How to do research in theoretical physics or math?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the challenges and processes involved in conducting research in theoretical physics and mathematics, particularly for those transitioning from experimental fields. Participants explore the feelings of intimidation and uncertainty regarding tackling complex problems that have historically stumped many brilliant minds.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses feelings of being overwhelmed by the prospect of solving theoretical problems that have eluded others for years, questioning their chances of success.
  • Another participant encourages a mindset focused on persistence and creativity, suggesting that fresh perspectives can lead to new solutions, even if previous attempts have failed.
  • There is a discussion about the importance of guidance from professors and the necessity of understanding theoretical foundations before venturing into complex problems.
  • One participant notes that research often involves many individuals collaboratively addressing smaller problems rather than relying solely on groundbreaking discoveries by singular geniuses.
  • Concerns are raised about the pressure of needing to solve problems for PhD completion, with a suggestion that the process is more about gradual progress and learning than immediate success.
  • Participants mention the variety of research questions available in fields like condensed matter and string theory, emphasizing that there are always new questions arising as old ones are addressed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that research in theoretical physics and mathematics can be daunting, but there are differing views on how to approach this challenge. Some emphasize the importance of persistence and collaboration, while others highlight the pressure of needing to solve difficult problems for academic progression. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to overcoming these challenges.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the historical context of theoretical problems and the varying levels of complexity involved. There is an implied recognition of the limitations of individual capabilities and the necessity of mentorship in navigating these challenges.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for undergraduate students considering a shift to theoretical physics or mathematics, as well as those interested in understanding the collaborative and iterative nature of research in these fields.

kelly0303
Messages
573
Reaction score
33
Hello! All of my undergraduate research so far was in experimental fields, mainly because most of my professors are doing that at the university. The few ones who are doing something more theoretical are mainly working on numerical simulations.

I have always been fascinated about theoretical physics/math and I was wondering if someone working in the field can tell me more about the process of doing research in these fields. I am curious about the way one approaches a theoretical problem (after one learns the work done before, of course). It just seems so overwhelming trying to tackle a problem that probably lots of brilliant physicists have failed to solve over tens or hundred of years. Of course a genius might attempt that. But i am not a genius.

What chances do I really have to find something they didn't? In experimental physics is different, as we have access to new theories and more important new technology that physicists in the past didn't have. So we have a great advantage over them. But in theoretical physics and math this is not the case (of course we might have some new mathematical tools, but I feel that is not that significant compared to the experimental case).

So given all this pressure of hundreds of brilliant minds failing, how does one proceeds? And what does one do if they fail? For example aiming to solve one or more problems as part of your PhD, you actually have to solve them, if you want to graduate. But most probably others have failed before, so how do you know if you can solve them?

You might never get a PhD simply because the problems are too hard. Can someone give me some insight into this? I am thinking to do some research in theoretical physics with a professor at another university, so I would like to know about all this, before making a choice. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Stop thinking of reasons to fail here. Sure there are many brilliant people but then there's the problem. You look at it with a fresh open mind exploring different ways to solve it. Often you'll hit some roadblock and must explore to find another way. Other times, you'll talk it over with colleagues and someone will suggest a new approach and so you'll go back and try that too.

You must be persistent, consistent and insistent in order to eventually solve it or conclude that it is beyond your present skills. Whatever you learn can be valuable in solving the next big problem you tackle. Your schooling has trained you for these moments but sometimes you must press on and develop new skills or new math to succeed.

There is a story of Einstein who was stuck in GR unable to complete his work. Prof Hilbert invited him to Gottingen to present several seminars on his work on the Special and General Relativity. Seminars got Hilbert thinking that he could solve it. While Einstein felt Hilbert was a superior mathematician of the first rank, it didn't intimidate him. He pressed on and eventually discovered his error in something he had worked on earlier but discarded.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute
 
Last edited:
kelly0303 said:
Hello! All of my undergraduate research so far was in experimental fields, mainly because most of my professors are doing that at the university. The few ones who are doing something more theoretical are mainly working on numerical simulations.

I have always been fascinated about theoretical physics/math and I was wondering if someone working in the field can tell me more about the process of doing research in these fields. I am curious about the way one approaches a theoretical problem (after one learns the work done before, of course). It just seems so overwhelming trying to tackle a problem that probably lots of brilliant physicists have failed to solve over tens or hundred of years. Of course a genius might attempt that. But i am not a genius.

What chances do I really have to find something they didn't? In experimental physics is different, as we have access to new theories and more important new technology that physicists in the past didn't have. So we have a great advantage over them. But in theoretical physics and math this is not the case (of course we might have some new mathematical tools, but I feel that is not that significant compared to the experimental case).

So given all this pressure of hundreds of brilliant minds failing, how does one proceeds? And what does one do if they fail? For example aiming to solve one or more problems as part of your PhD, you actually have to solve them, if you want to graduate. But most probably others have failed before, so how do you know if you can solve them?

You might never get a PhD simply because the problems are too hard. Can someone give me some insight into this? I am thinking to do some research in theoretical physics with a professor at another university, so I would like to know about all this, before making a choice. Thank you!

This professor should have the proper guidance for you, because it will be in an area that he/she is familiar with. More often than not, you will start by trying to understand the theoretical foundations of the physics that you are working in before you jump into the unknown territory.

No one starts off blank and fumbling in the dark. The fact that all of us require a supervisor that is responsible for guiding us is why we do this in school and not on our own in a garage or Swiss patent office somewhere.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jedishrfu
As science enthusiast, and even as students, it is typical to have kind of a view as if science progresses by a very big breakthrough every few decades by some kind of legendary genius. This can seem a bit intimidating indeed.

In truth, research is at least as much about many unknown people working together to solve smaller problems. And overall, there is no shortage of research questions to come up with. In condensed matter, one could study almost any kind of material with any kind of method and try to predict if it is a good superconductor; or in string theory there are an infinite amount of exotic symmetry groups to be studied. Then there are some fancy buzz words like 'topology' or 'quantum simulation' to try to apply to these things, and typically everytime a question is settled, a few other ones arise (don't wory if it's not the case with you, but your adviser should come up with plenty).

In practice these works are field work combining conceptual thinking, calculations and numerical simulations. Persistance and creativity is needed, but moving forward is far from impossible.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
11K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K