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.

Definitely. What is fascinating is the self-taught crackpots fascination with "I can prove Einstein wrong". I am longing for a crackpot that is obsessed with "I can prove QM wrong".

Definitely. What is fascinating is the self-taught crackpots fascination with "I can prove Einstein wrong". I am longing for a crackpot that is obsessed with "I can prove QM wrong".

 

Time to mention the Crackpot index, methinks.

Definitely. What is fascinating is the self-taught crackpots fascination with "I can prove Einstein wrong". I am longing for a crackpot that is obsessed with "I can prove QM wrong".

 

 

So many want to bring back the aether (for which there was never any evidence). But no one is interested in phlogiston, which was a pretty good fit for the evidence at the time.

I think it is perfectly possible to teach yourself classical mechanics from textbooks. It should also be possible to teach yourself calculus and differential equations.

 

Knowing that stuff is extremely helpful in formal education.

 

By the way, Ed Witten's story is quite interestomg - he got a M.Sc in history and then stepped right into M.Sc. in physics and got a Ph.D. around 3 years later. He had to be exceptionally briliant (how else would you expect a history major to be allowed to get right into physics graduate program of a major university and then into a PhD program under a recent Nobel Proze winnter?)

Edited February 8, 20178 yr by Squawk 1200

I think it is perfectly possible to teach yourself classical mechanics from textbooks. It should also be possible to teach yourself calculus and differential equations.

 

Knowing that stuff is extremely helpful in formal education.

 

By the way, Ed Witten's story is quite interestomg - he got a M.Sc in history and then stepped right into M.Sc. in physics and got a Ph.D. around 3 years later. He had to be exceptionally briliant (how else would you expect a history major to be allowed to get right into physics graduate program of a major university and then into a PhD program under a recent Nobel Proze winnter?)

I was thinking of mentioning him, he is definitely outside the norm

I was thinking of mentioning him, he is definitely outside the norm

Yes, he's part of that bit that approaches zero on a distribution graph of cleverness.

I think it is perfectly possible to teach yourself classical mechanics from textbooks. It should also be possible to teach yourself calculus and differential equations.

 

Knowing that stuff is extremely helpful in formal education.

 

By the way, Ed Witten's story is quite interestomg - he got a M.Sc in history and then stepped right into M.Sc. in physics and got a Ph.D. around 3 years later. He had to be exceptionally briliant (how else would you expect a history major to be allowed to get right into physics graduate program of a major university and then into a PhD program under a recent Nobel Proze winnter?)

 

He did also have a father who was a high level theoretical physicist (I think his mother was as well but cannot find data on it) - he wasn't coming to the subject entirely new. He was also exceptional - his father was once asked what his most important piece of physics was in his career and, apparently, he smiled and said "Edward"

I think everyone who wants to become a theoretical physicist should ask why they want to become one.

 

If it's for fame, then it's a bad career choice since 99% of physicists (even world class ones) ar not known by anyone except other physicists and maybe, mathematicians.

 

Theoretical physics also looks nothing like stuff depicted in popular science documentaries - it's just math, math, math. It takes not just high intelligence but a highly specific personality type to succeed and feel well doing this job.

I think there's a lot more luck involved than anything else. Most good problem solvers try many different approaches while trying to ferret out a likely solution. The more complicated the problem, the less likely it is that a solution will be found. That's if the problem even has a solution.

 

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." - Winston S. Churchill