Can someone please explain, the necessity of taking a physics course in order to understand the nature of physics?

I wouldn't mind hearing a debate about this!

ugh... where to start...

I wouldn't say it's necessary, because there have been cases of people who have little or no formal education actually making vital contributions. However, those people still had a very firm grasp of the fundamentals---they still studied, they still worked problems, they still put in their time.

I would say, though, that if you are ready to toss out quantum electrodynamics, and you can't calculate the cross-section of muon-anti-muon anihilation into electron-positron pair to at least one loop, you're pretty misguided.

More than anything, though, learning physics teaches you a way to think. It teaches you to be critical of every idea that you're presented with, and every thought that enters your head. This is why it is so hard for scientists in general to be religous. Religion is based on flawed logic---it is a tautology.

Very interesting.

When the other day, if this has any relevance I was trying to caculate the reasons behind transformation of energy in peoples heads equaling energy itself (such a small little proposition or what not, I understand that), I was forced to see what idiocy I was presented with...

Anyway, I had felt like posting this, thanks for the second paragraph, of which I get not too much out of?

So,
We establish that it isnt entirely necessary to have a physics background in order to do work in physics?

The part I 'especially' do not get, is why someone would be misguided. I guess you are relating that with physics on a general level or whatnot.
Sorry for the misunderstandings,
Sigh.

brent---

it's not that you can't do work---anybody can buy the books and learn the calculations. It's just like art---you can pick up a pencil and draw, but to be taken seriously, to have people PAY you to do nothing but draw, you have to be pretty damned good at drawing.

I would add this. In any field of study, you arrive at a point where you 'know just enough to be dangerous'. This is because you don't know how much you don't know, and most people drastically overestimate their knowledge. If you continue studying, eventually you have something of a revelation, like "man, was I dumb!" and with that you usually learn that it's a good idea to be open to criticism.

Right. You go through those stages a lot. Knowledge or wisdom or whatever is weird..

I think it was Socrates who said: If I am wise, it is in that I know how little I know.
Or words to that effect, in Greek of course.

I think it was Socrates who said: If I am wise, it is in that I know how little I know.
Or words to that effect, in Greek of course.
When I was a junior engineer, I knew everything. I was awesome. Now... pffftt.

I heard someone once say that ...
"At any point in a man's life there is the tendency to think that what he knows now is all he will ever need to know"
The reason for this is that the alternative is unthinkable. To be aware that you do not kow enough to take care of everything should be terrifying. So the mind protects us with a defense that we know "everything".

Can someone please explain, the necessity of taking a physics course in order to understand the nature of physics?

I wouldn't mind hearing a debate about this!
you don't.
you can learn all about physics by learning to ride a bike or dropping something really heavy on your toe.

but in fairness, a physics course in high school will prepare you for college classes.

Hum,
if someone was sufficiently cleaver and had enough time, funding and equipment then they could probably work out all the major discoveries in physics.
Taking a physics course in order to understand the nature of physics is akin to cheating.

you can learn all about physics by learning to ride a bike or dropping something really heavy on your toe.

This will teach nothing of quantum mechanics or electrodynamics.

Either way, here is a step by step guide to being a good theoretical physicist (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html). This is by Gerard tHooft, who has won the Nobel prize.

There is also a guide to being a bad theoretical physicst (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html). This is much easier, and is more often the path pursued by people who call themselves ``academic outsiders''.

physics is my religion
physicists are my gods

they will find what i seek
eventually

From 'tHooft's web page

The only one I know of currently is John Moffatt at U Toronto, who was a student of Abdus Salam at Imperial College, London. He started life as a painter in Paris, had no undergraduate degree, taught himself, corresponded with Einstein, and was admitted, based on his demonstrated original work, at IC. (Source: João Magueijo, _Faster than the Speed of Light_. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA. 2003.)

So, in all the world of physics, there has been one physicist who has taught himself physics and contributed without having an undergraduate degree. There may be others, but this is the only one I have ever heard of.

This doesn't count Garrett Lisi, who left academia long ago, but still has a PhD from UCLA.

you can learn all about physics by learning to ride a bike or dropping something really heavy on your toe. Lots of people dropped things on their toes, and some thought hard about the physics involved, for several thousand years before Newton - with only a little success.

The percentage of people who can learn the physics of riding a bicycle by learning to ride a bicycle is less than 1.

There is a little gyroscopic platform at many big city science museums, where all the bicycle riders can test their understanding of the underlying physics of a spinning wheel or two in real time and space, and learn a bit of that most valuable of lessons to be had from a science (any science) : you don't know much.

I should also mention, what I said above doesn't apply to Garrett Lisi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi), who got his PhD at UCLA, and subsequently left academia to pursue snowboarding and surfing. His recent paper ``An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything (http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770)'' has generated a lot of press lately.

Can someone please explain, the necessity of taking a physics course in order to understand the nature of physics?
This is oxymoron: you can not understand the nature of any subject without knowledge of this subject. Especially at the case of physics, which is man-made stuff by itself - not that one of observable reality. This is common mistake of many selfmademans, who are trying to change the physics without konwledge of physics. Therefore I'm not saying, the AWT is scientific theory, the physical the less. Because to became physicists, you should respect the contemporary physics rules and quidelines. The AWT is just a theory, which can become scientific later, or maybe not. Currently I'm preffering to have theory relevant to reality (i.e. testable, easy to understand, etc.) rather then to have a strictly scientific theory.

Fortunatelly, the understanding of physics is not directly related to understanding of observable reality at all. In certain sense, because the human stupidity is virtually unlimited, the understanding of reality can be often a much more easier task, then to understanding of contemporary physics as such. Which is sad, but logical consequence of the fact, the physics is not tool for Nature understanding for many theorists, but the tool for their presentation activity. They're simply making money and social credit by it. Which often holds true for many brilliant mathematicians, who would remain unemployed without physics, because the public order for abstract math is not so high, as it's commonly believed. Most of practical problems can be solved by computers much more effectivelly.

So that the above question was probably ment as:

"Can we understand the observable reality without deep knowledge of physical formalism, the math in particular?"

At this moment we are dealing with two different things and the answer to such question can definitelly sound: "yep, at least up to certain level". The lack of formal understanding it's mainly a quantitative problem, not the qualitative one. For example, you cannot understand the nature of highly abstract concepts without understanding of formalism, which has introduced them. for example the nature of gauge groups or metric signature.

But I don't see any fundamental reason, why it couldn't be possible to understand the nature of observable phenomena at the intuitive level, i.e. without relation to any formalism at all. I spend a lotta time by such explanation of different concepts of contemporary physics, for example illustrative explanations (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/thumbnails/thumbnails.htm) of relativistic Doppler shift (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/doppler.htm), twins paradox (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/twins.htm), superconductivity (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/superconductivity.htm), quantum wave (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/vmlwave1.htm), light speed invariance (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/lightspeed.gif), spin symmetry (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/symmetry/loop.gif), Lorentz (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/lorentz.gif) transform (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/theboat.gif) and contraction (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/string_motion1.gif), abelian (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/abelian_group.gif) and non-abelian (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/vortex1r.gif) transforms, electromagnetic field (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/emgpole1.gif) spreading, charge (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/mass_energy.gif) and electroweak (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/curvature.gif) interaction, inflation (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/universe_lapse.gif), space-time expansion (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/spaceexp.gif), dimensions (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/axions.gif), Lagrangian (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/lagrangian_real1.gif) and compactification (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/tetraeder.gif), renormalization (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/superstring/renormalizace_funkce.gif), particle generations (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/generace.gif), , birefringence of vacuum (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/foamgradient2.jpg), imaginary (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/space_evol.gif) and/or multiple time (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/aether_density.gif) concept, double slit experiment (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/quantum_split.jpg) and deBroglie wave (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/fish_flowing.gif), quantum entanglement (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/entang1.gif), Higgs mechanism (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/higgs.gif), motion (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/particle_foam_mov03.gif) in the gravitational field (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/difussion.gif), Lie group (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/honeycomb.gif) and string net liquid (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/Aether_Foam.gif) concept, quarks (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/experiments/speckle_movie_lg.gif), neutrinos (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/antisymmetric.gif), electron (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/light/photon_loop_anim.gif) and proton (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/kvarky.gif), gravitons (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/gravitons.gif), photons (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/light/photons.gif), accretion radiation (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/blackhole_fall.gif), cp-symmetry violation (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/cpinavriance.gif) and/or quasars (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/collapse.gif) formation and black hole (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/blackhole.gif) interior (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/space_topology.gif) and Universe generations (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spaceevol.gif), etc... So it could be said, I'm expert in this area.

You should realize though, the predicability of most non-formal intepretations of physical concepts is always limited without usage of formal models. For example, my Aether Wave Theory is robust approach for intuitive understanding of contemporary physics, but some deeper connections is rather difficult to vizualize, for example the explanation of number of gluons without using of gauge symmetry formalism. Therefore it's rather easy to understand the physics without formal math, but it's impossible to understand it perfectly. Because the understanding means the "ability to predict", not just "to reproduce".

This is the another common mistake of many selfmademans, who are having a "perfect explanation" of many things, but they're not able to predict anything new by testable way by using of these explanations. For example Farsight ID is the case of such category. The ability of understanding to supply new testable prediction is the strong criterion of the relevancy, in which even the string theory has failed quite often. Many predictions of string theory were simply shown wrong, in many other aspects the string theory is divergent theory, supplying too variant anwers. It doesn't mean, the quite formal theory cannot be predicative at all. For example, the Heim's theory is as formal, as predicative.

In general, the understanding of formal relations simplifies the intutitive understanding of them as well. For example, is rather simple to understand, why our space is just 3D, if you know something about hypersphere packing geometry. Without such knowledge of geometry the nonformal understanding would be much more difficult, simply because you're trying to understand the geometrical concepts without usage of geometry.

In certain extent, the main problem of contemporary physics is not the abusus of math, but the inconsistent application of it. Because the formal math has strictly hiearchic structure: every theorem has it's rigirous proof here. Which is not ofcourse the case of physics, which is based on the number of ad-hoc postulates, which are often subject of pure belief. For example the vacuum is considered massless, although every observation can serve as an evidence, it's typical inertial environment, which is spreading the energy in waves. The fact, it cannot be weighted doesn't count, because even the water cannot be weighted in the underwater. By such way, the massless field concept violates the trivial logic from it's very beginning.

So we can say: no less math, but even more math based on rigorous predicate logic it's necessary to introduce in physics.

This is why it is so hard for scientists in general to be religous. Religion is based on flawed logic---it is a tautology...
This sounds well and canonically. Unfortunatelly the disbelief is too often supersymmetric to the unsubstantied belief in the oposite. In fact, just the Occam's razor is the relevant criterion of relevance of concepts for reality. It means, if some concept requires less assumptions and it enables more logical connections to the other concepts, it's supposedly more relevant and "true", then the pure disbelief in the opposite. For example, the disbelief in massive vacuum concept has becomed more and more unsubstantiated, the more we know about simmilar behavior of common matter. It can be proven easily, even at the Maxwell's times the people has refuted the Aether concept just because of ignorance of logic and due the belief - not the absence of experimental evidence.

The people didn't believed in Aether of heliocentric model for long time, because the empirical evidence has supplied more causual evidence against these concepts. During time the disbelief in the relevancy of these concepts has changed into belief in the nonrelevancy of these concepts, thus revealing the dualistic, i.e. supersymmetric nature of the belief. The truth has usually two sides, while the more objective one is more difficult to achieve. So we're often ignoring the time dimension in considering of the truth.

It means, we cannot say "something cannot exist" or "this is impossible" just because of disbelief. Instead of this we are required to say: "we cannot say anything about it at this moment". Unfortunatelly such stance isn't often advantageous psychologically and the people are often tends to manipulate the others for better introducing of their own ideas. For example, the relativity has becomed widespread just because of too "assertive" politics of relativity proponents.

This will teach nothing of quantum mechanics or electrodynamics.

hey! where did i say i was a genius?
physics? did someone say physics?
uh, doesn't that have something to do with jane fondas workouts?
now you know why i don't post in the physics forum.
what was it again? A+B=C? or something like that.

And all too often knowledge is confused with wisdom.

I think it was Socrates who said: If I am wise, it is in that I know how little I know.
Or words to that effect, in Greek of course.

I feel the same way Socrates.

lol

So there we have it :/

Can someone please explain, the necessity of taking a physics course in order to understand the nature of physics?

I wouldn't mind hearing a debate about this!

You can always reinvent the wheel, patent it and make a ton of money.