Discussion
Started 24 January 2025

An old question, unsatisfactorily answered: Can everyone be good at physics/a physicist given enough effort and commitment ?

My answer is negative and thoroughly substantiated via 2 points.
1) The easiest part (lesser limiting factor) he has to comprehend the approach used in physics thinking and epistemology (i.e. working with hypotheses instead of etiological thinking, refraining from teleological inquiries etc), the importance of relying on maths, relevancy of equations etc. Not easy but can be accomplished to large degree by serious commitment and authentic interest
2) ease with representations (geometrical, model-wise etc) of physical systems and working cognitively on that level, abstract aplicational mathematical thinking (this may not be easy even for mathematicians) etc. This is something that required in my opinion an in-born trait

Most recent answer

I would add, that besides a proper definition for "good" in something, it is also necessary to define "physics" for that matter. Both may vary to large extent.
Put it another way: I know quite many people bad in physics, which however do physics (theoretically or practically). An average human sufficiently motivated can become better in physics than many of them.
The notion of "good in physics" sometimes is understood as "largely accepted by physics academic society", which is completely wrong. The obstacles to accept somebody come from exactly this category of bad in physics but having scientific career, for which any new scientist makes competition.
On the other hand, there are people, which achieved great results in physics without proper education (e.g. Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc).
So, my answer is: "Probably yes (see the first paragraph)". Another question would be: "Is it worth it to become good at physics/a physicist given enough effort and commitment?" The answer to this question is up to each individual person.
1 Recommendation

All replies (7)

James Tuite
The Open University
Everybody has their own strengths, which is what makes life interesting. So maybe everyone can be good at physics, but not everyone can be an Einstein?
Mr Tuite,
You are altering the question. It's not about being Einstein but physicist or good at physics.
While indeed all people have their own strengths, many can become many things but it is a much smaller percentage of this many who become physicists. Of course factors such as dislike of current paradigm's methods or statistical small inclination to study value-less non animate topics might also be the main reason for this small percentage. But this does not mean we can identify the reality with these
1 Recommendation
First, a full and comprehensive definition of the term "good at physics" should be given.
James Tuite
The Open University
Boris Rozin That is a good point - what counts as being good at physics is rather subjective. Philippos Afxentiou As I said in the first part of my answer, my feeling is that everyone could be 'good' at physics given time, opportunity, inclination and enthusiasm. It reminds me of what Richard Feynman said (with perhaps uncharacteristic modesty) that he was just an ordinary guy, but worked hard and had lots of curiosity about the world around him. I disagree with the second point, that ease of working with abstractions is an inborn trait - on the contrary, as most teachers would probably agree, that is a skill that we can teach our pupils with time.
Mr Boris Rozin and Mr James Tuite,
"Being good with physics" refers to someone able to 1. understand the application of the "scientific method" to explain and understand phenomena at a competent level 2. able to apply principles to unknown circumstances from those his teacher taught 3. able to have a sense of the need, necessity and epistemological effectiveness of the specialized application of various concepts and scientific claims to different domains of physical science
About abstraction. From my self, i see i work very well with concepts. For example i a very bad at interior design.
But when i come to be presented with a conceptual summary of the idea (of Wabi Sabi interior design
The concepts "keep it simple. i.e. minimal "functional decor i.e. use devices sympblically, natural materials, old items, neutral colors enabled a strong conceptual idea when before I could not relate
for the first time I understood and got excited - internal communication took place when before there was blurry and far away notions.
I believe the same may happen to people who are not wired like me and try to comprehend physics,(of course might understand physics via other avenues i.e. a strong physical intuition or experimental sense or other lens) unless someone communicates physics to them via their default mode of cognitive working, which has to be assessed first, different categorizations or theories developed before that etc. And then again, they might still get a glimpse and not the essence, like i might with interior design. That's some thought, anyway.
1 Recommendation
James Tuite
The Open University
You are right that everyone will have their own approach to the subject and their own way of thinking, but maybe that is productive. Can we say that there is a single 'essence' of physics when often it is exactly different ways of thinking that drives progress?
I would add, that besides a proper definition for "good" in something, it is also necessary to define "physics" for that matter. Both may vary to large extent.
Put it another way: I know quite many people bad in physics, which however do physics (theoretically or practically). An average human sufficiently motivated can become better in physics than many of them.
The notion of "good in physics" sometimes is understood as "largely accepted by physics academic society", which is completely wrong. The obstacles to accept somebody come from exactly this category of bad in physics but having scientific career, for which any new scientist makes competition.
On the other hand, there are people, which achieved great results in physics without proper education (e.g. Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk etc).
So, my answer is: "Probably yes (see the first paragraph)". Another question would be: "Is it worth it to become good at physics/a physicist given enough effort and commitment?" The answer to this question is up to each individual person.
1 Recommendation

Similar questions and discussions

Are Balabara Kotur's invalidation premises of Einstein's force formula modification a cause for concern or a case of false rebellion ?
Discussion
Be the first to reply
  • Philippos AfxentiouPhilippos Afxentiou
Kotur's argument
Here, the root of the problem is this: the experimental results take into consideration of the straight line distances travelled by the particles and this in fact leads to the conflict with the theoretical predictions of the Newton‟s formula. If we consider the total distance travelled by the particle, then there won‟t be any anomaly with the Newton‟s force formula as this work suggests.
Another point is that we have to use the particle‟s velocity but, not the wave velocity in order to find the acceleration of the particle under motion, for more details refer to the work [Ref. 2]
So, the point is this: if we use the correct distance and correct velocity of the particle under motion the Newton‟s force formula will certainly give the correct value for the acceleration‟ of the particle under motion. In the following sections we will see how to find the correct values of the distance and the velocity in order to use with the Newton‟s force formula to get error free results
The importance and the cause of concern
A Kotur points, in order to account for this, it is possible that
"Einstein had invented his concept of „relativistic mass‟; although Einstein‟s concept is wrong, it was addressing the problem in a correct way; due to the unscientific nature of this concept, it has been refined
later on to „relativistic momentum‟ and „relativistic energy‟, which seem more scientific, although these are all mere inventions far away from the reality".
The complete argument is here:
Newton's ’s Force Formula Works Even at Relativistic Velocities
The Formula Works If Applied Correctly!
Bhargava R. Kotur
AdIn SoftLabs, Chittoor, AP, India

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
The main aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of geometric representative approach in developing algebraic thinking of fourth grade students. Based on literatures in mathematics education, several procedures in developing algebraic thinking were identified. This study undertakes to (1) examine students’ algebraic thinking and skills (...
Article
The author was invited by the organizers of the Benin symposium on the encounter between rationalities to contribute from the particular perspective of his research experience in ethno-mathematics – the study of mathematical ideas and practices as embedded in their cultural contexts. In this article he tries to contribute to the understanding of ma...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.