Do Physicists Have To Work From Big Cities?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Silverbackman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicists Work
Click For Summary
Physicists can find employment outside of major cities, particularly in smaller towns with universities or national labs, though opportunities may be limited. Many discussions highlight that while commuting is common, there are viable research positions in rural areas, such as at national laboratories or universities located in small towns. The conversation emphasizes that job availability often depends on the nature of the work, with some roles requiring regular on-site presence. Additionally, achieving a position at prestigious research centers typically requires strong qualifications, such as a PhD from a reputable institution. Ultimately, flexibility and adaptability are crucial for physicists considering their work environment and location preferences.
  • #31
Silverbackman said:
What I mean is this, for example;

Let us say I am a theoretical physicist working on a project in researching the M-theory. Let us say I am assigned from a research center in Davis and I live in Tahoe. Can I go to the research a couple times a week, spend a lot if the their those couple times, get the work and live in Tahoe? Get the equations I need to work on for the rest of the week in at home or some center in Tahoe for example. Please note this is only an example, I am not saying that I have to live in Tahoe or I have to work for Davis, just an example.

BTW, if you want to work at a top research center such as Los Alamos wouldn't you get a job most likely if you have a PHD from a prestigious university?

During the early 90's, in one of the many economic slowdowns in the US, there were reports of physics Ph.D's from "prestigious universities" driving cabs for a living. When you look at a few anecdotal examples, you see that they were high energy physics theorists or astrophysicists, etc. Yet, at the same time, I know for a fact that freshly minted Ph.D's in Medical Physics were getting job offers even BEFORE they finished their program. Condensed matter physicists who know how to fabricated thin films using laser ablation were getting snapped up by Hewlet Packard and Xerox as if there's no tomorrow.

The example you gave doesn't help your chances of employment. While being a theorist may allow you the ability to not have to be on site physically all the time, you are also cutting down considerably your chances of getting employed in the first place. How many theorists from prestigious universities graduate EACH year? How many job opening for them do you think are available? And how many of these do you think are in String/M-Theory? At Argonne, there are ZERO number of string theorists being employed, even though the high-energy theorists do dabble in it on the peripherial. However, most of them deal with the theory that is related to the experimental effort of the division. This makes a lot more sense, at least to me. US Nat'l lab are reviewed by our "owner", the DOE, every single year. You have to show what you have done, how much of what you have promised last year has been achieved, and what do you promised for the next year. Under such condition, String and M-theory proponents have a very hard time to justify their existence. It is why you won't see such work being done at US Nat'l Labs, only in universities.

There is also another issue here that you have neglected. When one is employed as a physicist, one does not just do physics. One has other administrative reponsibilities. This includes supervising others, especially if there are grad students and postdocs. There are responsibilities in getting external fundings, administrative decisions (one usually has been drafted into one or more committee in one's division), etc. etc. Practically in all such cases, one needs to be on site physically to fulfill such responsibilities. In a series of essay titled "My Physics Journey", I have tried to convey the daily grind that I go through, and this includes both physics and non-physics responsibilities. I believe this situation isn't unique, and that most, if not all, physicists working either in a university or Nat'l Labs go through the same thing.

In any case, unless you are a BIG NAME physicist, you would most likely start your career as a postdoc and work your way up. I have never, ever seen or heard of a physicist working his/her way up being able to do what you would like to do.

Zz.
Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I think i must raise some point about your wish to work, effectively, in isolation. Some people do this effectively (eg Grothendieck who is a well konwn recluse) but they are the minority, and tend to be outstanding genii, once in a lifetime people. The rest of us benefit from regular contact with their peers.

To some extent it doesn't matter where you do your work (if it is theoretical), and some people do "work from home" but they will not tend to be at the start of their careers when it is vital to make contacts, meet people and publicize your work.

Moreover you sign a contract of work which specifies your duties and this may well require you to be in the University for certain periods. For instance I believe all lecturers at Cambridge in mathematics are required to be (substantially) in Cambridge during term and have no requirements outside of term.

Personally I would not knowingly employ someone (at the start of their careers) who positively does not wish to be part of the research community of whatever centre you wish to be in. Some times sacrifices have to be made, say until such time as people are asking to work with you rather than you to work with them.
 
  • #33
Also, don't forget teaching duties at a university. You will be expected, at least for half the year, to go to school like 3 days a week to teach a bunch of brats how to find the electric field from a uniform ring of charge ! :biggrin:
 
  • #34
Gokul43201 said:
Also, don't forget teaching duties at a university. You will be expected, at least for half the year, to go to school like 3 days a week to teach a bunch of brats how to find the electric field from a uniform ring of charge ! :biggrin:
Gokul

at what university are you doing your phd ?
what is your topic ?

marlon
 
  • #35
Silverbackman said:
Ahkron thanks for the extra advice :smile:. Though I think I would rather stay in my country, but I'll keep Genova in mind. But yea you are right I really should find a way to enjoy myself at the workplace as much as I enjoy nature and the outdoors.

I have another question for you all that is somewhat off-topic. It is about the field of physics I am going in. By the looks of it Astrophysics will be the field I will be going in if I become a physicist, probably in cosmology. However why is it that Grand Unification Theory, M-theory, Theory of everything, ect. listed under Particle Physics. How can this be when those theories are under Particle Physics when they fit better under Astrophysics in cosmology since they describe more about the history of the universe and what not.
String theories, M-theories, LQG, etc are attempts to extend the Standard Model in order to unify all four interactions - weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational. These interactions are basicallly forces between particles that can themselves be described in terms of carrier particles. So, it is natural that such work be grouped under High Energy/Particle Physics.
 
  • #36
sorry to go off topic but is Grothendieck still alive ?
 
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
String theories, M-theories, LQG, etc are attempts to extend the Standard Model in order to unify all four interactions - weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational. These interactions are basicallly forces between particles that can themselves be described in terms of carrier particles. So, it is natural that such work be grouped under High Energy/Particle Physics.

But wouldn't cosmologists need to work with String theories and M-theories? Cosmologists work on how the universe works and the M-theory for example can explain what the universe basically is if it is true, this what cosmologists work to do. So wouldn't maybe these fields overlap?
 
  • #38
Silverbackman said:
But wouldn't cosmologists need to work with String theories and M-theories? Cosmologists work on how the universe works and the M-theory for example can explain what the universe basically is if it is true, this what cosmologists work to do. So wouldn't maybe these fields overlap?

At what SCALE do these two overlap?

Consider this current FACT: cosmology has experimental observations to deal with. String and M-theory have NONE. There are theorists and experimentalists in cosmology. There are only theorists in String and M-Theory.

There are more provable and verified physics that overlap between CONDENSED MATTER physics, particle physics, and cosmology than there are with string and M-theory. So if you're just using "overlapping" criteria to justify the study of a subject matter to get to cosmology, there are more valid avenue to go through than via String/M-Theory to get there.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
8K