Take the 2-minute tour ×  In theoretical physics, I'm torn
between high-energy and condensed matter physics. Is it true
that the former has a much steeper learning curve than the
latter, assuming I don't pick a well-trodden area like high
temperature superconductivity? I'd like to start becoming
productive as early as possible, and I don't necessarily want to
spend more time than needed in getting up to speed. Does that
rule out high-energy theory for me?  share|improve this question
dmckee's axiom of academic struggle: related, established fields
are of roughly equal difficulty. (If they weren't people would
cross discipline boundaries to pick up some easy papers, a
behavior you can watch in action any time a new sub-field
emerges.) –  dmckee Aug 23 '12 at 16:48 I noticed that in the
PhD program I will be applying to, it says that I can have an
engineering degree to enter Condensed Matter Theory but need
graduate-level (Masters) knowledge of physics to enter High
Energy. So at least there, they seem to be se