Expert: Daniel Mazur - 5/4/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hi Daniel,

I have been researching a lot about theoretical physics and I have a very strong interest in it. I also have a big interest in engineering but have found myself reading a lot of physics textbooks and watching online lectures instead. From a young age, I've been interested in why things work rather than how. So I am more interested in theory than application. I have finished my A Levels and have been accepted to do engineering at Cambridge. The entry requirements for physics are exactly the same so switching wouldn't be a problem.

Here's my dilemma: I heard the job prospects for theoretical physics are pretty grim! I am not at all interested in being rich but struggling to get a job is another thing. I am good at mathematics and physics but I am definitely not a super genius. I know the path I would have to take to be one, it's challenging, but I think I can do ok. Do I settle for the safe option(engineering), or do I go for physics? How do I know if I'm bright enough to survive in the field?

Also, what king of people go into theoretical physics?

Cheers.

ANSWER: Hello Tinashe,

congrats to your A levels and engineering admission, Cambridge is definitely a good school for either eng. or physics. You may have read some of my past answers to questions very much alike yours. My responses are very much in line with what you've heard. Let me give you a fair answer and please look the previous answers up as well - career is always a complex topic.

Theoretical physics is for some reason the most attractive field for physics students, when they come out of high schools and even after some years of college. Having been answering questions about it for a few years here at AllExperts.com (while I am an experimental physicist myself) I formulated a hypothesis as to why this is so: Schooling systems around the world stress theory, hone abstract thinking abilities of students, while the practical part (science labs) is played down. Thus, many good students rightly feel to be best fit for theory...

At the same time, theoreticians are the most "unprofitable" scientists for institutions to keep. In our product-driven society theory gives the smallest number of results useful to the society at large. This is not a put-down, this is a rational observation. It is rare that a theoretician proposes and wins a grant "to develop a theory of this or that". Theoreticians are paid from institutions' budgets (e.g as professors), from prestigious "Fellowships" (which are granted based on previous career and something like a grant proposal) or from collaborative grants (where many people, both from theory and experiments are involved). There are only a few positions (compared e.g. with experimental scientist jobs) for theoreticians around the world, they are mostly at universities and they are usually but modestly paid.

Now, what does this lead to? Low demand and large supply means that only the best qualify. The rest mostly leaves physics for banking, stock trading, insurance, IT specialist companies etc. - they can, because even the less-than-best physicists are smart and adaptive enough to be good at many other fields. A few theoreticians try and succeed in crossing over to experimental science, but I must say that they have a handicap: in our field a theoretician is ab-initio a suspect of NOT being good for hands-on jobs. He or she "can solve Navier-Stokes equations, but cannot exchange a light bulb". A theoretician must first win the trust to be hired for an experimental job and then prove oneself on and on. Yes indeed, theoretical physics is an extremely demanding and prestigious career, so you need to do your best or you better go do something else.

Finally about the engineering. When I was at your stage, I tended to sneer at engineering, for its physics and maths was said to be primitive compared to the scientific physics I wanted to do. Through the years I did realize, that all our experimental equipment relies on good engineering, that engineers learn many practical tricks we don't and that they earn on average quite a bit more than we do in science. I think that if you still are interested in engineering, you may well go with it, because it certainly offers much more certainty on th job market - engineers are always in demand.

If you'd like to postpone your decision, you could go find out, where and how the undergraduate programs differ between physics and engineering. Then you might be able to negotiate a mixed curriculum for yourself or you could switch to physics now (there is no difference between theoretical and other physics as an undergraduate) and re-consider engineering after your B.S. If you are up to it, you could even take a few subjects from engineering curriculum on top of your physics. I don't really know much about engineering curricula and suspect that the various branches (electrical, civil, biomedical, aerospace,...) differentiate earlier in the undergraduate years than the various branches of physics (electronics, solid state, low temperature, geo, meteorology,...). So, you need to do a bit of comparative research about it.

I suggest that you talk to your teachers at Cambridge, both from physics and engineering departments. I can only advise you so much, they will be able to give you the details.

Good luck and don't hesitate to ask again.

Cheers,
Daniel

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi again Daniel,

Thanks for the advice. It was the best advice I've ever been given. You made an important point about education systems. I realized that one of the main reasons I wanted to do theoretical physics was that I am quite good at theory, always have been. I love engineering but maybe I'm just afraid because I have very little practical skills and I have been taught to think abstractly.

Anyway, if I go into engineering I plan to specialize and be a researcher in robotics and artificial intelligence. Do you think that modern AI methods may be taken over by quantum computation, resulting in my research in  those becoming redundant? One could say I would have to do something else(what except theoretical physics?) or learn more physics(maybe do another degree?!). I'm thinking of doing engineering at university, since theoretical physics would practically make me poor(if I do research in it) or miserable(if I do finance e.t.c).

Robotics is a rapidly evolving field and the job market is booming but it's not as well established, it's like a baby field compare with mathematical physics. Do you think it's also risky? I wouldn't want to do ordinary engineering,I want discovery, research and pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge.
I'm kind of a maths geek but I'm not a computer geek. Do you think there is something for someone like me in the field of robotics?
I can also change to physics in the second year so I still have time.

Finally, do you think,as an experimental expert, theorists will get anywhere with string theory and the other quantum theories of gravity? Do you think I would be making an unreasonable gamble if I decide to go in the field of string theory? What would you do if you where in my position?    

Cheers,
Tinashe.

Answer
Hello Tinashe,

robotics and AI will not be replaced by quantum computation, they may merely be changed by it. We all have to continue learning new things all our career, that's all. I do not expect quantum computing to have a substantial effect on the world in our lifetime, though. Robotics and AI is still at very early stages and I can only see their importance grow through this century.

The theoretical physics is not THAT bad choice, it simply has very high requirements. You will not be poor with it, you will merely be "middle class". You will have a car, have a decent apartment and eventually a house (perhaps with a mortgage) - I wouldn't call that "poor". There is a lot of competition in the field, you need to work really hard. But if it is your heart's desire, the down side cannot stop you...

The mathematical physics I that know develops algorithms for simulations of physical experiments and also does the computations - sort of "simulated experiments". It is not critical to be a computer geek in any branch of physics, although it helps in some ways. You will learn all there is to know about computers in the course of your physics study anyway (and naturally also if you stick to robotics and AI engineering). So, there is definitely room for you both in physics and AI engineering.

Engineering departments also have their research and it is not uncommon to become an "engineering researcher". Those, who want to do the "ordinary" engineering for living, leave school at Bachelor or Masters' level, those intent upon doing research stay until a PhD.

Finally, string theory has been a successful theory to explain things about black holes, quantum gravity to my knowledge still lacks experimental/observational backing. Will they get anywhere? Well, how can we guess?! They have not been around for that long considering the history of human efforts to understand the workings of the Universe. So I don't think string theory is a waste of efforts - but everything we have written about theoretical physics applies. The problem of these grand theories is that they are so untestable and their practical impact on people outside the field is pretty much zero.

I have my likes and preferences in physics and I wouldn't trade with anybody:-). You must evaluate the pros and cons by yourself and decide - it is your future, your life. My advice must stop here, because the rest depends on what's inside you, what drives you... My apologies.

Good luck!
Daniel