What’s in a Subfield?

Leave a reply

A while back, someone asked me what my subfield, amplitudeology, is really about. I wrote an answer to that here, a short-term and long-term perspective that line up with the stories we often tell about the field. I talked about how we try to figure out ways to calculate probabilities faster, first for understanding the output of particle colliders like the LHC, then more recently for gravitational wave telescopes. I talked about how the philosophy we use for that carries us farther, how focusing on the minimal information we need to make a prediction gives us hope that we can generalize and even propose totally new theories.

The world doesn’t follow stories, though, not quite so neatly. Try to define something as simple as the word “game” and you run into trouble. Some games have a winner and a loser, some games everyone is on one team, and some games don’t have winners or losers at all. Games can involve physical exercise, computers, boards and dice, or just people telling stories. They can be played for fun, or for money, silly or deadly serious. Most have rules, but some don’t even have that. Instead, games are linked by history: a series of resemblances, people saying that “this” is a game because it’s kind of like “that”.

A subfield isn’t just a word, it’s a group of people. So subfields aren’t defined just by resemblance. Instead, they’re defined by practicality.

To ask what amplitudeology is really about, think about why you might want to call yourself an amplitudeologist. It could be a question of goals, certainly: you might care a lot about making better predictions for the LHC, or you could have some other grand story in mind about how amplitudes will save the world. Instead, though, it could be a matter of training: you learned certain methods, certain mathematics, a certain perspective, and now you apply it to your research, even if it goes further afield from what was considered “amplitudeology” before. It could even be a matter of community, joining with others who you think do cool stuff, even if you don’t share exactly the same goals or the same methods.

Calling yourself an amplitudeologist means you go to their conferences and listen to their talks, means you look to them to collaborate and pay attention to their papers. Those kinds of things define a subfield: not some grand mission statement, but practical questions of interest, what people work on and know and where they’re going with that. Instead of one story, like every other word, amplitudeology has a practical meaning that shifts and changes with time. That’s the way subfields should be: useful to the people who practice them.

What Referees Are For

2 Replies

This week, we had a colloquium talk by the managing editor of the Open Journal of Astrophysics.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics is an example of an arXiv overlay journal. In the old days, journals shouldered the difficult task of compiling scientists’ work into a readable format and sending them to university libraries all over the world so people could stay up to date with the work of distant colleagues. They used to charge libraries for the journals, now some instead charge authors per paper they want to publish.

Now, most of that is unnecessary due to online resources, in my field the arXiv. We prepare our papers using free tools like LaTeX, then upload them to arXiv.org, a website that makes the papers freely accessible for everybody. I don’t think I’ve ever read a paper in a physical journal in my field, and I only check journal websites if I think there’s a mistake in the arXiv version. The rest of the time, I just use the arXiv.

Still, journals do one thing the arXiv doesn’t do, and that’s refereeing. Each paper a journal receives is sent out to a few expert referees. The referees read the paper, and either reject it, accept it as-is, or demand changes before they can accept it. The journal then publishes accepted papers only.

The goal of arXiv overlay journals is to make this feature of journals also unnecessary. To do this, they notice that if every paper is already on arXiv, they don’t need to host papers or print them or typeset them. They just need to find suitable referees, and announce which papers passed.

The Open Journal of Astrophysics is a relatively small arXiv overlay journal. They operate quite cheaply, in part because the people running it can handle most of it as a minor distraction from their day job. SciPost is much bigger, and has to spend more per paper to operate. Still, it spends a lot less than journals charge authors.

We had a spirited discussion after the talk, and someone brought up an interesting point: why do we need to announce which papers passed? Can’t we just publish everything?

What, in the end, are the referees actually for? Why do we need them?

One function of referees is to check for mistakes. This is most important in mathematics, where referees might spend years making sure every step in a proof works as intended. Other fields vary, from theoretical physics (where we can check some things sometimes, but often have to make do with spotting poorly explained parts of a calculation), to fields that do experiments in the real world (where referees can look for warning signs and shady statistics, but won’t actually reproduce the experiment). A mistake found by a referee can be a boon to not just the wider scientific community, but to the author as well. Most scientists would prefer their papers to be correct, so we’re often happy to hear about a genuine mistake.

If this was all referees were for, though, then you don’t actually need to reject any papers. As a colleague of mine suggested, you just need the referees to publish their reports. Then the papers could be published along with comments from the referees, and possibly also responses from the author. Readers could see any mistakes the referees found, and judge for themselves what they show about the result.

Referees already publish their reports in SciPost much of the time, though not currently in the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Both journals still reject some papers, though. In part, that’s because they serve another function: referees are supposed to tell us which papers are “good”.

Some journals are more prestigious and fancy than others. Nature and Science are the most famous, though people in my field almost never bother to publish in either. Still, we have a hierarchy in mind, with Physical Review Letters on the high end and JHEP on the lower one. Publishing in a fancier and more prestigious journal is supposed to say something about you as a scientist, to say that your work is fancier and more prestigious. If you can’t publish in any journal at all, then your work wasn’t interesting enough to merit getting credit for it, and maybe you should have worked harder.

What does that credit buy you? Ostensibly, everything. Jobs are more likely to hire you if you’ve published in more prestigious places, and grant agencies will be more likely to give you money.

In practice, though, this depends a lot on who’s making the decisions. Some people will weigh these kinds of things highly, especially if they aren’t familiar with a candidate’s work. Others will be able to rely on other things, from numbers of papers and citations to informal assessments of a scientist’s impact. I genuinely don’t know whether the journals I published in made any impact at all when I was hired, and I’m a bit afraid to ask. I haven’t yet sat on the kind of committee that makes these decisions, so I don’t know what things look like from the other side either.

But I do know that, on a certain level, journals and publications can’t matter quite as much as we think. As I mentioned, my field doesn’t use Nature or Science, while others do. A grant agency or hiring committee comparing two scientists would have to take that into account, just as they have to take into account the thousands of authors on every single paper by the ATLAS and CMS experiments. If a field started publishing every paper regardless of quality, they’d have to adapt there too, and find a new way to judge people compatible with that.

Can we just publish everything, papers and referee letters and responses and letters and reviews? Maybe. I think there are fields where this could really work well, and fields where it would collapse into the invective of a YouTube comments section. I’m not sure where my own field sits. Theoretical particle physics is relatively small and close-knit, but it’s also cool and popular, with many strong and dumb opinions floating around. I’d like to believe we could handle it, that we could prune back the professional cruft and turn our field into a real conversation between scholars. But I don’t know.

A Significant Calculation

7 Replies

Particle physicists have a weird relationship to journals. We publish all our results for free on a website called the arXiv, and when we need to read a paper that’s the first place we look. But we still submit our work to journals, because we need some way to vouch that we’re doing good work. Explicit numbers (h-index, impact factor) are falling out of favor, but we still need to demonstrate that we get published in good journals, that we do enough work, and that work has an impact on others. We need it to get jobs, to get grants to fund research at those jobs, and to get future jobs for the students and postdocs we hire with those grants. Our employers need it to justify their own funding, to summarize their progress so governments and administrators can decide who gets what.

This can create weird tensions. When people love a topic, they want to talk about it with each other. They want to say all sorts of things, big and small, to contribute new ideas and correct others and move things forward. But as professional physicists, we also have to publish papers. We can publish some “notes”, little statements on the arXiv that we don’t plan to make into a paper, but we don’t really get “credit” for those. So in practice, we try to force anything we want to say into a paper-sized chunk.

That wouldn’t be a problem if paper-sized chunks were flexible, and you can see when journals historically tried to make them that way. Some journals publish “letters”, short pieces a few pages long, to contrast with their usual papers that can run from twenty to a few hundred pages. These “letters” tend to be viewed as prestigious, though, so they end up being judged on roughly the same standards as the normal papers, if not more strictly.

What standards are those? For each journal, you can find an official list. The Journal of High-Energy Physics, for example, instructs reviewers to look for “high scientific
quality, originality and relevance”. That rules out papers that just reproduce old results, but otherwise is frustratingly vague. What constitutes high scientific quality? Relevant to whom?

In practice, reviewers use a much fuzzier criterion: is this “paper-like”? Does this look like other things that get published, or not?

Each field will assess that differently. It’s a criterion of familiarity, of whether a paper looks like what people in the field generally publish. In my field, one rule of thumb is that a paper must contain a significant calculation.

A “significant calculation” is still quite fuzzy, but the idea is to make sure that a paper requires some amount of actual work. Someone has to do something challenging, and the work shouldn’t be half-done: as much as feasible, they should finish, and calculate something new. Ideally, this should be something that nobody had calculated before, but if the perspective is new enough it can be something old. It should “look hard”, though.

That’s a fine way to judge whether someone is working hard, which is something we sometimes want to judge. But since we’re incentivized to make everything into a paper, this means that every time we want to say something, we want to accompany it with some “significant calculation”, some concrete time-consuming work. This can happen even if we want to say something that’s quite direct and simple, a fact that can be quickly justified but nonetheless has been ignored by the field. If we don’t want it to be “just” an un-credited note, we have to find some way to turn it into a “significant calculation”. We do extra work, sometimes pointless work, in order to make something “paper-sized”.

I like to think about what academia would be like without the need to fill out a career. The model I keep imagining is that of a web forum or a blogging platform. There would be the big projects, the in-depth guides and effortposts. But there would also be shorter contributions, people building off each other, comments on longer pieces and quick alerts pinned to the top of the page. We’d have a shared record of knowledge, where everyone contributes what they want to whatever level of detail they want.

I think math is a bit closer to this ideal. Despite their higher standards for review, checking the logic of every paper to make sure it makes sense to publish, math papers can sometimes be very short, or on apparently trivial things. Physics doesn’t quite work this way, and I suspect part of it is our funding sources. If you’re mostly paid to teach, like many mathematicians, your research is more flexible. If you’re paid to research, like many physicists, then people want to make sure your research is productive, and that tends to cram it into measurable boxes.

In today’s world, I don’t think physics can shift cultures that drastically. Even as we build new structures to rival the journals, the career incentives remain. Physics couldn’t become math unless it shed most of the world’s physicists.

In the long run, though…well, we may one day find ourselves in a world where we don’t have to work all our days to keep each other alive. And if we do, hopefully we’ll change how scientists publish.

IPhT-60 Retrospective

Leave a reply

Last week, my institute had its 60th anniversary party, which like every party in academia takes the form of a conference.

For unclear reasons, this one also included a physics-themed arcade game machine.

Going in, I knew very little about the history of the Institute of Theoretical Physics, of the CEA it’s part of (Commissariat of Atomic Energy, now Atomic and Alternative Energy), or of French physics in general, so I found the first few talks very interesting. I learned that in France in the early 1950’s, theoretical physics was quite neglected. Key developments, like relativity and statistical mechanics, were seen as “too German” due to their origins with Einstein and Boltzmann (nevermind that this was precisely why the Nazis thought they were “not German enough”), while de Broglie suppressed investigation of quantum mechanics. It took French people educated abroad to come back and jumpstart progress.

The CEA is, in a sense, the French equivalent of the some of the US’s national labs, and like them got its start as part of a national push towards nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

(Unlike the US’s national labs, the CEA is technically a private company. It’s not even a non-profit: there are for-profit components that sell services and technology to the energy industry. Never fear, my work remains strictly useless.)

My official title is Ingénieur Chercheur, research engineer. In the early days, that title was more literal. Most of the CEA’s first permanent employees didn’t have PhDs, but were hired straight out of undergraduate studies. The director, Claude Bloch, was in his 40’s, but most of the others were in their 20’s. There was apparently quite a bit of imposter syndrome back then, with very young people struggling to catch up to the global state of the art.

They did manage to catch up, though, and even excel. In the 60’s and 70’s, researchers at the institute laid the groundwork for a lot of ideas that are popular in my field at the moment. Stora’s work established a new way to think about symmetry that became the textbook approach we all learn in school, while Froissart figured out a consistency condition for high-energy physics whose consequences we’re still teasing out. Pham was another major figure at the institute in that era. With my rudimentary French I started reading his work back in Copenhagen, looking for new insights. I didn’t go nearly as fast as my partner in the reading group though, whose mastery of French and mathematics has seen him use Pham’s work in surprising new ways.

Hearing about my institute’s past, I felt a bit of pride in the physicists of the era, not just for the science they accomplished but for the tools they built to do it. This was the era of preprints, first as physical papers, orange folders mailed to lists around the world, and later online as the arXiv. Physicists here were early adopters of some aspects, though late adopters of others (they were still mailing orange folders a ways into the 90’s). They also adopted computation, with giant punch-card reading, sheets-of-output-producing computers staffed at all hours of the night. A few physicists dove deep into the new machines, and guided the others as capabilities changed and evolved, while others were mostly just annoyed by the noise!

When the institute began, scientific papers were still typed on actual typewriters, with equations handwritten in or typeset in ingenious ways. A pool of secretaries handled much of the typing, many of whom were able to come to the conference! I wonder what they felt, seeing what the institute has become since.

I also got to learn a bit about the institute’s present, and by implication its future. I saw talks covering different areas, from multiple angles on mathematical physics to simulations of large numbers of particles, quantum computing, and machine learning. I even learned a bit from talks on my own area of high-energy physics, highlighting how much one can learn from talking to new people.

IPhT’s 60-Year Anniversary

Leave a reply

This year is the 60th anniversary of my new employer, the Institut de Physique Théorique of CEA Paris-Saclay (or IPhT for short). In celebration, they’re holding a short conference, with a variety of festivities. They’ve been rushing to complete a film about the institute, and I hear there’s even a vintage arcade game decorated with Feynman diagrams. For me, it will be a chance to learn a bit more about the history of this place, which I currently know shamefully little about.

(For example, despite having his textbook on my shelf, I don’t know much about what our Auditorium’s namesake Claude Itzykson was known for.)

Since I’m busy with the conference this week, I won’t have time for a long blog post. Next week I’ll be able to say more, and tell you what I learned!

Theorems About Reductionism

10 Replies

A reductionist would say that the behavior of the big is due to the behavior of the small. Big things are made up of small things, so anything the big things do must be explicable in terms of what the small things are doing. It may be very hard to explain things this way: you wouldn’t want to describe the economy in terms of motion of carbon atoms. But in principle, if you could calculate everything, you’d find the small things are enough: there are no fundamental “new rules” that only apply to big things.

A physicist reductionist would have to amend this story. Zoom in far enough, and it doesn’t really make sense to talk about “small things”, “big things”, or even “things” at all. The world is governed by interactions of quantum fields, ripples spreading and colliding and changing form. Some of these ripples (like the ones we call “protons”) are made up of smaller things…but ultimately most aren’t. They just are what they are.

Still, a physicist can rescue the idea of reductionism by thinking about renormalization. If you’ve heard of renormalization, you probably think of it as a trick physicists use to hide inconvenient infinite results in their calculations. But an arguably better way to think about it is as a kind of “zoom” dial for quantum field theories. Starting with a theory, we can use renormalization to “zoom out”, ignoring the smallest details and seeing what picture emerges. As we “zoom”, different forces will seem to get stronger or weaker: electromagnetism matters less when we zoom out, the strong nuclear force matters more.

(Why then, is electromagnetism so much more important in everyday life? The strong force gets so strong as we zoom out that we stop seeing individual particles, and only see them bound into protons and neutrons. Electromagnetism is like this too, binding electrons and protons into neutral atoms. In both cases, it can be better, once we’ve zoomed out, to use a new description: you don’t want to do chemistry keeping track of the quarks and gluons.)

A physicists reductionist then, would expect renormalization to always go “one way”. As we “zoom out”, we should find that our theories in a meaningful sense get simpler and simpler. Maybe they’re still hard to work with: it’s easier to think about gluons and quarks when zoomed in than the zoo of different nuclear particles we need to consider when zoomed out. But at each step, we’re ignoring some details. And if you’re a reductionist, you shouldn’t expect “zooming out” to show you anything truly fundamentally new.

Can you prove that, though?

Surprisingly, yes!

In 2011, Zohar Komargodski and Adam Schwimmer proved a result called the a-theorem. “The a-theorem” is probably the least google-able theorem in the universe, which has probably made it hard to popularize. It is named after a quantity, labeled “a”, that gives a particular way to add up energy in a quantum field theory. Komargodski and Schwimmer proved that, when you do the renormalization procedure and “zoom out”, then this quantity “a” will always get smaller.

Why does this say anything about reductionism?

Suppose you have a theory that violates reductionism. You zoom out, and see something genuinely new: a fact about big things that isn’t due to facts about small things. If you had a theory like that, then you could imagine “zooming in” again, and using your new fact about big things to predict something about the small things that you couldn’t before. You’d find that renormalization doesn’t just go “one way”: with new facts able to show up at every scale, zooming out isn’t necessarily ignoring more and zooming in isn’t necessarily ignoring less. It would depend on the situation which way the renormalization procedure would go.

The a-theorem puts a stop to this. It says that, when you “zoom out”, there is a number that always gets smaller. In some ways it doesn’t matter what that number is (as long as you’re not cheating and using the scale directly). In this case, it is a number that loosely counts “how much is going on” in a given space. And because it always decreases when you do renormalization, it means that renormalization can never “go backwards”. You can never renormalize back from your “zoomed out” theory to the “zoomed in” one.

The a-theorem, like every theorem, is based on assumptions. Here, the assumptions are mostly that quantum field theory works in the normal way, that the theory we’re dealing with is not a totally new type of theory instead. One assumption I find interesting is the assumption of locality, that no signals can travel faster than the speed of light. On a naive level, this makes a lot of sense to me. If you can send signals faster than light, then you can’t control your “zoom lens”. Physics in a small area might be changed by something happening very far away, so you can’t “zoom in” in a way that lets you keep including everything that could possibly be relevant. If you have signals that go faster than light, you could transmit information between different parts of big things without them having to “go through” small things first. You’d screw up reductionism, and have surprises show up on every scale.

Personally, I find it really cool that it’s possible to prove a theorem that says something about a seemingly philosophical topic like reductionism. Even with assumptions (and even with the above speculations about the speed of light), it’s quite interesting that one can say anything at all about this kind of thing from a physics perspective. I hope you find it interesting too!

Physics’ Unique Nightmare

15 Replies

Halloween is coming up, so let’s talk about the most prominent monster of the physics canon, the nightmare scenario.

Not to be confused with the D&D Nightmare, which once was a convenient source of infinite consumable items for mid-level characters.

Right now, thousands of physicists search for more information about particle physics beyond our current Standard Model. They look at data from the Large Hadron Collider to look for signs of new particles and unexpected behavior, they try to detect a wide range of possible dark matter particles, and they make very precise measurements to try to detect subtle deviations. And in the back of their minds, almost all of those physicists wonder if they’ll find anything at all.

It’s not that we think the Standard Model is right. We know it has problems, deep mathematical issues that make it give nonsense answers and an apparent big mismatch with what we observe about the motion of matter and light in the universe. (You’ve probably heard this mismatch called dark matter and dark energy.)

But none of those problems guarantee an answer soon. The Standard Model will eventually fail, but it may fail only for very difficult and expensive experiments, not a Large Hadron Collider but some sort of galactic-scale Large Earth Collider. It might be that none of the experiments or searches or theories those thousands of physicists are working on will tell them anything they didn’t already know. That’s the nightmare scenario.

I don’t know another field that has a nightmare scenario quite like this. In most fields, one experiment or another might fail, not just not giving the expected evidence but not teaching anything new. But most experiments teach us something new. We don’t have a theory, in almost any field, that has the potential to explain every observation up to the limits of our experiments, but which we still hope to disprove. Only the Standard Model is like that.

And while thousands of physicists are exposed to this nightmare scenario, the majority of physicists aren’t. Physics isn’t just the science of the reductionistic laws of the smallest constituents of matter. It’s also the study of physical systems, from the bubbling chaos of nuclear physics to the formation of planets and galaxies and black holes, to the properties of materials to the movement of bacteria on a petri dish and bees in a hive. It’s also the development of new methods, from better control of individual atoms and quantum states to powerful new tricks for calculation. For some, it can be the discovery, not of reductionistic laws of the smallest scales, but of general laws of the largest scales, of how systems with many different origins can show echoes of the same behavior.

Over time, more and more of those thousands of physicists break away from the nightmare scenario, “waking up” to new questions of these kinds. For some, motivated by puzzles and skill and the beauty of physics, the change is satisfying, a chance to work on ideas that are moving forward, connected with experiment or grounded in evolving mathematics. But if your motivation is really tied to those smallest scales, to that final reductionistic “why”, then such a shift won’t be satisfying, and this is a nightmare you won’t wake up from.

Me, I’m not sure. I’m a tool-builder, and I used to tell myself that tool-builders are always needed. But I find I do care, in the end, what my tools are used for. And as we approach the nightmare scenario, I’m not at all sure I know how to wake up.

Neutrinos and Guarantees

10 Replies

The Higgs boson, or something like it, was pretty much guaranteed.

When physicists turned on the Large Hadron Collider, we didn’t know exactly what they would find. Instead of the Higgs boson, there might have been many strange new particles with different properties. But we knew they had to find something, because without the Higgs boson or a good substitute, the Standard Model is inconsistent. Try to calculate what would happen at the LHC using the Standard Model without the Higgs boson, and you get literal nonsense: chances of particles scattering that are greater than one, a mathematical impossibility. Without the Higgs boson, the Standard Model had to be wrong, and had to go wrong specifically when that machine was turned on. In effect, the LHC was guaranteed to give a Nobel prize.

The LHC also searches for other things, like supersymmetric partner particles. It, and a whole zoo of other experiments, also search for dark matter, narrowing down the possibilities. But unlike the Higgs, none of these searches for dark matter or supersymmetric partners is guaranteed to find something new.

We’re pretty certain that something like dark matter exists, and that it is in some sense “matter”. Galaxies rotate, and masses bend light, in a way that seems only consistent with something new in the universe we didn’t predict. Observations of the whole universe, like the cosmic microwave background, let us estimate the properties of this something new, finding it to behave much more like matter than like radio waves or X-rays. So we call it dark matter.

But none of that guarantees that any of these experiments will find dark matter. The dark matter particles could have many different masses. They might interact faintly with ordinary matter, or with themselves, or almost not at all. They might not technically be particles at all. Each experiment makes some assumption, but no experiment yet can cover the most pessimistic possibility, that dark matter simply doesn’t interact in any usefully detectable way aside from by gravity.

Neutrinos also hide something new. The Standard Model predicts that neutrinos shouldn’t have mass, since it would screw up the way they mess with the mirror symmetry of the universe. But they do, in fact, have mass. We know because they oscillate, because they change when traveling, from one type to another, and that means those types must be mixes of different masses.

It’s not hard to edit the Standard Model to give neutrinos masses. But there’s more than one way to do it. Every way adds new particles we haven’t yet seen. And none of them tell us what neutrino masses should be. So there are a number of experiments, another zoo, trying to find out. (Maybe this one’s an aquarium?)

Are those experiments guaranteed to work?

Not so much as the LHC was to find the Higgs, but more than the dark matter experiments.

We particle physicists have a kind of holy book, called the Particle Data Book. It summarizes everything we know about every particle, and explains why we know it. It has many pages with many sections, but if you turn to page 10 of this section, you’ll find a small table about neutrinos. The table gives a limit: the neutrino mass is less than 0.8 eV (a mysterious unit called an electron-volt, about ten-to-the-minus-sixteen grams). That limit comes from careful experiments, using E=mc^2 to find what the missing mass could be when an electron-neutrino shoots out in radioactive beta decay. The limit is an inequality, “less than” rather than “equal to”, because the experiments haven’t detected any missing mass yet. So far, they only can tell us what they haven’t seen.

As these experiments get more precise, you could imagine them getting close enough to see some missing mass, and find the mass of a neutrino. And this would be great, and a guaranteed discovery, except that the neutrino they’re measuring isn’t guaranteed to have a mass at all.

We know the neutrino types have different masses, because they oscillate as they travel between the types. But one of the types might have zero mass, and it could well be the electron-neutrino. If it does, then careful experiments on electron-neutrinos may never give us a mass.

Still, there’s a better guarantee than for dark matter. That’s because we can do other experiments, to test the other types of neutrino. These experiments are harder to do, and the bounds they get are less precise. But if the electron neutrino really is massless, then we could imagine getting better and better at these different experiments, until one of them measures something, detecting some missing mass.

(Cosmology helps too. Wiggles in the shape of the universe gives us an estimate of the total, the mass of all the neutrinos averaged together. Currently, it gives another upper bound, but it could give a lower bound as well, which could be used along with weaker versions of the other experiments to find the answer.)

So neutrinos aren’t quite the guarantee the Higgs was, but they’re close. As the experiments get better, key questions will start to be answerable. And another piece of beyond-the-standard-model physics will be understood.

Academic Hiring: My Field vs. Bret’s

Leave a reply

Bret Deveraux is a historian and history-blogger who’s had a rough time on the academic job market. He recently had a post about how academic hiring works, at least in his corner of academia. Since we probably have some overlap in audience (and should have more, if you’re at all interested in ancient history he’s got some great posts), I figured I’d make a post of my own pointing out how my field, and fields nearby, do things differently.

First, there’s a big difference in context. The way Bret describes things, it sounds like he’s applying only to jobs in the US (maybe also Canada?). In my field, you can do that (the US is one of a few countries big enough to do that), but in practice most searches are at least somewhat international. If you look at the Rumor Mill, you’ll see a fair bit of overlap between US searches and UK searches, for example.

Which brings up another difference: rumor mills! It can be hard for applicants to get a clear picture of what’s going on. Universities sometimes forget to let applicants know they weren’t shortlisted, or even that someone else was hired. Rumor mills are an informal way to counteract this. They’re websites where people post which jobs are advertised in a given year, who got shortlisted, and who eventually got offered the job. There’s a rumor mill for the US market (including some UK jobs anyway), a UK rumor mill, a German/Nordic rumor mill (which also has a bunch of Italian jobs on it, to the seeming annoyance of the organizers), and various ones that I haven’t used but are linked on the US one’s page.

Bret describes a seasonal market with two stages: a first stage aimed at permanent positions, and a second stage for temporary adjunct teaching positions. My field doesn’t typically do adjuncts, so we just have the first stage. This is usually, like Bret’s field, something that happens in the Fall through Winter, but in Europe institutional funding decisions can get made later in the year, so I’ve seen new permanent positions get advertised even into the early Spring.

(Our temporary positions are research-focused, and advertised at basically the same time of year as the faculty positions, with the caveat that there is a special rule for postdocs. Due to a widely signed agreement, we in high-energy theory have agreed to not require postdocs to make a decision about whether they will accept a position until Feb 15 at the earliest. This stopped what used to be an arms race, with positions requiring postdocs to decide earlier and earlier in order to snatch the good ones before other places could make offers. The deadline was recently pushed a bit later yet, to lower administrative load during the Christmas break.)

Bret also describes two stages of interviews, a long-list interviewed on Zoom (that used to be interviewed at an important conference) and a short-list interviewed on campus. We just have the latter: while there are sometimes long-lists, they’re usually an internal affair, and I can’t think of a conference you could expect everyone to go to for interviews anyway. Our short-lists are also longer than his: I was among eight candidates when I interviewed for my position, which is a little high but not unheard of, five is quite typical.

His description of the actual campus visit matches my experience pretty well. There’s a dedicated talk, and something that resembles a “normal job interview”, but the rest, conversations from the drive in to the dinners if they organize them, are all interviews on some level too.

(I would add though, that while everyone there is trying to sort out if you’d be a good fit for them, you should also try to sort out if they’d be a good fit for you. I’ll write more about this another time, but I’m increasingly convinced that a key element in my landing a permanent position was the realization that, rather than just trying for every position I where I plausibly had a chance, I should focus on positions where I would actually be excited to collaborate with folks there.)

Bret’s field, as mentioned, has a “second round” of interviews for temporary positions, including adjuncts and postdocs. We don’t have adjuncts, but we do have postdocs, and they mostly interview at the same time the faculty do. For Bret, this wouldn’t make any sense, because anyone applying for postdocs is also applying for faculty positions, but in my field there’s less overlap. For one, very few people apply for faculty positions right out of their PhD: almost everyone, except those viewed as exceptional superstars, does at least one postdoc first. After that, you can certainly have collisions, with someone taking a postdoc and then getting a faculty job. The few times I’ve broached this possibility with people, they were flexible: most people have no hard feelings if a postdoc accepts a position and then changes their mind when they get a faculty job, and many faculty jobs let people defer a year, so they can do their postdoc and then start their faculty job afterwards.

(It helps that my field never seems to have all that much pressure to fill teaching roles. I’m not sure why (giant lecture courses using fewer profs? more research funding meaning we don’t have to justify ourselves with more undergrad majors?), but it’s probably part of why we don’t seem to hire adjuncts very often.)

Much like in Bret’s field, we usually need to submit a cover letter, CV, research statement, and letters of recommendation. Usually we submit a teaching statement, not a portfolio: some countries (Denmark) have been introducing portfolios but for now they’re not common. Diversity statements are broadly speaking a US and Canada thing: you will almost always need to submit one for a job in those places (one memorable job I looked at asserted that Italian-American counted as diversity), and sometimes in the UK, but much more rarely elsewhere in Europe (I can think of only one example). You never need to submit transcripts except if you’re applying to some unusually bureaucracy-obsessed country. “Writing samples” sometimes take the form of requests for a few important published papers: most places don’t ask for this, though. Our cover letters are less fixed (I’ve never heard a two-page limit, and various jobs actually asked for quite different things). While most jobs require three letters of recommendation, I was surprised to learn (several years in to applying…) that one sometimes can submit more, with three just being a minimum.

Just like Bret’s field, these statements all need to be tailored to the job to some extent (something I once again appreciated more a few years in). That does mean a lot of work, because much like Bret’s field there are often only a few reasonable permanent jobs one can apply for worldwide each year (maybe more than 6-12, but that depends on what you’re looking for), and they essentially all have hundreds of applicants. I won’t comment as much on how hiring decisions get made, except to say that my field seems a little less dysfunctional than Bret’s with “just out of PhD” hires quite rare and most people doing a few postdocs before finding a position. Still, there is a noticeable bias towards comparatively fresh PhDs, and this is reinforced by the European grant system: the ERC Starting Grant is a huge sum of money compared to many other national grants, and you can only apply for it within seven years from your PhD. The ERC Consolidator Grant can be applied for later (twelve years from PhD), but has higher standards (I’m working on an application for it this year). If you aren’t able to apply for either of those, then a lot of European institutions won’t consider you.

Congratulations to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier!

Leave a reply

The 2023 Physics Nobel Prize was announced this week, awarded to Pierre Agostini, Ferenc Krausz and Anne L’Huillier for figuring out how to generate extremely fast (hundreds of attoseconds) pulses of light.

Some physicists try to figure out the laws of physics themselves, or the behavior of big photogenic physical systems like stars and galaxies. Those people tend to get a lot of press, but most physicists don’t do that kind of work. Instead, most physicists try to accomplish new things with old physical laws: taking light, electrons, and atoms and doing things nobody thought possible. While that may sound like engineering, the work these physicists do lies beyond the bounds of what engineers are comfortable with: there’s too much uncertainty, too little precedent, and the applications are still far away. The work is done with the goal of pushing our capabilities as far as we can, accomplishing new things and worrying later about what they’re good for.

(Somehow, they still tend to be good for something, often valuable things. Knowing things pays off!)

Anne L’Huillier began the story in 1987, shining infrared lasers through noble gases and seeing the gas emit unexpected new frequencies. As physicists built on that discovery, it went from an academic observation to a more and more useful tool, until in 2001 Pierre Agostini and Ferenc Krausz, with different techniques both based on the same knowledge, managed to produce pulses of light only a few hundred attoseconds long.

(“Atto” is one of the SI prefixes. They go milli, micro, nano, pico, femto, atto. Notice that “nano” is in the middle there: an attosecond is as much smaller than a nanosecond as a nanosecond is from an ordinary second.)

This is cool just from the point of view of “humans doing difficult things”, but it’s also useful. Electrons move on attosecond time-scales. If you can send pulses of light at attosecond speed, you’ve got a camera fast enough to capture how electrons move in real time. You can figure out how they traverse electronics, or how they slosh back and forth in biological molecules.

This year’s prize has an extra point of interest for me, as both Anne L’Huillier and Pierre Agostini did their prize-winning work at CEA Paris-Saclay, where I just started work last month. Their groups would eventually evolve into something called Attolab, I walk by their building every day on the way to lunch.