The Future of "Lone Physicists" - Researching Physics Alone?

[Niflheim]

Hello everyone, just a quick question: I have heard that it is impossible to do research in physics by yourself anymore. I heard that "The days of Einstein are gone" and that nowadays in physics, especially string and quantum relativity research, everyone publishes in groups. I feel like this is exaggerated, but I have no experience in the field yet.

So it is true? Is there no hope for a "lone physicist" to do productive research?

Thanks for any and all replies

 

[Dale]

I agree completely. Research (or pretty much anything technical) is a team sport now.

 

[CalcNerd]

My opinion only. Yes, you could theoretically do research by yourself. But most of us would probably experience the 5 nines of failure 99.999 % of the time, or would be last or under researched or simply a crackpot. Einstein made several contributions all in the same year (and he was truly Brilliant), and some of those ideas were revolutionary, opening up new fields that were just unknown before he entered the arena of physics.

But that great new breakthrough might (.001% chance) might come from a sole genius who is not discouraged by others (and is not the crackpot I alluded to above).

 

[Niflheim]

I see. So if someone doesn't like working with others they should not be a physicist?

Also, why? What has changed about physics that has made it so that someone can't do anything by themselves?

 

[Evo]

I see. So if someone doesn't like working with others they should not be a physicist?

Also, why? What has changed about physics that has made it so that someone can't do anything by themselves?

The costs associated with doing research is one major factor, and of course as knowledge expands, it means that the input of more people with knowledge in areas that you do not become very important. This doesn't apply only to physics.

 

[JorisL]

I see. So if someone doesn't like working with others they should not be a physicist?

When doing theoretical work you often encounter problems which can halt your progress for a while.
Discussing these issues with other working physicists will make your work more efficient at least.
Different physicists also have a different "style", having different approaches will increase your understanding and maybe raise questions you want to address next.

Also, why? What has changed about physics that has made it so that someone can't do anything by themselves?

This is essentially covered by the "knowledge expands" argument made by Evo.

 

[Niflheim]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the input everyone!

 

[Meir Achuz]

Many theoretical physicists still do their own work. It's really up to you. Go to <arxiv.org> and the search on papers in theoretical nuclear physics, for example. You can still write your own paper. It's really up to you, whatever you have heard.

 

[ZapperZ]

Many theoretical physicists still do their own work. It's really up to you. Go to <arxiv.org> and the search on papers in theoretical nuclear physics, for example. You can still write your own paper. It's really up to you, whatever you have heard.

Take note that just because you see papers with a single author, it doesn't mean that that person did "... research in physics by yourself... ", even for theorists.

A prime example is Bob Laughlin. He has published several papers where he was the sole author. But did he do the research all by himself, isolated from the rest of the world, or at least, from the rest of Stanford? Did he not interact with others, attend seminars/colloquiums, and went to conferences? In one of his latest publication in PRL (Laughlin PRL 112, 017004 (2014)), at the end of his paper, he acknowledged Raghu, Kivelson, Chakravarty, and Geballe for "helpful discussions".

He also doesn't publish by himself exclusively, which means that in most cases, he collaborates with others. And I've often seen him talking, or getting in touch with experimentalists to get a feel of what have been measured and determined. He is anything but isolated.

I do not consider this doing research by oneself.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

o to <arxiv.org> and the search on papers in theoretical nuclear physics, for example

The most cited theoretical nuclear physics paper is Matsui and Satz (2100 cites). And it took 2 people to write it. As a counterexample.

 

[Choppy]

Of course you can't do research by yourself anymore!

The model has shifted to:

Credits: “Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham, www.phdcomics.com.

 

[atyy]

It was still possible in 1997: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200 (13000 cites!)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Do you know Juan? It's hard to say that he works by himself. He has 14 papers with 500+ citations. Eleven of them have co-authors.

 

[atyy]

Do you know Juan? It's hard to say that he works by himself. He has 14 papers with 500+ citations. Eleven of them have co-authors.

Well, but that paper was single authored. So it still is possible.

Maybe the more important question is whether there is any point to the OP's question. Is a contribution on a single-authored paper necessarily more creative or significant than a contribution to a multi-authored paper? I believe the Maldacena duality to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in theoretical physics. But even older works in equally theoretical fields like differential geometry had joint authors - the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, for example. So even going by these extreme examples, it doesn't seem like a question one should worry about.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, but that paper was single authored. So it still is possible.

Maybe the more important question is whether there is any point to the OP's question. Is a contribution on a single-authored paper necessarily more creative or significant than a contribution to a multi-authored paper? I believe the Maldacena duality to be one of the biggest breakthroughs in theoretical physics. But even older works in equally theoretical fields like differential geometry had joint authors - the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, for example. So even going by these extreme examples, it doesn't seem like a question one should worry about.

You need to go back and read the first post. There is an implicit idea of a "lone physicist" the way Einstein was couped in his patent office working away all by himself isolated from other physicist. This is the idea that we are dealing with.

And again, my point is that a paper with a single author does NOT imply someone in the scenario above. I've given arguments why.

Zz.

 

[atyy]

You need to go back and read the first post. There is an implicit idea of a "lone physicist" the way Einstein was couped in his patent office working away all by himself isolated from other physicist. This is the idea that we are dealing with.

And again, my point is that a paper with a single author does NOT imply someone in the scenario above. I've given arguments why.

Zz.

It depends on how one reads the initial post. In the sense of your arguments, would even Einstein be considered a lone physicist? Take GR, for example. Einstein needed the concept of spacetime which was introduced by Minkowski. The first coherent relativistic theory of gravity was Nordstrom's. Before GR, Einstein collaborated with Fokker to show that Nordstrom gravity can be written in geometric form. Then he produced several geometric theories, which were queried by others, including Hilbert. Subsequently, Einstein and Hilbert had many discussions, before Einstein reached GR. Some, like Thorne, also state that in fact Hilbert arrived at GR first. Einstein also acknowledged the help with differential geometry given by Marcel Grossmann and Michele Besso.

 

[ZapperZ]

It depends on how one reads the initial post. In the sense of your arguments, would even Einstein be considered a lone physicist? Take GR, for example. Einstein needed the concept of spacetime which was introduced by Minkowski. The first coherent relativistic theory of gravity was Nordstrom's. Before GR, Einstein collaborated with Fokker to show that Nordstrom gravity can be written in geometric form. Then he produced several geometric theories, which were queried by others, including Hilbert. Subsequently, Einstein and Hilbert had many discussions, before Einstein reached GR. Some, like Thorne, also state that in fact Hilbert arrived at GR first. Einstein also acknowledged the help with differential geometry given by Marcel Grossmann and Michele Besso.

No, I don't believe many of Einstein's work are "solo" effort. There are compelling evidence that he discussed a lot with his wife at that time as well.

But the op has such an impression of a singular individual toiling away in isolation, and it is this myth that I am trying to dispel.

Zz.

 

[CalcNerd]

Ah, yes. I do remember that Albert Einstein co-authored his first three papers with his first wife. That certainly debunks my use of him...!

The truly isolated individual that can contribute to science has always been rare, but with the new communication revolution, one can suck information from many sources without direct interaction. I guess you could consider that individual effort (though many wouldn't).

Isaac Newton made the comment that, "that he stood on the shoulder's of Giants." Pretty modest of him (and totally out of character, so it could be a quote misappropriated to him or something he said to project a false modesty). There were several brilliant men of earlier era's that made huge contributions, but that may be due to isolated education and the ability to avoid the distractions of today as well. Carl Fredrick Gauss produced over half of his published work before he was 25 and what he solely developed. Later in life he became a noted scholar and had all sorts of distractions. Most of the early great physicists made their discoveries early in their careers.

However, for every great mind, their are a dozen crazies, who put in the same time for their crackpot ideas which won't / can't work out due to some basic flaw (breaking a fundamental law of physics) in their reasoning. Most of these crackpots won't or can't work with others and won't educate themselves on why their pet belief cannot ever work.

 

[Quantum Defect]

The physicist F. D. C. Willard published a popular science article by himself: F. D. C. Willard: L’hélium 3 solide. Un antiferromagnétique nucléaire. In: La Recherche, Nr. 114, 1980 , but his most famous article was published with J. H. Hetherington in Physical Review. The story about this article is that an additional author was added to the paper because Phys. Rev. did not want to publish a single-author paper. Hetherington subsequently claimed that the work was his alone, but many people believe that Hetherington was falsely taking credit for Willard's work. You can read about Willard's life and work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.D.C._Willard

 

[atyy]

The physicist F. D. C. Willard published a popular science article by himself: F. D. C. Willard: L’hélium 3 solide. Un antiferromagnétique nucléaire. In: La Recherche, Nr. 114, 1980 , but his most famous article was published with J. H. Hetherington in Physical Review. The story about this article is that an additional author was added to the paper because Phys. Rev. did not want to publish a single-author paper. Hetherington subsequently claimed that the work was his alone, but many people believe that Hetherington was falsely taking credit for Willard's work. You can read about Willard's life and work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.D.C._Willard

I think Hetherington mentioned somewhere that Willard got more invitations to give talks than he did, but it worked out since Willard was usually unable to attend, and Hetherington got to go instead!

 

[ZapperZ]

The story about this article is that an additional author was added to the paper because Phys. Rev. did not want to publish a single-author paper.

I highly doubt that. Phys. Rev. has published single-authored paper since forever! Read the Laughlin reference that I gave, and if you want to go back into far history, look at Milikan's papers!

Zz.

 

[atyy]

I highly doubt that. Phys. Rev. has published single-authored paper since forever! Read the Laughlin reference that I gave, and if you want to go back into far history, look at Milikan's papers!

The detail he omitted is that Hetherington actually wrote the single-authored paper using "we", but didn't want to change the text to "I". So he added his

It's a good and classic story

 

[Quantum Defect]

The detail he omitted is that Hetherington actually wrote the single-authored paper using "we", but didn't want to change the text to "I". So he added his

It's a good and classic story

Ah yes, I misremembered my facts. Wikipedia has the same history as you, so I suspect that this is correct.

Anyway, WHOever wrote the paper used the first-person plural throughout, and the colleague reading the paper noted that PR would reject sole-author papers that did this. Rather than change the paper (1975, very much pre word-processor) the author added the co-author.

This does not change the point, however, that the actual sole author is in dispute. I still think that Willard was treated shabbily. Rumor has it that after the paper was published Hetherington "celebrated" by making Willard eat off of the floor! This was well-known at the time, yet Michigan State did not take any action against this man!

No doubt due to his poor treatment in academia, Willard left and had a successful career in industry. He died in 1982.

http://xkeys.com/PIAboutUs/jacks/FDCWillard.php

 

[atyy]

I think I first read about Hetherington and Willard in https://www.amazon.com/dp/0854980407/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

 

[Niflheim]

Just to clarify, when I say lone physicist I mean someone working on the actual theory by themselves, ie not in a group research project.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just to clarify, when I say lone physicist I mean someone working on the actual theory by themselves, ie not in a group research project.

That doesn't clarify anything. One could be working by oneself, but yet, interact with others to get ideas, etc.

I find this whole topic to be quite pointless.

Zz.

 

[blue_leaf77]

Just to clarify, when I say lone physicist I mean someone working on the actual theory by themselves, ie not in a group research project.

Not completely impossible, but really difficult to realize nowadays. Theories that sounded crazy in the first glance can easily be mocked and rejected by reviewers. It's obvious that for a theory to be convincing, you need to provide experimental results that support your theory. You need others to do such experiments.
If you want to come up with a theory solely invented by you which scientific community are willing to think twice about, in my opinion you should first find certain physical phenomena that all physicists have given up on or at least are having a hard time with in explaining it. But of course you need supporting arguments which often come in a form of observational evidence or measurements.

 

[Niflheim]

That doesn't clarify anything. One could be working by oneself, but yet, interact with others to get ideas, etc.

I find this whole topic to be quite pointless.

Zz.

I'm sorry that you don't find this topic interesting, I just wanted some insight. And like I said, I wasn't asking about talking to others for ideas, I was talking about getting those ideas and developing the theory by oneself.

 

[Loststudent22]

I find it interesting you have mathematicians who can still produce research solo and even win fields medals because of it(perelman) but it doesn't happen in physics. I can understand the experimental side needing a team but it seems odd that the more theory based side couldn't produce work solo.

 

[Niflheim]

I find it interesting you have mathematicians who can still produce research solo and even win fields medals because of it(perelman) but it doesn't happen in physics. I can understand the experimental side needing a team but it seems odd that the more theory based side couldn't produce work solo.

Exactly my thinking.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Niflheim, you're simply going to have to accept that it doesn't work that way. You complained about "pointless" being used to describe this thread. You asked a question, and got an answer. It's pointless to argue that that shouldn't be the answer, because that's what it is.

 

[Niflheim]

Niflheim, you're simply going to have to accept that it doesn't work that way. You complained about "pointless" being used to describe this thread. You asked a question, and got an answer. It's pointless to argue that that shouldn't be the answer, because that's what it is.

When did I ever dispute the answer given? If you look at my posts, I asked the question, asked a further question about the specifics of the answer, and I clarified what I meant by a term used in my question. Then I replied to Loststudent to say that that was my reasoning behind asking the question in the first place! I never once argued with the answer given, and to ZapperZ I just said that the thread was not pointless since I asked a legitimate question and got an answer.

 

[Intrastellar]

I see. So if someone doesn't like working with others they should not be a physicist?

If this person quits physics because he does not "like" working with others, then maybe this person never liked physics enough to begin with.
This person should learn to work with others, even if he wants to be a mathematician, because learning to work with others is much, much easier than doing everything on their own.

 

[Geranimo]

That doesn't clarify anything. One could be working by oneself, but yet, interact with others to get ideas, etc.

I find this whole topic to be quite pointless.

Zz.

It's funny I find your comment quite pointless

 

[Dale]

Just to clarify, when I say lone physicist I mean someone working on the actual theory by themselves, ie not in a group research project.

That is what I assumed you meant.

It doesn't happen now, and I am not sure that it ever happened. Einstein certainly did not work in isolation, and even the single author works of today still come from people working on theory with other people. Perhaps Newton, I am not sure.