9 ms·
How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist
- sawwit 11y agoOff topic: This seems to be an odd emphasis on the word "good". Can a native English speaker confirm?
- dchapp 11y agoI agree that use of "good" is questionable here. One would think that without the skills mentioned, one wouldn't be a theoretical physicist at all. (Is every person who lacks these skills a "bad theoretical physicist"? Only in a vacuous sense.) That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."
- Retra 11y agoThat's is what he means by good: one with enough competence in the field to do actually useful work. If you manage to do useful work in physics, that work could translate into a Nobel Prize just as easily as any other useful work. A bad theoretical physicist is one who only understands enough to sound smart to their friends. AKA, a crank.
- tokenadult 11y agoThe author of the submitted website is a native speaker of Dutch, but his English looks fine to me (a native speaker of English). I think his choice of emphasis, which I didn't try to reproduce when I submitted the website here on Hacker News, makes the point that people can become mere amateurs or even cranks[1] about theoretical physics unless they prepare carefully. I have seen a few examples of theoretical physics cranks[2] over the years. [1] I mean "crank" in the second sense shown at the Merriam-Webster dictionary site. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crank [2] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-telling-cranks-from-experts-aint-easy/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/in-physics-t... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misunderstanding-of-cranks/ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/01/10/a-profound-misu...
- jamessb 11y agoThe emphasis is because he wrote two articles: "How to become a good theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html), and "How to become a bad theoretical physicist" (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html). Later, the advice on how to become "good" was re-designed to look better, but split the content across multiple pages (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/).
- iorrus 11y agoI am not sure that you will become a 'good' theoretical physicist after reading those. (I have knowledge of most of the items he mentions) You will have a good overview of many mathematical tools that are used in physics but that's about it. Personally I prefer to read the stuff the 'bad' theoretical physicists write. Read Penrose or Bohm for what 'good' theoretical physicists think of existing orthodoxies and their many failings.
- rifung 11y agoI'm happy to see that there is someone who is trying to help those who don't want to or can't go the traditional route of undergrad => grad school. Certainly I'm sure there are many others like me who have a strong, but amateur interest in a subject. Here I mean amateur in the sense that it is unpaid and done only out of love, as opposed to some measure of skill. Sadly I have no intention of studying theoretical physics. If anyone could point me towards something for theoretical computer science and algorithms I would be most grateful
- Someone 11y agoAside: that phrase "someone who is trying to help" makes me wonder whether you know that _this_ someone is a Nobel laureate (shared with Veltman in 1999), as he casually mentions in the text.
- rifung 11y agoI did read it so yes I did know. I just feel like most active researchers would be able to point people in the right direction, so the fact that he's a Nobel laureate wasn't particularly relevant.
- random778 11y agoNobel laureates don't typically cease research after receiving the award. He's still active.
- T-A 11y ago> If anyone could point me towards something for theoretical computer science and algorithms Cheap trick: google up university course pages like [1], look at the syllabus and get the books listed. MIT's OpenCourseware has lots of stuff [2]. [1] http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs3261/ http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs3261/ [2] http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-comput...
- 11y ago
- mkadlec 11y agoWow, I originally clicked on the article thinking it was tongue-in-cheek, but it's fantastic! Glad to see that someone is taking time to help others (like me)
- mgalka 11y agoSame here. It's actually a really good post! Regarding his comment about hearing from amateurs who think they've solved the world, that is something I've heard from a lot of physics professors, that they get a lot of emails with crazy stuff like this: http://i.imgur.com/QTt6ZTq.gif http://i.imgur.com/QTt6ZTq.gif Why does that happen in physics and not chemistry, bio, econ, comsci or any other subject?
- lint_roller 11y agoEveryone's an armchair economist so I wouldn't count econ out. I think that math/physics are more accessible to the layman. I know where to go if I want to get deeper into this subject. I really don't know how to start becoming an amateur chemist or biologist. I've wanted to learn more about synthetic biology and gene therapy, but it's not as simple as cracking open a math book or going to a dev bootcamp. I wish these resources existed though! My best guess is because exploring chem and bio have bigger resource requirements like lab space.
- unchocked 11y agoBiology, and I Assume chemistry as well, are in practice all about lore; the peculiarities of particular entities are where the action is & theory is a relatively small thing that falls out of that. So not only do you need a lab to do experiments, you need to be hanging around a lab to pick up all this disjointed lore.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoI think math/physics are less accessible to the layperson, but more subject to Dunning-Kruger. There are so many popular accounts of quantum this and string that in the media that a lot of the population seems to feel qualified to hold an opinion on anything quantum-y. ("It's on TV" => "I'm encouraged to have an opinion about it.") In reality it's literally impossible for most people to imagine how hard the math is - because an undergrad physics or engineering degree is barely even a warm-up for it. I'd love to see a TV show that made it clear just how challenging the math is without reducing it to the usual storytelling. Popularisation can be great, but maybe it would be good to get a realistic appreciation for the raw version into the public narrative.
- mindcrime 11y agoI love this kind of site. Not that you can't scour up the content yourself using Google, but here's the thing... when you're trying to "teach yourself" something complex, one of the challenges you run into (in my experience) is understanding the order of the dependencies for prerequisites and sub-topics. And nothing is more frustrating than trying to read a book or a paper and feeling totally lost because you're missing something that you should have learned first, but you don't even know exactly what the "something" is. :-( As someone who considers himself something of an autodidact and who is always trying to learn new stuff, I really appreciate a resource that can point at a bunch of stuff and say (even in an approximate sense) "do this in this order". It really does make a difference.
- chestervonwinch 11y agoBingo. This is in complete contrast to visiting wikipedia where, for example, if I go to any mathematical concept, I seem to tumble down a series of holes that usually falls out somewhere much more abstract that what I need (usually topology). This is not to say topology is not important, but clearly becoming an expert topologist before learning wavelets (for example) would not be the most efficient way to learn the latter.
- secabeen 11y agoA similar resource for Mathematics: https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib
- ioeu 11y agoI totally agree! If anybody knows of something similar for artificial general intelligence I'm all ears, currently in the process of reading up on it.
- mindcrime 11y agoDon't know of one off hand. I know a few curated lists related to specific AI/ML topics have shown up here on HN (mostly NN and DL stuff,IIRC), but I don't remember one that covers AGI. There's definitely a TON of great AI content on the 'net, but yeah, a nice curated guide to help work through the important stuff, in order, would be very helpful.
- santaclaus 11y agoI'm surprised to see no explicit mention of differential geometry.
- ajkjk 11y agoAgreed. But there are many implicit mentions. Lots of physicists pick it up on the side in other subjects, which probably isn't ideal.
- selimthegrim 11y agoProbably the book by Nakahara is most people's first stop.
- mhartl 11y agoDifferential geometry starts getting important once you hit General Relativity, and any good GR text will cover it thoroughly.
- neutronicus 11y agoUnfortunately, the section on Plasma Physics is rather sparse. Introduction to Plasma Physics by Francis F. Chen and Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan are good next-step texts, and this crowd in particular might enjoy Birdsall and Langdon's Plasma Physics Via Computer Simulation Also on the computational topic, Kane S. Yee's 1966 paper "Numerical Solution..."
- jawbone3 11y agoMan, t'Hooft is upping his design game! It looks mutch nicer than the previous versions which looked like they predated his nobel prize.
- jessriedel 11y agoYep. For everyone interested, this is the old version: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html
- brainflake 11y agoWow! That reads like a Dr. Bronners bottle.
- random778 11y agoBefore I clicked that link I thought the parent might be complaining for no reason. Then, and this was probably just a coincidence, I saw the page and had a pressure buildup in my right eye that felt like a headache.
- bronz 11y agoThe most profound thing that the internet can do for the world is create a single monolithic repository of documents that is designed to take a dedicated reader from basic principles of math to a high degree of understanding in any subject. This is such an easy task compared to all of the other projects that happen on the internet, it is astonishing that we don't have anything like it yet. Wikipedia comes close. Khan Academy might become what I just described after they add more content. But nothing really hits the nail on the head yet. If Facebook spent a few billion on it then we would have it. It's so fucking simple. I would trade in Instagram many, many times over in exchange for such a repository. It is one of the easiest things to do and out of all the things we could do has the greatest impact on society and yet it has not been done. Amazing.
- euyyn 11y agoThere was an attempt to start that in Wikiversity, but it's been very very slow.
- abstrakraft 11y agoI think you drastically underestimate the difficulty of putting together quality curricula.
- amelius 11y agoBut the point is that we only need to do it once. (As opposed to the current way, where every school/university creates one anew).
- reillyse 11y agoThis is awesome. I like his no-nonsense approach.
- eveningcoffee 11y agoWow!! I can tell you of my own experiences. I had the extreme luck of having excellent teachers around me. ... It helped me all the way to earn a Nobel Prize. But I didn’t have internet. I am going to try to be your teacher. It is presently set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones, but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. This is a site for ambitious people. I am sure that anyone can do this, if one is gifted with a certain amount of intelligence, interest and determination.
- cicloid 11y agoAs a Philomath, this site is an oasis on the Internet. True, you may be able to grasp what this page tries to accomplish with enough determination. But, someone sharing their knowledge and path in a no-nonsense approach, sure helps a lot. Are there any other similar guides for other fields?
- rpgmaker 11y agoI'm personally interested in a guide like this for economics... if anyone knows of one. It can be a book I guess...
- trentmb 11y agoConsider looking at this- https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/209041857-Archive-Majors-Courses-Requirements#econ https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/20904185...
- dstyrb 11y agoI find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...
- oafitupa 11y agoWhat do you mean? :(
- dstyrb 11y agoBasically the entirety of paragraph 3... "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" --- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect "very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that" --- I'm not sure if this is actual encouragement or a joke. But the following: "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program... "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'. The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?" Which is a bit humerus considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”" If it isn't sarcasm, then I have no idea why the author has decided to be so acerbic in his notation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually mean to insult basically the 99% of physicists who don't show up in "Brilliant Mind"-esque movies. edit: From his CV: * Gymnasium-Beta, Dalton Lyceum, The Hague, 1964 * Physics and Mathematics, University of Utrecht * Kandidaatsexamen N1, 4 July 1966 * Doctoraal examen Theoretical Physics, 10 October 1969 * Promotie (PhD thesis) on the subject "Renormalization Procedure for Yang-Mills fields", 1 March 1972 i.e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.
- JamalS 11y agoIs there a site like this for mathimatics?
- trentmb 11y agoHow to Become a Pure Mathematician (or Statistician): a List of Undergraduate and Basic Graduate Textbooks and Lecture Notes - the blog http://hbpms.blogspot.com/ http://hbpms.blogspot.com/ For a lot of other stuff check out Saylor.org's old 'major's page: https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/209041857-Archive-Majors-Courses-Requirements https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/20904185...
- JamalS 11y agoIs there a site anything like this for mathimatics?
- swehner 11y agoSomehow "mathematics" seems much broader than "theoretical physicist." But here's a simple starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics
- lawpoop 11y agoHas anyone here ever read or worked through Hrabovsky and Susskind's _The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics_? Same premise as this, I gather, but a whole book.
- mindcrime 11y agoI started it, not finished yet. My overall impression is favorable based on the part I've worked through so far.
- kriro 11y agoFor anyone who wants to read this. The book was rebranded. It's "Classical Mechanics - TTM" (this used to be called TTM only) now and there's also a "Quantum Mechanics - TTM". I have both of them on my nightstand but only browsed so far. Seems good at first glance. Susskind's Stanford classes for laypeople were great so I expect the books to be good as well :)
- gohrt 11y agoH&S's book is an intro text. This page is a listing of many texts.
- jarvist 11y agoThe TTM books grew out of the Stanford Continuing Studies courses by Susskind. These were recorded by Stanford and uploaded to Youtube: http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses There is very much more content in these lectures than is covered in the two books.
- RodericDay 11y agoI prefer the way Facebook parses the title, as originally written: GOOD Theoretical Physicist. Reminds me of GOOD Music [0] [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOD_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOD_Music)
- RobertoG 11y agoVery cool project. Another interesting resource would be Penrose's book: "The road to reality". It starts with basic maths and go all the way up to relativity and the standard model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality
- emmelaich 11y agoGreek letters are used a lot. Learn their names, otherwise you make a fool of yourself when giving an oral presentation One thing that surprised the heck out of me is that we don't pronounce Greek letters like the Greeks do. Example: tau sounds something like taf in Greek. (that's all I got :-)
- Luc 11y ago'Tau' is the ancient Greek way. My classical languages teacher was able to converse in ancient Greek and Latin, but couldn't make head or tails of modern Greek when he visited.
- random778 11y agoIs it pronounced the same in early and modern Greek?
- titanomachy 11y agoI speak reasonably fluent Greek (family language), and took a course in Classical Greek when I was in school. My professor explained that the pronunciations used in mathematics (tau, beta, mu...) differ from the Modern Greek versions (taf, veeta, mee...) because the former are the (conjectured) pronunciations used in the classical language. A large source of evidence for the pronunciation of Classical Greek is the transliteration of Greek words in to other languages during that period, especially into Latin. The whole language is pronounced very differently, not just the alphabet. As a side note, that class was absurdly easy because I already knew almost all the vocabulary. The classical grammar is quite different though, and more complicated.
- timwaagh 11y agothis is a great site. it really makes a good case why no one should want to be a (good) physicist. reading this stuff takes decades i should think.
- Synaesthesia 11y agoWell I want to be a good physicist and I appreciate that it will take me years, maybe decades of reading. That's what's necessary to catch up to what we know. It's tough going but equally rewarding to learn.
- musgravepeter 11y agoThe most important part of this is to do the problems! After a PhD in theoretical physics then 20 years as a s/w developer I decided to get some of my chops back. You can read and nod about stuff but until you face a blank sheet of paper you don't know if you really understood. +1 for Penrose's "Road to Reality" Also a huge fan of Eric Poisson's lectures (basically free textbooks) http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/notes.html http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/notes.html Short description of getting my chops back: http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2015/02/28/learn-physics-with-this-one-trick/ http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2015/02/28/learn-physics-with-t...
- lagudragu 11y agoA classic; but still a very recommended series are the Feynman Lectures on Physics: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/
- csguy22 11y agoThat is something else, really love this idea. Is there anything _exactly_ like that but for Computer Science?