<ol>
<li><p>Sorry, I did not realize some schools actually had worth while requirements for physics minors. However, this fact doesn’t exactly help the OP who would be wanting to do a double major in engineering at the same time as this physics minor that has even more difficult requirements. Just makes what the OP said even more insane. </p></li>
<li><p>By my understanding of your paragraph, you are saying that you are studying some physics to become a better engineer. Is your end focus engineering? If so, we are arguing a completely different point. I am saying that for a person who wants to approach theoretical physics for a career, an engineering major is unnecessary.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I’m double majoring in physics/nuclear engineering. If I had my heart set on doing theoretical nuclear physics when I began school, I would not have double majored since it is purely unnecessary. It’s the same as doing MechE and physics. I would not double major in those if my end goal was to go to graduate school in theoretical physics. </p>
<p>When I was thinking about going towards theoretical physics, I went with physics by itself. Once I realized I wanted nothing to do with graduate school in physics, I tacked on the extra major in engineering. Unfortunately, the order in which I have gone about this has made it difficult for me to see first hand how engineering could have benefited my performance in physics. Of the people I know in my class who are double majors in NukeE, they didn’t have any easier of a time with physics by having engineering knowledge. I don’t have a large sample size to assess this though because 3 engineering double majors (including myself) survived the physics program to senior year out of the 120 total students that started freshman year. </p>
<p>I was not implying that Mechanical engineering would have no benefit. The extra fluids classes would be an asset along with heat transfer. However, if the end goal is theoretical physics, the extra major in engineering is simply unnecessary. This is especially true if you are having to spend an extra year in school to get it. Why do that when you can graduate in 4 years and immediately enter a physics Ph.D program? </p>
<p>If we want to be constructive here, I think the best advice for the OP would have probably been to major in mechanical engineering and do a physics minor with appropriate courses relevant to a physics graduate program application. That is perfectly reasonable and allows for options once the 4 years are done.</p>
<p>If you are a person that without question wants to do theoretical physics, the most direct path is simply to do a physics major. </p>
<p>To be more employable, perhaps? There is no shortage of theoretical physics PhD’s that are either unemployed or working outside of science and engineering completely. It would be a great backup plan in case one is forced out of academia, and this will almost certainly happen as less than 10% of physics PhD’s will actually end up with a permanent job in academia. Once the post-doc funding runs out and there is no faculty position offer, it’s over and it’s time to start thinking about a different line of work or an industry position that capitalizes on their research. This is what happens to the vast majority of theoretical physics PhD’s, and your typical particle or astrophysical theorist will often find themselves out of a job. </p>
<p>Also, I see once again you’re conflating particle and astrophysics with “theoretical” physics. In fact, the vast majority of theoretical physicists work in areas that would be considered “applied physics” and not “fundamental” physics. I agree if someone like the OP wants to be like Einstein (heh), then an engineering background would be useless as they will either tend towards particle theory or cosmology. But if a student has more realistic goals, say, wants to specialize in nonlinear quantum optical theory, coming from an EE background with emphasis on RF and microwave engineering could give a leg-up on the average physics graduate. </p>
<p>So, it should be more of a case-by-case thing that should be addressed to each individual and their overall goals and research interests. </p>
<p>I was not trying to insinuate that all astrophysicists and particle physicists stay in theory. Of course, these people will have the abilities to move towards areas focused on applied physics. All I wanted to say was that if you are simply wanting to stay with theory, the engineering double major is probably not necessary. An engineering major + appropriate physics elective could also be a great launching pad if you have very specific interests.</p>
<p>You do make a good point about employment. I am not unaware of the fact that jobs in academia are difficult to come by. I have been looking at some of the resumes of the professors that have been coming to are school to interview for an open position in the physics department. The competition for that one position is fierce. However, is it safe to assume that theorist who fail to land a position are unemployable? A Ph.D. in physics will provide you with some skills that I think can be marketed. I don’t know much about how that situation plays out. An engineering major would for sure provide an alternate route.</p>
<p>In general, this is not true. It would be very difficult for people working in particle and astrophysical theory to start working in optical, condensed matter, plasma, or molecular theory. It would be a little more easier for say someone who specialized in standard model phenomenology to change gears and focus on theoretical superconductivity as both fields utilize almost the same techniques within quantum field theory. But someone who spent their PhD learning tensor calculus, manifolds and topology of R^n, and global causal structure in general relativity, will have a very difficult time in switching fields and getting up to speed with techniques and skills of the applied fields to the point they could start making contributions on the level of those who did their PhD in that field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, it depends. Those who specialized in “applied” theory often have little trouble of finding an industry job that is related to the field they studied. However, those who did high energy and astro theory are pretty much screwed and will have an incredibly difficult time of finding any job that is at all related to physics or engineering. This should come as no surprise, seeing as both fields are far removed from any sort of practical application that could be capitalized on. Most actually find work in business and insurance industries that make use of their quantitative abilities and skills. Not a bad job and certainly pays better than many engineering and research science positions in industry, but many still would prefer a job in science/engineering that pays lower and is somewhat related to their field of study.</p>
<p>Same. The only reason anyone should do a PhD in fundamental physics these days is purely out of interest and are prepared to either retrain in a completely different career after they finish or use the skills they picked up to work in a completely different industry. </p>