What's your (physics) research area of interest ?

[Igor_S]

So, basically, what area of research are you interested in ?

I haven't seen this topic before so sorry if I missed it. I think it would be interesting to see what most people like. I would say (at this moment at least :) optics and condensed matter.

I tried to cover all possible areas I could think, so select [other...] if you feel your research area has been left out. There is a possibility to select multiple answers, but please don't select too much. It would be nice if everyone selected only one or two, so we could see the distribution.

 

[Norman]

My area of research consists of particle/nuclear physics with a little bit of astrophysics thrown in. I develop simplified models of particle production from incident solar (which are mainly protons and electrons) and galactic cosmic rays (which are high energy heavy ions) interacting with shielding for long duration space flight. I then incoporate these models into computer transport codes for use in flight risk analysis. I am in the 3rd year of my Ph.D. program.

It is a little surprising that most of the people answered that they are interested in condensed matter. This is not suprising since the vast majority of physics Ph.D.s work in condensed matter (see ZapperZ's journal about this), but it is interesting since all the pop-sci books are on string theory and black holes, etc lately. And we get a lot of questions about string theory and the other so called "sexy" areas of physics on these boards.

 

[ZapperZ]

You missed one area of physics - Accelerator and Beam Physics. Plasma physics might also go in here too, even though some time it is lumped under Nuclear Physics, but it is really separate from it.

I am also puzzled that you separated Condensed Matter with Materials. Maybe you have something else in mind, but CM and Material Science usually go together.

Usually the best classification of all the physics areas can be found by looking at the various divisions under the APS wing.

Zz.

 

[inha]

cond. matt. And I agree with Zz that CM should go together with materials.

 

[Igor_S]

You missed one area of physics - Accelerator and Beam Physics. Plasma physics might also go in here too, even though some time it is lumped under Nuclear Physics, but it is really separate from it.

I am also puzzled that you separated Condensed Matter with Materials. Maybe you have something else in mind, but CM and Material Science usually go together.

Usually the best classification of all the physics areas can be found by looking at the various divisions under the APS wing.

Zz.

Sorry, I don't know all areas very well, I used Nature's list as a guide: http://www.nature.com/nphys/archive/subject.html and various deparment area lists. I changed this list like 5 or 6 times before posting (did lot of copy-paste), but didn't get enough time to double check everything. But I saw notice that said "keep your poll options short", so I split everything I put under CM into 2 categories (maybe I shouldn't). That's why there is another poll option. Personally I know some people that would argue to put nanotech in a separate category , but there is a maximum of 10 poll options allowed.

And I actually DIDN'T want to put Quantum optics in CM, but with optics, this is a mistake. I guess it can be overlooked .

Actually, to be honest, I didn't know Accelerator and beam physics are even considered separate area. Is it about constructing and developing detectors (like drift chambers) and beam guiding systems ?

How are Plasma physics and Nuclear physics connected ? Isn't nuclear physics more like particle physics (but much lower energies) - I mean like bigger labs plasma physics something like smaller labs :) and more like table-top experiments ?

 

[jd1828]

Mines not really physics but it might as well be. Its more physics than it is chemistry. I am doing computational chemistry stuff. Applying density functional theory to different things.

 

[Tez]

I guess my fields - Quantum Foundations and Quantum Information - had better go under "other"...

 

[franznietzsche]

Hmm, I'm not sure. Astrophysics would apply, but so would statistical physics and thermodynamics, almost as well. I work on convection in solar atmospheres.

 

[PerennialII]

... condensed, nano, materials, statistical, thermodynamics, and 'such' ... all from angles such as "mechanisms of material failure & deformation", "derivation & development of material properties over multiple scales", etc. -- coupled computational multiscale multiphysics.

 

[ZapperZ]

Sorry, I don't know all areas very well, I used Nature's list as a guide: http://www.nature.com/nphys/archive/subject.html and various deparment area lists.

With respect to Nature as a prestigious journal, they don't publish all kinds of physics papers. For example, the particle physics community very seldom (even boycott) journals such as Science and Nature for their papers. They tend to publish in PRL and Physics Letters.

I suggest you either go to the APS website and look at all the division under their wing, or pick up a couple of PRL and look at the various categories of papers. Those, in my opinion, are more representative of the various physics fields.

Actually, to be honest, I didn't know Accelerator and beam physics are even considered separate area. Is it about constructing and developing detectors (like drift chambers) and beam guiding systems ?

No. The study on how to produce particle beams, and how these beams would behave, is a separate area of study in physics. They even have their own large conference every 2 years - the Particle Accelerator Conference. Check out any of the PAC conference websites. Physical Review devotes 2 different journals for this - a section of PRL called "Beams and Plasma Physics" and a whole journal called "PR Special Topic - Accelerator and Beam".

How are Plasma physics and Nuclear physics connected ? Isn't nuclear physics more like particle physics (but much lower energies) - I mean like bigger labs plasma physics something like smaller labs :) and more like table-top experiments ?

Like I said, they normally aren't. But plasma physics does have a large overlap with nuclear physics in fusion reactors.

Zz.

 

[jtbell]

I think it would also be interesting to distinguish between theoreticians and experimentalists: how many do we have of each type?

 

[Igor_S]

With respect to Nature as a prestigious journal, they don't publish all kinds of physics papers. For example, the particle physics community very seldom (even boycott) journals such as Science and Nature for their papers. They tend to publish in PRL and Physics Letters.

How come ? Isn't having your papers published at Nature or Science actually a very good thing ? I'm not saying that Phys. Rev. or PRL aren't good enough, just that it seems a little strange.

I suggest you either go to the APS website and look at all the division under their wing, or pick up a couple of PRL and look at the various categories of papers. Those, in my opinion, are more representative of the various physics fields.

Thanks. I didn't even know there are two PR Special Topics (AB and PER) journals ! Yes, APS website has got nicely categorized physics fields. But I couldn't miss that (in their APS member units section), they have separated Condensed matter and Materials (intentionally). Phys. Rev. has ok categories, but I can't figure where they publish astrophysics' papers... Closest to astro-things is Phys. Rev. D so maybe there.

I think it would also be interesting to distinguish between theoreticians and experimentalists: how many do we have of each type?

Hmm yes, I thought about that too. This would probably require another poll. Another thing I considered is to put all physics fields into 5 options, then make first 5 for experimentalists, and another 5 (same fields) for theorists. For example: Cond. Matt., atomic/optics/plasma, nuclear/particle/fields, astro/cosmo, stat mech/other. Ofcourse many could argue that there would be bunch of different stuff under "other", so I gave up on that idea. :)

 

[Crazy8s]

All of the above listed physics "types" are just specialization. One genuinely interested in unifying the "forces" would be concerned with all of those, as well as all chemistry. I am one of those freaks...

 

[ZapperZ]

All of the above listed physics "types" are just specialization. One genuinely interested in unifying the "forces" would be concerned with all of those, as well as all chemistry. I am one of those freaks...

Then let me hazzard a guess that you have not understood any of those that you propose to "unify", because if you have, you would not have trivialized it in such naive terms.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it would also be interesting to distinguish between theoreticians and experimentalists: how many do we have of each type?

I'm in experimental Cond. Mat. I threw in Mat Sci too, into the poll.