DTLR has been a regular reader of Physics Today, published by the American Institute of Physics, since the early 1990s. Since then, PT has also gained an online presence with its website, of which I am an occasional (though not regular) user. The January 2026 issue has a piece from the editor about the magazine's latest refreshed design. One of its stated goals is to move to "cleaner layouts, fewer distractions, larger and more readable fonts..." In this, I am very pleased with the results. For some reason, the subjective experience of browsing through the print edition of this issue was very enjoyable, and the design changes seem to have enticed me to read more of the content than I usually do. Another positive change is that it appears that much of PT's content is no longer paywalled. All moving in the right direction! So let's take a closer look at Physics Today past and present: I will share with you what I think are the hits and misses with the current PT compared to its former glories. For comparison, I have in front of me the May 2007 print issue, one I decided to keep almost 20 years ago, as it has two very interesting articles (one on the physics of groundwater, and the other on Millikan's famous oil drop experiment).
Here are some elements that seem to have been maintained across almost two decades:
- Feature stories.
- Search and discovery (short reports about research advances).
- Issues and events (news articles, including FYI "science policy briefs").
- Quick study.
- Back scatter.
I've always considered the first three of these to be the heart of PT, serving the core purpose of the magazine, along with letters/opinion (more on that later). I read two of the three features in the January issue, and I found Johanna Miller's piece on superconducting quantum circuits (subject of last year's Nobel Prize in Physics) to be superb. I really enjoy articles like this: an article that takes the reader by the hand into a field they are not an expert in, and in this case relying on just our memory of undergraduate quantum physics, and gives us a gentle explanation of the research, connecting it to broader trends in physics. The article was enjoyable and instructive, and the writing was of excellent quality. I would like to see several articles like this per year in Physics Today. (The groundwater article by Mary Anderson in the May 2007 issue is another in this vein - so good I kept the issue.) I am also a fan of physics history, and enjoyed several pieces in last year's issues celebrating the international quantum year, such as Ryan Dahn's article on women in the early history of quantum physics. That piece inspired me to acquire the book from which the article is derived.
I remember when Quick study and Back scatter were first introduced years earlier. I thought both of those were excellent additions to the magazine's departments. They're generally easy to consume, and the topics are very diverse. They make PT a more well rounded product.
Two new departments are "What can physicists do?" (which started last year) and the Crossword. I glanced at the Crossword and realized I had to stop myself from starting to mentally pencil in the entries, as I was really too busy to commit to it at the time. So much for getting rid of distractions LOL!
"What can physicists do?" is, I think, a long overdue addition to PT. Years ago the British magazine Physics World used to have a similar department, then more recently APS News did too, though I haven't seen it recently there. The physics profession is going to have a recruitment crisis unless it broadens awareness of what physicists do, outside of traditional physics jobs. The much-appreciated annual careers issue just isn't sufficient to address the constantly challenging topic of physicist employment. I hope this new department never goes away.
How about the new logo? I dislike that the words "Physics Today" are deemphasized on the cover, next to the initials PT, which I think appear on the cover for the first time ever. I used to enjoy the puzzled looks from innocent members of the public when they see me flipping through a magazine with PHYSICS TODAY emblazoned across the cover. It is no longer obvious from the cover that this is a physics magazine!
It's unclear whether the Opinion and Letters departments are continuing. Both appeared in issues as late as the fall of last year. I think these departments are essential as they give voice to members of the community. Yes, the back page of APS News is another venue for such discussions, but social media, the blogosphere, podcasts, youtube, and the like have fragmented the media consumption of physicists. Physics Today may be one of the few common pieces of curated media that reaches across the physics community (beyond even the individual AIP member societies like APS). I am also a reader of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, and its Comment and Discussion department is perhaps the liveliest I've seen across professional society magazines - it is usually the first part of the magazine I want to read! PT's letters & opinion section has never been quite so vigorous, but I would like PT to preserve its place there, as I think it really is also part of the heart of the magazine.
Related to opinion, the May 2007 issue reminds me of the long-departed Reference Frame column. Some of the best and most stimulating writing in PT has appeared there. Authors such as Frank Wilczek (in that particular issue), Leo Kadanoff, Jerry Gollub, David Mermin, and so many others provoked much thought, reflection, and amusement. This was one of the most fun parts of the Physics Today of the past, and I really miss it!
The obituaries were moved fully online a number of years ago, and I understand the reasons why. There was just no room in the print edition to accommodate the departures of numerous colleagues who first joined the profession in the post-Sputnik expansion of American science. At least PT has continued its commitment to the community by keeping community-sourced obituaries on its website. I would still appreciate an occasional tabulation of recently posted obituaries in the print edition, something that has sadly been dropped, since I am not a regular visitor to the website.
Another department that went online was the Job Opportunities. And this too is understandable. Job searching is now done fully online. Print media is just too slow a venue for it.
The book reviews have vanished entirely. I really miss them. Book reviews are also increasingly rare in the American Journal of Physics. It seems that the journal Contemporary Physics may be one of the last bastions of book reviews covering the breadth of physics. Perhaps AIP should arrange to provide a subscription to Contemporary Physics for its members? Even more specialized journals like the Journal of Fluid Mechanics, which used to have book reviews, seem to have lost them.
Back before 2007, PT used to also feature occasional science policy panel discussions, where a group of prominent physicists would be prompted with questions and the ensuing discussion recorded for readers. When I was thinking about my post-Ph.D. career in the summer of 1997, I read a number of such panel discussions in back issues of PT as part of my research. They were quite valuable then, and perhaps continue to be of historical value today. However PT hasn't hosted one in decades.
Another class of article that PT should increase is interviews. Last year they did have one with Peter Shor. We've got to have more such interviews!
Finally I appreciate that Physics Today remains committed, for the moment, to having a print edition. This is not a given. The American Meteorological Society ended the print run of its Bulletin, BAMS, at the end of 2025. I still get EOS in print from the American Geophysical Union, and the less durable print copies of APS News and SIAM News from their respective societies. I don't always want to be looking into a battery-powered screen, so having these print publications is much appreciated.
It seems that I have no complaints about the new Physics Today except for its logo, and the loss of some of the eliminated departments from the past. I hope that letters & opinions haven't gone away, and I'd love to bring back Reference Frame and Book Reviews, and a list of obituaries posted online.
No comments:
Post a Comment