What does it take to succeed in physics and math?

  • Thread starter lubuntu
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physics
In summary, the conversation discussed the most important factor for success in a student entering a physics or math undergraduate degree and hoping to continue on to a Ph.D. The options of passion, hard work, talent, and a combination of all three were debated. Some argued that hard work alone is the key to success, while others believed that passion is the driving force behind hard work and that talent may also play a role. The conversation concluded that while there may be no substitute for hard work and dedication, passion and talent can also contribute to success in these fields.

Single Most Imporant Predictor of Physics/ Math success

  • Hard work

    Votes: 37 35.9%
  • Inate Ability for science and math

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Combination of inate ability and hard work

    Votes: 32 31.1%
  • IQ

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Previous exposure to material in any form

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Passion for the subject

    Votes: 23 22.3%
  • Previous academic record

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Undergrad School Attending

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other( Please post to explain)

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • Total voters
    103
  • #36
loop quantum gravity said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Brian_C said:
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.
 
  • #38
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.
 
  • #39
ice109 said:
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.
 
  • #40
Shackleford said:
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.
 
  • #41
Shackleford said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #42
ice109 said:
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.
 
  • #43
clope023 said:
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.
 
  • #44
Shackleford said:
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.
Shackleford said:
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.
 
  • #45
Shackleford said:
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?
 
  • #46
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
634
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
731
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
115
Views
6K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
13
Views
277
Back
Top