Necessarity of being a prodigy for successful career in Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter THHEP
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Career Physics
AI Thread Summary
Success in theoretical particle physics does not strictly require being a mathematical or physics prodigy. Hard work and a genuine passion for the subjects can lead to significant achievements, potentially reaching the heights of renowned physicists like Edward Witten. However, the journey involves more than just effort; it also includes elements of luck and a deep commitment to the field. While some prodigies may excel early on, many struggle with direction and may not achieve lasting success. Ultimately, pursuing a career in science should be driven by a strong personal calling rather than solely the desire for fame.
THHEP
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Necessarity of being a "prodigy" for successful career in Physics

Hello!
I'm just curious about one thing. I want to be a Theoretical Particle Physicist in future. And there is a one thing that stops me from choosing that path in my life.

Is it necessary to be a kind of mathematical/physics prodigy to do things that really matter? I mean, can I get to the same heights as prof. Edward Witten, for example, by just hard work and passion to physics and mathematics?

Thanks a lot!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF;

Is it necessary to be a kind of mathematical/physics prodigy to do things that really matter?
No.

I mean, can I get to the same heights as prof. Edward Witten, for example, by just hard work and passion to physics and mathematics?
Yes. In principle.

Though there is no "just" about it.
And there is a lot of luck involved.

There is no harm in getting involved in science to make a big name for yourself, but that should not be all that is on your mind. Science is a calling rather than a profession. You either feel strongly drawn to it or you don't.

Some prodigies seem to get the calling at an early age but most that I've actually met suffer from a lack of direction and tend not to get very far. Beware of drawing conclusions from a limited data set.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
Back
Top