Qualities of a successful theorist

[ahsanxr]

Does that mean that one can do string theory without having learned how to compute cross-sections in QED and QCD, or do you mean that Peskin and Schroeder goes overboard with such types of calculations?

Doesn't a string theorist need to have learned renormalisation concepts, such as how to do renormalisation and renormlisation groups, or non-abelian gauge theories, for that matter?

It' helpful to distinguish between the general structure of a subject and particular examples of it. For example it's entirely possible to have a good and deep understanding of quantum mechanics without having mastered all the details of Laguerre polynomials or selection rules in the dipole approximation. Just because a particular textbook chooses to focus on that particular topic doesn't mean it's necessary to master it.

Renormalization group is very crucial to understanding QFT and as such any theorist who uses it will know it very well, yes.

Non-Abelian gauge theories are also very important, yes, but again (for string theory at least) your focus should be on the generalities. You should focus on learning the Fadeev-Poppov procedure and BRST quantization rather than the specific calculation techniques of a specific gauge theory.

 

[ZapperZ]

It seems that the qualities being asked is more specific than just being a "theorist", since it appears as if it is geared towards the more "esoteric" areas of physics.

From my personal observations, one of the most important traits for theorists in condensed matter physics is the intimate knowledge of experimental results in that field. CM theorists such as Anderson, Laughlin, Abrikosov, etc. never miss experimental results in their areas. Laughlin, in fact, made his name alongside 2 other experimentalists in the landmark fractional quantum hall effect paper. Because this field has such a huge body of experimental results, and that new and exotic materials often can be grown to test new theories (example: topological insulators), theorists that do not pay attention to experiments are often left on the wayside.

Zz.

 

[spaghetti3451]

It' helpful to distinguish between the general structure of a subject and particular examples of it. For example it's entirely possible to have a good and deep understanding of quantum mechanics without having mastered all the details of Laguerre polynomials or selection rules in the dipole approximation. Just because a particular textbook chooses to focus on that particular topic doesn't mean it's necessary to master it.

Renormalization group is very crucial to understanding QFT and as such any theorist who uses it will know it very well, yes.

Non-Abelian gauge theories are also very important, yes, but again (for string theory at least) your focus should be on the generalities. You should focus on learning the Fadeev-Poppov procedure and BRST quantization rather than the specific calculation techniques of a specific gauge theory.

Does that mean that, in order to begin research in string theory, for example, it is important to read research papers and textbooks on string theory to be able to understand exactly which concepts from QFT, General Relativity and Supersymmetry are most often used by string theorists, and then to master specifically those concepts?

 

[ahsanxr]

Does that mean that, in order to begin research in string theory, for example, it is important to read research papers and textbooks on string theory to be able to understand exactly which concepts from QFT, General Relativity and Supersymmetry are most often used by string theorists, and then to master specifically those concepts?

Precisely. Mastery by reading textbooks and papers is very important, but it should be aimed at the right things.

 

[andrewkirk]

What are the most important qualities that a budding theorist ought to have?

The idealism, determination and strength of character to persevere on a pittance, with no job security, always resisting the temptation to go over to the dark side (finance) where s/he could use those rare mathematical abilities to fund the lifestyle of a Branson rather than a Bose.

 

[Chronos]

A theorist need be well versed and keenly aware in her field, restrained, disciplined, and vigorously question all assumptions.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

The idealism, determination and strength of character to persevere on a pittance, with no job security, always resisting the temptation to go over to the dark side (finance) where s/he could use those rare mathematical abilities to fund the lifestyle of a Branson rather than a Bose.

Most of us will join the dark side, they have cookies.

 

[f95toli]

I wonder what the OPs definition of "successful" is?

There is a huge difference between solving lots of problems and having a successful career, and there really isn't much point in doing the former without the latter. Physics is no different to any other job: your "technical" skill is only part of what makes you successful. In order to be competitive you also need to have reasonably good social skills so that you can build up a network and collaborate efficiently, be good at presenting your work and a bit later in your career you will inevitable also need to be able to manage projects and people. Note that there are lots of very successful physicists who are only "average" problem solvers, they've based their whole career on networking, being good at writing grant proposals and being very good at running research groups. In many cases this category of people have been able to contribute a lot to the development of their fields simply because being in a good position career-vise means that you can more easily identify important problems, make connections between different areas and utilize a network of people with different specialties to solve problems.

 

[Shadow-Shocker]

I believe to be a successful theorist one must be a critical/analytical observer in general, have a strong/imaginative mind, explore our world we are still understanding, read vigorously, be open-minded, and reflect on their own lives to have their unique beautiful perspective of the world.

 

[mpresic]

Seems to me if you want to know what qualities a budding theorist should have, you should look at prominent physicists. All of them had remarkable problem-solving skills. In the many popular books about Feynman and Einstein, none mentioned they read books from cover to cover in a short period of time.
Your example with Witten shows he had leadership from Atiyah about what to read. I agree with your example that often a prominent physicist does need good guidance from a more experienced physicist during a critical period of development. The same can be said for prominent concert pianists, chessmasters, maybe karate-masters, and other super-experts in disciplines.
I used to think when I got into the theory I should read every article in Phys Rev in HEP. This was folly even 50 years ago. It could (and should) not ever be considered today. Bobby Fischer had a phenomenal memory but even he was selective and used great judgment in what he studied. He did not go out to study every chess game played by every grandmaster in the world (and there were fewer GM's back when he was prominent).

Feynman, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Chandrasekhar all had a strong work ethic. They could concentrate for prolonged periods of time. Einstein worked on GR for a decade. Does that sound like he was concerned with solving the problem rapidly. Newton worked for a long time on the theory of universal gravitation as well. I would consider staying power (endurance and discipline) more important than mental alacrity.

However, as a practical matter a budding physicist needs alacrity in solving problems for the GRE - Physics. He/She can take a bit more time on qualifying exams and homework. These obstacles need to be surmounted to even get a chance at more difficult problems encountered in research. As the physicist develops, the problems become harder and long-term attention becomes more important, though.

 

[haushofer]

Passion and precision. Being able to read textbooks "cover to cover" is silly. In my experience good theorists are able to distinguish what's important for their research and what's not.