Theoretical Physics vs Theoretical Cosmology

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between theoretical physics and theoretical cosmology, emphasizing that the latter is less popular due to its perceived lack of practical applications. The funding landscape in academia significantly influences job availability, as fields like nuclear physics attract more financial support due to their clear applications in medicine and energy. In contrast, cosmology is often viewed as an academic pursuit, resulting in fewer job opportunities for graduates. The competitive nature of the field is exacerbated by the overlap with particle physics, leading to a saturated job market for aspiring cosmologists.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of theoretical and experimental physics concepts
  • Familiarity with cosmology and its academic implications
  • Knowledge of university funding mechanisms in the UK
  • Awareness of the job market dynamics in scientific fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the funding landscape for theoretical physics in various countries
  • Explore the applications of nuclear physics in medical and energy sectors
  • Investigate career paths and job opportunities in cosmology
  • Learn about computational skills relevant to cosmology research
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those interested in theoretical cosmology, academic career seekers, and individuals exploring funding opportunities in scientific research.

flyingpig
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
1
What exactly is the difference? The latter does not seem so popular to me? On average how much does the latter earn?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sigh, I wrote out a giant reply and the computer crashed - lost it all.

In brief:

Physicists can generally be described as theoretical or experimental. Within these terms there are the area in which the physicist works to consider. e.g. Theoretical Particle physics, or experimental particle physics.

Cosmology is the subject area (though it is astronomy..)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology

It is really not a question of 'popularity' as much as practicallity. In the UK, where I live, for example - universities have a banding system to pay their academics. The longer you have spent at the institution and depending on your duties, your pay will increase. It does not depend on the subject in which you work.

The issue, then, is how easy it is for the university to secure funding for your subject area (after all, they need to convince other people that your subject is worth giving money to - so they can pay you to work on it.). Something like, say, nuclear physics has many practical applications; medical and power are obvious ones. These can be used as in-routes to obtain funding. With something like cosmology the interest might be seen as purely academic, with practical implications less obvious.

This means that it is more a question of how many people there are working in the field. The number of people working in something like cosmology world-wide will be much smaller than those working in many other areas of physics (there are of course institutions that have large groups which specialize in cosmology but overall there are less than other areas). And so, it will be more difficult to secure a future working in this field - many students will take this at graduate level (since many of the projects are highly computational, it is a good skill to gain) and if they all try to make a career of it, they'll find there aren't enough jobs to go around: there is also a lot of cross-over with particle physicists wanting to work on cosmology, making it even more competitive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
800
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
716
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K