View Full Version : [SOLVED] Re: I want to be a physicist!
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nYou don\'t need to study everything from undergrad. You can probably look\nfor a graduate program that includes a good load of coursework. You can\nprobably spend some three years studying the course material, two more\nfull time on a research group, learning the tehniques of the trade, and\ntwo doing your own thing. You may be done in seven years, instead of\n18.\n\nGood luck!\n\n\n--\nahrkron\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this thread with LaTeX images: http://www.physicsforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=17891\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>You don't need to study everything from undergrad. You can probably look
for a graduate program that includes a good load of coursework. You can
probably spend some three years studying the course material, two more
full time on a research group, learning the tehniques of the trade, and
two doing your own thing. You may be done in seven years, instead of
18.
Good luck!
--
ahrkron
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this thread with LaTeX images: http://www.physicsforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=17891
I also suggest trying to find some good books for self-study to catch up in those areas you're lacking; many people here have favorites. Just let us know which areas you need to study, and we can provide suggestions on some reading material.
Also, try following some of the easier journals like the American Journal of Physics.
- Warren
Ed Fredkin
Apr8-04, 06:40 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>imakemcses@hotmail.com (Jeff Carlson) wrote in message news:<8838f16b.0403292004.52a91d2@posting.google.c om>...\n> Sorry if this is the wrong group to post; seemed fair enough of a\n> match.\n>\n> TOPIC: I want to be a physicist.\n>\nsnip\n\nI managed to switch from computers to physics starting at age 39.\nIt\'s now 30 years later and no regrets. I was lucky to start with the\nbest teacher possible. He was able to figure out, from what I wanted\nto work on, exactly what he thought I had to learn. After an\nintensive year learning under his direction, it was possible to\ncontinue on my own. However, my work in physics is most definitely\nnot mainstream! Though physics is number one, I am nevertheless still\ninvolved in computer work.\n\nHere are some suggestions:\n\nTake a look at what Gerard \'t Hooft has to say at:\nhttp://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html\nBut don\'t let his long list frighten you.\n\nThe Feynman Lectures are great, but most chapters are best enjoyed\nwhen you already know the subject. For many of the chapters, reading\nthem may not the best way to learn the material.\n\nYou might start out following some of \'t Hooft\'s suggestions so as to\nstart learning things in general while keeping an open mind as to what\npart of physics seems most interesting to you. With luck, you might\nbe able to get a job where your computer skills are put to work on an\ninteresting physics project. It\'s always best to be doing what you\nwant while being paid for doing it. Keep in mind that there may be\ngood alternatives to the course most appropriate for a 17 year old.\n\nIn general, go for it! What do you have to lose?\n\nEd F\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>imakemcses@hotmail.com (Jeff Carlson) wrote in message news:<8838f16b.0403292004.52a91d2@posting.google.com>...
> Sorry if this is the wrong group to post; seemed fair enough of a
> match.
>
> TOPIC: I want to be a physicist.
>
snip
I managed to switch from computers to physics starting at age 39.
It's now 30 years later and no regrets. I was lucky to start with the
best teacher possible. He was able to figure out, from what I wanted
to work on, exactly what he thought I had to learn. After an
intensive year learning under his direction, it was possible to
continue on my own. However, my work in physics is most definitely
not mainstream! Though physics is number one, I am nevertheless still
involved in computer work.
Here are some suggestions:
Take a look at what Gerard 't Hooft has to say at:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
But don't let his long list frighten you.
The Feynman Lectures are great, but most chapters are best enjoyed
when you already know the subject. For many of the chapters, reading
them may not the best way to learn the material.
You might start out following some of 't Hooft's suggestions so as to
start learning things in general while keeping an open mind as to what
part of physics seems most interesting to you. With luck, you might
be able to get a job where your computer skills are put to work on an
interesting physics project. It's always best to be doing what you
want while being paid for doing it. Keep in mind that there may be
good alternatives to the course most appropriate for a 17 year old.
In general, go for it! What do you have to lose?
Ed F
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nI went to study physics when I was in my 40\'s, with no background\nexcept having read popular science and math as a hobby. It was really\nhard at first, and I failed all my courses and was often driven to\ntears. It also meant a real drop in my standard of living. And by the\ntime I get my PhD I\'ll probably be too old to get a job. But I\'m doing\nit, and I find my teachers encouraging, and nobody who knows me seems\nto think I\'m too old to do original research.\n\nFeynman thought the reason physicists did their best work young was\nthat as you get older you get kind of brainwashed and lose a fresh\noutlook. I find my outlook is pretty fresh because I\'m new in physics\nif not in years.\n\n>From my experience you really do need to go the whole 9 yards of\nundergraduate study, especially all the math. There\'s no way around it\nby reading books.\nGood luck.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I went to study physics when I was in my 40's, with no background
except having read popular science and math as a hobby. It was really
hard at first, and I failed all my courses and was often driven to
tears. It also meant a real drop in my standard of living. And by the
time I get my PhD I'll probably be too old to get a job. But I'm doing
it, and I find my teachers encouraging, and nobody who knows me seems
to think I'm too old to do original research.
Feynman thought the reason physicists did their best work young was
that as you get older you get kind of brainwashed and lose a fresh
outlook. I find my outlook is pretty fresh because I'm new in physics
if not in years.
>From my experience you really do need to go the whole 9 yards of
undergraduate study, especially all the math. There's no way around it
by reading books.
Good luck.
Alfred Einstead
Apr15-04, 11:29 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:\n> You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many\n> ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don\'t\n> believe this:\n>\n> http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html\n>\n> Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn\n> and do original research.\n\nYou\'re right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing\nbackwards. It should be: at 33, you\'re *no longer* too young to learn\nand do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how\nadvanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you\nare (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the\nlevel of current research before turning 18), there are still some\nthings you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for\nbefore you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.\n\nI didn\'t start publishing on anything in any field until I was 34, close\nto 35. And I didn\'t start making serious advances in my understanding\nof Physics or other fields (background and history notwithstanding)\nuntil getting close to 40. And it is specifically the experience of\nhaving been around several decades that is at root behind the latest\nadvances. So, it is certainly not too late to start learning Physics\nand ... if anything ... it\'s barely early enough.\n\nThere *is* after all a reason why, for instance, Presidents in the US\nare not allowed to be *under* 35. A 1960\'s radical is famous for having\nsaid (in more recent times) "trust nobody under 30".\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:
> You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many
> ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don't
> believe this:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html
>
> Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn
> and do original research.
You're right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing
backwards. It should be: at 33, you're *no longer* too young to learn
and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how
advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you
are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the
level of current research before turning 18), there are still some
things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for
before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.
I didn't start publishing on anything in any field until I was 34, close
to 35. And I didn't start making serious advances in my understanding
of Physics or other fields (background and history notwithstanding)
until getting close to 40. And it is specifically the experience of
having been around several decades that is at root behind the latest
advances. So, it is certainly not too late to start learning Physics
and ... if anything ... it's barely early enough.
There *is* after all a reason why, for instance, Presidents in the US
are not allowed to be *under* 35. A 1960's radical is famous for having
said (in more recent times) "trust nobody under 30".
Danny Ross Lunsford
Apr16-04, 02:28 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Alfred Einstead wrote:\n\n> You\'re right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing\n> backwards. It should be: at 33, you\'re *no longer* too young to learn\n> and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how\n> advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you\n> are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the\n> level of current research before turning 18), there are still some\n> things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for\n> before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.\n\nAgreed. There is *so much* to learn now (300 years\' worth). Even with a\ngood native sense of what is essential and what is BS, combined with\ngood advice, it requires a huge effort to take in enough to have a\ncomprehensive overview, with detailed understanding of a few things.\n\n-drl\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Alfred Einstead wrote:
> You're right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing
> backwards. It should be: at 33, you're *no longer* too young to learn
> and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how
> advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you
> are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the
> level of current research before turning 18), there are still some
> things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for
> before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.
Agreed. There is *so much* to learn now (300 years' worth). Even with a
good native sense of what is essential and what is BS, combined with
good advice, it requires a huge effort to take in enough to have a
comprehensive overview, with detailed understanding of a few things.
-drl
Arnold Neumaier
Apr19-04, 01:54 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Danny Ross Lunsford wrote:\n\n> Agreed. There is *so much* to learn now (300 years\' worth). Even with a\n> good native sense of what is essential and what is BS, combined with\n> good advice, it requires a huge effort to take in enough to have a\n> comprehensive overview, with detailed understanding of a few things.\n\nThe key is to read on several levels; the broadest level is cursory\nreading of textbooks, survey articles, etc., where one skips everything\nthat becomes too complicated, but gets an idea of what is going on.\nIncreasingly narrow focus is kept on articles which one wants to read in\nincreasingly high detail. But studies completely is only what one really\nneeds.\n\nPhysics is a huge tree, and one cannot hope to look at each leaf\nseparately, but many leaves are more or less alike. Thus one studies\nthe stem and the big branches to have a good foundation, then looks\nat a number of branches in more detail, and finally one works on\na handful of leaves to bring them into existence. And with luck\nor good advisors, and good taste, overview, and knowledge (and best with\nall of these), one even creates a flower or even a real fruit...\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Danny Ross Lunsford wrote:
> Agreed. There is *so much* to learn now (300 years' worth). Even with a
> good native sense of what is essential and what is BS, combined with
> good advice, it requires a huge effort to take in enough to have a
> comprehensive overview, with detailed understanding of a few things.
The key is to read on several levels; the broadest level is cursory
reading of textbooks, survey articles, etc., where one skips everything
that becomes too complicated, but gets an idea of what is going on.
Increasingly narrow focus is kept on articles which one wants to read in
increasingly high detail. But studies completely is only what one really
needs.
Physics is a huge tree, and one cannot hope to look at each leaf
separately, but many leaves are more or less alike. Thus one studies
the stem and the big branches to have a good foundation, then looks
at a number of branches in more detail, and finally one works on
a handful of leaves to bring them into existence. And with luck
or good advisors, and good taste, overview, and knowledge (and best with
all of these), one even creates a flower or even a real fruit...
Arnold Neumaier
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google. com>...\n> backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:\n> > You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many\n> > ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don\'t\n> > believe this:\n> >\n> > http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html\n> >\n> > Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn\n> > and do original research.\n>\n> You\'re right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing\n> backwards. It should be: at 33, you\'re *no longer* too young to learn\n> and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how\n> advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you\n> are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the\n> level of current research before turning 18), there are still some\n> things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for\n> before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.\n>\n\nHow do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their\nearly 20\'s when they made their great achievements, and didn\'t do much\nsignificant after that?\n\nDavid\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google.com>...
> backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:
> > You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many
> > ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don't
> > believe this:
> >
> > http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html
> >
> > Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn
> > and do original research.
>
> You're right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing
> backwards. It should be: at 33, you're *no longer* too young to learn
> and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how
> advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you
> are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the
> level of current research before turning 18), there are still some
> things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for
> before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.
>
How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their
early 20's when they made their great achievements, and didn't do much
significant after that?
David
Lou Pecora
Apr21-04, 04:23 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.com>,\ nulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote:\n\n>\n> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their\n> early 20\'s when they made their great achievements, and didn\'t do much\n> significant after that?\n>\n> David\n\nFocusing on the rare geniuses is not the way to go. There are plenty of\nreasons that younger people in creative endeavors do well, some related\nto young brains, some to culture, etc. etc. There are also instances\nwhere older researchers did quite well (cf. Max Born and Einstein later\nin life with EPR). VERY few will be in Einstein\'s league. Better to\nlook at the overall population in the field and ask how you will fit in\nthere.\n\n-- Lou Pecora\nMy views are my own.\n\n"If you\'re not part of the solution, you\'re part of the precipitate."\n(Steven Wright)\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.com>,
ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote:
>
> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their
> early 20's when they made their great achievements, and didn't do much
> significant after that?
>
> David
Focusing on the rare geniuses is not the way to go. There are plenty of
reasons that younger people in creative endeavors do well, some related
to young brains, some to culture, etc. etc. There are also instances
where older researchers did quite well (cf. Max Born and Einstein later
in life with EPR). VERY few will be in Einstein's league. Better to
look at the overall population in the field and ask how you will fit in
there.
-- Lou Pecora
My views are my own.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
(Steven Wright)
Nathan Penton
Apr22-04, 03:38 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.c om>...\n> whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google. com>...\n> > backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:\n> > > You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many\n> > > ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don\'t\n> > > believe this:\n> > >\n> > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html\n> > >\n> > > Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn\n> > > and do original research.\n> >\n> > You\'re right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing\n> > backwards. It should be: at 33, you\'re *no longer* too young to learn\n> > and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how\n> > advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you\n> > are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the\n> > level of current research before turning 18), there are still some\n> > things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for\n> > before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.\n> >\n>\n> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their\n> early 20\'s when they made their great achievements, and didn\'t do much\n> significant after that?\n>\n\nFirst of all, it doesn\'t need to be explained, since your sample size\nhas only two points, out of tens of thousands of physicists.\n\nSecond of all, it\'s completely fictional. Einstein\'s most important\ncontribution (General Relativity) was made in his late thirties, and\nNewton wrote the Principia in his fourties, and both continued\npublishing for some time after that.\n\nNathan\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.com>...
> whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google.com>...
> > backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote:
> > > You certainly can do it. What one fool can do so can another. In many
> > > ways your maturity is a plus - as long as you (or your advisor) don't
> > > believe this:
> > >
> > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/030707/030707-8.html
> > >
> > > Anyway, 33 is not what it used to be. You are still young enough learn
> > > and do original research.
> >
> > You're right on the matter above. But I think you have the age thing
> > backwards. It should be: at 33, you're *no longer* too young to learn
> > and do original research. Speaking from experience, no matter how
> > advanced you are as a youth and no matter how much of a prodigy you
> > are (even if you, say, taught yourself advanced physics up to the
> > level of current research before turning 18), there are still some
> > things you really have to be in this world for 3 or 4 decades for
> > before you get a proper understanding, appreciation or perspective on.
> >
>
> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their
> early 20's when they made their great achievements, and didn't do much
> significant after that?
>
First of all, it doesn't need to be explained, since your sample size
has only two points, out of tens of thousands of physicists.
Second of all, it's completely fictional. Einstein's most important
contribution (General Relativity) was made in his late thirties, and
Newton wrote the Principia in his fourties, and both continued
publishing for some time after that.
Nathan
backdoorstudent
Apr22-04, 03:55 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.c om>...\n> whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google. com>...\n> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their\n> early 20\'s when they made their great achievements, and didn\'t do much\n> significant after that?\n>\n> David\n\nAs I understand Newton got bogged down with politics. Einstein was 26\nin 1905 when he published his 4 historical papers (not very young by\nthe standards of the time, especially considering that he wasn\'t even\nworking in academia), but he did not develop general relativity until\n1916 which means he was well into his thirties.\n\nMoreover, many people think that Einstein\'s later work was more\nrelevant than most physicists\' entire life\'s work; he was the orginal\nmotivator for quantum gravity research as well as the original\nantagonist to the Copenhagen dogma of quantum mechanics. And he did\nall this as a gray-haired old man. Indeed, the fact that he was\nconsidered (by the young physicists at the time) an outdated "old man"\nwas why these arguments weren\'t taken very seriously until a couple\ngenerations later.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.com>...
> whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google.com>...
> How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their
> early 20's when they made their great achievements, and didn't do much
> significant after that?
>
> David
As I understand Newton got bogged down with politics. Einstein was 26
in 1905 when he published his 4 historical papers (not very young by
the standards of the time, especially considering that he wasn't even
working in academia), but he did not develop general relativity until
1916 which means he was well into his thirties.
Moreover, many people think that Einstein's later work was more
relevant than most physicists' entire life's work; he was the orginal
motivator for quantum gravity research as well as the original
antagonist to the Copenhagen dogma of quantum mechanics. And he did
all this as a gray-haired old man. Indeed, the fact that he was
considered (by the young physicists at the time) an outdated "old man"
was why these arguments weren't taken very seriously until a couple
generations later.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote in message news:<750f5e99.0404200722.5d0eb076@posting.google. com>...\n> ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.c om>...\n> > whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google. com>...\n> > How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their\n> > early 20\'s when they made their great achievements, and didn\'t do much\n> > significant after that?\n> >\n> > David\n>\n> As I understand Newton got bogged down with politics.\n\nHe didn\'t get bogged down in politics. He simply had no intention of\nactually publishing his work, as strange as that might seem. Edmund\nHalley found out about his work by talking to him, and pressured him\nto publish it, and finally he did agree to publish, but if Halley had\nnot done so, he never would have. The work published in the Principia\nwas actually done 20 years earlier.\n\nDavid\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>backdoorstudent@yahoo.com (backdoorstudent) wrote in message news:<750f5e99.0404200722.5d0eb076@posting.google.com>...
> ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0404161321.c8cdf07@posting.google.com>...
> > whopkins@csd.uwm.edu (Alfred Einstead) wrote in message news:<e58d56ae.0404140925.4b3bb0b0@posting.google.com>...
> > How do you explain that both Newton and Einstein were both in their
> > early 20's when they made their great achievements, and didn't do much
> > significant after that?
> >
> > David
>
> As I understand Newton got bogged down with politics.
He didn't get bogged down in politics. He simply had no intention of
actually publishing his work, as strange as that might seem. Edmund
Halley found out about his work by talking to him, and pressured him
to publish it, and finally he did agree to publish, but if Halley had
not done so, he never would have. The work published in the Principia
was actually done 20 years earlier.
David
steve_H
Apr28-04, 02:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>npenton@hotmail.com (Nathan Penton) wrote in message\n\n> Second of all, it\'s completely fictional. Einstein\'s most important\n> contribution (General Relativity) was made in his late thirties, and\n> Newton wrote the Principia in his fourties, and both continued\n> publishing for some time after that.\n>\n> Nathan\n\nAnd lets not forget Euler. Has was cranking out papers up to the day\nhe died.\n\nIt is true that when one is young they have more physical energy,\nbut I also think that if one is dedicated and very interested in a\nsubject they can still do good things at any age.\n\nBut the point is for one to enjoy what they are working on, and not\nworry about not having discovered something great, becuase I think\nthe reason for doing all of this is to enjoy the learning itself\nand discovering how things work and why, and this could still be done\nat any age.\n\nSteve\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>npenton@hotmail.com (Nathan Penton) wrote in message
> Second of all, it's completely fictional. Einstein's most important
> contribution (General Relativity) was made in his late thirties, and
> Newton wrote the Principia in his fourties, and both continued
> publishing for some time after that.
>
> Nathan
And lets not forget Euler. Has was cranking out papers up to the day
he died.
It is true that when one is young they have more physical energy,
but I also think that if one is dedicated and very interested in a
subject they can still do good things at any age.
But the point is for one to enjoy what they are working on, and not
worry about not having discovered something great, becuase I think
the reason for doing all of this is to enjoy the learning itself
and discovering how things work and why, and this could still be done
at any age.
Steve
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>schuam series books. (to complement not replace text)\ncollege algebra\ngeometry trig\npre calc\ncalc\nadvanced calc\nPhysics\n\nFeynman series. (audio is great too.)\n\nPhysics for scientists and engineers- Giancoli\n\nand my all time favorite astrophysicist uber computer geek\ninspiration:\n"Cuckoo\'s Egg" by Cliff Stoll.\n\nI\'m 24 and doing what you are doing as well. The schuam books help\nwarm your brain up as it were. Repeat the simple and become an expert\nwith the fundamentals. then move up. Hands on experience with\nexperiments and the Base classes are a MUST. So is constantly bouncing\nideas off current experts (i.e. the guys in this list)\n\nYou will make it. If age still bugs you read up on biology magazines\nwith new findings in neuro findings and their suplementive glia cell\nrelations. Also how process repetition, environmental change and\nincreasing challenges pump oxygenated blood and help create links. No\nmatter the age.\n\nSLEEP IS IMPORTANT!!!\n-Benny\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>schuam series books. (to complement not replace text)
college algebra
geometry trig
pre calc
calc
advanced calc
Physics
Feynman series. (audio is great too.)
Physics for scientists and engineers- Giancoli
and my all time favorite astrophysicist uber computer geek
inspiration:
"Cuckoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll.
I'm 24 and doing what you are doing as well. The schuam books help
warm your brain up as it were. Repeat the simple and become an expert
with the fundamentals. then move up. Hands on experience with
experiments and the Base classes are a MUST. So is constantly bouncing
ideas off current experts (i.e. the guys in this list)
You will make it. If age still bugs you read up on biology magazines
with new findings in neuro findings and their suplementive glia cell
relations. Also how process repetition, environmental change and
increasing challenges pump oxygenated blood and help create links. No
matter the age.
SLEEP IS IMPORTANT!!!
-Benny
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\njdavel <jdavel.14ba41@physicsforums.com> wrote in message news:<jdavel.14ba41@timelimit.physicsforums.com>.. .\n> Jeff,\n>\n> You said: "My math is ....solid at least."\n>\n> My advice: Find out how "solid".\n>\n> You don\'t want to get into a freshman physics class and find out that\n> it\'s not solid enough. Just to begin learning physics, requires a lot\n> of knowledge in math and a lot of skill using it. And to make it\n> through your freshman year, you\'ll need to learn a lot more. So you\n> have to know a lot before you start, and you have to be good (and\n> fast!) at learning it.\n>\n> Below is a reality check on how much math you "know". This may sound\n> brutal, but if you can\'t get all of these right in 10 minutes (no books\n> or calculators allowed!), you should take math courses (algebra,\n> geometry, trig and calculus) before you take any college physics\n> course.\n>\n> 1) What are the solutions to the equation: 4 + 3X^2 = 2x ?\n>\n> 2) Calculate the determinant of the matrix:\n>\n> 2 3 5\n> 1 4 7\n> 0 1 6\n>\n> 3) Draw a right triangle\n>\n> 4) What does the Pythagorean theorem say about right triangles?\n>\n> 5) Prove the Pythagorean theorem.\n>\n> 6) What is the sine of 30 degrees?\n>\n> 7) Prove that 1- (cos(A))^2 = (sin(A))^2, for any angle A.\n>\n> 8) If g(x) = x^2 - 3x, what is g\'(3)?\n>\n>\n> If that didn\'t discourage you, then I say go for it!\n\nYay, i finished in 1:20 .. Good luck i\'m a physics student than :-)\nBtw, i already made it through my first year without knowing how to\nproof Pythagoras, so that\'s not quite a nescesary (?) one i think...\n\nActually, where i go to univ, not too much math backgground is needed,\nsince in the first year there\'s quite a lot math courses implemented\nto learn the basics (of course it\'s always an advantage if you already\nknow them) .\n\nGrtz\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>jdavel <jdavel.14ba41@physicsforums.com> wrote in message news:<jdavel.14ba41@timelimit.physicsforums.com>...
> Jeff,
>
> You said: "My math is ....solid at least."
>
> My advice: Find out how "solid".
>
> You don't want to get into a freshman physics class and find out that
> it's not solid enough. Just to begin learning physics, requires a lot
> of knowledge in math and a lot of skill using it. And to make it
> through your freshman year, you'll need to learn a lot more. So you
> have to know a lot before you start, and you have to be good (and
> fast!) at learning it.
>
> Below is a reality check on how much math you "know". This may sound
> brutal, but if you can't get all of these right in 10 minutes (no books
> or calculators allowed!), you should take math courses (algebra,
> geometry, trig and calculus) before you take any college physics
> course.
>
> 1) What are the solutions to the equation: 4 + 3X^2 = 2x ?
>
> 2) Calculate the determinant of the matrix:
>
> 2 3 5
> 1 4 7
> 1 6
>
> 3) Draw a right triangle
>
> 4) What does the Pythagorean theorem say about right triangles?
>
> 5) Prove the Pythagorean theorem.
>
> 6) What is the sine of 30 degrees?
>
> 7) Prove that 1- (cos(A))^2 = (sin(A))^2, for any angle A.
>
> 8) If g(x) = x^2 - 3x, what is g'(3)?
>
>
> If that didn't discourage you, then I say go for it!
Yay, i finished in 1:20 .. Good luck i'm a physics student than :-)
Btw, i already made it through my first year without knowing how to
proof Pythagoras, so that's not quite a nescesary (?) one i think...
Actually, where i go to univ, not too much math backgground is needed,
since in the first year there's quite a lot math courses implemented
to learn the basics (of course it's always an advantage if you already
know them) .
Grtz
Frank Hellmann
Apr30-04, 11:30 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>> Take a look at what Gerard \'t Hooft has to say at:\n> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html\n> But don\'t let his long list frighten you.\n>\n\nWhoa, nice list he put\'s up there... However I fell it misses an\nimportant point. A very important point. I\'d prefer to study one\nparticular aspect in real depth and with deep understanding, because\nthis will carry over.\nA fair list of this subjects I have never studied, but if need arises\nI\'m confident I could grasp the basics from text books within a couple\nof weeks, simply because I have studied other fields at great depth,\nand much of the thinking is similar. Generally it trains your abstract\nthinking, youwill find you grasp the new concepts a lot more quickly.\nIf I think back how long it took me to do simple calculus in the\nbeginning, and this has now become second nature, so that any\nmathematical course on that level is,... well still a challenge but a\nvery trackable one. Even though I never had any topology, the course\non Algebraic Topology I heared this year was a clear cruise. Without\nfrustration.\nI find that trying to study a to general subject, knowing loads about\nphenomenology and lot\'s of bit\'s and pieces might not be the most\ndesireable.\n\nPick any rich theory, like Quantum mechanics, learn the entire\nmathematical structure of the theory in and out, actually understand\nthe entire concept the entire structure of it, not just the particular\nbit\'s that \'t Hooft mentions, skip whatever else you want for that,\nand you are probably very well equiped to quickly learn anything you\nneed to know for any particular other physical problem that comes your\nway.\n\nThis year I studied a list of subjects that reflects very closely to\nHooft\'s list, learning technics in each of them. Advanced Statistical\nPhysics, I will have passed two QFT exams in a months time (most\nridiculous considering my total and utter lack of understanding of the\narea, but hey I can calculate amplitudes!), symmetry groups, GR, and\nsome more.\n\nUseless. I\'d much rather have focused on two areas and gained a real\nunderstanding there, that would have taught me less in terms of things\nI can do, but I would have made much more progress as a physicist.\n(I\'m gonna use the holidays to finally hopefully finish Isham\'s\ndifferential Geometry book)\n\nA good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I\nhave ever met goes as far as to say that you can\'t effectively study\nmore then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff\nyou are learning.\n\nWell I guess what I\'m trying to say is that this lists are not gospel.\nThere are many different approaches to theoretical physics, and only\ntwo authorities to report to: Maths and Reality.\n\nFavorite books for "classical" theoretical physics:\nLandau Lifschitz on Classical Mechanics and Wave mechanics,\nJackson on EM\nDirac or/and Mueller on QM (Mueller is relatively unknown and only in\nGerman but utterly concise and quite rigorous but I like it)\n\nNone of those are immidiately accesible, but then there are enough\nintroductions and easy "soft" textbooks out there, these books though,\ntell you when you\'ve really cracked the subject.\n\n---\n\nEnjoy, it\'s beautifull,\nFrank Hellmann.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>> Take a look at what Gerard 't Hooft has to say at:
> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
> But don't let his long list frighten you.
>
Whoa, nice list he put's up there... However I fell it misses an
important point. A very important point. I'd prefer to study one
particular aspect in real depth and with deep understanding, because
this will carry over.
A fair list of this subjects I have never studied, but if need arises
I'm confident I could grasp the basics from text books within a couple
of weeks, simply because I have studied other fields at great depth,
and much of the thinking is similar. Generally it trains your abstract
thinking, youwill find you grasp the new concepts a lot more quickly.
If I think back how long it took me to do simple calculus in the
beginning, and this has now become second nature, so that any
mathematical course on that level is,... well still a challenge but a
very trackable one. Even though I never had any topology, the course
on Algebraic Topology I heared this year was a clear cruise. Without
frustration.
I find that trying to study a to general subject, knowing loads about
phenomenology and lot's of bit's and pieces might not be the most
desireable.
Pick any rich theory, like Quantum mechanics, learn the entire
mathematical structure of the theory in and out, actually understand
the entire concept the entire structure of it, not just the particular
bit's that 't Hooft mentions, skip whatever else you want for that,
and you are probably very well equiped to quickly learn anything you
need to know for any particular other physical problem that comes your
way.
This year I studied a list of subjects that reflects very closely to
Hooft's list, learning technics in each of them. Advanced Statistical
Physics, I will have passed two QFT exams in a months time (most
ridiculous considering my total and utter lack of understanding of the
area, but hey I can calculate amplitudes!), symmetry groups, GR, and
some more.
Useless. I'd much rather have focused on two areas and gained a real
understanding there, that would have taught me less in terms of things
I can do, but I would have made much more progress as a physicist.
(I'm gonna use the holidays to finally hopefully finish Isham's
differential Geometry book)
A good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I
have ever met goes as far as to say that you can't effectively study
more then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff
you are learning.
Well I guess what I'm trying to say is that this lists are not gospel.
There are many different approaches to theoretical physics, and only
two authorities to report to: Maths and Reality.
Favorite books for "classical" theoretical physics:
Landau Lifschitz on Classical Mechanics and Wave mechanics,
Jackson on EM
Dirac or/and Mueller on QM (Mueller is relatively unknown and only in
German but utterly concise and quite rigorous but I like it)
None of those are immidiately accesible, but then there are enough
introductions and easy "soft" textbooks out there, these books though,
tell you when you've really cracked the subject.
---
Enjoy, it's beautifull,
Frank Hellmann.
Gentil Correa
May2-04, 05:52 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>C.i.m@gmx.net (Frank Hellmann) wrote in message news:<e7f834be.0404281347.d17e080@posting.google.c om>...\n> > Take a look at what Gerard \'t Hooft has to say at:\n> > http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html\n> > But don\'t let his long list frighten you.\n> >\n>\n> Whoa, nice list he put\'s up there... However I fell it misses an\n> important point. A very important point. I\'d prefer to study one\n> particular aspect in real depth and with deep understanding, because\n> this will carry over.\n> A fair list of this subjects I have never studied, but if need arises\n> I\'m confident I could grasp the basics from text books within a couple\n> of weeks, simply because I have studied other fields at great depth,\n> and much of the thinking is similar. Generally it trains your abstract\n> thinking, youwill find you grasp the new concepts a lot more quickly.\n> If I think back how long it took me to do simple calculus in the\n> beginning, and this has now become second nature, so that any\n> mathematical course on that level is,... well still a challenge but a\n> very trackable one. Even though I never had any topology, the course\n> on Algebraic Topology I heared this year was a clear cruise. Without\n> frustration.\n> I find that trying to study a to general subject, knowing loads about\n> phenomenology and lot\'s of bit\'s and pieces might not be the most\n> desireable.\n>\n> Pick any rich theory, like Quantum mechanics, learn the entire\n> mathematical structure of the theory in and out, actually understand\n> the entire concept the entire structure of it, not just the particular\n> bit\'s that \'t Hooft mentions, skip whatever else you want for that,\n> and you are probably very well equiped to quickly learn anything you\n> need to know for any particular other physical problem that comes your\n> way.\n>\n> This year I studied a list of subjects that reflects very closely to\n> Hooft\'s list, learning technics in each of them. Advanced Statistical\n> Physics, I will have passed two QFT exams in a months time (most\n> ridiculous considering my total and utter lack of understanding of the\n> area, but hey I can calculate amplitudes!), symmetry groups, GR, and\n> some more.\n>\n> Useless. I\'d much rather have focused on two areas and gained a real\n> understanding there, that would have taught me less in terms of things\n> I can do, but I would have made much more progress as a physicist.\n> (I\'m gonna use the holidays to finally hopefully finish Isham\'s\n> differential Geometry book)\n>\n> A good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I\n> have ever met goes as far as to say that you can\'t effectively study\n> more then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff\n> you are learning.\n>\n> Well I guess what I\'m trying to say is that this lists are not gospel.\n> There are many different approaches to theoretical physics, and only\n> two authorities to report to: Maths and Reality.\n>\n> Favorite books for "classical" theoretical physics:\n> Landau Lifschitz on Classical Mechanics and Wave mechanics,\n> Jackson on EM\n> Dirac or/and Mueller on QM (Mueller is relatively unknown and only in\n> German but utterly concise and quite rigorous but I like it)\n>\n> None of those are immidiately accesible, but then there are enough\n> introductions and easy "soft" textbooks out there, these books though,\n> tell you when you\'ve really cracked the subject.\n>\n> ---\n>\n> Enjoy, it\'s beautifull,\n> Frank Hellmann.\n\nI loved this selection of books, except that I would replace Jackson\'s\nby\nthe wonderful Landau-Lifshitz, "Classical Field Theory", and perhaps\nadd\nSexl-Urbantke "Relativity, Groups, Particles".\n\nNow, Landau himself favoured a very broad education in physics, made\nconcrete in the "Theoretical Minimum" exams which the budding members\nof the Landau Institute were supposed (though not forced) to take.\nGiven the enormous success Landau had not just as a physicist, but as\nan educator, group leader and given the quality of his heritage, it is\nhard not to consider his viewpoint as a wise one. I think the idea of\na broad education is that you store a large amount of "analogy\nsources", and analogy is perhaps the main tool of original research.\nJust think of how many breakthrough discoveries were based on\nanalogies! Consider, for instance, the beautiful solution Bernoulli\ngave to the problem of the brachistochrone, based on an analogy with\nlight propagation, vis-a-vis Newton´s solution, shorter, erudite, but\nrequiring nothing less than the discovery of calculus, in the mean\ntime.\n\nThis said, I am now obliged to say that another great Russian\nphysicist, Y. Zeldovich, preached the opposite: select a problem you\nare interested in, and then read only that which you can use to try to\nsolve it. Doing that he became one of the most versatile physicist of\nout time.\n\nConclusion: in order to become a physicist, follow the way that looks\nmore congenial to your personality. And, in choosing between two\nbooks, choose the one written by the best physicist.\n\nBest wishes,\n\nG.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>C.i.m@gmx.net (Frank Hellmann) wrote in message news:<e7f834be.0404281347.d17e080@posting.google.com>...
> > Take a look at what Gerard 't Hooft has to say at:
> > http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
> > But don't let his long list frighten you.
> >
>
> Whoa, nice list he put's up there... However I fell it misses an
> important point. A very important point. I'd prefer to study one
> particular aspect in real depth and with deep understanding, because
> this will carry over.
> A fair list of this subjects I have never studied, but if need arises
> I'm confident I could grasp the basics from text books within a couple
> of weeks, simply because I have studied other fields at great depth,
> and much of the thinking is similar. Generally it trains your abstract
> thinking, youwill find you grasp the new concepts a lot more quickly.
> If I think back how long it took me to do simple calculus in the
> beginning, and this has now become second nature, so that any
> mathematical course on that level is,... well still a challenge but a
> very trackable one. Even though I never had any topology, the course
> on Algebraic Topology I heared this year was a clear cruise. Without
> frustration.
> I find that trying to study a to general subject, knowing loads about
> phenomenology and lot's of bit's and pieces might not be the most
> desireable.
>
> Pick any rich theory, like Quantum mechanics, learn the entire
> mathematical structure of the theory in and out, actually understand
> the entire concept the entire structure of it, not just the particular
> bit's that 't Hooft mentions, skip whatever else you want for that,
> and you are probably very well equiped to quickly learn anything you
> need to know for any particular other physical problem that comes your
> way.
>
> This year I studied a list of subjects that reflects very closely to
> Hooft's list, learning technics in each of them. Advanced Statistical
> Physics, I will have passed two QFT exams in a months time (most
> ridiculous considering my total and utter lack of understanding of the
> area, but hey I can calculate amplitudes!), symmetry groups, GR, and
> some more.
>
> Useless. I'd much rather have focused on two areas and gained a real
> understanding there, that would have taught me less in terms of things
> I can do, but I would have made much more progress as a physicist.
> (I'm gonna use the holidays to finally hopefully finish Isham's
> differential Geometry book)
>
> A good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I
> have ever met goes as far as to say that you can't effectively study
> more then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff
> you are learning.
>
> Well I guess what I'm trying to say is that this lists are not gospel.
> There are many different approaches to theoretical physics, and only
> two authorities to report to: Maths and Reality.
>
> Favorite books for "classical" theoretical physics:
> Landau Lifschitz on Classical Mechanics and Wave mechanics,
> Jackson on EM
> Dirac or/and Mueller on QM (Mueller is relatively unknown and only in
> German but utterly concise and quite rigorous but I like it)
>
> None of those are immidiately accesible, but then there are enough
> introductions and easy "soft" textbooks out there, these books though,
> tell you when you've really cracked the subject.
>
> ---
>
> Enjoy, it's beautifull,
> Frank Hellmann.
I loved this selection of books, except that I would replace Jackson's
by
the wonderful Landau-Lifshitz, "Classical Field Theory", and perhaps
add
Sexl-Urbantke "Relativity, Groups, Particles".
Now, Landau himself favoured a very broad education in physics, made
concrete in the "Theoretical Minimum" exams which the budding members
of the Landau Institute were supposed (though not forced) to take.
Given the enormous success Landau had not just as a physicist, but as
an educator, group leader and given the quality of his heritage, it is
hard not to consider his viewpoint as a wise one. I think the idea of
a broad education is that you store a large amount of "analogy
sources", and analogy is perhaps the main tool of original research.
Just think of how many breakthrough discoveries were based on
analogies! Consider, for instance, the beautiful solution Bernoulli
gave to the problem of the brachistochrone, based on an analogy with
light propagation, vis-a-vis Newton´s solution, shorter, erudite, but
requiring nothing less than the discovery of calculus, in the mean
time.
This said, I am now obliged to say that another great Russian
physicist, Y. Zeldovich, preached the opposite: select a problem you
are interested in, and then read only that which you can use to try to
solve it. Doing that he became one of the most versatile physicist of
out time.
Conclusion: in order to become a physicist, follow the way that looks
more congenial to your personality. And, in choosing between two
books, choose the one written by the best physicist.
Best wishes,
G.
backdoorstudent
May3-04, 05:52 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nC.i.m@gmx.net (Frank Hellmann) wrote in message news:<e7f834be.0404281347.d17e080@posting.google.c om>...\n> A good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I\n> have ever met goes as far as to say that you can\'t effectively study\n> more then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff\n> you are learning.\n\nEver? Or just for a given period until mastering the topic?\n\nIt really depends on personality. Some people can study more than one\ntopic and make contributions in the region of overlap (that is, after\nfinding a region of overlap).\n\nI\'m presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3\nyears of regular study to master an established topic. By established\nI mean that you\'re not making an original contribution just learning\nwhat others have put before you.\n\nAnd if you can teach the topic 3 times you can consider it mastered.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>C.i.m@gmx.net (Frank Hellmann) wrote in message news:<e7f834be.0404281347.d17e080@posting.google.com>...
> A good friend of mine and the by far most brilliant physics student I
> have ever met goes as far as to say that you can't effectively study
> more then two topics at once if you want to really penetrate the stuff
> you are learning.
Ever? Or just for a given period until mastering the topic?
It really depends on personality. Some people can study more than one
topic and make contributions in the region of overlap (that is, after
finding a region of overlap).
I'm presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3
years of regular study to master an established topic. By established
I mean that you're not making an original contribution just learning
what others have put before you.
And if you can teach the topic 3 times you can consider it mastered.
p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk
May6-04, 08:52 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nbackdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> I\'m presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3\n> years of regular study to master an established topic. By established\n> I mean that you\'re not making an original contribution just learning\n> what others have put before you.\n\nHmm. I\'ve done 4 postdocs, all in different institutions, all\nunder three years in length, none in the same area as my PhD. I\'d\nclaim to have made an original contribution in each, although I\'d\nnot claim that they were particularly world-shaking contributions.\nPerhaps "original" is not the best or most accurate word to\ndescribe the type of contribution you are referring to?\n\nFor example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn\nwhat others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,\nperhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,\neven if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,\nand may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see\nand fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have\nseen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all\nphysicists do almost all of the time; and that\'s not only supported\nmy experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics\njournals you might pull off the shelf.\n\n\n\n--\n---------------------------------+---------------------------------\nDr. Paul Kinsler\nBlackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714\nImperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org\nSW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3
> years of regular study to master an established topic. By established
> I mean that you're not making an original contribution just learning
> what others have put before you.
Hmm. I've done 4 postdocs, all in different institutions, all
under three years in length, none in the same area as my PhD. I'd
claim to have made an original contribution in each, although I'd
not claim that they were particularly world-shaking contributions.
Perhaps "original" is not the best or most accurate word to
describe the type of contribution you are referring to?
For example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn
what others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,
perhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,
even if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,
and may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see
and fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have
seen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all
physicists do almost all of the time; and that's not only supported
my experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics
journals you might pull off the shelf.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk wrote in message news:<kbikm1-k99.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk>...\n> backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> > I\'m presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3\n> > years of regular study to master an established topic. By established\n> > I mean that you\'re not making an original contribution just learning\n> > what others have put before you.\n>\n> Hmm. I\'ve done 4 postdocs, all in different institutions, all\n> under three years in length, none in the same area as my PhD. I\'d\n> claim to have made an original contribution in each, although I\'d\n> not claim that they were particularly world-shaking contributions.\n> Perhaps "original" is not the best or most accurate word to\n> describe the type of contribution you are referring to?\n>\n> For example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn\n> what others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,\n> perhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,\n> even if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,\n> and may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see\n> and fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have\n> seen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all\n> physicists do almost all of the time; and that\'s not only supported\n> my experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics\n> journals you might pull off the shelf.\n\nThat\'s true. The vast majority of what the vast majority of physicists\ndo is of extreme insignificance, and only neglibably advance the\nknowledge of their field. Futhermore, most are in fields which are\nthemselves of extreme ignificance in terms of increasing our\nunderstanding of the universe. The important fields of physics are\nparticle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\nIt\'s only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those\nfields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant\ncontribution.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk wrote in message news:<kbikm1-k99.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk>...
> backdoorstudent <backdoorstudent@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm presently entertaining the hypothesis that it takes exactly 3
> > years of regular study to master an established topic. By established
> > I mean that you're not making an original contribution just learning
> > what others have put before you.
>
> Hmm. I've done 4 postdocs, all in different institutions, all
> under three years in length, none in the same area as my PhD. I'd
> claim to have made an original contribution in each, although I'd
> not claim that they were particularly world-shaking contributions.
> Perhaps "original" is not the best or most accurate word to
> describe the type of contribution you are referring to?
>
> For example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn
> what others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,
> perhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,
> even if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,
> and may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see
> and fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have
> seen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all
> physicists do almost all of the time; and that's not only supported
> my experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics
> journals you might pull off the shelf.
That's true. The vast majority of what the vast majority of physicists
do is of extreme insignificance, and only neglibably advance the
knowledge of their field. Futhermore, most are in fields which are
themselves of extreme ignificance in terms of increasing our
understanding of the universe. The important fields of physics are
particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
It's only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those
fields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant
contribution.
Arnold Neumaier
May10-04, 06:02 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nUlmo wrote:\n\n> The important fields of physics are\n> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\n\nWhat is important is a matter of perspective.\n\nAll that you mentioned has very little importance for the majority\nof people, apart from some entertainmemt value for the educated.\n\nOn the other hand, classical mechanics changed the world by allowing us\nto build skyscrapers and air planes, thermodynamics changed the world\nby giving us energy, condensed matter physics changed the world\nby giving us the transistor, and the quantum mechnaics of molecules\nis going to change the world by giving us new materials and maybe\nnew life forms in a not too far future.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ulmo wrote:
> The important fields of physics are
> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
What is important is a matter of perspective.
All that you mentioned has very little importance for the majority
of people, apart from some entertainmemt value for the educated.
On the other hand, classical mechanics changed the world by allowing us
to build skyscrapers and air planes, thermodynamics changed the world
by giving us energy, condensed matter physics changed the world
by giving us the transistor, and the quantum mechnaics of molecules
is going to change the world by giving us new materials and maybe
new life forms in a not too far future.
Arnold Neumaier
p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk
May11-04, 08:05 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nUlmo <ulmo@cheerful.com> wrote:\n> p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk wrote in message news:<kbikm1-k99.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph>> > [...]\n>> [...]\n>> For example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn\n>> what others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,\n>> perhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,\n>> even if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,\n>> and may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see\n>> and fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have\n>> seen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all\n>> physicists do almost all of the time; and that\'s not only supported\n>> my experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics\n>> journals you might pull off the shelf.\n\n> That\'s true. The vast majority of what the vast majority of physicists\n> do is of extreme insignificance, and only neglibably advance the\n> knowledge of their field. [..]\n\nStarting out with "that\'s true" does not give you license to grossly\nmisrepresent what I actually said. These small original things (SOTs) are\nof vital importance to the advancement of our understanding; just because\nthey mostly get superceeded by something slightly better or more general\ndoes not mean they play no role at all. Of course, in hindsight, you\nmight claim a large fraction played almost no role -- but this would be\nforgetting that we don\'t know in advance which of the SOTs will play the\nbiggest role. Producing fewer SOTs will most likely cut down the number\nof potentially significant ones as much as the insignificant.\n\n> Futhermore, most are in fields which are\n> themselves of extreme ignificance in terms of increasing our\n> understanding of the universe. The important fields of physics are\n> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\n> It\'s only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those\n> fields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant\n> contribution.\n\nYou seem to have a very narrow view of "understanding". While those\nfields you mention are indeed important, their impact on society and\ntechnology is tiny compared to what research on semiconductors has\nachieved. Or, for that matter, "boring old fashined stuff" like\nclassical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism.\n\n--\n---------------------------------+---------------------------------\nDr. Paul Kinsler\nBlackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714\nImperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org\nSW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Ulmo <ulmo@cheerful.com> wrote:
> p.kinsler@imperial.ac.uk wrote in message news:<kbikm1-k99.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph>> > [...]
>> [...]
>> For example, any half decent physicist should be able to learn
>> what others have done before, and adapt and apply it to a new,
>> perhaps even "interesting" situation. Such a thing is original work,
>> even if non-specialists might find it dull or a little pointless,
>> and may well provide another piece to the puzzle for someone see
>> and fit into something more remarkable. And, as far as I have
>> seen, these small original things are the bulk of what almost all
>> physicists do almost all of the time; and that's not only supported
>> my experience but by the contents of (even) the better physics
>> journals you might pull off the shelf.
> That's true. The vast majority of what the vast majority of physicists
> do is of extreme insignificance, and only neglibably advance the
> knowledge of their field. [..]
Starting out with "that's true" does not give you license to grossly
misrepresent what I actually said. These small original things (SOTs) are
of vital importance to the advancement of our understanding; just because
they mostly get superceeded by something slightly better or more general
does not mean they play no role at all. Of course, in hindsight, you
might claim a large fraction played almost no role -- but this would be
forgetting that we don't know in advance which of the SOTs will play the
biggest role. Producing fewer SOTs will most likely cut down the number
of potentially significant ones as much as the insignificant.
> Futhermore, most are in fields which are
> themselves of extreme ignificance in terms of increasing our
> understanding of the universe. The important fields of physics are
> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
> It's only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those
> fields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant
> contribution.
You seem to have a very narrow view of "understanding". While those
fields you mention are indeed important, their impact on society and
technology is tiny compared to what research on semiconductors has
achieved. Or, for that matter, "boring old fashined stuff" like
classical mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Patrick Van Esch
May12-04, 02:40 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google. com>...\n> The important fields of physics are\n> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\n> It\'s only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those\n> fields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant\n> contribution.\n\nI used to think that too, but in fact it is a little naive, as I found\nout later.\nWhat is important and what not is in a way a very personal choice, but\nlet\'s face it: what is the importance of theories that take people\n5-10 years to start to understand, of which it is very difficult, or\neven too difficult, to ever design an experiment that will verify a\nprediction of it and (as a consequence of it) that will have no impact\nat all on any other human activity in the foreseeable future ? Of\ncourse, for the "happy few" involved, they have the impression that\nthey are on the verge of telling humanity the Meaning of Life, the\nUniverse and Everything, but this is a very personal, and egocentric\nview, because except others who are in the same field, it doesn\'t\nexplain much (concerning observations) to many people.\n\nIt wasn\'t always like that: up to the Standard Model, very accessible\nexperiments showed very unexplained things. There was probably also\nthe hope that understanding strong interactions on a more fundamental\nlevel would enable people to do better theoretical nuclear physics ;\nthis proved wrong in most cases ! Out of QCD, you cannot simply\nextract, say, the stability of nucleae or the cross sections for\nnuclear interactions (at low energies in the MeV range). It is\nprobably no surprise that one of the leading institutes in particle\nphysics is called CERN (translated: European centre for NUCLEAR\nresearch). So the standard model predicts most of particle physics\nresults, and all the work beyond may bring in some corrections at\nterribly high energies which can only be attained at 3 or 4 machines\nin the future. If you compare that to the enormous bulk of yet\nunexplained, and very simple observations in condensed matter physics,\njust to take an example, and the computational efforts to find\nquantitative explanations in these fields, the return on investment\n(which is in the end, an objective measure of "importance") is much,\nmuch bigger there.\n\nThis is not an attack on the (few) people really involved in string\ntheory or quantum gravity or so, it is just that the view that these\nare the "important" fields of physics is in my opinion, wrong. Which\ndoesn\'t say that this "fundamental physics" isn\'t intellectually\nstimulating, may produce interesting side results (on the mathematical\nside), is probably a very good education and all you want. But I\nthink it lost its "universal" character because at the end of the day,\nthere is no number you can calculate which you can compare to a "table\ntop" experiment. There are many "table top" experiments which have no\nexplanation yet, and for which it doesn\'t help a single bit to know\nthe theory of everything.\n\nLet\'s face it: "fundamental" physics has now about the same\n"importance" as, say, studying linguistic differences between ancient\nGreek authors. You need to study a lot before the domain is\naccessible, and for the people having done so it is extremely\nrewarding and exciting, but for the rest of the world it doesn\'t make\nany difference. The ONLY reason to be involved in it is the\nintellectual pleasure you can get out of it for yourself. That\'s\nfinally the subjective importance of the field, which can, or cannot,\nbe sufficient to invest yourself in it.\n\namen,\nPatrick.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote in message news:<53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google.com>...
> The important fields of physics are
> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
> It's only a tiny percentage of physicists that are involved in those
> fields, and only a tiny percentage of those who make a significant
> contribution.
I used to think that too, but in fact it is a little naive, as I found
out later.
What is important and what not is in a way a very personal choice, but
let's face it: what is the importance of theories that take people
5-10 years to start to understand, of which it is very difficult, or
even too difficult, to ever design an experiment that will verify a
prediction of it and (as a consequence of it) that will have no impact
at all on any other human activity in the foreseeable future ? Of
course, for the "happy few" involved, they have the impression that
they are on the verge of telling humanity the Meaning of Life, the
Universe and Everything, but this is a very personal, and egocentric
view, because except others who are in the same field, it doesn't
explain much (concerning observations) to many people.
It wasn't always like that: up to the Standard Model, very accessible
experiments showed very unexplained things. There was probably also
the hope that understanding strong interactions on a more fundamental
level would enable people to do better theoretical nuclear physics ;
this proved wrong in most cases ! Out of QCD, you cannot simply
extract, say, the stability of nucleae or the cross sections for
nuclear interactions (at low energies in the MeV range). It is
probably no surprise that one of the leading institutes in particle
physics is called CERN (translated: European centre for NUCLEAR
research). So the standard model predicts most of particle physics
results, and all the work beyond may bring in some corrections at
terribly high energies which can only be attained at 3 or 4 machines
in the future. If you compare that to the enormous bulk of yet
unexplained, and very simple observations in condensed matter physics,
just to take an example, and the computational efforts to find
quantitative explanations in these fields, the return on investment
(which is in the end, an objective measure of "importance") is much,
much bigger there.
This is not an attack on the (few) people really involved in string
theory or quantum gravity or so, it is just that the view that these
are the "important" fields of physics is in my opinion, wrong. Which
doesn't say that this "fundamental physics" isn't intellectually
stimulating, may produce interesting side results (on the mathematical
side), is probably a very good education and all you want. But I
think it lost its "universal" character because at the end of the day,
there is no number you can calculate which you can compare to a "table
top" experiment. There are many "table top" experiments which have no
explanation yet, and for which it doesn't help a single bit to know
the theory of everything.
Let's face it: "fundamental" physics has now about the same
"importance" as, say, studying linguistic differences between ancient
Greek authors. You need to study a lot before the domain is
accessible, and for the people having done so it is extremely
rewarding and exciting, but for the rest of the world it doesn't make
any difference. The ONLY reason to be involved in it is the
intellectual pleasure you can get out of it for yourself. That's
finally the subjective importance of the field, which can, or cannot,
be sufficient to invest yourself in it.
amen,
Patrick.
Lou Pecora
May12-04, 03:51 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google.com>, \nulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote:\n\n> The important fields of physics are\n> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\n\nWell, you should just paint a target on yourself.\n\nThis is hogwash and, usually, a self-serving description of "true"\nphysics. It\'s also just plain myopic. The problems of handling\ncomplexity (e.g. physics and mathematical descrition of biological\nsystems) are equally important scientifically, and, in the near term\n(like next 100 years, probably) more important sociologically. Building\nup systems from simpler components (the opposite of reductionism) is a\nvery hard problem and not at all obvious.\n\n-- Lou Pecora\nMy views are my own.\n\n"If you\'re not part of the solution, you\'re part of the precipitate."\n(Steven Wright)\n\n[Moderator\'s note: We prefer a higher level of politeness than this on\nsci.physics.research. It\'s rarely if ever necessary to describe\nsomeone\'s opinions as "hogwash," for instance. -TB]\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google.com>,
ulmo@cheerful.com (Ulmo) wrote:
> The important fields of physics are
> particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
Well, you should just paint a target on yourself.
This is hogwash and, usually, a self-serving description of "true"
physics. It's also just plain myopic. The problems of handling
complexity (e.g. physics and mathematical descrition of biological
systems) are equally important scientifically, and, in the near term
(like next 100 years, probably) more important sociologically. Building
up systems from simpler components (the opposite of reductionism) is a
very hard problem and not at all obvious.
-- Lou Pecora
My views are my own.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."
(Steven Wright)
[Moderator's note: We prefer a higher level of politeness than this on
sci.physics.research. It's rarely if ever necessary to describe
someone's opinions as "hogwash," for instance. -TB]
Paul Draper
May13-04, 06:25 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn retrospect, having learned several subjects to the point of\nawareness of my own true ignorance (which only happens after some\nstudy), and having tried to nurture several students to get to this\npoint, I find I am becoming a true fan of the\napprentice/journeyman/master model for learning.\n\nIf you want to learn the important things in the best possible way,\nfind someone who is an acknowledged master, keep your ego at an\nappropriately cellar level, never cease asking questions or making\nmistakes. A good guide will abuse you, cajole you, illustrate for you\nin surprising ways, exhort you, expect a lot from you, expect nothing\nfrom you -- and none of this you will find in books or in lecture\nhalls.\n\nPD\n\nPS: This works for playing poker and pool, as well.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In retrospect, having learned several subjects to the point of
awareness of my own true ignorance (which only happens after some
study), and having tried to nurture several students to get to this
point, I find I am becoming a true fan of the
apprentice/journeyman/master model for learning.
If you want to learn the important things in the best possible way,
find someone who is an acknowledged master, keep your ego at an
appropriately cellar level, never cease asking questions or making
mistakes. A good guide will abuse you, cajole you, illustrate for you
in surprising ways, exhort you, expect a lot from you, expect nothing
from you -- and none of this you will find in books or in lecture
halls.
PD
PS: This works for playing poker and pool, as well.
John Baez
May17-04, 08:42 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google.com>, \nUlmo <ulmo@cheerful.com> wrote:\n\n>The important fields of physics are\n>particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.\n\nAccording to what criteria are other fields of physics "unimportant"?\nThis statement seems subjective and even a bit rude to people who are\ninterested in those other fields.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <53ca460a.0405071310.7788131b@posting.google.com>,
Ulmo <ulmo@cheerful.com> wrote:
>The important fields of physics are
>particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology, etc.
According to what criteria are other fields of physics "unimportant"?
This statement seems subjective and even a bit rude to people who are
interested in those other fields.
alistair
May20-04, 12:46 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The important fields of physics are\nparticle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology\n\n\nWhat is important in physics as with any subject is taking an\ninterest in as many branches as possible and developing\nyour mind by so doing. No branch of physics is more important than the others\nand nor are the branches independent of one another.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The important fields of physics are
particle physics, high energy physics, string theory, cosmology
What is important in physics as with any subject is taking an
interest in as many branches as possible and developing
your mind by so doing. No branch of physics is more important than the others
and nor are the branches independent of one another.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.