| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"physics grad" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2005 03:58:47 AM |
| Object: |
Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
Hi,
I am a Ph.D student in physics at a state university in the midwest.
Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with physics grad school so
far. Most grad study in physics seems to consist in producing weekly 30
page homework assignments, which involve more math than physics.
Recently, I have fallen behind in my studies and have lost the desire
to complete my degree. The thought of doing this kind of work for
another 5-7 years simply does not excite me.
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs. Here are some programs that I am particularly interested in:
Texas Tech MS Internship in the Semiconductor Microelectronics
Industry:
http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~bznxa/MSi/Explorer/MSiHome.htm
UT San Antonio Medical Physics Graduate Program:
http://radiology.uthscsa.edu/grad/index.html
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting. With this
objective in mind, would these programs be a viable alternative to the
Ph.D? What chances do I have of being accepted into these programs? I
have a 780 physics GRE and a B.S. in physics (3.59 GPA).
.
|
|
| User: "Dori" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
11 Nov 2005 10:41:38 PM |
|
|
Engineering is applied science, whereas phd implies research. Research
is highly theoretical and in most cases almost purely mathematical. Did
you get a Master's before you'r phd. I am considering grad school myself
but I was advised to go through Master's first to decide if its for me.
To be honest I ran in exactly your problme but in under-grad school. I
mean computer science may seem like it has something to do with
computers... turns out its all about the math of computation and
theoretically rectifying the pitfals of computer hardware. I am not
really complaining.. it is interesting, but the 30pg weekly assigs are
frustrating indeed.
So as I was saying.. you are looking for engineering OR applied physics
research. That is slightly contradictory as research is not very applied
(although it may in the case of physics).
physics grad wrote:
Hi,
I am a Ph.D student in physics at a state university in the midwest.
Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with physics grad school so
far. Most grad study in physics seems to consist in producing weekly 30
page homework assignments, which involve more math than physics.
Recently, I have fallen behind in my studies and have lost the desire
to complete my degree. The thought of doing this kind of work for
another 5-7 years simply does not excite me.
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs. Here are some programs that I am particularly interested in:
Texas Tech MS Internship in the Semiconductor Microelectronics
Industry:
http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~bznxa/MSi/Explorer/MSiHome.htm
UT San Antonio Medical Physics Graduate Program:
http://radiology.uthscsa.edu/grad/index.html
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting. With this
objective in mind, would these programs be a viable alternative to the
Ph.D? What chances do I have of being accepted into these programs? I
have a 780 physics GRE and a B.S. in physics (3.59 GPA).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 12:51:13 AM |
|
|
"Dori" <zalmoxis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-NWdnfRuvtLj7-jeRVn-jg@rogers.com...
Engineering is applied science, whereas phd implies research.
I've rubbed shoulders with many Ph.Ds. Research is required in
many fields, including technology. Do you think the design
of a modern processor or RAM can accomplished by someone
incapable of earning a doctorate?
Research
is highly theoretical
Nonsense! Structural engineers and materials scientists often
work hand in glove, bridges and skyscrapers are very practical.
and in most cases almost purely mathematical.
Even more nonsense, although math is a valuable tool
few would succeed without.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 09:15:08 AM |
|
|
In article <-NWdnfRuvtLj7-jeRVn-jg@rogers.com>,
Dori <zalmoxis@gmail.com> wrote:
Engineering is applied science, whereas phd implies research. Research
is highly theoretical and in most cases almost purely mathematical.
I took my last class in nuclear physics by e-mail because I went to the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to do my dissertation
research. I was excited about rubbing elbows with practicing nuclear
physicists, I thought surely they could help me with my homework.
The reply of one of them pretty much sums it up:
"That looks like something I knew how to do ten years ago."
Most research in physics is experimental. The experimentalist needs
enough theory to know what to measure and how to measure it. Once the
basic plan is set, conducting the measurement largely becomes engineering.
The theory they need is basically enough to explain why the measurement
they're doing is a good one. But the interpretation of it, e.g. getting
V_ud from the neutron lifetime, is typically something that a theorist had
already worked out and published. The experimentalist needs to be aware
of the theoretical culture, but that's not really the same as making
original theoretical contributions.
Computer science may be different, I have little experience with that.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
11 Nov 2005 09:49:15 AM |
|
|
In article <1131703127.763005.29030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
physics grad <gradphysicist@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am a Ph.D student in physics at a state university in the midwest.
Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with physics grad school so
far. Most grad study in physics seems to consist in producing weekly 30
page homework assignments, which involve more math than physics.
Recently, I have fallen behind in my studies and have lost the desire
to complete my degree. The thought of doing this kind of work for
another 5-7 years simply does not excite me.
That's not really physics as a profession. They're just trying to cram
theory down your throat in a hurry. And you sort of have to learn it at
some point, but they really do tend to prepare you to be a theorist.
When classes are out of the way and you get into research, that's a lot
more like what physics is.
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs. Here are some programs that I am particularly interested in:
Texas Tech MS Internship in the Semiconductor Microelectronics
Industry:
http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~bznxa/MSi/Explorer/MSiHome.htm
UT San Antonio Medical Physics Graduate Program:
http://radiology.uthscsa.edu/grad/index.html
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting. With this
objective in mind, would these programs be a viable alternative to the
Ph.D? What chances do I have of being accepted into these programs? I
have a 780 physics GRE and a B.S. in physics (3.59 GPA).
A high level research scientist or engineer in an industrial/private
sector setting? Yeah, that was my goal, too. Medical physics would not
be a bad way to go, if that's what you want to do. Or engineering. If
you stick with physics, make it something that industry cares about, like
magnetic media, quantum optics, semiconductors, etc. But bear in mind
that there's also electrical engineers developing semiconductors and
magnetic media, mechanical engineers developing MEMS and nanotechnology,
and so on. Having earned a PhD in physics, I don't particularly recommend
it as a gateway to the private sector. They consider physics a niche, and
engineers tend to hire engineers.
--
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
"Let me look in my synonymicon." -- Thaddeus Stout
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
11 Nov 2005 01:15:58 PM |
|
|
physics grad <gradphysicist@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am a Ph.D student in physics at a state university in the midwest.
Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with physics grad school so
far.
You should just come out and tell us the name of the school.
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs.
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them (two
decades).
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting.
With very few exceptions, these positions are held by Ph.D. physicists.
Are you aware that not all Ph.D. programs are alike?! Shop around for
different grad schools. It's a buyer's market.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
11 Nov 2005 01:32:35 PM |
|
|
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
*******************
Which dinosaur had the largest vocabulary?????
*******************
"Does 'polysemy' have more than one meaning?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "physics grad" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 04:50:56 AM |
|
|
Herman Trivilino wrote:
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the
traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs.
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them (two
decades).
The vast majority of those jobs are in government labs and academia.
I'm trying to get into the private sector, particularly the
semiconductor industry. Is a Ph.D really necessary for success in the
private sector?
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting.
With very few exceptions, these positions are held by Ph.D. physicists.
Are you aware that not all Ph.D. programs are alike?! Shop around for
different grad schools. It's a buyer's market.
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
I just don't want to work on some academic research project until I'm
30 years old.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 09:19:03 AM |
|
|
"physics grad" <gradphysicist@hotmail.com> wrote ...
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
I just don't want to work on some academic research project until I'm
30 years old.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind to leave. I say, go for it.
The program with the internship sounds like it's the right choice for you.
Good luck with it.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 02:35:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, physics grad wrote:
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
Consider overseas. In some places, there is no coursework during the PhD;
it's research only.
To get into such a PhD course, you might need to do 1 - 1.5 years of
coursework first, depending on what you've done and where.
The research-only PhD can be faster (and usually is), and you won't have
to churn out weekly homework irrelevant to your research.
--
Timo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
13 Nov 2005 09:33:45 AM |
|
|
In article <20051113063109.M90037@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, physics grad wrote:
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
Consider overseas. In some places, there is no coursework during the PhD;
it's research only.
To get into such a PhD course, you might need to do 1 - 1.5 years of
coursework first, depending on what you've done and where.
The research-only PhD can be faster (and usually is), and you won't have
to churn out weekly homework irrelevant to your research.
I've found that most of my homework was irrelevant to my research. But
the homework covered things like electromagnetism and statistical physics,
which are part of the shared culture of physics and a foundation for going
beyond that research. Taking that out seems a little like turning a
college degree into a technical certificate.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 02:37:00 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <20051113063109.M90037@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, physics grad wrote:
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
Consider overseas. In some places, there is no coursework during the PhD;
it's research only.
To get into such a PhD course, you might need to do 1 - 1.5 years of
coursework first, depending on what you've done and where.
The research-only PhD can be faster (and usually is), and you won't have
to churn out weekly homework irrelevant to your research.
I've found that most of my homework was irrelevant to my research. But
the homework covered things like electromagnetism and statistical physics,
which are part of the shared culture of physics and a foundation for going
beyond that research. Taking that out seems a little like turning a
college degree into a technical certificate.
I agree. Part of PhD-level skill is the synthesis of ideas from
different specialities. Even though my training was specialized in one
area, I've found it useful to have been at least exposed to the ideas
in other areas, so that if a synthetic idea starts to form I at least
know where to dig to explore it further.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
13 Nov 2005 02:40:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, physics grad wrote:
Well, I've been in two different physics Ph.D programs and they were
almost identical to each other.
Consider overseas. In some places, there is no coursework during the PhD;
it's research only.
To get into such a PhD course, you might need to do 1 - 1.5 years of
coursework first, depending on what you've done and where.
The research-only PhD can be faster (and usually is), and you won't have
to churn out weekly homework irrelevant to your research.
I've found that most of my homework was irrelevant to my research. But
the homework covered things like electromagnetism and statistical physics,
which are part of the shared culture of physics and a foundation for going
beyond that research. Taking that out seems a little like turning a
college degree into a technical certificate.
It comes at the end of 3 year BSc and 1 year BSs (Hons). The approximate
structure of the courses is:
BSc Y1:
General physics, including experiments, x2.
Calculus x2
Linear algebra
another maths course
maybe room for 1 elective
BSc Y2:
Optics, circuit theory, more experiments, classical mechanics, classical
thermo, quantum
Calculus x2, DEs, linear algebra
In my day, we got a good dose of practical electronics. These days they do
a little bit of chaos, SR, and computational physics.
BSc Y3:
Stat mech, electromag, more experiments (which by now are starting to
actually have some real content), quantum, astrophysics and cosmology.
Calculus x 1 (complex analysis)
In my day, geophysics, solid state, SR, and laser physics were there. Now
there is more computational physics. There's also mathematical methods for
physics.
BSc Hons:
50% research project
Electromag, quantum field theory, + 2 from experimental methods and data
analysis, condensed matter, and more.
That's the modern version; old version was 5/13 project, seminar+paper,
and 7 of electromag, ionspheric physics, geophysics, astro, oceanography,
GR, quantum, quantum optics, data analysis, solid state.
I get the impression that specialisation starts earlier in this system
that in yours. Is this the case? The Hons year is considered a rather
brutal workload; an alternative pathway is an 18 month MSc, about the same
spread over 50% more time, with a smaller project.
The PhD at the end of this is supposed to take 3 years, but almost always
takes longer than that.
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do. I think the biggest lacks in the above program are the
too-superficial coverage of classical mechanics, the absence of fluid
mechanics and mechanics of deformable media (which would be a nice
introduction to field theory and the application of vector analysis in 2nd
year), and the absence of any nuclear physics/particle physics. That's not
intrinsic to the 3 BSc + 1 Hons + "3" PhD system; just the particular
program.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 12:02:27 PM |
|
|
In article <20051114061713.K63405@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I get the impression that specialisation starts earlier in this system
that in yours. Is this the case? The Hons year is considered a rather
brutal workload; an alternative pathway is an 18 month MSc, about the same
spread over 50% more time, with a smaller project.
I haven't noticed any pressure at all to specialize until the research
starts.
The PhD at the end of this is supposed to take 3 years, but almost always
takes longer than that.
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do.
Well, they can quit complaining because the budding exerimentalists have a
lot of theoretical courses to take, too, and they both need some
perspective of the other. I've more often seen the complaint that
academic programs don't prepare students very well for work as
experimentalists, and most of them will, in fact, do experimental work.
I think the biggest lacks in the above program are the
too-superficial coverage of classical mechanics, the absence of fluid
mechanics and mechanics of deformable media (which would be a nice
introduction to field theory and the application of vector analysis in 2nd
year),
I've sometimes thought fluid mechanics and deformable media would be a
good introduction to field theory and tensors, just as you said. The
mathematical technology forms a continuum with e.g. that used in general
relativity, and there is a book on the web somewhere that treats it just
that way, with general relativity being one of several applications.
I think, as a general rule, the commonalities are overlooked because
students (through no fault of their own) focus on quantum field theory
(and know nothing about classical field theory), or they focus on
deformable media (in engineering departments), etc. In my experience,
courses on QFT try to get you to a variety of practical calculations as
soon as they can, and to more advanced topics like ghost particles. I've
wondered if it would be better to cover the foundations much more slowly
and carefully, in greater breadth but less depth, and to leave some of it
for later years or for students doing their research to learn on an
as-needed basis.
--
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timo Nieminen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 02:13:45 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I get the impression that specialisation starts earlier in this system
that in yours. Is this the case? The Hons year is considered a rather
brutal workload; an alternative pathway is an 18 month MSc, about the same
spread over 50% more time, with a smaller project.
I haven't noticed any pressure at all to specialize until the research
starts.
Specialisation as "physics student", rather than just being a "science
student" or even "generic 1st year student".
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do.
Well, they can quit complaining because the budding exerimentalists have a
lot of theoretical courses to take, too, and they both need some
perspective of the other. I've more often seen the complaint that
academic programs don't prepare students very well for work as
experimentalists, and most of them will, in fact, do experimental work.
There's a reason that the experimental courses are still there and still
required despite all the complaints. There's strong resistance to
undergraduate specialisation in theoretical or experimental physics, and
the idea of a common educational base for all physicists is part of that.
I think the biggest lacks in the above program are the
too-superficial coverage of classical mechanics, the absence of fluid
mechanics and mechanics of deformable media (which would be a nice
introduction to field theory and the application of vector analysis in 2nd
year),
I've sometimes thought fluid mechanics and deformable media would be a
good introduction to field theory and tensors, just as you said. The
mathematical technology forms a continuum with e.g. that used in general
relativity, and there is a book on the web somewhere that treats it just
that way, with general relativity being one of several applications.
Fluids are more visualisable than electric and magnetic fields, let alone
the ones in QFT. They're all basically geometric theories, and a good
grasp of geometry, being able to understand vector analysis as well as
being able to grind out the numbers must be a Good Thing.
I think, as a general rule, the commonalities are overlooked because
students (through no fault of their own) focus on quantum field theory
(and know nothing about classical field theory), or they focus on
deformable media (in engineering departments), etc.
And the courses being packaged into self-contained 1 semester entities
doesn't help. An emphasis on exam questions leads to cramming, which leads
to forgetting everything within 2 weeks after the exam. 13 weeks is also
insufficient time to really understand anything. The best way to do it
would be to do eveything at once, with each course/subject lasting for 2
years, with few hours per week. That way, students will think about things
for long enough to actually understand. Completely unfeasible though.
In my experience,
courses on QFT try to get you to a variety of practical calculations as
soon as they can, and to more advanced topics like ghost particles. I've
wondered if it would be better to cover the foundations much more slowly
and carefully, in greater breadth but less depth, and to leave some of it
for later years or for students doing their research to learn on an
as-needed basis.
Yes. This would be good for both when the idea is for the students to
understand the fundamentals or to be thoroughly adept with the maths. The
former, IMHO, is a much better goal.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 08:10:40 PM |
|
|
In article <20051115055707.Y36737@emu.uq.edu.au>,
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I get the impression that specialisation starts earlier in this system
that in yours. Is this the case? The Hons year is considered a rather
brutal workload; an alternative pathway is an 18 month MSc, about the same
spread over 50% more time, with a smaller project.
I haven't noticed any pressure at all to specialize until the research
starts.
Specialisation as "physics student", rather than just being a "science
student" or even "generic 1st year student".
Oh, well, yes, in that sense, a strong pressure to specialize. If it
takes you two years before you get to calculus and introductory physics,
it will take two years longer to graduate than it would have otherwise.
--
"One idea that is carried out, that is given body and form, one idea that
assumes definite, tangible form and bears concrete results is worth a
million ideas that are born but to die."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 03:47:06 PM |
|
|
In article <20051115055707.Y36737@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
I get the impression that specialisation starts earlier in this system
that in yours. Is this the case? The Hons year is considered a rather
brutal workload; an alternative pathway is an 18 month MSc, about the same
spread over 50% more time, with a smaller project.
I haven't noticed any pressure at all to specialize until the research
starts.
Specialisation as "physics student", rather than just being a "science
student" or even "generic 1st year student".
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do.
Well, they can quit complaining because the budding exerimentalists have a
lot of theoretical courses to take, too, and they both need some
perspective of the other. I've more often seen the complaint that
academic programs don't prepare students very well for work as
experimentalists, and most of them will, in fact, do experimental work.
There's a reason that the experimental courses are still there and still
required despite all the complaints. There's strong resistance to
undergraduate specialisation in theoretical or experimental physics, and
the idea of a common educational base for all physicists is part of that.
And a damn important idea, at that. There is already, often, too
little communication between theorists and experimentalists.
I think the biggest lacks in the above program are the
too-superficial coverage of classical mechanics, the absence of fluid
mechanics and mechanics of deformable media (which would be a nice
introduction to field theory and the application of vector analysis in 2nd
year),
I've sometimes thought fluid mechanics and deformable media would be a
good introduction to field theory and tensors, just as you said. The
mathematical technology forms a continuum with e.g. that used in general
relativity, and there is a book on the web somewhere that treats it just
that way, with general relativity being one of several applications.
Fluids are more visualisable than electric and magnetic fields, let alone
the ones in QFT. They're all basically geometric theories, and a good
grasp of geometry, being able to understand vector analysis as well as
being able to grind out the numbers must be a Good Thing.
I think, as a general rule, the commonalities are overlooked because
students (through no fault of their own) focus on quantum field theory
(and know nothing about classical field theory), or they focus on
deformable media (in engineering departments), etc.
And the courses being packaged into self-contained 1 semester entities
doesn't help. An emphasis on exam questions leads to cramming, which leads
to forgetting everything within 2 weeks after the exam. 13 weeks is also
insufficient time to really understand anything. The best way to do it
would be to do eveything at once, with each course/subject lasting for 2
years, with few hours per week.
Yes, parallel processing instead of serial.
That way, students will think about things
for long enough to actually understand. Completely unfeasible though.
Indeed:-(
In my experience,
courses on QFT try to get you to a variety of practical calculations as
soon as they can, and to more advanced topics like ghost particles. I've
wondered if it would be better to cover the foundations much more slowly
and carefully, in greater breadth but less depth, and to leave some of it
for later years or for students doing their research to learn on an
as-needed basis.
Yes. This would be good for both when the idea is for the students to
understand the fundamentals or to be thoroughly adept with the maths. The
former, IMHO, is a much better goal.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 04:22:50 PM |
|
|
If you look at the salaries, applied physics is slightly better than
mathematical physics.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_narrowjob_RD05.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 08:19:28 PM |
|
|
In article <uB7ef.6$25.496@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <20051115055707.Y36737@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
<uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do.
Well, they can quit complaining because the budding exerimentalists have a
lot of theoretical courses to take, too, and they both need some
perspective of the other. I've more often seen the complaint that
academic programs don't prepare students very well for work as
experimentalists, and most of them will, in fact, do experimental work.
There's a reason that the experimental courses are still there and still
required despite all the complaints. There's strong resistance to
undergraduate specialisation in theoretical or experimental physics, and
the idea of a common educational base for all physicists is part of that.
And a damn important idea, at that. There is already, often, too
little communication between theorists and experimentalists.
In many ways, my advisor is a wonderful role model. And I think this is
one way. He's often chosen measurements to do by finding out what the
theorists can calculate. He's brought theorists into collaborations to
help interpret experimental results. In down times, he'll randomly page
through the literature to find out what other people have been doing.
He's taught me by example the importance of communication and breadth of
knowledge.
He started out as a budding theorist himself. But then he took a good
look at the state of affairs regarding particle physics and the standard
model, and decided that what the field really needs is data. And he's
been playing with neutrons ever since, working on the low energy regime
which complements the data from accelerators.
--
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 08:24:47 PM |
|
|
"Very well, he replied, I allow you cow's dung in place of human
excrement; bake your bread on that." -- Ezekiel 4:15
************************
Sounds like a nice upgrade.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 09:53:30 PM |
|
|
In article <dlbgjg$vtu$2@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>, (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article <uB7ef.6$25.496@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <20051115055707.Y36737@emu.uq.edu.au>, Timo Nieminen
<uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Budding theoreticians complain about all the experimental courses they
have to do.
Well, they can quit complaining because the budding exerimentalists have a
lot of theoretical courses to take, too, and they both need some
perspective of the other. I've more often seen the complaint that
academic programs don't prepare students very well for work as
experimentalists, and most of them will, in fact, do experimental work.
There's a reason that the experimental courses are still there and still
required despite all the complaints. There's strong resistance to
undergraduate specialisation in theoretical or experimental physics, and
the idea of a common educational base for all physicists is part of that.
And a damn important idea, at that. There is already, often, too
little communication between theorists and experimentalists.
In many ways, my advisor is a wonderful role model. And I think this is
one way. He's often chosen measurements to do by finding out what the
theorists can calculate. He's brought theorists into collaborations to
help interpret experimental results. In down times, he'll randomly page
through the literature to find out what other people have been doing.
He's taught me by example the importance of communication and breadth of
knowledge.
A good man, a very good man.
He started out as a budding theorist himself. But then he took a good
look at the state of affairs regarding particle physics and the standard
model, and decided that what the field really needs is data. And he's
been playing with neutrons ever since, working on the low energy regime
which complements the data from accelerators.
As you said, you got yourself a wonderful role model here.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
14 Nov 2005 02:32:16 PM |
|
|
physics grad wrote:
Herman Trivilino wrote:
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the
traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs.
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them (two
decades).
The vast majority of those jobs are in government labs and academia.
I'm trying to get into the private sector, particularly the
semiconductor industry. Is a Ph.D really necessary for success in the
private sector?
No, but you'll have more to prove. In fact, I would say that if you
enter industry *young* and use those early years well to establish your
reputation for creativity, ability to come up to speed quickly in an
area where you have little prior knowledge, and work ethic, then those
years would be best spent in the industry.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 09:05:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1131736715_23173@spool6-east.superfeed.net>,
Herman Trivilino <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote:
physics grad <gradphysicist@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am a Ph.D student in physics at a state university in the midwest.
Quite frankly, I have been disappointed with physics grad school so
far.
You should just come out and tell us the name of the school.
In this vein, I have been looking into alternatives to the traditional
physics Ph.D. Specifically, I have been reading about professional
masters programs in applied physics, as well as medical physics
programs.
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them (two
decades).
If he thumbs through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today", or
searches at careers.aps.org, he'll see that the APS doesn't broker enough
jobs in the private sector to justify the claims they make of the
employability of physicists.
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting.
With very few exceptions, these positions are held by Ph.D. physicists.
Go through some job ads on www.careerbuilder.com or www.monster.com. Some
industrial positions prefer a PhD, but I don't recall any that require
one. Some list skills and experience but not particular degree
requirements at all. He should get a master's, and he should get some
work experience (e.g. internships) before he graduates.
--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 09:29:03 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote ...
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them
(two
decades).
If he thumbs through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today", or
searches at careers.aps.org, he'll see that the APS doesn't broker enough
jobs in the private sector to justify the claims they make of the
employability of physicists.
Yes, that's also true of the claims made by the AIP.
My real goal is to secure a position as a high level research scientist
or engineer in an industrial/private sector setting.
With very few exceptions, these positions are held by Ph.D. physicists.
Go through some job ads on www.careerbuilder.com or www.monster.com. Some
industrial positions prefer a PhD, but I don't recall any that require
one. Some list skills and experience but not particular degree
requirements at all. He should get a master's, and he should get some
work experience (e.g. internships) before he graduates.
Yeah, I think you're right. Sorry.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 09:37:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1131809500_785@spool6-east.superfeed.net>,
Herman Trivilino <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote ...
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them
(two
decades).
If he thumbs through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today", or
searches at careers.aps.org, he'll see that the APS doesn't broker enough
jobs in the private sector to justify the claims they make of the
employability of physicists.
Yes, that's also true of the claims made by the AIP.
Well, I sort of didn't look carefully at the employment issues until my
degree was pretty much complete, so it's a bit of a sore spot with me.
I'd bought into the APS view that regularly fills the pages of Physics
Today and, a little older and a little wiser, it just bugs me to no end
whenever, e.g. an article on nanotechnology is capped by a plea to get
more students interested in the field so that it can advance faster.
Damn, I wanted to punch that guy in the mouth. The supply of willing and
able workers is not the limiting factor.
--
"Pain is temporary, quitting lasts forever" -- Lance Armstrong
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 04:20:54 PM |
|
|
In article <dl5286$oea$5@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>, (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
In article <1131809500_785@spool6-east.superfeed.net>,
Herman Trivilino <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" < > wrote ...
If you thumb through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today" you'll see
right away that there are very few jobs available that don't require the
Ph.D. And it's been that way for as long as I've been looking at them
(two
decades).
If he thumbs through the job ads in the back of "Physics Today", or
searches at careers.aps.org, he'll see that the APS doesn't broker enough
jobs in the private sector to justify the claims they make of the
employability of physicists.
Yes, that's also true of the claims made by the AIP.
Well, I sort of didn't look carefully at the employment issues until my
degree was pretty much complete, so it's a bit of a sore spot with me.
I'd bought into the APS view that regularly fills the pages of Physics
Today and, a little older and a little wiser, it just bugs me to no end
whenever, e.g. an article on nanotechnology is capped by a plea to get
more students interested in the field so that it can advance faster.
Damn, I wanted to punch that guy in the mouth. The supply of willing and
able workers is not the limiting factor.
Indeed. The limiting factor is the willingness to pay for the work.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 04:37:46 PM |
|
|
Physics research is pure math. It's really not applicable in the
commercial world. It's much better to find employment in IT and
engineering sector.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_salaryrangenarrowjob_50_IT03.html
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_narrowjob_EN01.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
13 Nov 2005 09:20:45 AM |
|
|
In article <1131835066.481701.173480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Orion <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
Physics research is pure math. It's really not applicable in the
commercial world. It's much better to find employment in IT and
engineering sector.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_salaryrangenarrowjob_50_IT03.html
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_narrowjob_EN01.html
"Physics reseach" is a pretty broad category that includes string theory
and gravitation, and magnetic media, semiconductors, and coating
processes. The commercial world will pay if you have specific skills and
experience that they need. If you go physics, pick your dissertation
research carefully.
Now IT... heck, if you think getting a job in physics is hard, it's just
unethical these days to promote IT as a career path. Since the dot-com
bust of the 90's there's been a glut of overqualified workers competing
for entry-level positions.
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Black Knight" |
|
| Title: The transistor is not applicable in the commericial world. |
12 Nov 2005 06:55:43 PM |
|
|
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/shockley.html
"Orion" <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1131835066.481701.173480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Physics research is pure math. It's really not applicable in the
commercial world. It's much better to find employment in IT and
engineering sector.
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_salaryrangenarrowjob_50_IT03.html
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_narrowjob_EN01.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 02:29:04 PM |
|
|
In computer science, software engineering (business applications) makes
most of the big money. The math used is the same as in physics.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "physics grad" |
|
| Title: Re: Alternatives to physics Ph.D? |
12 Nov 2005 05:07:13 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
When classes are out of the way and you get into research, that's a lot
more like what physics is.
That's part of the problem. Most of the research being done in physics
departments (especially on the theoretical side) just doesn't interest
me at all. I don't see how any of it ties in to the real world.
A high level research scientist or engineer in an industrial/private
sector setting? Yeah, that was my goal, too. Medical physics would not
be a bad way to go, if that's what you want to do. Or engineering. If
you stick with physics, make it something that industry cares about, like
magnetic media, quantum optics, semiconductors, etc. But bear in mind
that there's also electrical engineers developing semiconductors and
magnetic media, mechanical engineers developing MEMS and nanotechnology,
and so on. Having earned a PhD in physics, I don't particularly recommend
it as a gateway to the private sector. They consider physics a niche, and
engineers tend to hire engineers.
What about the applied physics masters degree I mentioned? It consists
of coursework in semiconductor physics and electrical engineering, as
well as an internship with a major semiconductor microelectronics
company. Would this be a good choice?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
