Physics What Are the Weaknesses of a Physicist?

[SophusLies]

Anyway, learning methods makes you more drone-like. I'm not backing down on this terminology, because that is the very simple truth.

Explain to me how you're not learning "methods" in a physics curriculum? Unless you're doing research, I hate to break it to you, you're doing methods. But did you know engineering also does research? They also study new ways to do things, it doesn't only happen in physics... So much for your terminology.

 

[SophusLies]

I'm a PhD student and I do terahertz time domain spectroscopy. We generate Terahertz radiation using photo conductive antennas illuminated with a pulsed IR laser (hence the work with lasers).

My personal area of interest is designing and studying metamaterials in the terahertz region. It's a cool field in the sense that you really get to spend a lot of time thinking about E&M, which was one of my favorite subjects. So, I actually get to spend a lot of time thinking about E&M theory, applied and fundamental, while getting my hands dirty in a lab. It's a great mix, because I would go insane just sitting in front of a computer all day.

My time is split about 50/50 between lab work/maintenance and numerical simulations and MATLAB coding.

Thanks for the response, that sounds very interesting. So far I've only considered theory for my research but I might start digging around and see what else I can find. Right now I'm studying for the quals but once that's finished I begin my hunt.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't see how one can earn a physics degree without being an excellent problem solver. Your statement makes absolutely no sense, with one qualifier.

Well, think about it in this sense. Most of an undergrads education involves working problem sets where in the end, a lot of it can be figured out going through previous examples in the text or going through the motions of vector calculus or linear algebra. It was only when I started doing graduate courses that I started having problems where you had to take a whole hour just to figure out how to setup the problem.

I honestly do not think this translates well to the real world, however. I think if you give a physics major a problem in the real world, unrelated to physics, I think they'll probably fare better than your average joe, but not by much. In my mind, it's just like critical thinking. One assumes you're a great critical thinker because you're a physics major when in fact, I know plenty of fellow students who are horrid critical thinkers.

Then again maybe it's just the quality of students these days or institution or as you pointed out, the (probably underestimated) amount of cheating and hand-holding that exists now

 

[hadsed]

Explain to me how you're not learning "methods" in a physics curriculum? Unless you're doing research, I hate to break it to you, you're doing methods. But did you know engineering also does research? They also study new ways to do things, it doesn't only happen in physics... So much for your terminology.

Right, if you want to get into a semantics argument because you're offended, I won't bother to continue this. I've gotten my point across, I've explained why I use this terminology... if you're just going to reply with the same thing you said before, well just recognize that you're not contributing anything of substance.

 

[SophusLies]

Right, if you want to get into a semantics argument because you're offended, I won't bother to continue this. I've gotten my point across, I've explained why I use this terminology... if you're just going to reply with the same thing you said before, well just recognize that you're not contributing anything of substance.

I'm not offended but I do agree with you that I am right. And I also agree with you from your other post saying:

...
There's nothing wrong with this (learning methods), because most of the time this kind of happens in theoretical physics research as well.
...

Which you forgot a word to complete that sentence, but I am assuming you meant "thing" for the forgotten word. So, you are right, you did already answer that question; physics does learn methods too. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Fra]

I think its important to remember that there is a substantial distinction between the ability to solve problems which are presented to you in a relatively neat package and guaranteed to have a nice answer (much of undergrad) and the ability to solve real research (or real world) problems. The latter are often poorly formed (you must help formulate them)

I agree with that. Alot of the "textbook problem solving skills" one learns are actually not at all like the "creative problem solving" you may face elsewhere.

I'd characterize a lot of "textbook problem solving" in a sort of pattern recogniton way; you first detect "what type of problem" it is, and then try to apply one of the standard techinques you've learned. I actually payed some attention to my own methodology when I was into this myself. You pretty much learn a "technique" to solve problems beloning to a certain standard set FAST. But when facing a non-compliant or "fuzzy" problem, you are easily stumped.

For some open problems, there are not standard classification and maybe not standard techniques to apply either. I actually notice a few times that the mindset that is well suited for managing diffucult textbook or exam problems are even stronlgy UNsuitable for situations where a more creative thinking is needed that is not like the pattern matching type problem solving you know from coursework.

/Fredrik

 

[jft78]

The acronym STEM originated from a physicist...maybe your answer on why physics majors trip over their own language? Science, technology, engineering, and math. He forgot "Communications" and "Art" and mentioned engineer which he is not; rather than physicist. Physics is Art, Communications (verbal/written), Math, and Observation coming together to explain the physical world...seeing a problem and being part of the solution. Those four cognitive tasks (Not the STEM formula) are invaluable to most businesses, never just "Fill a position"; you are not simply a "Quantity" - "Think different" ...Steve Jobs

 

[Timo]

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players, they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

I am a physicist myself. The points "comfortable with complex tasks" and "have an open mind" put aside (they certainly don't apply to me, and they actually sound like hollow phrases to me) I would tend to agree with these statements. But then, I happen to have worked as an ambulance driver for a few years. I would say that a physicist looks rather pale compared to a paramedic in terms of problem solving, teamplay, communication skills, and ability to work well and reliably under pressure. So if your points actually were the important distinctive features you should hire an ambulance driver over a physicist any day. What physicists are exceptionally good at is physics, and depending on the specialization either math, computer skills, or engineering.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively?

Making a point that matters for anyone except fellow physicists. I happen to have drifted towards biophysics during the last years. I can tell you, the biologists and the medical scientists are not exactly putting their hope on physicists that, thanks to their great problem solving skills and comfort with complex tasks, will revolutionize medical research and finally find a combined cure for lung cancer, HIV, and knock-knees.
EDIT: And they sometimes fail to realize it when a thread has a 2nd and even a third page... . Sorry if some comments are redundant.

 

[wukunlin]

Making a point that matters for anyone except fellow physicists.

but...

If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

I can tell you, the biologists and the medical scientists are not exactly putting their hope on physicists that, thanks to their great problem solving skills and comfort with complex tasks, will revolutionize medical research and finally find a combined cure for lung cancer, HIV, and knock-knees.

I find the opposite locally. The biologists are very willing to make use of models that work. If the model covers a sufficient range of conditions, the experimentalist saves time and energy by simulating experiments rather than burning through chemicals, animals, and man-hours.

Of course, experimental verification is still necessary, but given a working model, the experimentalist now knows better the regime in which the behavior emerges and doesn't have to find it.

 

[ThinkToday]

If you're just finishing up a BS, forget employers, and go find a graduate school. Jobs for BS level physicists are likely a bit slim in some areas.

Unless you're into calculating the rotation motion of a hamburger landing into a fry pan, you'll need to look into physics job needs in the near future. I would suggest giving the physicist recruiters a call (e.g. astro, medical, health, nuclear). Check out the various Society journels for the different organizations to see who is looking. Look for something you can actually get a job doing.

I liked forestry, but it didn't pay, so now I treat cancer patients. I make money and have time to go to the woods. All good.

 

[ThinkToday]

Timo, I wonder if you gave any thought as to the origin of much of the wonderful gear in the ambulance. The research that physicists and others put into devoloping the theory that lead to the application that lead to the instrument that did save a life. Some of those PhD projects really do amount to something. True, not all physicists can walk and chew gum at the same time, but it takes all kinds.

 

[Timo]

Timo, I wonder if you gave any thought as to the origin of much of the wonderful gear in the ambulance. The research that physicists and others put into devoloping the theory that lead to the application that lead to the instrument that did save a life. Some of those PhD projects really do amount to something. True, not all physicists can walk and chew gum at the same time, but it takes all kinds.

As a matter of fact I did not. But I do not see why or how that matters for what I said. Are you a physicist by chance?

 

[ThinkToday]

"I liked forestry, but it didn't pay, so now I treat cancer patients. I make money and have time to go to the woods. All good."

Would be a good guess. Yes, for more over 30 years.

As for what you said, "I can tell you, the biologists and the medical scientists are not exactly putting their hope on physicists that, thanks to their great problem solving skills and comfort with complex tasks, will revolutionize medical research and finally find a combined cure for lung cancer, HIV, and knock-knees."

Seems like you were knocking the work of physicists to me, and specifically for those that may have contributed to the equipment you've used. Yes, they have developed technology that has revolutionized medicine.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

I can tell you, the biologists and the medical scientists are not exactly putting their hope on physicists that, thanks to their great problem solving skills and comfort with complex tasks, will revolutionize medical research and finally find a combined cure for lung cancer, HIV, and knock-knees.

I read an article somewhere that said some biological labs hire physicists with no experience in the field specifically because of the way physicists think.

 

[mal4mac]

I've been giving a lot of thought about how I would market myself to employers once I have finished my B. Sc in physics and I got stuck when I was thinking about weaknesses.

It seems a physicist is good at virtually everything. They are excellent problem solvers, the are team players (I'm sure we all ended up helping each other out on assignments), they are taught to communicate well, they work well under pressure, they are comfortable with complex tasks, they have an open mind, and the list goes on.

What CAN'T a physicist do effectively if anything?

You need to think of a weakness that will actually look like a strength to employers. You might say you have a tendency to hubris - that is, perhaps you over-estimate your abilities and your strengths! Employers will like that because it shows you are very positive and optimistic, but also have enough insight to realize this might be a problem at times. (Given this posting, it might also be true!)

 

[Opus_723]

So here's what I'm seeing:

Weaknesses

Communication
Teamwork
Real-world problem solving
Efficiency

Feel free to add to that, but as a Physics undergrad, I'd like to know how to improve on these. How does one get experience in practical problem solving or teamwork without getting an engineering degree?

 

[Pythagorean]

So here's what I'm seeing:

Weaknesses

Communication
Teamwork
Real-world problem solving
Efficiency

Feel free to add to that, but as a Physics undergrad, I'd like to know how to improve on these. How does one get experience in practical problem solving or teamwork without getting an engineering degree?

It's B.S. You have to be able to do a lot of things that aren't science related to hold a good position as a scientist in any field:

You have to be able to COMMUNICATE and WORK WITH administrative staff of all kinds in both teaching and research relationships. By administrative, I mean non-science people. You have financial officers, institute directors, provosts, deans, admin assistants, safety officers, ethics committees, and of course, students. For more evidence of teamwork, look at the lists of co-authors on many papers.

If the above provide enough proof of real-world problem solving, Physicists actually drive, date, and manage families. Experimental physicists are well known for fixing their own equipment and making their own custom modifications (many of us know where the condenser and contact points are in a Ford '67). Most of my fellow Alaskan physicists can drop a moose in a single shot (hint: head shots are for video games).

Efficiency... well, ok... science isn't about efficiency, it's true, but you're not going to hold a position where you're spending the university and government money if you're inefficient...

 

[Travis_King]

but also have enough insight to realize this might be a problem at times

Kind of funny, since you gave it to him hahaha

 

[ThinkToday]

I somewhat agree with you, but I also know those that fit the mold of the true "lab rat". Close the lab door with them inside, send in food, coffee (soda for me), and leave them alone! Some hard core researchers can be reclusive and not skilled at communication that isn't "on point" with their research. I know some physicists that couldn't change a diaper. Unless the object of the research is efficiency, e.g. solar cells, it's not important to them.

Having said that, you will notice I used the word "some". Most physicists are normal people with a knack for physics. We like what we do as much as any doctor, lawyer, or hooker.

 

[Choppy]

Feel free to add to that, but as a Physics undergrad, I'd like to know how to improve on these. How does one get experience in practical problem solving or teamwork without getting an engineering degree?

1. Summer jobs. You don't have to exclusively confine yourself to lab positions. While those may have advantages for graduate school applications, broadening your horizons has its own advantages. I know one previous student who spent a summer in a machine shop in a hospital and learned enough about the field that he was later able to start his own company and now seems to be doing quite well for himself. Or what about sales? People tend to look down on retail sales, but having a summer's worth of experience in this can help you to develop a lot of people skills that can't be learned in school.

2. Volunteer work. University campuses are saturated with volunteer opportunities. Sometimes these come with very specific training. Say you volunteer with your school's student distress centre. You will get quantifyable training in crisis intervention, experience dealing with people in extrement stressful situations, and develop crucial communication skills. If that's not your thing, what about an executive position with a school club that will demonstrate leadership and organizational skills?

3. Simply joining and participating in student clubs. There are all sorts of engineering competitions out there and universities will often form clubs for students interested in competing in them and these clubs aren't exclusive to engineers. For example, you might want to join your school's solar car racing team, or robotics team.

 

[ThinkToday]

Do an internship. I had friends that did them at NASA, NASA-Goddard, Raytheon, Bechtel, Westinghouse, etc. Your physics department should have the contacts that you need to see what they have. Summer internships are great. They give you a good look at various fields. You get to work next to people doing the real deal. You can see if you are interested in certain types of work.

An often overlooked asset is alumni. Talk to your professors about who is where, and see if they'd make a call on your behalf for an internship. We all started somewhere, and it can be hard to turn down the professor that got us on our way.

 

[Desh627]

Physicists can't demand as much money as engineers can. There's one weakness.

I think there is a fallacy here. In a standard physics education, you're likely taught ever harder, simpler and deeper principles, the first principles. And then you're hinted that when you know Newtonian physics you know how to do mechanical engineering, and when you know Maxwell equations you know how to do electrical engineering. But in fact, there are a lot of things that when you try to derive from first principles, you'll either a) fail, or b) re-invent the wheel. I would urge you, if you think the "principles" are all mighty, to read "More Is Different" from P. W. Anderson
(http://www.andersonlocalization.com/pdf/more_is_different.pdf")

No car maker will allow you to derive the chassis stiffness from inter-atomic stiffness using electromagnetism.

Not true at all. Yes, Maxwell's equations are at the core of electrical engineering, but I'll be damned if Maxwell's equations will give you the theory behind filter design (e.g. Butterworth, Chebyschev, etc), control loops, or digital logic. True, you can just keep abstracting it with math, but in the end an electrical engineer has WAY more intuition into what's happening in electronics or power than a physicist cares to look at. Same applies for mechanical, chemical, biomedical, aero... pretty much all of 'em (except for civil, that one's a joke ).

Key distinction here, too, as someone who's done both (albeit not as far in-depth as many here, but more than enough to pass a proper judgement): an engineer stops caring when he figures out the solution. He doesn't question why the solution is right, he just wants it to work. A physicist will keep deriving into insanity.

Granted, I do respect the physics side of things because physicists and mathematicians tend to look at problems from the top down (taking a generalized case and specifying it) whereas engineers tend to only look from the bottom up (taking a specific case and trying to generalize it). The former gives a MUCH better understanding and feel for what's actually happening, the latter usually struggles and grasps at concepts it can't comprehend.