Over the course of a career involved in research in mathematics, I have often been confronted by people who cannot conceive of the concept of research in mathematics. Somehow it seems to be assumed that mathematics is “known”, and that research in the subject is impossible in principle. Of course, this isn’t true. But it does beg the question, what do you mean by “research”? I would say that the basic idea is that research is investigating a subject in order to answer a question that you don’t know the answer to in advance. What makes it “serious” research is if nobody else knows the answer either.
At least, that is how it works in mathematics. In physics it seems to be rather different. Or at least in theoretical physics. In theoretical physics, to be a serious researcher, you have to know the answer in advance. Or so it seems to me. Almost every discussion I have had with a theoretical physicist who is sufficiently mainstream to have a permanent job in academia (and with many theoretical physicists who do not have this qualification) has shown me that these people claim to know the answer in advance. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that experiment continually proves them wrong. They simply move the goalposts and carry on as though nothing has happened.
I cannot work in that environment. I cannot work with that attitude. Nobody knows the answer in advance. You have to question everything – and I mean EVERYTHING. If you think you know the answer already, any answer, then you are not doing research. To do real research, you have to risk losing everything that you thought you already knew. And when I say everything, I mean EVERYTHING.