[theForce]

Hello,

I am currently attending a community college and I am a returning adult student. I have never had physics or chemistry courses at all up to now. Therefore, it may come as no surprise that I have some overgeneralized  question about semiconductor R&D: If there is a research project to develop micro-electronic circuits, how do the roles of a post-doc in nanoscale chemistry compare to a post-doc in nanoscale physics? I'm trying to decide if I want to pursue an undergraduate major, B.S. in chemistry or B.S. in Physics. Looking above at each of the post-doctoral careers, they seem closely related and would do very similar daily tasks in microelectronics R&D. I know that chemists with advanced training do R&D in micro-electronics as do physicists. But I don't know how the tasks each do are different and so I don't know weather I would enjoy chemistry as a major or physics. I have seen posts over in the materials and nanochemistry forum on this website and wondered if chemistry is ideal for microelectronics R&D.

Thanks. 

[Corribus]

When it comes to nanotech, I find that the primary difference between the physics and chemistry community is the language they use to speak about it. True, chemists have a more molecular mindset and may be more involved with fabrication of nanomaterials, particularly ones that involve molecular design, and measurement of properties. Physicists may be more interested in understanding how actual devices work so as to design better ones, and may (not surprisingly) be more involved in studying fundamental physics. But honestly it's such a multidisciplinary area that you can major in either physics or chemistry and find yourself in this kind of research. It just kind of depends on whether you like chemistry or physics more. Nobody can answer that question for you but yourself.

(Although, you refer to microelectronics multiple times, which is a little different from nanotech research. If you really are just interested in semiconductors and microelectronics, it seems like physics may be the more sensible direction. Some undergrad institutions may also let you major in materials science, which is a nice compromise between chemistry and physics.)

[theForce]

Hello,

Thanks for replying. I have been referring back to your message several times over the last week. I would look over the research topics at UNC Chapel Hill and at UNC Charlotte's Nano-Science Center. I would consider research in polymers, vaccines, and electronics. I eventually generalized that chemistry & nano-science were much like you were saying -- molecular. One researcher at UNC Charlotte's NanoSci Center is making (what seem like) denser solar cells for Photo-Voltaic Arrays. Another researcher there is researching binding proteins and DNA. I even found a few electrical engineers there at the NanoSci center that would list some long list of initials for a molecule. That abbreviation would be the chemical part and then other parts involved physics and electronics engineering. I realized that the electronics engineering that I was interested in was so multidisciplinary that I'd rather wait and see how well I do in my Junior year. If I think I can get full scholarships to pay for more than one major then I'll get into Chemistry because I will need it as a post-graduate physics student. If my guess is right, this is probably how things went for Walter H. Brattain and Bardeen, the Bell Labs Scientists who made crude transistors. In fact, just about every major scientist that I read about in Nano-Scale Electronics is some one who did very very very well in school and probably were also wealthy and could pass an intuitive "credit check" by investors. That would be where things are said that indicates one is wealthy and successful and then people just want to support that persons visions & goals. I'll need to see if I can pass a little "acid test" before I venture further.