Which fields of physics are good to specialize in?

In summary, the fields of quantum computing, classical mechanics, electronics, atomic and molecular sciences, high energy particle physics, nuclear physics, and biophysics are expected to experience significant growth in the next few decades due to technological advancements and human progress. While engineers may be preferred for certain jobs, physicists will still play a crucial role in these fields. In particular, condensed matter physics and biophysics are promising areas for specialization and offer opportunities for interdisciplinary research and practical applications. The development of a useful quantum computer, while experimental at the moment, will require collaboration between physicists, engineers, and programmers to reach a level of commercial use.
  • #1
SJay16
19
1
Over the next decade, and few decades, which branches/ fields of physics will experience tremendous growth? I'm wondering what field I'd want to "specialize in" or focus in and could use some of your guy's opinion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Quantum computing will need physicists as it ramps up. A lot of jobs will be to assist engineers in building production models of these devices.
 
  • Like
Likes SJay16
  • #3
jedishrfu said:
Quantum computing will need physicists as it ramps up. A lot of jobs will be to assist engineers in building production models of these devices.

I think you are wrong but hope you are right. I think it'll be 1000 years or never before we get a useful quantum computer. We'll have fusion and quantum gravity first ...
 
  • Like
Likes Crass_Oscillator
  • #4
Classical mechanics might slightly grow, because we might need more calculations for rockets and technology to be used successfully.
Electronics will grow, because of the need of technology and its demand.
Atomic and molecular sciences will develop, because of the need of medicine and chemical engineering (nanotechnology).
High energy particle physics and nuclear physics will spread because of the thriving technology.

In my opinion these fields will prosper because of the technological development and recent human advances. These fields might be useful in nuclear and molecular medicine and medical research.
I would however choose particle physics, because in my opinion it is very interesting.
 
  • #5
Ivan Samsonov said:
Classical mechanics might slightly grow, because we might need more calculations for rockets and technology to be used successfully.
Electronics will grow, because of the need of technology and its demand.
Atomic and molecular sciences will develop, because of the need of medicine and chemical engineering (nanotechnology).
High energy particle physics and nuclear physics will spread because of the thriving technology.

In my opinion these fields will prosper because of the technological development and recent human advances. These fields might be useful in nuclear and molecular medicine and medical research.
I would however choose particle physics, because in my opinion it is very interesting.

The problem with many of these fields is that engineers can fill the jobs easily and might be preferred over a physicist.
 
  • #6
jedishrfu said:
The problem with many of these fields is that engineers can fill the jobs easily and might be preferred over a physicist.

However the engineers must be closely familiar and good with physics and that is my point.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
  • #7
atyy said:
I think you are wrong but hope you are right. I think it'll be 1000 years or never before we get a useful quantum computer. We'll have fusion and quantum gravity first ...

Let's average our estimates out using orders of magnitude 10 years vs 1000 years and say 30 years. In 30 years though, the engineers will take over as engineering specialization always wins out over physics.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
  • #8
Ivan Samsonov said:
However the engineers must be closely familiar and good with physics and that is my point.

I agree but for a physicist, the timing is limited where they can help before the engineers rule.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
  • #9
Yes, however, for example, an engineer must calculate if a piece will hold the pressure in that position, and this is mostly physics. This is an example where engineers must know at least some physics.
 
  • #10
Ivan, you're moving the goalposts. Nobody disputes that engineers need to know some physics. However, this is a very different thing that saying physicists need to develop more classical mechanics (your point in #4),
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
  • #11
Biophysics!
 
  • Like
Likes NFuller, Crass_Oscillator and jedishrfu
  • #12
Fervent Freyja said:
Biophysics!

Yes, that's a big field especially the work on protein folding. There's even some work going on for biological computing encoding information in DNA.
 
  • Like
Likes Fervent Freyja
  • #13
I would say that condensed matter physics in general is very promising field right now. I think quantum matter is very beautiful in that it can be very exotic and use techniques traditionally used by high energy theorists while also being connected to experiment. For example, a lot of the work now being done with hydrodynamic transport in strongly correlated systems was motivated by results in gravity. The discovery of topological insulators has motivated work in quantum computing and also the detection of Majorana fermions in solid state systems.

As mentioned before, biophysics (which has many connections to soft matter) is a rapidly growing field with lots of opportunities to find your niche. Much of this work has applications to understanding things like neurodegenerative diseases where it is thought that changes in cellular environment can make it energetically favorable for cells to aggregate and form certain structures or evolution in populations of bacteria.
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
  • #14
atyy said:
I think you are wrong but hope you are right. I think it'll be 1000 years or never before we get a useful quantum computer. We'll have fusion and quantum gravity first ...

We have already made a quantum computer!
 
  • #15
Ivan Samsonov said:
We have already made a quantum computer!

But its experimental and not at the production level for commercial use. To get there will require physicists, engineers and programmers to develop the manufacturing tools, methodology and scheme for insuring that it works consistently and that the resultant answers are always correct.
 
  • #16
jedishrfu said:
But its experimental and not at the production level for commercial use. To get there will require physicists, engineers and programmers to develop the manufacturing tools, methodology and scheme for insuring that it works consistently and that the resultant answers are always correct.

Aren't some already in use by big companies for enormous data processing?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Here's an article on the latest ideas in Quantum Computing which shows its still very much a research field:

http://www.sciencealert.com/breakin...d-it-finally-makes-quantum-computers-scalable

Australian researchers have designed a new type of qubit - the building block of quantum computers - that they say will finally make it possible to manufacture a true, large-scale quantum computer.

but that there's hope to build a commercially viable Quantum computer.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
radium said:
I would say that condensed matter physics in general is very promising field right now. I think quantum matter is very beautiful in that it can be very exotic and use techniques traditionally used by high energy theorists while also being connected to experiment. For example, a lot of the work now being done with hydrodynamic transport in strongly correlated systems was motivated by results in gravity. The discovery of topological insulators has motivated work in quantum computing and also the detection of Majorana fermions in solid state systems.

As mentioned before, biophysics (which has many connections to soft matter) is a rapidly growing field with lots of opportunities to find your niche. Much of this work has applications to understanding things like neurodegenerative diseases where it is thought that changes in cellular environment can make it energetically favorable for cells to aggregate and form certain structures or evolution in populations of bacteria.
It seems disingenuous to describe topological insulators as having been discovered. The transport experiments are inconclusive from what I know, and even fans of the subject will admit that some of the materials claimed to have these properties aren't "true" topological insulators (e.g. Bi2Se3 or one of its variants). (Good) Experimentalists I've heard give talks like to point out how they have leaky bulk states, which is a bit of a contradiction to the whole insulator bit. Here's a good recent experimental paper which posits a far less sexy, fancy explanation than ex-string theory math: https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.045433

Now I'm a fan of spintronics so I try to be an optimist about TI's and the whole topological materials field, but I'm also concerned that it's just welfare for ex-string theorists.

It's also not my field so maybe I'm not up to date.

Ivan Samsonov said:
We have already made a quantum computer!
Most of them, from what I know, basically need to cheat in order to operate, but some claims have been made that this is not the case.

Regarding biophysics, I used to work in the field. There's quite a bit of good work being done on the experimental front with numerous breakthroughs in structure discovery, a fundamental contribution of the field. The theoretical/computational front is pretty messy but molecular dynamics simulations, fraught with peril though they are, are maturing and may produce more than just very pretty pictures.
 
  • #21
SJay16 said:
Over the next decade, and few decades, which branches/ fields of physics will experience tremendous growth? I'm wondering what field I'd want to "specialize in" or focus in and could use some of your guy's opinion.

Learn to be among the best in your chosen field. Then you'll know how to become among the best if you need to switch fields.

Why desire a field where even the mediocre will earn a good living?

Yawn.
 
  • #22
Dr. Courtney said:
Learn to be among the best in your chosen field. Then you'll know how to become among the best if you need to switch fields.

Why desire a field where even the mediocre will earn a good living?

Yawn.
This is sort of good advice but I think it's missing the point that people are better off working in fields that are growing than fields which aren't.

I'd rather do a thesis in theoretical condensed matter where I might have a chance at a career than a thesis in quantum gravity where I definitely don't.
 
  • Like
Likes clope023
  • #23
jedishrfu said:
the engineers will take over as engineering specialization always wins out over physics.
I disagree. You don't run out of work for physicists. A field often starts by physicists making some new discovery. Then engineers make an application out of the initial discoveries while physicists increase the knowledge about the field for the next generation of applications. And so on. There is no clear separation between the two things, of course, and physicists often join the development of applications.

Engineers (by education) have some more specific knowledge in some specialized fields - but physicists learn how to learn these things quickly, in addition to a (typically) broader knowledge in other fields.
 
  • Like
Likes SchroedingersLion, ISamson and Dr. Courtney
  • #24
Trying to figure out where there will be shortages 10-15 years out is, in my view, a fools errand. You can start with Bohr's line "It is difficult to predict, especially the future", but there is the more pragmatic problem is that if a large number of people shift fields to anticipate where there may be a shortage, there won't be a shortage.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy, Dr. Courtney and Choppy
  • #25
mfb said:
I disagree. You don't run out of work for physicists. A field often starts by physicists making some new discovery. Then engineers make an application out of the initial discoveries while physicists increase the knowledge about the field for the next generation of applications. And so on. There is no clear separation between the two things, of course, and physicists often join the development of applications.

Engineers (by education) have some more specific knowledge in some specialized fields - but physicists learn how to learn these things quickly, in addition to a (typically) broader knowledge in other fields.

What I meant was in a company developing the technology the physicists are often pushed out once the engineers have a solid grip on the new technology. The physicists specialize in doing research but the development effort changes to commercialization and so they either lose interest or can't contribute as much. As an example, engineers own the production environment in IBM but physicists work at the IBM Watson research facility not in direct day to day contact with the engineers.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy
  • #26
Bump ^^
 
  • #27
jedishrfu said:
What I meant was in a company developing the technology the physicists are often pushed out once the engineers have a solid grip on the new technology. The physicists specialize in doing research but the development effort changes to commercialization and so they either lose interest or can't contribute as much. As an example, engineers own the production environment in IBM but physicists work at the IBM Watson research facility not in direct day to day contact with the engineers.
The description sounds much like other types of industries. Some scientific or technological companies have research & development facilities in which people work but most of such people do not see the day-to-day production situations; but in the companies' other sites, there may be a few engineers at work overseeing everything at the sites.
 
  • #28
There is truth in what @jedishrfu said.
For example, some time ago, physicists were the only ones working in the laser industry. Now, more and more laser engineering courses are being created.
Same with nanotechnology.

It will always be like this. Physicists discover new fields and work at the most innovative parts of technology and science. And if it gets more and more commercialized, specialized engineers take over large amount of positions. However, that does not mean that physics positions get reduced over time, as there will always be new innovative fields. It will be the same with the "big" topics of the near future, e.g. quantum computing or nuclear fusion. First, mostly physicists will work on these topics, later on, there will be new engineering degrees focussing on it.
 
  • #29
SJay16 said:
Bump ^^

What is the reason that you bumped this? Has our ability to predict the future improved since last year?

Zz.
 
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
Trying to figure out where there will be shortages 10-15 years out is, in my view, a fools errand. You can start with Bohr's line "It is difficult to predict, especially the future", but there is the more pragmatic problem is that if a large number of people shift fields to anticipate where there may be a shortage, there won't be a shortage.

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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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 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.
 
<h2>1. What are the different fields of physics to specialize in?</h2><p>There are several fields of physics to choose from, including astrophysics, biophysics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, and particle physics.</p><h2>2. Which field of physics is in high demand?</h2><p>Currently, the field of biophysics is in high demand due to its applications in medicine and biotechnology.</p><h2>3. What skills do I need to specialize in a particular field of physics?</h2><p>The skills required for each field of physics may vary, but in general, strong mathematical and analytical skills, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, are important for success in any field of physics.</p><h2>4. Are there any emerging fields of physics that are worth specializing in?</h2><p>Yes, there are several emerging fields of physics, such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, and renewable energy, that are gaining attention and offer exciting opportunities for specialization.</p><h2>5. Can I specialize in more than one field of physics?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible to specialize in more than one field of physics. Many physicists have interdisciplinary backgrounds and expertise in multiple fields, allowing them to tackle complex problems and contribute to various areas of research.</p>

1. What are the different fields of physics to specialize in?

There are several fields of physics to choose from, including astrophysics, biophysics, condensed matter physics, nuclear physics, and particle physics.

2. Which field of physics is in high demand?

Currently, the field of biophysics is in high demand due to its applications in medicine and biotechnology.

3. What skills do I need to specialize in a particular field of physics?

The skills required for each field of physics may vary, but in general, strong mathematical and analytical skills, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, are important for success in any field of physics.

4. Are there any emerging fields of physics that are worth specializing in?

Yes, there are several emerging fields of physics, such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, and renewable energy, that are gaining attention and offer exciting opportunities for specialization.

5. Can I specialize in more than one field of physics?

Yes, it is possible to specialize in more than one field of physics. Many physicists have interdisciplinary backgrounds and expertise in multiple fields, allowing them to tackle complex problems and contribute to various areas of research.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
937
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
857
Replies
6
Views
760
Replies
37
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
812
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
21
Views
2K
Back
Top