Newsgroups: sci.physics

In sci.physics, davidk@garnet.berkeley.edu (David Kokorowski) writes:

>I am a prospective physics major here at Berkeley and as much as I am thrilled
>to be studying what I consider the most fascinating of subjects, I have become
>a little bit concerned about prospects for a career. I have heard a number of
people lately talking about physics becoming a "dead science" in the near future
>and that I'd better "REALLY like physics" to continue with it. Aside from these
.
...... partly deleted
.
>aren't jobs in these areas typically more engineering related?

>I enjoy physics enough that I think I would be happy doing anything in the
>field. I was realistic enough to give up on being successful in the high-energy
>or particle physics areas long ago anyway...

>   Anyone have any suggestions?

    -David

********************* David,

Your concerns are quite justified.  Funding in physics is indeed going to
become more difficult to obtain, at least if you are interested in fields
that are somewhat removed from the mundane human concerns of survival and
creating material wealth.  The human desire to be completely free of 
restrictions of reality, such as funding (more frequently referred to as
money), is fundamentally at odds with the human desire to live.  To live
means that you have to have food, housing, maybe a car or ticket for the
bus, and so on.  Being a physicist does not put one in the best position
to provide all these items for oneself, and therefore one has to rely on
other people to create these material goods.  But these other people, 
often relegated to second-class citizen status by our society's finest
intellectuals, demand something in return.  

The sad, but increasingly obvious, conclusion is that elementary-particle 
physics has done little for human society for the past few decades.  Perhaps
this is because increasingly powerful accelerators have managed to shed
little light on the final mysteries of "fundamental" physics (whatever
that is supposed to be).  Increasing beam energies to the TeV and
greater regimes has spawned an ever-growing number of the newest and most 
"intriguing" particles under study.  Perhaps their practicality (oh, that
evil word again) is somewhat limited by the fact that these particles have 
half-lives of less than 10^(-18) seconds, before their excessive energy is 
shed by decays to the more stable particles of earthly matter.  Maybe this
is one of the reasons that even the militarists (to use Einstein's word
for the growing ranks of administrators who oversee big science projects)
are wondering if these resources could be applied in different ways.
It seems that the antimatter/matter bomb is a worthy project as of yet
unattained.  Why not spend $8 billion on focused efforts along those
lines, so that at least the military has something to play with, if not
the rest of society?

Now, you can tell that I am not a particle physicist.  Some would argue
that it is because my mathematical skills floundered somewhere between
complex analysis (the branch cuts were the last straw) and group theory.
I simply lost interest in a field where the role of "physics" and
"mathematics" seemed to have somehow gotten transposed.  I once thought
physics was to be a search for truth based on experimental observation,
and not a mental excercise in symbol manipulation.  But some theoreticians
forgot.  My vote is against the SSC, and for materials science, and for
plasma research, and for high-Tc superconductivity research, and for
chaos theory (because at least that's - IMHO - fun), and for quantum
device research, and for the hundred or so other fundamental research
projects which would ordinarily have to make way for this $8 billion
(and you know it'll really cost twice that much) research behemoth.  And
if enough others start thinking along my lines, then indeed, the search
for these elusive quarks will have finally found their rest in the 
human spirit where they belong (along with tachyons and whatever those
weird gauge-particles are supposed to be).  Don't ask me and the hard
working farmers, and construction workers, and automobile workers, and
waiters and waitresses, and technicians and engineers, to fund projects
that are so aloof that only through the sheer power and domination of
federal, 20th century governments, can our tax money be extracted to
justify them.

You ask for a "career", which is a practical goal, but are afraid of
being trapped in something practical (">aren't jobs in these areas 
typically more engineering related?").  I studied physics and had
to go to graduate school to get an EE masters so I could find work, 
and guess what?  It didn't kill me, but instead made me more aware of
how close in spirit, science and engineering really are, and that both
are noble fields of endeavor, and that both serve useful roles in our
complex society.  Those who would like to splinter science and engineering
along the lines of "impractical and guaranteed to be of no value to
humanity" and "practical and done for the benefit of the people" should
go back into the closet which they are so afraid to leave.  Society
has a right to ask something in return for sponsoring lofty scientific
ventures.  This is not wrong, and it is certainly not ignorant.  It is
simply just.

Go on and study all the beauty and charm and color and richness that
the subjects of physics have to offer.  As your mind grows, you will
hopefully find out what it all means and what path you should choose
for your career.  Don't be afraid of getting trapped in "dying" fields,
as, at the undergraduate stage, there are none (assuming you have a 
somewhat balanced curriculum).  There is only the pure joy of learning.  

But please, do us all a favor - use your intelligence and skill to the
benefit of those who nurture you, and do not turn your nose up at them
with the aloof arrogance that has so strongly marred the noble face of 
science.

Yours truly,

Alexander Anger

"My company has nothing to do with this - so don't tell"


Newsgroups: sci.physics