So you want to get a PhD in physics? The video

  • Context: Programs 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eri
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Phd Physics Video
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a video related to pursuing a PhD in physics, with participants sharing their reactions, experiences, and opinions on the challenges and perceptions associated with graduate studies in physics, particularly in fields like cosmology and string theory.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express amusement and appreciation for the video, noting its humor and relatability to the experiences of graduate students.
  • Others question the portrayal of PhD pursuits in physics as primarily leading to postdoctoral positions, suggesting that there are alternative career paths in industry.
  • A few participants highlight the unrealistic expectations some aspiring physicists may have regarding tenure-track positions in academia.
  • One participant defends the pursuit of ambitious academic goals, arguing that talent and hard work can lead to success in competitive fields like string theory and cosmology.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of obtaining postdoctoral positions, with some suggesting that only those with exceptional backgrounds may succeed in academia.
  • Several participants share personal anecdotes and experiences related to their academic journeys and aspirations in physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the challenges of pursuing a PhD in physics. While some find the video humorous and relatable, others challenge its implications about career prospects and the nature of academic pursuits.

Contextual Notes

There are varying assumptions about the job market for physics PhDs, the nature of postdoctoral positions, and the expectations of aspiring physicists, which remain unresolved within the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals considering a PhD in physics, current graduate students, and those interested in the academic and career trajectories in STEM fields may find this discussion relevant.

  • #61
D H said:
The stats at AIP to me that the number of physics PhDs who completely switch gears and become quants is a smallish percentage.

The stats that I've seen from AIP are just want people do immediately after their Ph.D. I haven't seen too many statistics that track careers over time. Would be really interested in seeing those.

A lot of engineering is applied physics. Physicists still work on things that go boom, and on making those things that go boom do so in the right place.

Yup. I know of a number of people from theoretical astrophysics that design hydrogen bombs. Someone has got to do it.

During the early-1990's, there was an largely successful effort by the US to hire ex-Soviet bomb builders and get them into the US. The logic behind this was that the Russian economy was a mess, and both the US and Russia had an interest in getting Russian scientists into the US. There's very little about hydrogen bombs that the US knows that the Russians don't and vice versa, and the point of getting Russian scientists into the US was so that they wouldn't end up in Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
twofish-quant said:
The stats that I've seen from AIP are just want people do immediately after their Ph.D. I haven't seen too many statistics that track careers over time. Would be really interested in seeing those.



Yup. I know of a number of people from theoretical astrophysics that design hydrogen bombs. Someone has got to do it.

Does that still happen? I thought that field largely died off (or went to simulations) after the nuclear test ban treaty.
 
  • #63
cdotter said:
Does that still happen? I thought that field largely died off (or went to simulations) after the nuclear test ban treaty.

Someone has to write/maintain/debug the simulations.

For the most part, much of the work today involves running computer simulations to make sure that the bombs will still go off, and making sure that the knowledge is still there to be able to maintain and build new hydrogen bombs if necessary. It would *really* be a bad thing, if we found ourselves in a situation in which it turned out that the US couldn't build H-bombs, but Iran or North Korea could.

One of the reasons that all of the major powers were willing to sign the CTB, is that all of the major powers have enough computing power and physics Ph.D.'s so that they can be reasonably certain of their own H-bombs through computer simulations. This isn't true with Iran or NK, that don't have the computer infrastructure that the major powers have.

When I was an undergraduate in the early-1990's, there was this idea that soon all of the professors from the Sputnik generation would retire, and there would be a lot of new jobs in academia. This didn't happen in academia, because once someone retired they were willing to let the position go. This *did* happen at the national labs and defense industries, since apparently it's a very bad thing if no one in the US knows how to build an H-bomb, and so there's been a steady stream of hiring. Also, the number of people that are qualified for this position is reduced by security clearances. Most Chinese, Russian, or Indian physics Ph.D.'s aren't going to survive the security clearances.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
twofish-quant said:
Someone has to write/maintain/debug the simulations.

For the most part, much of the work today involves running computer simulations to make sure that the bombs will still go off, and making sure that the knowledge is still there to be able to maintain and build new hydrogen bombs if necessary. It would *really* be a bad thing, if we found ourselves in a situation in which it turned out that the US couldn't build H-bombs, but Iran or North Korea could.

This reminds me of an article a couple years ago about a problem the Brits had with their nuclear subs (or something similar). Apparently a crucial material that had a fairly long shelf life required replacing... I think something about how they launched SLBMs. Well, long story short, they had forgotten how to make the material and no one had bothered to archive it and the company that made it had long gone bye bye. They had to track down everyone involved in that material to get more made :biggrin: . I hope someone remembers it better... it was a few years ago it happened.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K