Question Regarding these fields

[random_soldier1337]

I thought I'd post this here since it's not exactly a homework question or discussion regarding a specific operation in a field/subject.

Out of the following, which fields gravitate more towards applied physics/engineering (but not necessarily such a discipline)? Or maybe if that's confusing, another way I would ask this is, study in which of the following fields would lead into research on the most cutting edge of technology with a high likelihood of some degree of achievability of said technology within the foreseeable future?

1. Particle Physics

2. Quantum physics

a. Quantum information science (computing, information theory, etc.)

b. Quantum Field theory/Quantum gravity

3. Nuclear Physics/Engineering/Technology or Solar Physics

4. Photonics

5. Photovoltaics

6. Astrophysics

7. Condensed Matter physics

8. Dynamic systems theory (Control Theory, Chaos Theory, Quantum chaos, etc.)

9. Neural Engineering

10. Study of Complex Systems

11. Nanotech

Edited June 17, 2016 by random_soldier1337

[Klaynos]

I think all of them employ engineers and experimental physicist, and they have all resulted in commercial products with ongoing research. I therefore think the answer to your question is either all or none.

[random_soldier1337]

Maybe but what I mean is currently we can see something like condensed matter physics or more generally materials science yielding products like flexible electronics or those that can interface with biology or Carbon structures to be used for flexible, lightweight but incomprehensibly strong protective layers, even if only as a proof of concept. Whereas (and pardon me if this is wrong because I haven't been keeping up and am not particularly knowledgeable with regards to this) particle physics, while integral to our understanding of universe at the very fundamental levels and basically formulating a theory of everything, hasn't quite yielded any publicly viable product.

[Strange]

Whereas (and pardon me if this is wrong because I haven't been keeping up and am not particularly knowledgeable with regards to this) particle physics, while integral to our understanding of universe at the very fundamental levels and basically formulating a theory of everything, hasn't quite yielded any publicly viable product.

 

 

There are a large number of technologies based on quantum theory. Pretty much all of modern electronics, for a start. Flash memory, for example, depends on effects like tunnelling. And then we have

 

And then there are things like this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/squid.html

And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography

 

And understanding superconductors, semiconductors, graphene, quantum computing, etc. all depend on quantum theory.

[random_soldier1337]

You mentioned that for quantum physics. I'm aware of that much. Could you at least refer to the other fields as well? I'm still not sure if Particle Physics or Astrophysics have yielded actual tech or just allowed us to satisfy some of our questions on the cosmos on a much more grand/infinitesimal scale.

[timo]

... particle physics, while integral to our understanding of universe at the very fundamental levels and basically formulating a theory of everything, hasn't quite yielded any publicly viable product.

Particle physics was one of the problems I encountered with ordering your list (which in the end I simply did not do). I agree that the physics part in current particle physics research is extremely unlikely to have an impact on technology, soon. On the other hand, the technology used in and developed for particle physics experiments is extremely cutting edge. The only one of your choices that really stood out for me was your two examples for quantum theory, which I do not expect to have an impact in the foreseeable future (and even that is making a bet against the advent of quantum computers that some people envision).

Edited June 17, 2016 by timo

[Klaynos]

Maybe but what I mean is currently we can see something like condensed matter physics or more generally materials science yielding products like flexible electronics or those that can interface with biology or Carbon structures to be used for flexible, lightweight but incomprehensibly strong protective layers, even if only as a proof of concept. Whereas (and pardon me if this is wrong because I haven't been keeping up and am not particularly knowledgeable with regards to this) particle physics, while integral to our understanding of universe at the very fundamental levels and basically formulating a theory of everything, hasn't quite yielded any publicly viable product.

You're wrong I'm afraid.

 

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2013/why-particle-physics-matters

[random_soldier1337]

You're wrong I'm afraid.

 

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2013/why-particle-physics-matters

 

I see... umm how about in order of greatest to least (likelihood of) resulting in new tech?

Edited June 17, 2016 by random_soldier1337

[Strange]

You mentioned that for quantum physics. I'm aware of that much. Could you at least refer to the other fields as well? I'm still not sure if Particle Physics or Astrophysics have yielded actual tech or just allowed us to satisfy some of our questions on the cosmos on a much more grand/infinitesimal scale.

 

 

Is particle physics different from quantum physics?

[random_soldier1337]

 

 

Is particle physics different from quantum physics?

 

I can't say never having gone farther than general physics text.

[Klaynos]

 

I see... umm how about in order of greatest to least (likelihood of) resulting in new tech?

One of the things with new tech is it's very difficult to predict. So I don't think anyone could reliably answer this.

[Strange]

 

I can't say never having gone farther than general physics text.

 

 

I think of them being the same thing, but there might be some difference in meaning.

 

Anyway, I wasn't sure if you were looking at the areas of science that require/develop the most demanding technology (which would possibly be either particle/quantum physics [see the LHC, for example] or astrophysics [LIGO, LISA, etc]) or which is most likely to lead to the most exciting new technologies (your guess is as good as mine!).

[random_soldier1337]

One of the things with new tech is it's very difficult to predict. So I don't think anyone could reliably answer this.

Well, if you remember a while back I posted my ambitions on desire to do physics research as a profession. I've been somewhat off put by what some people on the internet say about how you'll always have to keep publishing to get more grant money from the companies/govt., and you'll be crushed never having more time than to eat and bathe. It's scary yeah but everybody's got to do a job and not every job is cushy. Why not do something you enjoy? I mean yeah sure I could step back a bit but then it becomes totally pointless if I step back to the point where I'm doing a menial, cookie cutter job like everyone else. I mean like absolute engineering where I assume you pretty much get a job description and you apply the methods learnt, which could be described as a cookie cutter mold on a grander scale, and come up with most efficient design for the job. There doesn't seem to be any room for experimenting, exploring new ideas, innovating or discovering something totally awesome to make everybody happier.

 

Please don't take this as me chickening out. I don't care to live in the lap of luxury but I don't want to end up homeless and starved (or uncomfortably close to such a situation) because somebody with a good word put in by the elite or just flat out better by a lot for inexplicable/uncontrollable reasons always manages to take away my desired job in a chosen field regardless of my qualifications in said field in a place where such research could actually be conducted. Also good education isn't cheap. It'd be pretty terrible to get such a degree but never find a job for it.

 

 

I think of them being the same thing, but there might be some difference in meaning.

 

Anyway, I wasn't sure if you were looking at the areas of science that require/develop the most demanding technology (which would possibly be either particle/quantum physics [see the LHC, for example] or astrophysics [LIGO, LISA, etc]) or which is most likely to lead to the most exciting new technologies (your guess is as good as mine!).

I meant fields in which the results of the research was the base upon which new technology was built, not research which required cutting edge technology to be made for the purpose of performing it.

Edited June 17, 2016 by random_soldier1337

[Klaynos]

There is a difference between being a working physicist and being an academic physicist.

 

Whilst it's true that in academia (in all subjects) you need to publish or perish. I have several friends who only ever get one or two year postdoctoral contracts. St some point during your early career you need to start finding your own finding so writing grant applications. This is not reflected across all of research. I'm an experimental physicist, I have a permanent contract and some sway over the direction of my research. I've written a couple of grant applications in the last few years but they were for bits of research that were outside of the remit of my team so would have needed additional funding.

 

Physicist in general are also highly employable in general due to the problem solving skills which they tend to have. It's also not terribly uncommon to change fields after your undergraduate degree or even PhD. My work isn't related to my PhD, but the skills you learn and develop are transferrable and important. I'd say for undergraduate, within reason, it's good to do a subject you enjoy and do well at it rather than do something you think will make you money and do mediocre at it.

[random_soldier1337]

But you're only likely to get a job not related to your degree, with the degree being a branch of physics, if it is a PhD, is that right?

[Klaynos]

Nope. I know lots of people with physics degrees doing various things in various industries. I also know a range of people with PhDs in physics who do a range of different job.

[random_soldier1337]

What I meant to ask was, for being in such a position, you must have PhD, yes or no?

[Klaynos]

No.

[random_soldier1337]

Masters or bachelors in a branch of physics will do? Or only masters and above? Just curious.

[Klaynos]

Masters or bachelors in a branch of physics will do? Or only masters and above? Just curious.

Either. Obviously the higher and better the qualification the more employable you are likely to be.

[ajb]

Masters or bachelors in a branch of physics will do? Or only masters and above? Just curious.

It will depend on what you want to do and where.

 

If you want to stay in academia then a PhD is usually sort, unless you want to be something like a lab technician. In wider industry, the Institude of Physics tells me that a masters in a relevant specialisation can really be an advantage.

[Velocity_Boy]

Nanotechnology. Hands down.

 

A couple of people have said quantum mechanics. Which is fine and good but mostly theoretical and not applied at present. With nanotech, you would use some of the same concepts but at perhaps at a level a couple of clicks up the scale in size. And many clicks up insofar as applicable uses.

 

Nanotech will change our world over the next three decades as significantly I think as computer science and IT has over the past two decades.

 

The applications are limitless. And best of all. NOT confined to the high tech world. Nano will spill into things like construction and food and clothing.

 

House paint that will change color depending on sunlight and heat for maximum insulation and energy efficiency.

 

Sid walks that will met snow and ice!

 

Tires that never wear out.

 

Ad nauseum.

 

 

I feel so strongly about this that there is zero doubt in my mind, and I have been telling anybody who would listen for a few years now, that if I had to begin college all over again I would go into Nano tech without ANY reservations.

 

Remember that scene in The Graduate? "One word for you........plastics?"

 

 

One word for YOU, my friend................NANO!!

[random_soldier1337]

Nanotechnology. Hands down.

 

A couple of people have said quantum mechanics. Which is fine and good but mostly theoretical and not applied at present. With nanotech, you would use some of the same concepts but at perhaps at a level a couple of clicks up the scale in size. And many clicks up insofar as applicable uses.

 

Nanotech will change our world over the next three decades as significantly I think as computer science and IT has over the past two decades.

 

The applications are limitless. And best of all. NOT confined to the high tech world. Nano will spill into things like construction and food and clothing.

 

House paint that will change color depending on sunlight and heat for maximum insulation and energy efficiency.

 

Sid walks that will met snow and ice!

 

Tires that never wear out.

 

Ad nauseum.

 

 

I feel so strongly about this that there is zero doubt in my mind, and I have been telling anybody who would listen for a few years now, that if I had to begin college all over again I would go into Nano tech without ANY reservations.

 

Remember that scene in The Graduate? "One word for you........plastics?"

 

 

One word for YOU, my friend................NANO!!

 

Can you say that from personal experience?