Is It Too Late for a 28-Year-Old to Make Revolutionary Contributions in Physics?

[ameyesee]

I just finished up Lee Smolin's 2005 book "The Trouble with Physics."

In it he talks about two types of scientists namely the

A. Master Craftmen
The majority of scientists who are very technically proficient and work on expanding previously established ideas.

B. Seers
A much smaller number of scientists who reject widely held beliefs within the community and go off in their own direction these people usually are the ones who come up with revolutionary theories. However, there avenues of research are much riskier. They also usually like to work alone and are interested in the philosophical implications of their work.

As a subversive type in general my temperament agrees much more with type-B. However, I don't really know if I am good enough to be any type of physicist never mind the type I aspire to.

I am nearing 28 and still haven't learned any physics beyond Freshman level yet and certainly don't know near enough about the theories I want to work into develop any deep doubts about them. I have no idea how to proceed.

My academic background is anything but prestigious but I have always been an intelligent and creative thinker, arriving at insights for example in fields like philosophy that parallel the thoughts of the widely considered "great thinkers" without any real input from their work. Thus far I've never really devoted myself to a topic as difficult as physics deeply enough to know whether or not my style of thinking will be able to produce insights once my fundamental knowledge is solid enough.

I kind of want to ask the typical "should I even bother" question but deep down I don't really care if I should bother because I want to bother even if I don't succeed. How naive am I come into physics with a hope that I could impart any idea that would even attempt to disrupt what is currently held dear? At 28 am I far too old to be the sort of person who has a great insight? There were some early sociological and psychological factors that inhibited me from taking the sort of that path that most good scientists take. I did very poor in high school because of my need to rebel against society. I continued with troubles in college because of a crippling fear of failure and depression. I'm not entirely over these but am making steps in the right direction.

 

[General_Sax]

My academic background is anything but prestigious but I have always been an intelligent and creative thinker, arriving at insights for example in fields like philosophy that parallel the thoughts of the widely considered "great thinkers" without any real input from their work.

It reads like you're trying convince yourself that you're intelligent. Don't worry about. If you do take another shot at school, then just do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

How naive am I come into physics with a hope that I could impart any idea that would even attempt to disrupt what is currently held dear?

I don't think it's naive to hope for anything. However, to expect the extremely unlikely is just stupid.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, 28 is not too late.

Second, I disagree with Smolin. Most successful "seers" are also, if not "master crasftsmen", then "pretty doggone good craftsmen". Most aren't successful, and sadly many become crackpots.

Third, if your reason to go into science is to have a "great insight", don't. That's like making a financial plan based on winning the lottery. Scientific progress is made tortoise-like, not hare-like. Additionally, in the glitzy fields of particle physics or cosmology, the problem is not a deficit of ideas - it's a deficit of data. Finally, you will not become famous for doing this.

 

[ameyesee]

It reads like you're trying convince yourself that you're intelligent. Don't worry about. If you do take another shot at school, then just do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

It is true I wish I could now a priori if I am "intelligent enough" to become a good physicist. It may be impossible to do so. Unfortunately, for my or worse my self-worth has become wrapped up in this which leads to my fear of failure. If I try as hard as I can in physics and don't succeed it would be a very sad day for me.

I don't think it's naive to hope for anything. However, to expect the extremely unlikely is just stupid.

Of course, but what is the line between hope and expectation? If I don't expect there is a chance I could do something highly unlikely like formulate a new theory then the chance goes to zero? I'm not sure how to resolve this.

 

[ameyesee]

First, 28 is not too late.

This is good to know, from my research it seem that almost all really successful physicists have taken the traditional path. I guess it may just reflect that very few people actually follow up on plans to "go back to school."

Second, I disagree with Smolin. Most successful "seers" are also, if not "master crasftsmen", then "pretty doggone good craftsmen". Most aren't successful, and sadly many become crackpots.

Smolin is careful to point out that seers need to be technically proficient to at least a base level.

Third, if your reason to go into science is to have a "great insight", don't. That's like making a financial plan based on winning the lottery. Scientific progress is made tortoise-like, not hare-like. Additionally, in the glitzy fields of particle physics or cosmology, the problem is not a deficit of ideas - it's a deficit of data. Finally, you will not become famous for doing this.

I don't really know what I mean by "great insight" frankly it may be isomorphic with "any insight at all."

My views how the fields I find interesting work may not be mature enough now to know which areas I think I could contribute in.

For example, I don't really like working with my hands but at the same time I have a strong streak against purely mathematical arguments as I see mathematics as a tool without much predictive power into how the universe must be- ei. the beauty of theory has no bearing on its truth.This seem to rule out the role of experimenter or theorist for me unless I am mistaken?

The type of thinking I think I am good is the ability to look at empirical data and post-facto construct correlation and meaning from it and perhaps wield those results in building or correcting models. What kind of science is this called? Observational?

I used to think it was just called "science" but then I found out that at least in physics highly theoretical. work is nearly pure mathematics and highly experimental work is nearly pure engineering. Are there people who live at the interface of the two? I see either side without the other as nearly entirely useless.

 

[ameyesee]

To expand on my philosophy of the relation of theory and experiment let me put in in parody of the famous Einstein quote that goes something like

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science dumb."

I disagree with the above quote but it is a useful structure, I would say

"Experiment without theory is dumb, but theory without experiment isn't science"

 

[hitmeoff]

It is true I wish I could now a priori if I am "intelligent enough" to become a good physicist. It may be impossible to do so. Unfortunately, for my or worse my self-worth has become wrapped up in this which leads to my fear of failure. If I try as hard as I can in physics and don't succeed it would be a very sad day for me.

I found out that its not a question about being intelligent enough, but rather "am I willing to work hard enough."

True story. I myself am 32 and went BACK to school (after getting a BA in a completely different field @ age 24) when I was 29. I always found math and physics to be easy at the fresh/soph level, so I had a pretty big head about it.

At one point though, when I started najor level classes, I realized that I didn't get the material as easily as I thought I would. I began to question my ability and you can almost say I purposely gave a **** effort in my third year so that I could say to myself "Yeah, I did garbagety in those classes, but only because I didn't really try." Then, my ego would be protected because I still had no idea what my ability would be if I did try.

So long story still kinda long, I damn near got myself kicked out of school and then I had no choice but to try hard and face the reality. So I tried hard, and **** wasn't easy at all. Even with a solid effort I still managed to only get a B+ in Number Theory over the summer. Right now I am taking Abstract Algebra, Analysis, junior level Mechanics and Observational astro. I'v never worked this hard in my life. I do have 2 A's thus far going into finals. I got one B, and possible a C. Not getting straight A's despite my effort hurts. I can't fall back on excuses either. I've worked for it this quarter.

But I also realize that perhaps there was more that I could do. This may be the hardest I've ever worked, but it's still not the most I could possibly do. I could: go to more office hours instead of just emailing professors, manage my time better so I don't find myself completing assignments just before they are due, study more effectively, etc...

You can always do more, you can always work harder. Listen, I'm older than you, I am married and have a kid in high school. If I say you could always work harder, believe me you can always work harder.

If you do put your all into this, there should be no reason why you can't succeed. It's certainly not a matter of whether you are or are not smart enough. It's simply a matter of how much you are willing to apply yourself.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but then I found out that at least in physics highly theoretical. work is nearly pure mathematics and highly experimental work is nearly pure engineering.

That's just not true.

 

[ameyesee]

That's just not true.

It seems to be true to at least to some very low order approximation. I realize the truth is much more nuanced, I'm interested to hear on the kind of science I stated I think I'd liking doing and what fields that might map to in the real world.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I know someone who started a B.Sc. in physics in his thirties, then did a Master's, then got a job in a private high-tech company before he was forty. He had nothing of a standard scientific background, except maybe auto mechanics. Don't worry about what "type" of scientist you want to be, just do what you enjoy the most.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Sorry, everyone. It was a troll.