Best way to learn science? (question)

[Phycisists]

Hello everyone,

What's the best way of learning science (mostly the complex ones like quantum physics)?
My attention span is not that great so reading a book might not be ideal in my opinion.

My main question is,

Is searching for information in the internet a more efficent and faster method of absorbing up information? I've observed my learning habbits and I usually notice that books are slow, more inclined into the authors thinking style instead of the factual information being included into the book, but even then, it's slower (more about how it works).

So is information in the internet (wikipedia) better than a book?

 

[Simon Bridge]

The best way to learn science is by doing it.

 

[adjacent]

So is information in the internet (wikipedia) better than a book?

Don't even bother looking at wikipedia to learn something. I personally dislike it and it does not teach me anything. This is my personal opinion and it does not necessarily have to be true for everyone.

Buy some good book, or watch/hear lectures.

 

[micromass]

Hello everyone,

What's the best way of learning science (mostly the complex ones like quantum physics)?
My attention span is not that great so reading a book might not be ideal in my opinion.

My main question is,

Is searching for information in the internet a more efficent and faster method of absorbing up information? I've observed my learning habbits and I usually notice that books are slow, more inclined into the authors thinking style instead of the factual information being included into the book, but even then, it's slower (more about how it works).

So is information in the internet (wikipedia) better than a book?

Sorry but no. You can't learn science from wikipedia or anything on the internet. You need to get an actual text and work through it. A book is slow and that's good because it is meant to be slow. You can't read a science book like a novel. You need to think about every sentence. You need to work every exercise. The latter is most important. You can't be a scientist without working the exercises.

Sadly, there is no royal road to science. Everybody needs to learn it struggling.

 

[clope023]

Sorry but no. You can't learn science from wikipedia or anything on the internet. You need to get an actual text and work through it. A book is slow and that's good because it is meant to be slow. You can't read a science book like a novel. You need to think about every sentence. You need to work every exercise. The latter is most important. You can't be a scientist without working the exercises.

Sadly, there is no royal road to science. Everybody needs to learn it struggling.

It's true that there's no royal road to science (though some people learn it naturally faster than others), however to say you can't learn anything from sources on the internet is just false and betrays an unnecessary bias I feel. There are wonderful textbooks out there but there do exist lots of resources on the internet that are just as good as a textbook, or exist as good supplements to textbooks (MIT open courseware for example). Wiki is good if you already know something and need a quick refresher (though you should double check wiki's sources for accuracy).

 

[micromass]

It's true that there's no royal road to science (though some people learn it naturally faster than others), however to say you can't learn anything from sources on the internet is just false and betrays an unnecessary bias I feel. There are wonderful textbooks out there but there do exist lots of resources on the internet that are just as good as a textbook, or exist as good supplements to textbooks (MIT open courseware for example). Wiki is good if you already know something and need a quick refresher (though you should double check wiki's sources for accuracy).

I don't know anybody who has gained a deep understanding from science or mathematics using internet resources alone.

 

[TheAustrian]

While wikipedia is indeed a terrible resource for learning, people who discredit the strength and versatility of the amount and quality of resources that are on the internet, are in a similar mindset as the people who first opposed the idea of printed books.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Wikipedia is a great supplement. Not using it is foolish. Texts are a great supplement too. Watching lectures can be somewhat useful. But I think sitting down and actually solving problems with fellow students is where the best learning is done. Also working in a research group on an actual scientific project is pretty important, otherwise you are just a spectator. Having a poor attention span is not something you want to embrace. Be prepared to spend hours in thought while working on a topic.

 

[Phycisists]

Ok, so are you suggesting me not to learn anything from the internet? I mean it's very informative so I don't see a reason not to. Why is it worse than reading a book? A article on wikipedia is a lot more straight forward and it redirects me to other articles to make me know more.

Why is it so beneficial of actually reading a book about science?

Also, Simon, can you specify exactly what you mean by doing science? Performing experiments and drawing conclusions? I'm not the kind of person who likes to experiment, I like to think on a theoretical level which is a reason I want to become a theoretical phycisist when I'm in the later stages of my life. Observe? I like that.

I want a book regarding quantum physics and astrophysics, what book would you recommend? I want to read something VERY informative, with other words, more inclined towards providing the reader with information instead of rabbling about something else which is a reason I've only read one book in my life.

Please, give me suggestions. I appreciate your help.

 

[ModusPwnd]

For one, wikipedia does not often have exercises. Books do. You need to work out exercises and problems for a proper understanding.

If you want to learn about quantum mechanics we can suggest texts... but you should have a math background that includes calculus, differential equations and linear algebra first.

 

[Phycisists]

For one, wikipedia does not often have exercises. Books do. You need to work out exercises and problems for a proper understanding.

If you want to learn about quantum mechanics we can suggest texts... but you should have a math background that includes calculus, differential equations and linear algebra first.

Which is the best book full of information about quantum physics?

 

[gravenewworld]

Doing it and failing...repeatedly. Concepts from textbooks really don't sink in at all until you do it in the lab. I've seen many undergrads do research in our lab that think they know what is going on because they learned about in class, yet when they try to do the real experiment, they have no clue what's happening or what to do.

 

[Phycisists]

Doing it and failing...repeatedly. Concepts from textbooks really don't sink in at all until you do it in the lab. I've seen many undergrads do research in our lab that think they know what is going on because they learned about in class, yet when they try to do the real experiment, they have no clue what's happening or what to do.

But I can't (I think) conduct any form of scientific experimentation because I'm 17 years old without the authorization to do so, unless in school. What should I do?

 

[atyy]

What is your maths and physics background? Have you learned classical mechanics and electromagentism? For example, have you learned Maxwell's equations and at least some of its applications like wave guides, antennas, or rainbows?

 

[ZapperZ]

Which is the best book full of information about quantum physics?

Here's the thing. You cannot JUST learn quantum physics. You need to learn PHYSICS.

You cannot just learn how to build a house. You need to learn the trade, learn how to do many things, learn the skill, learn how to use the tools, and then learn how to be skillful at using those tools! Only THEN can you build a good house!

There is no such thing as picking up on bits and pieces. This is why reading Wikipedia will not give you the education that you need. Bits and pieces of information do not constitute a coherent working knowledge! That is a severe misconception of many people about science. They seem to think that picking up a book, and then just reading it, is sufficient to actually understand it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can teach you all about Newton's laws, and you can read as much as you want. Now, go design me a bridge!

You need to differentiate between a superficial understanding of physics versus a deeper, more profound understanding of it. For the latter, there is no short cut!. You really have to put in the work and the sweat and the tears to be good at it!

Zz.

 

[Phycisists]

Here's the thing. You cannot JUST learn quantum physics. You need to learn PHYSICS.

You cannot just learn how to build a house. You need to learn the trade, learn how to do many things, learn the skill, learn how to use the tools, and then learn how to be skillful at using those tools! Only THEN can you build a good house!

There is no such thing as picking up on bits and pieces. This is why reading Wikipedia will not give you the education that you need. Bits and pieces of information do not constitute a coherent working knowledge! That is a severe misconception of many people about science. They seem to think that picking up a book, and then just reading it, is sufficient to actually understand it. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can teach you all about Newton's laws, and you can read as much as you want. Now, go design me a bridge!

You need to differentiate between a superficial understanding of physics versus a deeper, more profound understanding of it. For the latter, there is no short cut!. You really have to put in the work and the sweat and the tears to be good at it!

Zz.

I understand. But what knowledge do I need to know before jumping into it? Can you list it in a order?

 

[atyy]

Required background

Mathematics: single variable calculus, multivariable calculus (change of variables using the Jacobian, Stokes's theorem), linear algebra (very, very, very important)

Physics: classical mechanics and electromagnetism, including Maxwell's equations in their differential and integral formulations. In MIT's OCW, these are 8.01, 8.02, 8.03.

Introductory quantum mechanics is 8.04.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I understand. But what knowledge do I need to know before jumping into it? Can you list it in a order?

Honestly, if you have a poor attention span and have only read one book in your life then I think you need to practice reading and developing an attention span. Otherwise any sort of academic venture will be out of your reach. I think you need to work on the ability to sit down in a quiet room and read for a few hours and finish books.

 

[ZapperZ]

I understand. But what knowledge do I need to know before jumping into it? Can you list it in a order?

Look at a typical university undergraduate physics curriculum. Look at the courses that are listed. That should give you a good idea what you need to receive a degree in Physics.

Zz.

 

[Phycisists]

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. But I have another question now,

I want to be "Sheldon like", by the fact that I simply enough know very much about the topics of my interests. Does the suggestions coming from you really apply fact wise?

Learning HOW to apply the quantum physical formulas in the physical world is the least thing I currently have in my mind, I really prefer to collect information (lots of it) and understand quantum physics on that basis, which excludes the mathematics.

So I want to understand how quantum tunneling for example applies to the various particles in the universe, but there's two ways of approaching the solution, both being practically connected to each other. These two methods are, one, the approach by using maths. Two, only facts.

I really want to expand my general knowledge about physics like this, so is it essential for me to understand how it works with concrete evidence like mathematics or do I need tons of it just to be a "good" theorist? In that case reading wikipedia articles would be better, right? It redirects me to everything I need in order to understand the concept itself which it succesfully does.

//P

 

[ModusPwnd]

You can only do and understand physics through math. If you are only interested in a collection of facts then physics is not for you. Reducing any subject to a collection of facts does not do that subject justice. Even history and zoology are more than a collection of facts.

Facts require little to no thought and are not useful on their own. Leave the facts for the books where they belong. Humans are better for thinking, conceptualizing, calculating and solving.

 

[Adjoint]

I really want to expand my general knowledge about physics like this

Collecting facts and information won't give you knowledge.

I guess that you are trying to find a way to know bits and pieces about QM from here and there (minus the mathematics) and hoping that when you will have gathered enough info you would become a knowledgeable person in quantum mechanics.

This simply wouldn't happen.

This is not the way to learn science.

Anyway, a practical advice would be that you can go for popular science books on QM. There are many of those (with lots of information and facts). But even if you read hundreds of those books you won't be knowledgeable enough to -

understand quantum physics on that basis

 

[Phycisists]

So in order to become knowledgeable in QM/Science do I need to understand how to use it? In that case mathematics might be very useful.

 

[TheAustrian]

To understand Physics, you're going to have to become reasonably good at mathematics first. Without mathematics, you might as well be learning from Sci-fi novels.

 

[clope023]

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. But I have another question now,

I want to be "Sheldon like", by the fact that I simply enough know very much about the topics of my interests. Does the suggestions coming from you really apply fact wise?

Learning HOW to apply the quantum physical formulas in the physical world is the least thing I currently have in my mind, I really prefer to collect information (lots of it) and understand quantum physics on that basis, which excludes the mathematics.

So I want to understand how quantum tunneling for example applies to the various particles in the universe, but there's two ways of approaching the solution, both being practically connected to each other. These two methods are, one, the approach by using maths. Two, only facts.

I really want to expand my general knowledge about physics like this, so is it essential for me to understand how it works with concrete evidence like mathematics or do I need tons of it just to be a "good" theorist? In that case reading wikipedia articles would be better, right? It redirects me to everything I need in order to understand the concept itself which it succesfully does.

//P

Physics in the real world isn't done like they show in documentaries, and the only way a Sheldon-like person is able to know what they know is because they understand the physical interpretation of the mathematics.

Facts can be looked up in a book, doing physics involves experiments and generalizing the results of those experiments with math (or vice versa).

 

[micromass]

I want to be "Sheldon like", by the fact that I simply enough know very much about the topics of my interests. Does the suggestions coming from you really apply fact wise?

Please don't base your future on a TV-series.

 

[Simon Bridge]

While wikipedia is indeed a terrible resource for learning, people who discredit the strength and versatility of the amount and quality of resources that are on the internet, are in a similar mindset as the people who first opposed the idea of printed books.

The internet is not being opposed - it is the use of the internet alone as a means for learning science. Similarly, book learning, by itself, is not that good. You also need practical experience. The "best" was asked for in post #1 - you learn best from doing. In this case, doing science.

Science, in common language, usually embodies three things:
1. the knowledge base;
2. the institutions;
3. the process;

People usually mix them up so care is needed.
Scientists usually concentrate on the last of these. (See links below)
You can certainly memorize a lot of facts that form part of the scientific knowledgebase - but this is not the best way to learn science , which involves concentrating on the process.
The best way to learn the process is to use it.

Ok, so are you suggesting me not to learn anything from the internet?

Nobody is suggesting that you cannot learn anything from the internet.
You specifically asked how best to go about learning science.
You are being told by people who are at the other end of the journey you are considering that that approach to learning science is sub-optimal. These are people who have made the mistakes that you are contemplating - and they are warning you off them.

You don't have to believe them. You are free to continue down the road you have chosen ... lots of people do.
But if you ask a question, you should expect that question to be the focus of the replies.
You ask for the best approach, and that is what the answers will be about.
You don't get answers that help you, consider refining the question (part of doing science).
Be aware that it may be that you are getting unhelpful or surprising answers because you have misunderstood something about the subject. (another part of doing science.)

I mean it's very informative so I don't see a reason not to.

Most of the science resources on the internet are very mis-informative. Someone starting out, who is not used to reading anyway, risks being mislead.
Even if you manage to restrict yourself to authoritative resources, like the MIT OpenCourseware, you will only be learning the minor part of science: the knowledgebase part.
You wanted to know the best way to learn science - this is not the best way.

Why is it worse than reading a book? A article on wikipedia is a lot more straight forward and it redirects me to other articles to make me know more.

Wikipedia can be a useful place to start but it is infamous for being misleading and downright erroneous. It is not an authoritative source.

Why is it so beneficial of actually reading a book about science?

Not just any old book: a science textbook. These books are designed to guide students along the path to being good at science. There are textbooks online so these count as well... unfortunately, it is easier to find misleading textbooks online than the good ones, which is why you are best advised to use a University (or other reputable) book shop and get the dead-tree edition (or get a title that you can use to maybe find an online/electronic edition).

Does that make sense?

Also, Simon, can you specify exactly what you mean by doing science? Performing experiments and drawing conclusions?

Science is not something you know, it is something you do. The best way to learn science is to take part.

Adopt the mindset and apply it to your life.

I'm not the kind of person who likes to experiment, I like to think on a theoretical level which is a reason I want to become a theoretical phycisist when I'm in the later stages of my life. Observe? I like that.

There is a distinction between experimentalists and theoreticians, but they share a process. When you try a new product, you are conducting an experiment. Whenever you try to find out something from experience, you are experimenting. You should apply scientific reasoning to your experiments.

I want a book regarding quantum physics and astrophysics, what book would you recommend? I want to read something VERY informative, with other words, more inclined towards providing the reader with information instead of rabbling about something else which is a reason I've only read one book in my life.

This is an attitude you are going to have to chang if you ever want to e good at science. You should not give up on a whole media from one bad experience.
All of us have read unhelpful books - and we move on and find helpful books. You have to be prepared to read a lot of rubbish before you find the good stuff. Learning how to tell the good stuff from the bad is part of learning science ... you learn this best by doing: by reading lots.

All scientists are big readers and you won't believe the rubbish we end up having to wade through.

But I can't (I think) conduct any form of scientific experimentation because I'm 17 years old without the authorization to do so, unless in school. What should I do?

You do not need special permission to conduct scientific experiments. The scientific part is how you go about the experiment, not the experiment itself.

Though I think you may benefit from joining a skeptics discussion group online.
Although you may have little interest in the paranormal, the skeptics will teach you a valuable mindset tat will help you see what we are getting at.

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate it. But I have another question now,...

...listening:

I want to be "Sheldon like", by the fact that I simply enough know very much about the topics of my interests. Does the suggestions coming from you really apply fact wise?

The character of "Sheldon" is a child prodigy who has been immersed and active in his field since infancy. i.e. he has been doing science from an early age and his knowledge stems from that.
The TV show leaves out a lot of what this entails. i.e. you don't see how much time he spends reading.
It is actually a step backwards to base your future learning on a TV sit-com and you asked for, and continue to ask for, the best method.

Learning HOW to apply the quantum physical formulas in the physical world is the least thing I currently have in my mind, I really prefer to collect information (lots of it) and understand quantum physics on that basis, which excludes the mathematics.

Physics is an applied science - it is the mathematical study of the physical world, pretty much by definition, so what you are asking for is impossible.

Worse: if you restrict your study to non-maths, fact-based, resources, you will end up with a horribly distorted view of science. The kind of view that forums like this one exist to correct.

What you have just told us in that passage is that the least thing on you ind in learning science is the Science part.

So I want to understand how quantum tunneling for example applies to the various particles in the universe, but there's two ways of approaching the solution, both being practically connected to each other. These two methods are, one, the approach by using maths. Two, only facts.

You are mistaken - you have to use the maths. Mathematics is the language of physics - I don't think I can over-stress this. The "facts" are written in maths.
You will not find any good resource that does not use maths to talk about quantum tunnelling and you won't understand it without the maths.

I really want to expand my general knowledge about physics like this, so is it essential for me to understand how it works with concrete evidence like mathematics...

... concrete evidence is not like maths. It's pretty much the opposite. Maths is pure theory. Concrete evidence comes from Nature. i.e. you won't find a mathematical equation for "concrete" that does not reference Nature in some way.

... or do I need tons of it just to be a "good" theorist?

You must have the maths to be a theorist. That is pretty much the definition of theorist. To be a "good" theorist, you will need to understand the maths. To be really good, you need to understand how experimentation relates to theoretical models - that way your theorizing will be more likely to be useful. The thing to realize here is that theories are easy to get - there are lots of them and more every day - the trouble is working out which theory works best with Nature.

In that case reading wikipedia articles would be better, right? It redirects me to everything I need in order to understand the concept itself which it succesfully does.

Have you actually tried following the citations in a wikipedia article yet?
Just as an exercise, follow the wikipedia article on quantum tunnelling and see how far you get.
i.e. the first 4 citations are college textbooks...
Let me know how you get on.

Meantime, some other references covering the basics from the above:
1. Mathematics is the language of physics
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2013/07/22/mathematics-as-the-language-of-physics/
http://physics.about.com/b/2011/04/04/mathematics-and-physics.htm
... the first uses an example and the second is more involved.
Both are kinda bloggy - I've tried to keep it to a senior-secondary-school level.

2. Doing science
Concept map: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/lauren.heyn/what_does_it_means_to_do_science_
What is science? http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
... from University courses.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/scientific-method.htm
... doing science in life

3. Scientific skepticism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-skepticism-reveals/
... from Scientific American magazine.

These should give you an idea of the concepts involved with learning science.
If all you really want is to be able to spout potted facts in conversation, then maybe Discover Channel and youtube demonstration videos? But you won't be learning much science.

 

[Phycisists]

Thank you all for the replies, but I have one last question for now:

Where do you start in order to become a good scientist? Do I simply take a book, grasp the mathematical models and some general facts about physics, try to use them in physics and start experimenting and interpreting possible outcomes by my thoughts like a theorist does on a mathematical scale? This would honestly sound very interesting.

It's the process that is the most of importance as you might encounter more problems/thought, so would the upper paragraph be good according to this logic?

Is that the best way to learn? Just trying to verify it so that I'm ensured that I'm taking a "correct" path.

My MAIN problem about the whole concept of experimenting is my lack of ideas, I usually do not know where to start off. Is this a common problematic experience with you phycisists? And how do I overcome it? Do I just start experimenting randomly just to see if I'm progressing according to what I'm expecting in the results? Like baking a pie, I do not know what ingredients that are involved into the making of a pie, so I should basically just try out a few substances to see which one it is that shows the most promising results? Do you experiment like that?

Sorry for asking too much in one post.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Thank you all for the replies, but I have one last question for now:

Where do you start in order to become a good scientist?

There is no one way to start out - just being aware of your surroundings and thinking about them in a systematic way a lot is one of the most common ways people start.

The usual formula is to go to school and learn science.

But to get good at it is the same way you get good at anything: practice practice practice.

Just trying to verify it so that I'm ensured that I'm taking a "correct" path.

There is no "correct" path.
One of the characteristics of a good scientist is that they don't look for the correct way to do things.
You'll see a common refrain in these forums is that you should not be trying to find the right equations to solve your problems, you should be trying to understand what is going on.

My MAIN problem about the whole concept of experimenting is my lack of ideas, I usually do not know where to start off. Is this a common problematic experience with you physicists?

Do you not buy your own clothes? Do you not go through a store and try different items to see how they fit, if they look good on you, stuff like that? Do you not try new foods or new places to go? How do you normally go about forming opinions?
Is there nothing about the World that you are interested in at all?

You have no shortage of ideas - you just need to recognize them.
Once you get into the habit of being systematic about the experiments you do in everyday life, you will find deeper experiments will present themselves to you without your wanting them to.

 

[IGU]

I understand. But what knowledge do I need to know before jumping into it? Can you list it in a order?

Most people really learn the material when they use it to solve hard problems. Using some source for learning, but then not working any problems, you won't learn much. There are certainly many web sources that will provide you with both learning material and problems. OCW is one, and there are other excellent packaged classes available. You might want to take a look at Wikibooks to find the web analogue for textbooks (with problems).

For physics in particular, take a look at what Gerard 't Hooft has to say -- great resources! He says "It should be possible, these days, to collect all knowledge you need from the internet. Problem then is, there is so much junk on the internet. Is it possible to weed out those very rare pages that may really be of use? I know exactly what should be taught to the beginning student. The names and topics of the absolutely necessary lecture courses are easy to list, and this is what I have done below. It is my intention to search on the web where the really useful papers and books are, preferably downloadable as well. This way, the costs of becoming a theoretical physicist should not exceed much the price of a computer with internet connection, a printer, and lots of paper and pens."

Note that the web is only getting better. By the time you are twenty, quality will be up and the coverage will be much greater. Personally, I can't wait for full interactive virtual reality physics labs. There will be no danger so even six-year-olds will be able to do them, and you'll be able to go through every mystery and equipment failure mode for cheap.

As for lack of attention span, you'll never be any good at anything if you can't put in extended effort. Find things that engage you enough to keep your attention. If you can't concentrate even on things you find interesting, you might try eating and sleeping better.

 

[TheAustrian]

The internet is not being opposed - it is the use of the internet alone as a means for learning science. Similarly, book learning, by itself, is not that good. You also need practical experience. The "best" was asked for in post #1 - you learn best from doing. In this case, doing science.

Science, in common language, usually embodies three things:
1. the knowledge base;
2. the institutions;
3. the process;

People usually mix them up so care is needed.
Scientists usually concentrate on the last of these. (See links below)
You can certainly memorize a lot of facts that form part of the scientific knowledgebase - but this is not the best way to learn science , which involves concentrating on the process.
The best way to learn the process is to use it.

I think it is dangerous to say that there is a single golden bullet that works for everyone. Every person learns in different way, and the same experience presented to different people may be the best one ever to one, and worthless to the other. It is also not that clear what you mean by "doing" science.

I did not at any time mean that the internet in itself is going to be enough for studying. It is a great assistance, but of course in itself it can not lead to success. A carefully thought out mixture of various resources is necessary for learning.

As for the OP, one advice that has been very helpful to me is this: learn some programming. Even if not to a very advanced level, it is definitely going to help you out. A lot of jobs these days will require C, C++ or some other high level programming language. Computations are generally done using computers, so it's going to help a lot if you understand how to use computers for calculations, and know how to perform at least some basic stuff yourself.

 

[D H]

So in order to become knowledgeable in QM/Science do I need to understand how to use it? In that case mathematics might be very useful.

If you aren't using mathematics you aren't doing physics.

Getting back to your original post, it's imperative that you improve your study habits. You need to get to the state where you can spend hours at a time working on one problem. The simple problems in physics textbooks can be solved in minutes to a few hours. The complex problems professionals face can take months or years to solve. A short attention span and problems that take months or maybe even years to solve don't mix.

 

[Phycisists]

If you aren't using mathematics you aren't doing physics.

Getting back to your original post, it's imperative that you improve your study habits. You need to get to the state where you can spend hours at a time working on one problem. The simple problems in physics textbooks can be solved in minutes to a few hours. The complex problems professionals face can take months or years to solve. A short attention span and problems that take months or maybe even years to solve don't mix.

How should I improve to that point?

Everytime I try to solve a mathematical/physics problem my brain's neural inpulses basically stops in the midway giving me the "cloudy" feeling in my head. I find it very easy to learn maths and physics, but difficult (probably very) to solve the actual complicated tasks. I guess that's my problem because I usually start studying close to the deadline (thanks to my excessive computer gaming).

I forgot to specify exactly how my attention span works:

I do not have any trouble reading a book (besides the fact that I get bored easily depending on which one it is), my main problem is when it comes to problem solving. I usually immedietly shut off and leave the task unsolved but this occurs only with maths/physics. Is this a serious problem if I want to pursue a career in the scientific field?

Also how do I overcome that problem?

Did YOU have these kind of problems at my age? Are they "normal"?

 

[TheAustrian]

Giving up computer gaming, is going to be your first task if you are really serious and committed about this thing. Learning Maths and Physics is a very, very time consuming journey to take.

 

[AlephZero]

Is this a serious problem if I want to pursue a career in the scientific field?

Hmm... I wouldn't call it "serious problem". You want a stronger expression.

Unless you sort out that problem, you are wasting your time dreaming about a scientific career. Your chance of succeeding would be precisely zilch.