Physics No Career with Physics: Is it True?

[ZapperZ]

I'm not trying to argue against doing fundamental research. I was just playing devils advocate.

I've always considered condensed matter phys to be a non-pure physics since it uses ideas from all the other branches. Every area of research has fundamentals. Applied areas such condensed matter phys and mechanical engineering also have their own fundamentals pertinent to the field of study.

modey3

What I mean as "fundamental" is that it affects PHYSICS itself, and that its ideas actually can influence what goes on in field theory, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. This is amply demonstrated in many of the phenomena that I've mentioned already. So it isn't just "applied"!

Furthermore, if Laughlin-Anderson-et al. are true, it may also affect the way we view our world, whereby ALL of the so-called fundamental particles are nothing more than vacuum excitations out of some many-body interactions (see Laughlin's article). This means that the principle that is central in condensed matter physics IS the dominant "rule" of our universe itself! It cannot get more fundamental than that! So it goes to the core understanding on how we should view our universe itself!

Zz.

 

[giann_tee]

Due to monopoly on waste disposal and recycling, mafia in Italy earns 16 billion euros a year. I however come from the other side of Adriatic sea where I am now considering the garbage industry as my preferred business. (Or holistic detective agency).

People seem to be equating "applied" with "not fundamental".

When I was writing the graduation work (major) professors pushed me into that kind of dilemmas. Their criticism was that the allowed way of writing is sticking to the "fundamental" physics. Oddly, I wrote 150 pages about ice ages in a year without much consulting. I wanted to smuggle in the opportunity to read and write about chaos theory in fact. The crime instead was that we are not allowed to create works that are like books, textbooks or works that process complex issues. All "papers" must be narrow in topic. The solution was that I was allowed to write that topic as a part of Astronomy (aha! complex science). The only important content for discussion was Fourier analysis.

The culture of working with something defined as fundamental is well established matter in college. It persists through their own fierce talks and debates among the stuff, but more importantly I notice that the fundamental areas of physics provide a sense of simplicity and beauty. Empirical, complex and applied papers don't seem to match so well the enjoyment of younger students and professors - or maybe I have the wrong picture in my head.
Advanced papers are plentiful, hard, quote too many articles, they simply look bad and in continuation its hard to publish anything wider or much different on the new frontiers.

Condensed matter physics has arrived with steam and funds, as far as I know. Personally, I don't like that area. Quantum mechanics is generating too big and ugly complexity contained in theories of condensed matter. Also, people say that usually very few people work efficiently to become problem solvers.

At the time of learning the topic of ice ages, there were two questions I made. The wrong question is what moves the climate. Its wrong because if I take a look at the climate record I don't know if that record is like a recording-tape that was taped over with some small periodical influence on the climate. The good question is: what is it there on the climate record. In this way there is much less work to write about... At different scales of time and space different physical phenomena become important. Over some range then questions shift. In analogy I believe that it is the same shift when it comes to quality of education and how it can relate to business. Proclaim one question less important and another one better. If being a student would complicate matters more, the definition of physics and the choice of career would arrive more easily, I should say.

Cosmology still can not print out the final reasons why that ought to explain nature. The science still goes on, classes too. Academia would be reminded through learning cosmology that they aren't REALLY working with fundamental. Loving some topic, beauty, time, rationality are a major role although they back off due to social or partially economic availability.

I don't like the end of my college because it certifies we are all jackasses again just like before. I like the pleasurable sensation of working something inside the atmosphere of personal education. My conclusion is that studies should be complex and extend to surrounding activities. :-)

 

[ZapperZ]

When I was writing the graduation work (major) professors pushed me into that kind of dilemmas. Their criticism was that desirable, customary way of writing is sticking to the "fundamental" physics. Oddly, I wrote 150 pages about ice ages in a year without much consulting. I wanted to smuggle in the opportunity to read and write about chaos theory in fact. The crime instead was that we are not allowed to create works that are books, textbook or that process complex issues. All "papers" must be narrow in topic. The solution was that I was allowed to write for the subject "geophysics" as part of Astronomy (aha! complex science). The only important content for discussion was Fourier analysis.

The culture of working with something defined as fundamental is filtered with fierce talks and debates among the stuff, but more importantly I notice that the fundamental areas of physics provide a sense of simplicity and beauty. Empirical, complex and applied papers don't seem to match so well the enjoyment of younger students - or maybe I have the wrong picture in my head.

Condensed matter physics has arrived with steam and funds, as far as I know. Personally, I don't like it. Quantum mechanics is generating too big and ugly complexity contained in theories of condensed matter. Also, people say that despite intelligence which is widespread usually very few people work efficiently to such extent that they are the new problem solvers (plus their age & experience).

At the time of learning the topic of ice ages, there were two questions I made. The wrong question is what moves the climate? Its wrong because if I take a look at the climate record I don't know if that record as a recording-tape has taped over some small periodical influence. The good question is: what is it there on the climate record. In this way there is much less work to write about... At different scales of time and space different physical phenomena become important. Over some range questions shift, therefore I think it is the same shift when it comes to quality of education and how it can relate to business. Proclaim one question less important another one better.

Cosmology still can not print out the final reasons why and the science still goes on, classes too. I don't like the end of college because it certifies the street life, the idea that we are the same. I like the pleasurable sensation of working something inside the atmosphere of education. My conclusion is that studies should be complex. :-)

Your post is, in itself, complex and confusing.

You said that studies should be complex, yet you don't like condensed matter (I doubt you even know what condensed matter really is). This is strange because condensed matter DEALS with complexity, because it deals with the many-body interactions that are the most common interactions we observe every single day.

My aim here is NOT to make you or anyone else "like" it. I really don't care if someone likes CM or not. Liking something is such a subjective argument. I don't like your favorite color either. However, but I do want to do is to get rid of this misconception that "physics" is predominantly an esoteric, "useless", and irrelevant subject. It isn't! String theory, high energy physics, quantum gravity, etc. do not even make the largest part of what practicing physics community do!

Here are two things to consider:

(1) Open Phys. Rev. Lett. You will see that the subject of condensed matter not only has the largest number of publications in each issue, it is also the ONLY subject area that has TWO different sections, while other subject areas either have just ONE, or are combined with other subject matter.

(2) Look at all the different volumes of the Physical Review journals (A, B, C, D, and E). Now look at the number of publications in each of these journals. You'll notice one peculiar thing. While all the journals come out with one volume per month, Phys. Rev. B not only comes out with 2 volumes at the first of the month, but it also comes out with ANOTHER 2 volumes at the 15th of the month, a total of four different volumes of very thick journals each month! And I give you one guess on what subject matter is covered in Phys. Rev. B.

Moral of the story: condensed matter/material science subject matter is a HUGE and significant part of physics and the physics community. It can't be ignored and trivialized. It is not a coincidence that when the APS celebrated its Centennial celebration in 1999, that it decided to do its biggest celebration during the APS March Meeting when the Division of Condensed Matter Physics meets.

Zz.

 

[G01]

People seem to be equating "applied" with "not fundamental". I've already given pertinent examples to totally falsify such a notion. Each one of those produced a new physics that became a bedrock of many other physics. In fact, it is what attracted many people to the field. It has each feet in both aspects - application and basic knowledge of physics. Unlike high energy/astronomy/etc, we seldom have to SELL the importance of condensed matter as far as having practical implications. However, the bonus here being that we can also point out why it is also a study of basic knowledge since it deals with how "correlated systems" behave. There are no clearer demonstration of the basic validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity than from condensed matter experiments (read Carver Mead's article on collective electrodynamics if you don't believe me). And one can easily point to the fundamental concept of quantum phase transition. Where do you think quantum phase transition is manifested in the clearest form? At the Tevatron or some neutron star? Think again!

I would like to chime in and add my own two cents. I agree with Zapperz. It seems that if some physics is applied, people want to call it something other than physics?! Why is this? I think it stems from this false belief that physics can't be applied and that it doesn't relate to the real world. (I blame the history channel and string theory.) This is completely untrue. Even when presented with physics research that is applied and experimental, some people just say that it isn't "real" physics.

Spintronics research, research into experimental quantum computation, research on low dimensional electron systems, research into superfluids, high Tc superconductors.

Someone explain to me how any of these topics are not "real physics" even though they are based on physics theories and principles like quantum mechanics (spintronics) or help to fundamentally explain novel physical systems (low dimensional systems, superfluids, superconductors).

Yes, you may need some knowledge of of chemistry or materials to do research in these areas, but that doesn't mean it isn't physics! You need knowledge of atomic physics to explain the light spectrum from stars, but it doesn't mean that astrophysics is a subset of quantum mechanics!

Physics is, in the end, experimental. All sciences are. The theory is important, but no science is completely theoretical. All sciences, including physics must apply to the real world by definition. As the above mentioned research topics show, physics research can be applied, experimental, and fundamental all at the same time.

 

[cubeleg]

I add my two cents. From wikpedia

Physics (Greek: physis - φύσις) is the science of matter[1] and its motion.[2] It is the science that seeks to understand very basic concepts such as force, energy, mass, and charge. More completely, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world around us and, more broadly, the universe, behaves.[3][4] Note that the term 'universe' is defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them. However, the term 'universe' may also be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting concepts such as the cosmos, the world, and nature.

I have bolded which I think is important for the discussion. In my opinion the division of physics in applied and fundamental is arbitrary, all physicists are interested in explaining some physical event, if it is useful or not is another thing. I think that the discussion about the aim of physics could be fruitful, but this thread is not about that.

I've always considered condensed matter phys to be a non-pure physics since it uses ideas from all the other branches.

This is a bit unfair. But even if it were true, that thing is not bad, taking other points of view of others fields is sometimes the best that you can do to understand something.

About the first post, I would say to that professor that maybe he should look at a new computer and think about the differences between an old one, for example in the hard drive.

 

[Locrian]

No, I'm using that definition subjectively for this thread alone.

Let's all make up definitions for the words we use, just for this thread!

Awesome.

 

[kodiakghost]

Let's all make up definitions for the words we use, just for this thread!

Awesome.

OK, I define "Awesome" to mean "Your Miniature Dachshund just crapped on my new carpet". From now on when anyone uses the word "Awesome", just think of little crapping hot dog dogs. But should me make our definitions case sensitive? We could have a completely different definition of "awesome" if we wanted.

 

[TMFKAN64]

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

 

[WarPhalange]

That is VERY true, and that's why when there's such a serious misconception going on in this forum, I feel obliged to correct it. People somehow think that "physics" means high energy, nuclear, string, astrophysics, etc. It isn't, especially when the LARGEST part of the physics community works in an area that have direct impact on our lives. To lump everything else to be "physics" without including condensed matter/material science is like using Hawaii and Alaska as the representative of the US and ignoring the rest of the contiguous states that make up the largest part of the US!

Zz.

When I decided to go into physics, what swayed me was cosmology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Nevermind that I didn't know what quantum physics was, I knew it would be cool, so I wanted to do it.

Now that I'm a senior applying to graduate school, I'm looking for schools that do condensed matter, optics, low-temperature stuff and maybe stuff like medical physics or quantum computing. I realized how vast physics really is and realized I would prefer a different part of it than the parts that get most attention like black holes or CERN or what have you.

So, at the start of the year I of course met new physics majors, some of them freshmen. Why did they get into physics? String theory, Quantum, etc. And so the cycle goes, of people wandering into the major in hopes of it being like a sci-fi movie and realizing it's actually pretty mundane. After two quarters of QM, I no longer think of it as "ooooh teleportation!", I think of it as "So the electron drops down by a discrete energy to a lower level, and that's how light is emitted? Holy crap! That's awesome!" Basically, I was lucky enough that when I realized what physics really is, I still liked it and want to do it for a living.

But I can't imagine how many people go into it like myself, thinking we would learn magic or something and then realizing it's not really that "cool".

 

[mbisCool]

When I decided to go into physics, what swayed me was cosmology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Nevermind that I didn't know what quantum physics was, I knew it would be cool, so I wanted to do it.

Now that I'm a senior applying to graduate school, I'm looking for schools that do condensed matter, optics, low-temperature stuff and maybe stuff like medical physics or quantum computing. I realized how vast physics really is and realized I would prefer a different part of it than the parts that get most attention like black holes or CERN or what have you.

So, at the start of the year I of course met new physics majors, some of them freshmen. Why did they get into physics? String theory, Quantum, etc. And so the cycle goes, of people wandering into the major in hopes of it being like a sci-fi movie and realizing it's actually pretty mundane. After two quarters of QM, I no longer think of it as "ooooh teleportation!", I think of it as "So the electron drops down by a discrete energy to a lower level, and that's how light is emitted? Holy crap! That's awesome!" Basically, I was lucky enough that when I realized what physics really is, I still liked it and want to do it for a living.

But I can't imagine how many people go into it like myself, thinking we would learn magic or something and then realizing it's not really that "cool".

I would suggest researching a potential major a little more than this

 

[giann_tee]

When I decided to go into physics, what swayed me was cosmology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Nevermind that I didn't know what quantum physics was, I knew it would be cool, so I wanted to do it.

Now that I'm a senior applying to graduate school, I'm looking for schools that do condensed matter, optics, low-temperature stuff and maybe stuff like medical physics or quantum computing. I realized how vast physics really is and realized I would prefer a different part of it than the parts that get most attention like black holes or CERN or what have you.

So, at the start of the year I of course met new physics majors, some of them freshmen. Why did they get into physics? String theory, Quantum, etc. And so the cycle goes, of people wandering into the major in hopes of it being like a sci-fi movie and realizing it's actually pretty mundane. After two quarters of QM, I no longer think of it as "ooooh teleportation!", I think of it as "So the electron drops down by a discrete energy to a lower level, and that's how light is emitted? Holy crap! That's awesome!" Basically, I was lucky enough that when I realized what physics really is, I still liked it and want to do it for a living.

But I can't imagine how many people go into it like myself, thinking we would learn magic or something and then realizing it's not really that "cool".

Last night I watched this new episode of South Park online and the kids (Cartman, Kyle, Stan and Kenny) were stunned by the fact they were supposed to participate in the School Musical 3 when they didn't even know about School Musical 2 or 1. They were worried that they would turn out so uncool and unpopular.

There is one kind of transition, an energetic level near the first hydrogen level that first I heard in a sentence like... "and this theory explains even the transition..." when it was already TOO late. That makes me sweat.

When it comes to those topics I don't like, an example is the defensive behavior of some teachers about which topic is allowed to be expanded lightly and which one is stuck in the rigorous process of examination. I wish there is more time to experience matters through reading long texts, maybe with more historical and more experimental emphasis.

Your post is chaotic unfortunately. Everyone DOES think physics is excellent and it IS magic. Check out what polls say: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/38601/title/College_Its_What_We_Make_It

 

[WarPhalange]

Everyone DOES think physics is excellent and it IS magic. Check out what polls say: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/38601/title/College_Its_What_We_Make_It

That was my point. People expect magic from physics and may become disappointed when they aren't learning about alternate universes and time travel, but how a refrigerator works and why the sun is yellow.