Theoretical.... medical physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the participant's exploration of potential sub-fields in physics, particularly focusing on the intersection of medical physics and theoretical approaches. The scope includes considerations of practical applications in medical settings, the balance between experimental and theoretical work, and the relevance of nuclear physics in contemporary research.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a desire to work in medical physics with practical applications but has an aversion to experimental work, seeking advice on suitable sub-fields.
  • Another participant suggests that effective nuclear therapies exist and may align with the original poster's interests.
  • A third participant notes that medical physics involves significant computational work, which may be more suitable for someone who prefers theoretical approaches.
  • There is mention of theoretical medical physics existing, with examples of nuclear theorists working on medical applications, indicating a potential niche for the original poster.
  • Concerns are raised about the perception of nuclear physics as a declining field, with differing opinions on its current status and future prospects.
  • One participant argues that while some aspects of nuclear physics may seem less active, there are still many unresolved questions and ongoing research opportunities, particularly in medical applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the status of nuclear physics, with some asserting it is a declining field while others argue it remains vibrant and relevant, particularly in medical physics. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the future of nuclear physics or the best sub-field for the original poster.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of uncertainty regarding the future of nuclear physics and its perceived decline, influenced by regional factors such as lab closures in the US. The discussion highlights the need for further exploration of specific research groups and opportunities in medical physics.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals considering graduate studies in physics, particularly those interested in the applications of physics in medicine, theoretical approaches, and the current landscape of nuclear physics research.

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   Reactions: 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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K