Should I Go With My Crazy Theories?

[FalseVaccum89]

I am currently working towards a double major in Mathematics and Physics, so that I will have a very good background in both. My reasons are twofold: 1) I want to be well-prepared to study in a Mathematical Physics Ph.D. program like the one at Virginia Tech 2) I have a deep and abiding passion for physics, and I'm developing one for mathematics.

The reason I listed the desire to be prepared for a Mathematical Physics Ph.D. program first is that, even though my current mathematical knowledge is limited compared to that of a working theoretical physicist, I already have some (currently rather) qualitative theories concerning the intersection of String/M-Theory, QFT, and GR, and I want to see if I can develop a consistent mathematical model from them. Also of keen interest to me are the theories of Shape Dynamics and quantum 'timelessness' (which seems to me to be more like a true quantization/discretation of time), posited by the British physicist Julian Barbour.

I really hope all that didn't sound pretentious, especially since I'm going to be a good bit older than my colleagues starting out, should I follow this path. Certain people in my life won't quit trying to convince me to go to school to learn a trade, and I could likely do well at something like electrical engineering, but I honestly don't think I'm going to be happy if I never know whether these theories I have brewing inside me are viable or not.

Thank you for your advice.

 

[TheKracken]

What math/physics classes have you taken thus far?

 

[dimasalang]

great,, i like to hear your conjenctures.. keep it up. Einstein was been disregarded by his colleagues on his theories but he was right after all.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

What math/physics classes have you taken thus far?

Right now, I'm in College Algebra, though I'm already studying calculus and linear algebra independently. On the COMPASS placement test, I scored high enough to get into calculus, but the college I'm at doesn't allow skipping over College Algebra/Trigonometry unless one brings in transfer credit. As of this moment, I have the highest grade in my section, a high "A".

Physics-wise, I have read a literal ton of popular and semi-popular accounts, though I haven't had a college-level class yet. (I was always ahead a year in my science classes in high school, though.) As I've begun to come to grips with the notation of calculus, matrices, etc, I've been looking though everything from basic calc-based physics books all the way to some milder technical articles, and I'm finding I can see the physics behind a good number of the equations I come across, especially for someone who hasn't been formally instructed in most of the mathematics involved.

You can see why I'm afraid I'm being pretentious, however, because I don't have that much formal schooling yet.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I fail to see how you came up with "theories" that utilize GR and QFT if you are in college algebra and have recently started to learn calculus and LA.

 

[micromass]

I hope you are willing to accept that your theories on GR, QFT and string theory are rubbish. Scientists should never be attached to one theory, but should always try to disprove the theory.
Since you only did college algebra, I think we can safely say that your theories are wrong. But it would be nice for you to discover why. So yes, stay with your crazy theories and learn more physics to be able to disprove them.

 

[Antiphon]

Ouch.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

great,, i like to hear your conjenctures.. keep it up. Einstein was been disregarded by his colleagues on his theories but he was right after all.

I actually read the biography of Einstein by Walter Isaacson a couple of months back! :D

My basic conjecture is rooted in a thorny engineering problem a friend posed to me that requires space to be quantized. That got me to thinking about how string theory is supposed to smooth out the problems in canonical quantum gravity. I wondered, why should strings (and their higher-dimensional analogues, branes) be needed to smooth out those problems unless they *were* the quanta of space? In other words, why should there be a redundant spatial structure underneath it all? Why not say strings, branes, etc are the quanta of space themselves? Mind you, I had already heard about so-called discrete spacial-lattice type argument and knots and the like. I've even read a bit about Roger Penrose's twistor theory (which is appealing to me, because it doesn't require compactified dimensions to avoid the 'ghosts' present in string theories formulated in space-time structures not of critical dimension).

Where Julian Barbour's theories come in is over the problem of time. If space is to be completely discrete, how does one go about marrying it to time? This is necessary, because GR pretty much forces a space-time viewpoint (though Einstein wasn't sure Minkowski was right to begin with). To me, it seems Barbour's theory of 'instants' or 'successive Nows' or 'curves in configuration space' would be a perfect candidate for a discrete temporal component. And, by his own admission, his theories don't rule out current work in string theory, and might even end up making the problems in string theory simpler. I don't have the mathematical prowess yet to test that yet, but I've read over some string-theoric modifications done by a couple of physicists who have been working with Barbour over the past few years, and it at least seems feasible.

Basically what I'm looking for is a fully discrete QFT formalism of GR, with strings/branes/etc as the constituents. That same friend I mentioned earlier pointed out that this would make the resulting space-time non-differentiable. But, as I've found out recently, this is only true for *infinitesimal* calculus; there are also finite difference and finite element versions of the calculus that may be able to compensate for the lack of a continuous manifold.

Anyway, that's my conjecture right now. Of course, I may be rather embarrassed when my math catches up to my theories, but you never know where this might lead.

Sorry I was so long-winded.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

I fail to see how you came up with "theories" that utilize GR and QFT if you are in college algebra and have recently started to learn calculus and LA.

They very well may be. I'll never know unless I get that experience though, will I?

 

[MarneMath]

I think a lot of folks who start out in physics were at some point in time convinced that they could or would be able to solve these very hard problems and that they would have some great ideas. So with that said, you're starting point is no different than a lot of people I know. So, I'm going to address your post as "Should I study mathematical physics?"

Honestly, my answer is no. You seem to enjoy learning ideas in physics and wondering how it all connects, which is great, but I fear, like so many before you, that once you get removed from these really cool ideas and actually start doing physics, you'll be disappointed.

The simple fact is that science is a lot of grunt work. It's hours of studying stuff that may not interest you (in my case abstract algebra) just so you can understand the stuff that does interest you (analysis). It's getting a lot of wrong answers before getting one right answer. If you honestly feel that you will be willing to spend the next decade failing (I mean that in a good way) and ending up with a PhD only to find that you're jobless, then sure go for it, you only live once.

However, if you feel that you can learn enough physics while also learning something more 'practical' (like I don't know engineering or material science) then I would advise that.

If your only desire is to see if your theory is right or wrong and how, it won't take long to find out the why. Without the mathematics, you're missing so many minor subtle things that people who know the math take for granted. What seems easy to understand when explained by someone who knows it, is much harder to figure out when you're trying to learn it, much much harder.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

I think a lot of folks who start out in physics were at some point in time convinced that they could or would be able to solve these very hard problems and that they would have some great ideas. So with that said, you're starting point is no different than a lot of people I know. So, I'm going to address your post as "Should I study mathematical physics?"

Honestly, my answer is no. You seem to enjoy learning ideas in physics and wondering how it all connects, which is great, but I fear, like so many before you, that once you get removed from these really cool ideas and actually start doing physics, you'll be disappointed.

The simple fact is that science is a lot of grunt work. It's hours of studying stuff that may not interest you (in my case abstract algebra) just so you can understand the stuff that does interest you (analysis). It's getting a lot of wrong answers before getting one right answer. If you honestly feel that you will be willing to spend the next decade failing (I mean that in a good way) and ending up with a PhD only to find that you're jobless, then sure go for it, you only live once.

However, if you feel that you can learn enough physics while also learning something more 'practical' (like I don't know engineering or material science) then I would advise that.

If your only desire is to see if your theory is right or wrong and how, it won't take long to find out the why. Without the mathematics, you're missing so many minor subtle things that people who know the math take for granted. What seems easy to understand when explained by someone who knows it, is much harder to figure out when you're trying to learn it, much much harder.

In short, you're saying I could go for a more practical angle and still work the physics angle on the side? That's actually surprisingly similar to what Julian Barbour did!

Even though you're not the first person to say something like this to me, you were honest and you have given me much to consider. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Most likely your physics theories won't even survive an undergrad's education. When I was (much much) younger, I came up with all kinds of funky ideas like perpetual motion machines. Then I got an education and learned why they were all impossible.

By the time you become a PhD, all your old theories will be gone and you'll have new ones that are based on evidence and mathematics rather than intuition and qualitative assessment.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The simple fact is that science is a lot of grunt work. It's hours of studying stuff that may not interest you (in my case abstract algebra) just so you can understand the stuff that does interest you (analysis). It's getting a lot of wrong answers before getting one right answer. If you honestly feel that you will be willing to spend the next decade failing (I mean that in a good way) and ending up with a PhD only to find that you're jobless, then sure go for it, you only live once.

However, if you feel that you can learn enough physics while also learning something more 'practical' (like I don't know engineering or material science) then I would advise that.

It sounds to me like you are suggesting that a PhD in math will leave you jobless, which is not necessarily the case.

 

[ParticleGrl]

If you are currently taking college algebra and have never taken a college level physics class, it is probably not accurate to say you are CURRENTLY working toward a math/physics double major.

Right now you have no real idea about what physics(math) is, how physicists(mathematicians) work, etc. Thats natural- you don't have much exposure. Before you decide on what you want, wait until you have taken the first "weed-out" proof based math course (some places that's an honors/just-for-math-majors calculus, some places that's analysis) and a 300 level physics course (Lagrangian mechanics, or upper level E/M). If you hate proofs, math is not for you, and if you don't like the upper division physics courses ,get out of physics, etc. The good news is, even if you hate upper level physics, the intro sequence will set you up nicely to switch into an engineering major assuming you take the right mix of other courses as you go.

Would you be happy with spending a decade getting a phd in mathematical physics and then scrambling into a fairly unrelated job in finance, insurance, IT? Because that seems to be what most of us (theory phds) do.

 

[SophusLies]

I hope you are willing to accept that your theories on GR, QFT and string theory are rubbish. Scientists should never be attached to one theory, but should always try to disprove the theory.
Since you only did college algebra, I think we can safely say that your theories are wrong. But it would be nice for you to discover why. So yes, stay with your crazy theories and learn more physics to be able to disprove them.

I 100% agree with this. I'm currently working on my PhD in physics and anyone that is publishing or developing their theories that I've met always have an open-endness to their "beliefs" of whether their theories are correct or not. They go along with the results but they constantly question the validity of their claims. If students saw real working physicists and how they treat their own theories/experiments then I would venture to guess there wouldn't be so many senseless arguments over "qualitative" theories on space-time or quantum stuff. But we always have pop-sci TV shows to keep those outlandish theories going.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

Would you be happy with spending a decade getting a phd in mathematical physics and then scrambling into a fairly unrelated job in finance, insurance, IT? Because that seems to be what most of us (theory phds) do.

That's a good point. I'd rather be a high school physics teacher or a community college instructor than serve an almighty corporation any day. Teachers and professors who care about their students and are good at their craft make much more of an impact, the way I see it. But I still plan on earning a Ph.D., no matter which field I scramble into, because I want the experience.

And y'all are right about the fact my theories will very likely evolve. This is what I *want* to happen. I'm just the kind of person who likes to plan (way) ahead. I have to have a specific goal, or I lose motivation. My current 'theories' ('conjectures' is a better word) are merely pointing me in a direction to conduct research once I get to that juncture. If I thought my theories were viable right now, I'd publish to arXiv.org or the like. I'm not that deluded yet. :P I don't think I communicated my viewpoint sufficiently well in my earlier posts.

 

[chill_factor]

you have the personality for it.

1.) you think you're smart.
2.) but here's the important part. when people say you're an idiot you don't get mad. that's valuable both in industry and academia. if when *you* say to yourself, I'm an idiot, and you still don't get mad, then you can get a PhD.

That assumes you have the raw ability to do insanely hard math of course. I'm not even talking just plain grad courses...

I personally don't so I play with machinery at the lab and uh, 'drill holes', 'spill dirt' and 'play with sand' as someone else said. But you may. And if you find out you can't... there's always the hole drilling, dirt spilling, sand playing business.

 

[jtbell]

there's always the hole drilling, dirt spilling, sand playing business.

Or, depending on your tastes in "grunt work", code-monkeying.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

2.) but here's the important part. when people say you're an idiot you don't get mad. that's valuable both in industry and academia. if when *you* say to yourself, I'm an idiot, and you still don't get mad, then you can get a PhD.

Geeez, if I got mad every time someone said something disparaging to me, I'd be mad most the time. Come to think of it, though, I *used* to be mad most the time. . . :P

Besides, I know I'm not an idiot. Rather naive about some things? Without doubt. I'm of the opinion that life isn't worth living without dreams, *however* naive they may be. But I also know there's wisdom in a multitude of counselors, which is why I started this thread to begin with.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Geeez, if I got mad every time someone said something disparaging to me, I'd be mad most the time. Come to think of it, though, I *used* to be mad most the time. . . :P

Besides, I know I'm not an idiot. Rather naive about some things? Without doubt. I'm of the opinion that life isn't worth living without dreams, *however* naive they may be. But I also know there's wisdom in a multitude of counselors, which is why I started this thread to begin with.

OP, your very well spoken, that is a start. If you spoKe like tis then.. Your also passionate, ambitious, and know how to take some fairly rough criticism, that is another plus.

Anyways, you seem to have a good memory for popular science. I don't know how much time you've spent on this, but what you need to do is use that time to start learning calculus and real physics. Best of luck!

It can be fun to play around with theories qualitatively, but you have to come to terms with the fact that this will get you nowhere, physics is rooted in mathematics. It is guided by qualitative thought but that qualitative thought is by itself rooted in mathematics and the existing infrastructure in physics. If you do not understand the existing infrastructure in physics, which I should remind you is quantitative, then you are just twiddling your toes in the sand.

 

[twofish-quant]

In other words, why should there be a redundant spatial structure underneath it all? Why not say strings, branes, etc are the quanta of space themselves?

O.K., we say this. Now what?

One thing about quantum gravity is that it's easy until you know why it's hard. It's trivial to come up with a nice symmetric, beautiful theory about how the universe works. The hard part is coming to terms with the fact that the universe is quite messy.

Basically what I'm looking for is a fully discrete QFT formalism of GR, with strings/branes/etc as the constituents.

So are lots of other people. One of the more recent efforts has to do with just giving up on coming up with a "theory of everything" and then focus on just quantizing gravity. The reason that's useful is that even if it turns out that ultimately space isn't quantizable, you can use what you learn to do general relativity computer simulations.

But, as I've found out recently, this is only true for *infinitesimal* calculus; there are also finite difference and finite element versions of the calculus that may be able to compensate for the lack of a continuous manifold.

Yup.

Anyway, that's my conjecture right now. Of course, I may be rather embarrassed when my math catches up to my theories, but you never know where this might lead.

Actually where this sort of thing led for me was that you end up doing computer simulations with general relativity and particle diffusion, then you find that the equations and mathematical techniques also end up similar to those for interest rates and mortgage backed securities, so you end up baby-sitting supercomputers on Wall Street.

 

[twofish-quant]

That's a good point. I'd rather be a high school physics teacher or a community college instructor than serve an almighty corporation any day.

What if said almighty corporation pays you absurd amounts of money to crunch general relativistic-like equations? I got hooked in at the job interview in which I got hammered with questions about general relativity and field theory.

And y'all are right about the fact my theories will very likely evolve.

What's likely to happen is that at some point you'll have to make lemonade out of lemons. You'll find that your approach won't work, so you'll have to scramble to find some use of it so that you can get something out the door. You may spend three years becoming an expert at some mathematical technique only to find that that technique causes your idea to blow up, at which point you apply that technique elsewhere.

Or something else that happens is that you plan to go from A to B to C to D, and after spending five years you get a tenth of the way from A to B, but that's enough to get a dissertation. One thing about "quantizing" GR is that it's extremely non-trivial even at the level of getting a mesh that works.

 

[twofish-quant]

Geeez, if I got mad every time someone said something disparaging to me, I'd be mad most the time. Come to think of it, though, I *used* to be mad most the time. . . :P

One thing that ends up happening in this game is that you get trained to be a masochist. If I go into to a colleague with an idea, and he comes up with twenty reasons why it won't work, it feels good. If you go and then don't react, that means that it's too vague or too obviously wrong to be worth the trouble.

For example, I *can't* find many problems with your ideas right now, and this is a bad thing. The trouble is that you haven't described your theory with enough specificity that I can find problems with it. It's too vague.

Now if you can describe your ideas to the point where someone can find twenty problems with it, *then* we are making progress, and there is a strong sadomasochistic element to this because after a few rounds, you start to enjoy getting beat up.

 

[FalseVaccum89]

One thing that ends up happening in this game is that you get trained to be a masochist. If I go into to a colleague with an idea, and he comes up with twenty reasons why it won't work, it feels good. If you go and then don't react, that means that it's too vague or too obviously wrong to be worth the trouble.

For example, I *can't* find many problems with your ideas right now, and this is a bad thing. The trouble is that you haven't described your theory with enough specificity that I can find problems with it. It's too vague.

Now if you can describe your ideas to the point where someone can find twenty problems with it, *then* we are making progress, and there is a strong sadomasochistic element to this because after a few rounds, you start to enjoy getting beat up.

I'm also a fiction writer, so I know a thing or to about the 'sadomasochistic' element you speak of. One becomes immediately suspicious of the person reviewing a work if they go "hey this is the best thing I've evar ReAD!" and don't have any critiques. Theoretical physics is beginning to sound more and more like a creative endeavor. :P

 

[Nano-Passion]

I'm also a fiction writer, so I know a thing or to about the 'sadomasochistic' element you speak of. One becomes immediately suspicious of the person reviewing a work if they go "hey this is the best thing I've evar ReAD!" and don't have any critiques. Theoretical physics is beginning to sound more and more like a creative endeavor. :P

Theoretical physics is an awkward combination between creativity and rigor. You have a creative license but only within the infrastructure that is already set in place, that includes the properties of mathematical structures (not how pretty you can make your words sound).

 

[Drakkith]

That's a good point. I'd rather be a high school physics teacher or a community college instructor than serve an almighty corporation any day. Teachers and professors who care about their students and are good at their craft make much more of an impact, the way I see it. But I still plan on earning a Ph.D., no matter which field I scramble into, because I want the experience.

Your stubbornness is perhaps admirable in some ways, but life has a way of beating that out of most people. Plus the "almighty corporations" are nothing to be ashamed of working for. What is wrong with working for a company that provides goods and services that people want? Companies are not evil, contrary to popular belief.

 

[twofish-quant]

You seem to enjoy learning ideas in physics and wondering how it all connects, which is great, but I fear, like so many before you, that once you get removed from these really cool ideas and actually start doing physics, you'll be disappointed.

But then maybe not. One thing that helped me is to "give up." At some point you have to realize that the universe is too complex to understand. Once you give up trying to understanding "everything" you get this wonderful feeling when you understand *anything*. You spend eight years working on something, and then you figure out one tiny thing that people didn't know before.

If you have a cool idea and then after X years, you figure out that this cool idea just does not work, that's progress.

However, if you feel that you can learn enough physics while also learning something more 'practical' (like I don't know engineering or material science) then I would advise that.

On the other hand, if you go on the wild side, you might find some unexpected things. There is a cool relationship between general relativity and foreign currency exchange models, for example.

There's also something to be said for pushing yourself. One thing that I always tell myself is that if I can figure out quantum electrodynamics, then I can teach myself how to behave in a job interview or how to write a resume. One thing that I spend a bit of time doing while looking for jobs was to come up with mathematical models of the job market.

If your only desire is to see if your theory is right or wrong and how, it won't take long to find out the why.

And a wrong theory is better than no theory. The big problem with the ideas you've mentioned aren't they they are wrong. The big problem is that there is this big "so what?" Suppose time is an illusion, so what? Can you derive the mass of the electron from that? Can you derive anything from that?

 

[MarneMath]

It sounds to me like you are suggesting that a PhD in math will leave you jobless, which is not necessarily the case.

To keep it short, not at all what I was suggesting. I think you read too much into my words and not in context. It doesn't matter though.

 

[MarneMath]

But then maybe not. One thing that helped me is to "give up." At some point you have to realize that the universe is too complex to understand. Once you give up trying to understanding "everything" you get this wonderful feeling when you understand *anything*. You spend eight years working on something, and then you figure out one tiny thing that people didn't know before.

If you have a cool idea and then after X years, you figure out that this cool idea just does not work, that's progress.
On the other hand, if you go on the wild side, you might find some unexpected things. There is a cool relationship between general relativity and foreign currency exchange models, for example.

There's also something to be said for pushing yourself. One thing that I always tell myself is that if I can figure out quantum electrodynamics, then I can teach myself how to behave in a job interview or how to write a resume. One thing that I spend a bit of time doing while looking for jobs was to come up with mathematical models of the job market.
And a wrong theory is better than no theory. The big problem with the ideas you've mentioned aren't they they are wrong. The big problem is that there is this big "so what?" Suppose time is an illusion, so what? Can you derive the mass of the electron from that? Can you derive anything from that?

A good reply, but not sure what your point is. My point, 'some' people get into doing physics and find doing the work to get to the level of their pop science heroes is actually hard and give up. Your point, 'some' people get into physics and realize it's hard and keep trying.

I simply wanted to point out to him that it is hard work and if you're only interested in the end game, then getting to the end game may be too tedious for him. However, if he is willing to put up with the grunt work and grow as a person and scientist, then he has hope. Not exactly a controversial opinion.

 

[ImaLooser]

I am currently working towards a double major in Mathematics and Physics, so that I will have a very good background in both. My reasons are twofold: 1) I want to be well-prepared to study in a Mathematical Physics Ph.D. program like the one at Virginia Tech 2) I have a deep and abiding passion for physics, and I'm developing one for mathematics.

The reason I listed the desire to be prepared for a Mathematical Physics Ph.D. program first is that, even though my current mathematical knowledge is limited compared to that of a working theoretical physicist, I already have some (currently rather) qualitative theories concerning the intersection of String/M-Theory, QFT, and GR, and I want to see if I can develop a consistent mathematical model from them. Also of keen interest to me are the theories of Shape Dynamics and quantum 'timelessness' (which seems to me to be more like a true quantization/discretation of time), posited by the British physicist Julian Barbour.

I really hope all that didn't sound pretentious, especially since I'm going to be a good bit older than my colleagues starting out, should I follow this path. Certain people in my life won't quit trying to convince me to go to school to learn a trade, and I could likely do well at something like electrical engineering, but I honestly don't think I'm going to be happy if I never know whether these theories I have brewing inside me are viable or not.

Thank you for your advice.

I got a masters in mathematics at age 40. I found out that I wasn't nearly good enough at math to get a PhD. Half the masters algebra class flunked, I almost did. People who were much better than I couldn't get professorships.

Making progress on these esoteric theories takes unbelievable talent. If you had it, it would have been obvious when you were 14 or something. Community college teaching could be a realistic goal, but even that isn't easy. There is a big oversupply of talent chasing too few jobs. Some overqualified guy might get that job instead.

I got a job as a programmer, which is much much easier and pays MORE than a professorship. Go figure.

 

[twofish-quant]

A good reply, but not sure what your point is. My point, 'some' people get into doing physics and find doing the work to get to the level of their pop science heroes is actually hard and give up. Your point, 'some' people get into physics and realize it's hard and keep trying.

And some people find it fun as all hell. The OP sounds like someone that might find it fun as all heck, and I'd like to do what I can to get him pointed in the right direction. One thing about physics is that there is a huge amount of luck involved. You can work incredibly hard but just miss out on the theory of everything, because you were born a century too early. On the other hand, with some hard work you can get somewhere.

If you go in with the attitude that you are going to figure out the universe, you'll likely burn out. If you are just interested in figuring out *anything*, then there's likely to be something interesting that you can figure out. Not all mysteries of the universe involve string theory.

Take a plastic pipe. Pour water down the pipe. At a specific velocity the flow becomes turbulent. Calculating at what velocity flowing become turbulent turns out to extremely difficult.

I simply wanted to point out to him that it is hard work and if you're only interested in the end game, then getting to the end game may be too tedious for him.

There is no end game.

You work as hard as hell, then you die. If you don't find the hard work interesting, there's no point. I've seen Nobel Prize winners in their 80's, who are still working every bit as hard to eek out one more secret of the universe. You'd think that after you end up age 80 and won the Nobel Prize in physics, you'd declare victory and stop doing the "grunt work." But some people end up liking the grind.

Once you reason that there is no reward for getting to the top of the mountain other than you get to climb another mountain, things look different.

However, if he is willing to put up with the grunt work and grow as a person and scientist, then he has hope. Not exactly a controversial opinion.

It's not a matter of "putting up" with the grunt work. One way of thinking about it is to ask what's the point of running an marathon when it would be a lot easier to drive 26 miles. The grunt work *is* the essence of research.

If you treat physics as something for which there is a finish line, you are going to be in a lot of trouble when you find out that there isn't.

 

[MarneMath]

I'm not sure why you're really arguing with me? You want your perspective to be right? Fine you're right. But maybe, just maybe, I have a different view on things and I was simply expressing an opinion. Now that's a new concept...

Also, I don't see how something being hard precludes it from being fun.

 

[twofish-quant]

I'm not sure why you're really arguing with me?

Not so much arguing as responding. I said something. Your reply was "a good reply, but not sure what your point is." At which point, I talk more.

The other thing is that I have my "physics sadist" hat on right now. That tends to happen when someone presents a physics theory. It's like taping a sign to yourself saying "kick me."

One thing that makes physics difficult is that most physics arguments can't be resolved by "agreeing to disagree." Also one thing that's pretty common in graduate school, is that you can't end an argument even by giving up. Often, if you agree with your adviser, you'll find that your adviser actually believes the opposite of what he was saying and is just giving you a hard time.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also to the OP:

I took a look at Julian Barbour's papers, and I'm not terribly impressed. It looks to me that he has just reinvented Regge calculus

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

There's not that much content in his papers, just "wouldn't it be cool if you could quantize gravity by breaking things up into shapes." Yes it would be cool, and that's what the "loop quantum gravity" people are doing, and they've gotten quite a bit beyond the "wild hand gesturing stage."

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

Also all of this is a subset of finite element methods...

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

The thing about FEM's is that you replace "grid" variables with cells which have an equation which you then minimize. But the fact that you get rid of X, doesn't mean that space doesn't exist, and so I don't think that getting rid of t means that time is an illusion.

 

[twofish-quant]

Some more practical suggestions on becoming a theorist...

I think most theorists go through a phase in which they think that they can figure it all out. It usually happens late undergraduate and early graduate school. It usually doesn't happen, not become of lack of effort, but because you just have to be at the right place at the right time to get hit by lightning.

Also, it's not just undergraduates. I think that there is a growing sense that we've been on the wrong track with supersymmetry and string theory. How we got on that track makes sense if you look at the situation in 1975. We made some very fast advances with electroweak theory and it seemed "easy" to apply those techniques to get a theory of everything, but after a generation and a hard slog, people are looking at alternative approaches.

One thing that I'd recommend you do is to not go too deep with one specific author or one specific idea right now. You should try to look at review papers that give a summary of the current approaches, and once you get into graduate school, you can focus on one of them. Assuming that lightning doesn't hit, then you are in the realm of "ordinary science" and at that point a lot of what you'll be doing is to figure out what you can get done with what's available. It's also a bad idea to have "tunnel vision" and focus too much on one problem. You'll find that mathematical techniques in one area are useful in others, and it's quite possible that the key to figuring out quantum gravity is something that the people in say ocean physics are doing.

Also, since you have an interest in quantizing general relativity... This is also a field that fascinates me but for altogether different reasons. Basically I'm interested in "quantizing" discrete fields so that you can put them into a computer. Curiously my interest in GR comes largely from trying to *avoid* using GR. You can show via a three line argument that GR probably doesn't affect supernova explosions, and the less CPU you use on gravity, the more you have available to simulate things like neutrino diffusion.