How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

You say "mathematics, cognitive science, and computer science at increasing levels of sophistication.". That's probably true, I'd recon a fair bit of biology, chemistry and physics is most likely also needed.

My question, though, is what specific branches of said subjects?

In reality it's literally impossible for most people to imagine how hard the math is - because an undergrad physics or engineering degree is barely even a warm-up for it.

I'd love to see a TV show that made it clear just how challenging the math is without reducing it to the usual storytelling.

Popularisation can be great, but maybe it would be good to get a realistic appreciation for the raw version into the public narrative.

> "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" -> -- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect

If you'd finished the sentence, you'd see: "but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. "

He is constrasting "ordinary" with "the very best". He isn't talking about experimental physics -- that's not his field.

> "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program...

The beauty of theoretical physics (and math) is that you don't need any expensive equipment or overpriced tuition. Just books and people to talk to. Both of these are available free (except some books cost $$$), on the Internet. That's enough to get started.

> "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'.

It's a simple fact: Smarter folks can get farther without as much guidance from teachers.

> The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?"

Common K-12 schools in many countries generally teach science and math very poorly. This is not a controversial statement.

Colleges are full of 18-22-yr-olds, many of whom are there to party; not a comfortable environment for some 30+ year olds.

> Which is a bit humerus

You seem to have a bone to pick.

> considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”"

What does that have to do with the high school and college learning experience?

>i .e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.

The into goes to lengths to explain the sort of person who doesn't fit into school, and would benefit from an autodidactic alternative. For everyone else...there's school. I don't know why you have such a chip against the possibility of thriving outside of college... too much student loans got you sour grapse?

The author isn't expressing his disdain for school, but the disdain he perceives in the people who keep e-mailing him with the simple answers to deep questions. "Okay," he says (I'm paraphrasing wildly here), "you may be too cool for school, but if you don't have at least a firm understanding of these basics, you won't even be able to understand why you're wrong when you, quite inevitably, veer off into the muddy mire of misunderstanding."

He is most assuredly not denigrating experimental physics, nor is he saying that the ordinary educational process is a waste of time and effort. (This is not meant to encourage autodidacts in any way.) He's even hinted that the "lies to children" -- those models that seemed to work for a very long time in the pre-GR/pre-quantum world -- aren't nearly as useless as people might think they are, nor are the scientific processes that led to those models.

So, yes, he is being quite sarcastic here, but the sarcasm is pointed in a completely different direction.