Qualities of a successful theorist

[spaghetti3451]

Is it really possible to do meaningful theoretical research work at the undergrad level? By meaningful, I mean papers that get citations and continue to get citations after a couple years of publishing the paper.

Say the papers are really good. You might have your name attached to the papers published by your professor for doing grind work (i.e. computations - mathematical/programming), but the real conceptual work of the paper is essentially the work of the professor/supervisor.

The frighteningly vertical nature of the subject we are studying (physics) means that it's impossible to begin to understand the current research literature for any given topic unless one begins his PhD.

Competition in high energy theory is so intense that you have to really good in academics to stay in his field, and being prepared in courses ahead of time will help make life easier. And finishing those courses earlier (by yourself) will mean you get to begin reading the research literature and begin meaningful research ahead of your peers.

But ultimately, doing well in courses and doing well in research are simply two different things. Research potential/capability, I guess, can never be fully gauged unless one begins to publish his own papers.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Is it really possible to do meaningful theoretical research work at the undergrad level?

Yes. I know several people who have.

By meaningful, I mean papers that get citations and continue to get citations after a couple years of publishing the paper.

At the undergrad level the point is to learn how theory research works. Publishing a paper is a bonus.

The frighteningly vertical nature of the subject we are studying (physics) means that it's impossible to begin to understand the current research literature for any given topic unless one begins his PhD.

This isn't true. I'm currently doing undergrad research in two theory groups: a classical GR group and a quantum gravity group. I've been doing research in the GR group for ~2.5 years now so not having started a PhD yet has not been a hindrance.

Competition in high energy theory is so intense that you have to really good in academics to stay in his field, and being prepared in courses ahead of time will help make life easier. And finishing those courses earlier (by yourself) will mean you get to begin reading the research literature and begin meaningful research ahead of your peers.

Sure but precisely because of the intense competition in HEPT, students who end up doing theory research in undergrad tend to have already learned the pre-requisite subjects by some point in their undergraduate career.

Research potential/capability, I guess, can never be fully gauged unless one begins to publish papers.

No that isn't true. Again this is what undergraduate research is for.

Regardless, the point I'm making is a "successful" theorist is as follows definitely not one who finishes textbooks thoroughly in a short period of time or anything of the sort. Working through textbooks is something every undergrad does. The qualities of a "successful" theorist come from how they approach research problems. It's a very subjective question so, in my opinion, the best way for you to get an answer is to experience theory research yourself either in undergrad or grad school.

 

[micromass]

No that isn't true. Again this is what undergraduate research is for.

Not only that, but it is also to see whether you even enjoy research and what kind of research you enjoy. If you start research in HEP now and it turns out you don't enjoy it, then that's a lot of good information you get out of that experience. You can then take that into account for grad school where you might do something very different.

 

[ahsanxr]

I say 'cover-to-cover' because any budding string theorist, for example, ought to know Peskin and Schroeder, Muller-Kirsten and Wiedemann, Wess and Bagger, and Polchinski cover-to-cover. I'm assuming that's the bare minimum.

This is quite wrong, especially regarding Peskin and Schroeder. That book spends half of its chapters working out tedious calculations relating to QED, QCD and standard model phenomenology. Someone who works on some narrow part of string theory, say topological strings or entanglement entropy will probably never use that knowledge in his entire life. Knowing and understanding the general structure of a subject like QFT is much more crucial than understanding all the content of a particular textbook. QFT books written by string theorists reflect this: Tom Banks' book and Pierre Ramond's book are both very brief and get to the heart of the matter without spending thousands of pages on calculating some random cross-section of some random process in QCD.

Polchinski and Wess-Bagger you could argue for as being important in the sense that you can bet that an established string theorist will be very familiar with their content. But it's still misguided to think that you need to know all of this to start research.

I hadn't even heard of the Muller-Kisten book until now.

 

[spaghetti3451]

This is quite wrong, especially regarding Peskin and Schroeder. That book spends half of its chapters working out tedious calculations relating to QED, QCD and standard model phenomenology. Someone who works on some narrow part of string theory, say topological strings or entanglement entropy will probably never use that knowledge in his entire life. Knowing and understanding the general structure of a subject like QFT is much more crucial than understanding all the content of a particular textbook. QFT books written by string theorists reflect this: Tom Banks' book and Pierre Ramond's book are both very brief and get to the heart of the matter without spending thousands of pages on calculating some random cross-section of some random process in QCD.

Polchinski and Wess-Bagger you could argue for as being important in the sense that you can bet that an established string theorist will be very familiar with their content. But it's still misguided to think that you need to know all of this to start research.

Does that mean that one can do string theory without having learned how to compute cross-sections in QED and QCD, or do you mean that Peskin and Schroeder goes overboard with such types of calculations?

Doesn't a string theorist need to have learned renormalisation concepts, such as how to do renormalisation and renormlisation groups, or non-abelian gauge theories, for that matter?

 

[ahsanxr]

Does that mean that one can do string theory without having learned how to compute cross-sections in QED and QCD, or do you mean that Peskin and Schroeder goes overboard with such types of calculations?

Doesn't a string theorist need to have learned renormalisation concepts, such as how to do renormalisation and renormlisation groups, or non-abelian gauge theories, for that matter?

It' helpful to distinguish between the general structure of a subject and particular examples of it. For example it's entirely possible to have a good and deep understanding of quantum mechanics without having mastered all the details of Laguerre polynomials or selection rules in the dipole approximation. Just because a particular textbook chooses to focus on that particular topic doesn't mean it's necessary to master it.

Renormalization group is very crucial to understanding QFT and as such any theorist who uses it will know it very well, yes.

Non-Abelian gauge theories are also very important, yes, but again (for string theory at least) your focus should be on the generalities. You should focus on learning the Fadeev-Poppov procedure and BRST quantization rather than the specific calculation techniques of a specific gauge theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

It seems that the qualities being asked is more specific than just being a "theorist", since it appears as if it is geared towards the more "esoteric" areas of physics.

From my personal observations, one of the most important traits for theorists in condensed matter physics is the intimate knowledge of experimental results in that field. CM theorists such as Anderson, Laughlin, Abrikosov, etc. never miss experimental results in their areas. Laughlin, in fact, made his name alongside 2 other experimentalists in the landmark fractional quantum hall effect paper. Because this field has such a huge body of experimental results, and that new and exotic materials often can be grown to test new theories (example: topological insulators), theorists that do not pay attention to experiments are often left on the wayside.

Zz.

 

[spaghetti3451]

It' helpful to distinguish between the general structure of a subject and particular examples of it. For example it's entirely possible to have a good and deep understanding of quantum mechanics without having mastered all the details of Laguerre polynomials or selection rules in the dipole approximation. Just because a particular textbook chooses to focus on that particular topic doesn't mean it's necessary to master it.

Renormalization group is very crucial to understanding QFT and as such any theorist who uses it will know it very well, yes.

Non-Abelian gauge theories are also very important, yes, but again (for string theory at least) your focus should be on the generalities. You should focus on learning the Fadeev-Poppov procedure and BRST quantization rather than the specific calculation techniques of a specific gauge theory.

Does that mean that, in order to begin research in string theory, for example, it is important to read research papers and textbooks on string theory to be able to understand exactly which concepts from QFT, General Relativity and Supersymmetry are most often used by string theorists, and then to master specifically those concepts?

 

[ahsanxr]

Does that mean that, in order to begin research in string theory, for example, it is important to read research papers and textbooks on string theory to be able to understand exactly which concepts from QFT, General Relativity and Supersymmetry are most often used by string theorists, and then to master specifically those concepts?

Precisely. Mastery by reading textbooks and papers is very important, but it should be aimed at the right things.

 

[andrewkirk]

What are the most important qualities that a budding theorist ought to have?

The idealism, determination and strength of character to persevere on a pittance, with no job security, always resisting the temptation to go over to the dark side (finance) where s/he could use those rare mathematical abilities to fund the lifestyle of a Branson rather than a Bose.

 

[Chronos]

A theorist need be well versed and keenly aware in her field, restrained, disciplined, and vigorously question all assumptions.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

The idealism, determination and strength of character to persevere on a pittance, with no job security, always resisting the temptation to go over to the dark side (finance) where s/he could use those rare mathematical abilities to fund the lifestyle of a Branson rather than a Bose.

Most of us will join the dark side, they have cookies.

 

[f95toli]

I wonder what the OPs definition of "successful" is?

There is a huge difference between solving lots of problems and having a successful career, and there really isn't much point in doing the former without the latter. Physics is no different to any other job: your "technical" skill is only part of what makes you successful. In order to be competitive you also need to have reasonably good social skills so that you can build up a network and collaborate efficiently, be good at presenting your work and a bit later in your career you will inevitable also need to be able to manage projects and people. Note that there are lots of very successful physicists who are only "average" problem solvers, they've based their whole career on networking, being good at writing grant proposals and being very good at running research groups. In many cases this category of people have been able to contribute a lot to the development of their fields simply because being in a good position career-vise means that you can more easily identify important problems, make connections between different areas and utilize a network of people with different specialties to solve problems.

 

[Shadow-Shocker]

I believe to be a successful theorist one must be a critical/analytical observer in general, have a strong/imaginative mind, explore our world we are still understanding, read vigorously, be open-minded, and reflect on their own lives to have their unique beautiful perspective of the world.

 

[mpresic]

Seems to me if you want to know what qualities a budding theorist should have, you should look at prominent physicists. All of them had remarkable problem-solving skills. In the many popular books about Feynman and Einstein, none mentioned they read books from cover to cover in a short period of time.
Your example with Witten shows he had leadership from Atiyah about what to read. I agree with your example that often a prominent physicist does need good guidance from a more experienced physicist during a critical period of development. The same can be said for prominent concert pianists, chessmasters, maybe karate-masters, and other super-experts in disciplines.
I used to think when I got into the theory I should read every article in Phys Rev in HEP. This was folly even 50 years ago. It could (and should) not ever be considered today. Bobby Fischer had a phenomenal memory but even he was selective and used great judgment in what he studied. He did not go out to study every chess game played by every grandmaster in the world (and there were fewer GM's back when he was prominent).

Feynman, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Chandrasekhar all had a strong work ethic. They could concentrate for prolonged periods of time. Einstein worked on GR for a decade. Does that sound like he was concerned with solving the problem rapidly. Newton worked for a long time on the theory of universal gravitation as well. I would consider staying power (endurance and discipline) more important than mental alacrity.

However, as a practical matter a budding physicist needs alacrity in solving problems for the GRE - Physics. He/She can take a bit more time on qualifying exams and homework. These obstacles need to be surmounted to even get a chance at more difficult problems encountered in research. As the physicist develops, the problems become harder and long-term attention becomes more important, though.

 

[haushofer]

Passion and precision. Being able to read textbooks "cover to cover" is silly. In my experience good theorists are able to distinguish what's important for their research and what's not.