US dataswitch to UK
Physicists
performing complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data, designing computer simulations to model physical data so that it can be better understood and writing research proposals to receive funding. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
This job is splitting in two: performing complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data is work AI now does quickly and cheaply, and collaborating with other scientists in the design is work it can't touch.
Which half fills your week decides your exposure. That is more in your control than it sounds.
Your week, as this page understands it
Conduct research into physical phenomena, develop theories on the basis of observation and experiments, and devise methods to apply physical laws and theories. The job title says “physicists”. The real job is the part underneath: collaborating with other scientists in the design. That is the thing someone has to be right about.
The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But physicists is not one task. It is 10 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is collaborating with other scientists in the design, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 37%
- changing shape
- 23%
- staying human
- 40%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 53 out of 100 (47–58 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, across 10 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.
How we know this
What is measured: Every published task statement for physicists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.
How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.
Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.
Your job, task by task
These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
Shifting to AI
3 tasksTasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.
Performing complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data
This is reading one thing and writing another: complex calculations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Perform complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data, using computers.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Heavy computation on data is what computers do, and software now sets up and checks much of the analysis.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Analyzing data from research conducted to detect and measure physical phenomena
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Analyze data from research conducted to detect and measure physical phenomena.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sifting measurement data for real signals is analysis work software does well once the data is available.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing computer simulations to model physical data so that it can be better understood
This is reading one thing and writing another: computer simulations in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design computer simulations to model physical data so that it can be better understood.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing simulation code against known physics is programming, which software does to a high standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Changing shape
2 tasksTasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.
Describing and expressing observations and conclusions in mathematical terms
The software now makes the first pass at observations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Describe and express observations and conclusions in mathematical terms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software handles standard mathematical write-ups, but turning fresh observations into the right formal description takes a physicist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing research proposals to receive funding
The software now makes the first pass at research proposals, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Write research proposals to receive funding.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 58 out of 100 (51–65 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts proposal text well, but the research idea and the case for funding it come from the scientist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
5 tasksTasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.
Reporting experimental results by writing papers for scientific journals or by presenting information at scientific conferences
The ratings behind this row put experimental results well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Report experimental results by writing papers for scientific journals or by presenting information at scientific conferences.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Software drafts papers from results, though the interpretation and the conference presentation stay with the researcher.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching physics to students
This work happens in the physical world: physics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Teach physics to students.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Physics content is thoroughly documented, but teaching a class means being in the room reading how students follow.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Collaborating with other scientists in the design
This work happens in the physical world: other scientists, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Collaborate with other scientists in the design, development, and testing of experimental, industrial, or medical equipment, instrumentation, and procedures.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Designing and testing instruments with other scientists means working alongside them and handling the hardware.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing theories and laws on the basis of observation and experiments
The ratings behind this row put theories well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Develop theories and laws on the basis of observation and experiments, and apply these theories and laws to problems in areas such as nuclear energy, optics, and aerospace technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over.
The rating behind it: Developing genuinely new theory is original thinking; software mainly helps check the math and search the literature.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Observing the structure and properties of matter
This work happens in the physical world: the structure, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · SupplementalSource: “Observe the structure and properties of matter, and the transformation and propagation of energy, using equipment such as masers, lasers, and telescopes, to explore and identify the basic principles governing these phenomena.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Running lasers, masers and telescopes to observe matter and energy needs someone at the instruments.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $172,250a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 20,430in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.
Why this is shifting
The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: complex calculations in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: performing complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data and analyzing data from research conducted to detect and measure physical phenomena. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where other scientists get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.
Your move
Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend
Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Performing complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data is going; collaborating with other scientists in the design is not.
So, given all that: 37% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 23% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 40% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 10 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.
The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.
This week: one thing
Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.
- What you end up holding
- your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
- How long it takes
- about twenty minutes
If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.
Over the next 90 days
Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (collaborating with other scientists in the design) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.
Over the next 12 months
Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles collaborating with other scientists in the design, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.
The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them
I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.
I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to physicists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was astronomers: only about 12% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 25.2% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. Your own job splits about 37/63: that share of the list sits in the top exposure band and the rest does not. On this evidence the honest move is inside the job rather than out of it. Become the person who owns “describe and express observations and conclusions in mathematical terms”, and let the exposed end go.
How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.
3 moves I checked and rejected
These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.
Astronomers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already report experimental results by writing papers for scientific journals or by presenting information…, and their equivalent is to present research findings at scientific conferences and in papers written for scientific journals. Across both published task lists that is about 12% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: $128,820 against your $172,250, 25.2% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 2,120 of those jobs against 20,430 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 10% as many seats.
Biochemists and Biophysicists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already report experimental results by writing papers for scientific journals or by presenting information…, and their equivalent is to share research findings by writing scientific articles or by making presentations at scientific…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $127,410 against your $172,250, 26.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Instructional Coordinators
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already teach physics to students, and their equivalent is to advise and teach students. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: $77,440 against your $172,250, 55.0% less (OEWS May 2025 (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
What I’d stop worrying about
A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.
The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 37% of its task weight, across 10 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.
You are reading the United States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Physical scientists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Physical scientists. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.
Your route through this
Where to go next, and what it costs
Free, and complete
The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it
Nothing Collab365 runs is built for physicists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 37% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.
7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.
The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for physicists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for physicists launches. Nothing else.
That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.
We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.
No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.
Questions people ask about this job
- Will AI replace Physicists?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 10 official task statements scored for Physicists (United States, SOC 19-2012), 37% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 53 out of 100 (range 47–58, band: partial). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
- Which tasks in “Physicists” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Perform complex calculations as part of the analysis and evaluation of data, using computers” (83/100, very high); “Design computer simulations to model physical data so that it can be better understood” (83/100, very high); “Analyze data from research conducted to detect and measure physical phenomena” (75/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
- Which tasks in “Physicists” stay human?
- About 40% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Observe the structure and properties of matter, and the transformation and propagation of energy, using equipment such as masers, lasers, and telescopes, to…” (8/100, minimal); “Collaborate with other scientists in the design, development, and testing of experimental, industrial, or medical equipment, instrumentation, and procedures” (11/100, minimal); “Teach physics to students” (23/100, low). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
- What should someone working in “Physicists” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 37% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 40% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
- How is the AI exposure score for Physicists calculated?
- Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 10 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.
Where these numbers come from
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.
- Task statements
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.
The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.
The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.
Using these figures?
Cite this
Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.
Plain text
Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).
BibTeX
@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
title = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
author = {{Collab365}},
year = {2026},
url = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
note = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.