Is there a perception of a prestige hierarchy among physicists?

[Simfish]

Is there a perception of a "prestige" hierarchy among physicists?

Just wondering. Are some fields (such as string theory) considered more prestigious than others? (like experimental condensed matter physics?) How does computational physics fit in the hierarchy?

Of course, it certainly does depend on the person, and every person is sort of different. Though I certainly know mathematicians who pretty much believe in that sort of prestige hierarchy in physics. On the other hand, I wonder if there are physicists who are very much against that type of (math=prestigious) thinking.

 

[Pythagorean]

Just wondering. Are some fields (such as string theory) considered more prestigious than others? (like experimental condensed matter physics?) How does computational physics fit in the hierarchy?

Of course, it certainly does depend on the person, and every person is sort of different. Though I certainly know mathematicians who pretty much believe in that sort of prestige hierarchy in physics. On the other hand, I wonder if there are physicists who are very much against that type of (math=prestigious) thinking.

Prestige is a social standing. It probably depends on who you ask, but I doubt that anyone field is more "prestigious" than another in any objective sense. That is, I don't perceive any hierarchy about physics fields themselves; the hierarchy seems to exist more in the politics: who knows how to get funded and who doesn't. Or who works in a particular problem (in any field) that has a broad array of applications and is easily commercialized.

Computational physics isn't really a field. Many different fields of physics can depend on computational approaches. Computation is mostly just a tool. Most branches of physics utilize some kind of computational methods nowadays.

 

[nnnm4]

There is only good science and bad science. Some people prefer to study fundamental particle physics or fundamental condensed matter, others prefer to study applications of physical principles. That's a preference. Some are theorists and some are experimentalists. That's another preference.

I'd say the only type of "physics" that I personally look down upon is physics that doesn't even have experiment in mind. At the base, physics is an experimental science, and all tests of validity ultimately fall on experiment.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't really hear anyone talk about different fields being more prestigious. Hell, I've heard experimentalists say they couldn't hack it as a theorist while some theorists are aghast at the things experimentalists are capable of doing. When I heard the precision LIGO works at in order to detect gravitational waves, I thought it was some sort of act of God.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

It all depends on each person's values. I am also impressed by large projects as LIGO, CERN, and the NIF. But on the other hand, I'm impressed with mathematicians who get to do incredible things with practically nothing but a pen and paper.

Of course, sometimes promising theories and projects don't go as planned, in which case success becomes questionable. Research is a game with ups and downs, no matter what the field. But each one has their load of success stories, otherwise you wouldn't hear about them. Like trends, music and fashion, perception of a field often depends on the decade. Like many physical phenomena, it oscillates over time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My prestige hierarchy is as follows:

• Top: people who are working on what I am working on.
• Middle: people who are working on what I used to work on.
• Bottom: people who are working on things I never worked on.

I suspect many people have similar hierarchies.