Is my view of Theoretical physics romanticized?

[Philosopher_k]

Hey guys. I am a final year high school student and have lately been researching a career in Mathematics/Theoretical physics. Most recently i have come to the conclusion that:
1. I am not as gifted in mathematics as i thought
2. I do not enjoy PURE mathematics as much as i once believed i did.

I had this view that mathematicians sat around and had massive eureka moments (like Archimedes), solving problems such as fermats last theorem, or Poincare’s conjecture with flashes of genius. Yet when i look at the actual proofs just noted, i am struck by just how different my perceptions are. For example Wiles' proof is something like 150 pages long and filled with long definition/lemma/proof style formatting. It isn't that the ideas are not clever of right, its just that in the end i don't really care that much about ricci flow or modular forms as much as i thought i would. A modular form is not some abstract idea that exists wether we care or not, it is a definition which we have formed so as to define more objects. Disagree all you want, i have come to disagree with even plato.

With my love of mathematics corrupted i quickly turned to theoretical physics. After all what could be cooler than discovering a theory about dimensions, tiny strings, other universes or time itself. So once again i began to research the field of mathematical/theoretical physics, only to find that once again i was misled. The field was all about Gauges, Metric spaces and Eigenvectors, whatsmore the questions were not as philosophical as i enjoyed, no answers to the mystery’s of time or how the universe came into being, more about how abstract mathematics was perceived to fit in with reality.

For years i have read popsci books by hawking, Kaku and greene, speaking about the exact things i love. Yet why is the practice of theoretical physics so different to these ideals? What is wrong with me? did i miss some gene which stops me loving mathematics as much as Edward Witten or Stephen Hawking? Does it just not click in my head? Or do i just need more training in mathematics and physics before i see the true beauty beneath the surface?
I have tried to find this beauty but so far, no matter which college book i read, there is nothing like the excitement i felt when reading a brief history of time.

Are the days of Einstein gone? Did the ever exist in the first place? I am so damn confused!
If i am right, then what the hell do i do with my life?

 

[Jack21222]

Perhaps you should major in philosophy?

 

[Dickfore]

Be prepared to work in Starbucks.

 

[hadsed]

Maybe your real interest is in great things. Romanticizing is a lot of what liberal arts majors like to do (I'm only partially poking fun, but it's kind of true). In history, you can shape your perception of some figure to what you want it to be (provided with enough backing evidence that is). Literature has an even longer leash with that. Political science and such are cool to think about. Hell, you could be a programmer and find that solving these little puzzles that come in strange computer language form is a little game that you don't mind playing as long as people pay you large sums of money.

In the end, you have to realize everything has nitty gritty stuff. You just have to figure out what nitty gritty stuff you don't mind doing to get to the awesome stuff that it has. Every field has insane stuff in it I think.

 

[Philosopher_k]

Dont get me wrong i still enjoy mathematics. Just not as much as i thought i would.

I like the rigor, just not THAT much. Philosophy is a no go for me. I would rather work at burger king then spend four years debating things that cannot be answered. I would feel left out from all the great discoveries if i didn't go into some form of math/physics.

 

[Pengwuino]

You've run head long into reality. There are reasons people write 100 page dissertations after years upon research about things that sound so unbelievably unimportant. The truth is that there is good reason that some of the greatest questions haven't been answered completely after being looked at by tens of thousands of physicists over many decades.

Popular science books help spark curiosity, they don't typically attempt to give a concrete, believable argument to anyone who is interested in actually confirming what they say.

You learn a lot being a physicist but you're not going to discover the theory of everything after becoming a physics major. You're only going to find out that... well... how does the saying go, "You don't even know enough to know how much you don't know?". Does that sound right? Well, whatever. Though to get right to the point, you'll know more about the "true beauty" of the universe than you would by becoming a business major or philosophy major.

And no, the "days of Einstein", as some people see it, are not just gone, they never existed. Physics has been romanticized. One of my professor always said and still says that it's unfortunate that everything about physics has been shown as this linear progression of breakthrough after breakthrough. It's not true. Every breakthrough was followed by countless dead-ends. Hell, Einstein was almost beaten to the punch on a few theories (I've heard Hilbert had GR almost figured out before Einstein). He was wrong on others. It's tough to distill the reality of a couple of decades of physics research into something people would enjoy reading.

 

[Dickfore]

You might want to consider atmospheric science. It relies on applied math and physics and it has a large practical value as well as possibility for fundamental research.

 

[Philosopher_k]

Thanks Pengwuino.

My dream has been to get edward wittens job at princeton... All my eggs are going to hatch and i will win the fields medal at the age of 20.

 

[Philosopher_k]

Also i would rather work at burger king than do atmospheric science (well not quite). I would rather go work for microsoft than spend my time and money persuing a phd in an area that i found boring.

 

[insilicium]

Maybe it's romanticized a little bit. I'm a mathematical physicist, and I enjoyed reading popular science books in high school too, and I definitely experienced a bit of a "wonder gap" when I hit undergrad. It took a little bit to reignite my interest - the introductory physics classes taught to freshmen tend to be, as you say, "nitty gritty," because they are usually geared towards engineers, who just want to know the useful results.

My suggestion is to stick out your freshmen classes, and take an advanced course after that, perhaps in Classical Mechanics or Quantum Mechanics. Both are gorgeous theories - Lagrangian mechanics especially.

I applaud you for attempting to find a real understanding of the really interesting advanced stuff, like black holes, Wiles' proof, etc. But without knowing the basics, it all seems like boring details.

That being said, it is patently untrue that discoveries are made merely by Great Men staring wistfully into space. It requires a lot of often frustrating work, and misunderstanding even small details can make everything go awry. But the payoff - the feeling you get when you finally get something right - there is no substitute for that.

So hang in there, and keep an open mind. Make sure to take an advanced course in physics when you are ready, and see if that does anything for you. In the meantime, keep reading popular books to feed your interest.

 

[Philosopher_k]

thanks insilcium. Do you have any tips on becoming a mathematical physicist? The other thing i am really considering is astrophysics/cosmology.

I plan to stick to my guns and continue down the academic track. I frankly don't care if i only earn 50 grand a year.

 

[Pengwuino]

I frankly don't care if i only earn 50 grand a year.

That's good ...

 

[insilicium]

Do you have any tips on becoming a mathematical physicist?

Go to college. If you major in physics, take a bunch of math courses, and if you major in math, take a bunch of physics courses. While you're there, try to get involved in research with a professor. It can be a little difficult to do theory research as an undergrad, but it's certainly possible. That way you'll get a taste of what it's like. At that point, you'll probably know whether you love it or whether you should be running for the hills!

The other thing i am really considering is astrophysics/cosmology.

Wonderful! That is my field. If you're just dying to get a taste of some big ideas, you should definitely check out Einstein's popular book on relativity.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1451002165/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Philosopher_k]

What exact area of astrophysics/cosmology do you work in? Sounds cool.

Also Peng, i will work part time as a quant and part time as a professor at harvard, while i am formulating the unified theory of everything, so i am sure i will be able to earn at least 250 k a year :)

 

[Pengwuino]

What exact area of astrophysics/cosmology do you work in? Sounds cool.

Also Peng, i will work part time as a quant and part time as a professor at harvard, while i am formulating the unified theory of everything, so i am sure i will be able to earn at least 250 k a year :)

At least you know how to poke fun at your prospects!

 

[Philosopher_k]

Poke fun What do you speacialise in, Pengwuino?

 

[insilicium]

I work on connecting predictions in high energy/particle physics and cosmology to physical observables. That is, taking predictions that are unfeasible to test in the laboratory and seeing what they imply about stellar structure, the CMB, etc.

 

[Philosopher_k]

The beautiful thing i like about mathematics is that it requires no experiments (beside thought experiments), and it is logically self coherent.

Therefore i may still go down the mathematics side of things. How are the tenure track opps in Mathematics as opposed to physics? Chances to earn more money? Also are there any mathematicians out there that can tell me the realities of the job? It does kind of annoy me thinking about the fact that i may end up teaching in a liberal arts college or god forbid community college.

Which is more intellectually challenging Theoretical physics or Mathematics?

 

[Dickfore]

The beautiful thing i like about mathematics is that it requires no experiments (beside thought experiments), and it is logically self coherent.

Therefore i may still go down the mathematics side of things. How are the tenure track opps in Mathematics as opposed to physics? Chances to earn more money? Also are there any mathematicians out there that can tell me the realities of the job? It does kind of annoy me thinking about the fact that i may end up teaching in a liberal arts college or god forbid community college.

Which is more intellectually challenging Theoretical physics or Mathematics?

lol, high school kid with an A- in pre calc math thinking about tenure in Mathematics.

 

[Philosopher_k]

lol, high school kid with an A- in pre calc math thinking about tenure in Mathematics.

I have taken several college courses allready even though i am only in high school. Though i am aware that i have a long way to go, i probably mastered pre calc when i was 10.

 

[Pengwuino]

The beautiful thing i like about mathematics is that it requires no experiments (beside thought experiments), and it is logically self coherent.

Therefore i may still go down the mathematics side of things. How are the tenure track opps in Mathematics as opposed to physics? Chances to earn more money? Also are there any mathematicians out there that can tell me the realities of the job? It does kind of annoy me thinking about the fact that i may end up teaching in a liberal arts college or god forbid community college.

Which is more intellectually challenging Theoretical physics or Mathematics?

Tenure track positions in both fields are few and far between. You can earn money in industry, but not so much in academia until you're pretty high up there... and even then, meh. Get use to the idea of possibly ending up at a non-high end school if you absolutely must become a professor.There are very very very few "dream positions" out there and you are not the only one who wants one and the people who have them usually die before they give up their job... or are forced into retirement.

 

[insilicium]

Everyone starts somewhere.

As far as intellectually challenging goes...That's up to you. Take courses in both, see which you like better. And I agree with Pengwuino, keep an open mind for your career.

 

[Dickfore]

I have taken several college courses allready even though i am only in high school. Though i am aware that i have a long way to go, i probably mastered pre calc when i was 10.

Sure. What college courses have you taken?

 

[Philosopher_k]

Chemistry, Calculus up to 3, linear algebra

(these are rough estimates as i am not American)

 

[Kevin_Axion]

I don't understand why people pose themselves as such a greater intellect because they have taken college courses. Very interesting... I could walk into a topology course at a university and gain a rough approximation of what the person is saying. All that matters is if you can apply it.

 

[Philosopher_k]

Trust me i am aware there are much smarter people out there than me. I am pretty stupid. I knew a guy who could do calculus in year 1.

 

[Caramon]

"Who could do calculus in year 1". What do you mean by this? Everyone should be done calculus I by the time they enter University, at least in Canada.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

This is true, I live in Toronto and we take introduction to linear algebra and calculus in grade 12.

 

[Caramon]

In Calgary we took AP Calculus 31 and Pure Math 30 in the same semester in Grade 12 so we could start on Linear Algebra and Classical Physics before we went to University. But I did go to a really high-end school.

 

[Kevin_Axion]

Sadly, we don't have any AP Sciences, except Computer Science. Although our physics is pretty awesome, I know we do Quantum Mechanics in grade 12.

 

[Caramon]

Our Physics 20 curriculum is:
A: Kinematics
B: Dynamics
C: Circular Motion, Work and Energy
D: Oscillatory Motion & Mechanical Waves

and our Physics 30 curriculum is:
A: Momentum and Impulse
B: Forces & Fields
C: Electromagnetic Radiation
D: Atomic Physics

 

[Kevin_Axion]

It's the same at my high school, although they took out Atomic Physics, I'm not sure why though. One of the grade 12 teachers said she's afraid to have me in her class, she says I'm going to stand her up and prove her wrong. I wouldn't do that but when I know the teacher did something wrong I'd tell them later. For instance my Chemistry teacher was trying to explain the Strong Interaction and wasn't clear which was fine, but my grade 10 chemistry teacher said that atomic nuclei stay together because their massive. I felt like walking out of the class. I can't wait to get to University!

 

[Philosopher_k]

lol year 1 means 7 years old.

I could do calculus at age 15 (which is pretty late as far as i am concerned)

Here in Australia our physics course sucks but mathematics is ok in high school.

 

[twofish-quant]

Hey guys. I am a final year high school student and have lately been researching a career in Mathematics/Theoretical physics.

Don't try to plan things out just yet. Go to college, do some undergraduate research. If you like it, keep dong it. If you don't, then find something else to do.

I had this view that mathematicians sat around and had massive eureka moments (like Archimedes), solving problems such as fermats last theorem, or Poincare’s conjecture with flashes of genius.

Those do come from time to time, but I've found that most of my Eureka moments end up being false alarms. Just last week, I thought I figured out how to solve this problem that I was spending weeks looking at. I took a look at the problem, and I told the person next to me that I'm going to have lunch now, and enjoy this good feeling, because there is a good chance that I'll go to lunch, come back, figure out that I made a mistake, and that I really didn't solve the problem.

Which is what more or less happened...

Also you do have flashes of insight, but those are mixed in with slow, grinding work.

Yet when i look at the actual proofs just noted, i am struck by just how different my perceptions are. For example Wiles' proof is something like 150 pages long and filled with long definition/lemma/proof style formatting.

That's mathematics. Physics, even theoretical physics, is quite different. Physicists generally don't care about proofs. And a lot of theoretical physics are things like "if we assume that Y = alpha * X, then we can come up with something that we can calculate."

After all what could be cooler than discovering a theory about dimensions, tiny strings, other universes or time itself.

Except that more often than not you'll quickly find out that your brilliant idea just doesn't work. Personally, I prefer creating models for things that I can see. Like fire.

The field was all about Gauges, Metric spaces and Eigenvectors, whatsmore the questions were not as philosophical as i enjoyed, no answers to the mystery’s of time or how the universe came into being, more about how abstract mathematics was perceived to fit in with reality.

Which is pretty cool. If it were easy to figure out the mysteries of the universe, it wouldn't be nearly that interesting to me. Also, I like mysteries that are right in front of me. Light a match, and there are things about fire which people don't quite understand.

For years i have read popsci books by hawking, Kaku and greene, speaking about the exact things i love. Yet why is the practice of theoretical physics so different to these ideals?

Because reality is complex, and science is hard. If you just sit in a corner and try to "think out" how the universe works, you'll never figure anything out. You have data that you are trying to explain, and it takes a huge amount of effort to try to explain it.

I have tried to find this beauty but so far, no matter which college book i read, there is nothing like the excitement i felt when reading a brief history of time.

That's because a brief history of time doesn't have that much to do with what physicists do. Personally, I've found that this makes physics *more* interesting since I am more interested in building a better mousetrap than "useless philosophy about time" but that's just me.

Are the days of Einstein gone? Did the ever exist in the first place? I am so damn confused!
If i am right, then what the hell do i do with my life?

I think they never existed, and the problem is that reading Stephen Hawking gives you a very warped idea of what physicists really do.

 

[twofish-quant]

The beautiful thing i like about mathematics is that it requires no experiments (beside thought experiments), and it is logically self coherent.

Maybe. Read Godel, Escher, Bach by Hofstadter.

 

[twofish-quant]

thanks insilcium. Do you have any tips on becoming a mathematical physicist? The other thing i am really considering is astrophysics/cosmology.

Learn to program. Most theoretical astrophysics today requires a lot of computer skills, and those also happen to be marketable.

I plan to stick to my guns and continue down the academic track. I frankly don't care if i only earn 50 grand a year.

The problem is that the jobs just are not there even at low salaries. One problem is what I call the "second Einstein effect." So you have Albert Einstein discover all of these interesting things about the universe. Great! So what's there left to do if you are the second Einstein?

Also there are deep questions that involve physics and philosophy that are very lucrative. I spend most of my time basically trying to answer the question "what is money?" and what is the relationship between time and money.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also Peng, i will work part time as a quant and part time as a professor at harvard, while i am formulating the unified theory of everything, so i am sure i will be able to earn at least 250 k a year :)

You can't. Quants work full time, and there is a big enough culture clash between academic and industry Ph.D.'s that this isn't realistic.

Figuring out how to work as a quant while still being able to d o decent research is something that I've been trying to work out. I think I understand the basic limits, but I haven't yet been able to figure out a way around them.

 

[twofish-quant]

Get use to the idea of possibly ending up at a non-high end school if you absolutely must become a professor.There are very very very few "dream positions" out there and you are not the only one who wants one and the people who have them usually die before they give up their job... or are forced into retirement.

By "few", the actual number of "dream positions" in HEP or astrophysics that open up each year is about 5, and I can point you to the website that lists them all. The number of "non-dream positions" that open up each year is about 20-30. That's with about 100 qualified applicants.

One thing I do find odd is how many people that have no problem with differential topology and quantum field theory, have so much trouble with basic arithmetic and probability.

 

[Pengwuino]

By "few", the actual number of "dream positions" in HEP or astrophysics that open up each year is about 5, and I can point you to the website that lists them all. The number of "non-dream positions" that open up each year is about 20-30. That's with about 100 qualified applicants.

One thing I do find odd is how many people that have no problem with differential topology and quantum field theory, have so much trouble with basic arithmetic and probability.

Because your topology doesn't tread on any ones dreams.

As for the OP, you're most most likely not going to be top of your country, get into Princeton, and then teach at Harvard. The silver lining in it all is that it doesn't matter. You could do all that, become a professor at Harvard, then crash and burn and all anyone will know you for is crashing and burning. Then again you could become the next Einstein and all people will know you for is being Einstein II. The point is, what you do and how you're known will be mainly the result of what you do when you actually have to produce on your own. Anyone who is well known isn't well known because of where they come from, they're well known because of what they have done.

 

[Philosopher_k]

Who is to say i am not planning on producing anything?

Whats the point in trying then, if i am stuck in some liberal arts college, never winning any prizes or such, teaching students who could not care less about the subject matter?

 

[Pengwuino]

Who is to say i am not planning on producing anything?

Whats the point in trying then, if i am stuck in some liberal arts college, never winning any prizes or such, teaching students who could not care less about the subject matter?

What's the point in driving a car if you can't win a Formula 500 event. You'll never know if you could get a nice research professorship at a good university if you don't try. And sometimes trying means the possibility of having to spend a few years at Noname State.

 

[Phyisab****]

Yes, your view of theoretical physics is extremely romanticized. But, you can still go get a B.S. in physics, which should be enough time to realize that physics is quite different from candyland. It's mostly, you know, hard work. A B.S. in physics is pretty useful in a wide range of fields. Of course you already said you'd rather work at Burger King than do anything other than the most theoretical of work . That might just be what you have to do then.

 

[Phyisab****]

Whats the point in trying then, if i am stuck in some liberal arts college, never winning any prizes or such, teaching students who could not care less about the subject matter?

This really irks me. I hope you realize there are thousands and thousands of brilliant people working hard on practical problems which can directly improve technologies, right now, on SUNDAY morning! Do you think nobody works as hard as you, or that you're just so much smarter than them? Do these people go to work with the goal of earning prizes? No, they don't. Personally I think it would help you to gain perspective on life if you work construction for a year after high school.

 

[twofish-quant]

What's the point in trying then, if i am stuck in some liberal arts college, never winning any prizes or such, teaching students who could not care less about the subject matter?

That's a great philosophy question that you should think deeply about.

Different people have different answers, but I should warn you that if your goal in physics is to do things for recognition, you are going to have some pretty severe problems.

There is a great quote from a comic book...

"We don't do it for the glory. We don't do it for the recognition... We do it because it needs to be done. Because if we don't, no one else will. And we do it even if no one knows what we've done. Even if no one knows we exist. Even if no one remembers we ever existed."

 

[twofish-quant]

What's the point in driving a car if you can't win a Formula 500 event. You'll never know if you could get a nice research professorship at a good university if you don't try. And sometimes trying means the possibility of having to spend a few years at Noname State.

And then you have to ask yourself what you want to do even if it turns out that you are just not going to get a research professorship at Big Name University or even at Noname State. Personally, I think that learning some tiny bit about the university is cool enough so that its worth doing even if no one else knows what I've done.

Also one thing that I like about physics is that it is *HARD*, painfully, brutally, back-breaking hard.

One good analogy is that what Stephen Hawking has basically done is to go up to the top of Mount Everest and then take some snapshots and they show it to people. It looks nice, but taking snapshots is no substitute for actually being at the top of the mountain, and there's something that you get when you climb the mountain yourself that you just can't get if you get helicoptered to it.

 

[kramer733]

This really irks me. I hope you realize there are thousands and thousands of brilliant people working hard on practical problems which can directly improve technologies, right now, on SUNDAY morning! Do you think nobody works as hard as you, or that you're just so much smarter than them? Do these people go to work with the goal of earning prizes? No, they don't. Personally I think it would help you to gain perspective on life if you work construction for a year after high school.

What this guy said 1000 times. Working in construction changed me. I couldn't even survive for 6 months. I quit 3 months in and boy was it a tough one. I almost got killed a few times too. Dude, construction workers ARE REALLY HARD WORKERS. They're 1000x the man that physicists are or anybody in academia.

 

[Dickfore]

Chemistry, Calculus up to 3, linear algebra

(these are rough estimates as i am not American)

So, do you know Complex analysis and differential equations? Also, what is College Chemistry? Don't you have Chemistry in your High School?

 

[jtbell]

And then you have to ask yourself what you want to do even if it turns out that you are just not going to get a research professorship at Big Name University or even at Noname State. Personally, I think that learning some tiny bit about the university is cool enough so that its worth doing even if no one else knows what I've done.

I suspect you meant to write "universe" instead of "university" in the last sentence, although learning something about how universities really work is kind of cool, too.

I too got interested in physics by reading the pop-sci literature of my day, which included writers like Asimov and Gamow (this was long before Hawking, Greene, et al.), and got really hooked by learning about Maxwell's Equations in the second semester of first-year college physics. But I never had a drive to get to the "top" or gain recognition. I did physics because I enjoyed learning cool stuff.

When I finished graduate school with a Ph.D. in experimental HEP, I looked at the research job prospects in that field, and decided that I'd rather go into teaching. So now I'm at one of those small liberal arts colleges, very much like the one I graduated from myself. At a place like this, you eventually have to teach just about every undergraduate physics course, so I'm still learning cool stuff, more than 25 years later.

 

[discrete*]

There is a great quote from a comic book...

"We don't do it for the glory. We don't do it for the recognition... We do it because it needs to be done. Because if we don't, no one else will. And we do it even if no one knows what we've done. Even if no one knows we exist. Even if no one remembers we ever existed."

Supergirl, right?

 

[Philosopher_k]

why the hell should i settle for teaching at no name liberal arts college when people like witten and tao pretty much skip postdoc work and get professorships straight away. Why am i any less talented then them?

As for working in construction, screw that. I am not some dumb ape. Why do i think i am so smart? Short answer is, i don't. Its just i am much smarter than the average person out there who spends their day working in an office or cleaning toilets. People with my drive should be given the chance to extend Human knowledge. Instead the academic system does not recognize true talent when it sees it. What do i have to do to make it to the top? I will do anything...

As for the climbing a mountain analogy... i like it.