What's the future of a physicist without a degree?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the future prospects of individuals who excel in physics without formal academic qualifications. Participants explore the implications of lacking a degree while possessing potentially valuable theories and contributions to the field of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the chances of making meaningful contributions to physics without a degree are extremely low, emphasizing the importance of formal education.
  • Others argue that while it is theoretically possible for someone without a degree to contribute significantly, the reasons for not obtaining a degree may indicate a lack of capability in mastering necessary concepts.
  • A participant references a quiz by Prof. John Baez that humorously assesses the merit of unconventional physics contributions, highlighting common pitfalls in reasoning and presentation.
  • One participant mentions the historical example of Ramanujan, a mathematician without formal education, to argue that exceptional cases exist but are rare.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the narrative presented in "Good Will Hunting," suggesting it is unrealistic and not reflective of the typical path for physicists.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of writing credible physics papers without formal training, with some asserting that genuine physicists typically have formal education.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the viability of making significant contributions to physics without a degree. While some believe it is possible under certain conditions, others maintain that formal education is essential for credibility and success in the field.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying assumptions about the relationship between formal education and the ability to contribute to physics, with some suggesting that lacking a degree may correlate with a lack of understanding of essential concepts.

BONHEAD
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The chances that you are good enough to do anything meaningful without a degree is extremely small, the chances that someone will also acknowledge you is even smaller. The only way to find out is to start hanging out with physicists, and don't push it on them or they will just reject you.
 
BONHEAD said:
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?

Prof. John Baez has a little quiz you can use to assess the merit of your contribution:

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "einstein", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" to quiz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Theoretically it's possible but WHY they don't have the degree is more worrying. If you can't hack all the math and physics necessary to get a measly degree, it is overwhelmingly likely that you can't do any physics of worth. I will never understand people who think that they can develop a significant physical theory with little to no physics or math and just though-experiment it out. If you can't get a degree, you are not and never will be, a physicist of much merit. And that's just the truth, sorry.
 
I didn't want to reply to this, but I just can't help not to.

A few days ago you asked about getting into MIT, and now you are asking what is the future of a Physicist without a degree? So I guess you didn't decide to just give up on MIT, but give up on Physics education all together.

If you are a good Physicist, and never had formal education, then your future will probably be fine. If you can actually write physics papers (and not just papers that are based on theories that aren't based on physics), and you get them somewhere, then there is no problem. The problem is that this is impossible. I don't know the history of every Physicist in the world, but I don't think there's one genius physicist who didn't get an undergrad degree somewhere and then got a PhD.
I can think of only one person who didn't go to school and was a good scientist, and that is Ramanujan (he was a mathematician, not a physicist).

Good Will Hunting is a beautiful movie, but far from reality. I don't think there are any people like that.
If you like doing Physics, then you will enjoy getting a degree in Physics. If undergrad will be too easy for you, then your professors will challenge you. If it will still be too easy, then you will be challenged in grad school probably.
One last thing, in the MIT thread you said you live in a country where college education is free. Then why not go to school there?
 
BONHEAD said:
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?

It is a really bad idea to model your life and career after a movie.

It is almost impossible to learn enough physics on your own to make a meaningful contribution. But more than that... there is a veritable *legion* of cranks out there who are just ready to revolutionize physics, if only the hidebound reactionaries would listen to them. Without a degree, it will be *very* hard to distinguish yourself from this group.
 
BONHEAD said:
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?

Why don't you just apply for a physics job and find out? Write a book, send a paper to a publisher, apply for grants to build yourself a lab. I doubt anyone is actually stopping you.

Or imagine you have 50k$ with which to hire a physicist from a pile of 20 resumes. Which one do you choose?
 
To echo what other people have told you, you can't do anything without any formal education in physics, no matter how "good" you think you are in physics. Popular science and tv shows tend to show all these mysteries about physics and show various methods they try to solve the physics world's problems. Professional physicists are trying to find needles in a haystack. Someone without a formal education, despite what they think, doesn't even know what planet contains which continent that has the right city where the correct barn is located that might enclose a haystack that may or may not contain a needle in it.
 
In a word?

Non-existent.
 
  • #10
eliya said:
One last thing, in the MIT thread you said you live in a country where college education is free. Then why not go to school there?

Ya that's another issue, education won't be in English, plus poor education, so where's the fun? that's why I was asking for MIT before, and "if you want to reach the moon aim for the stars" it's not necessary MIT, but asking this question was not about giving up my dream, I enjoy physics and if the odds were against it that doesn't mean that I should stop studying what I love, even if it means to study on my own.
 
  • #11
You can daydream all you want, but if you can't at least do the GRE Physics Subject, and get a good score or look for Physics PhD Qualification Exams, and answer at least ONE question then you're even FURTHER from being a physicist.

Heck, get a Mathematical Methods for Physicist or Physical Sciences, and try to do all the exercises. Physics is QUANTITATIVE science, and working through the math is an important hurdle. One thing to consider is that even though you can do the math will still mean there's a long road to go as well.

Another important point to understand. It's that physicist who are FORMALLY trained will disregard you and your work also quickly unless you are associated to a reputable institution. Reputable institutions will tend to associate to individuals with degrees in Physics, Math, or Engineering for Physics Research. In fact, I know of a case of a physical chemist (Lars Onsager) who did great research with just a master's degree, but still I've never heard of someone without any related science degree performing new original research at such high level. Sure, it is nice to daydream about it, but what's the point? Just follow the traditional route, get your degree then do your PhD, and move on to your dream. It doesn't need to be MIT. To me it looks like you are in love with the physicists characters in the movies, but you got to understand, they are very far from reality. Many of the situations are put there in movies for dramatic effect.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Without trying to discourage you completely, you don't even love physics yet. You're in love with an idea of physics that you have in your head. Real physics is what you do in college, with advanced math, laboratories, and papers. It's a lot of fun but it's miles away from watching Brian Green and a guy with crazy hair in a lab coat. I am not saying you can't be a physicist but your chances of success right now are up in the air until you actually enroll in a university and start studying it. After a tediously long problem sets that invoke 3 obscure vector identities keeps you up into 2AM in the morning, after you've spent hours recalibrating an electron microscope, after you read a veritable ream of physics papers your professor handed you, then you can say you're doing physics and decide if you like it. My advice? Suck it up, enroll in a university (probably in your country, since very, very few US universities admit people with a bachelor's degree for a second one and few international students get into begin with), do some physics, get involved with research, and then think about your career. It's not like going to MIT will make you an outstanding physicist. Great physicists would have become so even if they started from Podunk University, it's the ambition and hard work that gets them there.
 
  • #13
Pyrrhus said:
Physics is QUANTITATIVE science...

Yup. The reason physics is a quantitative science is because numbers are unambiguous and irrefutable (though sometimes experimental methods, data analysis, or conclusions are refuted): an experiment is conducted and something is measured...measured in numbers (with corresponding units). If you have a theory that can predict that number time and time again (and predict other numbers as well using other kinds of experiments), then you're golden.

If you can't do math, then how can you predict any numbers or outcomes for experiments?
 
  • #14
Geezer said:
Prof. John Baez has a little quiz you can use to assess the merit of your contribution:



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" to quiz.

Haha! This is great! The only thing that is missing is a scale (how many points corresponds to what level of crackpottery).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
DR13 said:
Haha! This is great! The only thing that is missing is a scale (how many points corresponds to what level of crackpottery).

Ohh thank you very much, DR13 that's very nice!
 
  • #16
BONHEAD said:
Ohh thank you very much, DR13 that's very nice!

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic (it is tough to tell tone over the internet). If you are then I want to assure you that my post had nothing to do with you. It is just that there are some people who post things on this forum along the lines of, "I have found the theory of everything and I know that I am right so do not try to disprove me. Now please tell me how to apply for a Nobel Prize."
 
  • #17
BONHEAD said:
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?

Back up a bit. How are you able to evaluate that someone is "very good in physics" under such circumstances?

Within the past 100 years or so, name someone who did not go through any formal education in physics that made any significant contribution to this field of knowledge. That should directly answer your question.

Zz.
 
  • #18
MissSilvy said:
My advice? Suck it up, enroll in a university (probably in your country, since very, very few US universities admit people with a bachelor's degree for a second one and few international students get into begin with), do some physics, get involved with research, and then think about your career. It's not like going to MIT will make you an outstanding physicist. Great physicists would have become so even if they started from Podunk University, it's the ambition and hard work that gets them there.

Thank you MissSilvy, I'll take your advice, what you're saying is the most logical thing. that's the kind of answere I needed :smile:
 
  • #19
ZapperZ said:
Within the past 100 years or so, name someone who did not go through any formal education in physics that made any significant contribution to this field of knowledge. That should directly answer your question.

Zz.

well, it didn't happen but that doesn't mean its not possible
Am I right or you're just wronge!
 
  • #20
DR13 said:
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic (it is tough to tell tone over the internet). If you are then I want to assure you that my post had nothing to do with you. It is just that there are some people who post things on this forum along the lines of, "I have found the theory of everything and I know that I am right so do not try to disprove me. Now please tell me how to apply for a Nobel Prize."

You must be drunk.
 
  • #21
BONHEAD said:
You must be drunk.

I am not.

Geezer said:
I think it could use an update or two. Like, if you create a website dedicated exclusively to promoting your theory, then you should get bonus points in direct proportion to the number of words per equation on your site (e.g., 1000 words on website with just two equations should yield 50 bonus points).

Example: http://www.timecube.com/"

That website scares me... a lot. I was raised jewish, so to see it call for a new holocaust is terrifying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
DR13 said:
I am not.
That website scares me... a lot. I was raised jewish, so to see it call for a new holocaust is terrifying.

I'm Jewish, too. Yeah, that Time Cube guy is a complete loony. I don't endorse anything he says, obviously--in fact, I don't even know the guy--but he's a frequent allusion on Fark, which is how I even know about him.
 
  • #23
BONHEAD said:
well, it didn't happen but that doesn't mean its not possible
Am I right or you're just wronge!

I've never seen a shattered cup spontaneously rebuild itself, even though it's not impossible.
 
  • #24
BONHEAD said:
well, it didn't happen but that doesn't mean its not possible

No, that's pretty much exactly what it means.Edit: And the person you are refuting *is* a physicist.

Why do you feel justified in telling them they're wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • #25
BONHEAD said:
Hi, I wanted to know what if someone who was very good in physics but didn't get the chance to study at college, and have his/her own great physics theories that would benefit science, what will be the future of a someone like that? would the story of Will ( in the good will hunting ) be the answere Or this person would be considered an outsider to physics?

Science is a social process and unless you are interacting with other people doing it, then it's likely that your theories aren't nearly as good as you thing it is.

It's theoretically possible to get those social contacts without getting a degree, but getting a degree is easy enough that I'm not sure what the point is in trying.
 
  • #26
One other thing is that it isn't essential that you get your undergraduate degree in *physics*. Ed Witten got his undergraduate in history and one of my professors got an undergraduate degree in English.
 
  • #27
twofish-quant said:
One other thing is that it isn't essential that you get your undergraduate degree in *physics*. Ed Witten got his undergraduate in history and one of my professors got an undergraduate degree in English.

It's not essential, but you still obviously must know the physics.
 
  • #28
twofish-quant said:
One other thing is that it isn't essential that you get your undergraduate degree in *physics*. Ed Witten got his undergraduate in history and one of my professors got an undergraduate degree in English.

Getting an undergrad degree in something closely related to physics (e.g., engineering or math) can set you up so that you can apply to grad school in physics.
 
  • #29
twofish-quant said:
One other thing is that it isn't essential that you get your undergraduate degree in *physics*. Ed Witten got his undergraduate in history and one of my professors got an undergraduate degree in English.

Essential? No. But very, very helpful. If one wants to gain more knowledge in physics, as the OP indicated, then I would recommend majoring in physics. Especially if one wants to go to grad school as Geezer said.
 
  • #30
BONHEAD said:
well, it didn't happen but that doesn't mean its not possible
Am I right or you're just wronge!

So you're expecting to accomplish something that has never happened before? You think you're THAT good?

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Courses Do I Need Quantum Mechanics for a Future in Cosmology?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Programs Should I do a math or an astronomy double major for general relativity?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Programs What subject is better for an aspiring experimental physicist?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Is It Possible to Pursue Physics Without a Traditional Degree?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Need some advice on my future career
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Programs University of Edinburgh or King's College London for mathematical physics masters?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Programs What Do People Think Of Competency Based Degrees Such as Texas A&M Commerce
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Programs I'm a medical physicist, how can I get into astronomy/astrophysics?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
Other Do I need a physics degree to get into a physics graduate program?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Programs Physics degree to med school? please help
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K