. What I wasn't sure about is the type of work I would be doing, and it didn't matter, I just cared to pass the year well, because I'm studying abroad (France).

I wasn't quite sure what an engineer does - I thought it's much about architecture, technical details of devices, which I didn't find very attractive. Now I found out about a job called Design Engineering - and I instantly got curious about it. Truth is, I always liked drawing and, as a self-taught designer, in high school, I even tried to work as a Freelancer (not gaining very much from it because I was competing with professionals, but it's still an experience). Design engineering requires a degree in Industrial design - which I won't have. However, I found out thet Engineers also deal a lot with design, especially Mechanical engineers, combining it with a lot of math and problem solving. I found out that it is possible to be the one with a concept in mind, with a good design, to search the optimal solution in terms of cost, materials etc to make it work - I find it just perfect for me! For me it seems like being an inventor, and actually being able to apply your ideas to reality.

However, here's the problem: I don't want to leave theoretical research aside. I have a powerful inner drive that makes me question about the nature of things, sometimes questions pop out out of the blue and I can't sleep until I find a solution. I really want to be able to understand QFT, General Relativity and even String Theory maybe - though I know it would require years and years of study.

Why don't I pursue my studies in Theoretical Physics then? Well, I just don't see myself as a professor, or even constantly doing research in particle physics. I'm the type of person who needs diversity, if I do something requiring analytical thinking, problem solving I need to do some drawing or writing after, otherwise my brain just won't work. That's why I think Mechanical Engineering will provide this type of diversity, however it won't fulfill my curiosity about the nature of things.

These are the reasons why I'm asking: is it possible to be an Engineer and, also, a good Theoretical Physicist? I am good at math - and, about hard theoretical concepts, the only problems I see are time and approach, not negligible though. Especially time.

If I'll choose a career in Mechanical Engineering - will I have time and energy to study physics, at a high level?

Now, for the second year of university, I must choose a path: Physics or Mechanical Engineering. If I choose Physics, I will have less chance to be employed as an Engineer, because ME graduates studied design and materials, more practical stuff. If I choose ME I will have little or no chance to be accepted for a Master degree in Subatomical physics (or Condensed matter, but the first is more appealing to me), which opens the path to a PhD. I just don't know what to do.

I will highly appreciate any suggestions, ideas or life experience.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I'll choose a career in Mechanical Engineering - will I have time and energy to study physics, at a high level?

If by "study at a high level" you mean "contribute", the answer is no. This is a full-time job, one in which people with doctorates struggle to make a career, and I can think of no examples of people who have done this successfully without dedicating all of their effort to it.

 

[Rika]

There are however examples of successful transition from theoretical physicist to designer or at least one example: http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/this-physics-pioneer-walked-away-from-it-all - it's worth reading. However from what I understood she got proper art/design education after her PhD in Physics. You can't work as both designer and theoretical physicist same time but it doesn't mean you can't study physics as a hobby with internet courses and books.

However why Mech engineering for industrial design career? Even if you need to start over again it's not very big deal if you are freshman. I mean while it's not completely off-track MechE is VERY different from industrial design (even if they both can work in the same team). Mech engineers indeed design but in very different (and imo more mundane) way than industrial designers do. If you want to be industrial designer you need solid drawing fundamentals, develop your aesthetic sense, learn 3d, prototyping and so on in very 1st place - and then add some engineering knowledge to your skill set depending on project that you are currently working on. So MechE major gives you many unnecessary knowledge/skills and leaves you with little time to learn drawing/3d/other industrial designer skills not to mention pursuing physics as a hobby. If you really want to stick with engineering school I would recommend architecture as a major but tbh the most suitable would be industrial design major. More suitable major for your goals = more free time to pursue your hobbies.

 

[olivermsun]

If by "study at a high level" you mean "contribute", the answer is no. This is a full-time job, one in which people with doctorates struggle to make a career, and I can think of no examples of people who have done this successfully without dedicating all of their effort to it.

There are areas of physics where mechanical engineers are right in the thick of serious research. Turbulent flows come to mind, although not all physicists seem to regard this as "serious" physics. Nevertheless there are probably ways to harmonize the career with the scientific interests.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I would do experiment or computation in a field of applied/engineering physics that you like. There's a lot more physics out there than just QFT and GR, both of which are neat, but not really intrinsically neater than, say, statistical physics. They do have more abstract math, but some people have been porting that to statistical physics problems for some time now if that's what gets your jollies off.

Mechanical engineering departments often have engineering physicists in them who are super hardcore; you'd probably have to learn some serious theory working for them. As an experimentalist or computationalist working in such a group, you'd have to draw upon a huge breadth of knowledge. You would not get bored.

Forget string theory/fundamental physics, it's not based in good experiments these days. I don't understand why any good student would be interested in something where there is, quite literally, no data to work with. Physics is an empirical, experimental science first and foremost. Uppity geniuses like Einstein and Dirac, while immensely important, only show up once every few centuries; an industry of people trying to emulate them just seems ridiculous to me.

EDIT: Also, any physicist who doesn't consider turbulent flow to be "serious physics" is probably a fraud who should be ignored.

 

[donpacino]

Something to add. there are fields of EE and ME that are VERY math heavy and have crossover with physics.

I'm an EE and when I designed night vision goggles I worked with more people who had phds in physics than I did engineers. With an EE degree you can go into semiconductors which deal with quantum mechanics at a low low level. There is definite crossover into the high level math that you encounter as a theoretical physicist.

ME has those crossover points too, fluid mechanics already being mentioned.
In material science or materials engineering you have a very heavy crossover into physics. The same can be said of control theory (a combo of ME and EE).

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

^^I definitely second the above, I'm getting a PhD in EE doing engineering physics for semiconductor device simulation. I've learned about everything from semiclassical non-equilibrium transport to DFT to even dabbling a bit in Berry's phase and topological materials.

 

[infinitebubble]

Cathr... A little about how I got to where I am now... I graduated with an EE degree and did 2 summers intern at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft in West Palm Beach, FL where UTC had a turbine research facility... I was recruited into the Physical labs dept. doing 'sputtering deposition' work getting thin film strain gages onto turbine blades and rotor disks, etc. This at the time was high tech state of the art engineering... from this I got my MSME while still at Pratt & Whitney and ventured into the testing and design of advanced jet engines... from there I was recruited by Boeing in 1988 and been here ever since... I now have a seat at NASA under Boeing and have been at this spot for over 8 years... I went from research to design to trade studies in space projects... I love the design side and miss the R & D side too but can't have both... I like what I do now and have access to some pretty nifty things I can't talk about but in the end you will to. My take is do the physics side for a couple of years then move into design of what you like and move into senior positions which allow you to do the 'conceptual' engineering before the other engineers break it up into manageable tasks.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Easier for a PhD in physics to work as an engineer and keep up a sideline publishing papers in physics.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

Easier for a PhD in physics to work as an engineer and keep up a sideline publishing papers in physics.

This really depends on the topic of physics. For instance, physics departments don't work much on fluid mechanics, so a mechanical/aerospace engineer with such a background is probably better suited for it.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This really depends on the topic of physics. For instance, physics departments don't work much on fluid mechanics, so a mechanical/aerospace engineer with such a background is probably better suited for it.

Maybe, but both external ballistics and blast physics are heavily dependent on fluid mechanics, and I've managed to publish a lot of work in both areas over the past decade or so (PhD in AMO Physics.) When a client calls and is looking for someone to solve a problem, the published papers on my CV usually convince them that I am more than capable. The lack of a degree in mechanical or aerospace engineering has not been a hindrance.

Earlier in my career, I worked in an engineering job for which Cisco Systems usually hired electrical engineers. But when they looked at the depth and breadth of my instrumentation experience and E&M coursework and experience, they didn't hesitate for a moment to hire me. I provided a good balance to all the EEs they already had in the stable and proved so capable I received numerous promotions and raises in my 7 years with the company.

Most engineering teams at big companies can benefit from a physicist on the team. Some know it and are open to hiring the right physicist when their application appears in the pool. Some don't know it, so they end up hindered by teams of engineers whose training and experience are too similar to each other so the brainstorming phase of problem solving is more limited than it has to be.

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

True, but I don't think a physicist has an easier time publishing on physics topics while doing engineering than vice versa. It depends upon the engineer's training. In fact, some engineers have superior training in some branches of physics than physicists in my experience (non-equilibrium statistical physics being a prime example). The same goes for physical/theoretical chemists.

All of which is moot relative to how hard working and flexible the individual is, however.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

True, but I don't think a physicist has an easier time publishing on physics topics while doing engineering than vice versa. It depends upon the engineer's training. In fact, some engineers have superior training in some branches of physics than physicists in my experience (non-equilibrium statistical physics being a prime example). The same goes for physical/theoretical chemists.

All of which is moot relative to how hard working and flexible the individual is, however.

I guess I've been underwhelmed when I've seen engineers publish "research" that is more properly within the sphere of physics. Here's an excerpt from a paper by an engineer showing the equations of motion of a bullet as a projectile with an added drag force. Not only did the author miss the glaring error, all the ASME peer-reviewers missed it too. Four years later, no retraction, no erratum, nothing. Reminds me of the time a few years back when simple inspection demonstrated the graphs in a paper by engineers in an engineering journal violated the work-energy theorem. It was a simple physics problem (the area under force vs. displacement must equal the mechanical work), and both the engineer authors and the engineer reviewers missed the mistake.

From: Michael Knox, Paper No. IMECE2013-62517, pp. V015T12A001; 11 pages
doi:10.1115/IMECE2013-62517

 

[ZapperZ]

I think we are going off on a tangent here, while the OP @Cathr doesn't seem to want to participate or follow-up on the original question.

The OP is asking if one can be "successful" being (i) an engineer, and (ii) a physicist (a theoretical physicist, no less), simultaneously!

There are plenty of assumptions here, and also things that need to be defined. Since the OP never clearly stated the assumptions and never defined a few necessary items, I will do it myself.

Assume that this person has the necessary degrees to be an engineer and also a "theoretical physicist". This is a big assumption, because these two areas are almost on the opposite scale of the spectrum, based on what the OP narrowly-described-area of what "theoretical physics" is. So now, we have to consider what is defined as being "successful".

To me a "successful engineer" is someone who has been hired to be an engineer and to work as an engineer for many years. This means that this person has an expertise that is known from either within the company that he works for, and/or within the engineering area that he specializes in.

A "successful physicist" is similarly someone who works as a practicing physicist, who has consistently published research papers in respected physics journals, and if this person is in an academic institution, is fully tenured, has graduate students and/or postdocs, and has an active, funded, research program.

So those are my starting points and how I lay down the "rules of the game".

Now, the question is, can one be BOTH at the same time? But more importantly, are there currently people who are doing exactly that?

This is not the same as someone working in an area which straddles both physics and engineering, and thus, by definition, that person's job involves both physics and engineering. The OP did not specifically asked about this (and probably isn't aware of such a thing). I work in accelerator physics where, as a physicist, almost 75% of what I do is engineering. And there are many examples of accelerator physicists being prominent professors and faculty members in engineering departments. Again, if you read the first post, this is FAR from the scenario the OP is asking for.

From my perspective, the answer to the OP question, especially the one in the topic, is "NO".

First of all, I know of no such example of someone who is a "successful engineer" but who is also a "successful physicist", based on the criteria of what I consider to be "successful". Even if there are, the numbers must be exceedingly small, which implies that the likelihood of this occurring is terribly small. It requires not only knowledge and expertise, but also a lot of luck, and being in the right place at the right time. For most of us who have lived long enough and had gone through a full career, we KNOW how luck and timing can play a significant role in affecting our career. This is not something one can plan for.

It leaves me to conclude that the question being asked in this thead is actually rather meaningless, and someone who is considering something like this is planning one's life as if one will win the lottery.

Zz.

 

[CWatters]

The OP is asking if one can be "successful" being (i) an engineer, and (ii) a physicist (a theoretical physicist, no less), simultaneously!

I don't think there are many employment opportunities to do both. Only one I can think of might be designing high energy machines.

Its worth understanding that in some fields of engineering, if you are any good, you will probably migrate from being a hands on engineer into project management at some point in your career.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't think there are many employment opportunities to do both. Only one I can think of might be designing high energy machines.

Not even that. As I have stated, accelerator physicists, even those doing theory work in accelerator physics, is not something the OP has considered and includes as part of his/her "theoretical physics" topic. And designing HEP machines is definitely beyond the realm of "theoretical physics" within this contest.

The OP needs to come back and explain him/herself on this, and like I said already, if this is the way I interpret it, then the phase space for this to happen is either minuscule, or non-existent.

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think we are going off on a tangent here, while the OP @Cathr doesn't seem to want to participate or follow-up on the original question.

The OP is asking if one can be "successful" being (i) an engineer, and (ii) a physicist (a theoretical physicist, no less), simultaneously!

There are plenty of assumptions here, and also things that need to be defined. Since the OP never clearly stated the assumptions and never defined a few necessary items, I will do it myself.

Assume that this person has the necessary degrees to be an engineer and also a "theoretical physicist". This is a big assumption, because these two areas are almost on the opposite scale of the spectrum, based on what the OP narrowly-described-area of what "theoretical physics" is. So now, we have to consider what is defined as being "successful".

To me a "successful engineer" is someone who has been hired to be an engineer and to work as an engineer for many years. This means that this person has an expertise that is known from either within the company that he works for, and/or within the engineering area that he specializes in.

A "successful physicist" is similarly someone who works as a practicing physicist, who has consistently published research papers in respected physics journals, and if this person is in an academic institution, is fully tenured, has graduate students and/or postdocs, and has an active, funded, research program.

So those are my starting points and how I lay down the "rules of the game".

Now, the question is, can one be BOTH at the same time? But more importantly, are there currently people who are doing exactly that?

This is not the same as someone working in an area which straddles both physics and engineering, and thus, by definition, that person's job involves both physics and engineering. The OP did not specifically asked about this (and probably isn't aware of such a thing). I work in accelerator physics where, as a physicist, almost 75% of what I do is engineering. And there are many examples of accelerator physicists being prominent professors and faculty members in engineering departments. Again, if you read the first post, this is FAR from the scenario the OP is asking for.

From my perspective, the answer to the OP question, especially the one in the topic, is "NO".

First of all, I know of no such example of someone who is a "successful engineer" but who is also a "successful physicist", based on the criteria of what I consider to be "successful". Even if there are, the numbers must be exceedingly small, which implies that the likelihood of this occurring is terribly small. It requires not only knowledge and expertise, but also a lot of luck, and being in the right place at the right time. For most of us who have lived long enough and had gone through a full career, we KNOW how luck and timing can play a significant role in affecting our career. This is not something one can plan for.

It leaves me to conclude that the question being asked in this thead is actually rather meaningless, and someone who is considering something like this is planning one's life as if one will win the lottery.

Zz.

By defining "successful" on both the physicist and engineering sides as requiring normal full time careers, you've constructed your definition such that it is impossible to fulfill.

A more reasonable definition would be to only require a full time career on one side (engineering or theoretical physics) and allow other criteria to fulfill the other side. For example, a track record of patents, inventions, and marketable designs would tend to fulfill the normal expectations of success as an engineer, as would holding a PE (Professional Engineer) certification, even if one's "day job" was as a theoretical physicist. Likewise, a track record of publishing theoretical physics papers in the peer-reviewed journals should be sufficient to qualify one as a theoretical physicist even if one's day job was as an engineer.

A lot of theoretical physicists at the service academies (most of which do not grant tenure) and at institutions without graduate programs will also be surprised that they don't meet your criteria as a "theoretical physicist." The whole world might be surprised to learn Albert Einstein would have failed to meet your criteria for a real "theoretical physicist" during his Annus Mirabilis when he published some of the most important papers ever in theoretical physics.

During Einstein's years in the Swiss patent office (1902-1909), the tasks for which he was paid (evaluating patents) were much closer to engineering than physics, so Einstein probably provides the most famous example of someone being a successful theoretical physicist while earning paychecks for engineering work.

 

[ZapperZ]

By defining "successful" on both the physicist and engineering sides as requiring normal full time careers, you've constructed your definition such that it is impossible to fulfill.

But you see, that is my whole point! If the OP didn't define what he/she meant, then each one of us are free to define it any way we want! And I chose to define it that was because that is what I consider to be a "successful engineer" and "successful physicist". And this discussion will go into a million different directions and we will constantly talk past each other because we have different things in mind and different criteria that we measure up to.

I think asking for a clear definition that we all can use as a starting point is an extremely reasonable request.

Zz.

 

[Rika]

Not even that. As I have stated, accelerator physicists, even those doing theory work in accelerator physics, is not something the OP has considered and includes as part of his/her "theoretical physics" topic. And designing HEP machines is definitely beyond the realm of "theoretical physics" within this contest.

The OP needs to come back and explain him/herself on this, and like I said already, if this is the way I interpret it, then the phase space for this to happen is either minuscule, or non-existent.

Zz.

From what I understood OP wants to work as industrial design (more artsy stuff) and is interested in learning about theoretical physics at highest level (but not working in it) - for some reason all of that had led him into studying MechE (wtf?!) and he asks if he can learn about physics while being MechE major.

 

[ZapperZ]

From what I understood OP wants to work as industrial design (more artsy stuff) and is interested in learning about theoretical physics at highest level (but not working in it) - for some reason all of that had led him into studying MechE (wtf?!) and he asks if he can learn about physics while being MechE major.

The OP indicated in the first line that the title is what he/she is asking, and the rest of the post was his/her description on what he/she is doing and intending to do. So I started from the very beginning and giving him/her of what I consider to be a "successful engineer" and a "successful physicist". If this is really what he/she intends to be, then by MY metric, this is what he/she needs to accomplish.

I'm hoping that clear minds will take over and give an indication to him/her that (i) it takes A LOT of work, education, and effort to be a successful "engineer/physicist" and (ii) a lot of it depends on luck and timing as well. How he/she can get there is a different story, but if the goal is really not attainable, why waste time in trying to figure out how to get there?

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

But you see, that is my whole point! If the OP didn't define what he/she meant, then each one of us are free to define it any way we want! And I chose to define it that was because that is what I consider to be a "successful engineer" and "successful physicist". And this discussion will go into a million different directions and we will constantly talk past each other because we have different things in mind and different criteria that we measure up to.

I think asking for a clear definition that we all can use as a starting point is an extremely reasonable request.

Zz.

Being aware that most threads eventually get read by multiple parties interested in the discussion other than the OP, I try not to limit myself to the intent of the OP, but try and speak to the question raised by the title in a way that will prove useful to a broader readership as the topic pops up in internet searches well after the OP has gone on his way. It's like answering a question in class for the benefit of the whole class rather than just the student who asked it.

For me, "success" in science is ultimately about good science rather than paying the bills. Lavoisier was a successful scientist even though he made his living in other areas and funded his science with income from other pursuits. There are many other similar examples in history of science. Galileo is another important example of one who had many notable accomplishments in engineering as well as theoretical physics. The arbiter of good science is repeatable experiment. Peer-review is a temporary expedient since sometimes the experimental tests of theoretical work are well in the future. Alternate metrics of success in science are often counterproductive to good science.

 

[Cathr]

I'd like to thank everyone for all the answers! I have a much clearer view of what I have to do next.

@ZapperZ Successful is pretty much what @Dr. Courtney described (I'm more inclined towards the second variant):
"For example, a track record of patents, inventions, and marketable designs would tend to fulfill the normal expectations of success as an engineer, as would holding a PE (Professional Engineer) certification, even if one's "day job" was as a theoretical physicist. Likewise, a track record of publishing theoretical physics papers in the peer-reviewed journals should be sufficient to qualify one as a theoretical physicist even if one's day job was as an engineer."

Having no work experience at all, I am curious to know other people's perspectives and experiences in any specific area. I am still in search of what would be right for me and any view/definition on success or being an engineer/physicist is valuable. I am aware that I cannot invest full time in both of the fields, I thought engineering would be my basic job and I could do theoretical research besides that. I see a lot will depend on my independent study besides university.

Again, thanks a lot!

 

[Crass_Oscillator]

I think you should also ask yourself how much fun it really is to work on pure, fancy theory these days. Since there are few good experiments, mostly you just get to publish derivative papers with no relation to the immediate real world.

If you work on applied problems, you get to build new models within the context of pre-existing physics (and applied mathematics like machine learning), and there are countless problems to work on.

 

[saybrook1]

If by "study at a high level" you mean "contribute", the answer is no. This is a full-time job, one in which people with doctorates struggle to make a career, and I can think of no examples of people who have done this successfully without dedicating all of their effort to it.

This is the answer; it is unbelievably difficult to find funding in theory. Try scanning university physics faculty rosters and you will notice a distinct lack of pure theorists in at least 90% of these institutions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

. Try scanning university physics faculty rosters and you will notice a distinct lack of pure theorists in at least 90% of these institutions.

Can you name a few? I have a feeling that you mean something very different by "theory" than most people do - perhaps restricting it to string theory or something like that. The majority of theory is in condensed matter (just like the majority of everything else).

There are 160 institutions that grant PhD's in physics. More than 16 do theory.

 

[saybrook1]

Can you name a few? I have a feeling that you mean something very different by "theory" than most people do - perhaps restricting it to string theory or something like that. The majority of theory is in condensed matter (just like the majority of everything else).

There are 160 institutions that grant PhD's in physics. More than 16 do theory.

That's fair, 90% is certainly an exaggeration but it seems to me as though a lot of departments only have 1 or 2 remaining theorists in a sea of experimentalists with large groups and plenty of funding.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

If I'll choose a career in Mechanical Engineering - will I have time and energy to study physics, at a high level?

That's the main problem, I think: time! They are both very demanding fields! It's hard and it takes a lot of energy and hard work! But it's certainly possible! People have done it. Although recent examples (in our times) would be more demanding, in our demanding times and careers of today's progressed and specialized science, the most classical and famous (but older) example is that of Albert Einstein, that has already been mentioned:

During Einstein's years in the Swiss patent office (1902-1909), the tasks for which he was paid (evaluating patents) were much closer to engineering than physics, so Einstein probably provides the most famous example of someone being a successful theoretical physicist while earning paychecks for engineering work.

So 'Time' is not just a [theoretical] physics problem, but it is also our [every day life etc.] problem too! Especially when you realize that "there isn't much of it" on a 24hr day! ... to do everything. But then the next day follows! ... That's the good news ... . The other bad news is that we're humans and limited by our own human biological constraints, clock, potential and capacities. [And we all have only one lifetime! ...]

[Or you can say that "In Physics, time is plenty, while in real life the problem is not time itself but rather just the fact that there isn't enough of it! (for us humans) ...".]

So in any case what I consider important and crucial for the seeked demands is to obtain some good time-management and hard work skills first, or during your other efforts, at the same time with getting good scientific solid backgrounds in both areas that you desire.
I had to do something similar in combining different [scientific] domains and other demanding intelectual and non ... activities, and adapting and working to different time zones (but I do not consider myself very successful).
One idea for example is to learn some "work round-the-clock" tricks and techniques ... (and how you fit in your sleep and meals in between). At the same time that makes you more flexible with time zones, jet lag etc., and you end up working [in] and having "your own time and time zone" (kind of, more or less) ..., but it's hard not to get exhausted every few days or so ... (which requires some extra rest, to catch up).

Then of course, at the same time, you have to coordinate and adapt to the real world and its daily demands, time and schedule. It's not always easy. But if you know the 24 hr (round-the-clock) technique(s), you have an advantage because you are more flexible [with time etc.] (e.g. demanding business traveling people, or people on duty [doctors in hospitals, policemen, firemen etc.], etc. have also similar or such skills, being used to working at various shifts and different schedules).

Time management [and hard work] is [/are] not an easy thing! The other method would be to focus on 'speed' and getting things done fast and to the point! (if you want to be sleeping and eating like a normal person! ...) But that doesn't mean that you will always get things thoroughly and successfully right! (as required in both your scientific domains ...) ...

I hope you take these into account with your decision.

Good Luck!

 

[Dr. Courtney]

So 'Time' is not just a [theoretical] physics problem, but it is also our [every day life etc.] problem too! Especially when you realize that "there isn't much of it" on a 24hr day! ... to do everything. But then the next day follows! ... That's the good news ... . The other bad news is that we're humans and limited by our own human biological constraints, clock, potential and capacities. [And we all have only one lifetime! ...]

[Or you can say that "In Physics, time is plenty, while in real life the problem is not time itself but rather just the fact that there isn't enough of it! (for us humans) ...".]

So in any case what I consider important and crucial for the seeked demands is to obtain some good time-management and hard work skills first, or during your other efforts, at the same time with getting good scientific solid backgrounds in both areas that you desire.

During my years at the Air Force Academy, my supervisor was amazed at my research and publication productivity while maintaining a full teaching load and even winning awards for teaching. I averaged over 12 papers a year in fields including rocket science (experiment), physics education, blast physics (experiment), traumatic brain injury (theory), ballistics (experiment), fisheries science (experiment), fisheries science (theory), chemistry education, traumatic brain injury (experiment), ballistics (theory), and mathematics education. Secrets of my high productivity: 1. No TV 2. lots of different co-authors 3. organization.

Looking back at my career, I've published 8 papers in theoretical physics, but only two while working as an engineer. I was very organized, did not have any children yet (more time), and did not have a TV. I suspect other forms of screen time have become the big time waster for most younger folks that TV was for my generation.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

did not have any children yet (more time), and did not have a TV.

I agree too that no TV etc. may be key (have tried that deliberately twice during 2 very productive seasons of mine [undergrad student and 1st work appointment after grad school]). It worked. All the other times I tried to manage myself and make good choices.

Secrets of my high productivity: 1. No TV 2. lots of different co-authors 3. organization.

I like all three, I agree and think of them as important. However, life has many more "distractions" than just TV and kids, etc. .

I also find useful the following (with overlapping): 1. Organization (includes goal setting and general or first-run prioritizing and lists, etc.) 2. Dedication 3. Good choices and correct decision making 4. Self-discipline (or correct imposed Discipline [e.g. like in the military, or air force (academy) that you mentioned, or organized groups of work ... (kind of includes your #2.)] ) 5. Appropriate time managing (management) and wise, fair and productive Time-Sharing (of all our actions, on a 24 hr period etc.). [I think of that as very important, as well as the following.] 6. Prioritizing [appropriately] and setting up and executing an appropriate hierarchy/sequence of tasks, duties and actions, depending and based on all conditions and other events. It is best if that prioritizing, hierarchy and sequence is as dynamical as possible (basically be accustomed and learn "to be thinking on your feet" ...), so that it can always change anytime to include new and adjunct tasks, events and actions that come in and out all the time! ... ("Wedges" I call them ...)
[It all depends on, and is examined relatively and based on, the collection of all current conditions and things. These change, ... everything can change. (Many times there are no hard and fast lines and rules ...) ]
6a. Always try to keep track of completed, semi-completed and pending tasks and matters. E.g. having a "pending list" will help you locate what's left (e.g. things that lost their priority) and have a chance to get back to it at a later time, with different perhaps priorities, standards and sequence.
7. Set up some principles (list) that best suit your success (e.g. from your so far experience, goals, methods, peculiarities, tricks etc.) and try to follow them or modify them appropriately, until you succeed!

During my years at the Air Force Academy, my supervisor was amazed at my research and publication productivity while maintaining a full teaching load and even winning awards for teaching. I averaged over 12 papers a year in fields including rocket science (experiment), physics education, blast physics (experiment), traumatic brain injury (theory), ballistics (experiment), fisheries science (experiment), fisheries science (theory), chemistry education, traumatic brain injury (experiment), ballistics (theory), and mathematics education.

I'm sure that in order to accomplish those you acquired or had good mutilateral and time management skills. It's not easy, let me tell you ...

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I'm sure that in order to accomplish those you acquired or had good mutilateral and time management skills. It's not easy, let me tell you ...

Actually, my time management skills were better as an undergraduate at LSU. I worked harder for that summa cum laude BS in Physics than I ever worked since. It was a perfect display of time management.

During my years at the Air Force Academy, I was a mid-level administrator, so people were always in and out of my office. At home, I was a dad to four children ranging from late elementary to high school. Waaaaaaaaay too many interruptions for perfect time management. I flitted from task to task. I did manage 50-60 hours per week working on something or another, but 25+ of that was face time with students, and I also spent more time with my children than any man I knew who was gainfully employed. What I did with my co-authors (mostly students) was to have them write the first few drafts of papers, including text, references, data analysis, figures, etc. Then when they had taken things as far as they could go, I'd hole up somewhere where no one could bug me for a week or two and make a bunch of the papers mature enough to submit for publication. I also have the great blessing of a wife who is a physicist also and who served either as an adviser or even a co-author on a lot of the projects. Alas, that pace was not sustainable in the long term, and I think my productivity has slipped to closer to 6 papers a year since my Air Force Academy days.