PhD in condensed matter theory or theoretical cosmology

[CyclicAvatar]

Hi all, I just graduated from my master's program in theoretical physics. I did 60% of the coursework in high energy physics and rest in condensed matter theory plus a few experimental physics courses. I did my master's thesis in what can be called as theoretical cosmology, studying particle dynamics in cosmological spaces.

Now I'm considering a PhD and I was wondering if I should apply for condensed matter physics with a focus on topological insulators and quantum nanomaterial theory or if I should continue in the field of high energy physics. I am interested in both and would like to actively contribute in both these fields.

One reason I considered for PhD in condensed matter theory is that there is more financial dependence and I can also work in the industry later on. With a PhD in high energy physics, my career would be largely limited to academics, something that I really like but wouldn't want to limit myself like that.

Secondly I see that condensed matter physics adds more value to the society in terms of research output, results that are obtained from high energy physics or cosmology doesn't really add value to society. I maybe wrong in this and if so please correct me. Is it possible to work in high energy physics or cosmology once I do my PhD in condensed matter physics (theory). I mean is it possible to transition your work like that.

I know some physicists who have worked in high energy physics and then worked on condensed matter and then shifted their focus back to pure high energy physics ( Frank Wilczek is an example although I shouldn't be comparing my case to a Nobel laureate).

Please let me know what you think of this. Any pointers on this will be hugely appreciated. TIA.

 

[Choppy]

Personally I would lean in the direction that gives you more employment options when you graduate. While that's not to say that you can't make a career out of the more academically oriented direction, it's a very challenging road. The odds of a career in academia are generally pretty low, so having a backup plan is a good idea.

I'm not sure that I agree that cosmology work doesn't add value to society. The problem though is that it's value is less immediate. It's a lot easier to convince the average person to give you money to develop a nanoparticle that will more effectively deliver a drug to a targeted site in a patient than it is to convince that same person to pay you to model the dynamics of the early universe.

Ultimately I think you should pick which ever direction you're most passionate about, but there's a strong caveat: have a well thought-out plan for the scenario where academia doesn't work out.