<p>what's the criterion for being "naturally" talented?</p>
<p>No, I disagree. I think what's important is how much you like physics. If you like it a lot (and I mean the actual subject material, not just science fiction) and have some ambition, you can do it. I see it this way- there will always be at least someone stupider than you who will blow you out of the water academically (even if you aren't that naturally talented). If they can do it with less talent, then you certainly can.</p>
<p>It just comes down to how much you want it, and how good your time managment skills are. If physics is what you really, really want to do, and you can make yourself stay focused and work, then succeeding is really no problem.</p>
<p>i dont think there is a criterion for it because everything is relative
if you have an average kid in a school of mentally challenged students, that kid will think he's talanted, whereas if he was in a school of gifted students he will probably not feel very talented</p>
<p>what are you disagreeing with Uncle?</p>
<p>I'm disagreeing with the emphasis people on this board put on natural talent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you have an average kid in a school of mentally challenged students, that kid will think he's talanted, whereas if he was in a school of gifted students he will probably not feel very talented
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But feeling talented is not equal to being talented, is it?</p>
<p>There's not too much theoretical physics. I'd disagree that you need to be a math god.
Yes, you need to be a math god to enter string theory. But a lot of physics is experimentation and application, too.</p>
<p>You cannot do productive research in theoretical physics if you do not have a certain natural talent for mathematics. This does not mean that you should not be a physics major as an undergraduate (there are many interesting things you can do with it). You might even get into a decent graduate school. But the job market for tenure-track jobs in academia is so tight that you need to be absolutely spectacular. And in order to be spectacular, you need to feel the subject in your bones; there is no way to teach research potential.</p>
<p>I believe talent is needed. But many people have talent that they've never cultivated, and you really don't know how good you truly can be at math until you've taken a math class that truly challenges you and takes up a really good chunk of study time. Many people have mental blocks against math- natural talent isn't always obvious.</p>
<p>So if i want to major in physics and do some grounbreaking work in the field I'd have to be a math god? What do you guys mean by that? What are some of the typical math courses phd's in physics take?</p>
<p>It depends. If you want to be an experimentalist, you need at least vector calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, and complex analysis. If you want to do any sort of theoretical physics, you will need to add on to that, at a minimum, algebra, introductory representation theory, and calculus on manifolds. If you are at all serious about doing theory, you will need to know a lot more. See <a href="http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math2.html">http://www.superstringtheory.com/math/math2.html</a></p>
<p>anyone have any idea about the major areas of interest in theoretical physics right now?</p>
<p>Theoretical physics: yes you definately MUST be a math god, BEYOND math god.
Theoretical physics these days is more like mathematics than physics, which is why you must be a math god. Theoretical physicists need an insane math background. In fact, many of them got their doctorates and education in mathematics, not physics, and "converted" to physics.
I'm talking about string theory here.</p>
<p>Other physics: not so much. Math is important of course, but physics here is actual physics. </p>
<p>Why is this? Oftentimes, to solve the mathematical problems, physicists don't actually do the calculations themselves--they either consult the huge tomes of equations or go to the math department and ask for a solution. They will write up the expressions that describe the behavior of whatever they're working on, of course (that's what they're good at) but to actually solve those massively ugly partial differential equations, only a mathematics expert can crunch it. For obvious reasons, theorists practically have to be mathematicians--all you do is equations.</p>
<p>i know that theoretical physics requires an intense math background, and I know that the math requirements are comparable to that of a math major. What am asking is, is it doable? Can it be done by someone with a lot of determination or will i just be wasting my time?</p>
<p>Okay -- you need to distinguish between a) getting an undergraduate degree in physics, b) getting a PhD good graduate school, c) doing productive research and getting a tenure-track job.</p>
<p>With enough effort, anyone (within reason), can do a) (mostly because the physics you learn isn't that specialized or advanced yet; frankly, most undergraduate physics majors learn physics up to about 1930, minus general relativity).</p>
<p>You need to be smart to do b). Determination isn't likely to be enough.</p>
<p>If you are at all hesitant about your mathematical abilities, forget about c). You need to have been the best person in basically every math class you have ever took.</p>
<p>Cool. Kbrambleson, do you have PhD?</p>