Is it worth to focus on being a physics amateur

[bevilacqua]

Hi all!

I’ve always been in love with mathematics and physics. I’m 39 and have a full time job and a great deal of time to study after work, but I don’t have the possibility of attending to a physics college and go for a degree, because of timetables of available universities (or I would go for it, even in my age).

I always was a self-taught guy and don’t see any problem with trying to learn any theoretically based concept by myself. What I really don’t know is the extent to which the study of physics (and cosmology, which interest me a lot) is dependent on access to equipment and technology. Also, I don’t have any idea of the possibility of coming with a real collaboration to physics by being an amateur (meaning one that doesn’t get his sustenance from it and not one who take it lightly). I don’t have any illusion of being the next Einstein, but I really don’t want to be a mere stars beholder which is proud of knowing why they go around the sun the way they go and what they are composed of.

The bottom line is that, staring at part of the material for study, one can realize it is a huge amount of work and part of it of technical nature. Even if I love physics and math, going through all of it during years, just to realize that you can’t do anything useful (in terms of research, not money making) with it, apart from solving problems to avoid getting rusty on technical aspects, is not very stimulating.

What I really want to know is: is it possible to learn physics as a self-taught (one who is willing to do all the work necessary) and place some useful contribution (useful for physics, not for the ego)?

Just as a guidance, my main interest is cosmology and its more philosophical implications; things like the nature of time, etc. Ok, warn me if this is too much of a layman’s statement

 

[fss]

"Worth" is based on what you hope to get out of your self-education. Your odds of getting to the publication level as an amateur these days are rather low, but you can still learn to your heart's content (and brain's ability).

 

[elkement]

Hi bevilacqua,

I would just give it a try. Check for example the resources listed on this page - they provide you with the subjects you need to learn to understand modern theoretical physics.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html

So even a noble prize winner says it migt be possible to become an amateur physicist.

In order not to get lost or frustated it would still be good to join some kind of community to discuss open issues (probably the homework forum here?). I think if you just study on your own chances are high that you misinterpret something that is never corrected. It is also very, very important that you solve problems and calculate stuff. If you just read books and lecture notes you are tempted to skip parts of a derivation that you probably might not fully understand. If you (re-)calculate all the steps then you really need to understand all the details.
I think it is unfortunately not possible to really get the 'big picture' and think about philosophical questions for example without having understood the inner workings of a theory.

I am in the same boat - I am an experimental physicist and rather an engineer, but also interested in modern theoretical physics and philosophical aspects. For me the only thing that really gives me new insights is to work through all the details, read textbooks and lecture notes, watch lecture videos and solve problems. I feel it is also valuable to read different books on exactly the same subject. Sometimes an author or lecturer has a specific angle or bias that is shining through any of his explanations - so it is good to be able to compare.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I completely agree with elkement.

This is my personal experience with self-teaching. When I decided to go back to school for a physics/engineering degree I knew that I was very behind in math. The highest level math I took was Algebra 2 in high school and I barely passed that class. So I started back at Algebra 2 and studying on my own. For the first 6 months I worked on everything I could and felt fairly confident I was learning at a fast pace. But I noticed when a different kind of problem would present itself I didn't really know to approach it. Mainly because I didn't work the complete details of a certain section. Sometimes, I'll ask a very basic question because I missed it in self study.

That's when I got a tutor and it helped immensely. I had someone glare over points of the subject that I really didn't need and really hammer on the important details. When I was self studying I never knew what would pop up later and what wouldn't because I never saw the future. Now that I'm back in school the professors will always tell exactly what is important for later study and then base the homework mainly on those concepts, in math and physics.

If I had to do it again, I would use every resource I could find. Not just books, but MIT's opencourse and other lecture notes from classes. Also use forums and communications tools to discuss your ideas or difficulties. Good luck with your adventure.

 

[fantispug]

You can make a contribution, but it will be very long and very hard.

To give you some perspective after 4 years of full-time university undergraduate training in physics I'm not yet in a position to make a contribution to the (theoretical) physics community. This is because all the ideas I've come up with either
i) Don't work
ii) Work, but have already been done.

Typically the next stage from here is to do a 2-year masters by research and then a 3-year PhD in which you finally publish some novel research. (Whether it's significant is another matter; many PhD publications are rarely - if ever - cited).

It sounds like you're theoretically inclined, which is good for an amateur because experiments are very cheap - the cost of pens and paper (and a computer and an internet connection are very useful too!)
Unfortunately to make a novel contribution you're competing with a large number of people who do this for a living, and physics is a very old field, the ideas of which build on top of each other. A physicist in one field has a hard time understanding one in another - to see the complexity of jargon check out a couple of random papers on arxiv.org (but don't let them bewilder you too much!)

That being said a lot of pleasure can be derived from just doing physics! With a little knowledge you can come up with your own results and make your own predictions; sure someone else has probably done it before you, but don't let that stop you from doing it. Research level questions are too hard to solve without playing with lots of easy problems first.

't Hooft, http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html, and John Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html#physics, give good advice (better than mine) for someone in your situation.

I wholeheartedly agree with Baez that it's a lot easier to learn if you have someone else to explain things to and argue with.

And look for free internet lectures! http://www.ictp.tv/ is an example.

Best of luck.

 

[yenchin]

If you don't mind doing some not-so-theoretical stuffs, then amateur astronomy is a better field to go into, and amateur astronomers do make contributions to real science even today.

 

[jspenuk]

bevilacqua, if you live in the UK (or European Union), you can do a part-time, distance learning BSc (Hons) Natural Sciences degree, majoring in Physics, with the Open University UK:

http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/qualification/B64.htm

Check the physics major route. Although you will study mostly from home, you will need to pass an exam at the end of each module.

I am 34, did my first BSc in Psychology, and now I am studying for a second BSc in Physics with them. More information about the OU:

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

If you are in the States though, then you are probably(?) out of luck, if you want to study for an accredited physics degree in this way.

 

[bevilacqua]

First I would like to thank all of those who took the time to answer.

There are two fields which fascinates me and which I was considering to dive into as an amateur: physics (cosmology) and artificial intelligence.

I must say that after some reading on the net and some consulting, I'm leaning towards the second. Not because it is easier, since I think that problems which weren't still solved by smart people putting a large amount of effort on them can't really be easy; but because it is easier, due to its more recent path, to come with something new, without having to be aware of every little bit of work done in an almost infinite pile of papers. Like santispug said, the probability of coming with some relevant idea in physics, just to discover that it has already been done, is huge.

I think that AI may be as great of an intellectual challenge, while easier to come with some new idea without being the ultimate genius in the area, due to its more incipient character.

Jspenuk, I'm a brazilian, which puts me in a much worst condition than being in the States. Don't get me wrong, I love my contry and we are able to find some good courses here, but by no means near the number one would be able to find in US. I was already aware of Open University courses but, sadly, one must be in UK.

 

[mal4mac]

The OU extends further than the UK and EU. Check out:

http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/countries/Brazil.shtm

 

[revnaknuma]

I got my BS degree in physics in 1988. I did some graduate study without geting a degree between 1988 and 1989. Then I gave up physics.
after more than a 20 years of break I have recently begun to study physics again but now I am an amateur physicist and my school is physicsforums.com

 

[jspenuk]

>>The OU extends further than the UK and EU. Check out:
>>http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/countries/Brazil.shtm

Wow, bevilacqua, really good news it seems. On the list are Level 3 courses
that are part of the BSc (Hons) Natural Sciences (Physics) degree!
Check the detailed syllabus for each, you will love it!

The Relativistic Universe:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/S383.htm

Astophysics:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/S382.htm

Electromagnetism:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/SMT359.htm

Quantum physics:
http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/SM358.htm

It seems then that you could take your final exams for each course in Brazil then. Please note that, quoting Wikipedia, "The Open University is also one of only two United Kingdom higher education institutions to gain accreditation in the United States of America by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, an institutional accrediting agency, recognized by the United States Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation."

I wouldn't start with a level 3 course though, unless you know what you are doing! You should normally start with S207:

http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/S207.htm

 

[bevilacqua]

Those are really good news.

I've checked Open University for such courses some time ago and they didn't offer any physics related course in Brazil. I even wrote them and got the answer that it had to do with the difficulty of delivering the material, or something like that.

I really didn't try looking again since, from their answer, I could infer they didn't have any plan of extending those courses to other countries so soon. Now I must go back and check. Thanks again.

 

[twofish-quant]

What I really want to know is: is it possible to learn physics as a self-taught (one who is willing to do all the work necessary) and place some useful contribution (useful for physics, not for the ego)?

In astronomy, it's quite simple. A lot of astronomy involves "I pointed my telescope at X and I saw Y" and there are lots of things in which people can do useful things...

http://www.aavso.org/

The problem I've seen with physics amateurs is that they usually aren't very good at thinking about problems in which they can make a useful contribution. For example, you have the typical crank that wants to figure out the *ENTIRE UNIVERSE* whereas you can do useful physics research trying to come up with a better way of generating holograms or building a better more fuel efficient fireplace or doing experiments with battery technology.

Just as a guidance, my main interest is cosmology and its more philosophical implications; things like the nature of time, etc. Ok, warn me if this is too much of a layman’s statement

Your major danger here is to fall into the "Stephen Hawking syndrome." People that read books by Stephen Hawking tend end up getting a very distorted view of what physics is like and how science is done, and if you want to do productive physics, your first task is to avoid Hawking's curse.

In cosmology the big puzzle right now is *not* "what caused the big bang." The big puzzle right now is figuring out galaxy formation. If you buy a telescope and start doing variable star observations, you *will* uncover some pieces that will fit the puzzle. If you get infected by Hawking's curse, you'll not get anything useful done.

 

[twofish-quant]

To give you some perspective after 4 years of full-time university undergraduate training in physics I'm not yet in a position to make a contribution to the (theoretical) physics community.

Actually you are...

This is because all the ideas I've come up with either i) Don't work ii) Work, but have already been done.

That's a major milestone. One you are literate enough with the literature to be able to understand what's been done, or what doesn't work, then you can do something productive. Also proving that something doesn't work is progress. I spent three years on an idea for supernova explosions that didn't work, but I was able to get a dissertation out of it because I was able to explain *why* it didn't work.

Whether it's significant is another matter; many PhD publications are rarely - if ever - cited.

But that's the roulette wheel of science. Sometimes lightning strikes. Most of the time it doesn't. Getting something useful when lightning doesn't strike is part of research.

Unfortunately to make a novel contribution you're competing with a large number of people who do this for a living

It's not a competition. There are so many unsolved mysteries in the universe, that it's easy to find something that no one else has time or energy to think about. Also it's really important to talk to other people in the field, because you'll come up with new ideas to try out, and if a clever new idea doesn't work, then you can set things up so that having an idea fail miserably is progress.

That being said a lot of pleasure can be derived from just doing physics! With a little knowledge you can come up with your own results and make your own predictions; sure someone else has probably done it before you, but don't let that stop you from doing it.

Also it's not that hard to take someone else's ideas and then tweak them a little bit, and come up with something that's different enough to be interesting.

 

[mal4mac]

In astronomy, it's quite simple. A lot of astronomy involves "I pointed my telescope at X and I saw Y" and there are lots of things in which people can do useful things...

The Galaxy Zoo people have taken this observation, and have found a way in which amateurs can help out, with minimal knowledge:

http://www.galaxyzoo.org/how_to_take_part

This is a great way of doing useful research after a few minutes of training, and it is open ended. If you know a lot about galactic structures, you might spot more interesting things. It's run by Chris Lintott (Patrick Moore's right hand man) out of Oxford University, so it's academic and 'popular' credentials are impeccable.

Your major danger here is to fall into the "Stephen Hawking syndrome." People that read books by Stephen Hawking tend end up getting a very distorted view of what physics is like and how science is done, and if you want to do productive physics, your first task is to avoid Hawking's curse.

I think this is unfair on Stephen Hawking. I think many cranks read Stephen Hawking books, misuse the information in them, and use it to expand their crankiness.

In cosmology the big puzzle right now is *not* "what caused the big bang." The big puzzle right now is figuring out galaxy formation. If you buy a telescope and start doing variable star observations, you *will* uncover some pieces that will fit the puzzle.

"What caused the big bang" *is* now, and perhaps always, the biggest puzzle in cosmology. But I agree that the small puzzle of galaxy formation is certainly a lot more tractable!

If you get infected by Hawking's curse, you'll not get anything useful done.

How is musing about "the biggest questions" a curse? I find it to be fun, but not something to be indulged in for more than a few hours a week, and never in public. That leads a lot of time to work out how a spiral galaxy might be formed - and is an easier path to fame and fortune as a professional astronomer - but it's a bit mundane compared to the 'big questions'... not as mundane as working as a quant... but still mundane...

 

[twofish-quant]

I think this is unfair on Stephen Hawking. I think many cranks read Stephen Hawking books, misuse the information in them, and use it to expand their crankiness.

But I think that a lot of ordinary people read Hawking's books and get a very misleading idea of how cosmology works.

"What caused the big bang" *is* now, and perhaps always, the biggest puzzle in cosmology.

I don't think it is.

How is musing about "the biggest questions" a curse?

Because if you happen to live in the wrong time in history, you aren't going to be about do anything useful.

That leads a lot of time to work out how a spiral galaxy might be formed - and is an easier path to fame and fortune as a professional astronomer - but it's a bit mundane compared to the 'big questions'... not as mundane as working as a quant... but still mundane...

That's a theological and philosophical statement which I disagree with.

 

[Katastrofa]

But I think that a lot of ordinary people read Hawking's books and get a very misleading idea of how cosmology works.

Well he still made a lot of money from them ;-)