Admissions PhD Programs for Mathematical Physics (Experimental Condensed Matter Physics)

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not sure where to start with this.

Neither am I.

The typical textbook tells one of two stories about how physics is done. OIne story is that a bunch of knuckleheaded experimenters measure a bunch of points but don't understand anything until the brilliant theorist comes along and explains it to them. The other is that the brilliant theorist comes up with an idea, which is then verified by hist hunchbacks a team of dull experimenters. Both are gross oversimplifications.

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

"I did research and got into graduate school, therefore research is critical" is a logical fallacy, and honestly, I question how good a scientist someone who thinks this way will be. Is research important? Yes, but not overwhelmingly so. If you had an opportunity and didn't take advantage of it, will this be a problem? Probably - you certainly need to explain why you waited so long. Will doing a good job make your letters stronger? Absolutely.

But if you are doing research merely to check a box, it will backfire. You will not be able to hide this, it will come out in your letters, and it will be a big big negative in the admissions process. You should do thios because you are genuinely interested in it. If you are not, why the devil do you want another seven or more years of it?

 

[gwnorth]

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

 

[Ege Artan]

One of the observations that I've made over the years is that the most successful students tend to be the ones who take full advantage of the opportunities in front of them, over those who are just going through the motions because they see getting involved in research as a hoop that's required to jump through.

That is what I was trying to ask tbh. I was trying to ask what the exact relevance of early more experiment focused research projects had on a theoretical career apart from learning the scientific method. I really do want to make use of extensive opportunities given by my university but I have no idea what to strive for or look for in undergrad research. Could you please explain what I should be learning or looking for during my undergrad research, what will be the main takeaway points?

Another observation is that students earlier in their education who believe they have a preference for the theory side of things over the experimental side of things are basing this on experiences in first year labs where they're given three hours to run through a cookbook experiment they probably haven't read ahead of time, and write it up with partners they may or may not have chosen based on the order in which they arrived in the room.

Not really, this is not that close. My uni is somewhat close to the Perimeter Institute and as a first year I attend their public lectures/seminars and if I cannot due to a time constraint, I listen to their online seminars and I must say I am hooked. The ideas and mathematics discussed and explained over at PI is probably and most likely what I want to pursue in the future. So, I mostly know what I will be dealing with in theoretical physics and am already accepting towards it. However experimentation, designing and setting up an experiment, conducting it, analyzing data, comparing it to current expectations, looking for unexplained phenomena; I do not find it as interesting as theory.

 

[Ege Artan]

The typical textbook tells one of two stories about how physics is done. One story is that a bunch of knuckleheaded experimenters measure a bunch of points but don't understand anything until the brilliant theorist comes along and explains it to them. The other is that the brilliant theorist comes up with an idea, which is then verified by hist hunchbacks a team of dull experimenters. Both are gross oversimplifications.

Oh trust me, I know the incredible importance of experiments. I read a lot of philosophy of science and history of science from Kuhn, Popper, and others during high school so I know the clear and utter importance of experiments. In fact, I get offended by people who disregard experimental side of science (yes, I am talking about you string theorists, pursuing the same theory even though it is unfalsifiable and unprovable just for the sake of an end goal). So definitely, I get what you are saying and agree with it but I cannot see the relevance to what I asked.

Experimenters are not the oompa-loompas of science.

I agree completely, the reason why I want to pursue theoretical does not stem from these "reasons", it stems from what I have seen during bunch of theoretical seminars, lectures, and articles in my undergrad and the theoretical research-like competitions in high school.

"I did research and got into graduate school, therefore research is critical" is a logical fallacy, and honestly, I question how good a scientist someone who thinks this way will be. Is research important? Yes, but not overwhelmingly so. If you had an opportunity and didn't take advantage of it, will this be a problem? Probably - you certainly need to explain why you waited so long. Will doing a good job make your letters stronger? Absolutely.

But if you are doing research merely to check a box, it will backfire. You will not be able to hide this, it will come out in your letters, and it will be a big big negative in the admissions process. You should do thios because you are genuinely interested in it. If you are not, why the devil do you want another seven or more years of it?

That was what I was trying to ask, I mean I do not want to do it to merely check a box. I want to get something out of it that will be relevant to the theoretical career I want to pursue. I was specifically asking what takeaway points I should be looking for. I know how wrong it is to just working for a result and not a process. I mean in thep for example, what if the research you are pursuing turns out to be wrong? Are you going to give up research? No, because its ultimate goal is not to find something, it is to learn something on the way, a new idea, and in the worst case to eliminate a road towards a completed theory. All in all, I get and agree with what you are saying, I was asking for what to look for, maybe I did not word it correctly.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Look, you are already screwing up. Rather than waste time trying to find a research project worthy of you, you should find one now. Yes, as a freshman you will likely be metaphorically washing test tubes rather than Solving The Mysteries of the Universe.

You should do whatever you can. Be grateful. Be humble. Be helpful. Learn.

 

[Ege Artan]

Look, you are already screwing up. Rather than waste time trying to find a research project worthy of you, you should find one now. Yes, as a freshman you will likely be metaphorically washing test tubes rather than Solving The Mysteries of the Universe.

You should do whatever you can. Be grateful. Be humble. Be helpful. Learn.

I am not really getting what this reply was about. I am already spending time looking for research projects, I just came here in my free time and asked for an answer to a question which I thought was pretty straightforward. And I do know that what you said metaphorically is 100% going to happen in the first year, but I could not find an answer to my question in this comment.

I am trying and being (I hope so) as grateful as I possibly can, but not getting an answer to what I asked and being lectured on simple (but important) lessons which I already know of just feels like I am being scorned.

 

[Choppy]

Could you please explain what I should be learning or looking for during my undergrad research, what will be the main takeaway points?

When I was an undergrad I met Bert Brockhouse (Nobel Prize in Physics 1994) and I asked him if he had any advice for a young person interested in physics. He told how important it was to develop "green thumbs." What he was talking about was the same thing Mary Boas introduced in her Mathematical Methods textbook when she talked about the difference between knowledge and skill. The cultivation of one's scientific skill set comes through practice. And I think that's at least one of the more important things one gains with research: skill development. And not only in terms of techniques, but project organization and design, systematic investigation, data analysis, working effectively as a member of a team, learning to write up results, learning to present and defend your work... even developing the ability to persevere on a problem on those days/weeks/months when everything you do doesn't seem to work. So to that end, when looking for an undergraduate project it's important to think about the specific skills you want to develop.

The other thing that comes to mind is that these kind of experiences are your best window into what life as a graduate student -> post-doc -> academic is going to be like. Even if you get nothing else out of them, they will give you insight into this life. So if you're interested in the "theory" side of things, look for research projects with people who work in this area, on problems that seem interesting to you. If it turns out that all the stuff you think is so cool in the lectures is actually quite mundane when you start working with it on a daily basis, it's a lot better if you figure that out over a summer as an undergrad than after you've committed to a four-to-six year project on the stuff.

 

[Ege Artan]

When I was an undergrad I met Bert Brockhouse (Nobel Prize in Physics 1994) and I asked him if he had any advice for a young person interested in physics. He told how important it was to develop "green thumbs." What he was talking about was the same thing Mary Boas introduced in her Mathematical Methods textbook when she talked about the difference between knowledge and skill. The cultivation of one's scientific skill set comes through practice. And I think that's at least one of the more important things one gains with research: skill development. And not only in terms of techniques, but project organization and design, systematic investigation, data analysis, working effectively as a member of a team, learning to write up results, learning to present and defend your work... even developing the ability to persevere on a problem on those days/weeks/months when everything you do doesn't seem to work. So to that end, when looking for an undergraduate project it's important to think about the specific skills you want to develop.

The other thing that comes to mind is that these kind of experiences are your best window into what life as a graduate student -> post-doc -> academic is going to be like. Even if you get nothing else out of them, they will give you insight into this life. So if you're interested in the "theory" side of things, look for research projects with people who work in this area, on problems that seem interesting to you. If it turns out that all the stuff you think is so cool in the lectures is actually quite mundane when you start working with it on a daily basis, it's a lot better if you figure that out over a summer as an undergrad than after you've committed to a four-to-six year project on the stuff.

Thank you a lot for the insight, I was looking for an answer of this caliber!

I am seriously considering to take part in a research project in my uni, even if I do not get to do something active, I will still try to follow them and contribute to the project as a contributor. What you said makes complete sense, I am only seeing theory for maybe 2 hours nonstop in a seminar and that is it for the whole week, makes a ton of sense to take part in a project.

Do you think people will be accepting towards a first-year student? I will still try my shot, as you miss all the shots you don't take, but I want to know what people will react beforehand so that I can prepare myself to it. Will they just not care about my request even if it is just being there or will they be accepting?

 

[Choppy]

Do you think people will be accepting towards a first-year student? I will still try my shot, as you miss all the shots you don't take, but I want to know what people will react beforehand so that I can prepare myself to it. Will they just not care about my request even if it is just being there or will they be accepting?

You might get a mixed bag of experiences. Some people are quite happy to talk research opportunities with undergraduates. Others will only do it because it's an expected part of their academic mandate. As a general rule, preference tends to lead toward more senior students... for the most part they have more experience and are expected to be more productive. But even if it doesn't work out right away, sometimes the fact that you've shown an interest early can get you to the front of the line later.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you think people will be accepting towards a first-year student?

Not really. You don't know anything yet. You are 25-30 courses behind where you need to be to start the sort of research you want to do - or, put another way, about 20,000 hours of work short. You just finished high school - you simply are not ready to do most tasks required of theoretical physics.

 

[Ege Artan]

Not really. You don't know anything yet. You are 25-30 courses behind where you need to be to start the sort of research you want to do - or, put another way, about 20,000 hours of work short. You just finished high school - you simply are not ready to do most tasks required of theoretical physics.

Please read what I said before prior to answering some questions.

I explicitly said that I am not expecting to get an active research role. I simply said will I be able to tag along the research and see how it is done by just being there and not actively contributing. Getting to know the process, people, and ideas. You answered the question: "will they give a first-year student an active role in a research program?". I did not ask this, so I do not get why you are answering it.

You are acting as if I do not know what I don't know, and trust me I do. As I've said before, I watch and participate in a lot of seminars and I get how much of stuff I need to know. You having a presumption on someone this way feels kind of disrespecting.

 

[Ege Artan]

You might get a mixed bag of experiences. Some people are quite happy to talk research opportunities with undergraduates. Others will only do it because it's an expected part of their academic mandate. As a general rule, preference tends to lead toward more senior students... for the most part they have more experience and are expected to be more productive. But even if it doesn't work out right away, sometimes the fact that you've shown an interest early can get you to the front of the line later.

Thank you a lot for the answer.

I guess I will just ask profs in person or cold e-mail them to just tag along/audit their research project. If they let me to, then it is what I wanted and if they do not, then I did not lose much.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Please read what I said before prior to answering some questions.

People might misread that and think you're being a...well, drawing conclusions.

I did read it. Now, I know you don't think you have anything to learn from us, just like you didn't think you had anything to learn from Toronto. But you're just as correct now as you were then.

Students take effort. Undergrads take a lot of effort. The lower you go, the more effort it takes. "Tagging along" means "take time away from what you are doing and explain it to me". Some of this is time compensated for by getting at least a little work out of the student. If you can't do any work, you are a pure liability.

Now, in the experimental world, the same forces are in play, but the moral equivalent of washing test tubes can mitigate it somewhat. Perhaps this si beneath you, and perhaps experimental work is beneath you, and perhaps even Toronto is beneath you. Does it really matter if that keeps you from your goals?

 

[advhaver]

Considering your past experience, do you think practical research and lab projects translate much to theoretical physics apart from the general scientific methodology?

Sorry for the delay. I was sick, and then I was traveling.

I have no experience in this matter save my own. I did what I thought I enjoyed most. There wasn't a specific plan.

I'm not sure where to start with this. There's a lot more to experimental work than just the measurement of things.

Though I might be completely wrong about this, I suspect that one of the aspects of my application that worked was that I was willing to do any work in the lab to get the project to succeed. That included going outside my academics and learning to design simple electronic circuits.

But if you are doing research merely to check a box, it will backfire.

I did research because I enjoy it. I have always preferred it, which is why, despite initial pressure from my family, I chose the study of pure physics/maths instead of engineering (mech) or finance (quant).

In addition to my college theses and research work in the lab, I am working on research (not funded or supported by the college or the lab) in areas of physics and maths that interest me. I consider myself fortunate to have gotten the opportunity to work in a research lab after graduating in May and starting my PhD in August. I know it means I do not get a break after graduation, but I need to grab every opportunity at my age.

 

[advhaver]

just tag along/audit their research project.

"Tagging along" means "take time away from what you are doing and explain it to me".

Ege, Vanadium is right!

Please do NOT ask any professors about "tagging" along. You will likely not get a reply, or worse, they might blacklist you as a lazy person who just wants to jump on a moving train.

Research requires you to be a self-starter. You need to initiate topics and discuss ideas that YOU have with your PI. Your PI will assist you and advocate for you, but that's where it stops. He/She/They will not let you "tag along". Consider yourself lucky if they hold your hand a little during the initial months. I was lucky. I am in infinite debt to my PIs (I had 2).

 

[advhaver]

Do you think people will be accepting towards a first-year student?

Due to COVID-19, most labs were shut during my freshmen year. Heck, we even had to do our classes remotely. Despite this, I did manage to snag a research project in my first summer on campus. Part of this might have been that I took a Physics TA opportunity on my second day on campus. This TA work was mundane. The first "job" I was given was to sort resistors by value (for 75 freshmen electrical engineers). But I did it happily. I'd do it again if I had to.

So, the answer is yes. If you show willingness to do ANYTHING that can help the project, you will get the opportunity to participate in research in your first summer. Forget "washing test tubes," I was prepared to sweep solder splatter off the floor and sleep in the lab if that's what it took.

Instead of asking, "Can I tag along?". Ask, "What can I do to help?"

Hope this helps.

P.S.
"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well." - Dr. Martin Luther King

 

[hariprasadyalla]

Thank you advhaver. I followed through the whole of this thread. It is a treasure.
I love this quote: "If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well." - Dr. Martin Luther King

 

[Astronuc]

I was trying to reconcile the title Mathematical Physics (Experimental Condensed Matter Physics). Mathematical Physics was a subject area when I was in university, but now we have Computational Physics (Modeling & Simulation), which is more or less Applied Mathematics applied to physics problems.

Experimental work goes hand-in-hand with theoretical and mathematical/computational physics, i.e., they are complementary in a variety of fields, e.g., Condensed Matter Physics, which when applied becomes Materials Science and Engineering.

Digging into experimental work, one might be involved in separate effects experiments or more complicated integrated experiments. Separate effects might focus on nuclear or atomic level effects, which then inform/affect the physics on a larger scale, from nanoscale to mesoscale to full engineering scale.

Computational software and computer hardware enable us to way more complicated problems that were impossible 4 or 5 decades ago. When I joined industry, I worked with some folks who developed some of the earliest methods in FEA, especially nonlinear FEA and predictive analysis. We would take experimental results for materials properties and radiation effects, then run simulations to predict how components would function/perform in their operating environment, as well as simulating various experimental results. Over four decades, we did modeling and simulation on more complicated problems. The combination of predictions and post-operation examinations helped the industry to develop a better understanding of materials and system performance, and improvements in the theoretical understanding. in short theory informs modeling and simulation, and a successful simulation can valid theory, or can be used to correct deficiencies in theory, and vice versa.

 

[CrysPhys]

I was trying to reconcile the title Mathematical Physics (Experimental Condensed Matter Physics)

The title originally had Mathematical Physics only. After many exchanges, the OP saw the light and decided to pursue PhD programs in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics instead. They then revised the title, resulting in the ambiguity you encountered.

Although this thread is highly convoluted, in my opinion, it is a valuable source of information for students planning to pursue a PhD in physics.

 

[Astronuc]

The title originally had Mathematical Physics only. After many exchanges, the OP saw the light and decided to pursue PhD programs in Experimental Condensed Matter Physics instead. They then revised the title, resulting in the ambiguity you encountered.

I thought that was the case, but I wanted to convey the importance of mathematical/computational and experimental physics. We need both to work in parallel.

After I posted my comment, I attended a presentation on the application of multiphysics simuations of various manufacturing approaches to structural components, one using laser-power-bed fusion, another using Electric Field Assisted Sintering (EFAS), and various other methods. The talk focused primarily on the modeling and simulation aspects with some comparison with actually physical processes being simulated, with some discussion how well the modeling matched actual application. The goal is to improve or tailor the manufacturing, ideally near net shape, will improving the economics - using less material to achieve the desired product and performance characteristics.

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/powderbedfusion/

There was some discussion about the Rosenthal equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_heat_source_model_for_thin_plates
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809917307208
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1408593