Teaching yourself, is it really possible?

[uperkurk]

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I guess it would be a bit hard to test certain experiements due to lack of equipment but nevertheless is it doable?

I live 10mins from a university and thought about sitting in on their physics lectures as the lecture halls have no form of security. I could get copies of the lecture hand outs ect. Only thing is I wouldn't be able to get my work marked but just wanted a professional opinion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If you read a book, I don't see how you could fail to learn from it.

 

[ZapperZ]

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I guess it would be a bit hard to test certain experiements due to lack of equipment but nevertheless is it doable?

I live 10mins from a university and thought about sitting in on their physics lectures as the lecture halls have no form of security. I could get copies of the lecture hand outs ect. Only thing is I wouldn't be able to get my work marked but just wanted a professional opinion.

This is difficult to judge, i.e. how does one knows that one has fully understood what one is trying to teach oneself?

However, if you ask another question, such as : Has anyone, in recent history, who has not gone through a formal physics education ever made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics, then the answer is NO.

Now that doesn't mean that there is no one who has learned physics on his/her own, but there is no metric to measure such ability other than anecdotal accounts. On the other hand, making a contribution to the body of knowledge can be "measured", the least criteria of it is significant publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

Zz.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

As for less recent history, there is the example of Newton, who didn't even have a physics book to read, and Faraday, who had no formal physics education. More recently was Humason, assistant to Hubble. Here's a recent example of elementary school kids doing science.
Bees

 

[Andre]

...experiements...

Are you dutch?

There is no way to know if you can do it. But the odds are against it. Also, it may be easy to get to attend class. But is it illegal? You may want to think about that.

Then again there are excellent online lessons, Somebody may link to that.

Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/freeman_dyson_.jpg

Finally as a side step, this guy never had any formal education in his branch of science. Yet he is considered a world leading specialist on Pleistocene mammals and I can tell why.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Without an expert in the field to teach you or at least be on hand to help as you teach yourself then depending on the field it can be hard to impossible to learn tacit knowledge. Couple that with the fact that for most scientific disciplines at advanced level you're going to need facilities beyond the average wealth to learn (i.e a lab) and it becomes even more unlikely that one can master a subject on one's own with only reference materials.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

...Here's a recent example of elementary school kids doing science.
Bees

Or maybe being artisits!
I linked this, which was displayed at the Hayward and Serpentine Galleries, back in '08-
:)

 

[AlephZero]

Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

That's a bit misleading, unless you know that Cambridge University did not award BSc or MSc degrees in any subject whatever, even in the 1970s. The Cambridge M.A. degree at that time had no academic standing - the only requirements were not to break any University rules for 5 years after obtaining a BA, and pay a small fee if you wanted to "collect" it in person, rather than just get a piece of paper in the mail. It was simply a formal recognition that you were now eligible to vote on certain matters as a member of the university.

The game has changed now. You can find heaviily cited papers in the International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering in the 1960s and 70s from at least one person without even a degree (I used to work for him!) but as Zz said, not any more.

 

[Andre]

...
Freeman Dyson signed something once, claiming only bachelor of art mathematics.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/freeman_dyson_.jpg

That's a bit misleading, unless you know that Cambridge University did not award BSc or MSc degrees in any subject whatever, even in the 1970s. The Cambridge M.A. degree at that time had no academic standing -

Just wanted to react to that, because what I'm standing for is pure honesty in it's most naive form, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Cargo_cult_science.html.

I wasn't aware of those pecularities, nor that it was misleading, so if so, my apologies.

 

[AlephZero]

Maybe "misleading" was a bit strong.

I would guess the reason why Trinity College Cambridge awarded Dyson a Fellowship without a Ph.D in 1946 was the general disruption to the education system caused by WWII. Having got the equivalent of modern academic tenure, takiing time out to write a thesis probably wasn't the top priority on his "to do" list.

The Wiki link isn't quite clear, but it could imply he obtained his BA degree in just one year at Cambridge "after the war". That would have been possible within the rules as they then were - the only requirement was to pass the final examinations (6 hours per day on two consecutive days), not to accumulate X "credits" over several years by attending lectures, handing in homework assignments, etc.

So the tick-boxes on the petition in your image weren't very appropriate for his situation, but the way he completed them was legally correct.

 

[salzrah]

From my experiences in college so far, most of the learning we do is self-taught anyways. ALL of my science/engineering classes solely require you to understand the book and understand the labs. With a thorough grasp on both, anyone can make an A and learn the subject completely. Therefore, if you want a good grade you have to resort to reading the book by yourself and going to labs. All the professor really does is summarize the chapters from the book and throw in a few real-world examples not mentioned in the book. This is true for most science classes and for most engineering classes except for senior design/advanced engineering classes.

 

[dipole]

I think it's totally possible to self-educate yourself in undergrad, I feel like most people who're serious about their studies do this anyways to a fairly large degree.

However in gradschool, you deal with very specific and much more complicated problems. You're usually trying to catch up with 50-60 years of research ontop of the knowledge you learn in undergrad. Doing that all on your own will take a very long time, and your knowledge will probably be very incomplete. It's amazing how much time you can save by just talking to someone wiser and more experienced than yourself.

 

[gabe1scott]

It depends. If you want to be a master in the field, probably not but possible. If you want a general understanding then yes.

I almost never go to class and just learn by reading books, doing problems, etc.

 

[Galteeth]

These days you can take college classes online for free (you don't get credit, just learn something.) And yes, it's legal.

https://www.coursera.org/

 

[mishrashubham]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism

As far as experimental science is concerned, I don't think that would be feasible as that would require facilities.

But hey we can be artists too.

 

[ZapperZ]

People should also realize that there's a difference between learning physics and learning to be a physicist. The latter involves not just learning physics, but learning the culture, the language, the interaction, the practice, and the system of functioning to be a physicist. These are not something you can acquire simply by reading books! If any of you have read my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay, you would have noticed that the MAJORITY of the items I discussed do NOT involved learning something out of a physics textbook.

So yes, to some extent, you can learn a material just on your own. But do not fall under the delusion that you are doing the same thing as learning how to become a physicist.

Zz.

 

[TurtleMeister]

People should also realize that there's a difference between learning physics and learning to be a physicist. The latter involves not just learning physics, but learning the culture, the language, the interaction, the practice, and the system of functioning to be a physicist.
Zz.

I think ZapperZ hit the nail on the head. Short version: You can learn the physics, but you will never be "in the club".

 

[TrickyDicky]

Has anyone, in recent history, who has not gone through a formal physics education ever made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics, then the answer is NO.
...the least criteria of it is significant publications in prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

How do you know that? Do you keep track of the academic backgrounds of all the authors publishing something significant in the field of physics in the main PR journals in recent history? Maybe what you meant is that you don't but journals certainly do.
On the other hand to avoid subjectivity you should specify what you consider significant, what you mean by recent history(in years), and what you mean by formal physics education(BS, master, PhD, related majors).

 

[TurtleMeister]

List of autodidacts

 

[Evo]

List of autodidacts

This would verify what Zz said.

 

[TurtleMeister]

This would verify what Zz said.

I wasn't trying to verify or contradict what Zz said. I just thought the list would be of interest to the readers and participants of the thread. I have a unique perspective on this subject because I myself do not have a formal education. However, I have experienced second hand what the higher education life is like. I was with my fiancee throughout all of her grad school years at an ivy league university. So I have respect for what you guys went through and accomplished.

 

[Abstr7ct]

As an electrical engineering undergraduate student, I prefer to to teach myself and it works very well so far. In fact, teacher themselves expect you to learn a lot of things on your own especially when you go to higher courses.

I can't handle sitting on chair listening to a teacher explaining a subject for an hour or so, I just feel handcuffed and uncomfortable, whereas sitting in my own room reading and practicing theoretically and experimentally, is much more fun.

 

[CFDFEAGURU]

I believe you can teach yourself as long as you stay within the boundaries of your own understanding. Don't memorize information simply to repeat it later to sound intelligent on a subject. (I know a moron that does this all the time and only makes people dislike him even more.) The knowledge is in knowing how to use that information.

Thanks
Matt

 

[Galteeth]

I think ZapperZ hit the nail on the head. Short version: You can learn the physics, but you will never be "in the club".

Isn't this sort of a bad thing though? I mean, perhaps you have some real geniuses out their who for whatever reason don't fit into the culture or struggle with the more mundane bureaucratic aspects?

 

[Jim Kata]

I think you can learn on your own, but there will be massive holes in your knowledge. I've learned far more about Mathematics on my own than I ever did in my Master's program, but I learned it in a spotchy way, in that I learned the gist of a lot of things. Now sitting down and working through Rudin or Jackson on your own would take a level of diligence that most people just don't have.

 

[Stromthetroll]

You may learn but you cannot publish, at least easily, as Issac asimov said there is no other type of education besides self-education, it is paraphrased of course

 

[TurtleMeister]

Isn't this sort of a bad thing though? I mean, perhaps you have some real geniuses out their who for whatever reason don't fit into the culture or struggle with the more mundane bureaucratic aspects?

I'm not sure what you mean by "a bad thing". Bad for who or what? If you're referring to what Stromthetroll mentioned about not being able to publish, then I guess that would be a bad thing for the misfit genius. But then he didn't go through the proving grounds that the "guys in the club" had to go through. So in that respect, maybe it's only natural that it should be harder for him to get published.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a bad thing". Bad for who or what? If you're referring to what Stromthetroll mentioned about not being able to publish, then I guess that would be a bad thing for the misfit genius. But then he didn't go through the proving grounds that the "guys in the club" had to go through. So in that respect, maybe it's only natural that it should be harder for him to get published.

Bad for science, if people who potentially could make contributions are excluded because of an inability to conform to the culture.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Bad for science, if people who potentially could make contributions are excluded because of an inability to conform to the culture.

Good point. But if a person is unable to conform to the things that Zz mentioned, then how would he be able to communicate his contribution even if he were allowed into the "club"? It's up to the individual to conform if he wants to contribute by being in the "club", not the other way around. It would be difficult for the "club" to conform to every individual's special needs.

But I do see what you mean. And it would be a loss for science in a case like that. But I don't really see any way around it. The individual would just have to figure something out for themselves.

 

[Johninch]

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I agree with the others and also from my personal experience I doubt that you could get a "solid understanding of physics" outside of university. That's much too ambitious.

What you can do is to pick one or two topics and go into depth on them, or you can do what I do which is to set up a project and study all the ramifications of that. Even then, to get an in depth understanding of most areas of physics you need to understand the math.

Basically you need to set specific goals, otherwise you will start rambling due to the freedom!

 

[Abstr7ct]

Continuing my opinion...

Again, I study electrical engineering. The basic courses, such as basic circuit analysis and basic electronics, can be studied thoroughly on your own without any need to go to a single lecture. The reason for this, is that such courses have expansive and well-written resources, from books, online lectures and resources. You can get a solid foundation on the theory and on the practical side if you choose you to teach yourself on these subjects, and this comes from a personal experience.

However, when you go to more advanced stuff, like digital design and communications, you find yourself trapped in a lot of areas if you choose not to communicate with your instructor. In addition, you can't find enough resources that provide expansive and well-written explanations compared to basic courses. For example, I'm taking the first course in digital design and we use Verilog to implement digital circuits by simulation and on FPGA boards. You can't survive Verilog programming if you don't communicate with your instructor since the materials available on Verilog and FPGA programming are rare and confusing. Subsequently, you find yourself lost and trapped as you go further.

 

[Evo]

One of the problems with being self-taught, you may learn facts, but you don't learn critical thinking.

In the book, Critical Thinking, Beyer elaborately explains what he sees as essential aspects of critical thinking. These are:

Dispositions: Critical thinkers are skeptical, open-minded, value fair-mindedness, respect evidence and reasoning, respect clarity and precision, look at different points of view, and will change positions when reason leads them to do so.

Criteria: To think critically, must apply criteria. Need to have conditions that must be met for something to be judged as believable. Although the argument can be made that each subject area has different criteria, some standards apply to all subjects. "... an assertion must... be based on relevant, accurate facts; based on credible sources; precise; unbiased; free from logical fallacies; logically consistent; and strongly reasoned" (p. 12).

Argument: Is a statement or proposition with supporting evidence. Critical thinking involves identifying, evaluating, and constructing arguments.

Reasoning: The ability to infer a conclusion from one or multiple premises. To do so requires examining logical relationships among statements or data.

Point of View: The way one views the world, which shapes one's construction of meaning. In a search for understanding, critical thinkers view phenomena from many different points of view.

Procedures for Applying Criteria: Other types of thinking use a general procedure. Critical thinking makes use of many procedures. These procedures include asking questions, making judgments, and identifying assumptions.

http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/ctskills/ctskills01.htm#what%20is

 

[edward]

Are there any people in recent history who never went to university to learn physics and just taught themselves using the internet and books? Is it really possible to get a solid understanding of physics just from reading and practice?

I guess it would be a bit hard to test certain experiements due to lack of equipment but nevertheless is it doable?

I live 10mins from a university and thought about sitting in on their physics lectures as the lecture halls have no form of security. I could get copies of the lecture hand outs ect. Only thing is I wouldn't be able to get my work marked but just wanted a professional opinion.

Since you menion the internet and this is for your own personal interest. Both Stanford and MIT have free online courses.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...s-online-schooling-to-the-next-academic-level

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/index.htm

 

[Master J]

Apologies if I haven't followed the recent stream of replies, but I have noticed a few well-meaning responses that seem somewhat discouraging.

The only thing that matters is whether or not you have a real passion, a real fascination with the subject. If you work hard at it, you can learn so much. There is a whole ocean of textbooks available, not to mention the vast library of notes that many universities put online. It is all there!

But being a physicist is something different. That means being part of the group who have academic qualifications, being part of that culture. And while this is necessary, I do think sometimes that it is hostile to outsiders. Who is to say such an outsider could not make a contribution? Not everyone has the privileged opportunity to attend university.

 

[russ_watters]

I haven't followed the thread either, but just one little point:

The phrase "teaching yourself" really annoys me because it is an oxymoron. "Teaching" is when one person shows another person how to do something, so no it is not possible to "teach yourself".

"Self-learning" would be better because learning is something you do yourself, but that kinda makes it redundant.

Am I just being pedantic? No. My point is that if you want to learn via books or the internet, you are still learning from other people who created the content that you are trying to absorb. The question is: are you using that content effectively/as it was designed and can you lean successfully by using it in ways that may be different from how it was designed?