What does it take to be a distinguished physicist?

[UraniumCatalys]

Disclaimer: ignore the word 'distinguished' in the title, what I mean is a person who is successful in their field of work.

The topic of this discussion is what it takes to be successful in the field of physics. More specifically, if you need to be born with a certain quality. For example, "a sense to math" (never FULLY understood that one), "Good with realistic subjects" (I don't live in the USA, in my country subjects are divided to humanian subjects [similar to Liberal Arts] and realistic subjects [scientific subjects]).

I like physics and the very nature of it, as of now I am in my final year of high school. I study something like "honor physics", a higher level physics, though, not university level. We studied electromagnetism, electricity, mechanics, optics and modern physics. Throughout my studies I've done well and my average is just shy of an A+. I don't understand theory immediately, maybe after I have read it again and have solved a couple of exercises. Some classmates in my group are nothing like that - They're sort of geniuses, so to speak, they understand the theory almost immediately and have no problem EXPLAINING it themselves, after maybe just one or two times of hearing the professor.

As I am thinking of studying higher-level physics in the university and perhaps getting a masters or a doctorate, I can't help but wonder if I "stand a chance". It sort of frustrates me that sometimes, although I do understand the subject in the end, I tend to not fully comprehend what is being taught, and others (I realize that envying them will do no good) catch on to it at the speed of light. I'm suppose to choose my major next year and I really haven't made up my mind yet. I don't think my love for the subject makes up for perhaps my lack of X (I have no idea what X is, that's what I'm asking here. or even if there is such a thing).What are your opinions on this subject? are physicists born with certain mental faculties that provide them with the ability to excel at their field?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Why do you care about being a distinguished physicist? Why does that actually matter?

 

[R136a1]

If your main goal is to become a distinguished physicist, then you're setting yourself up for a giant disappointment. Such a thing is almost impossible. The chance you obtain even a professorship in physics is 1%. And a professor isn't even close to a distinguished physicist.
Furthermore, if your goal is to be famous and stuff, then you're having the wrong mindset for physics. You should go into physics because you enjoy it and because you want to find out more about the world you live in.

Also, just raw talent doesn't guarantee you success. Hard work on the other hand, is much more important. It is not uncommon that the smart people eventually fail because they never had to work hard, while the hard working people eventually get there.

 

[UraniumCatalys]

If your main goal is to become a distinguished physicist, then you're setting yourself up for a giant disappointment. Such a thing is almost impossible. The chance you obtain even a professorship in physics is 1%. And a professor isn't even close to a distinguished physicist.
Furthermore, if your goal is to be famous and stuff, then you're having the wrong mindset for physics. You should go into physics because you enjoy it and because you want to find out more about the world you live in.

Also, just raw talent doesn't guarantee you success. Hard work on the other hand, is much more important. It is not uncommon that the smart people eventually fail because they never had to work hard, while the hard working people eventually get there.

As I replied to Arsenic&Lace, I meant successful, not neccesarily famous. I do enjoy physics and have interest in it not because of how much of a millionaire I'm going to be as a physicist nor how many chicks would fall in love with me because of that. I appreciate your comment, thanks. I have seen other discussions of this type and there was never a definitive answer, maybe in physics its different than in other subjects.

Why do you care about being a distinguished physicist? Why does that actually matter?

When I said distinguished I didn't mean famous, I thought the word means something else. I meant a physicist who has is successful and contributed to his field. sorry for the mix-up.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

The answer is yes, lots of slightly above average people become physics professors, I know some personally. You do not need to be a massive outlier. However the theorists tend to be maniacs, even the average ones, so from my anecdotal experience it depends upon whether you enter more applied or experimental physics or the theoretical stuff.

 

[R136a1]

As I replied to Arsenic&Lace, I meant successful, not neccesarily famous. I do enjoy physics and have interest in it not because of how much of a millionaire I'm going to be as a physicist nor how many chicks would fall in love with me because of that. I appreciate your comment, thanks. I have seen other discussions of this type and there was never a definitive answer, maybe in physics its different than in other subjects.

When I said distinguished I didn't mean famous, I thought the word means something else. I meant a physicist who has is successful and contributed to his field. sorry for the mix-up.

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.

In my opinion, what it takes to be a successful physicist is passion for physics, a lot of hard work, a bit of natural talent and a lot of luck.

 

[Student100]

This is a question that comes up quite often; if you do a forum search you’ll find countless other threads on the same topic.

There is no X, no magical ingrained talent at birth. Hogwash.

Studying physics is your best shot at being a distinguished physicists and anyone is capable of studying physics.

 

[UraniumCatalys]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation.

In my opinion, what it takes to be a successful physicist is passion for physics, a lot of hard work, a bit of natural talent and a lot of luck.

This is a question that comes up quite often; if you do a forum search you’ll find countless other threads on the same topic.

There is no X, no magical ingrained talent at birth. Hogwash.

Studying physics is your best shot at being a distinguished physicists and anyone is capable of studying physics.

The answer is yes, lots of slightly above average people become physics professors, I know some personally. You do not need to be a massive outlier. However the theorists tend to be maniacs, even the average ones, so from my anecdotal experience it depends upon whether you enter more applied or experimental physics or the theoretical stuff.

I appreciate your answers :)
I have another pretty basic question, do astrophysicists and cosmologists go under the theoretical physicists category, or is it a whole other category?

 

[mathnerd15]

there are really some genius level people doing amazing work in mathematics and physics. I wonder if you need pure talent to do algebra and calculations in your head. I kind of feel the same way, I'm working on Griffiths problems and it takes time, but I still have a passion for it and it's the best tuition. I keep thinking though of really great people too much like Feynman. It gives me satisfaction to find a solution that is more complex than my professor but without salary and funding I don't think you can really build a life on that

 

[Student100]

I appreciate your answers :)
I have another pretty basic question, do astrophysicists and cosmologists go under the theoretical physicists category, or is it a whole other category?

Astrophysics to my knowledge is a branch of astronomy, so there are both theorists and observers. Cosmology looks at the universes origins and what have you. I think there are both theorist and experimentalist here too.

there are really some genius level people doing amazing work in mathematics and physics. I wonder if you need pure talent to do algebra and calculations in your head. I kind of feel the same way, I'm working on Griffiths problems and it takes time, but I still have a passion for it and it's the best tuition. I keep thinking though of really great people too much like Feynman. It gives me satisfaction to find a solution that is more complex than my professor but without salary and funding I don't think you can really build a life on that

What is this fascination with doing calculations in your head? At most it's a party flavor. There are no practical purposes for doing calculations or algebra in your head. I don't understand the rest of what you wrote.

 

[clope023]

There is no X, no magical ingrained talent at birth. Hogwash.
.

There isn't a physics/math gene, no. There are, however, natural propensities that allows one to develop skills in physics/math problem solving at a faster/easier rate than those who do not have those propensities.

I doubt most people would doubt that there exists athletic talents, it stands to reason that intellectual talents also exist.

 

[clope023]

I appreciate your answers :)
I have another pretty basic question, do astrophysicists and cosmologists go under the theoretical physicists category, or is it a whole other category?

There are theoretical and experimental (and computational) aspects to every branch of physics. When you get a phd in physics, your expertise is not in physics generally, it's a very specific branch of physics. Contrary to what you might've heard on documentaries by Michio Kaku and the like, no ones job is theoretical physicist. You are a theoretical astrophysicist, a theoretical particle physicist, a theoretical solid state physicist, etc, etc, you get the idea. Theoreticians are a lot of pen and paper mathematics as well programming and simulations (pertaining to your branch of physics obviously). Theoretical physicists don't all work on string theory or the life and death of the universe, also contrary to the documentaries. You might be a theorist whose mathematics pertains to the movement of electrons in a semiconductor for instance. You might be writing code simulating how particles move in a gas. It's a much more varied job than the documentaries would like to show.

 

[Student100]

There isn't a physics/math gene, no. There are, however, natural propensities that allows one to develop skills in physics/math problem solving at a faster/easier rate than those who do not have those propensities.

I doubt most people would doubt that there exists athletic talents, it stands to reason that intellectual talents also exist.

I’ve never seen a paper linking above average levels of intelligence to genetics (or whether such a thing even exists), so it doesn't stand to reason at all. Do you have any research that dictates a preposition to faster/easier rates of learning having some kind of physiology mechanism behind it? Or is purely subjective and environmental, which seems the most likely reasoning.

 

[R136a1]

I’ve never seen a paper linking above average levels of intelligence to genetics (or whether such a thing even exists), so it doesn't stand to reason at all. Do you have any research that dictates a preposition to faster/easier rates of learning having some kind of physiology mechanism behind it? Or is purely subjective and environmental, which seems the most likely reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_disability#Cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

 

[Student100]

R136a1, I am not talking about people with documented mental disabilities, so your first link is of no use.

The second link borders on puesdo-science and even admits the failings of the research several times throughout each category. There is no way to accurately test for intelligence to any degree of certainty within the non disabled population.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Of course learning has something to do with biology; how else would there be a clear distinction between humans and other animals in terms of intellect? As a simple example, a Chimpanzee can never be a theoretical physicist.

As far as just being a physicist is concerned, I think a reasonable number of people (but not all) can do it. If you're trying to be Feynman, good luck with that.

 

[Student100]

Rampant hero worship, when will you end?

I like how you're now taking the conversation to mean different species, talk about apples and oranges. We’re actually talking about average humans who lack any of mental disability A&L.

 

[R136a1]

Rampant hero worship, when will you end?

I like how you're now taking the conversation to mean different species, talk about apples and oranges. We’re actually talking about average humans who lack any of mental disability A&L.

So you actually believe that every average human can be like Feynman?

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

The talk about various kinds of animals was mere to make unequivocal the fact that there is a biological basis for intelligence.

 

[Student100]

So you actually believe that every average human can be like Feynman?

I would pose the question, what does that even mean? Any average human is capable of studying physics, that's my premise. Furthermore, anyone who studies physics is capable of making contributions to the field given time and resources.

To suggest everyone can emulate someone, well that's impossible, as differing environmental, dumb luck, and interests in a topic also play a role (as well a thousand other factors that might impact said emulation.) What I’m arguing is there is nothing magical or ingrained that can be isolated and studied that will predict ones success in any given area.

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men who did amazing things. Thats the distinction that needs to be kept clear.

 

[R136a1]

The talk about various kinds of animals was mere to make unequivocal the fact that there is a biological basis for intelligence.

Exactly, and the links of mental retardation were meant to accomplish the same thing. If a certain genetic combination causes people to have a very low IQ, then it's not unreasonable that other combinations produce smart individuals (although other factors are clearly also important).

As for the links being pseudo-science, the burden of proof is on you to show it's pseudo-science. You can't just call something pseudo-science because you don't like what it says!

 

[R136a1]

I would pose the question, what does that even mean? Any average human is capable of studying physics, that's my premise. Furthermore, anyone who studies physics is capable of making contributions to the field given time and resources.

You should try to tutor people. You'll see immediately that some people get it immediately and other people just don't get it at all. You try and explain it hundreds and thousands of times using different methods and they don't get it. Telling me that they are capable of making contributions to QFT is a joke.

To suggest everyone can emulate someone, well that's impossible, as differing environmental, dumb luck, and interests in a topic also play a role (as well a thousand other factors that might impact said emulation.) What I’m arguing is there is nothing magical or ingrained that can be isolated and studied that will predict ones success in any given area.

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men who did amazing things. Thats the distinction that needs to be kept clear.

Gauss did his fathers' finances at the age of three. Good luck finding many children who can do that. Clearly, he was not average.

 

[Student100]

Exactly, and the links of mental retardation were meant to accomplish the same thing. If a certain genetic combination causes people to have a very low IQ, then it's not unreasonable that other combinations produce smart individuals (although other factors are clearly also important).

As for the links being pseudo-science, the burden of proof is on you to show it's pseudo-science. You can't just call something pseudo-science because you don't like what it says!

The links itself comment on the pseudo-scientific conclusions that are drawn from admittedly flawed or inadequate research. Again, there is no suggestion of a mechanism by which intelligence can be quantified, or even an accurate way to measure to intelligence.

Anyway, the burden of proof resides with the one who suggests there is a physical mechanism by which human intelligence varies in the average population. Obviously Fragile X and Down Syndrome impact intelligence due to the very fact that proteins need for brain development are silenced, missing, or otherwise damaged.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

Well I don't want to stress this point out, I agree that many average individuals can still make perfectly good physicists. But the notion that Einstein or Feynman were merely average is probably wishful thinking; however, I suspect there were and are very many people with similar abilities at the top of the class and far more rarely the bottom and middle. Just that there are lots of them doesn't mean that they are average, however.

 

[R136a1]

The links itself comment on the pseudo-scientific conclusions that are drawn from admittedly flawed or inadequate research.

Which links exactly?

Again, there is no suggestion of a mechanism by which intelligence can be quantified, or even an accurate way to measure to intelligence.

Evidence?

Anyway, the burden of proof resides with the one who suggests there is a physical mechanism by which human intelligence varies in the average population. Obviously Factor X and Down Syndrome impact intelligence due to the very fact that proteins need for brain development are silenced, missing, or otherwise damaged.

No, you misunderstand the burden of proof. The burden of proof is with the one making the assertion. So if I assert "There is a physical mechanism" then I have the burden of proof. If you assert "There is not a physical mechanism", then you have the burden of proof. If you say "I don't believe your assertion that there is a physical mechanism", then you would not have the burden of proof.

Indeed, I do assert that there is a physical mechanism. So I need to meet my burden of proof. I try to do so by posting the wiki links which you found unacceptable for some vague reason.

However, you also make the assertion that there is no physical mechanism. This is not the same as not believing my assertion. Since you make the assertion, you need to provide evidence for it.

 

[clope023]

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men

No they were not, I have to find the exact source, but Einsteins brain (upon an autopsy) was found to be particularly unusual in such a way that it functioned better than the average brain.

Feynmann trained himself from a very early age, but it can be disputed that he was more intelligent than the average person to start with despite having an early interest in math and science.

There are people who cannot be NFL Lineman because they don't have the genetics to be 300+lbs of useful and functional muscle, there are also people who won't perform at the academic level of the Feynmanns and the Einsteins and the Newtons because they don't have the mental faculties to.

 

[Student100]

Which links exactly?

Evidence?

Your link on the heredity of IQ.

You should know, there is no such thing as evidence for a negative. I can't prove something doesn't exist, but you haven't shown something does exist either. You're basing your argument on intuition and faith, nothing more.

Find me evidence of something existing, and I’ll change my stance.

I made my assertion for not buying it due to a common theme that was shown by the OP and many of the people who comment here.

 

[R136a1]

Your link on the heredity of IQ.

OK, which part specifically is pseudo-science? All of it? Why is it pseudo-science? There are links to scientific papers, why are those invalid?

You should know, there is no such thing as evidence for a negative. I can't prove something doesn't exist

Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

You're basing your argument on intuition and faith, nothing more.

Indeed I am, but so are you. Not sure when intuition became a bad thing however.

Find me evidence of something existing, and I’ll change my stance.

As long as you don't debunk the wiki link I posted, I provided evidence.

 

[R136a1]

Also see part 2 and 3 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prodigy

 

[Student100]

OK, which part specifically is pseudo-science? All of it? Why is it pseudo-science? There are links to scientific papers, why are those invalid?
Sure you can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Indeed I am, but so are you. Not sure when intuition became a bad thing however.
As long as you don't debunk the wiki link I posted, I provided evidence.

If you actually read the link you posted you’ll see what I mean... So let's discuss your evidence... the first paper in the foot notes has this to say:

The reasons for the persistence of heritability estimates are worth some discussion. One is the intractability of most forms of behaviour to genetic analysis. Except in the case of relatively clear-cut Mendelian disorders such as Huntington's Disease the search for identifiable genes unequivocally associated even with conditions such as depression and schizophrenia has proved elusive. When it comes to the more elusive characters beloved of behaviour genetics (‘anti-social behaviour’, alcoholism, etc.) where one may question the reification of complex human interactions into presumed phenotypes with a biological locus in the individual, the hunt for ‘genes for’ this or that behaviour becomes even more embarrassingly vacuous. Heritability estimates become a way of applying a useless quantity to a socially constructed phenotype and thus apparently scientizing it—a clear-cut case of Garbage In, Garbage Out. And even if the estimate did indeed refer to a material reality rather than a statistical artefact one might question its utility. The practical relevance of claiming that some character in some environment is 80% heritable provides no guidance for how to respond—except in a purely ideological way, by arguing as first Jensen and later Herrnstein and Murray did that the measure indicates that there is a permanent genetically inferior underclass and that no amount of social engineering—to say nothing of social justice—will improve its lot.

Or the fact that the heritability calculations also are based mostly on environmental factors, small sample sizes, and testing methods that are called into question.

Contrary to your belief perhaps, but I did waste quite a bit of my time reading the wiki and papers.

 

[ModusPwnd]

I would pose the question, what does that even mean? Any average human is capable of studying physics, that's my premise. Furthermore, anyone who studies physics is capable of making contributions to the field given time and resources.

To suggest everyone can emulate someone, well that's impossible, as differing environmental, dumb luck, and interests in a topic also play a role (as well a thousand other factors that might impact said emulation.) What I’m arguing is there is nothing magical or ingrained that can be isolated and studied that will predict ones success in any given area.

There is no intelligence factor, Einstein, Feynman, Neumann, they were all average men who did amazing things. Thats the distinction that needs to be kept clear.

Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You don't actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and don't count for some reason. Give me a break...

 

[R136a1]

If you actually read the link you posted you’ll see what I mean... So let's discuss your evidence... the first paper in the foot notes has this to say:



Or the fact that the heritability calculations also are based mostly on environmental factors, small sample sizes, and testing methods that are called into question.

Contrary to your belief perhaps, but I did waste quite a bit of my time reading the wiki and papers.

That's a bit of a controversial article. So you should expect that there are many papers claiming the opposite:

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/visscher_hill_wray_nrg2.pdf

Despite continuous misunderstandings and controversies over its use and application, heritability remains key to the response to selection in evolutionary biology and agriculture, and to the prediction of disease risk in medicine. Recent reports of substantial heritability for gene expression and new estimation methods using marker data highlight the relevance of heritability in the genomics era.

 

[Student100]

Sounds like a high school teachers platitude. You don't actually believe this do you? Its seems extreme. How can genes affect all of our traits, yet somehow magically all humans have the same potential when it comes to this narrow metric. Except those that dont, they are labeled "retarded" and don't count for some reason. Give me a break...

Oh please, it was quite clear in the initial argument that we were discussing the average billions of people who don’t suffer from a mental disability. That there is no physical mechanism or magic quality in your genes that say genius, or gifted.

R1,

From the second wiki, nature article I particularly like this:

Is the use of LTWM and episodic memory structures the principal factor differentiating prodigies from normal people, and if so, at what age or stage does this occur? Gamm said that at school he was “very bad at arithmetic” because the teachers never explained the concepts in ways he could understand10. Being able to
grasp the meaning, structure and relationship of objects in the expert domain seems to be critical in setting up easily retrievable structures in long-term episodic memory, just as it is in our mastery of language. This study, though focused on a remarkable individual, illuminates the unremarkable as well as the extraordinary skills we all possess.

This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.

 

[Student100]

That's a bit of a controversial article. So you should expect that there are many papers claiming the opposite:

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/visscher_hill_wray_nrg2.pdf

From what I gathered reading them, they’re all somewhat controversial.

 

[R136a1]

This suggest an environmental factor for child prodigies, not a physical one. I still can’t find any evidence for a physical mechanism in your posts.

I never claimed that only genetics are responsible, did I?? Clearly, both nature and nurture are important! So indeed, I never denied an environmental factor in intelligence.