Correlation between problem solving skills and being able to derive theories.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between problem-solving skills and the ability to derive theories in theoretical physics. Participants explore whether being a proficient problem solver is essential for becoming a successful theorist, considering various perspectives on the nature of theoretical work and the importance of problem-solving abilities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that theoretical physicists primarily solve problems rather than derive theories, implying that strong problem-solving skills are beneficial but not strictly necessary.
  • Others argue that deriving theories can be seen as a form of problem-solving that requires innovative thinking, and that luck can play a significant role in success.
  • A participant mentions that historical figures like Einstein benefited from prior work by others, suggesting that context and timing are crucial in theoretical advancements.
  • There is a discussion about the difficulty of defining what makes a "good theorist," with some noting that factors like personality and luck may outweigh problem-solving ability.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of persistence and willingness to tackle hard problems, rather than the speed at which they are solved.
  • Several participants advocate for engaging with both mathematics and physics, suggesting that staying updated on developments in both fields is essential for theoretical work.
  • There is a suggestion that inventing one's own problems can enhance understanding and problem-solving skills, alongside practicing existing problems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the correlation between problem-solving skills and theoretical success, with no consensus reached. Some emphasize the importance of problem-solving, while others highlight the role of creativity and external factors.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the difficulty in measuring the qualities of a good theorist and the subjective nature of success in theoretical physics. There are also references to the varying importance of different skills and attributes.

xdrgnh
Messages
415
Reaction score
0
From my understanding the job of a theoretical physicist is to derive theories to explain phenomena in nature. But let's say you aren't the best problem solver in the world. You are good enough in your physics class to get the 3.5 GPA but you are never able to solve those extra credit problems or those super hard challenge problems at the end of the exam or chapter. Well you might be able to solve some of them but it might take months or years while someone can solve them in an exam setting. Does that mean you will be a bad theorist if you can't solve the those kinds of problems?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
besides 4-5 people a century, theoretical physicists usually solve problems, not derive theories

and deriving a theory is also just solving some problem but using revolutionary ideas. if you're not able to solve problems using known theories, why would you be able to solve problems using unknown theories?

being able to solve difficult homework problems I would say is definitely positively correlated with being a "good" theoretical physicist, but not required. sometimes all it takes is a good idea that you get by chance. but the less ability you have the more luck you'll need.
 
In my opinion these 4-5 people are century are even just in the right place at the right time, so to speak, Einstein really just applied Reimenn's work to gravity(as far as I know), had Reimenn not figured stuff out about curvature, perhaps Einstein would have been unable to solve the problem as well. So if you are unable to solve some problems there are probably other problems that you have a chance at so long as you keep learning everything you can to relate problems to.
 
Zula110100100 said:
In my opinion these 4-5 people are century are even just in the right place at the right time, so to speak, Einstein really just applied Reimenn's work to gravity(as far as I know), had Reimenn not figured stuff out about curvature, perhaps Einstein would have been unable to solve the problem as well. So if you are unable to solve some problems there are probably other problems that you have a chance at so long as you keep learning everything you can to relate problems to.

So then do you recommend spending your time solving hard calculus (proofs, etc.) and physics problems? Or just physics?
 
xdrgnh said:
Does that mean you will be a bad theorist if you can't solve the those kinds of problems?

Don't know. I don't know of anyone that has done a study on this, but the fact that it's not obvious what the relationship is probably means that it's not a strong one.

One problem is that it's easy to define test scores. it's a lot harder to define what constitutes a "good theorist." If you define it in terms of things like paper citations and interpersonal respect, you'll find that "dumb luck" and "pleasant personality" matters as much as the ability to do challenge problems. I do remember a study that showed while theoretical physicists had higher IQ scores in general, that there was no correlation between "professional reputation" and IQ.

Also, I don't know about the ability to do problems quickly being important. I *do* know that the willingness to do hard problems is extremely important. It's not obvious to me whether how quickly you solve a problem is important. It is obvious that if your reaction to seeing a hard problem is to give up or if you get traumatized by the fact that there are just people in the world that are smarter than you, then you are doomed, since you'll never make through graduate school.
 
So then do you recommend spending your time solving hard calculus (proofs, etc.) and physics problems? Or just physics?

Most certainly, and more importantly, stay up to date with any changes in either the math or physics world, Maxwell's finding a constant speed of light is the whole basis of special relativity, so both are important, I was just thinking earlier about how they are inseperable.
 
Zula110100100 said:
Most certainly, and more importantly, stay up to date with any changes in either the math or physics world, Maxwell's finding a constant speed of light is the whole basis of special relativity, so both are important, I was just thinking earlier about how they are inseperable.

Yes, I remember someone saying to read at least a couple papers every weak. But I think this only holds for when you get at least a bachelor's or a master's?
 
Do lots of hard math problems. It's good exercise.
 
twofish-quant said:
Do lots of hard math problems. It's good exercise.

And hard physics problem?
 
  • #10
If you want to be a good theoretical physicist , you shouldn't only solve physics and math problems in a textbook but you have to invent your own problems too , When you get a solution you have to think what does this solution mean to you and think of other possible ways to solve the problem . Of course you do not have to be able to solve all problems in the textbooks . At first you will be able to do some problems with difficulty and you will find that you can't solve many problems even if you are very smart but with practice things will be much more easier as you will acquire the skills needed to solve these problems .You need to do physics and math problems as much as you can .
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K