What does it take to succeed in physics and math?

[lubuntu]

Related to my other thread on which I was trying to gather some of the same information, however this format may be more conducive to revealing the answers I am looking for.

Which is the most important factor in success for a student entering a physics or math undergraduate degree and hoping to continue on to a Ph.D. in time?

EDIT:
I forgot one of the key options I wanted to put on so if you think:

"There is no way to determine if you will be able to grok the concepts of advanced Physics or Math until you try it"

vote other and please note such.

 

[Georgepowell]

Passion!

Although I think this relies on the fact that somebody who is naturally not very good at maths not being passionate about it.

edit: It also relies on somebody who is passionate about it putting in 'hard' work. Although If they enjoy it, the work is not really hard.

 

[khemix]

if you have talent, great. if not, why bother obsessing about it? if talent can or cannot be developed, the only way to do so is through hard work. why bother with these pointless threads.

everyone who has ever contributed to science has been an obsessive hard worker. i have not yet heard of anyone slacking their entire life and making leaps of discovery. if their mind was average or beyond is something we'll never know. all that is known is they worked extremely hard. you would be wise to follow their footsteps.

 

[Wretchosoft]

if you have talent, great. if not, why bother obsessing about it? if talent can or cannot be developed, the only way to do so is through hard work. why bother with these pointless threads.

everyone who has ever contributed to science has been an obsessive hard worker. i have not yet heard of anyone slacking their entire life and making leaps of discovery. if their mind was average or beyond is something we'll never know. all that is known is they worked extremely hard. you would be wise to follow their footsteps.

This.

I believe that, with the exception of the true greats (Einstein, Gauss, Newton, etc.), most physicists and mathematicians do no possesses much more innate ability for the subject than most college-capable people. They were just lucky to have parents and/or mentors who steered them along that path, and the ability to dedicate themselves to something for an extensive period of time. Someone of average ability (like myself) can certainly make up for it with extensive studying and practice. And there have, of course, been many, many documented geniuses (in terms of IQ) throughout the years who did not accomplish anything significant because they lacked the drive to work hard in the field.

Ideally, one would have both genius and drive, but that's so rare that it's unreasonable to say that these two qualities exclusively account for success.

 

[lubuntu]

if you have talent, great. if not, why bother obsessing about it? if talent can or cannot be developed, the only way to do so is through hard work. why bother with these pointless threads.

everyone who has ever contributed to science has been an obsessive hard worker. i have not yet heard of anyone slacking their entire life and making leaps of discovery. if their mind was average or beyond is something we'll never know. all that is known is they worked extremely hard. you would be wise to follow their footsteps.

khemix the point of the thread is to discover the opinion of people who have succeed in these areas as to what the the most important quality is. You voiced that opinion as hard work and make a good case for that. I am not trying to figure out if there is a way to cheat myself into being a great scientist I just wanted peoples' opinions. Why is the thread then pointless?

 

[will.c]

This thread is pointless because you will not gather only the opinion of successful scientists. Your methodology is quite poor for your stated purpose.

Successful scientists will tell you that it is hard work alone - end of story.

 

[Georgepowell]

Successful scientists will tell you that it is hard work alone - end of story.

That has got to be wrong

 

[louie3006]

I believe that you have to have great amount of understanding and good amount of practice and not forget imagination( especially when dealing with sciences ) . since math+ physics are not easy subjects, I believe that people who were exposed to the material when they were in middle school ( like people from 3rd world countries ) will have more understanding than those who began to learn it in college, and you really really have to work hard and spend some quality time with the book.

 

[harvellt]

Passion for a subject and dedication, 99% of the time this will trump a gifted person who doesn't give a #$#@.

 

[Bourbaki1123]

Successful scientists will tell you that it is hard work alone - end of story.

Seems very presumptuous. I assume you have surveyed the vast bulk of successful scientists and they have turned out to be so homogeneous in their responses.

Personally I think that passion precedes the desire to work hard, and talent generally precedes passion. Talent might depend on i.q. I don't think that by general measure most successful scientists and mathematicians are lacking in the i.q. department either. Especially those involved in the more theoretical/abstract work.

 

[will.c]

Seems very presumptuous. I assume you have surveyed the vast bulk of successful scientists and they have turned out to be so homogeneous in their responses.

Personally I think that passion precedes the desire to work hard, and talent generally precedes passion. Talent might depend on i.q. I don't think that by general measure most successful scientists and mathematicians are lacking in the i.q. department either. Especially those involved in the more theoretical/abstract work.

As they say, the bad news is there is no substitute for time in the lab. The good news is there is no substitute for time in the lab. While this might not be as true for theorists, there is no longer any place for the "lazy genius" in science. I have talked to a great many very successful scientists, in fact, and not a one of them has ever told me that they got to where they are by being super brilliant, or just passionate about their work. They wanted success, they put in the work it took do be successful. Simple story.

 

[tanker]

As they say, the bad news is there is no substitute for time in the lab. The good news is there is no substitute for time in the lab. While this might not be as true for theorists, there is no longer any place for the "lazy genius" in science. I have talked to a great many very successful scientists, in fact, and not a one of them has ever told me that they got to where they are by being super brilliant, or just passionate about their work. They wanted success, they put in the work it took do be successful. Simple story.

Yes, that is true, but you still need some sort of baseline for intelligence. I would think most people cannot get the math for the final year of high school, let alone quantum mechanics (or <insert upper level phys/math course here>). It might be because they simply aren't interested, but there are also those who choose those (high school!) math courses as an elective (so it's voluntary) - and no matter how hard they try, they end up near failing or ~60%. And that's not even calculus yet.

But other than that, I certainly agree with you that hard work beats sheer genius any time, provided both of them are able to get there.

 

[Raizy]

I voted hard work... because I've read about this term called neuroplasticity.

But I think emotional stability is the main factor here. All my opinions:

1. No false motives. You did not take up the career choice for boasting rights; you're not trying to "measure up" to your peers or family members like you got to prove something.

2. You selected the career choice purely on your interests, you probably like to daydream about things related to math & physics.

3. Accepting the fact that you'll probably have little or no time for yourself anymore without losing your peace of mind ; a.k.a sacrificing your current lifestyle and (the way I see - choosing a new persona for yourself in society like, "I am going to be a mathematician, and that's what my life is going to be about"

4. Emotional stability.
5. Emotional stability. Just how sure and determined are you?

6. Visit a cognitive psychologist.

 

[Crazy Tosser]

Imagination.

 

[mal4mac]

A great *physics* mentor, and (without great luck) the chutzpah to go out and find one...

Examples abound. Faraday's pursuit of Davy is perhaps the purest example. Note, also, he put in some hard work before and after finding his mentor. Note, also, Davy (and his wife) treated Faraday badly at the social & career level, but Davy had to treat him well at the scientific level as (i) Faraday was prepared to put up with him without recourse to drink (ii) he made himself indispensable to Davy's work.

So don't look (primarily) for the 'nice guy' mentor. Look for the genius-earth-shaker and put up with his evil ways while learning everything you can from him.

 

[AFG34]

hard work + smarts

 

[cristo]

Luck.

 

[lubuntu]

Luck.

I completely disagree with that.

 

[cristo]

I completely disagree with that.

Then you'd be wrong. You have to have some luck in that the projects you work on go somewhere, otherwise you won't be a successful scientist.

 

[mikeknick04]

I never went into graduate studies in math or science.. so I'm not sure if my advice would relate to the question you are asking..

But for me, Math came naturally, it was like another language that was easy to communicate in and to learn new concepts with minimal practice.

Physics was a different story. I had a sh!tty HS physics teacher and I went to an engineering school where physics was taught by a top professor. I essentially went into that class not knowing anything. But at the time, I was trying to keep a perfect GPA, so I told myself I wouldn't settle for anything less than the best, and I would practice the material until I knew it like the back of my hand.

So I'd go to the nightly study sessions for the 'slower' kids, I'd practice the homework with friends, I'd look at practice tests and work them through completely over and over again. That took a lot of hard work, and I could have ended up with a B in the course and still been satisfied that I gave it my all.

My hard work paid off, and I was recognized as the top student on our 3rd exam in the semester. That brought on a lot of unnecessary attention, and I had every frat kid under the sun asking me for help.. and that's when I started teaching it to my peers, not the frat ones of course.So, if you want to succeed bad enough, you give it your best and then some. Do more than the person next to you, because that's what it comes down to in real life also.

 

[Edwardo_Elric]

Luck.

teach me how to increase my luck oh mighty one

 

[PhysicalAnomaly]

You can't. You can only hope for some.

 

[Je m'appelle]

"Combination of inate ability and hard work".

I remenber once reading that one of Isaac Newton's talent was that he had no intellectual fatigue. He never gave up on a problem and used to stick on it for hours and hours even days! Sometimes without sleeping or eating.

 

[Nabeshin]

Man, only the lucky ones get all the luck.

 

[mobe]

There are other factors: a suitable advisor, a right area,...but in my opinion, the most important factor is hard work.

 

[Unknot]

I conjecture that most of us do not work in the "optimal area" for our different innate abilities.

I wonder how much difference that makes though. As a student I always wondered had I selected area B, it would be much better than me going into area A.

 

[aostraff]

In my opinion, passion. But I think hard work, aptitude and passion are interwoven in a way such that it's rare to see people with a serious deficiency in one of them.

 

[Raizy]

"Combination of inate ability and hard work".

I remenber once reading that one of Isaac Newton's talent was that he had no intellectual fatigue. He never gave up on a problem and used to stick on it for hours and hours even days! Sometimes without sleeping or eating.

Dear lord... those scientists need to hurry their **** up. Give me the super pill already.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Brains+Hard Work+Luck.

 

[Brian_C]

I think hard work is overrated unless you're an experimentalist. Theoretical physicists do a lot of studying, but I doubt that guys like Einstein or Heisenberg were particularly hard workers. They were just extraordinarily talented men.

 

[eastside00_99]

exposure

if you learned something, you won

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I think hard work is overrated unless you're an experimentalist. Theoretical physicists do a lot of studying, but I doubt that guys like Einstein or Heisenberg were particularly hard workers. They were just extraordinarily talented men.

I believe they were lucky more than talented.
You need luck in this game, and you can't quantify luck.

 

[Shackleford]

I believe they were lucky more than talented.
You need luck in this game, and you can't quantify luck.

Luck in theoretical physics? It's theoretical and abstract. It begins in your head. I could see how good fortune might assist the prepared experimentalist but not so much the theoretical physicist.

 

[cristo]

Luck in theoretical physics? It's theoretical and abstract. It begins in your head. I could see how good fortune might assist the prepared experimentalist but not so much the theoretical physicist.

You need an amount of luck so that the subject you work on gets funding, or an experiment to disprove your theory is funded, etc.

 

[Shackleford]

You need an amount of luck so that the subject you work on gets funding, or an experiment to disprove your theory is funded, etc.

Well, part of that is business savvy, though, too, being able to effectively market yourself and your research. Networking is a very very powerful tool in business, the corporate world, academia, etc.

 

[Brian_C]

I believe they were lucky more than talented.
You need luck in this game, and you can't quantify luck.

You aren't going to stumble your way into re-writing the laws of physics. Men like Einstein, Maxwell, and Newton were incredibly talented. They were lucky to have lived when physics was in its infancy, but many of the greatest minds of their time failed to make the same discoveries.

 

[ice109]

You aren't going to stumble your way into re-writing the laws of physics. Men like Einstein, Maxwell, and Newton were incredibly talented. They were lucky to have lived when physics was in its infancy, but many of the greatest minds of their time failed to make the same discoveries.

that to me implies they had good luck, not that they were smarter than the rest.

 

[phreak]

You need an amount of luck so that the subject you work on gets funding, or an experiment to disprove your theory is funded, etc.

Few great discoveries were funded directly. You need a very intelligent researcher who has enough passion to work without needing funding. For revolutionary projects are rarely noticed in their beginning stages, and funding institutions often care more for politics than they do for true science.

 

[Shackleford]

that to me implies they had good luck, not that they were smarter than the rest.

Non-sequitur.

How do you have good luck formulating new laws and theories of math and physics? You don't. It doesn't make any sense to have "lucky" in formulating theoretical physics. In experimental physics, perhaps.

 

[clope023]

Non-sequitur.

How do you have good luck formulating new laws and theories of math and physics? You don't. It doesn't make any sense to have "lucky" in formulating theoretical physics. In experimental physics, perhaps.

of course it does, once all the theory writing is done its down to luck that the theory is provable.

 

[ice109]

Non-sequitur.

How do you have good luck formulating new laws and theories of math and physics? You don't. It doesn't make any sense to have "lucky" in formulating theoretical physics. In experimental physics, perhaps.

you've obviously never solved a differential equation by "guessing the solution." but that's not what i meant.

science, like any other human endeavor, is political. theories fall in and out of favor for who knows what reasons. there are tons of really smart people who've created incredibly complex and effective theories that you don't know about for those trivial reasons. and it's not always necessarily because such and such theory that does win the competition is better or more predictive. it could be something as mundane as ease of use, what people love to call "elegance." or because such and such scientist published first or popularized first. you forget, or don't know, that einstein didn't invent special relativity, lorentz did, that's we talk about lorentz transformations. he just didn't give it a cute name.

 

[Shackleford]

you've obviously never solved a differential equation by "guessing the solution." but that's not what i meant.

science, like any other human endeavor, is political. theories fall in and out of favor for who knows what reasons. there are tons of really smart people who've created incredibly complex and effective theories that you don't know about those trivial reasons. and it's not always necessarily because such and such theory that does win the competition is better or more predictive. it could be something as mundane as ease of use, what people love to call "elegance." or because such and such scientist published first or popularized first. you forget, or don't know, that einstein didn't invent special relativity, lorentz did, that's we talk about lorentz transformations. he just didn't give it a cute name.

So, you're telling me Lorentz formulated his transformations by luck? No. Science is not political. You can "politicize" part of science for whatever reason, but science is not inherently political. I'm talking about pure knowledge. And I don't who care who did what first and has recognition for it.

 

[Shackleford]

of course it does, once all the theory writing is done its down to luck that the theory is provable.

No. It's not luck. And a theory isn't "provable" either. Writing theory isn't luck. Experimenting to test the validity of a theory isn't luck either. Observing something that's rare or unexpected, or both, does could contain an element of chance. Guessing six random numbers and winning the lottery is lucky.

 

[ice109]

So, you're telling me Lorentz formulated his transformations by luck? No. Science is not political. You can "politicize" part of science for whatever reason, but science is not inherently political. I'm talking about pure knowledge. And I don't who care who did what first and has recognition for it.

you missed my point entirely. lorentz, minkowski, cartan, and ricci are were all equally as responsible for SR and GR as einstein, and plenty more people. but i bet you have no idea who they are.

No. It's not luck. And a theory isn't "provable" either. Writing theory isn't luck. Experimenting to test the validity of a theory isn't luck either. Observing something that's rare or unexpected, or both, does could contain an element of chance. Guessing six random numbers and winning the lottery is lucky.

you have no idea what you're talking about. do you have any how much scientific literature gets published every year and has been since scientific societies started after the enlightenment? how do you think certain things get attention and others don't? why do you think they say go to a good school, publish with such and such - it's to get attention. you're naive academia is really an intellectual free market. there's no such thing.

 

[f95toli]

No. It's not luck. And a theory isn't "provable" either. Writing theory isn't luck. Experimenting to test the validity of a theory isn't luck either. Observing something that's rare or unexpected, or both, does could contain an element of chance. Guessing six random numbers and winning the lottery is lucky.

I think you are missing the point here: there is more to being a successful scientist than just being good at science. The "business" side of things is also extremely important: being good at writing grant applications, networking etc are also very important skills.
Most scientists can't work on whatever they want; they need to "sell" their research to funding agencies,colleagues etc. And whereas it is true that theoretical physics can be quite a lot cheaper than experimental physics but it is also true that there are generally fewer funding opportunities; especially when it comes to more "exotic" topics.
If the funding agencies decide to stop prioritizing your research area there isn't much you can do about it.

Moreover, there is also quite a bit of luck involved in the science itself. There is no way to predict what combination of skills and experience will be needed to explain a new observation, properties of a newly discovered materials etc. You might be lucky and realize that a technique you have developed is exactly what is needed to explain a new effect.
But, there are plenty of physicists that are really good but never become famous simply because they are working in the "wrong" area.
One example would be the 50% or so of all cosmologist that worked on various theories for a steady-state universe just a few decades ago before data from COBE etc became available; who remembers those theories now?

 

[ice109]

and look at what einstein worked on at princeton after GR: hidden variable theories! that which we know now to be untenable. f95toli said it a lot better than i could but i whole concur.

from personal experience:

i go to my department's colloquium's occasionally, especially when someone from a name brand school comes by, and one thing I've noticed about their lectures that they are much better speakers than those from the weaker schools.