(July 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:In reality that person would likely be someone with a so slightly different specialization or experience in the same sub-field, that a non-expert wouldn't notice the difference. For instance, I wrote a paper on parameterizing the interactions of the Higgs boson in a particular way, and getting all the nuances of one particular theoretical technique we used would have taken prohibitively long for us to learn from scratch just for that project. So we brought someone into the project who had specialized in that particular way of writing down the interactions of the Higgs boson, and knew all the technical tricks and pitfalls that are difficult to see as someone just reading the literature.(July 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Alex K Wrote: In addition to those basic requirements, curiosity to see and come up with exciting questions, a creative mind to find solutions and, last but not least, an excellent ability to think strategically about which topics are both interesting and within your capabilities to attack.
Regarding the part in bold, suppose, a theoretical physicist comes across some topic that is interesting but is not within his or her capabilities to attack (out of one's purview), as it would really require the added insight of a truly gifted and masterful pure mathematician or perhaps some other person who specializes in a particular branch of science (medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.) or perhaps a language specialist or some other seemingly unrelated specialist.
Quote: How important is teamwork in making new discoveries in theoretical physics?
Most of the time, very important. The maverick theorist working alone is the exception I would say.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
