Is Pursuing Multiple Ph.D.s a Viable Option for a Career in Theoretical Physics?

[hunt_mat]

I can't believe that philosophy was mentioned as a PhD option. I was forced to study it to give the scientists a "broader knowledge" as a scientist. I chose modern philosophy and it was an utter waste of time.

The idea of another postdoc is a good one, it will give you the option of changing topics should you choose to do so.

 

[Geremia]

I chose modern philosophy and it was an utter waste of time.

"Modern philosophy" is, for the most, a waste of time; I agree. You probably would have been better off studying Duham, Maritain, or others in the Thomist/scholastic tradition. That philosophy, originating in the Middle Ages and developed from Aristotle, is the basis for modern science.

 

[rhombusjr]

It seems to me that you're looking for fame, recognition and prestige, possibly for some psychological reasons related to your Asperger's (you didn't get any recognition as a child due to your social handicap, Idk I don't know much about psychology). However, I don't think that any successful scientist went into their field because they wanted to become Famous. From what I know, this is true of many fields. In interviews with famous actors/actresses I've seen, none of them have said "I went into acting because I wanted to become a rich famous celebrity." They usually say "I went into acting because I thought it was fun." Take any field. Think of how many people go into that field and make successful careers. How many people in that field are famous? You can be a successful scientist and not be famous, it happens all the time. Also, by studying a brach of physics that not many people are involved in, you're less likely to be well-known because not many people are paying attention to that field. There is a professor at my school that I think has Asperger's (he certainly alienates many people with his behavior), but he is still a successful physicist, has tenure, grad students, and churns out papers frequently.

I think its important to be aware of the fact that you don't need a specific degree to do everything. Its not necessary to have a PhD in Math to do research in mathematics. One of the math professors at my school has a PhD in Physics. I believe his only math degree is his physics/math dual bachelor's. He's a full professor, teaches courses, takes on graduate students, and does research all in the Math department. Does he have a PhD in Math? No. Is he a professional mathematician? Yes. My suggestion is that you already have one PhD, you don't need another one. Also, you have stated that "physics was my life time goal since I was 9 and it never changed." So why do you want a degree in math? I don't think that having a PhD in math is going to open up any more opportunities as a physicist than your Physics PhD.

Anyway, from time to time I am considering getting back in graduate school and getting another ph.d., in math. I actually considered it before I ever started a post doc. I was worried that if I count the three years I spent in Minnesota, then it took me 8 years to get ph.d. which is bad. But if I go and get another ph.d. in math, and hurry up and make it within 3 years, then I would have spent 8+3=11 years for two ph.d.-s, which is 5.5 years per ph.d. which is not that bad.

I guess right now that would not work since now I started my post doc which takes 2 years, so then it would be 8+2+3=13 years, which is 6.5 years per ph.d. But still may be the "good" part about having two ph.d.-s make up for the "bad" part about taking such a long time?

I could be wrong, but I don't think you can just "average" your time for your degrees. Hypothetically, if you do get a Math PhD in 3 years, you still took 8 years to get your Physics PhD. Your time to get your Physics degree doesn't magically decrease to 5.5 years, its still 8 years. The fact of the matter is, you took 8 years to get your Physics PhD, you CAN'T change that. With your logic, you could just as easily say you spent 5 years each in high school, college, and graduate. But that's not true, you spent 3, 4, and 8 years respectively.

But I guess I am a bit skeptical about it, mostly because usually people don't do that, so there has to be a reason why not. This seem strange: if it is so rare to have multiple ph.d.-s, it should look prestigious, and if it does, why don't everyone want it? So may be there is something bad about it that I am not aware of. Anyway please let me know what you think.

Its rare for people to have multiple PhDs because they can do their job just fine with only one.

FWell, if I will be graduate student then I would be payed, like most grad students are. Of course I would be payed a lot less than professors, but being rich has never been my dream. I just want to be albe to do research all day long without having to do non-research job. Well, being in grad school takes care of it. So, now that I have ph.d. in physics, I can go get one in math. And after that I can go get one in philosophy. Each time I will pursue my interests: I am interested in interpretaiton of quantum mechanics. So this can be either "physics" or "math" (i.e. mathematical physics) or "philosophy" (i.e. philosophy of physics). So I will get three ph.d.-s AND will be able to keep doign my research without getitng a job.

So what? You want to spend your entire life as a grad student? Until you're almost 40? What about after you get your three PhDs? What job will you have then? Keep in mind that you can do research in industry, most high tech and government labs have full time researchers that do research all day long without having to do a non-research job, because their job is research.

 

[causalset]

Okay, here is a completely different side of the issue from what was previously discussed in this post. Overwhelming majority of people I talked to the past few months were telling me that my main weakness is lack of publications (while I have 20 arXiv papers I only have 1 journal and 3 proceedings). So I am planing to increase the number of my journal papers by going back to arXiv and sending them to journals.

Now, in order for my journal papers to look professional, I need an affiliation. Which brings me back to the question of another ph.d. You see any other option I have right now would only give me an affiliation for one more year, and this is not enough to get 20 journal publications. But if I do another ph.d. I might get up to 5 years which would be plenty of time to accomplish that. Of course I can do as I said in original post and try to finish ph.d. within only 3 years, but at least 5 years would be AVAILABLE to me, so I would be able to take them if need be, or graduate early if I get 20 papers early.

What is your guy's opinion on this?

 

[Pyrrhus]

Try for a second postdoc, and publish as much as you can now. OR take an industry job and publish them affiliated to the industry if they approve. If everything fails publish on your own.

 

[Locrian]

What is your guy's opinion on this?

My opinion is that at some point you've stayed a student so long that no one wants to hire you.

 

[Pyrrhus]

My opinion is that at some point you've stayed a student so long that no one wants to hire you.

I can't disagree with this. I wish I could for casualset's sake, but the truth is the truth.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Problem 1: Your papers have been on the arXiv for quite some time, and exactly one paper (a PhD thesis) has cited them - and that was to criticize them. The field has passed judgement on your papers, and has found them useless and uninteresting.

Getting them in a print journal, even if that were possible (it may not be, given the above), will not stop them from being useless and uninteresting.

Problem 2: Double PhDs are rare, and for good reason. As has been said before, "Your attempt at a "do-over" will not be looked at favorably anywhere". Graduate schools want their students to succeed. You have demonstrated a sustained track record of failure, and a graduate school in some other field is sure to admit an untested recent BS grad over someone with your track record.

This has been pointed out to you again and again, and you still want to live in this fantasy world. Until you deal with the world as it actually as and not as you wish it were, you will not be successful.

 

[causalset]

The field has passed judgement on your papers, and has found them useless and uninteresting.

I have reasons to believe the reason for this might be the clarity as opposed to context. If that is indeed the case, then I might change the situtation by improving their clarity. The evidence that clarity is the issue is the following:

1. When I attempted to send arXiv:1110.2164 to the journal, I got back a referree report stating that I have not done what i claimed to have done in the abstract -- namely, a "realistic theory of second quantization". Now, they didn't say "the author attempted to do realistic theory but his attempts don't work for such and such reason". Instead they simply said i didn't attempt to do that in the first place. So I suspected that it was a misunderstanding. I wrote back to the editor to this effect. Then after few exchanges they wrote me that I was using \psi (x, t) which was "one particle wave function", contradicting my claim to do second quantization, and that was the only \psi out there. I then told them that actually I had two different psi-s: one is \psi_k, attached to the "dot number k" and the other is \psi (x, t). I further explained that probability amplitudes are "encoded" in \psi_k and NOT \psi (x, t); the field \psi (x, t) is only a "mediator field" needed to generate \psi_k. The \psi_k indeed encodes probability ampliudes on Fock space (as explained in the paper), while \psi (x,t) has nothing to do with one particle wave function since i don't even deal with first quantization to begin with. After that they wrote back and actually ACKNOWLEDGED that my notation is very confusing and gave me the last chance to rewrite it to make my notation clear because "if they can't read it neither will the reader". Right now i am in the process of making it clearer.

2. In the referree report to arXiv:1003.0256, I received a comment that the goals stated in the paper are too vague to assess its merit. Again, they didn't say that it has no merrit; rather they said it is written too vaguely to assess it. This again points to the clarity issues.

By the way, speaking of this paper, the "too vague" comment came from Journal of Foundations of Physics a month ago. On the other hand, a year ago I got two referree reports from Physics Review D, both recommending its publication. one of the reports stated that they "strongly recommend" it. But then the other report, which also recommended publication, asked me to acknowledge a certain issue. But instead of simply acknowledging it like they asked I decided to add an entire section (in comparable length to the original part of the paper) trying to address that issue that they asked me to simply acknowledge (that issue is discussed in arXiv:1103.2889). That new section I added was the reason the paper was rejected by Physics Review D. So "if only" I were to refrain myself from doing that, I would have had another Physics Review D publication a year ago, and then the Journal of Founations of Physics (where I got "too vague" comment) won't even be in the picture.

3. One of my friends in my school who was mathematician mentioned to me he has seen my paper arXiv:1202.4449. I asked him what he thinks about it. He responded that he didn't understand much because he doesn't know physics. I then pointed out to him that physics comes only on the second half, while the first half is all mathematics. He then said he will read it again. Now, if this paper was written clearly, I wouldn't have to be telling him first half is math and second half is physics; this would have been obvious. So again it seems like I write in a way that ppl don't even understand the topic.

4. Whenever I discuss my papers with Bombelli, he usually doesn't understand what I am doing by merely looking at the arXiv; I typically have to explain it to him face to face, and even then it usually takes few hours to get my point across. The same is true regarding my interaction with other scientists too, as limitted as it might be.

5. The paper I wrote together with Bombelli was regarding gravity and scalar fields on a causal set. The papers I wrote by myself were about electromagnetic and spinor field on causal set. In other words, topics are similar, just different fields. Yet, the paper I wrote with Bombelli gets citations while the papers I did by myself do not. The one obvious reason for this is that Bombelli writes more clearly than I do, since otherwise approach was similar.

So basically what I am trying to say is that if I will try to spend significant portion of time trying to edit the style of the old papers (as opposed to doing anything new) perhaps i can bring them to the point where the field would judge them more positively simply because they would be more readable.

 

[Locrian]

So basically what I am trying to say is that if I will try to spend significant portion of time trying to edit the style of the old papers (as opposed to doing anything new) perhaps i can bring them to the point where the field would judge them more positively simply because they would be more readable.

Maybe. So a few years from now you can come back and claim. . . readability.

Try.

Something.

Different.

You might be surprised how well it works out.

 

[hunt_mat]

I concur with the others, you can do something else and come back later, there are respectable mathematicians who have published on their own.

I went into engineering and found that there were some interesting problems, I have taken a couple of years to get a PhD but I intend to go back into industry.

 

[Pyrrhus]

casualset,

There is a problem. You are having trouble with a skill that is required for research, and I believe it develops during graduate school, if it has not. You have a decade writing papers, and you are still confusing. What does that say?

Another problem is, if it really confusing? or are you again being delusional with regards to the reasons?. How many times did you say that if you have done X then Y will happen?

Here we are after 2 years still waiting for Y to happen.

 

[causalset]

There is a problem. You are having trouble with a skill that is required for research, and I believe it develops during graduate school, if it has not. You have a decade writing papers, and you are still confusing. What does that say?

During grad school I haven't put sufficient effort to learn this skill. So it is possible that I will learn it IF I put effort to do that. Now, the fact that I didn't put effort is a mistake on my part, I admit. But I can't undo the past. Yet I can change the future.

How many times did you say that if you have done X then Y will happen?

Here we are after 2 years still waiting for Y to happen.

This depends by what you mean by X and Y. There were several different X and Y in different posts. Much of what I was talking about was Y being my getting ph.d. -- in other words "if I did X sooner I would have gotten Ph.D. sooner" (here X=X_1, and X_1 is "focus on research rather than courses and picking research area in which I can make progress"); and I still stand by that; after all, I did X_1 in 2006 and I got Ph.D. in 2009, so I am still saying that if only I did X_1 in 2003 I would have gotten Ph.D. in 2006.

Regardless, right now I am not talking about X_1 (which has already been done and in fact yielded its benefits), I am talking about X_2, which is something I have never considered before. The way I know it is that, when I was just starting my first post-doc, my then-boss advised me that I should spend my time editting the papers I already had on the web as opposed to doing anything new. I openly refused to do what she told me. Right now, on the other hand, I am saying "yes I will do exactly what she advised me to do back then", and this is what is being X_2 right now.

 

[Pyrrhus]

casualset,

Let's be realistic, say you manage to accomplish Y and at least publish 2 new papers. Where would that lead? How are you going to earn money to sustain yourself while you work as a freelance researcher?

 

[causalset]

casualset,

Let's be realistic, say you manage to accomplish Y and at least publish 2 new papers. Where would that lead? How are you going to earn money to sustain yourself while you work as a freelance researcher?

Thats exactly why I was bringing graduate school. If I do that, then I would get a stable income for 5 years.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Thats exactly why I was bringing graduate school. If I do that, then I would get a stable income for 5 years.

Ok you become a student again, and then publish a few more papers, then what?

 

[causalset]

Ok you become a student again, and then publish a few more papers, then what?

The long term plan is this: during the time I am a student I publish 20 papers (this is possible if I am student for 5 years and publish 4 papers a year). Then after that I go back look for jobs. Yes, as other posters said, it would look a bit suspicious to employers that I went back to grad school. But this is not nearly as bad as having no publications. In other words "going back to grad school with 20 papers" looks better than "being in grad school once and having only 1 paper". So because it will be "lesser of two evils" perhaps I would have better chance at getting postdocs and eventually professorship at lesser schools.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The long term plan is this: during the time I am a student I publish 20 papers (this is possible if I am student for 5 years and publish 4 papers a year). Then after that I go back look for jobs. Yes, as other posters said, it would look a bit suspicious to employers that I went back to grad school. But this is not nearly as bad as having no publications. In other words "going back to grad school with 20 papers" looks better than "being in grad school once and having only 1 paper". So because it will be "lesser of two evils" perhaps I would have better chance at getting postdocs and eventually professorship at lesser schools.

You truly believe you will publish 20 papers in 5 years? You can't even publish now!. Add at least a year of learning how to write clearly.

The other is, do you believe you new advisor is going to accept all your previous papers, and grant you a new PhD? Don't you think He or She will have you work on topics He or She is interested? Or Do you think He or She will be doing Casual Set as well? That if they accept you for graduate school, which is again will be VERY LUCKY for it to happen, just like you graduated because of an emeritus professor that took you in when nobody else would.

I think the pattern that you continue to pursue is that It doesn't matter what we say, or anyone says. You will still do what you want to do. It didn't matter when you were back in MN telling your former advisor to explain concepts beyond your knowledge, and you didn't do any research. It didn't matter at Michigan when you didn't work on projects as required, and It didn't matter in your postdoc neither.

So a new graduate school?

I think you may have a chance for a 2nd postdoc. Try to make 10 papers in those additional 1-2 years.

I think Casualset, you don't need reassurance, if you are still going to do what you want to do. Go ahead apply to graduate school, if you get in then I hope it works out well. I still recommend a 2nd postdoc if you don't get in.

Good luck on your future endeavors.

 

[causalset]

You truly believe you will publish 20 papers in 5 years? You can't even publish now!. Add at least a year of learning how to write clearly.

and

I think you may have a chance for a 2nd postdoc. Try to make 10 papers in those additional 1-2 years.

So are you saying that 10 papers in 1-2 years is easier than 20 papers per 5 years? I mean the former would be faster rate than the latter. Or are you basically saying that in grad school I will be hindered by other obligations?

 

[Pyrrhus]

and



So are you saying that 10 papers in 1-2 years is easier than 20 papers per 5 years? I mean the former would be faster rate than the latter. Or are you basically saying that in grad school I will be hindered by other obligations?

See the wording, Try to vs. Will publish. I think it is more realistic for you to try to get as much papers as you can published in 2 years. You say the rate is 4 per year then I wrote try to get 10. I am sure it will be less.

Yes, other obligations will hinder you in graduate school. They are not going to accept you, and have you work on your own publishing your previous papers. You are going to have to take qualifying exams, prelim exams, courses, do the research your advisor wants you to do. Or do you think He/She will say? Here is your office space, and monthly stipend go ahead and finish your previous papers?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Look- here is the sad truth. Lots of people who are well published and have great citation counts leave the field all the time- there just isn't much demand for physicists. Even if all your papers were published and had a steady stream of citations, you'd still be struggling to find a job. The best thing to do is give up on a scientific career and find a job elsewhere.

Chasing another postdoc, doing a second phd,etc, its all just throwing away more of your time.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Thats exactly why I was bringing graduate school. If I do that, then I would get a stable income for 5 years.

No you won't. When the school finds out that you're not really interested in being a student, but are simply trying to cheat them out of a stipend, they will toss you out on your ear. That's assuming you can fool them into taking you on to begin with.

You don't have a plan. You have a fantasy.

 

[fluidistic]

Hi causalset. What strickes me the most is that by judging your writting here (except for some typos that are totally forgivable), it's not evident, at least to me, that you write in such a way that nobody/few people can understand clearly. Note that I'm not a native English speaker.
This leads to me think about two things:
Either:
1)You think you know very well your field in physics but in reality you have severe misunderstandings of the most basics, leading you to write science papers hardly understandable for anyone, even if you had written them in your native tongue and read by Indians. I am not 100% sure but that could be similar to the Bogoljubov brothers.
2)It is really as you say. I.e. English is a barrier, in which case I'll start worrying myself from now and on if I ever want to publish a paper. If language is a barrier, why don't you take specialized English courses?
P.S.:Think about what you accomplished so far, you've got a Ph.D. in physics. That's something very hard to obtain for most people, you should be happy and move on and use it. Try to find a job.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Try for a second postdoc, and publish as much as you can now. OR take an industry job and publish them affiliated to the industry if they approve. If everything fails publish on your own.

I second this, and I don't see why not. You want to be respected as a more competitive applicant in physics? Then do more physics. Math isn't the answer. Reflecting on what others have said, it is imperative that you fix your act up and publish more research papers. And don't ignore the importance of clear and effective communication-- practice it. You can even do it on this forum, as long as you try to make every post as concise and clear as possible.

And actually, some of your writing isn't bad at all--except for your first post. So it looks like you just need to pay closer attention to your writing and you should be fine.

 

[Pyrrhus]

The more realistic path is continue as a postdoc, maybe take classes to improve writing skills, and perhaps move on to jobs in Industry

The more fantastic path is to become a student earn a second PhD in Math by publishing all your previous work of your first PhD and current postdoc, while you receive income from the University, and your advisor let's you do whatever you want.

Actually fluidistic, I believe casualset is american.

 

[causalset]

Hi causalset. What strickes me the most is that by judging your writting here (except for some typos that are totally forgivable), it's not evident, at least to me, that you write in such a way that nobody/few people can understand clearly. Note that I'm not a native English speaker.
This leads to me think about two things:
Either:
1)You think you know very well your field in physics but in reality you have severe misunderstandings of the most basics, leading you to write science papers hardly understandable for anyone, even if you had written them in your native tongue and read by Indians. I am not 100% sure but that could be similar to the Bogoljubov brothers.
2)It is really as you say. I.e. English is a barrier, in which case I'll start worrying myself from now and on if I ever want to publish a paper. If language is a barrier, why don't you take specialized English courses?
P.S.:Think about what you accomplished so far, you've got a Ph.D. in physics. That's something very hard to obtain for most people, you should be happy and move on and use it. Try to find a job.

First of all, I am not Indian. The only reason I am in India is because this happened to be the only country I could find post doc. Otherwise, I am originally from Russia and I moved to America at 14. So Russian is my first language and English is my second. Nevertheless, I speak English very well and I never claimed language to be the barrier.

When I said clarity is an issue I was talking about the fact that whenever I talk about PHYSICS I tend to confuse people. And this is true both in Russian AND in English. Probably part of the reason why that's the case is that my ideas are unconventional -- and in fact at the current place I am at they repeatedly advised me to find something more conventional for my own good. However, if I look at people like Sorkin, he was not conventional either, yet he found professorship. The difference between him and myself is that he had the communication skills to explain his unconventional thinking while I don't. And once again this has nothing to do with Russian or English.

Now, regarding the other thing you suggested that I have misunderstandings of basics of physics, I know this can't be the reason either. I mean if that were the case, people would be telling me "when you said such and such you were wrong for such and such reason". But instead the only feedback I get is that the paper was "too complicated" for them to understand. Now, on my end, my ideas look quite simple and not complicated at all; so clearly the issue is about clarity of my work.

 

[causalset]

No you won't. When the school finds out that you're not really interested in being a student, but are simply trying to cheat them out of a stipend, they will toss you out on your ear. That's assuming you can fool them into taking you on to begin with.

I never said i won't be taking courses that students are expected to take -- I would. But the grad students are only expected to take courses for first 2 years, and the rest of the stay there is supposed to be all research. And yes I plan to do research too since I am talking about publications.

Now, if they will ask me to do something other than what I did before, it would probably help me rather than hurt me since it would expend my horizons. Some examples of topics in which I never worked before, but which I might find interesting are doubly special relativity, loop quantum gravity, nonlinear Schrodinger's equation, modified gravity, and so forth. It is conceivable that some of the ppl working on those are in math departments.

 

[Locrian]

Some examples of topics in which I never worked before, but which I might find interesting are doubly special relativity, loop quantum gravity, nonlinear Schrodinger's equation, modified gravity, and so forth. It is conceivable that some of the ppl working on those are in math departments.

Any one of those choices would be an excellent route to not having a job upon earning your second PhD.

 

[Diracula]

However, if I look at people like Sorkin, he was not conventional either, yet he found professorship. The difference between him and myself is that he had the communication skills to explain his unconventional thinking while I don't. And once again this has nothing to do with Russian or English.

Now, regarding the other thing you suggested that I have misunderstandings of basics of physics, I know this can't be the reason either. I mean if that were the case, people would be telling me "when you said such and such you were wrong for such and such reason". But instead the only feedback I get is that the paper was "too complicated" for them to understand. Now, on my end, my ideas look quite simple and not complicated at all; so clearly the issue is about clarity of my work.

When you speak with other mathematicians or physicists who are familiar with causal sets do they understand what you are saying? (Presumably Sorkin had some people who understood his work even though it may have been unconventional, otherwise he would not have become a professor.)

 

[Pyrrhus]

Casual set, go ahead and apply for that second PhD, Why do you need our approval? You will argue your case until your feel you "won".

 

[causalset]

When you speak with other mathematicians or physicists who are familiar with causal sets do they understand what you are saying?

The person I regularly speak to is Bombelli. And the typical situation is that if I send him my paper he won't understand it; if I physically visit him it would probably take around 3 or 4 hours for him to understand me. Once the 3-4 hour conversation happened, he would be able to read the paper on his own and even contribute himself and so forth.

With other people I talked a lot less than Bombelli, but still the situation of having to explain things first is typical. I mean I don't remember a single time when someone walked up to me and said "you were talking about such and such in your paper and I agree and/or disagree with such and such". Usually they say "I saw your paper but I couldn't really understand it" or "I didn't have time to read it". During the very few times when they WERE willing to talk about my paper I had to explain to them, in person, first.

Now the problem is that when my paper is on arXiv, no one is going to call me and ask to explain it for 3-4 hours, unless it is Bombelli or someone like that. Hence I don't have any citations. Similarly, when I send it to the journal, referree can't call me either -- in fact he is not allowed to. And the exchange I do have with referree is not nearly as much as what I would do in person within 3-4 hours, since I don't get to do the "back and forth" when the other side clarifies their question, I clarify my answer, and so forth.

The other issue is that it took Bombelli a year to get used to my thinking style. During the first year he was in fact quite angry with me that I don't explain things clearly, don't define things and so forth. But starting from second year onward his opinion of me became very positive. Again, with most people I am not given a chance to "get them used to" my thinking style.

(Presumably Sorkin had some people who understood his work even though it may have been unconventional, otherwise he would not have become a professor.)

That is precisely why I am saying the issue is communication. And "communication difficulty" does not imply "language difficulty". Yes, I know English just fine, but I don't know how to communicate unconventional ideas, while others like Sorkin seem to be a lot better at it.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Solution -> Enroll in a Writing Class?

 

[Diracula]

Why do you think no one understands your work unless you explain it to them in person for 3-4 hours (and even then it's only your former advisor)? i.e. what is the limiting factor

Edit -- I mean more specifically than "communication problems".

 

[fluidistic]

Okay thanks for the clarifications causalset.
That's rather sad to depend on someone to "translate" your highly complicated thoughts into a text that physicists can understand. It wouldn't be fair for Bombelli to spend that much time to understand what you meant and then take another load of time to rewrite your papers. That guy must be busy for sure. Even if he agreed after all, if I were you I wouldn't feel really happy to depend on someone that much, that would make me feel as if I was back into childhood.
There are 2 options I would consider in your case:
1)If I really want to finish the post doc and "fight" against myself rewriting my papers: I'd try to do it on my own. The work final work certainly won't be perfect but if a few people could understand it then that's already a huge improvement.
2)Find a job related to physics in some way. You already have a Ph.D., I think it would be definitely worth the try to seek for a physics related job first in the country you'd like and then in any other country. The pressure to publish and the huge trouble to express complicated thoughts would be gone, hopefully, if you had found a job that doesn't challenges this problem of you.
In all cases I wish you the best and I also wish you not to have a "frozen idea" in mind. Some people here who give you advices have a Ph.D. too (vanadium does for sure, probably others) even though this isn't my case.
Best of luck.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Find a job related to physics in some way. You already have a Ph.D., I think it would be definitely worth the try to seek for a physics related job first in the country you'd like

Better yet- realize that most physics phds don't have jobs related to physics because there aren't that many jobs. Find a job in finance or insurance and move on with your life.

To be fair, your publication record isn't great and your citation count low. You are competing for postdocs with recent phd grads who are better published than you. Many of those better-published graduate students will do one postdoc and then leave the field themselves. Jobs in physics are scarce. Doing a second phd at a low-tier university won't change that fundamental hurdle, and it will take more years of your life. Cut your losses, sunk costs are sunk, move on.