deependra1003
From which branch of physics like nuclear physics or theoretical physics the PhD will be more beneficial for career?
The discussion revolves around the career benefits of pursuing a PhD in nuclear physics versus theoretical physics. Participants explore various factors influencing career success and the nature of jobs available in both fields, including distinctions between theoretical and experimental approaches.
Participants do not reach a consensus on which branch of physics is more beneficial for career prospects, as multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the definitions and implications of each field.
Participants highlight the importance of personal circumstances and preferences in determining career benefits, indicating that the discussion is highly context-dependent and lacks definitive conclusions.
deependra1003 said:From which branch of physics like nuclear physics or theoretical physics the PhD will be more beneficial for career?
deependra1003 said:I mean by nuclear physics the practical work just like working around the reactors etc. So I just wanted to know whether I choose theoretical side of physics or the experimental one for better earning options?
deependra1003 said:Can you please tell me the job of nuclear physicist?
e.bar.goum said:It's a pretty broad subject, but basically, a nuclear physicist is a person who researches the interactions between atomic nuclei when they get close enough together to interact via the strong force. Nuclear physicists will study anything from the shape and structure of nuclei (nuclear structure studies) through to the precise dynamics of what happens in nuclear reactions (nuclear reaction dynamics studies), to how nuclei decay, and when, (precise studies of e.g. Auger electrons through and measuring half-lives.)
Nuclear physicists can do absolutely fundamental science - "how does nucleon transfer effect the probability of fusion?" , "how do triaxial shapes evolve?", "how can we understand high spin isomers?", "what reactions can take place in supernovae?", "how do we make the next heaviest element?" through to absolutely applied science - "how can we use nuclear techniques to map soil erosion in farmland?", "how does the energy of Auger electrons affect their use in cancer treatments?", "how do the secondary reactions in heavy ion therapy add to the total dose to a cancer tumour?" (and yes, bomb stuff as well, and I imagine there's some nuclear physics jobs with designing new reactors too, but I'd think you'd also be an engineer).
Nuclear physicists can be theorists - "how can we model fusion in a microscopic manner?" - their main tool will be a supercomputer or they can be experimentalists - "how can we measure the evolution of quasi-fission with neutron number?" - their main tool will be a nuclear accelerator and some particle detectors. Sometimes, they can be both.
Oops. In fact, nuclear physics is the only physics where you consider all fundamental forces of nature (gravity comes into play for nuclear astrophysicists - neutron stars etc). I phrased that poorly. In terms of structure/reaction dynamics though, often you only worry about the strong and electromagnetic forces.Intraverno said:Wait, Nuclear Physics only covers the Strong Force? Who researches the weak and electroweak forces then? Cosmologists?