Why I Can’t Be a Physicist

Physics is a fascinating scientific field, but not something that I am personally able to master to the level of becoming an actual card-carrying professional physicist, complete with PhD. This informal paper explores the reasons why I won’t ever be prepared to be a physicist, even if it might help me gain a better, deeper, and broader understanding of quantum computing.

Topics discussed in this informal paper:

1. In a nutshell
2. Genesis, how this topic all came about
3. My background
4. I am fascinated by physics
5. Why I can’t be a reasonably good physicist
6. Why I don’t want to be a physicist
7. Why I can’t be a physicist
8. In truth, I’m not interested in being any kind of scientist
9. If I were a physicist, what type of work environment would I choose?
10. I wouldn’t want to be a professor either
11. Some types of work I would not choose if I were a physicist
12. Why does anyone want to be a physicist?
13. Informal writing interests me, but formal writing doesn’t interest me
14. Informality in general is my primary and preferred mode of operation
15. Formality in general is antithetical to my basic personality
16. Bureaucracy and me don’t get along very well
17. My quantum journey
18. The Nobel physics prize lectures related to quantum mechanics
19. My model of reality
20. My model of research
21. My interests in research in quantum computing
22. But, I do reserve the right to change my mind and at least move towards increased interest in the aspects of the theory and practice of physics which currently disinterest me
23. Never say never = 1 in 1,000 chance
24. If I had it all to do again, what would I do?
25. Conclusions

In a nutshell

1. I am fascinated by physics. High interest and intense curiosity about how the basic mechanisms of physical reality actually work. A lifelong interest, as a child, and even today.
2. I’ve had a fair amount of exposure to physics.
3. Interest in computers overtook my early interest in physics and science and math in general.
4. Quantum computing renewed my interest in physics. But I’m still more interested in computing than physics per se.
5. Overall, it’s the phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles of physics that I am passionate about, but not a lot of the details, especially the math.
6. Theory interests me, but not the math. It’s the ideas, concepts, and principles that I am passionate about.
7. Hands-on physics doesn’t appeal to me. My interest is in phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles. I’ll leave the lab work to others. Some people thrive on hands-on activities, but not me.
8. Lab work and physical experiments don’t interest me.
9. Teaching doesn’t interest me.
10. Informal writing interests me, but formal writing doesn’t interest me. The detailed structure, and organization of published papers doesn’t interest me.
11. Informality in general is my primary and preferred mode of operation. I’m generally too informal for physics.
12. Formality in general is antithetical to my basic personality. My lack of interest in formality makes me a poor match for physics.
13. Bureaucracy and me don’t get along very well. I don’t thrive in bureaucracy. Most physics is deeply ingrained in and constrained by bureaucracy, in part because it tends to be capital intensive. Not a great match for me.
14. Getting a PhD is beyond my personal intellectual capacity and patience.
15. Sure, I could probably have gotten an MS in physics (as so many people have done), but why bother. It’s just a stepping stone to the PhD, or a dead end.
16. I’m not interested in becoming a card-carrying PhD computer scientist or mathematician, either. Or any kind of PhD. Again, I’m interested in the knowledge, the science, and the concepts and ideas, but not interested in any of the rigamarole.
17. Being a mediocre physicist is not an option I could ever accept. Be great (or at least reasonably good) or go home! I could never tolerate mediocrity.
18. I have no desire to do all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. The work doesn’t interest me, even if the phenomena, concepts, principles, and ideas fascinate me.
19. I have no interest in all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. Beyond a lack of desire or passion, I simply have no interest.
20. I don’t want to be a physicist — there’s too much about physics that simply doesn’t appeal to me, including the hard work, even if significant aspects of physics do appeal to me.
21. I don’t want to be a professor either. Teaching, even if combined with research, isn’t interesting to me. And working inside a bureaucracy isn’t interesting to me either.
22. The question arises of whether I could know and do more with quantum computing if I was indeed an actual card-carrying professional physicist. Seems likely, or at least possible, but not necessarily so.
23. So, for now, I’m content to be a relative outsider, more of a physics enthusiast than an actual card-carrying professional physicist.
24. Am I missing out on much? Sure, some, but maybe not enough to make a big difference.
25. I reserve the right to change my mind. Even if it’s very unlikely that I will.
26. Never say never. That’s my philosophy for almost all things. What that really means is that I place only a 1 in 1,000 chance of that thing happening — yes, it can happen but it’s still unlikely.
27. If I had it all to do again, what would I do? Great question, but I really don’t have any real answer. In some sense, I’m not sure that my path wasn’t the best for me even if I had an opportunity to change it.

Genesis, how this topic all came about

Over five years ago I noticed that quantum computing seemed to finally be starting to take off, so I figured that as a technologist I should endeavor to figure out what it was all about.

I figured that a lot of it would be about computer science and some math, mostly. I figured that some amount of physics would be involved too — after all, physics was behind transistors and even vacuum tubes.

But the deeper I dug into quantum computing, the more I realized that it was much more about physics than computer science or math.

As I note below, I had always been fascinated by physics anyway, so I had no objection to digging deeper into the physics behind and below quantum computing.

Granted, I had no idea that I’d have to dig this deep into physics, but it was an interesting experience nonetheless.

But after five years, and enough exposure to physics to last most people a lifetime, it did occur to me to at least raise the question of why despite my lifelong interest, physics was never going to be the right career choice for me.

And that’s what this informal paper is all about — why I can’t be a physicist.

My background

Overall, my entire career has been as a software developer, with quite a few minor detours into other areas of technology.

Me on LinkedIn:

• https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackkrupansky/

Background about me and physics:

1. I am fascinated by physics and have been since I was a child.
2. I did fine in high school and college in physics, but I didn’t have a great passion for the class or lab work.
3. But I lost interest in physics in high school as my interest in computers kicked in and grew by leaps and bounds. My exposure to computers began before I took the first of two physics courses. Halfway through chemistry in my sophomore year I first discovered computers (but not because of chemistry class.) After that, even physics didn’t have a chance with me.
4. Got a BS degree with a focus on computer science and an MS in Computer science. Both degrees in four years. Had a few required college courses in physics, but all of my elective courses were in computer science (and a couple in psychology, for non-technical electives.) My computer science courses were split between the departments of mathematics and electrical engineering. I actually wasn’t permitted to take any undergraduate computer science courses since I had taken the grad-level equivalents for my masters degree by the time the undergrad elective slots became available — I had half of the credits for my masters degree halfway through my sophomore year.
5. No interest in a PhD. I graduated with both a BS and MS in computer science (in four years) and immediately went to work in industry without giving even a moment’s thought to ever getting a PhD in computer science — or any other science or math.
6. Physics has always been my first choice in the physical sciences. If computer science wasn’t a thing, I’d definitely have gravitated to physics rather than biology, chemistry, math, or any of the other physical sciences.
7. I gained a renewed interest in physics as quantum computing came into the picture. Or at least when it took off in 2017.
8. I did informally labor through three MIT online courses in quantum physics a few years ago. Not well enough to be on a track to an actual card-carrying professional physicist, but enough for my current interests.
9. Overall, it’s the phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles of physics that I am passionate about. A lot of the details, not so much. Especially the math.

I am fascinated by physics

As far as my interest in physics:

1. High interest and intense curiosity about how the basic mechanisms of physical reality actually work.
2. I’ve been interested in and intensely curious about physics and science in general since I was a child.
3. I’m just as intensely interested and curious about physics and science in general today as when I was a child.
4. I was fascinated by the demonstration of nuclear fusion at the GE pavilion at the 1964 New York World’s Fair. I was only ten years old, but…
5. Leafing through an issue of National Geographic magazine as a child, I saw an ad for atomic energy by AEC — the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, so I mailed a request and they sent me a big fat envelope filled with all sorts of pamphlets on all aspects of nuclear energy and nuclear physics. It was incredible. I couldn’t put the stuff down. I was hooked.
6. I’ve always been fascinated by nuclear energy and power. They were building a nuclear power plant in the next town when I was in junior high school.
7. The original Star Trek TV show introduced a lot of physics. When I was in junior high school.
8. Science fiction? Sorry, but no, science function in general (beyond Star Trek) was not a significant influence in my interest in physics. My interest was strictly practical, what could be done in the here and now or near future. And what had been done in the past, history. Sure, I did read a fair amount of science fiction in my younger days, but that interest faded quickly once I got hooked on computers.
9. One of my uncles worked in the nuclear industry.
10. Interested in space and astronomy. How do stars really work?
11. I devoured the annual Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year for scientific advances when I was a child and in high school.
12. The high school computer club visited the Princeton Forrestal Plasma Physics Fusion Laboratory on a Saturday, where we wrote and submitted simple FORTRAN jobs to run on the campus IBM System 360 Model 91 high-end mainframe computer. Just reading the brochure for the lab was fascinating. We visited the theoretical division, so we didn’t see any of the fusion equipment, but our host was a senior scientist at the lab, so that was even better from my perspective. This was in 1970.
13. I attended a summer training program for science students at Stevens Institute of Technology in 1971. It was focused on computer programming — machine architecture and assembly language! As well as numerical analysis. One of the teaching assistants for our program in the computer center (keypunch machines, punched cards, line printer listings) was always working on physics problems, such as simulating the wake from a boat. And he was reading lectures by… Professor Richard Feynman! Physics, at least some of it, seemed rather… cool. Actually more interesting than I was exposed to in high school.
14. I learned a lot about physics, radiation, health physics, and nuclear weapons technology when I lived in Boulder, Colorado and attended a lot of public events related to the local nuclear weapons plant. The Rocky Flats Plant, technically in Golden, Colorado. Got to talk to a lot of experts and scientists, do a lot of reading, including DOE (Department of Energy) and other reading rooms. Visited a few DOE national laboratories around the country, and DOE headquarters in Washington, DC.
15. Astronomy, particularly stars, quasars, black holes, etc., has always fascinated me. My interest was more on what was happening inside of stars rather than the visual aspects of stars, planets, and moons.
16. Formation and evolution of stars, including supernovas, interests me, but from the perspective of what is happening at the particle physics level, with atoms, radiation, and fusion. Skip any classical mechanics.
17. Nuclear power (fission, fusion, and thermal) and nuclear weapons also interest me, but once again at the particle physics level, with atoms, radiation, and fusion. Skip any classical mechanics.
18. I did informally labor through a few MIT online courses in quantum physics a few years ago. Not well enough to be on a track to an actual card-carrying professional physicist, but enough for my current interests.
19. I would like to know more about phenomena down at the Planck level, or within quarks, photons, neutrinos, and electrons, but physicists don’t appear to know much, probably since it’s beyond the scope of their limited models and measurement instruments.
20. The question arises of whether I could know and do more with quantum computing if I was indeed an actual card-carrying professional physicist. Seems likely, but not necessarily so.
21. So, for now, I’m content to be a relative outsider, more of a physics enthusiast than an actual card-carrying professional physicist.
22. Am I missing out on much? Sure, some, but maybe not enough to make a big difference.
23. I do enjoy skimming through academic paper on quantum mechanics and particle physics — or stars, black holes, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. Even though I may comprehend only 10 to 20% of the material, but that’s enough for my current interests.
24. And I enjoyed carefully reading all of the Nobel Physics prize lectures even remotely related to quantum mechanics. Quite a few are very readable, although some were more difficult since I lack the depth of knowledge required.

Why I can’t be a reasonably good physicist

Besides it being a lot of hard work to be a reasonably good physicist, I would note, overall:

1. There’s no chance of me being a great physicist. Every physicist should have at least some aspiration (or even at least a fantasy) of achieving greatness.
2. There’s not really any chance of me even being a good physicist. That should be the normal, minimal goal for anybody getting into physics. And I just don’t have the interest or commitment to do all of the required hard work.
3. And I’m definitely not interested in being a mediocre physicist. Why bother! Better to simply say that I am interested in physics or being a mere physics enthusiast rather than accept mediocrity.

On to the specifics of why I couldn’t be a reasonably good physicist:

1. No interest in a PhD. I graduated with both a BS and MS in computer science (in four years) and immediately went to work in industry without giving even a moment’s thought to ever getting a PhD in computer science — or any other science or math.
2. Getting a PhD is beyond my personal intellectual capacity and patience.
3. Sure, I could probably have gotten an MS in physics (as so many people have done), but why bother. It’s just a stepping stone to the PhD, or a dead end.
4. I’m interested in some areas of physics, but not all areas or all levels of detail of physics.
5. I’m less interested in classical mechanics than quantum mechanics and the world of particle physics.
6. I’m much more interested in the underlying phenomenological nature of physics than modeling or math. I consider myself a pragmatist, practical, and focused on the practical and real world. I consider myself a phenomenologist. Again, focus on the raw underlying phenomena, not the models or math.
7. With few exceptions, the math of physics doesn’t particularly interest me.
8. Optics is superficially interesting, but lacks any focus on the underlying phenomenology. And once you drag in the complex math, you lose me.
9. Thermodynamics never really interested me. Maybe it was all of the statistics, which doesn’t interest me either.
10. Ditto for statistical mechanics.
11. My interest is in phenomena, ideas, concepts, principles, and pragmatic applications rather than all of the rigamarole associated with the theory and practice of physics.
12. Theory interests me, but not the math. It’s the phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles that I am passionate about.
13. Hands-on physics doesn’t appeal to me. My interest is in phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles. I’ll leave the lab work to others. Some people thrive on hands-on activities and lab work, but not me.
14. Lab work and physical experiments don’t interest me.
15. Teaching doesn’t interest me.
16. Informal writing interests me, but formal writing doesn’t interest me. The detailed structure, and organization of published papers doesn’t interest me. Dealing with LaTeX and BibTeX and similar tools definitely doesn’t interest me.
17. Formation and evolution of stars, including supernovas, interests me, but from the perspective of what is happening at the particle physics level, with atoms, radiation, and fusion. Skip any classical mechanics.
18. Nuclear power (fission, fusion, and thermal) and nuclear weapons also interest me, but once again at the particle physics level, with atoms, radiation, and fusion. Skip any classical mechanics.
19. I did informally labor through a few MIT online courses in quantum physics a few years ago. Not well enough to be on a track to an actual card-carrying professional physicist, but enough for my current interests.
20. I would like to know more about phenomena down at the Planck level, or within quarks, photons, neutrinos, and electrons, but physicists don’t appear to know much, probably since it’s beyond the scope of their limited models.
21. The question arises of whether I could know and do more with quantum computing if I was indeed an actual card-carrying professional physicist. Seems likely, but not necessarily so.
22. So, for now, I’m content to be a relative outsider, more of a physics enthusiast than an actual card-carrying professional physicist.
23. Am I missing out on much? Sure, some, but maybe not enough to make a big difference.
24. In short, I do have significant interest in physics, but nowhere near enough to make it likely that I could thrive as an actual card-carrying professional physicist.
25. Doesn’t feel as if I have the raw intellect to be a physicist. I’m definitely no genius. In truth, I’m rather closer to average than to genius.
26. I likely lack the raw mental intellectual capacity to succeed in the studies, experiments, reading, writing, research, and defense of a thesis needed to officially become an actual card-carrying professional physicist, complete with thesis, PhD, and published peer-reviewed papers.
27. I’m not interested in becoming a card-carrying PhD computer scientist or mathematician, either. Or any kind of PhD. Again, I’m interested in the knowledge, the science, and the concepts and ideas, but not interested in any of the rigamarole.
28. Being a mediocre physicist is not an option I could ever accept. Be great or go home! I could never tolerate mediocrity.
29. I have no desire to do all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. The work doesn’t interest me, even if the phenomena, concepts, principles, and ideas fascinate me.
30. I have no interest in all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. Beyond a lack of desire or passion, I simply have no interest.
31. I don’t want to be a physicist — there’s too much about physics that simply doesn’t appeal to me, even if significant aspects of physics do appeal to me.
32. Although I enjoy informal writing, I have no interest in the formality of published papers such as what physicists are expected to produce.

Why I don’t want to be a physicist

Even if for some reason I actually had the opportunity to be a physicist, I wouldn’t want to be a physicist for the simple reason that so much of the rigamarole of being a physicist simply doesn’t interest me, at all.

And second, I wouldn’t want to be a mediocre physicist. It just doesn’t interest me.

Why I can’t be a physicist

To me, the headline question comes down to these twin factors:

1. I don’t want to be a physicist. All of the aforementioned rigamarole.
2. I can’t be a reasonably good physicist.

In truth, I’m not interested in being any kind of scientist

I am fascinated by all of science. Really I am. But, there’s a night and day difference between being fascinated by a topic and being good at it.

Besides not being interested in being a physicist — the hard work to become one as well as the day-to-day work of being one, I’m not interested in being any kind of scientist at the PhD level, including:

1. Mathematics. Including statistics.
2. Computer science. Including data science and AI.
3. Electrical engineering. Including computer engineering.

If I were a physicist, what type of work environment would I choose?

Not to suggest my actual choice, here are the possibilities that I see if I were to be a card-carrying PhD physicist:

1. Academic teaching. Minor research. Definitely not my thing!
2. Post-doctoral research. Could be quite interesting, and leading edge.
3. Academic researcher. Permanent position in a research lab associated with a university. For example, MIT Lincoln Labs.
4. Corporate technical contributor. Working on a product or service development team. Engineering or borderline applied research rather than basic research.
5. Corporate research. Working in a corporate research group on basic or applied research, but not as a technical contributor on a product or service development team.
6. Government lab researcher. Working at one of the national laboratories on basic or applied research.
7. Government agency researcher. Working at one of the government agencies other than at the national laboratories on basic or applied research.
8. Government technical researcher. Working on development of services for a government agency other than at the national laboratories.

I wouldn’t want to be a professor either

Teaching, even if combined with research, isn’t interesting to me.

And working inside a bureaucracy isn’t interesting to me either.

Research could be interesting — except for:

1. Hands-on lab work.
2. Writing formal papers.
3. Working within a bureaucracy.
4. Begging for research grant money.

I don’t have an opinion one way or another whether supervising PhD candidates with their theses would be satisfying to me personally. Maybe that’s a good reason not to do it — you really need to have a high interest and outright passion for it, and be really good at it — nobody deserves a mediocre or poor thesis supervisor.

So, even if I had a PhD, I wouldn’t want to be a professor.

Granted, there are plenty of other opportunities for physicists than being a professor, such as:

1. Work in the private sector, such as a researcher in a research group at a corporation.
2. Work in the public sector, such as at a government laboratory.
3. Post-doc research.
4. Research in a research lab affiliated with a university.

Some types of work I would not choose if I were a physicist

If I really was a card-carrying PhD physicist, I wouldn’t want to be personally involved in:

1. Community engagement.
2. Science communicator.
3. Management.
4. Executive.
5. Government bureaucrat.
6. Government official.

Why does anyone want to be a physicist?

This is an interesting question, as to what really motivates anyone to pursue a career as a physicist and to do all of the work for a thesis to get a PhD.

Besides all of the reasons that make physics interesting to me, that is. Curiosity about the world, wanting to know how everything works, etc.

And besides all of the reasons that anybody pursues a career with high demand and reasonably high pay and access to resources, and opportunity for achievement and success.

A sampling of additional reasons I hadn’t articulated, which I collected from Google searches, including from Reddit:

1. To work on cool projects.
2. To work with smart people.
3. “You get to make awesome shit.”
4. Explosions and lasers.
5. Because of its beauty.
6. The unemployment rate in physics is really really low.
7. “Employment prospects in physics are generally very good, even in a bad economy.”
8. You can go to nearly every country and work there without problems.
9. “It satisfied my lust for math.”
10. “It explains the entire workings of the universe.”
11. “You gain a set of incredibly useful skills that make you attractive to a wide range of employers.”
12. “A physics degree trains you to become an expert problem solver.”
13. “Physics majors are sought after by employers for many areas.”
14. “The Physics education emphasizes problem solving and abstract thinking, and this training makes these graduates very desirable in the job market.”
15. Understand how things work from first principles.
16. “Studying physics strengthens quantitative reasoning and problem solving skills that are valuable in areas beyond physics.”

Granted, some of those reasons or rationales may have been more focused on BS and MS degrees rather than those motivated primarily for full-fledged PhD physicists. But even then, most of the reasons and rationales still apply to PhD physicists as well.

Beyond the superficial stuff I didn’t bother to mention, maybe they:

1. Really enjoy teaching.
2. Really enjoy research. Especially hands-on lab work. Not everyone enjoys the purely theoretical research.
3. Really enjoy the math. The application of the math to real-world phenomena.
4. Really enjoy hands-on lab work. Access to capabilities, knowledge, and data that aren’t accessible to people like me.
5. Really enjoy crafting professional publications. Maybe they thrive on the details of formal papers that I despise. Maybe they really enjoy working with LaTeX and BibTeX.
6. Aspire to writing highly-technical books. Including textbooks.
7. Really enjoy professional accolades. Maybe that Nobel physics prize motivates them. Or other professional awards and positions of esteem and recognition, including advisory committees.

Or, who knows what.

Informal writing interests me, but formal writing doesn’t interest me

As this informal paper and all of my other informal papers on Medium attest, informal writing is my primary and preferred form of writing.

The detailed structure, and organization of published papers doesn’t interest me. Or dealing with layout issues, or using LaTeX and BibTeX and similar tools definitely doesn’t interest me.

A full list of my informal writing related to quantum computing can be found here:

• List of My Papers on Quantum Computing
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/list-of-my-papers-on-quantum-computing-af1be336410e

Informality in general is my primary and preferred mode of operation

In addition to my focus on informal writing, virtually all of my activities are informal.

Informality in general is my primary and preferred mode of operation for virtually all of my activities.

Formality in general is antithetical to my basic personality

In fact, formality is generally antithetical to my approach to virtually everything.

Whatever activity I am involved in, informality is my first choice.

Actually, informality is my only choice.

Bureaucracy and me don’t get along very well

I don’t thrive in bureaucracy. Sure, I can tolerate bureaucracy a little bit, for a short while, but any longer-term affiliation with bureaucracy is out of the question for me. I used to say that I can tolerate anything for up to about six months, but nowadays my tolerance is much more limited.

Most physics is deeply ingrained in and constrained by bureaucracy, in part because it tends to be capital intensive. That’s not a great match for me.

My quantum journey

I began my journey into quantum computing — my quantum journey — about five and a half years ago.

My main motive was not to actually use a quantum computer, but simply to discern and assess whether the technology really worked and what it really did. That’s my function as a technologist.

At the time, I decided that the best course of action was to first dive into the quantum mechanics that enable quantum computing, to be in a better position to judge what computing capabilities quantum mechanics was really enabling.

Only after getting some baseline knowledge of quantum mechanics would I begin diving into quantum computing itself.

I didn’t get deep enough into quantum mechanics as I had hoped, but I did get a deep enough appreciation to commence diving into quantum computing proper.

Occasionally I would take another brief dive into quantum mechanics to pick up a few tidbits here and there.

For details of the first stage of my quantum journey, see my informal paper from August 2020:

• My Journey into Quantum Computing
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/my-journey-into-quantum-computing-9c727ec2e0ff

And my follow up after that, from September 2022:

• Preparing for the Next Stage of My Quantum Journey
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/preparing-for-the-next-stage-of-my-quantum-journey-4191b4ec1e18

I’m still trying to make up my mind where to head next.

The Nobel physics prize lectures related to quantum mechanics

An interesting part of my quantum journey was to identify and read all of the Nobel physics prize lectures which relate in some way to quantum mechanics.

Some of them were harder to read than others, but I at least slogged through all of them the best I could. Although, quite a few were reasonably easy to read since they were more about the process of physics and the research rather than the math itself.

This gave me a rather interesting perspective on at least some of the areas of physics.

For more details, see my informal paper:

• Nobel Physics Prize Lectures Related to Quantum Mechanics
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/nobel-physics-prize-lectures-related-to-quantum-mechanics-eb71cca69388

My model of reality

Just to clarify where my main interests lie, I have a simple model of reality and physics, with several levels:

1. Physical reality. Reality as it actually exists. Separate from any human models or math.
2. Phenomenological models of reality. What we can see, observe, sense, infer, and speculate about what exists in physical reality.
3. Physics models. How physicists conceptualize and think of reality. Designed to be mathematically tractable, with simplifying assumptions such as modeling various objects as zero-dimensional points or uniform spheres. Somewhat more refined than the raw phenomenological models of reality.
4. Mathematical models of physics. The math world of physics, using the physics models.
5. Mathematical results. Data and information about reality, based on the calculations using the mathematical models of physics.

Personally, I’m only really passionately interested in the first two levels — reality itself and phenomenological models of reality.

The physics models, the math models, and the math results are much, much less interesting to be, although a subset of aspects of the physics models certainly have at least some limited appeal, with the emphasis on subset and limited. I’m too disinterested for me to have a future as a card-carrying physicist.

But, that said, I’m not totally 100% disinterested in the physics models, the math models, and the math results. They can, on occasion, provide at least some insight. But for me, that’s a rarity rather than the norm.

My model of research

Rather than treating research as a monolith, I see that it has levels:

1. Theoretical research.
2. Experimental research.
3. Applied research.
4. Corporate research.
5. Engineering research. To enable product engineering.

I tend to lean towards the practical, the applied and corporate research and engineering research, but theory interests me as well, to some extent, since I’m interested in phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles.

My interests in research in quantum computing

Although I don’t wish to become a physicist, or any kind of scientist at the PhD level, I do have a lot of research interests in quantum computing.

For details, see my informal paper:

• Essential and Urgent Research Areas for Quantum Computing
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/essential-and-urgent-research-areas-for-quantum-computing-302172b12176

But, I do reserve the right to change my mind and at least move towards increased interest in the aspects of the theory and practice of physics which currently disinterest me

I don’t expect to be changing my mind any time soon, but… never say never.

Never say never = 1 in 1,000 chance

Even when I make a fairly definitive statement, I tend to offer the caveat of my philosophy of never say never.

What I mean by never say never is that there may be very little chance, but there is at least some chance. How much of a chance? I use the model of never say never meaning no more than a 1 in 1,000 chance. Significantly less than a 1% chance. But still at least some possibility.

If I had it all to do again, what would I do?

Knowing what I know now, would I have chosen a different path in high school or college or career?

Great question, but I really don’t have any real answer.

In some sense, I’m not sure that my path wasn’t the best for me even if I had an opportunity to change it.

I didn’t have a great answer over five years ago when I contemplated the general question of what I might do if I could do it all again, starting from high school:

• Oh, to be 18 (or 22) Again!
• https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/oh-to-be-18-or-22-again-d0189857e9fb

Conclusions

1. I am fascinated by physics. High interest and intense curiosity about how the basic mechanisms of physical reality actually work. A lifelong interest, as a child, and even today.
2. I’ve had a fair amount of exposure to physics.
3. Interest in computers overtook my early interest in physics and science and math in general.
4. Quantum computing renewed my interest in physics. But I’m still more interested in computing than physics per se.
5. Overall, it’s the phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles of physics that I am passionate about, but not a lot of the details, especially the math.
6. Theory interests me, but not the math. It’s the ideas, concepts, and principles that I am passionate about.
7. Hands-on physics doesn’t appeal to me. My interest is in phenomena, ideas, concepts, and principles. I’ll leave the lab work to others. Some people thrive on hands-on activities, but not me.
8. Lab work and physical experiments don’t interest me.
9. Teaching doesn’t interest me.
10. Informal writing interests me, but formal writing doesn’t interest me. The detailed structure, and organization of published papers doesn’t interest me.
11. Informality in general is my primary and preferred mode of operation. I’m generally too informal for physics.
12. Formality in general is antithetical to my basic personality. My lack of interest in formality makes me a poor match for physics.
13. Bureaucracy and me don’t get along very well. I don’t thrive in bureaucracy. Most physics is deeply ingrained in and constrained by bureaucracy, in part because it tends to be capital intensive. Not a great match for me.
14. Getting a PhD is beyond my personal intellectual capacity and patience.
15. Sure, I could probably have gotten an MS in physics (as so many people have done), but why bother. It’s just a stepping stone to the PhD, or a dead end.
16. I’m not interested in becoming a card-carrying PhD computer scientist or mathematician, either. Or any kind of PhD. Again, I’m interested in the knowledge, the science, and the concepts and ideas, but not interested in any of the rigamarole.
17. Being a mediocre physicist is not an option I could ever accept. Be great (or at least reasonably good) or go home! I could never tolerate mediocrity.
18. I have no desire to do all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. The work doesn’t interest me, even if the phenomena, concepts, principles, and ideas fascinate me.
19. I have no interest in all of the hard work required to be a top-notch physicist. Beyond a lack of desire or passion, I simply have no interest.
20. I don’t want to be a physicist — there’s too much about physics that simply doesn’t appeal to me, including the hard work, even if significant aspects of physics do appeal to me.
21. I don’t want to be a professor either. Teaching, even if combined with research, isn’t interesting to me. And working inside a bureaucracy isn’t interesting to me either.
22. The question arises of whether I could know and do more with quantum computing if I was indeed an actual card-carrying professional physicist. Seems likely, or at least possible, but not necessarily so.
23. So, for now, I’m content to be a relative outsider, more of a physics enthusiast than an actual card-carrying professional physicist.
24. Am I missing out on much? Sure, some, but maybe not enough to make a big difference.
25. I reserve the right to change my mind. Even if it’s very unlikely that I will.
26. Never say never. That’s my philosophy for almost all things. What that really means is that I place only a 1 in 1,000 chance of that thing happening — yes, it can happen but it’s still unlikely.
27. If I had it all to do again, what would I do? Great question, but I really don’t have any real answer. In some sense, I’m not sure that my path wasn’t the best for me even if I had an opportunity to change it.

For more of my writing: List of My Papers on Quantum Computing.