Physicist back from the wild
Reflections on attending an academic conference, how companies are funded, and maker-spaces for experimental physics
Last week, Perimeter Institute hosted a conference on various topics related to casualty and quantum physics. One of the topics—quantum causal inference—had been on my radar for some time, so I signed up to attend.
It had been a few years since I was at an academic conference where there would be so many first- and second-order connections. I was a bit self-conscious about answering the questions “what do you do now?” or “where are you (working) now?”.
I mean, I would happily talk someone’s ear off about my grand vision and mission for Aggie Branczyk Enterprises (ABE)—but there’s a time and place for that kind of thing, and the coffee break at an academic conference isn’t it. On the other hand, the short version sounds a bit like: “I’m throwing mud at a wall to see what sticks”. So I wasn’t really sure what I would say.
What are you working on?
It turns out that I didn’t have to overthink it, because most people asked me a different question: “What are you working on?” That might sound very similar to, “What do you do?”, but “What do you do?” means, “What is your job title?” And at academic conferences, no one really asks that (at least not to middle-aged people like me) because they just assume that part of your job is to be a researcher, and that’s the only part that matters. The question, “What are you working on?”, then implicitly means, “What research are you working on?”
That one was easy to wing: “My background is in quantum optics, but I’ve been in industry for a while and hadn’t done much research. Now I’m exploring new areas, to decide what I should work on next. Quantum causal inference is one of the areas I’m exploring.” The conversation then typically stayed on research.
Now…that seems completely normal if you’re an academic, but for someone who had been away from academia for a while, it was refreshing.
How are you funding it?
A couple of times, however, the conversation did steer towards the topic of my company1. In which case, it led to questions around VC funding.
I think it’s a fair assumption that most physics academics aren't very familiar with starting and running companies, but in quantum-adjacent fields, almost everyone knows someone who started a quantum tech startup. So they kind of have this idea that when you start a company, you apply for funding…usually VC funding2.
So the idea that I wasn’t fundraising seemed to them a bit weird. But the plan is for ABE to do a mix of consulting, community-building, training, education and theoretical research. This doesn’t need much capital to get started, and revenue comes quite quickly3, especially on the consulting side.
Similar things can be said for many kinds of software companies, and even some small-scale (classical) hardware companies, like those building robots from off-the shelf components and 3D printed parts. Rather than going the VC route, it’s possible to do something called bootstrapping where you fund the venture yourself (and/or with some help from your friends & family). You can still apply for VC funding when it’s time to scale, but this can be done at a much later stage, after you’ve found product-market-fit and have customers.
The advantages of doing this include having freedom over the direction of your company, as well as being able to focus on building the technology/product/company, without the distraction of fundraising. A major disadvantage is not having any income until you sell something, so you have to either do this on the side of your day job, or you have to plan ahead and save some money to support yourself for a while4. And you have to be willing to work on the company for free until it makes money.
I’m not making any claims about which way is better, but just making a point that there are different approaches, and it’s worth considering all of them before making a decision of how you want to build your company.
But what about deep tech startups?
Deep tech startups are different to regular tech startups5. They need lab space, expensive equipment, and highly qualified personnel. That ain’t cheap. So the conventional wisdom is that they take even longer to become profitable, and require even more funding.
It seems like bootstrapping a deep tech company wouldn’t be possible, but I’m intrigued about the idea of a maker-space for experimental physicists—a place with lab space, rooms of lasers, etc, that people could hang out in and tinker with and develop their technologies.
Isn’t that called grad school? Yeah, I guess…but somehow I’m imagining something different…something outside of academia.
I think the Quantum Nanofab Facility at the Quantum Nano Center in Waterloo and DevTeQ at DistriQ in Sherbrooke might be approximations of what I’m imagining, but I think those are more for already-funded startups to rent out…and again, I’m imagining something outside of academia.
The idea of this kind of maker-space for experimental physicists has independently come up in several conversations I’ve had in the last month, so I think something might be in the air.
So how’s this new life going so far?
I’m having a wonderful time, but my biggest challenge as always is limiting the number of things that I want to do at once. I’ve spent the last few weeks talking to a lot of people and getting lots of new ideas, but I need to reign in the networking next week and sit down and actually make some progress on the boring, but oh so important, parts of building the company.
Stay tuned!
Related
Well…future company…still haven’t gotten around to incorporating!
I think physics academics aren’t the only ones who have this idea that to start a company you need VC funding. See, e.g., Mummy, where do baby startups come from?
I’m allowed to say that now, because I got my first client last week!
Or be rich, but that’s probably not my audience 😅
It's always interesting to hear about your journey and progress, Aggie, I enjoyed reading your post (and hanging out at UW & Perimeter this June)! Best of luck!