[Stasis5001]

For reference, generally people learn all this over four years of undergrad and probably the first few years of grad school (I have a BS in physics, and a PhD in a different field, so not 100% sure on the grad school work). That's 6 years of more or less full-time work, surrounded by excellent peers and mentors, where every week you read 2-4 chapters and do 10 problems per chapter. If you're motivated and talented, you'll breeze through the first few years of problems, but anecdotally, everybody hits a wall where the problems start to get really hard. I have no doubt you can replicate the undergrad education through self-study, and maybe even save money and time, but after that point, why not just go to grad school? You won't save much time doing it on your own, and you get mentorship, exposure to the research aspect (not exactly trivial to learn), credibility, and funding.

I'm pretty sure the number of high-quality researchers in theoretical physics, or any major field, who are totally self-taught is really quite small. This website feels like it's in part to dissuade amateurs from sending their "awesome result" to professionals, which the author mentions in the intro.

[paulpauper]

I'm pretty sure the number of high-quality researchers in theoretical physics, or any major field, who are totally self-taught is really quite small.

I think it's zero

[sn9]

I know of at least one professor in Canada (Toronto maybe?) who was self taught and got into a graduate program on the strength of a letter of recommendation from a physicist he had been corresponding with. Can't remember the name at the moment, but I think his background had been in art.

And then there's Ed Witten, who studied history and linguistics. It's not really clear when or how he studied physics (so very possibly self-taught), though he had a famous physicist father so he would have had a ready source of advice on textbooks, etc.

[vecter]

Ed Witten was very good at math when he was young. He scored exceptionally well in the American Mathematics Competition. He didn't pick physics up out of nowhere, he already had a quantitively talented mind.

[kayoone]

That might be true but op was just claiming that the number of self taught people in theoretical physics is non zero.

[vecter]

He was almost implying that Witten came out of nowhere with very little mathematical background and became a physics god. He implied this by saying that Witten studied history and linguistics in college, but he failed to mention his previously strong background in mathematics during his childhood. That last part is the key signal to how Witten could have even possibly become a successful physicist, although of course it is not a sufficient condition.

[sn9]

Could you provide a citation for the AMC score? A cursory Google search doesn't turn up anything.

My understanding is he only knew calculus before college.

[vecter]

I can't find it today, but I remember reading the AMC results with my own eyes many years ago. I believe he was one of the best scorers on either the AMC 8 or the AMC 10 in his state.

[mikebenfield]

But these examples aren't what is being referred to as "totally self taught." Your grandparent comment acknowledges, "I have no doubt you can replicate the undergrad education through self-study..." (Of course that is pretty rare too, but what's in doubt is people who did the equivalent of grad school on their own).

FWIW, in mathematics I know there's Blake Temple, who IIRC did his undergrad in philosophy but was somehow admitted to a strong math grad program and went on to a very successful career... but again this isn't "totally self taught" in the sense here.

[fosco]

he was corresponding with another physicist, I do not think enough people realize no one is an island. Working, talking and communicating with others is how many things are learned and solidified because others force us to sharpen our thoughts by questioning them.

I think this is why some of the 'big' thinkers (see feynman einstein) worked at universities, it forced them to continue sharpening their skills because they had a collection of students questioning their ideas. I believe this applies to all fields... not just physics

my two cents. I agree with PaulPauper, I think it is zero as well.

[santaclaus]

It is rare (Ramanujan), but happens! [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

[ice109]

freeman dyson doesn't have a phd.

[mobieus_jay]

Are you sure?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

By the way, do you know that there is a series in scattering theory in quantum mechanics called Dyson series?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_series

To be frank, I doubt if you know this.

[ice109]

>Are you sure?

yes

>Dyson never got his PhD degree.

>By the way, do you know that there is a series in scattering theory in quantum mechanics called Dyson series?

indeed i do; i studied it in perturbation theory in undergrad.

>To be frank, I doubt if you know this.

this isn't grammatically correct. "i doubt you know this/that".

[sidlls]

Some of the most amusing things I saw while I was in academia were "proofs" of various things sent in from random people. I admired their desire to contribute even while I marveled at how "not even wrong" they were.

[brendyn]

Scott Young self studied a 4 year MIT course in 1 year, although not to such a high level as you discussed: https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/myprojects/mit-challenge-2/

[Swizec]

That's super impressive, but there's a niggle. From his site:

> Did you grade the work yourself? Yes.

From my experience of doing CS in college, I think that's a problem.

The difference between what I believe and think I can prove to be correct, and what the professor says is correct, can be painfully stark sometimes. Especially where it comes to more advanced topics where it's easy to make your explanation of a concept sound correct, but contain crucial mistakes that invalidate your answer. Mistakes that only somebody with more intimate knowledge than yourself can spot.

We're talking fundamentals like writing out a proof that some algorithm is O(n^3) and classmates agreeing the proof does look correct, then the professor looking at it, saying "LoL, no. Watch this" and proving that it's O(n).

[Mehdi2277]

Not the best example. An algorithm that is O(n) is also O(n^3). If you want a tight bound you should use big theta.

I also think while it might be a bit of an issue for undergrad, by grad school at latest for math at least you should be able to tell the difference between a correct proof and incorrect proof most of the time. Usually I'd expect it after your first/second proof heavy math class (analysis/algebra/etc). Usually when I take math tests I can tell pretty precisely what grade I'll get as I know when I'm writing a proper proof or if I'm just writing for the sake of having some progress. Admittingly, my math interests are biased towards proofs/logic and I've spent time writing proofs in coq.

[Swizec]

You're a better mathematician than I am. My experience passing mathematics exams involves a lot of "Ugh I know how this works in principle! Why doesn't it work when I apply it!? #@$%$#%!" I remember one time I was studying Newton's Method and got 5 different results for the same problem. It looked like I was applying the algorithm correctly in all of them, but the algo is very sensitive to small errors in arithmetic.

Hell, even for knowledge based tests, especially oral, I had this problem.

"How does CPU pipeline work?", prof "blahblahblah", swiz "Lol you have no idea what you're talking about" "Argh but that's what your book says!" "Nu-uh. Look, here" "Ugghhh I changed one little word!" "Yeah but that changes the meaning and now your explanation is wrong" "#@$@#%%!@#"

You know, little details I'd never realize on my own are wrong because I was 80% correct and that sounds correct enough, you can look up details when you need them. But prof is looking for 99.999% correct.

I did not graduate, as you can imagine. But I did get straight A's in coding-based classes. :)

[Mehdi2277]

Math is one place where I think it tends to be nice to be pedantic as you are starting to learn a topic. Generally, when I'm unsure of something proof wise it tells me I should re-read all the relevant definitions from that section/chapter. I also generally make it a goal that most important theorems are things I should be able to prove from scratch. Partly because if I can follow the proof well, then I'm less likely to misapply it. Lastly, I like how math has a heavy focus on building upon prior math so I try to review topics from previously taken classes often. I feel that cs classes are much less connected.