I want to become a self-taught theoretical physicist

[physica]

It's unfair to dismiss groups of people so what I'll say is be careful. I'm 24 and now in my second year of a physics degree. I tried to teach myself but that can quickly lead to delusion. If you read something by yourself and struggle with it you can convince yourself that this is because the concept is hard, However, it's a little harder if you're sitting in a class full of people and 75% of the class understand it. Reading a book and thinking you understand something is very different to handing in papers and getting marked down by your lecturer or having to sit exams. Most people can convince themselves of anything this is why cults form. I'm not suggesting that people who want to teach themselves physics can be compared to a cult as cults are clearly extreme examples but we have to note that the people in cults usually set off with noble ideals. Only having you to assess your progression in physics can be very dangerous especially left for a long time. I set out with the intention of being open minded and learning physics in my spare time and I convinced myself that I knew a lot about physics. I decided I wanted to make a career out of it so I attended university and I got a heavy reality check receiving marks like 40%. Now I have worked hard and getting an average of 80% in my second year. What I have learn't is that there is a ton of bad habits that are very easy to pick up and if left can grow. The lecturer's job is to constantly point them out so they don't form. It may seem narrow minded but from my experience I'd be....... reserved about the abilities of a self-taught physicist.

[altsci]

Self-taught Theoretical Physicist.

 

I am 81, and here is my example. I had graduated the Leningrad State University (Russia) in 1966 and my diploma says: “…completed the full course of the aforementioned University under the specialty of Physics. By the decision of State Examination Commity from 21 December 1966 it was assigned to [my name here] the qualification of Physicist – Theorist.”

The subdivision (in Russian called “cafedra”) was “Theory of Field”. My thesis was in general relativity. I got a highest grade, but on the public hearing some group of people (invited from the other institutions) stated clearly that “any research in General Relativity can not be conducted without our permission” (!). To me it sounded as utter absurd. My legal way into theoretical physics was closed. So, I began the self-teaching process and hard worked at home for 45 years being on welfare or low pay job. What did I achieved? After 16 years of home work (in 1982) I did a discovery of which only I know (it was not recognized). By my judgment the discovery is important and worth sacrifice. Let me explain. Logically and structurally (and by the scope of experimental confirmation) the finest physical theory, by my opinion, is Classical ElectroDynamics (CED). But it looks that conventional CED can explain only point particles. This is a failure from the very start because of infinity in the solution is not acceptable by math standards. Many attempts were made before me to correct the situation. All the known attempts failed and by the 1982 it was the firm opinion that CED is a dead end and the quantum theory has to replace it. I did a lot of work. I completely overhauled CED and made it possible to go inside the elementary particle. By 1982 and up to now nobody can judge if I succeeded or not (and nobody wants to due to the political reasons). So, I have now the classical theory of elementary particles. In principal, I can produce the structure of an electron after the huge amount of work that still has to be done in that direction. But the main thing is that CED now is greatly improved (only I know it – no recognition yet). And I still can distinguish between a bad physical theory and the good one. The SRT is the consequence of CED and represents mathematical advance which is the major advance in theoretical physics of 20^th Century (now 4-d geometry is a must in theoretical physics - again my opinion). GRT is not a physical theory -- it is just mathematics. Gravitation can be derived from CED. Quantum Principals – is just a wrong philosophy. Schroedinger Equation can be derived from CED. It is just my point of view.

If you allow the people who think that science is their property to teach you – yes, they will pay you good. But you will be bound to repeat all this nonsense that they created.

Edited February 23, 2014 by altsci

[physica]

I’m sorry to hear your story. Of course when anything becomes governed or needs to be governed politics does play a part. Sadly more than needed but you’ll also see politics form in small independent groups when there’s something at stake. A prime example would be the street gangs in LA. They were formed in order to police and protect the black neighbourhoods as official police would not offer services in those areas and the KKK and marines would often harass blacks in the 1940s. Because they were a positive force they quickly picked up momentum and politics seeped in causing the mess of what they are now. I highly doubt most politicians start their career with the intent of spinning facts and compromising morals. We can all lose our way that’s the part of being human. My stance is that you have a greater risk of losing your way if you go against mainstream or go independent.

 

Of course there are people who have gone against mainstream conventions and succeeded, Faraday didn’t receive a university education but he is still mentioned in physics textbooks. However, considering that none of us can predict the future we have to look at risk when planning our lives. We have to note that you were taught formally first how to reason mathematically on physical concepts and then broke off to do your own reasoning. This is very different to teaching yourself how to reason and then forming your own theories.

 

As for your theory, I hope you get the recognition you deserve. As I am only a second year undergrad I’m not qualified to say if it’s a lot or nothing. However, it’s strong to state that we are bound to repeat all this nonsense they created. The stuff I’m being taught at university is applied throughout the world in various disciplines of engineering and it works. It may not be optimum in your eyes but it certainly cannot be described as nonsense. I appreciate that theoretical physics is less practically applied so I have to yield to the fact that I cannot argue the validity of certain theoretical proposals. However, this is a discussion on someone self-educating in physics. Although my experience is limited I have experienced both sides of the coin and I would not encourage anyone to teach themselves physics if they have an opportunity to study it at university. Self-education of degree and masters level physics should really be a last resort.

[altsci]

Thank you for good wishes, physica. A good physical theory is exact and built up upon not too many top basic principals. Like the conventional CED built upon Maxwell's Equations (ME) + Relativistic Dynamics (RD). Everything else is consequence of basic principals. Maxwell's PDE system contains 6 unknown functions for electromagnetic field, and 4 unknown functions for current density (also fields as E-M fields). The RD is in dissonance with ME. It contains 4 equations containing a trajectory of a charged particle. These are not equations for field functions. Something is missing here. I just replaced the 4 equations of RD with another 4 equations that contain all field functions. These are can be thought of as the dynamics inside an elementary particle. All elementary particles have a sharp boundary between inside region and vacuum. It is possible that this boundary can have a surface charge or current.

[mccollw]

I see people saying that there isn't anyone from the 20th century that is self-taught to make it viable. Since when do we give up on a dream, if you want to become the first self-taught Theoretical Physicist then go for it someone has to be the first. I am planning to be a self-taught Physicist too and no one is going to tell me I can't or it's impossible. I have been to college and you only get segment knowledge where self study requires more learning to be done that is why people have a hard time with online classes. College is a stigma that they want you to believe you need them to be successful but look at all the billionaires that dropped out and the people locked into student loans for life that are not making it very well. It is time for people like us to pioneer a new era for getting the same knowledge as you would if not better than a traditional college degree. I believe in the future people will follow in our footsteps. You need to work at it but anything worth it takes time and hard work. Good Luck and I hope people with more knowledge than me can give you better start of books and journals, but I got a lot of math, physics, chemistry, and misc to match subjects towards a traditional degree from bachelor to Phd.

[Phi for All]

It's possible to self-teach, if you already have good critical thinking skills. The fact that so many people who try to self-teach science suddenly develop the idea that the mainstream is wrong suggests that their critical thinking was flawed to begin with. Why criticize things you don't know about?

 

Do these people think they could self-study some sculpting, or karate, or acting, or plumbing, or whatever else, and discover that everybody's been doing it wrong this whole time? Does that really sound rational?

[StringJunky]

It's possible to self-teach, if you already have good critical thinking skills. The fact that so many people who try to self-teach science suddenly develop the idea that the mainstream is wrong suggests that their critical thinking was flawed to begin with. Why criticize things you don't know about?

 

Do these people think they could self-study some sculpting, or karate, or acting, or plumbing, or whatever else, and discover that everybody's been doing it wrong this whole time? Does that really sound rational?

"He that is only taught by himself has a fool for a master".

 

I have taught myself quite a few subjects but I have always chosen some mentors who I decided they were where I wanted to be or, at least, in that direction: I chose Ansel Adams when I learned about photography and read all his works, for instance. Why beat a different, harder path only to get to the same place? Also, there's nothing worse to learning than ignorantly practicing the same mistakes repeatedly.

 

Another saying that comes to mind:

 

"A wise man learns from his mistakes. A clever man learns from the mistakes of others".

Edited February 7, 2017 by StringJunky

[zztop]

I made a thread about this topic on http://www.physicsforums.com/ and some people on there called me a troll, my thread was locked as a result, and then when I tried making another thread, I wasn't able to because someone was messing with my ability to post (probably a mod). When I tried going back I got called a "crackpot" and it said that the ban will "never" be lifted. I spent like an hour making replies to people who posted on my thread and I never got a chance to post them.

 

Anyway, I really needed to vent about that. Now, I'm here for the same reasons I had on there and that is, well, to get different perspectives and maybe even a reality check (as was implied on the other site) about my wanting to become a theoretical physicist.

 

People have advised me to go back to school and get my PhD. I have money saved over from working for a decade but I don't want to spend it on school. I'd rather educate myself because I feel like I can learn better and faster on my own.

 

A little about me:

 

I'm in my mid twenties and when I was in my mid teens I quit school (legally) and went to work full time. Work was fullfilling but over time it became less so. After reading a couple of books about Richard Feynman (plus watching videos/docs about him), I have decided that that's what I see myself doing for the rest of my life. Physics. I recall that back in school I was a natural at science and math and really enjoyed it. I agree that college level physics is much harder than what was taught in high school but I also know that once you learn something it becomes easy. In other words, it's all relative.

 

Comments? Advice? Insights? Arguments? are all welcome. I know that I don't know everything so that's why I'm here trying to learn. Thanks!

You definitely can teach yourself. I recommend the "Feynman Lectures on Physics", you already know where to find them on the internet. I taught myself physics (from his books) starting at age 15. At 20, I enrolled in physics and I ended up with a phD at 26. I credit most of my success to the Feynman lectures. Go for it!

[Eise]

mccollw,

't Hooft gives you the best start I can imagine:

How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist

Just remember: there is no short cut.

[studiot]

mccollw,

 

't Hooft gives you the best start I can imagine:

 

How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist

 

Just remember: there is no short cut.

 

 

Very good reference Eise. +1

 

However a word of warning about it.

 

The preferred reference in the page on electronics is to Tony Kuphaldt's monumental work.

 

Unfortunately Tony uses the reverse polarity convention from the rest of the world in his circuit theory.

This is not technically incorrect but can make for many difficulties when reading what the rest of the world writes.

[Lord Antares]

I want to reiterate the very important point that while it may be possible to reach the level of understanding that a professional physicist has, you WILL NOT be recognized as one.

If you want to make any money out of physics, that is a very important thing to consider and it's why I believe just getting a degree is better.

[StringJunky]

I want to reiterate the very important point that while it may be possible to reach the level of understanding that a professional physicist has, you WILL NOT be recognized as one.

If you want to make any money out of physics, that is a very important thing to consider and it's why I believe just getting a degree is better.

Also, you likely need one if you harbour any desire to actually make a difference.

[Klaynos]

I want to reiterate the very important point that while it may be possible to reach the level of understanding that a professional physicist has, you WILL NOT be recognized as one.

If you want to make any money out of physics, that is a very important thing to consider and it's why I believe just getting a degree is better.

If someone wants to go this route the zztop approach of self learning followed by academic qualifications certainly seems sensible.

[Lord Antares]

If someone wants to go this route the zztop approach of self learning followed by academic qualifications certainly seems sensible.

 

Well, that just benefits your experience of getting a degree. It makes it easier. As I understand it, OP didn't want a degree at all. I'm saying it's possible to attain a respectable amount of knowledge without going to college, you will never be recognized. That's why I don't advise it.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Lord Antares

[Phi for All]

You definitely can teach yourself. I recommend the "Feynman Lectures on Physics", you already know where to find them on the internet. I taught myself physics (from his books) starting at age 15. At 20, I enrolled in physics and I ended up with a phD at 26. I credit most of my success to the Feynman lectures. Go for it!

 

This is the route I would recommend. There seem to be two distinct paths the self-taught travel down. The other path usually leads to misunderstanding, and eventually these folks start thinking they have a special insight and everybody else is wrong.

[zztop]

 

This is the route I would recommend. There seem to be two distinct paths the self-taught travel down. The other path usually leads to misunderstanding, and eventually these folks start thinking they have a special insight and everybody else is wrong.

Yes, absolutely. It is important to get a formal education at some point, preferably sooner rather than later.

[StringJunky]

Yes, absolutely. It is important to get a formal education at some point, preferably sooner rather than later.

You've done it the right way and more power to you but people most often mean just doing it themselves and then expecting to come up with something scientifically avant garde and meaningful.

Edited February 8, 2017 by StringJunky

[zztop]

You've done it the right way and more power to you but people most often mean just doing it themselves and then expecting to come up with something scientifically avant garde and meaningful.

There are exceptions, Faraday comes to mind but they are very rare.

[StringJunky]

There are exceptions, Faraday comes to mind but they are very rare.

What chance now?

[Lord Antares]

It's a lot different for the older scientists, as not much was known at the time and therefore, the current issues were a lot simpler.

I agree that it's unlikely for anything from (mid?)20th century and upward.

[zztop]

What chance now?

Given the complexity of today's physics, pretty low but not zero. Exceptions will appear.

[dimreepr]

Given the complexity of today's physics, pretty low but not zero. Exceptions will appear.

 

The problem is no-one is self taught, one can read all the books but then who wrote the books and how did one learn to read?

[StringJunky]

 

The problem is no-one is self taught, one can read all the books but then who wrote the books and how did one learn to read?

I think people, I do anyway, mean without formal study in a structured course.

[dimreepr]

I think people, I do anyway, mean without formal study in a structured course.

 

I get that but my point is, without any sort of structured course/learning from our elders, we'd just be howling at the moon.

[Phi for All]

Given the complexity of today's physics, pretty low but not zero. Exceptions will appear.

 

The chances of today's physics being wrong on the fundamental level some crackpots claim is practically impossible. The exceptions certainly exist, but will most likely not be complete game-changers.