How do the guys like Witten study physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the educational background and learning methods of physicist Ed Witten, particularly focusing on his transition from a history major to a prominent figure in theoretical physics. Participants explore how his unique path may have influenced his approach to physics and the skills necessary for success in the field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Witten majored in history and completed his Ph.D. in physics in a relatively short time, raising questions about how he learned and adapted to physics.
  • Others argue that majoring in history does not preclude extensive study in other subjects, suggesting that Witten may have had a diverse academic background.
  • A participant mentions that Witten took five years to earn his Ph.D. after his undergraduate degree, which contradicts earlier claims about the duration.
  • Some express admiration for Witten's versatility and suggest that being well-rounded in various fields may contribute to success in physics.
  • There are personal reflections on the challenges of studying physics and the importance of understanding one's own learning processes.
  • Several participants express curiosity about Witten's early years and how he developed his skills before gaining recognition.
  • Some participants speculate about Witten's admission to prestigious programs despite his unconventional background, suggesting factors like GRE scores or personal connections.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specifics of Witten's educational journey or the implications of his background for understanding his success in physics. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the influence of diverse academic experiences on proficiency in physics.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include a lack of detailed evidence regarding Witten's studies and the varying interpretations of how his history major may have impacted his physics career. Some claims about his Ph.D. timeline and academic performance are contested.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in physics and related fields, as well as those curious about the diverse paths to success in academia.

huangz
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
It's reported that Witten majored in history as undergraduate, and he spent only two or three years to complete his PH.D of physics.
I think it's incredible. Anyone here know if it was the real case? If it were, then does anybody who personally knows him know how did he learn things?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lunarmansion said:
Just because one majors in history does not mean that one also does not study other things in college?

Yes, he could have studied other things, I agree. But, for one to major in history and then become such an amazing physicist as he is without even majoring in physics and completing his Ph.D in two or three years(if that is, in fact, true) is rather amazing. It is said that he is considered the smartest man alive(or something to that effect) and he has been called "Einstein's successor."
 
If you are talking about Ed Witten from the Institute for Advanced Study, then he took 5 years after his BS to get his Ph.D.

You can see his CV here:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/witten-cv06.pdf

His list of accomplishments is quite impressive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
there is probably little point in asking us such a question. obviously witten is a little smarter than the avergae bear. to see how he works and get some idea of how to imitate it one should probably go be near him for a while.


when i was a young assistant prof, i took a leave and at great financial and personal sacrifice for my whole family (although we were all young and actually they enjoyed it) we went to harvard as a visitor, where I attached myself as closely as possible to the great algebraic geometers there at the time, mumford, hironaka, and griffiths.

it was very beneficial. Indeed I soon became the intellectual giant i am today, to paraphrase the guy in dead poets society.

this may not impress you, but to be fair to them, you should have seen how dumb i was before. :-p
 
Last edited:
Witten didn't go to grad school immediately after undergrad. Wasn't he involved in the 1972 presidential elections?
 
Norman said:
If you are talking about Ed Witten from the Institute for Advanced Study, then he took 5 years after his BS to get his Ph.D.

Witten's route to a Ph.D. in physics was very unusual, starting with the the fact that his B.A. was in history, not physics.

His route is given in last link (third paragraph after the first picture) of https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=616545&postcount=15" by robphy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's incredibly frustrating. I consider myself a good thinker on most subjects - I find myself able to comprehend and work with almost anything given enough reading time - but I am not a gifted physicist - which is what I really want to do. I'm also highly impatient and fractious, so I find it hard to concentrate on subjects I don't already know.

One of the great skills in academia is developing an understanding of how you personally process information. This takes years or even decades - and then, I imagine very few experts of any level of experience would call their understanding of themselves 'complete'.

I suppose my major barrier though, is my own laziness. Sigh.
 
He looks like a good guy - and his papers read well.

I like how he points to which articles are most accessible.

I see no reason why he couldn't have jumped from History to Physics - at least he'd have had a more open mind than if he'd have been studying string theory from a younger age.
 
mathwonk said:
there is probably little point in asking us such a question. obviously witten is a little smarter than the avergae bear. to see how he works and get some idea of how to imitate it one should probably go be near him for a while.

when i was a young assistant prof, i took a leave and at great financial and personal sacrifice for my whole family (although we were all young and actually they enjoyed it) we went to harvard as a visitor, where I attached myself as closely as possible to the great algebraic geometers there at the time, mumford, hironaka, and griffiths.

it was very beneficial. Indeed I soon became the intellectual giant i am today, to paraphrase the guy in dead poets society.

this may not impress you, but to be fair to them, you should have seen how dumb i was before. :-p

I'm especially interested in how does the one like Witten work, anybody knows some details about it?
 
  • #10
lunarmansion said:
That was an interesting link. It seems that the best physicists have always been versatile and good at other areas of studies besides just Math and Physics.

I'll go a step further and say the people that are only "interested" in math and physics usually flunk the classes.

Granted, many people here go and do math and phys double majors or double degrees, but how many of you come here vs. how many people are in your classes? It always seems like the know-it-alls who don't have any other interests end up flunking the class.
 
  • #11
Well, I also like beer and metal. Clearly I'm a model student.
 
  • #12
Respect to Mr. Ed, but I'm puzzled how did he got into Princeton Physics Dept. with only B.A. degree in history/linguistics... :bugeye: .

Maybe his affiliation with politicians had something to do. Just making observations, I'm not saying it is.
 
  • #13
Igor_S said:
Respect to Mr. Ed, but I'm puzzled how did he got into Princeton Physics Dept. with only B.A. degree in history/linguistics... :bugeye: .

Maybe his affiliation with politicians had something to do. Just making observations, I'm not saying it is.

Maybe he scored highly on the physics GRE.
 
  • #14
Sojourner01 said:
Well, I also like beer and metal. Clearly I'm a model student.

Metal makes up for everything.

I don't know, it just seems like it's always the case. In my Japanese classes, the Japanophiles who always watched anime and "read" manga and stuff were the first to flunk and switch to a different language.

Today, we had a very simple quiz that involved a U-tube and simple pressure calculation. Some guy busted out with "so, is it because the lateral forces aren't parallel" or something completely complicated like that. Even the prof. didn't know what he was talking about.
 
  • #15
George Jones said:
Maybe he scored highly on the physics GRE.

I seriously doubt that's enough to get into any top grad program (from experience), but maybe those were the different times...
 
  • #16
Poop-Loops said:
I'll go a step further and say the people that are only "interested" in math and physics usually flunk the classes.

Granted, many people here go and do math and phys double majors or double degrees, but how many of you come here vs. how many people are in your classes? It always seems like the know-it-alls who don't have any other interests end up flunking the class.
I think that the reason for this is that they get bored :zzz: That's the same with me, if I study something that I like for a long time then I, unfortunately, start getting bored of it even through I "like it." Its weird, I know! :bugeye:
 
  • #17
lunarmansion said:
That was an interesting link. It seems that the best physicists have always been versatile and good at other areas of studies besides just Math and Physics.
It certainly helps to have a different perspective on things. :smile:
 
  • #18
I'm extremely interested if anybody here personally knew Witten in the mid 70's, before he became a superstar. I wonder how Witten did in his early years.
 
  • #19
Sojourner01 said:
It's incredibly frustrating. I consider myself a good thinker on most subjects - I find myself able to comprehend and work with almost anything given enough reading time - but I am not a gifted physicist - which is what I really want to do. I'm also highly impatient and fractious, so I find it hard to concentrate on subjects I don't already know.

One of the great skills in academia is developing an understanding of how you personally process information. This takes years or even decades - and then, I imagine very few experts of any level of experience would call their understanding of themselves 'complete'.

I suppose my major barrier though, is my own laziness. Sigh.

Ditto^ usually because i get bored easily by things, i can work my best when I am excited by what i am doing hehe lol:)
 

Similar threads

Studying How to self-study physics past High School Level?
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
9K
Studying How to self study Physics and Mathematics
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Studying How Hard is a Master's in Physics at SJSU?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Other Should I study physics in Malaysia and then do post-graduate abroad?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Programs Studying Physics Courses at 50 years old
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
Studying What Are the Best Steps for Self-Teaching Theoretical Physics?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Studying How to find challenges to use as a reason to study physics?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
I want to study physics and related maths, but I am confused....
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Efficient Study Tips for Physics, Math, and Engineering Subjects
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
How to study heavily informative topics for long hours?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K