I personally relate with people (wannabe physicists) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but don't have a high level education (PhD) suited for it. Reasons could be a lack of jobs in pure science and the amount of time a PhD or postdoc takes.

When such people who truly love exploring and researching somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers which they have produced themselves, targeting the big question-marks we have in science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

Why? How is the learning process for these people so different than the ones doing a PhD that their work is not even worth a real physicist's time? I mean they (wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of books for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, the only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them; but I am sure many people doing PhDs also don't get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?

I personally relate with people (wannabe physicists) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but don't have a high-level education (PhD) suited for it. Reasons could be a lack of jobs in pure science and the amount of time a PhD or postdoc takes.

When such people who truly love exploring and researching somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers which they have produced themselves, targeting the big question-marks we have in science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

Why? How is the learning process for these people so different than the ones doing a PhD that their work is not even worth a real physicist's time? I mean they (wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of books for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, the only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them; but I am sure many people doing PhDs also don't get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?

I personally relate with people (wannabe physicists) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but don't have a high level education (Phd) suited for it. Reasons could be a lack of jobs in pure science and the amount of time a PhD or postdoc takes.

When such people who truly love exploring and researching somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers which they have produced themselves, targeting the big question-marks we have in science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

I want to know why? How is the learning process for these people so different than the ones doing a PhD that their work is not even worth a real physicists time? I mean they (wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of books for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, the only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them; but I am sure many people doing Phds also dont get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?

I personally relate with people (wannabe physicists) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but don't have a high level education (PhD) suited for it. Reasons could be a lack of jobs in pure science and the amount of time a PhD or postdoc takes.

When such people who truly love exploring and researching somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers which they have produced themselves, targeting the big question-marks we have in science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

Why? How is the learning process for these people so different than the ones doing a PhD that their work is not even worth a real physicist's time? I mean they (wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of books for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, the only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them; but I am sure many people doing PhDs also don't get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?

I personally relate with the people(wannabe physicist) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but they just couldn't have a high level education (Phd) suited for it. Reasons could be

1. Lack of jobs in pure science field

2. The amount of time phd/post-doc takes

When such people who truly loves exploring and researching, somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers and stuff which they had produced themselves, targeting the Big question-marks we have in Science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

And I want to know why? How the learning process for these people is so different than the ones doing phds that their work is not even worth a real physicist time? I mean they(wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of book for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them but i am sure many people doing Phds also dont get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?

I personally relate with people  (wannabe physicists) who want to do something BIG in Physics and Maths, but don't have a high level education (Phd) suited for it. Reasons could be a lack of jobs in pure science and the amount of time a PhD or postdoc takes.

When such people who truly love exploring and researching somehow end up doing something totally different as a job, they try to stick to studying science as their hobby. Many of these people later write research papers which they have produced themselves, targeting the big question-marks we have in science and try to get a review out of real physicist by sending them their work. But most of them (99%) are straight up wrong and miscalculated.

I want to know why? How is the learning process for these people so different than the ones doing a PhD that their work is not even worth a real physicists time? I mean they  (wannabe physicists) must have also read tons of books for their research, they must have thought a lot, they must have gone through hundreds of research papers themselves, the only thing they might truly be lacking is seniors in the field to guide them; but I am sure many people doing Phds also dont get that much guidance. So what might set them apart so drastically?