Is it possible to pursue theoretical physics investigation if that's not my job?

[Tosh5457]

Hello, much probably my job won't be research in theoretical physics, but that's what I'd like to do. I'll get out of university with a master's degree in some area of physics.

Is it possible to do research even if that's not my job? Does anybody do this?

 

[fss]

You probably won't have time or energy.

 

[Nabeshin]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Nope.

 

[Dadface]

Of course it's possible.

 

[chiro]

Hello, much probably my job won't be research in theoretical physics, but that's what I'd like to do. I'll get out of university with a master's degree in some area of physics.

Is it possible to do research even if that's not my job? Does anybody do this?

I remember a while ago there was a guy (a web developer) who eventually got some research published that he was doing on black holes. I'll see if I can dig it up. Here it is:

http://www.physorg.com/news73573958.html

From the sounds of it, it sounds like he has the same kind of background as yourself.

So there's at least one example of it being done!

 

[DrummingAtom]

Here's another example.

http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com

 

[Vanadium 50]

So there's at least one example of it being done!

And in five years, that paper has gotten exactly zero citations.

 

[daveb]

So the entire purpose of research is to be cited? Not to discover?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm not sure what a theorist "discovers". But in any event, if this work was something that the rest of the community found useful, there would be citations. There aren't.

 

[ZapperZ]

I think what some people are trying to convey here, and what some others just don't get, is that there is a difference between what is "interesting" versus what is "important". Some things may be interesting (to some people), but is it important?

Knowing what is important requires not only a tremendous amount of knowledge, especially in a particular field of study, but also knowing the state of knowledge at that given time, what others are talking and discussing, the topics that are being published, the news on a given topic or discussion, etc.. etc. One needs to interact with others in the field, attend conferences, do a lot of survey of publications, pay attention to relevant experimental results, keeping an eyes on the news, etc. All of these play a role in someone figuring out if something is important, rather than just merely interesting. You don't get this simply by being good in a particular subject.

There is also a frequent misunderstanding, at least in this forum, of what a "theorist" is. I often see people, especially those who don't know how the world of physics works, thinking that "theoretical physics" is string theory, high energy physics, elementary particle, etc.. etc. This is a severely wrong view of physics, and physicists. Robert Laughlin and Phil Anderson are two theorists who have won Nobel Prizes in physics. They are condensed matter theorists! In other words, they study about materials properties! There are also theorists in optics, atomic physics, accelerator physics, detector physics, etc.. etc. I mention this because theorists in many of these fields have to be extremely aware of results coming out of experiments. Unlike string theory, these other fields of study can be directly accessed and tested via experiments, and more often than not, there are surprising and unexpected results that come out of experiments. If you are a theorist and you are not up to speed on the latest results, you get left behind VERY quickly. This is especially true in the field of superconductivity and other strongly-correlated electron systems.

So if one wants to pursue "theoretical physics investigation", one has to figure out if what one is doing is not only new and original, but also if it is even important. Publishing something 5 years ago, and with ZERO citation, implies that what you did was irrelevant to the body of knowledge! The one skill that separates a practicing physicist versus an amateur physicist is that ability to get a sense on what is important, and not just merely "interesting".

Zz.

 

[Visceral]

I'm not sure what a theorist "discovers". But in any event, if this work was something that the rest of the community found useful, there would be citations. There aren't.

That doesn't matter. The OP asked if it were possible to pursue theoretical physics investigation if that's not his job, and two posters provided examples of people that had done so.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you want to argue, "yes, here's an example of someone who have done this, just not successfully" I guess you can. I kind of assumed that the OP was interested in pursuing theoretical physics successfully, not just doing it.

 

[Dadface]

If you want to argue, "yes, here's an example of someone who have done this, just not successfully" I guess you can. I kind of assumed that the OP was interested in pursuing theoretical physics successfully, not just doing it.

I suppose that depends what is meant by succesfully.Some people practise a subject as a hobby,because they find it interesting and fun.

 

[Tosh5457]

Thanks for the answers. When I meant to pursue theoretical physics investigation I really meant sucessfully, not just as a hobby.

Knowing what is important requires not only a tremendous amount of knowledge, especially in a particular field of study, but also knowing the state of knowledge at that given time, what others are talking and discussing, the topics that are being published, the news on a given topic or discussion, etc.. etc. One needs to interact with others in the field, attend conferences, do a lot of survey of publications, pay attention to relevant experimental results, keeping an eyes on the news, etc.

And what does one need to do that? I guess you need to work on an university or have a job related to the area of physics you wish to do research on, in order to go to conferences, have discussions with other physicists, etc, right?

Then I don't see how not doing theoretical physics as full-time could make someone a sucessful theoretical physicist. I couldn't work 6-8 hours a day and still go do research on physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks for the answers. When I meant to pursue theoretical physics investigation I really meant sucessfully, not just as a hobby.



And what does one need to do that? I guess you need to work on an university or have a job related to the area of physics you wish to do research on, in order to go to conferences, have discussions with other physicists, etc, right?

Then I don't see how not doing theoretical physics as full-time could make someone a sucessful theoretical physicist. I couldn't work 6-8 hours a day and still go do research on physics.

That is why there aren't a lot (any?) "successful" amateur theorists. For that matter, there aren't many successful amateur physicists in general. I certainly don't know of any.

Like many professions, being a professional in some field doesn't JUST mean knowing the "content". There are a huge amount of intangibles that's involved. In my "So You Want To Be A Physicist" essay, I've tried to convey many aspects of the process of being a physicist that isn't covered in textbooks and in the school's graduate curriculum. There are huge amount of things one should do that doesn't count towards one's grades in class, yet, these are some of the most important factor in not only getting a job, but also in being a successful physicists. The profession should NOT be trivialized into nothing more than just grinding out equations.

Zz.

 

[chiro]

And in five years, that paper has gotten exactly zero citations.

So what are you implying? That only good researchers get cited? What about people outside academia that use ideas to build new things that don't publish in public journals?

What about the people that 20 to 50 years from now rediscover something that the older generation thought wasn't "important" only to find out that it had been suggested before?

It sounds like a kind of social insecurity that in order to for your research to have value, that other people have to cite your work.

You should know that you can't predict how things will be used in the future no matter if its a year, five years, twenty years, maybe even a hundred years from now.

 

[twofish-quant]

Is it possible to do research even if that's not my job? Does anybody do this?

The problem is time, money, and social networks. If you have someone willing to pay you money then yes it's possible, but then if they pay you money then it's your job.

My current plan is to make a ton of cash, then spend the rest of my life doing astrophysical simulations.

 

[twofish-quant]

That is why there aren't a lot (any?) "successful" amateur theorists. For that matter, there aren't many successful amateur physicists in general. I certainly don't know of any.

Great. I'll be the first (seriously).

One curious thing is that there aren't any successful amateur condensed matters physicists that I know of, but I know of a ton of successful amateur astronomers and they are critical for getting data.

 

[twofish-quant]

I couldn't work 6-8 hours a day and still go do research on physics.

I could work 6-8 hours a day and still do research on physics. The trouble is that my job requires me to work 12 hours a day. Once you add in family matters, then no energy left.

Also, it's possible. Albert Einstein managed to do it, and one reason he managed to do it is that he had a government job that took eight hours a day.

Also rather than asking "is it possible?" I find it more useful to ask "what are the barriers?" The only real barrier that I can see is time and money, but those are non-trivial ones. One problem is that there are apparently no high technology jobs which allow you to work half time (and yes I've looked).

 

[twofish-quant]

So what are you implying? That only good researchers get cited? What about people outside academia that use ideas to build new things that don't publish in public journals?

Also, you can fix the problem of citations. One thing that people do is to cite each others papers, but that involves going to conferences and meeting people.

The problem with a lack of citations is that it means that you aren't "networked" in. Even if people think your paper is rubbish, if they cite it that means that you are connected with the community enough so that someone is willing to reference your paper and call you an idiot. If some one things that your ideas are important enough so that they will mention them to talk about how bad they are, you've won.

So it's a symptom of a problem.

It sounds like a kind of social insecurity that in order to for your research to have value, that other people have to cite your work.

But it's true. What's the point of discovering something if no one knows about it? Also, even if it is a good idea, what will likely happen if no one else knows about it is that someone will come up with the exact same idea, and they'll get credit for it.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also, if you really want to even try to be an amateur physicist, it's essential that you get your Ph.D. Getting a Ph.D. means that you've successful done research once in your life, and people will take you a lot more seriously if you have a doctorate.

I'd like to be an amateur theoretical physicist. I'm not one, but I know what the barriers are, and I have a plan to get around them.

 

[chiro]

But it's true. What's the point of discovering something if no one knows about it? Also, even if it is a good idea, what will likely happen if no one else knows about it is that someone will come up with the exact same idea, and they'll get credit for it.

But this happens anyway, regardless of citations.

Many people rediscover things that other people in the past have discovered already. I don't think journals or any other popular medium for science are going to fix this completely.

To me it seems more like a political or social exercise in using citations as a measure of research success. I do believe in crediting other people if you consciously know about other sources and have used them, but the truth is that there is so much out there (ideas, experimental results, conjectures, and so on) that citing everything is really a tough thing to do, and even the most ethical person can forget to credit an idea they read 10 years ago.

There's plenty of history out there that shows people stealing ideas of others, even if they are well known by others "in the know" (like a respective community), and citations aren't going to fix that aspect of human behavior.

 

[twofish-quant]

To me it seems more like a political or social exercise in using citations as a measure of research success.

It is. But science is a political and social process for finding truth.

Getting back to the topic at hand. If you really want to try to be an amateur physicist, then you absolutely have to get a Ph.D. because you will have worked in the sausage factory to know how things work.

Number of citations is the standard criterion for indicated research success and in the case of theoretical astrophysics, I think it's a good criterion.

I do believe in crediting other people if you consciously know about other sources and have used them, but the truth is that there is so much out there (ideas, experimental results, conjectures, and so on) that citing everything is really a tough thing to do, and even the most ethical person can forget to credit an idea they read 10 years ago.

If you read it ten years ago, then it's likely to be general knowledge and not worth citing anyway. Also, it's so trivially easy to cite someone that if you don't *receive* any citations that's a bad sign. It means that no one knows about your work.

There's plenty of history out there that shows people stealing ideas of others, even if they are well known by others "in the know" (like a respective community), and citations aren't going to fix that aspect of human behavior.

Except that in theoretical physics, there is no real incentive to not provide credit. If you are "in the loop" then everyone knows everyone else and what everyone is working on. There are probably about twenty or so active researchers in my dissertation topic, and everyone knows everyone else (and cites each other papers).

Also, you look "smarter" if you can say "yes I've read a lot of books." A paper with two citations isn't going to be taken seriously, so writing a paper in which the reference section has fifty references is pretty important to get credibility.

What's one reason it takes a lot of time to write a paper. At some point you have to go through and get all of the references right, and that sort of thing takes time.

 

[chiro]

I do get what you're saying and I agree with it, but I don't like it. One thing is that for a lot of us, people behave differently when they are in relative isolation to their peers and when they are around their peers. Social dynamics change people both for the good and for the worse.

But your comments were insightful and educational two-fish and I thank you for them.

 

[twofish-quant]

One thing is that for a lot of us, people behave differently when they are in relative isolation to their peers and when they are around their peers.

If you want to do real science you simply cannot be socially isolated. Science is a highly social process, and the lone scientist just cannot get anything done. The other thing is that in science, you'll find that people quickly form "cliques" so it's not hard to get hooked up with some group that provides social support for what you are doing.

I figure that about the time I decide to "cash out" of Wall Street, that they'll be a lot of people doing the same thing, so we'll all get together co-author papers, write each others recommendations, cite each other's work, and meet each other at conferences.

One reason I think that things will make it easier for "amateur scientists" is that the internet makes it easier to do social networking. For example, as far as I can tell, someone that got their Ph.D. in 1972 just "faded away" whereas you and I are still talking.

Social dynamics change people both for the good and for the worse.

Sure, that's why it's important to understand them.

 

[chiro]

If you want to do real science you simply cannot be socially isolated. Science is a highly social process, and the lone scientist just cannot get anything done. The other thing is that in science, you'll find that people quickly form "cliques" so it's not hard to get hooked up with some group that provides social support for what you are doing.

I agree with that. Given the kind of projects people work on nowadays, it's impossible for anyone to really achieve anything complex in isolation and I know that from past projects so no arguments there.

I think the most important thing is this tool called the internet because it allows everyone to have an opinion and (for the most part) be judged purely on the merits of the opinion and not on some fuzzy social indicator. It doesn't eliminate this (and I never expect this to go away purely because of social dynamics), but it allows people to have their say, even if its wrong and whacky, or right.

The way I see science heading is that because of things like the internet, your theory group of 200 people will explode purely do the fact that people now have the ability to access this kind of information that they never had before, and jump on the chance to get involved.

On top of this, I can picture a kind of "blog" or "forum" style way that science (mainstream) will go. The internet was invented for this kind of purpose anyway (I think by CERN).

The reason I think this will happen is because of a few reasons.

The first is that I see this kind of thing happening already (like on these forums), but its done for "informal" purposes and not for publishing finished papers or results. Its like the precursor for doing this is already in existence.

The second is based on a criteria of creating a model of optimal communication. Open forums like this allow all kinds of people to join, to ask questions, to give advice, and so on, and the ability to get answers for very complex problems or problems that are very specialized and narrow in scope actually have a chance of being answered in this type of environment. The flow of information is phenomenal and things get answered way faster than they used to.

The only problem I see with this is what most people would call "Quality Control", and this is obviously why we still use journals and so on, because we believe that by using certain protocols and placing restrictions on who can publish and what they can publish, then quality control remains at a good level.

I guess one example of this issue can be found right here at PF: it's the independent research forum and I'm sure many people know about it as well as its closure and the reasons behind that.

Getting back to the question at hand, what's the point of the above?

The first is that for the first time in history, we have access to so much information that was once restricted to institutions like universities. We have access to others opinions and we can interact with other people and judge people based on what they have to offer and not because of what we think we should believe about them.

As a result of the above, the fact that we have access to so much information means that people now can do research "by themselves" because they have access to resources that make this possible. People post research problems on forums and many get good answers or at least suggestions for finding one. So the "lone researcher" of today is armed with more tools at their disposal than they were half a century ago. If the lone researcher has demonstrated that they have the capability to do research (as by evidenced from a say a bachelors and a masters or similar in a respective field), then I don't see too many barriers with the resources available to them.

I don't think we will ever get of social dynamics any time soon (and I don't want that), but things like for example this forum, are a good example of what I'm getting at: Information is made public, we can all engage in discussion and debate (this kind of thing just did not happen even a short time ago), and through the interface of a computer, it is the message that is analyzed and not the person.

When you are in a room with people, things like feelings of intimidation and belonging are more pronounced in a physical setting. People are more confident to ask questions and voice their views on a forum than they would be in a social setting. This has its bad side, but it also has its good because people tend to speak their mind and if they are open minded or mature enough they will learn where they might otherwise not have learned in a physical setting. I'm sure you can find many people that feel this kind of thing in the physical classroom (and I have been one of them at times myself).

 

[twofish-quant]

I think the most important thing is this tool called the internet because it allows everyone to have an opinion and (for the most part) be judged purely on the merits of the opinion and not on some fuzzy social indicator.

I don't think so. The internet has it's own set of social dynamics. You can put up a web page, but will anyone read it.

The problem with the internet is too much information. Also, you can send an e-mail to anyone but the important thing is whether or not they will write back. Finally, a lot of the information is there, but raw information is rather useless.

The way I see science heading is that because of things like the internet, your theory group of 200 people will explode purely do the fact that people now have the ability to access this kind of information that they never had before, and jump on the chance to get involved.

Which is a problem since

1) I'm human and I can have deep social relationships with at most a dozen or so people

2) I want to keep some people out of the group. If you want to prove that the universe is 6000 years old, that's fine, but talking with you is a waste of my time.

On top of this, I can picture a kind of "blog" or "forum" style way that science (mainstream) will go. The internet was invented for this kind of purpose anyway (I think by CERN).

Blogs and forums don't work well for scientific collaboration. Too much noise and not enough signal.

What does work are private e-mail, websites, and face-to-face meetings at conferences. There are some things that need to be said face-to-face.

The first is that I see this kind of thing happening already (like on these forums), but its done for "informal" purposes and not for publishing finished papers or results. Its like the precursor for doing this is already in existence.

Personally, I think that there is no need for any new technology to publish finished papers. You can submit a preprint to Los Alamos, and if the article passes peer review it goes into http://adswww.harvard.edu/. Everything is done electronically nowadays. This is not a problem in astrophysics.

It *is* a problem in other fields, where the publishers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their monopoly. There have been huge battles over PLoS.

The part that is missing is the social infrastructure that you need before the paper gets made.

The only problem I see with this is what most people would call "Quality Control", and this is obviously why we still use journals and so on, because we believe that by using certain protocols and placing restrictions on who can publish and what they can publish, then quality control remains at a good level.

Curiously journals don't play much of a role in quality control in astrophysics. Except for some very rare situations, everything is published on the Los Alamos Preprints database months before it goes into a journal. The main purpose of journals in astrophysics is not so much quality control as "scorekeeping" and "archiving."

The other thing is that different fields have radically different standards and cultures for publication. I happen to think that the journal system works in astrophysics. I think it is deadly broken in economics. One reason is that the peer reviewers in astrophysics don't do very heavy QC. As long as you aren't claiming something really stupid, you are likely to get it published in Ap.J. In economics, there is so much filtering, that really does kill academic inquiry.

The first is that for the first time in history, we have access to so much information that was once restricted to institutions like universities.

First of all, we don't.

Astrophysics is good because the journals are owned by the professional societies, and so they aren't trying to make money from them. This is very different from other fields were the journals are owned by commercial publishers who are trying like hell to restrict access.

Also, the fact that I can't get electronic copies of journals outside of astrophysics or electronic copies of books is a major problem. I can buy stuff from amazon, but one thing that I can't do is to browse the library and find something "interesting."

Second, too much information is as much of a problem as too little information.

Something that would be really useful for me is for someone or some machine to monitor the Los Alamos Preprint archive and e-mail me whenever something "interesting" appears. But that takes a lot of time, and no one is doing it.

We have access to others opinions and we can interact with other people and judge people based on what they have to offer and not because of what we think we should believe about them.

Actually we don't. First of all, a lot of the *really, important* information is stuff that people aren't just going to post on the internet. I'll tell my wife what I really think about my boss, but I'm not posting that information in public. Second, people tend to polarize themselves in online cliques which can actually reinforce stereotypes.

As a result of the above, the fact that we have access to so much information means that people now can do research "by themselves" because they have access to resources that make this possible.

But we really don't. We have the illusion of knowledge which can be more dangerous than not having knowledge. For example, one thing that I've found on the internet is that you really have a few stories that get repeated and which drowns out alternative views. Also, some of the important information requires you learn a different language.

Also, you need knowledge to do research. I can give you the latest papers on neutrino difusion, but unless you know a lot about neutrino diffusion it's pretty useless to you.

People post research problems on forums and many get good answers or at least suggestions for finding one.

But that's at the undergraduate level. Things are very different when you are doing professional research.

If the lone researcher has demonstrated that they have the capability to do research (as by evidenced from a say a bachelors and a masters or similar in a respective field)

I don't think a masters demonstrates that you can do research.

then I don't see too many barriers with the resources available to them.

Time and money. It takes time to read Los Alamos and write papers. I get home after working for 12 hours on what they pay me to work on, I got to help the kids with the homework. I'm too dead tired to do anything else.

Also there are social network issues.

The funny thing is that a lot depends on the way that the jobs are structured. If I could work for six hours/day and get paid half as much, then it would work, but things don't work that way.

Information is made public, we can all engage in discussion and debate (this kind of thing just did not happen even a short time ago), and through the interface of a computer, it is the message that is analyzed and not the person.

Important information is not public (note for example, you have no idea who I am, and where I work).

The fact that it's the message and not the person can be a *bad* thing. For example, if I get a message saying "We're in trouble, please wire US$1000 to this account, now." That makes a big difference if it comes from my wife or someone that I've never met.

When you are in a room with people, things like feelings of intimidation and belonging are more pronounced in a physical setting. People are more confident to ask questions and voice their views on a forum than they would be in a social setting.

Depends on which people. Part of good social dynamics is to find a group of people you feel comfortable talking to. Also, a lot of science happens in conference rooms were you have a bunch of old friends talking over some idea.

This has its bad side, but it also has its good because people tend to speak their mind and if they are open minded or mature enough they will learn where they might otherwise not have learned in a physical setting.

It can be the opposite. For example, if I'm giving a presentation, I want to make sure that everything that I say is fact-checked because I'll look like an idiot if I'm wrong. If I'm in a hotel bar in a conference, I can be more open, because if I say something stupid, two slightly intoxicated people hear me, rather than 2000.

What do you do if people are closed minded and immature?

Also sometimes people ***should*** shut up.

I'm sure you can find many people that feel this kind of thing in the physical classroom (and I have been one of them at times myself).

Who said anything about a classroom?

 

[chiro]

The problem with the internet is too much information. Also, you can send an e-mail to anyone but the important thing is whether or not they will write back. Finally, a lot of the information is there, but raw information is rather useless.

I agree but people soon figure out ways to make sense of it in some way.

Which is a problem since

1) I'm human and I can have deep social relationships with at most a dozen or so people

2) I want to keep some people out of the group. If you want to prove that the universe is 6000 years old, that's fine, but talking with you is a waste of my time.

I'm not the kind of person who adds everyone to facebook either (in fact I don't even use facebook) and for the most part I keep completely to myself. I don't really consider the online world as a relationship personally. It could be due to the fact that I have Aspbergers Syndrome, but that's just how I am.

With part 2 I know what you are getting at, but if someone wants to make a point and they are brief enough, I'll consider what they have to say. It is a risk in that you could have spent half an hour of precious time (anyone's time is precious in my opinion) and gone away thinking "why did I waste...", but then out of pure surprise you might have even taken away a nugget of truth or an idea even if it is hidden behind a sea of ideas that are complete rubbish.

My criteria is that if the poster gets to the point quickly, I will read it and take the risk of wasting 20 seconds of time.

Granted that I don't have things like girlfriends, children, and all of those other responsibilities that many of you have, but I have consciously made that decision to have more time for myself and for those of you who have those other commitments I do understand where you are coming from.

Blogs and forums don't work well for scientific collaboration. Too much noise and not enough signal.

I think that even if the medium was moderated and only certain people could contribute, the fact that this kind of thing is at least open to the public would provide a good source of learning for aspiring scientists and also for the general public.

Now I know that this is a bit "utopian" and I get that there are reasons why people communicate in private (and the fact that in this example I've gone from open forum to moderated forum), but I do think there is the potential for benefits for forum based science (even if you place restrictions like moderation and so on).

What does work are private e-mail, websites, and face-to-face meetings at conferences. There are some things that need to be said face-to-face.

You will never eliminate social contact completely, its a fact that people still want to be around other people (most of us anyway).

But the idea of having things online whether its a transcript of a conversation, or a conversation in development between two scientists, or even blog postings and they're responses (like say in Terry Tao's blog), can be a great tool for students and the general public alike.

The idea that this data is captured, stored, and made available for every generation to come has huge implications both positive and negative. Things like privacy (which you talk about below) are very important issues and some information needs to be kept private. But as long as people are aware and happy that what they post stays on the internet forever (I'm sure most people are aware of this), then there should be no problem.

Sometimes there are benefits when data is captured and stored forever. It can be misused for bad or used for good: like any other technology.

Personally, I think that there is no need for any new technology to publish finished papers. You can submit a preprint to Los Alamos, and if the article passes peer review it goes into http://adswww.harvard.edu/. Everything is done electronically nowadays. This is not a problem in astrophysics.

I know nothing about astrophysics, so nothing to say there.

It *is* a problem in other fields, where the publishers are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their monopoly. There have been huge battles over PLoS.

I agree, and I am interested in where the future will take us. Look at what has happened with the music and movie industries. Thanks to things like youtube, anyone can create and distribute content for next to nothing.

Its a game changer and people involved in these industries have to figure out how to adapt to the new environment.

This is one reason why I brought this up, because I can see analogues like the above happen with science as well.

The part that is missing is the social infrastructure that you need before the paper gets made.

Like you said, there will always be social dynamics.

Curiously journals don't play much of a role in quality control in astrophysics. Except for some very rare situations, everything is published on the Los Alamos Preprints database months before it goes into a journal. The main purpose of journals in astrophysics is not so much quality control as "scorekeeping" and "archiving."

I thought one of the goals of journals is to maintain some standard so that readers and contributors can expect whatever standard and context the editors and so on set.

If I haven't made this clear from the above statements, one of the key things I'm trying to illustrate with the forum model is the idea that data relating to scientific inquiry is captured and made open to the public. So from this you get things like stored text conversations in forums, as well as papers, blogs and responses and so on.

Also, the fact that I can't get electronic copies of journals outside of astrophysics or electronic copies of books is a major problem. I can buy stuff from amazon, but one thing that I can't do is to browse the library and find something "interesting."

I think this will change and the reason is to do with the fact that other people will share your frustration and make a solution.

Also with the amount of people scanning old books and sharing these, it's absolutely amazing what digital content is out there especially when you look at the amount of digital content that is not a scan of a physical book (the original pdf or other data source).

Second, too much information is as much of a problem as too little information.

Solutions will address this problem, and this is an active area of applied research. I have no doubt in this because there are already a lot of algorithms, solutions, and platforms out there that do this.

Something that would be really useful for me is for someone or some machine to monitor the Los Alamos Preprint archive and e-mail me whenever something "interesting" appears. But that takes a lot of time, and no one is doing it.

I guess the first thing to do is define "interesting", but if you did, you could write an app to parse html output for your criteria. Maybe have your app in the background to refresh the site a few times a day.

Actually we don't. First of all, a lot of the *really, important* information is stuff that people aren't just going to post on the internet. I'll tell my wife what I really think about my boss, but I'm not posting that information in public. Second, people tend to polarize themselves in online cliques which can actually reinforce stereotypes.

That is an important point. Companies don't want others to get information that gives them a competitive advantage or to get information that may "embarrass" them or other related reasons.

Funnily enough it is amazing how things like Wikileaks for example have filled (or at least perceived to have filled) a void where some information is made public, despite what interested parties to that information wanted.

With regard to the wife comment, a lot of people are learning the hard way to have a division between stuff that you do say on the internet, and stuff that you "should not say" on the internet.

Facebook, and its users are seeming to create an environment where everything is public and unfortunately I don't think a lot of their members (as in young members still in high school) really understand what they are doing.

But we really don't. We have the illusion of knowledge which can be more dangerous than not having knowledge. For example, one thing that I've found on the internet is that you really have a few stories that get repeated and which drowns out alternative views. Also, some of the important information requires you learn a different language.

Everything is a mixture of truth and fiction. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Now I study mathematics and not a physical (or otherwise) science like say chemistry, biology, physics, computer science, economics and so on, so having said this I don't have the trouble of having to verify every result that is made: it is much easier with math because the axioms, or assumptions are stated, and then the appropriate transformations and decompositions are listed with reason.

It doesn't mean that math papers are easy to follow or completely unambiguous, but the fact that we don't have to check the physical world for results makes it a hell of a lot easier than the naturals scientists have to deal with.

Its actually the reason why I chose not to do physics is because you need to check the data physically and you have to be very meticulous about checking and analyzing it. With math you need to be meticulous about going from assumption to end of argument but you don't have to spend hours and hours constructing physical experiments.

But that's at the undergraduate level. Things are very different when you are doing professional research.

There are places like mathoverflow.net

I don't think a masters demonstrates that you can do research.

I think that depends on the Masters course.

Important information is not public (note for example, you have no idea who I am, and where I work).

I'm not advocating that this kind of thing should change.

The fact that it's the message and not the person can be a *bad* thing. For example, if I get a message saying "We're in trouble, please wire US$1000 to this account, now." That makes a big difference if it comes from my wife or someone that I've never met.

There are ways to deal with this, both using technology and common sense.

Depends on which people. Part of good social dynamics is to find a group of people you feel comfortable talking to. Also, a lot of science happens in conference rooms were you have a bunch of old friends talking over some idea.

Again having Aspbergers, I just don't think the way others do about social interaction.

What do you do if people are closed minded and immature?
Also sometimes people ***should*** shut up.

You get this everywhere, whether online or in the real world.

I was reading through this forum and I came across the user Philosopher_K (you actually answered a lot of this posts in the past).

Anyway I'm sure the above fits the description you set out.

There are ways of dealing with this kind of thing. A bit of extra coding could ensure that you only get posts from a group of members, or that you never get new posts from a group of members.

In real life we do the same sort of things with our mobile and land line telephones.

Who said anything about a classroom?

I was just using that as an example of a social situation where intimidation and other things can occur. It's not restricted to that example by any means.

 

[daveb]

Even though he was a mathematician, Ramanujan managed to do independent research. Just realize it's difficult, and as has been said, requires a lot of time and money, as well as someone to "bounce" your ideas off.

 

[twofish-quant]

But the idea of having things online whether its a transcript of a conversation, or a conversation in development between two scientists, or even blog postings and they're responses (like say in Terry Tao's blog), can be a great tool for students and the general public alike.

It can be, but there are a lot of times that you just don't want everyone to know what you think.

I thought one of the goals of journals is to maintain some standard so that readers and contributors can expect whatever standard and context the editors and so on set.

It works very differently in different fields. In astrophysics, the major journals do not consider themselves gatekeepers, and so anything that isn't obviously stupid will get published eventually. The main place where standards are set are at the start of the process when people review grant proposals and telescope allocations proposals.

If I haven't made this clear from the above statements, one of the key things I'm trying to illustrate with the forum model is the idea that data relating to scientific inquiry is captured and made open to the public. So from this you get things like stored text conversations in forums, as well as papers, blogs and responses and so on.

It's actually not. People tend to be somewhat protective of raw scientific data, and even when it is made available, it usually takes months of not years of work to be able to do something useful with it.

I guess the first thing to do is define "interesting", but if you did, you could write an app to parse html output for your criteria. Maybe have your app in the background to refresh the site a few times a day.

I can't define interesting since I don't know what interesting is until I see it. This is where there is no replacement for human contact.

 

[Vanadium 50]

With part 2 I know what you are getting at, but if someone wants to make a point and they are brief enough, I'll consider what they have to say. It is a risk in that you could have spent half an hour of precious time (anyone's time is precious in my opinion) and gone away thinking "why did I waste...", but then out of pure surprise you might have even taken away a nugget of truth or an idea even if it is hidden behind a sea of ideas that are complete rubbish.

There were 85 papers posted to the arXiv today in hep-ex, hep-th and hep-ph. If you spend a half-hour with each one, you've violated unitarity.

This points out another problem for part-timers. Just keeping up with the field takes a lot of time. Making your own contribution is on top of that.