So at what point are you a Physicist/Mathematician/Other ?

  • Thread starter hitmeoff
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Point
In summary, this academic has really made me realize that I love what I'm studying and I'm learning what I want to learn.
  • #1
hitmeoff
261
1
For some reason, this academic has really made me realize that I love what I'm studying and I'm learning what I want to learn.

I'm truly enjoying my Abstract Algebra, Analysis and Classical Mechanics class. I don't think it was the contents of courses necessarily, I tried to take the above math classes a year ago, and I took sophomore level modern physics also last year, but I dropped my math classes and only mediocre in my physics classes, for reasons various personal reasons.

The point being, this quarter, not only do I feel very sure of my choice of majors but I feel like I am truly now learning to become a REAL Mathematician/Physicist. The the other I was here on PF and I read a post, can't remember if it was Mathwonk or Two-Fish Quant or maybe one of the other Contributors, but one of them said something that resonated with me, to paraphrase:

"You don't go earn a PhD and then become a Physicist, you become a Physicist and then go get your PhD."

Maybe I'm thinking to deeply, but I don't think the post meant: "go get a job in your major field and then go do your PhD." Though I am aware that a lot of people do exactly that, get work experience and go back. I think was meant is, a mental state, where you know that this is what you are: a Physicist, that's you're identity.

So at what point can you rightly call yourself a physicist? When you graduate with your B.S.? When you get work experience as a scientist? When you know that learning about the world around you is your primary drive in life?

What do you all think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This doesn't answer your question, exactly, but I'm finding that our obsession with titles is exactly the reason why physicists can have a hard time finding a job in industry.

As an example, a physicist's resume will often not even make it past a company's screening filters because the are a physicist and not an engineer - even though the physicist is likely perfectly qualified for the job they are trying to get an interview for.

So, to answer your question, I don't think it matters. People who aren't polymath's (and how many of us are) like to hang on to their titles. It shows that they are something. But does it matter if you have a PhD in physics if now you're predicting wall street for a living? I mean, what's your title then? I don't think titles matter; what matters is what you can do. But society doesn't see it that way.

But that still doesn't answer your question, does it? Sorry. You're probably asking about mindset and/or ability, not titles. To answer your question (for real this time): I think that quote in your post is right. Being a physicist is a mindset. I think that you do have to "become one" before getting a PhD, otherwise you'll never be able to finish that PhD! I'd be this probably happens either sometime during childhood (the kid who is has to test everything he sees on TV), or during a hard undergraduate physics course where you have to love it or die. Now, that inquisitive kid isn't exactly a physicist, but he's thinking and questioning like one. And that's probably really the distinguishing factor between a physicist and everyone else: the way they think and question things.
 
  • #3
I spose this applies to any type of scientist, but I think it's when you're studying any aspect of nature (mathematics, evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, cosmology) and suddenly you're stricken with a deeper understanding of what the hell is going on and, probably more importantly, you find it to be the most beautiful thing you have ever witnessed. That seems to be the moment where people say, okay, from now till the day I die I'm dedicating myself to figuring the world out, with full knowledge that they won't succeed but doing it anyway.

I mean, you could argue hell, a kid could have that sort of experience, doesn't mean he's a physicist. But you're learning, and once you decide you want to keep learning, shouldn't that mean that you're a pursuer of knowledge in that area? Isn't that the definition of a physicist?
 
  • #4
When you have a PhD in physics and you are employed doing physics. But as was mentioned above, why worry about titles?
 
  • #5
hitmeoff said:
I'm truly enjoying my Abstract Algebra, Analysis and Classical Mechanics class.

I am having the same semester here, with AA, CM, some analysis, some atomic physics, and for the first time, I feel great too. That's probably because you are now in lectures with less people, in which you have some graduate students trying to learn this material, with more focused topics, classes with problem sets of only one question taking pages to answer, and so and so. At least these are the parts amused me, besides the contents of the courses.
 
  • #6
Phyisab**** said:
When you have a PhD in physics and you are employed doing physics. But as was mentioned above, why worry about titles?

So the grad students doing all of the actual scientific research while their advisers get the credit aren't physicists?
 
  • #7
Jack21222 said:
So the grad students doing all of the actual scientific research while their advisers get the credit aren't physicists?

Many of the modern physics pioneers made some of their great discoveries in graduate school.
 
  • #8
I'm kind of old-school about the term 'physicist'. To me, you have to have an advanced degree in physics, usually a PhD. You have to be active in research. Publishing is important but not all active researchers can publish - some might do proprietary work in industry, or secret stuff in the military.

For some reason my requirements for the title 'physicist' are really high, but not so much for other sciences. For example, I have a BS in physics, but I also took a *lot* of chemistry and I work as a chemist. I call myself a chemist, but I'd never call myself a physicist.

Not exactly logical :smile:.
 
  • #9
lisab said:
I'm kind of old-school about the term 'physicist'. To me, you have to have an advanced degree in physics, usually a PhD. You have to be active in research. Publishing is important but not all active researchers can publish - some might do proprietary work in industry, or secret stuff in the military.

For some reason my requirements for the title 'physicist' are really high, but not so much for other sciences. For example, I have a BS in physics, but I also took a *lot* of chemistry and I work as a chemist. I call myself a chemist, but I'd never call myself a physicist.

Not exactly logical :smile:.

Well, isn't it "easier" to be a chemist than a physicist? And by that I mean physics is the fundamental science; chemistry is an applied segment of that.
 
  • #10
Shackleford said:
Well, isn't it "easier" to be a chemist than a physicist? And by that I mean physics is the fundamental science; chemistry is an applied segment of that.

Probably depends on the person. I found chemistry to be easier than physics, in general. For example, I took a year of physical chemistry, and the quantum we studied there would be considered introductory, compared the the upper division quantum I took in the physics department.
 
  • #11
lisab said:
I'm kind of old-school about the term 'physicist'. To me, you have to have an advanced degree in physics, usually a PhD. You have to be active in research. Publishing is important but not all active researchers can publish - some might do proprietary work in industry, or secret stuff in the military.

For some reason my requirements for the title 'physicist' are really high, but not so much for other sciences. For example, I have a BS in physics, but I also took a *lot* of chemistry and I work as a chemist. I call myself a chemist, but I'd never call myself a physicist.

Not exactly logical :smile:.

I hear what your are saying. I was about to reply to another post in regards to people who arent "polymaths."

I was about to say that this isn't my first degree. My first BA is in sociology and psychology, that was completed over six years ago and though I never held a position where I was paid to do either discipline, I use what I learned on a daily basis. I actively engage on a daily basis in sociology and psychology. When I see "groups" I take not of how they interact, I try to understand the group dynamics. When I meet individual people or I see individuals interact with other individuals I am always trying to analyze them, trying to figure why they think and act the way they do (not in a bad way mind you, just trying to understand people in general).

However, because the state of California wouldn't recognize me as a "psychologist" (because I am not licensed, nor can I be licensed because I don't have an advanced degree in it), I don't feel like I can call myself a psychologist. However, I do see myself as a sociologist, I have no problems calling myself that.

I do find it interesting that I can see myself as a sociologist, but not a psychologist. If I was really into law or medicine and really studied seriously, but never went to law school or med school, I don't think I could reasonably call myself a lawyer or a doctor. I would just view myself as someone knowledgeable about those subjects.

But I also see myself as a philosopher, even if I do not have a degree in that (though I did take a lot of phil classes in college). Perhaps I can regard myself as a Natural Philosopher instead of a Mathematician/Physicist, since I also have a significant interest in all science (chemistry, biology, the social sciences, etc)...
 
  • #12
Shackleford said:
Many of the modern physics pioneers made some of their great discoveries in graduate school.

Right. Louis de Broglie, for example. I'd say he was a physicist while doing his graduate thesis on matter waves, for which he won the Nobel prize, despite the fact he was a grad student. He didn't just become a physicist after he got his Ph.D.
 
  • #13
lisab said:
Probably depends on the person. I found chemistry to be easier than physics, in general. For example, I took a year of physical chemistry, and the quantum we studied there would be considered introductory, compared the the upper division quantum I took in the physics department.

Well isn't that a little like a Mathematician saying physics is easy, because the math you encounter in junior/senior level physics courses would pretty much be considered "introductory" compared to the kind of math a math major would take (ex. Calc used in Physics, vs Analysis in math, basic L.A. compared to L.A. for a math major).

A lot of my physics professors have said that they couldn't do chem to save their life. One of them, who is doing work on plasma physics said flat out "Chemistry is hard, I don't know how chemist do it."

Sure all of chemistry can (in theory) be understood with the Schroedinger equation, but that's like saying all of biology can be understood through chemistry, or all of psychology or medicine can be understood through biology. So by default a physicist should be the most knowledgeable doctor. I don't think anyone expects a physicist to be able to treat disease like a physician.

Maybe given a few (or several) lifetimes, a physicist may be able to derive all of medical knowledge (I mean after they deduce all of chemistry, then all of biology), but realistically each discipline requires its own body of knowledge and study. I am pretty sure a brilliant chemist, if he applied his efforts to physics could do well in physics. I am sure a brilliant physicist, if he puts his energy into math could be a brilliant mathematician.

I also know some brilliant physics students who cannot express themselves well. They could never become brilliant writers, are we to then say writing is "harder" than physics? No I don't think so, its all about what a person decides to put their energy in that determines what they are good at.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
There are still objective levels of difficulty. Chemistry is a derivation of physics. That was her point. Yes, mathematics courses do go deeper theoretically, but however, in my experience in my mathematics courses, the hardest problems in the chapters were the physics or application-based problems. Why? Because the real-world phenomena require the very advanced mathematics and are usually pretty complicated.
 
  • #15
Shackleford said:
There are still objective levels of difficulty. Chemistry is a derivation of physics. That was her point. Yes, mathematics courses do go deeper theoretically, but however, in my experience in my mathematics courses, the hardest problems in the chapters were the physics or application-based problems. Why? Because the real-world phenomena require the very advanced mathematics and are usually pretty complicated.

I don't know if I agree with that. Right now I am taking junior level classes in both Physics and Math, and while classical mechanics has not been easy by any stretch of the imagination, I do find it to be a bit more manageable than math.

Example: Up to this point, I have yet to come across a physics homework problem that I couldn't figure out in 2 hours. However, I have come across some Abstract Algebra homework problems that have literally taken me near a days worth of thinking (along with constant correspondence with my professors for little tips along the way) just to solve.

Again, not saying physics is easier, just saying the perception that the math in a physics problem is much harder than the math in a pure math problem is harder, in my opinion is not accurate.

Then again, that Mechanics class does have a couple of math majors (a few that are really talented in math) that seem to be struggling more than I thought they'd be. But I think this example just goes to show that there is no necessarily "easier" subject, I am sure some of the physics majors in that class would struggle with truly abstract math, just because its completely different than ANYTHING theyve ever done before (believe me when I say that junior/senior level math hits new math majors like a ton of bricks because nothing in Calc I-III+ELementary LA/DEs quite prepares you for what you do in those classes.

Obviously, I do see the next level of abstraction when you go from freshman mechanics to junior mechanics, going from practical to theoretical (much like in math, you go from practical to abstract). I'm sure it only gets harder in BOTH majors from here on out (the section on oscillations already had my head spinning).
 
  • #16
lisab said:
I'm kind of old-school about the term 'physicist'. To me, you have to have an advanced degree in physics, usually a PhD. You have to be active in research. Publishing is important but not all active researchers can publish - some might do proprietary work in industry, or secret stuff in the military.
It makes sense to me, in fact I think the same way. If someone says "I'm a physicist" I will assume that they have a job doing physics research, and probably that they have a PhD in physics. Although for me I think the job is the main qualification. If someone got such a job while having a PhD in a different field, or even no advanced degree at all, I would still consider them a physicist.

Grad students definitely don't count, though. (I'm a grad student myself and I would never call myself a physicist)
 
  • #17
hitmeoff said:
(the section on oscillations already had my head spinning).
Pun intended? :rofl:
 
  • #18
hitmeoff said:
Well isn't that a little like a Mathematician saying physics is easy, because the math you encounter in junior/senior level physics courses would pretty much be considered "introductory" compared to the kind of math a math major would take (ex. Calc used in Physics, vs Analysis in math, basic L.A. compared to L.A. for a math major).

A lot of my physics professors have said that they couldn't do chem to save their life. One of them, who is doing work on plasma physics said flat out "Chemistry is hard, I don't know how chemist do it."

Sure all of chemistry can (in theory) be understood with the Schroedinger equation, but that's like saying all of biology can be understood through chemistry, or all of psychology or medicine can be understood through biology. So by default a physicist should be the most knowledgeable doctor. I don't think anyone expects a physicist to be able to treat disease like a physician.

Maybe given a few (or several) lifetimes, a physicist may be able to derive all of medical knowledge (I mean after they deduce all of chemistry, then all of biology), but realistically each discipline requires its own body of knowledge and study. I am pretty sure a brilliant chemist, if he applied his efforts to physics could do well in physics. I am sure a brilliant physicist, if he puts his energy into math could be a brilliant mathematician.

I also know some brilliant physics students who cannot express themselves well. They could never become brilliant writers, are we to then say writing is "harder" than physics? No I don't think so, its all about what a person decides to put their energy in that determines what they are good at.

Which is why I started that post with, "Probably depends on the person."

Me, I found my chemistry classes not as challenging as my physics classes. Funny thing was, I took all my chemistry first and I thought it was plenty challenging at the time! Each subject required a different skill set. My skills matched up with chemistry better than physics, I think. Your mileage may vary :smile:
 
  • #19
lisab said:
Which is why I started that post with, "Probably depends on the person."

I think the comment was directed more at the poster you replied to rather than you, but I decided to take off from your post.

That my point as well, it really depends on the person which subject they consider the harder subject.

Ahhh I think I just misread both your post and shackelford's post, I think we are all on the same page that the level of difficuly of a subject is dependent on the individual.
 
  • #20
diazona said:
Pun intended? :rofl:

hehe...not intended!
 
  • #21
hitmeoff said:
I think the comment was directed more at the poster you replied to rather than you, but I decided to take off from your post.

That my point as well, it really depends on the person which subject they consider the harder subject.

Ahhh I think I just misread both your post and shackelford's post, I think we are all on the same page that the level of difficuly of a subject is dependent on the individual.

Yes, I think we basically agree.

Especially the point you made about writing. It's a delight to find a scientist who writes really well. Most are good enough, of course.
 
  • #22
hitmeoff said:
So at what point can you rightly call yourself a physicist? When you graduate with your B.S.? When you get work experience as a scientist? When you know that learning about the world around you is your primary drive in life?

Personally, I'd put it at the point where you've published a peer-reviewed paper.
 
  • #23
diazona said:
Grad students definitely don't count, though. (I'm a grad student myself and I would never call myself a physicist)

If you've published a peer review paper, then I would call you a physicist. If you are just learning old knowledge, you aren't a physicist, but if you are creating new knowledge you are.

One thing that is weird is the large number of Ph.D.'s and post-docs that don't feel "real". There's something called the impostor syndrome in which people become extremely highly accomplished, but don't quite feel real.
 
  • #24
Mobusaki said:
This doesn't answer your question, exactly, but I'm finding that our obsession with titles is exactly the reason why physicists can have a hard time finding a job in industry.

I don't think that people with Ph.D's have a hard time finding a job in industry. People in industry really don't care that much about titles, because you can make up a title for anything.

As an example, a physicist's resume will often not even make it past a company's screening filters because the are a physicist and not an engineer

That's just an issue in resume writing and job hunting skills. Once you know how, it's pretty trivial to bypass the filters. If you can learn quantum field theory, learning how to write a decent resume isn't beyond your intellectual abilities.
 

1. So at what point are you a Physicist?

The title of physicist is typically given to someone who has completed a degree in physics and is actively involved in research or teaching in the field. However, some may consider themselves a physicist if they have a strong understanding and knowledge of physics, even without a formal degree.

2. So at what point are you a Mathematician?

Similar to becoming a physicist, one is typically considered a mathematician after completing a degree in mathematics and engaging in research or teaching in the field. However, there is no clear cut-off point and some may consider themselves a mathematician after studying and practicing mathematics extensively.

3. So at what point are you an Other?

The term "Other" in this question could refer to a scientist in a different field, such as biology or chemistry. In this case, one would typically be considered a scientist in that field after completing a relevant degree and being actively involved in research or teaching. However, there is no definitive point and some may consider themselves a scientist if they have a strong understanding and knowledge of that particular field.

4. Do I need a PhD to be considered a Physicist or Mathematician?

While many physicists and mathematicians do have a PhD, it is not a requirement to be considered one. It is possible to become a physicist or mathematician with a master's degree or even just a bachelor's degree, as long as you have a strong understanding and knowledge of the subject and are actively engaged in research or teaching in the field.

5. Can I be a Physicist and a Mathematician at the same time?

Yes, it is possible to have expertise and actively work in both physics and mathematics. Many concepts and theories in physics rely heavily on mathematics, so it is common for physicists to also have strong mathematical skills. However, it is also possible to focus on just one field and still be considered a physicist or mathematician.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
731
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
968
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
292
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top