How Can a Young Aspiring Physicist Get a Head Start?

[alexhenderson]

Hello,

I am very interested in the fields of physics. I want to study physics after I complete high school.

I am currently fourteen years old and in the 8th grade. I have been reading books on many famous physicists, like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. I soon realized that physics and science were the key to opening my door in life.

Now, I need advice. What should I study, and what should I do to get a headstart? Are there any methods of becoming smarter, or understanding things more easily? What should I focus on?

On my freshman year I will be taking acc. Algebra II, and acc. biology (if that applies to anything)

Thanks, and please respond to my questions.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Study physics, chemistry and mathematics as much as possible. Take your time. There's no need to be devouring differential equations books before college, for instance. It doesn't do you a bit of good -- all it does is burn you out. Understand that physics is NOT a Stephen Hawking book. You will almost certainly be disappointed in your first overview of physics. Expect to be bored in your first few physics classes, because all you're going to be doing is figuring out various ways penguins can move (for instance, with an applied force, or around a cylinder, or with a certain harmonic motion along a frictionless plane).

There is no way to become 'smarter'. Just do your best. Your interest in the field at such a young age is going to do more for you than anything else.

Focus on your algebra skills. When you start calculus your junior or senior year, you need to be prepared for it.

And don't think your biology class is worthless. It will help introduce you to thinking like a scientist. It's not the facts and figures that make science classes useful to you -- it's the training you receive, like working in a laboratory environment.

Good luck, and I hope you maintain your interest.

 

[alexhenderson]

Are there any specific grades I should maintain?

Also, I am trying to teach myself calculus at the moment, I often go to the library and do some problems off a calculus textbook.

I want to prove 11-dimensional supergravity, and string theory's. Or unifying quantum and relativity.

I believe that proving the M-Theory is way too deep. I want to understand all the basic concepts of the mathematics and reason in physics.

Like my teacher said after debating with him on evolution and creationism, you must know all of the processes before stating something. I said "Religion is authority, and science is observation and reason." Although I didn't know all of the evolutionary processes, or the little ones.

After realizing that it came to me that I want to know all of the mathematics and physical sciences out there. So is there any math or anything I can do now on my free-time. Geometry at school right now doesn't really spur any interest into me. It is just proving triangles congruent, and finding the volume of a cylinder..

Thanks.

 

[DivisionByZro]

Are there any specific grades I should maintain?

That depends on what your plans are. Generally speaking, a higher average is better. If you can keep your average at 95%, then great! But not everyone can do this, and for some, it's very tiring. Bear in mind that the better you do in high school, the more chances you have of getting scholarships or perhaps better placement in universities.

So is there any math or anything I can do now on my free-time. Geometry at school right now doesn't really spur any interest into me. It is just proving triangles congruent, and finding the volume of a cylinder..

Just because it seems simple does not mean it's unnecessary. It's very important that you thoroughly develop intuition in proofs and reasoning. Having these skills will allow you to better understand more advanced material. Math and physics are "staircase" fields: You probably shouldn't skip a step (Or at least not too many!) because you might find yourself with gaps in your knowledge.

Do you want a challenge that will develop your mathematical intuition and reasoning? Try working through the following books:

Algebra - Gelfand, Shen
Trigonometry - Gelfand, Saul
How to Prove it - Velleman (This might or might not be accessible to you)

You can tackle some calculus if you'd like, but I strongly recommend you at least try one of the above books.


Good luck!

 

[Angry Citizen]

Also, I am trying to teach myself calculus at the moment, I often go to the library and do some problems off a calculus textbook.

I'd wait till at least trigonometry for that. You won't have the mathematical maturity to understand what's going on. At best, you'll be plugging and chugging. That's not mathematics. Proving congruent triangles? Yep, that's mathematics.

 

[cgk]

I want to prove 11-dimensional supergravity, and string theory's. Or unifying quantum and relativity.

I believe that proving the M-Theory is way too deep. I want to understand all the basic concepts of the mathematics and reason in physics.

I would recommend you to forget everything you ever read about string theory, the big bang, quantum gravity, black holes, time traval, etc. (In fact, just mentioning those will lead to raised eyebrows more often than not.). First, the popular exposures on such topics have *nothing at all* to do with what physics really is. Note that none of those things stand to experimental proof. In fact, if you searched, you wouldn't find a shortage of physicists who'd claim that entire (serious) fields like string theory or theoretical cosmology are completely pointless, let alone "research" on the beginnging of the universe...

One important part of physics it to decide which problems are (a) relevant and (b) accessible. There are plenty of real problems left, we don't need to create artificial new ones.

So is there any math or anything I can do now on my free-time. Geometry at school right now doesn't really spur any interest into me. It is just proving triangles congruent, and finding the volume of a cylinder..

There are some training books on problems of the international mathematics olympiad and international physics olympiad. The problems there usually can be tackled with elementary mathematical techniques, but still would be very hard in general. This is a good way of getting a feel for actual mathematics, and for learning techniques of how to approach problems. Both of those are (for your stage) much more relevant than actual knowledge about most specific higher math or physics topics (maybe apart from linear algebra and function theory).

Also, I'd recommend you to learn programming (start with Python, then go to C++). Programming is a core skill in most quantitative sciences and it will allow you to do numerical experiments on lots of stuff.

 

[alexhenderson]

I would recommend you to forget everything you ever read about string theory, the big bang, quantum gravity, black holes, time traval, etc. (In fact, just mentioning those will lead to raised eyebrows more often than not.). First, the popular exposures on such topics have *nothing at all* to do with what physics really is. Note that none of those things stand to experimental proof. In fact, if you searched, you wouldn't find a shortage of physicists who'd claim that entire (serious) fields like string theory or theoretical cosmology are completely pointless, let alone "research" on the beginnging of the universe...

One important part of physics it to decide which problems are (a) relevant and (b) accessible. There are plenty of real problems left, we don't need to create artificial new ones.


There are some training books on problems of the international mathematics olympiad and international physics olympiad. The problems there usually can be tackled with elementary mathematical techniques, but still would be very hard in general. This is a good way of getting a feel for actual mathematics, and for learning techniques of how to approach problems. Both of those are (for your stage) much more relevant than actual knowledge about most specific higher math or physics topics (maybe apart from linear algebra and function theory).

Also, I'd recommend you to learn programming (start with Python, then go to C++). Programming is a core skill in most quantitative sciences and it will allow you to do numerical experiments on lots of stuff.

Well, I am interested in discovering on how the universe behaves, and why we are here. So is physics not the right field for me?

And do you suggest learning trigonometry on my freetime?


I know some Python language, controlled flow and interpretted. I know the Values, strings and operations. I know how to do web coding like HTML, and php, which can be considered simple.

If physics is not the field for studying how the universe behaves, than please re-inform me with another field of study, thank you.

 

[Astronuc]

Hello,

I am very interested in the fields of physics. I want to study physics after I complete high school.

I am currently fourteen years old and in the 8th grade. I have been reading books on many famous physicists, like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. I soon realized that physics and science were the key to opening my door in life.

Now, I need advice. What should I study, and what should I do to get a headstart? Are there any methods of becoming smarter, or understanding things more easily? What should I focus on?

On my freshman year I will be taking acc. Algebra II, and acc. biology (if that applies to anything)

Thanks, and please respond to my questions.

You came to the right place - PF!

Please realize that there is more out there in mathematics and physics than anyone can know. One has to pick and choose one or a few areas in which to become an expert.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Physics is the field for discovering how the universe behaves. "Why we are here" is, to me, a useless question, but if you're of that particular bent, theology might be better for you (I'm assuming from your conversation with your professor that you are a creationist). You have to decide which is more important. You can't be a creationist and a good scientist. If I've misinterpreted, then I'm sorry.

I think cgk was telling you the same thing I was telling you: Hawking's books really aren't an accurate reflection of physics. A better, but by no means wholly accurate, reflection would be in Joao Magueijo's Faster Than The Speed Of Light, which shows a very layman-friendly interpretation of how physicists spend their days, and how physical theories become mainstream. You aren't making marks on a chalkboard until a Eureka! moment occurs, whereupon everyone claps you on the back in jovial celebration. I urge you not to go into physics with misconceptions.

 

[alexhenderson]

I am not a creationist, I said religion was authority, and I don't think we need God to survive.

So, what physics do you think I should look at? Hawking is a theoretical physicist. That was something that did interest me, so do theoretical physics misconcept the fields of real physics?

Do you suggest any fields of study in physics that will be useful for the future generation. I really do not want to be mislead.

 

[Angry Citizen]

So, what physics do you think I should look at? Hawking is a theoretical physicist. That was something that did interest me, so do theoretical physics misconcept the fields of real physics?

My suggestion: physics physics. Don't laugh, and don't complain. You'll be in a better position to know what being (for instance) a theoretical physicist entails when you're working with one in an undergraduate research position or something. You're fourteen, which means you're a far cry from knowing anything about physics (sorry, but that's the truth). When you're eighteen and are starting college, you still won't know much about physics. You'll be able to look into fields of interest when you've completed most of your basic physics education: quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and similar classes that all physicists must take.

In short: Wait till college to decide. Till then, you're tilting at windmills. Blindfolded.

 

[alexhenderson]

Sorry for bothering your Sir. I again ask another question. I am really interested in all of that stuff, but I do not want to be mislead. I need some sort of motivation or question that will keep my interest.

I need some sort of guide to follow, something I can do now, to put math and science into my head. I want to know the branches now, instead of being home after school everyday, nothing to do.

Quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics I know a speck of. They really did interest me. And I have developed goals for my future life, and if I want to succeed in them , it would really do me good to start now, instead of waiting. I know I have only scraped a wee-bit of the physics ground, I have only researched on it, and have made my own interpretations to some equations.

As you see I am eager, and it frustrates me, because I don't know what to do now, because life is short, and I want to solve something that can benefit the human race. I am not suggesting myself as dumb and arrogant, it is just I want to help myself understand and know the mathematics of some of the concepts of modern physics.

 

[cgk]

Well, I am interested in discovering on how the universe behaves, and why we are here. So is physics not the right field for me?

Physics is the correct science for that, but physics is, foremost, also a SCIENCE. Science rests on the facts about nature. Facts which can be tested by experiments. Lots of things can now be tested by experiment which could not even remotely be dreamed of 100 years ago. But there are still lots of questions that cannot be answered with our current technology and our current understanding, and where it is unlikely that any of us will live to see the day when their answer actually can be found. Most stuff discussed in the Hawking books and similar books belongs into that category.

Now let me tell you some other things which currently are *not* possible:
(1) Quantitatively simulating chemical reactions with more than four atoms on a completely quantum mechanical basis (reactive scattering calculations).
(2) Given a chemical composition, predicting in which crystal structure its crystal would grow.
(3) Calculating the freezing and vaporization temperature of liquid water from first principles.
(4) Reliably calculating the electronic properties of transition metal compounds (neither in solid state nor for molecules).
(5) Understanding the concrete processes in the nucleation of crystal growth.
(6) Calculating the mechanic properties of three-component alloys.

Now these were all examples from the theoretical chemical physics side (which I specialize on). The difference between such problems and speculating about the big bang is that the former problems can all be solved, and we're actually on a good way to do that. Also, they would have real word impact. The fact that we can now use computers in our daily lives rests to a large part on research of this kind: Which gets mankind ahead, small step by small step, building on problems and solutions that have been found before.

Is that not learning about how the universe works?

And do you suggest learning trigonometry on my freetime?

No. If you know analytic geometry and linear algebra, trigonometry is completely redundant.

I know some Python language, controlled flow and interpretted. I know the Values, strings and operations. I know how to do web coding like HTML, and php, which can be considered simple.

Programming is something that takes many years and lots of practice to learn.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Sorry for bothering your Sir. I again ask another question. I am really interested in all of that stuff, but I do not want to be mislead. I need some sort of motivation or question that will keep my interest.

I need some sort of guide to follow, something I can do now, to put math and science into my head. I want to know the branches now, instead of being home after school everyday, nothing to do.

Quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics I know a speck of. They really did interest me. And I have developed goals for my future life, and if I want to succeed in them , it would really do me good to start now, instead of waiting. I know I have only scraped a wee-bit of the physics ground, I have only researched on it, and have made my own interpretations to some equations.

As you see I am eager, and it frustrates me, because I don't know what to do now, because life is short, and I want to solve something that can benefit the human race. I am not suggesting myself as dumb and arrogant, it is just I want to help myself understand and know the mathematics of some of the concepts of modern physics.

I understand your frustration, but you have to understand you are limited by the amount of information you can take in during a certain time. I'd like to be working on plasma fluid flow problems, myself, but I still need to progress in my engineering education before I can even attempt to do so. So must you. You need to learn things like differential equations before you can do real physics.

The mathematical hierarchy is: algebra I; algebra II/geometry; trigonometry; calculus/linear algebra; ordinary differential equations; partial differential equations. You are in step II right now. My advice is to hunker down and expand your mathematical maturity. The physics will have to wait. In the meantime, by all means, keep your interest by keeping up to date with the physics community. Read their books. Maybe buy a used physics textbook somewhere and get a feel for kinematics and force diagrams. That's about all you can do right now. My advice is, again, not to rush things.

 

[alexhenderson]

So, basically, just nurture myself in mathematics until it comes time when I am ready for real physics?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yup. It's very similar to what I had to go through. I spent two years in community colleges, first learning algebra/trig, then learning calculus and physics before starting to take engineering classes. The waiting is hard, but it goes by quicker than you think. And who knows? You might like math too. I'm just a squirrely engineering student, but I can appreciate the intricacies of e^(i pi) + 1 = 0. Be multitalented. Especially if those talents are helpful for your main talent (which may or may not end up being physics).

 

[mal4mac]

Study physics, chemistry and mathematics as much as possible. Take your time. There's no need to be devouring differential equations books before college, for instance. It doesn't do you a bit of good -- all it does is burn you out.

Tell that to Freeman Dyson...

Try reading biographies of great physicists and see what they were doing & reading at 14. See what *they* suggested that kids should be doing. Try and emulate them, as much as you can... There are good biographies of all the big names, start with Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, and Stephen Hawking.

A surprising number of them, you'll find, read large chunks of the Encyclopedia Britannica at around your age - so you might try that ...

 

[alexhenderson]

My plan is to take as much math and science as I can in high school. They allow physics as an option junior of senoir year I believe, my sister took it and did not do very well in it, she did not enjoy math.

I want to apply to a high ranking college, but I know that is a huge challenge awaiting me, which doesn't leave me time to screw around.

Thank you all for the advice, I will continue nurturing myself in math, and not really focusing on mainstream science until I understand the kinematics.

 

[mal4mac]

I think cgk was telling you the same thing I was telling you: Hawking's books really aren't an accurate reflection of physics.

What rubbish ... if his books aren't an accurate reflection then whose are? As Hawking is a *major* gatekeeper, he gets to define what is a good reflection. Or who does? cgk?

You should take unfocused discussions in forums with a very large pinch of salt ... they are just for a bit of a fun chat really ... where anyone from good physicists, to 14 year olds, to cranks can join in. All to the good, why not, ... but it's difficult for 14 year olds to tell cranks from the good guys. So take care!

Who would you trust - AC and cgk or Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (Isaac Newton's former job...)?

 

[alexhenderson]

I am just looking for advice on what I should do to prepare for my future, as I plan to do physics, I am still searching for what branch.

A lot of my inspiration came from Hawking and Richard Feynman. I have no idea, but I have a real interest for physics for some reason. I do need to know kinematics before I begin to question about black holes, string theory, and m-theory wouldn't you think?

 

[hadsed]

Richard Feynman was an inspirational person for me as well, and I can tell you that he didn't care more about anything exotic than he did about the simple beauty of the universe. He would think of a problem and figure out how to solve it. This is how you master material, just constantly think about it, learn learn learn! Feynman read an encyclopedia, fixed radios, read advanced books, and did little experiments when he was young. You don't have to do all these, but it doesn't hurt to read wikipedia even if you can't understand it all. Then open up another tab and Google the thing you don't understand. If you need to read a book to understand that tidbit in order for you to move forward, that's what you do. I do this and I can tell you this *is* the best way to learn.

Read read read, learn learn learn, think think think. And have fun. The universe is beautiful, from squarks to spinning tops, it's all worth learning about.

 

[jtbell]

Hawking's books really aren't an accurate reflection of physics.

What rubbish ... if his books aren't an accurate reflection then whose are?

It's the difference between reading books about music history or music appreciation for laymen, and actually learning how to compose a symphony or a concerto by studying music theory and getting lots of practice listening to various instruments and trying out different sonorities, themes, etc.

 

[Leptos]

My plan is to take as much math and science as I can in high school. They allow physics as an option junior of senoir year I believe, my sister took it and did not do very well in it, she did not enjoy math.

I want to apply to a high ranking college, but I know that is a huge challenge awaiting me, which doesn't leave me time to screw around.

Thank you all for the advice, I will continue nurturing myself in math, and not really focusing on mainstream science until I understand the kinematics.

I was once very interested in physics due to reading popular books by authors such as the ones you've mentioned plus Michio Kaku, Neil Tyson, and Carl Sagan. I'm still interested in physics now, but for reasons slightly different from those that I had when I was of your age. Popular accounts of string theory, black holes, etc.(or in general theoretical physics) sounds really interesting, but when it comes down to actually solving problems that involve these things, it's completely different. I felt it was very much like a bait and switch. It's like the popular science books told me there would be candy at the end of the rainbow but once I actually arrived at the end of the rainbow I only found a picture of 5 math textbooks with pictures of candy on them...

Although real physics is very different from the glorified popular science book accounts of physics, it can still be interesting and is certainly worth learning. The most important thing isn't what you're learning or working on.

What's important is that you continuously improve your critical thinking skills and mathematical maturity. Don't worry about learning specific subjects, worry about how they can make you better at thinking about and analyzing everything.

 

[twofish-quant]

Now, I need advice. What should I study, and what should I do to get a headstart? Are there any methods of becoming smarter, or understanding things more easily? What should I focus on?

Do hard math. Think about hard problems.

Above that, find something that you like to do. Remember that most learning will take place outside of the classroom so make life your school.

 

[twofish-quant]

What rubbish ... if his books aren't an accurate reflection then whose are?

Feymann, Sagan, Asimov.

I find that people that just read Hawking end up with a severely distorted idea of what physics is like. People sort of assume after reading Hawking that physicists are philosophers that just sit in a room thinking about the beginning of the universe, when very few physicists do that.

It's like looking at a book on Italian food. You might like or dislike Italian food, but if you get the impression that the *only* way to cook is the Italian way this is a bad thing if you hate tomatoes.

As Hawking is a *major* gatekeeper, he gets to define what is a good reflection. Or who does?

Hawking isn't a gatekeeper. He is a good physicist, that is good at what he does, but the way that he does physics isn't the only way of doing physics, and it isn't how I do or did physics.

Who would you trust - AC and cgk or Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (Isaac Newton's former job...)?

I don't trust anyone. I figure out things for myself.

One of more interesting experiences as a graduate student I had was talking with someone that is as famous as Steven Hawking. He was asking me to give him a quick lesson on my field of physics, and it turns out he knew nothing about what I was doing. But there was no reason for him to know anything about my thesis topic, which was why he was asking me for information on it, since it impacted some research he was doing.

Also there *are* Nobel prize winners with crackpot ideas. There is one Nobel prize winner that was extremely adamant that black holes didn't exist, so one anyone was around him, no one mentioned black holes.

 

[twofish-quant]

Popular accounts of string theory, black holes, etc.(or in general theoretical physics) sounds really interesting, but when it comes down to actually solving problems that involve these things, it's completely different.

Also a lot of string theory involves, well, strings. You should start learning string theory by starting to learn about strings (i.e. the shoelace kind).

It's like the popular science books told me there would be candy at the end of the rainbow but once I actually arrived at the end of the rainbow I only found a picture of 5 math textbooks with pictures of candy on them...

For me what I found at the end of the rainbow was still pretty cool. But what I found looks more like Mythbusters than Steven Hawking.

 

[Angry Citizen]

What rubbish ... if his books aren't an accurate reflection then whose are?

A textbook. Hawking's books are largely popular science stuff. They're useful for giving a conceptual view -- one that is probably not entirely accurate -- but they do not describe the reality of physics.

I watched a program on television once in which Michio Kaku gave a brief overview behind the mathematics of some particular theory (I think it was related to string theory). I learned more about what physics was really like in that brief thirty second span than in reading Hawking's books.

 

[cgk]

What rubbish ... if his books aren't an accurate reflection then whose are?

The "problems" sections of textbooks in physics and math are an accurate reflection of how physics is done, as are research papers in physics. You'd be surprised of how /few/ research papers deal with the beginning of the universe. I've yet to come across one.

As Hawking is a *major* gatekeeper, he gets to define what is a good reflection. Or who does? cgk?

If you go to university, your professors define how to do physics. They'll give you all the reflection you need.

You should take unfocused discussions in forums with a very large pinch of salt ... they are just for a bit of a fun chat really ... where anyone from good physicists, to 14 year olds, to cranks can join in. All to the good, why not, ... but it's difficult for 14 year olds to tell cranks from the good guys. So take care!

Apparently you're also having troubles getting the concept. Physics is a large science with many different specializations. Everything AC or I said should have indicated to you that we are not quacks, but rather down-to-earth in our approaches to physics. We're not proposing "theories of everything", but rather pointing out that doing so is not what physics is all about.

Who would you trust - AC and cgk or Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (Isaac Newton's former job...)?

Do you really want me to go search for a nobel laureate (say, in condensed matter?) who publically states that that kind of research is pointless? I'd be surprised if I could not come up with one. After all, we have similarly distinguished scientists being the head of the Mind-Matter Unification project (Brian Josephson, FRS, Nobel laureate, Cambridge) or writing books claiming that consciousness is based on quantum teleportation (Roger Penrose, OM FRS, Wolf Prize, Oxford).

What does this tell you about trusting authority? You shouldn't. You shouldn't base your reasoning about statements about *who* is doing them, but rather about their content.

 

[jtbell]

It's the difference between reading books about music history or music appreciation for laymen, and actually learning how to compose a symphony or a concerto by studying music theory and getting lots of practice listening to various instruments and trying out different sonorities, themes, etc.

I'd better add that there's nothing wrong with reading popular-level books, so long as they're accurate in what they do contain, and you don't have unrealistic expectations of what you're getting out of them. I think it's very helpful to have some idea of what has been done in physics, even if only in a historical or descriptive sense, before you start studying it "for real." The way physics is taught often makes it seem like a bunch of random topics jumbled together, and you don't get to a lot of the "cool stuff" until you're in grad school anyway. Having some idea in advance of how it all fits together and leads to the cutting-edge topics makes it easier to slog through the details. Just be prepared to live with gaps in your knowledge until you can fill in the details.

When I was in junior high school and high school, I read pop-sci books myself, in the days when that meant writers like Isaac Asimov and George Gamow, and nobody had thought of string theory yet. I knew about the QM wave function and Schrödinger's equation and the Dirac equation in high school, but I didn't actually start learning how to solve the SE until college, and the DE until grad school.

 

[alexhenderson]

Thank you all for the help, I have another question.

Like a basketball player, when you practice more, you are better. And when you have your game performances, people get to see your potential.

I am in this situation, but I want to learn the game. Is there any early practice that can help me acquire a scholarship or perhaps a good chance of getting into a university for physics?

Thanks, I heard Michio Kachu earned a scholarship for building an "Atom Smasher", if that is true.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I am in this situation, but I want to learn the game. Is there any early practice that can help me acquire a scholarship or perhaps a good chance of getting into a university for physics?

Do good in your physics and math classes. Take any dual credit classes you can, and take as many AP courses (in math/physics/chem) as you can. Beyond that, you're shooting for the moon IMO.

 

[alexhenderson]

I am going into advanced science and math for my grade next year, when I will be starting high school. I did the 2009 sophomore graduation test or the OGT for my state and scored a 43/46 on that.

Do universities put a major impact on test scores? Like SAT, and ACT.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Depends on the university. I got into Texas A&M's engineering school (fairly competitive, considering Texas has to admit everyone in the top 10% of their high school class if they apply) with a homeschooling background and an ACT math score of 25 (IIRC). Then again, I was a transfer student.

 

[mal4mac]

It's the difference between reading books about music history or music appreciation for laymen, and actually learning how to compose a symphony or a concerto by studying music theory and getting lots of practice listening to various instruments and trying out different sonorities, themes, etc.

I think reading Hawking, and other good popular books, is more like listening to 'light' music by a great composer, rather than reading a book about music history by any old guy. Of course to be a practising physicist you have to do the equivalent of studying music theory, and get lots of practice in actual composition. Just listening will not hack it! But Einstein, Feynman, and others were inspired by the popular books of their day. To keep an interest in the subject, the 14 year old aspirant should definitely read good, popular books as well as 'studying theory'.

 

[AlexChandler]

Tell that to Freeman Dyson...

Try reading biographies of great physicists and see what they were doing & reading at 14. See what *they* suggested that kids should be doing. Try and emulate them, as much as you can... There are good biographies of all the big names, start with Michael Faraday, Albert Einstein, Freeman Dyson, Richard Feynman, and Stephen Hawking.

A surprising number of them, you'll find, read large chunks of the Encyclopedia Britannica at around your age - so you might try that ...

Wonderful advice! I agree 100%. More people should have this attitude. Yes Einstein had mastered differential and integral calculus by age 15. We should encourage young people to strive to do the same.

 

[AlexChandler]

Are there any specific grades I should maintain?

So is there any math or anything I can do now on my free-time. Geometry at school right now doesn't really spur any interest into me. It is just proving triangles congruent, and finding the volume of a cylinder..

Thanks.

The way that math is presented by many high school courses can seem boring. However I assure you that Euclidean Geometry is truly a fascinating subject. If you wish to understand something like general relativity some day, then you must understand Euclidean Geometry to come to realize that it is not a good description of how space is in reality.

If you find yourself bored in high school math, do now worry. If I could recommend only one thing to you, it would be to study the videos made by Salmon Kahn at

www.khanacademy.org

Khan makes math and physics understandable and interesting. You can learn basic physics there, and basic math. He will teach you everything from 1+1 to differential and integral calculus. He also has a playlist on the very important topic of linear algebra. There is a wide range of exercises you can do on the website as well.

Aside from that, I recommend reading anything written by Feynman. He was a wonderful scientist, and seeing the world from his perspective is very enlightening. Also read about Michael Faraday, Paul Dirac, Albert Einstein, James Clerk Maxwell, Freeman Dyson and whoever else may catch your interest.

Finally, I think it is important to be shown the difference between science and pseudo-science. This is something, sadly, that many smart people will fail to ever accomplish. The best way to accomplish this is to read a book called "Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Another book that is quite good is "Flim Flam" by James Randi. The basics can be explained online by Michael Shermer. Here is a link to a great video



I hope this helps,
Good luck to you my friend