Theoretical.... medical physics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the challenges of selecting a graduate school sub-field in physics, particularly for someone interested in practical applications within the medical field but averse to experimental work. The individual expresses a desire to contribute to life-saving research without the hands-on experimental aspect, having previously found biophysics unappealing. Participants suggest exploring medical physics, which includes significant computational work like Monte Carlo simulations and image processing, aligning with the individual's interests. They recommend searching for proton therapy centers to identify relevant academic programs and emphasize that theoretical medical physics exists. Concerns about nuclear physics being a "dying field" are addressed, with reassurance that while some labs may close, the field remains robust and essential, particularly in medical applications. The conversation encourages persistence in finding a suitable niche that combines theoretical work with medical physics.
Dishsoap
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
308
For all of you who are thinking I'm a complete doofus... you're right :oldeyes:

Unfortunately, I'm getting ready to apply for graduate school, and I'm still deciding which sub-field to apply to.

On one hand, I would feel most at home doing research with practical applications, especially in the medical field. I don't plan to cure cancer or the common cold, but the thought of solving physics problems with the end goal being to save someone's life (or make it a little more comfortable) is very appealing to me.

At the same time, I have somewhat of an aversion to experimental work. I've worked with 3 groups - 1 numerical/theoretical, and 2 experimental. I learned a lot doing the experimental work, and I can certainly see how people are fascinated by what can sometimes be a giant puzzle, but it's just not my thing.

I am struggling to find a sub-field of physics which is right for me. I did an REU in biophysics this summer, and it didn't really appeal to me (something something motor proteins :oldconfused::oldconfused:).

I was hoping to see that some universities would have a group which brought medical physics together with HEP to study proton therapies or something, but I couldn't find such a thing. I was wondering if someone with my particular interests might be fine applying for nuclear physics, particle physics, biophysics... I just haven't a clue. Is there even such a niche for me in the grand scheme of things?

Thanks :oldtongue:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might not personally find a 'cure for cancer', but there are effective nuclear therapies which are quite reliable.
Maybe working in that field and becoming expert in their application might suit you.
 
It can be tough figuring out what you want to do in the long term.

Medical physics isn't exactly that field for someone with an aversion to experimental work. Although, Iabs were never my favourite aspect of physics as an undergraduate and I'm pretty happy in the field. (For the record, I suspect I would have enjoyed labs a lot more had I been a little more organized.) There is a lot of computational work in medical physics though: Monte Carlo simulations, image reconstruction, deformable image registration, motion tracking, biological modeling, process engineering, computer-assisted detection algorithms, etc.

You might just want to do a search for proton therapy centres if that's what you're interested in. In the US there are about 15 currently in operation with another 10 or so planning to come online. Most will have a web-page that details the research they do, and from there you can see which academic institutions and graduate programs they're affiliated with.

Keep searching. You'll find something.
 
I know a couple of nuclear theorists who do medical physics work (nuclear physics of 12C beams for heavy ion therapies, modelling of auger cascade processes), so theoretical medical physics certainly exists, and there's work to do. As far as I know, GEANT4 is very dominant in modelling of ion therapy, which is ... problematic. We can do better.

Approach this like you'd approach trying to find any grad position - try to find groups who do what you want to do, and see what they do. But, you're better off looking at nuclear physics, not HEP!
 
  • Like
Likes Dishsoap
Excellent, thank you all for your advice. I spoke to some of my professors today in regards to this, and they said that nuclear physics is sort of a dying field. Is this true?
 
Dishsoap said:
Excellent, thank you all for your advice. I spoke to some of my professors today in regards to this, and they said that nuclear physics is sort of a dying field. Is this true?
I certainly don't think so. It's a well established field, and a lot of the low hanging fruit is gone, but there's a whole heap of things we don't know. Nuclear physics is hard, but not finished. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34677838/strongstubborn.png
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00508.pdf

Perhaps if you're in the US, you can get a bit of an impression it's dying, with the closure of some small labs (e.g. Yale), but then again, at NSCL (MSU), they're building a ~ 1 billion dollar accelerator for radioactive beams (FRIB). And you know, the world is bigger than the US.

Further, obviously, medical physics is not dying, and nuclear methods are a huge part of medical physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, I am Andreas from Germany. I am currently 35 years old and I want to relearn math and physics. This is not one of these regular questions when it comes to this matter. So... I am very realistic about it. I know that there are severe contraints when it comes to selfstudy compared to a regular school and/or university (structure, peers, teachers, learning groups, tests, access to papers and so on) . I will never get a job in this field and I will never be taken serious by "real"...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
378
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
46
Views
8K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Back
Top