Success Through Comprehensive Study of Physics

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the impracticality of attempting to study every solved problem in physics without specializing in a specific area. Participants argue that such an approach leads to mediocrity and hinders the ability to conduct meaningful research or secure academic positions. Specialization is emphasized as essential for contributing to scientific knowledge and achieving career success. The consensus is that while broad knowledge can be beneficial, it is crucial to focus on unsolved problems and cutting-edge research to make a significant impact in the field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of physics fundamentals and problem-solving techniques.
  • Familiarity with academic career paths in science, including the importance of specialization.
  • Knowledge of current trends and unsolved problems in physics research.
  • Awareness of the role of collaboration in scientific advancement.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the latest unsolved problems in physics, such as the Unified Field Theory.
  • Explore academic programs that emphasize specialization in physics or related fields.
  • Learn about effective study techniques for mastering complex subjects in physics.
  • Investigate the benefits of interdisciplinary approaches in scientific research.
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, and researchers in physics who are navigating their academic paths and considering the balance between broad knowledge and specialization for career success.

  • #31
pivoxa15 said:
So you think maths is in your genes? Imagine what you would achieve had you tried harder. In fact Ian Stewart said he didn't try that hard either when he was a student and also admited that he had talent. Why don't you pursue pure maths?

I'm not trying hard either and that's with every subject. I just assume that's above average intelligence. That's all.

I don't think there is a math gene specifically.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
pivoxa15 said:
So you think maths is in your genes? Imagine what you would achieve had you tried harder. In fact Ian Stewart said he didn't try that hard either when he was a student and also admited that he had talent. Why don't you pursue pure maths?
I certainly think there is such a thing as a natural ability.

Loads of people say they're rubbish at maths and can't grasp it.

I believe them -- eg. my gf is brilliant in what she does (English), yet admits she has no ability for maths.

However, in the genes? That's very hard to say -- I was the first in my close family (bloodline, say) to pursue my education to university, so I can't tell if any of my family were naturally good at maths...

And, "had you tried harder". Well, I like to think of myself as quite young still :wink: And, pure maths? This goes back to the same old argument of what is pure maths... some of the thing's I do, regarding "functional analysis" could be described as pure. However, I prefer to have some application at the end of it. Though this just throws up the question of the fluidity between pure and applied again :biggrin:

<e2a: Reading this post and the one I quoted a few posts earlier, they sound quite arrogant. I don't mean them to :smile:. I think the talk of nature of nurture is an interesting one.>
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
753
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K