I am interested string theory

[enthusiast101]

I am currently searching for what I am interested in as far as future job possibility and what to major in. I have always been intrigued with science and learning about new discoveries. Physics is one of my favorite thing to read about because it constantly gives us new outlooks on the world around us, that is why I ,personally, am interested in string theory and quantum mechanics. So my question is this, what kind of job opportunities are there for some one with this interest and how does one go about becoming one.

P.S. If anyone hasn't read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene I highly recommend it.

 

[Monocles]

If you want to do work in string theory, you're are pretty much restricted to doing research at a university. If you want to do this, you'll need a BS and PhD in Physics.

Another thing you should know is that high energy theory is by far the most competitive field to get into in physics. If you want to do string theory, you'll need to be the best of the best. There are very few positions for string theorists around the world, and boatloads of people who want to be in those positions.

This sounds very grim, but you shouldn't despair. Many people are attracted to physics by the crazy stuff like string theory, but then they discover how beautiful everything else is. That's what happened to me, and that's what happened to many other physics majors I know.

If you are interested in quantum mechanics in general, career prospects are much less grim. About one third of all physicists work in condensed matter, where quantum mechanics plays a very large role. Since condensed matter has many industrial applications, you will find work if you go into condensed matter.

 

[issacnewton]

Hi

Before entering into string theory, you should read this book.
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin

here's the website of the book. http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
The book is scathing criticism of the string theory by someone who has published
12 papers in the field.

Regards

 

[malawi_glenn]

enthusiast101: Where in your academic career are you right now?

 

[quasar987]

Hi

Before entering into string theory, you should read this book.
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin

here's the website of the book. http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
The book is scathing criticism of the string theory by someone who has published
12 papers in the field.

Regards

That's exactly what I was going to say.

 

[malawi_glenn]

And those who recommend Smolin's books, what is your background in String Theory?

 

[ehypersonic]

Hi

Before entering into string theory, you should read this book.
The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin

here's the website of the book. http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/
The book is scathing criticism of the string theory by someone who has published
12 papers in the field.

Regards

that seems like a must read book before getting too exiting into string theory, and it has good criticism in amazon.

 

[jdstokes]

Actually, having read that book I can say it is more of a scathing account of the sociology in theoretical physics circles than a direct attack on string theory.

Although Smolin does criticize string theory for some of its obvious failings, the only proposal he offers as an alternative has been far less successful.

I'm also not convinced that many of his arguments against string theory are any more than a reflection of our inability to conduct experiments near the relevant energy scales.

 

[presario]

I suggest try reading this

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521831431/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[malawi_glenn]

I suggest try reading this

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521831431/?tag=pfamazon01-20

but hey one must know much quantum mechanics, math and special relativity in order to study that book.

 

[ZapperZ]

Before we get carried away with this and start a 'string' war, note that the OP hasn't came back since this was posted on Jan 15. So consider the possibility that you guys might be giving advice and information to someone who might never read it. Better wait for his/her response before proceeding.

Zz.

 

[presario]

but hey one must know much quantum mechanics, math and special relativity in order to study that book.

I would say

Mathematics : All of available course on calculus, including complex analysis, linear algebra and especially group theory, tensor calculus

Quantum Mechanics : Covering from basics to Dirac's notation, perturbation theory and building up to quantum field theory which includes Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approach, Canonical Formalism, Quantum Electrodynamics and Feynman's diagram with understanding of the S-Matrix, tree diagram, loop etc

Special Relativity and General Relativity, the tensor notation used from General Relativity is very important to understand how the 11 dimensions etc from String theory work

If you do not understand those topics, then it would be very hard to understand string theory as string theory is a frame work to address problems from those topics

 

[robousy]

By the time you have spent 6 to 10 years at grad school studying string theory you might be ready for a change of scenery.

I spent 6.5 years at grad school working on cutting edge higher dimensional theories, not specifically string theory but string inspired models (ADD and Randall Sundrum).

I'm now looking for a position as a quantitative analyst, or 'quant'. Many quants have phds in math and theoretical physics and apply their skills in modelling and mathematics to figuring out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market. Pay is spectacular, starting salary around 90k, can easily reach the hundreds of thousands very quickly (2-3 years).

If you followed that path you'd have to try and incorporate some programming into your phd and spend a little time taking stats courses and mastering c++ to make your job search muchos easier. You'd probably also end up in New York City, Chicago, Houston or LA if you live in the US, London in the UK or of course Tokyo, Singapore etc. Major cities.

Just because you get out of it for a bit, doesn't mean you can't still stay involved. By the time you have your PhD you'll be smart enough to read and write your own research papers without too much supervision (at least that's the idea).

My master-plan is too make bundles of money in a few short years and start my own research organization so I can get back into it again. Oh to have a dream... :)

 

[xepma]

By the time you have spent 6 to 10 years at grad school studying string theory you might be ready for a change of scenery.

I spent 6.5 years at grad school working on cutting edge higher dimensional theories, not specifically string theory but string inspired models (ADD and Randall Sundrum).

I'm now looking for a position as a quantitative analyst, or 'quant'. Many quants have phds in math and theoretical physics and apply their skills in modelling and mathematics to figuring out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market. Pay is spectacular, starting salary around 90k, can easily reach the hundreds of thousands very quickly (2-3 years).

If you followed that path you'd have to try and incorporate some programming into your phd and spend a little time taking stats courses and mastering c++ to make your job search muchos easier. You'd probably also end up in New York City, Chicago, Houston or LA if you live in the US, London in the UK or of course Tokyo, Singapore etc. Major cities.

Just because you get out of it for a bit, doesn't mean you can't still stay involved. By the time you have your PhD you'll be smart enough to read and write your own research papers without too much supervision (at least that's the idea).

My master-plan is too make bundles of money in a few short years and start my own research organization so I can get back into it again. Oh to have a dream... :)

Sounds like a plan, and you've certainly drawn my interest ;). I actually want to keep such a career path in mind (about to start with my phd), but I have no idea what sort of companies need 'quantitative analysts' or where to look for such job oppertunities. Any recommendations on where to look for them?

 

[jdstokes]

For what it's worth, I personally don't see the point spending years in physics graduate school with the intention of leaving academia for finance.

Sure it makes for a good backup plan, but if your intention is to make `bundles of money', wouldn't you be much better off pursuing a PhD in statistics or mathematical finance such as (e.g.) this one

http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/PS/financial.html

 

[jdstokes]

Another thing worth mentioning is that you don't actually need to spend years in grad school to learn a lot about physics.

Everything from classical mechanics right up to quantum field theory and the standard model is taught in the first 4 years of any _good_ physics school.

If you are interested in research, it's a different story, but you should be aware that every theory for beyond the standard model physics such as string theory, SUSY ADD, RS models etc is currently untested speculation.

If you are just interested in educating yourself about known physics, I might suggest a double major in physics and mathematical finance. If your ultimate interests are in finance, you should take as many programming courses as possible. These are usually available in physics programs under the title of computational physics.

 

[kexue]

By the time you have spent 6 to 10 years at grad school studying string theory you might be ready for a change of scenery.

I spent 6.5 years at grad school working on cutting edge higher dimensional theories, not specifically string theory but string inspired models (ADD and Randall Sundrum).

I'm now looking for a position as a quantitative analyst, or 'quant'. Many quants have phds in math and theoretical physics and apply their skills in modelling and mathematics to figuring out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market. Pay is spectacular, starting salary around 90k, can easily reach the hundreds of thousands very quickly (2-3 years).

If you followed that path you'd have to try and incorporate some programming into your phd and spend a little time taking stats courses and mastering c++ to make your job search muchos easier. You'd probably also end up in New York City, Chicago, Houston or LA if you live in the US, London in the UK or of course Tokyo, Singapore etc. Major cities.

Just because you get out of it for a bit, doesn't mean you can't still stay involved. By the time you have your PhD you'll be smart enough to read and write your own research papers without too much supervision (at least that's the idea).

My master-plan is too make bundles of money in a few short years and start my own research organization so I can get back into it again. Oh to have a dream... :)

...ingenious ways to make money on the stock market. Pay is spectacular, starting salary around 90k, can easily reach the hundreds of thousands very quickly...

I think if there is one thing we have learned during the last couple months, then that the world needs more string theorists making money on the stock market.

 

[robousy]

For what it's worth, I personally don't see the point spending years in physics graduate school with the intention of leaving academia for finance.

Sure it makes for a good backup plan, but if your intention is to make `bundles of money', wouldn't you be much better off pursuing a PhD in statistics or mathematical finance such as (e.g.) this one

http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/PS/financial.html

You have completely missed the point jdstokes. The point is not to 'make bundles of money' for the sake of making money.

The point is to study the mysteries of the universe and to master the most fascinating subject (IMO) there is.

The point is to know that you have options beyond academia when you finish.

The point is to appreciate that in 2 or 3 years as a quant you could makes as much money as a professor would in a lifetime.

The point is to understand that once you have that 'nest egg' you would be in a financial position to continue with your studies of the mysteries of the universe while having the financial capabilities to start a family, provide and, if you wanted, to begin your own research organization so that you were not bound by the traditional professorial duties, including teaching, grading and writing papers for the sake of writing papers.

 

[kexue]

Robousy, and you missed another point completely.

Saying in Februrary 2009

I'm now looking for a position as a quantitative analyst, or 'quant'. Many quants have phds in math and theoretical physics and apply their skills in modelling and mathematics to figuring out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market. Pay is spectacular, starting salary around 90k, can easily reach the hundreds of thousands very quickly (2-3 years).

does not sound anyhow strange to you?

 

[robousy]

Robousy, and you missed another point completely.

Saying in Februrary 2009



does not sound anyhow strange to you?

?

I'm not sure where you are going.

 

[kexue]

Obviously you are not!

How about that: greedy educated fools that tried to figure out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market, with spectacular pay in mind, reaching hundreds of thousands very quickly, got the world in the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

 

[robousy]

Obviously you are not!

How about that: greedy educated fools that tried to figure out ingenious ways to make money on the stock market, with spectacular pay in mind, reaching hundreds of thousands very quickly, got the world in the worst financial crisis since the great depression.

Well, I'm not going to get into a tit for tat. FYI, it wasn't quants who caused the crisis. And I might add that I do not believe that making money with the intent of funding a research program is, in any way shape or form, greedy.

Don't Blame The Quants:

(Article by Steve Shreve of Forbes magazine)

It is easy under these circumstances to point an accusing finger at the "quants" on Wall Street, that cadre of mathematics and physics Ph.D.s who crunch numbers in esoteric models. Without the quants, the complicated mortgage-backed securities that fueled the housing bubble and led to the freezing of credit might not have been created. The models used by the quants determine the prices of those securities and steer the traders who make markets in them. Without this guidance, the banks might not have touched them in the first place. To prevent a recurrence of financial crises, some call for a return to a simpler time, before derivative securities and the quants who analyze them--a time when investors bought stocks and bonds and little else.

Such complaints miss the point. When a bridge collapses, no one demands the abolition of civil engineering. One first determines if faulty engineering or shoddy construction caused the collapse. If engineering is to blame, the solution is better--not less--engineering. Furthermore, it would be preposterous to replace the bridge with a slower, less efficient ferry rather than to rebuild the bridge and overcome the obstacle.

There are very good reasons for the existence of derivative securities--and even mortgage-backed securities, the root of our present problems. Potential homeowners need investors to fund their mortgages. So how can the two come together? The Savings and Loan system was a major provider of mortgages until its spectacular collapse in the 1980s, causing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to require $120 billion from the U.S. Treasury to make depositors whole again.

Today, foreign institutions have the big money--and they would not make deposits in U.S. Savings and Loans even if such institutions were available. Energy trading did not disappear with the demise of Enron, and neither will mortgage-backed securities after this fiasco. Put simply, the bridge between lenders and borrowers will be rebuilt, because we need it. It should, however, be built with better engineering and greater simplicity than before.

Before the collapse, Carnegie Mellon's alumni in the industry were telling me that the level of complexity in the mortgage-backed securities market had exceeded the limitations of their models. The bridge was cantilevered out way too far, and the quants knew it. But in most banks, the quants are not the decision-makers. When they issue warnings that stand in the way of profits, they are quickly brushed aside. Furthermore, in addition to better engineering, the bridge must not be built this time with the shoddy construction material of no-documentation mortgage applications and a network of unscrupulous mortgage originators.

 

[kexue]

And I might add that I do not believe that making money with the intent of funding a research program is, in any way shape or form, greedy.

Here I fully agree. If you really intend to make lots of money only to spend later for research, I'm all for it.

As far as the article you quote is concerned, I'm keep being surprised how these financial guys try talking themselves out of the mess they created.