<p>To the poster who stated that unless you’re doing calculus at a young age that you won’t be pushing the known bounds of physics, why is that? Elaborate please…</p>
<p>I think the idea is that physics research is a very competitive field and only best end up in university research positions…</p>
<p>One needs a certain threshold of intelligence to really push the frontiers of physics. Engineering has an important element of creativity intertwined with it while physicists require a raw computing power only obtainable if given the right genes.</p>
<p>“One needs a certain threshold of intelligence to really push the frontiers of physics. Engineering has an important element of creativity intertwined with it while physicists require a raw computing power only obtainable if given the right genes.”</p>
<p>But a lot of that can be team work or there’s anyways a strong cultural influence. It’s not like (complicated) stuff would get invented purely from scratch, but rather I believe all the great scientists have studied the work of the previous masters and build on top of that. I.e. possibly more about hard work and genuine interest/motivation, rather than naturalistic tendency given by genes. Knowing as much as possible about what has been said and knowing, really knowing what things mean and how they’re related, ought to open doors to new knowledge. Only autistic scientists (as well as identified child prodigies) may make a puzzling exception in this, because they may seem to have some superpowers in scientific research.</p>
<p>Socly, your friends are boobs and Big Bang Theory is a show for fartlumps. I’m an engineering physics major. I am familiar with what both sides do.</p>
<p>Red, are you saying physicists don’t need creativity, they just need computing power? What are you saying?</p>