Which fields of physics are good to specialize in?

  • Context: Courses 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SJay16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fields Physics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around which fields of physics may experience significant growth in the coming decades. Participants explore various branches of physics, including quantum computing, classical mechanics, electronics, atomic and molecular sciences, high energy particle physics, nuclear physics, biophysics, and condensed matter physics, considering their relevance to technological advancements and job opportunities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that quantum computing will require physicists as the field develops, although there are differing opinions on the timeline for practical applications.
  • Others argue that classical mechanics and electronics may see slight growth due to technological needs, while atomic and molecular sciences could expand due to demands in medicine and chemical engineering.
  • High energy particle physics and nuclear physics are mentioned as fields likely to thrive due to technological advancements.
  • Concerns are raised about the competition between physicists and engineers for job opportunities, with some suggesting that engineers may be preferred despite the necessity for physics knowledge in engineering roles.
  • Biophysics is highlighted as a rapidly growing field, particularly in areas like protein folding and biological computing.
  • Condensed matter physics is noted for its promise, with discussions on quantum matter and its connections to experimental techniques and applications.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the current state of quantum computing, debating the readiness of the technology for commercial use.
  • There are discussions about the experimental nature of existing quantum computers and the challenges in achieving consistent and reliable performance.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of claims regarding topological insulators and the experimental evidence surrounding them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions on which fields will grow, with no clear consensus on the future of quantum computing or the relative importance of different physics branches. Disagreements exist regarding the timeline for advancements in quantum computing and the role of physicists versus engineers in various fields.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the growth of specific fields depend on technological developments and market demands, which are not universally agreed upon. The discussion includes speculative timelines and varying interpretations of experimental results in condensed matter physics.

  • #31
StatGuy2000 said:
I agree with you that trying to figure out future shortages is an impossible task. That being said, one can make reasonable probabilistic assumptions about which fields are growing or not. For example, I think it would be fair to say that the likelihood that there will be a sudden growth in the need for, say, string theorists (or those who more broadly specialize in quantum gravity) will be fairly low.

But the OP is not asking for the field of study that he/she should avoid. He/she is asking which one he/she should go into. There is a distinct difference.

The ebb and flow of which field is "hot" or will provide opportunities for employment once a student graduates depends on way too many factor, not the least of which is the whims of science funding by politicians. Who has the ability to predict that and to what level of accuracy?

Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ZapperZ said:
But the OP is not asking for the field of study that he/she should avoid. He/she is asking which one he/she should go into. There is a distinct difference.

The ebb and flow of which field is "hot" or will provide opportunities for employment once a student graduates depends on way too many factor, not the least of which is the whims of science funding by politicians. Who has the ability to predict that and to what level of accuracy?

Zz.

I think when questions like this get asked, there should be a reasonable expectation that the best anyone of us can do is to give our own speculation based on current patterns in terms of demand for specific fields within physics (or science and technology more broadly), with the caveat that circumstances can change.
 
  • #33
ZapperZ said:
Has our ability to predict the future improved since last year?

Aren't we one year closer to it? :biggrin: (Strouse and Charnin notwithstanding)
 
  • #34
ZapperZ said:
But the OP is not asking for the field of study that he/she should avoid. He/she is asking which one he/she should go into. There is a distinct difference.

The ebb and flow of which field is "hot" or will provide opportunities for employment once a student graduates depends on way too many factor, not the least of which is the whims of science funding by politicians. Who has the ability to predict that and to what level of accuracy?

Zz.

BTW @ZapperZ, we need to be mindful of why these questions get asked.

We are expecting students to choose a major while pursuing their undergraduate degree college/university, which would take a minimum of 4 years (in the US and Canada -- anywhere from 3-5 years minimum elsewhere), and (if they intend to pursue graduate studies), take another 4-7 years or so to complete their PhD. That's anywhere from 8-12 years of their lives -- I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether such an investment will result in meaningful employment.

Otherwise, why bother? One could conclude that this is a waste of time and money.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
  • #35
StatGuy2000 said:
BTW @ZapperZ, we need to be mindful of why these questions get asked. We are expecting students to choose a major while pursuing their undergraduate degree college/university, which would take a minimum of 4 years (in the US and Canada -- anywhere from 3-5 years minimum elsewhere), and (if they intend to pursue graduate studies), take another 4-7 years or so to complete their PhD. That's anywhere from 8-12 years of their lives -- I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether such an investment will result in meaningful employment.

Otherwise, why bother? One could conclude that this is a waste of time and money.

But this advice goes both ways! We need to be mindful of what we recommend and speculate! After all, one can easily lead a student into a field of study that will be does not lead to anywhere!

So take what you just wrote and apply it to those who seem to think they know what area of physics they like to recommend.

Zz.
 
  • #36
ZapperZ said:
But this advice goes both ways! We need to be mindful of what we recommend and speculate! After all, one can easily lead a student into a field of study that will be does not lead to anywhere!

So take what you just wrote and apply it to those who seem to think they know what area of physics they like to recommend.

Zz.

I agree. Consider what I wrote on post #32:
I think when questions like this get asked, there should be a reasonable expectation that the best anyone of us can do is to give our own speculation based on current patterns in terms of demand for specific fields within physics (or science and technology more broadly), with the caveat that circumstances can change.
 
  • #37
StatGuy2000 said:
I agree. Consider what I wrote on post #32:

And how many people in this thread who made such explicit recommendation of a field of study who made no such qualification, but you never jumped all over them? Instead, when one of us made the caution of why some of us refuse to do the same, you somehow are bringing up all theses excuses and caveats.

Zz.
 
  • #38
ZapperZ said:
And how many people in this thread who made such explicit recommendation of a field of study who made no such qualification, but you never jumped all over them? Instead, when one of us made the caution of why some of us refuse to do the same, you somehow are bringing up all theses excuses and caveats.

Zz.

@ZapperZ, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to every single post in this thread (I work full-time and otherwise live a very busy life). And frankly, I am not a physicist so am not qualified to know whether specific research fields will likely lead to more opportunities.

Also, when I see people give specific explicit recommendations, I know implicitly that they are basing their recommendations on current patterns and are extrapolating into the future, with the caveat that things could change. Anyone who reads into this without knowing this -- well, that's their own fault!
 
  • #39
ZapperZ said:
how many people in this thread who made such explicit recommendation of a field of study who made no such qualification,

Part of the issue is that these threads are magnets for our junior high crowd. I have no idea why.
 
  • #40
StatGuy2000 said:
@ZapperZ, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to every single post in this thread (I work full-time and otherwise live a very busy life). And frankly, I am not a physicist so am not qualified to know whether specific research fields will likely lead to more opportunities.

Then may I suggest that you don't take sides.

Zz.
 
  • #41
Vanadium 50 said:
Part of the issue is that these threads are magnets for our junior high crowd. I have no idea why.

Of course it is -- it's in junior high or high school that students are beginning to think of (a) whether to go to college/university, and (b) what to study if they do decide to go.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: symbolipoint
  • #42
I didn't mean asking advice...I meant providing advice.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StatGuy2000
  • #43
Vanadium 50 said:
I didn't mean asking advice...I meant providing advice.

That is a mystery to me too.:confused:
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
899
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K