Readersprite wrote:Sorry for asking so much. I'm very ignorant but interested in your field.
Not at all. Your questions are good.
Readersprite wrote:Joseph Stalin wrote:
I followed up on those wishes by going to a math specialized high school and later going to university and majoring in physics.
When I finished my undergraduate studies I got a job as a research assistant and did my PhD. I didn't choose my particular field rather I choose which group I would work with (and which wanted me of course). My requirement was that it was a theoretical group and did high-quality research.
If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what it means to "choose which group I would work with?" I assume there is some sort of application process; if there is, would you mind detailing that? How long does employment in a group last? Does it require constant readmission?
Yes, there is an application process. It depends on where you want to enroll. For instance in the US you have to take the GRE, submit your grades, some CV, list your accomplishments, etc. In the EU the application process is more or less a formality. There are a lot of PhD positions these days. When you're a undergrad you learn what groups are doing interesting things related to what you're professors are doing or something. That's the best way to apply because then you will get a recommendation from someone who knows the group you're applying to. Of course, you're technically applying to the University, but the decision is in the end in the hands of the head of the group, who will also most likely be your thesis adviser. Or if you really want you can apply blind to some place else and then figure out what you want to do later on. This will work if you're really really good and have no problem being accepted anywhere you want.
Readersprite wrote:Joseph Stalin wrote:Today theoretical physics is highly specialized - you have people doing high energy (i.e., string theory), gravity, cosmology, condensed matter, biophysics/soft matter, quantum information theory, mathematical physics even econophysics, etc. etc.
I'm quite happy that I found my niche and also got to dabble in several of these interesting fields because I want to have a broad overview of physics as a whole.
When you say "dabble in several of these interesting fields", do you mean working in several of these (a la various groups as mentioned in the prior section)?
I meant working in things which are of interest or somewhat related to each of these fields. For instance, there is a lot of mathematical dualities in physics. The AdS/CFT duality first discovered in the context of high-energy physics is now applied to the study of condensed matter systems.
Readersprite wrote: Joseph Stalin wrote: No matter how smart you are there will always be some problem that is too difficult for you to solve (obviously or we would know everything) so the trick is to find the hardest possible (and most interesting) problem that you can solve and then solve it. This means that the greatest geniuses are doing stellar research but they still have to work as hard as the average physicist doing mediocre stuff.
Joseph Stalin in an earlier post wrote:Or, I can invent some new problem I can work on, which I think would be interesting. In physics, you can always come up with interesting questions, and you can always come up with questions you can solve. The real trick is to come up with questions which are interesting AND you can also solve!
When you invent a problem, is this in the same way a textbook publisher creates practice questions (though, of course, far more advanced) or is there some other meaning I am missing? Is there a way you can give an example simple enough for those who haven't been trained in theoretical physics?
I remember wondering the same thing when I was an undergrad. No, it's not the same thing. When you think of a practice question for students you usually already know what the answer is or how it can be found. When you're doing research you usually don't know that, unless there is some really strong indication what the answer should be then you can try to prove that that's the answer.
Usually, when you start your PhD, your thesis adviser will give you a problem to work on. Later, you know the field so well that you can come up with new research directions on your own. For instance, a few days ago I read a paper which did something similar to what I did in a previous paper (but didn't cite me :x ) and now I immediately see that I can probably combine both ideas to do something even more interesting than either.
Readersprite wrote:Joseph Stalin wrote:What ones does afterwards is not so easy either. You are almost always expected to find a low paying temporary 2-4 year position as a "postdoctoral researcher" (postdoc). Permanent positions are almost impossible to find these days and if you get one it will likely be somewhere you don't want to be.
How do you mean, "afterwards"? After you finish working in a group? Is there a point past which you can no longer be allowed to work in one, or disallowed from applying to others? Is postdoctoral research not a pleasant form of work? How does it differ from the group research you mentioned before?
After you finish your PhD you typically are no longer funded. Postdocs last for 2 years on average and it takes 1 year at least to find a new job. So you will waste half of your time just looking for another job. If you get a 1 year postdoc then you will start looking for a new position immediately. It is low paid and you have to move all over the world. It is quite stressful to do work knowing if you don't publish something interesting you will be out of a job very soon, especially if you have a family. The low pay makes it almost impossible to support your husband/wife and it is almost impossible for him/her to find a new job in a new part of the world every couple of years - even if they're in the postdoc cycle they won't get a position in the same place you get one.