[HN Gopher] The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998) ___________________________________________________________________ The sad story of Heisenberg's doctoral oral exam (1998) Author : occamschainsaw Score : 191 points Date : 2022-12-08 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.aps.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.aps.org) | CarbonCycles wrote: | Really appreciate articles like these...it somewhat reflects how | society expects people to conform, but it's always the outliers | that manage to change the world. | | Thank you for sharing... | jgerrish wrote: | It's not a sad story. It's a lesson to others. | | It's interesting how the story switches between reasons. To me, | the most salient is: "could not overcome Heisenberg's complete | lack of interest and gave up the effort". | | Attention to detail has been one of my largest issues in mistakes | I've made, and this reminds me that sometimes that's what is | required. | | And sometimes what's required is putting a draft on arxiv.org and | waiting for the criticism or roast. | | Growing up in a house where your parent is worried about your | performance in a subfield and reaches out to experts in the | field. That's the complicated double-edged sword. | galaxyLogic wrote: | "could not overcome Heisenberg's complete lack of interest and | gave up the effort" | | We all want to excel so naturally we pick topics which seem | easy to us and thus can expect to excel further in them. If we | did not do well in some topic earlier, we are not very | interested in it, because the best we can hope is to do ok in | that subject. | | I did not like "technical drawing" in my first year and so I | found a way to pass without taking that course. Now I lament I | didn't take it. But I wanted to excel, not be mediocre in | something. | | I wish this psychological observation was taught to first year | students. | galaxyLogic wrote: | Why Technical Drawing is important? Because anything we | envision in our mind is in essence a 3-D model. If we can | draw it on paper it helps to clarify our thoughts. We can not | envision anything 4-D, can we? Being able to draw 3-D objects | on paper(or computer) with correct perspective is invaluable | I now think. | pvaldes wrote: | > We can not envision anything 4-D, can we? | | We definitely can draw 4-D in paper. It just needs much | more work. | superposeur wrote: | Having just finished the epic Making of the Atomic Bomb by | Richard Rhodes, my mind goes to a different place --- Heisenberg | was at the core of the German bomb project. Speculatively, I | wonder how things might have gone a different way had he been | required to be a brilliant experimentalist too. Success versus | failure hinged on nitty-gritty experimental details, not on | sweeping theoretical insight. | | Probably not, but then again -- Germany is where fission was | discovered and an also a powerhouse of chemical engineering. Not | all of German science fled the nazis. | vibrolax wrote: | I don't know. Having the theoretical and experimental physics | talent was a necessary condition for producing the atomic bomb, | but was not sufficient. What was lacking was a government | willing and able to commit to a crash program building the | novel industrial base for isotope separation, radiochemical | separation, and all the other things detailed in Rhodes' (and | others books). | superposeur wrote: | Agreed that this is low probability. But it did strike me | that the Nazi brass were most interested in such a crash | program, at one point declaring that it should be given top | priority. What dissuaded them were the apparent failures of | early efforts and lack of confidence of the scientists | themselves -- the scientists got hung up on use of heavy | water as a neutron moderator, among other suboptimal | practical decisions. | AaronM wrote: | You might also like | | Now it Can Be Told: the Story of the Manhattan Project by | Leslie R. Groves | | I thought it did a good job at talking about how the Army made | everything happen. | SamReidHughes wrote: | Yep, both are fantastic. | hankman86 wrote: | Not so much sad, but rather ignorant. Heisenberg knew that an | experimental physicist would sit on the panel. What kind of | questions did he expect to get asked? | | In those days, the expectation for a physics PhD was to be well- | versed in different branches of the art. Think of this as you | may, but it seems like Heisenberg simply didn't prepare properly. | ben_pfaff wrote: | These days, it is absolutely unheard of for someone to get a | doctorate at age 21. I don't know whether it was unusual then. | [deleted] | [deleted] | nbernard wrote: | I'm not sure about unusual or not, but I believe it was (then | and there) possible to start a doctorate right after graduating | from high-school (if I remember correctly from a biography of | J. von Neumann). | f1shy wrote: | I know plenty "Industrie Dr." 22 or 23 yo | rerx wrote: | Stephen Wolfram got it at age 20, in theoretical physics, from | CalTech. | | (OK, that's also 40+ years ago by now) | Someone wrote: | Reminds me of who were on Fourier's doctoral defense committee: | Lagrange, Laplace, and Legendre, who all have a "list of things | named after" page on Wikipedia. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Jos... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Pie... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Adr... | drooglyman wrote: | For what it's worth, I just spent ~10 minutes looking for a | solid source on this and couldn't find confirmation. | | The closest I found was a bio[1], which includes the following: | | > The Institute set as a prize competition subject the | propagation of heat in solid bodies for the 1811 mathematics | prize. Fourier submitted his 1807 memoir together with | additional work on the cooling of infinite solids and | terrestrial and radiant heat. Only one other entry was received | and the committee set up to decide on the award of the prize, | Lagrange, Laplace, Malus, Hauy and Legendre, awarded Fourier | the prize. | | So it's not entirely wrong, but I think that all-star team was | not his defense committee. | | [1] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier | Someone wrote: | https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-98098-0_. | .. states the same, and mentions what I couldn't find | earlier: that they criticized Fourier for his lack of rigour | (I remember that as something along the lines of _"but if | that's correct, this also is and that can't be true, can | it?"_ , (with "this" being Gibb's phenomenon | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_phenomenon)), but | chances are high that isn't happen, either. | gowld wrote: | It was a good match, as Joseph Fourier does too: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_J... | hindsightbias wrote: | Wow, that defense should be a movie or something. | klipt wrote: | And Fourier continued in that tradition: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Jos... | [deleted] | mbadros wrote: | I thought the story was that Heisenberg did not know either where | the exam was, or when the exam was. :-) | kaffekaka wrote: | Oh he knew both, just not very precisely. | nothrowaways wrote: | Interesting article. We would see more contributios from him had | he taken the offer of James Franck. Even probably a different | view on the matters. | alexfromapex wrote: | I think sad may be the wrong lens to look at this through. It | obviously prepared him for large amounts of success in his | career. | seanhunter wrote: | One of my favourite positive doctoral viva stories was | Wittgenstein, who presented "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" as | his dissertation, which had already been published and was | already considered a masterpiece. The report was something like | "We consider the work of Mr Wittgenstein to be the work of a | genius. Nevertheless, it fulfills the criteria for a Cambridge | doctorate". | | Edit to add: The actual quote (which I just found) was from G.E. | Moore (Bertrand Russell was the other examiner): "I myself | consider that this is a work of genius; but, even if I am | completely mistaken and it is nothing of the sort, it is well | above the standard required for the Ph.D. degree." | arglebarnacle wrote: | Very funny to me that on the way out of the room Wittgenstein | allegedly "clapped the two examiners [Bertrand Russell and G.E. | Moore] on the shoulder and said, 'Don't worry, I know you'll | never understand it.'" | ska wrote: | That seems on-brand, if off-base, for Wittgenstein; so | perhaps he did. | my-god-hn wrote: | Probably because it was a bunch of nonsense. Wittgenstein has | no place in the same sentence as Bertrand Russell. | max-ibel wrote: | I found the book "The world as I found it" by Bruce Duffy | to be a fairly good read on this subject. | kleiba wrote: | "When Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was | originally published--in German in 1921, and in English in | 1922--Bertrand Russell was much better known. In fact, | Wittgenstein relied on Russell to get his manuscript | published in the first place, and it was Russell's | introduction to the Tractatus that encouraged publishers to | consider accepting it at all. While Wittgenstein was | grateful for Russell's efforts, he was dismayed by his | introduction, feeling that not even his former professor | understood him. For Russell's part, he was by this time | exhausted by his relationship with the young Austrian who | had been his student at Trinity in the years leading up to | the First World War." [1] | | [1] https://dearbertie.mcmaster.ca/letter/wittgenstein | beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: | Wittgenstein is generally considered to be one of most | important philosophers of the 20th century, if not the most | important. Analytic philosophy has largely lost interest in | Russell's works (Kripke was far more important and is | generally considered the person who "cleaned" a lot of | Russell's deadend projects), while analytic and | "continental" philosophy still avidly discuss | Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_ , and the | fallouts from that work were a profound reassessment and | shake up of philosophy. Russell is probably more well known | nowadays as a popularizer of certain ideas in philosophy, | as a general interest and political writer, and as a | philosopher that typified the particular era in which he | wrote, and less so for the actual philosophical ideas he | sought to argue for. His History of Western Philosophy book | for instance is quite famously bad. | | Most people today would question if Russell should be put | in the same sentence as Wittgenstein. | codeulike wrote: | FAQ: The "Snake Fight" Portion of Your Thesis Defense | | https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/faq-the-snake-fight-port... | lqet wrote: | > The result was that Heisenberg received the lowest of three | passing grades in physics and the same overall grade (cum laude) | for his doctorate | | I don't think that's accurate - there are usually 4 passing | grades for dissertations in Germany, the lowest passing grade | being "rite". It would be surprising if "cum laude", which | literally means "with praise", was the lowest passing grade at | Heisenberg's university (edit: Wikipedia confirms 4 passing | grades for Heisenberg's dissertation: "summa cum laude", "magna | cum laude", "cum laude", and "passed" [0]). | | The standard grades for dissertations in Germany are "summa cum | laude" (=very good with distinction), "magna cum laude" (=very | good), "cum laude" (=good), "rite" (=sufficient), and | "insuffizienter" (=failed). Some faculties have "satis bene" as | an additional grade between "cum laude" and "rite". | | [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#cite_note-2 | max-ibel wrote: | Perhaps you have to read the OP in the spirit of Futurama: | | Professor Ogden Wernstrom : I give your invention the worst | grade imaginable: an A-minus-minus. | simonblack wrote: | They were uncertain whether to give him a pass? | Victerius wrote: | Let's have some fun. Here's a basic special relativity problem | from John R. Taylor's _Classical Mechanics_. | | A space explorer A sets off at a steady 0.95 _c_ to a distant | star. After exploring the star for a short time, he returns at | the same speed and gets home after a total absence of 80 years | (as measured by earth-bound observers.) How long do A 's clocks | say that he was gone, and by how much has he aged as compared to | his twin B who stayed behind on earth? [ _Note_ : This is the | famous "twin paradox." It is fairly easy to get the right answer | by judicious insertion of a factor of g in the right place, but | to understand it, you need to recognize that it involves _three_ | inertial frames: the earth-bound frame _S_ , the frame _S '_ of | the outbound rocket, and the frame _S ''_ of the returning | rocket. Write down the time dilation formula for the two halves | of the journey and then add. Notice that the experiment is _not_ | symmetrical between the two twins: B stays at rest in the single | inertial frame _S_ , but A occupies at least two different | frames. This is what allows the result to be unsymmetrical.] | pantalaimon wrote: | ChatGPT says: | | The time dilation formula tells us that the time experienced by | a moving clock will appear slower to a stationary observer by a | factor of $\gamma$, where $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - | v^2/c^2}}$ and $v$ is the speed of the moving clock and $c$ is | the speed of light. In this case, the speed of the space | explorer's rocket is 0.95c, so $\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - | 0.95^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{0.0025}} \approx 7.071$. | | To determine how long the space explorer's clocks say that he | was gone, we need to apply the time dilation formula to each | half of the journey. Since the speed of the rocket is the same | on the way out as it is on the way back, the value of $\gamma$ | will be the same in both cases. | | First, let's consider the outbound leg of the journey. From the | perspective of an observer on Earth, this journey takes 40 | years. However, from the perspective of the space explorer, the | time experienced on the outbound leg of the journey will be | slower by a factor of $\gamma$, so the time experienced by the | space explorer on this leg of the journey will be 40 years / | $\gamma$ = $\frac{40}{7.071} \approx 5.648$ years. | | Now let's consider the inbound leg of the journey. From the | perspective of an observer on Earth, this journey also takes 40 | years. However, from the perspective of the space explorer, the | time experienced on the inbound leg of the journey will also be | slower by a factor of $\gamma$, so the time experienced by the | space explorer on this leg of the journey will be 40 years / | $\gamma$ = $\frac{40}{7.071} \approx 5.648$ years. | | To determine the total time experienced by the space explorer, | we need to add the time experienced on the outbound leg of the | journey to the time experienced on the inbound leg of the | journey. This gives us a total time experienced by the space | explorer of 5.648 years + 5.648 years = 11.296 years. | | To determine the difference in aging between the space explorer | and their twin who stayed on Earth, we need to multiply the | time experienced by the space explorer by $\gamma$. This gives | us a difference in aging of 11.296 years * $\gamma$ = 11.296 | years * 7.071 = 79.8 years. This means that the space explorer | has aged 79.8 years less than their twin who stayed on Earth. | 314 wrote: | Without any background in general relativity at all I can see | that it got the basic arithmetic wrong in the last paragraph. | Presumably the answer is about 69 years if the math in the | precedence paragraphs is correct. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | Wow. It's amazing that if you had not said this was ChatGPT | Inwoukd have thought "he's clever I should read it and learn | something". However with the caveat there, I don't at all | want to read and learn because I have no idea if it is | correct or in what ways or direction it is misleading. | | I simply cannot trust it. | | ChatGPT is like one of the stone statues guarding a mythical | treasure - one of them always lies and one always tells the | truth. But they do speak full and coherent sentences and they | sound convincing. | | This does lead I guess to the point - maybe we are ChatGPT | engines underneath but use some form of listening to the | words and trying to build a real working model that can be | tested and predicted. | selimthegrim wrote: | Hint: thinking about what happens when the acceleration changes | makes this problem more straightforward | qwerty456127 wrote: | "oral exam" sounds funny. I can't help but imagine a person (whom | I visualize as Bryan Cranston for obvious reason) examining | someone with their mouth or having their mouth examined :-] | not_gpt4 wrote: | Hes correct. It should be "verbal exam". | macintux wrote: | "verbal" can be applied to either spoken or written word, but | I get the sense that people default to "verbal" over "oral" | just out of discomfort. | mannykannot wrote: | 'Oral' is also ambiguous. 'Vocal' might be better than | either, though it sounds awkward, perhaps simply because it | is not used. | | Then there's 'interrogation', which Heisenberg might have | concurred with... | msla wrote: | No, verbal contrasts with written, as in verbal | instructions versus written instructions. Is English your | first language? | macintux wrote: | Yes, first and effectively only. | | First definition at MW: | | > of, relating to, or consisting of words | | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbal | msla wrote: | https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/are-verbal-agreements- | legally-... | | > When two or more parties come to an agreement without | any written documentation, they create a verbal agreement | (known formally as an oral contract). | | I think that alone demonstrates that verbal contrasts | with written. | tom-thistime wrote: | In fact, though, it's "oral exam." But it does sound funny. | not_gpt4 wrote: | language, in fact, evolves. a rectal exam involves | examining the examining the rectal cavity, so a oral exam | should be reserved for examining the oral cavity. | tom-thistime wrote: | I agree in general, but disagree on the details. In an | oral exam, a student answers questions orally. That's how | language has evolved so far. I can't imagine a situation | where a committee of professors would need to examine a | granduate student's rectum to evaluate knowledge, so the | "rectal exam" above is poorly named. To further advance | linguistic evolution, "rectal exam" should be reserved | for occasions when the student is required to pronounce | words rectally in response to questions in his or her | field of study. | | That happens more often than you might think, plus it | makes everything consistent. | Retric wrote: | No, oral is more clear. We also say something is an oral | tradition not a verbal tradition because one of the | definitions of oral is "Spoken rather than written." | | One of the mean songs for Verbal is "Of, relating to, or | associated with words." So a written test could be a verbal | test. | stuaxo wrote: | It's how it's described in the UK system, so you get people | taking their "French orals" which always sounded funny to me. | useryman wrote: | When I was in school, all of my teachers referred to language | listening exams (a tape is played, you have a sheet of | questions to answer) as "aural" which mirrors calling the | spoken exams "orals". Having not heard the word before, I | could barely even tell the words apart when mentioned. | BeetleB wrote: | It's how it is in the US as well. | kwhitefoot wrote: | People don't say viva any more? For viva voce. I must be | getting old. | mattkrause wrote: | Are all oral exams vivas? My (distant, secondhand) | impression was that it was mostly used for the thesis | defense. | ortusdux wrote: | I use to frequent a grad student bar that regularly held an open- | mic night for people to practice their defense. It was brutal. A | room full of drunk grad and post-grads would try and pick apart | your presentation. Targeted academic heckling. It was great. The | goal was to get over your fear of the whole process -no matter | what, your actual defense would be a better experience. | yummypaint wrote: | Many departments have some kind of "informal lunch talks" for | and by grad students, particularly in the summer. People often | practice their defenses there. The advantage is everyone is in | your field so the grilling can be pretty close to what | professors will focus on. | skadamou wrote: | This is so awesome! I want to take part in something like this. | It's probably great for grad students to practice asking | questions to a presenter as well. So many young PhD students | avoid asking questions during talks, especially in subjects | they don't know very well, because they are nervous about | asking a "dumb" question. | neilv wrote: | A comedian friend in LA said something like this is an | institution there. | | You spend months/years hitting these clubs to test and refine a | bit, while developing all the skills. Some audience make a | sport of the heckling, especially some of the other aspiring | comedians. | | (She said the worst hecklers were the drunk fratbros who | imagined themselves comedians, and their own bits were the kind | that only their friends would think were funny, but they sure | would be demanding of others.) | | It was good practice, but brutal, especially if you're weary | from living poor, and hanging in there while trying to make it | in LA. | | Lots of parallels with grad school. | gcr wrote: | gosh that sounds like fun, what school was this for? where was | it? | rnicholus wrote: | Sounds like a "Murder Board" - | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_board | vjust wrote: | TIL that a brilliant physicist nearly failed his physics exam | (sort of). What is revealing is the broad-based knowledge that | was expected of any student of those times. Unlike the super- | specialities of today. A career in such fields (rather in any | field) in those days required total dedication to academics. Also | the importance of oral arguments and oral debate. | mattkrause wrote: | > Unlike the super-specialities of today. | | Many programs still administer pretty general qualifying exams. | | Mine was about two-thirds systems neuroscience (close to my | thesis topic), with some reinforcement learning (in the Sutton | and Barto sense) and genetics of autism on the side. You were | _strongly_ encourage to pick at least one topic that would be | "mind-expanding" rather than just thesis prep work. My spouse's | department instead had a thesis/anti-thesis structure. They | wrote two proposals, the real one that they intended to carry | out and a second one on a totally different topic. They then | defended both. | | Both were written + oral exams. I found the oral part helpful | (fun, even) because the conversation keeps the candidate and | reviewer from getting hung up on minor points, while probing | how they think. Plus, I think there's a bit of tradition in | making the candidate sweat by seeing how far you can ratchet up | the difficulty. | | What I am surprised about is the "practical" component. I've | never heard of a hands-on exam! | trombonechamp wrote: | Sounds like the classic 4th Floor SHM committee | mattkrause wrote: | Indeed---Daeyeol was the RL person! | | I'm guessing we just missed each other in grad school? | trombonechamp wrote: | I knew it had to be him when you said Sutton and Barto. | | Yeah, I think we just missed each other since your name | sounds familiar. | someweirdperson wrote: | Broad? Limited to the fields of the professors, like today. The | story talks about the FPI, and an extensive lecture by one of | the examiners about this topic. Like today, expect professors | to ask about their favorite topics. The FPI seems suitable for | a 1st year physics course today, if not even at school. That | example shows how one-sided his interests were, not how much of | everything was expected. | gowld wrote: | pyb wrote: | No, a degree in physics today is at least as demanding as it | was back then. For instance, the topics discussed in the | article, quantum mechanics and practical optics, are | requirements in any physics degree I know of. | harveywi wrote: | There are plenty of petty turds in academia today who do | similar things, ruining the careers and significantly | negatively impacting the lives of students. When they decide | that they do not like a student (for _any_ reason), they have | unchecked means to make that student's life miserable, make | them jump through extra hoops, get them removed from the | program, psychologically torment them, etc. | mbrudd wrote: | 100% accurate! | psychphysic wrote: | I don't understand why this is the strongly held narrative | here. | | Those are some pretty major misses for a PhD candidate | physicist. He would have been forwarded of this since he was | forced to take one of the exam panels courses! | peteradio wrote: | To become a PhD candidate at a non-top-tier Physics university, | I had to derive similar trivia over a wide variety of physics | topics in a sort of entry exam. I think it is quite normal. | What I doubt is typical anymore is for this to be individual | and oral. Also, it was quite typical to fail on your first few | go rounds. | f1shy wrote: | It is not. Like not at all. I know PhDs who know literally | nothing outside the very narrow topic of their thesis. Like | PhD in signal processing unable to understand a control | system equation. I see that day in day out where I work. | Lucky you, that have a decent title. | yummypaint wrote: | Physics specifically has a long tradition of expecting a | wide breadth of knowledge. For example, in every physics | department i know details about, the expectation is that | any professor is able to teach any class, and class | assignments indeed change very regularly. | | I think part of the reason is that the knowledge tends to | be "use it or lose it" on a multi-year timescale. If you | work with physicists who have been pidgeonholed in industry | for decades then this is probably to be expected. | protastus wrote: | PhD programs, requirements and exams aren't standardized | across institutions. Everyone's experience is different. | | PhD graduates are extremely diverse in every possible | measure. Some are deep generalists. Others are hyper | specialized. Some can walk on water. Others leave you | wondering how they managed to graduate. | sbaiddn wrote: | "There is an interesting epilogue to this story. When Heisenberg | derived the uncertainty relations several years later, he used | the resolving power of the microscope to derive the uncertainty | relations" | | Loved this part. They are pretty much the same :) | mjreacher wrote: | This reminds me of how Terence Tao almost failed his orals at | Princeton. Turns out even the best in the field need to spend | lots of time doing hard work. | | https://web.math.princeton.edu/generals/tao_terence | | https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202007/rnoti-p1007.pdf (less | technical) | tom-thistime wrote: | Really puts Heisenberg in context. No wonder he seems so bitter. | Victerius wrote: | I didn't know Prof. Wien had a HN account. | tom-thistime wrote: | My comment was actually a sort of Dad Joke based on Breaking | Bad, not a slap at Werner Heisenberg the physicist. | abhv wrote: | A Turing Award winner (keeping it anonymous) related a similar | story to me about his phd qualifier exam (when I was taking | mine). This winner is a theoretical computer scientist who | skipped most of his computer hardware courses. Near the time of | his graduation, he was informed that he needed to pass a hardware | course because it was required for graduation. | | He worried; his advisor begged the hw professor to give him an | oral exam in place, because he was a promising candidate with a | faculty job already lined up and incredible published results. | | Unlike Wein, the hw professor was happy to oblige and created a | basic oral exam, suspecting that the student was destined for | greatness. | | The student desperately tried to cram the hw textbook, but his | heart was simply not into the subject. He did however, get the | main point of the entire field. | | This is when the funny part of the story begins. If you know this | person, you know that he is remarkably clever, charming and | convincing. He tells me that the hw professor had prepared a | small number of questions, all beginning with something like, | "explain how a XXX works in a YYY architecture", and that he | really didn't know any details of XXX. | | He started by copying a basic diagram of a processor onto the | board. He kept his answers short, he began each with quizzical | look indicating that the question was obvious, and all answers | included a remark along the lines of "Obviously, its for | performance!" In some cases, while facing the professor, he would | point backwards to a spot _between_ components in the diagram. He | would slowly move his finger to different areas based on the look | on the professor 's face. | | The hw professor was amused and obviously passed the candidate! | | TLDR: don't let classes get in the way of your education. | watwut wrote: | This is not classes getting in a way of education. It is an | university breaking its own rules and making special exceptions | for an individual. | | Some school systems do it a lot, others rarely. But generally, | the one that don't do this tend to be better overall. | kwhitefoot wrote: | Brilliant! There are good people in the world after all! | nothrowaways wrote: | Nice story, except the TLDR. | keeganpoppen wrote: | it's a Mark Twain reference fwiw | javajosh wrote: | Cool story. The most important aspect of it, in my view, is that | the problem of 'deriving the resolving power of an optical | system' is a _very interesting one_ that inspired Heisenberg and | Bohr! I speculate that the way Wien taught it was by rote, and | not fully understood, even by Wien. | yummypaint wrote: | As a physicist i find this quite comforting. It's good to keep in | mind that even the most transformative thinkers in the history of | science had reasons to experience impostor syndrome. Einstein | famously had a lot of trouble with math as well. | | No matter how good you are, physics will regularly present you | with problems that you can't solve. Statistically speaking, most | of the time spent doing science is spent being wrong. As soon as | you figure a system out your work is essentially done and you | move on to being wrong about a different problem. The psychology | is very different from working problem sets, writing an app, or | defending a political position, yet we don't really prepare | students for these realities as we probably should. | jofer wrote: | > "Statistically speaking, most of the time spent doing science | is spent being wrong. As soon as you figure a system out your | work is essentially done and you move on to being wrong about a | different problem." | | That's a remarkably good quote. Definitely very true. | | I would argue that grad students prepare pretty well for that, | and it's one of the main mindset shifts you're expected to make | in grad school vs undergrad. Regardless, though, it's not | something that gets broad appreciation. | meindnoch wrote: | >Einstein famously had a lot of trouble with math as well | | This is false. | coyotespike wrote: | Yes, Einstein himself directly addressed the myth, noting | he'd mastered calculus by about 12. | | It is probably true that he was not the mathematician that | many other theoretical physicists are. How would you compare | him with von Neumann? | | But that's a different thing than the common myth that he was | bad at math! | whatshisface wrote: | Hopefully you're not wrong but uncertain, if you were wrong | you'd be confident you were right. | vient wrote: | > Einstein famously had a lot of trouble with math as well. | | Isn't it a myth? | http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,288... | sajid wrote: | Einstein was not a very good mathematician. This quote from | David Hilbert sums it up well: | | "Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about | four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of | that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians." | lifeisstillgood wrote: | >>> he still had difficulty with it! And again, when Bohr pointed | out the error, it led to emotional difficulties for Heisenberg. | | This resonates with me deeply - knowledge that I "should" have | known but are shamed for not knowing become massively harder to | learn. I think I somehow label that area as "not part of my | identity" and so if I need to learn it Indont have an | intellectual challenge I have to resolve past trauma and adjust | my view of myself. And accept past failings | | It's easier now but I see this in kids learning maths or in my | own money management etc. | | We need to be kinder to ourselves. | feoren wrote: | > We need to be kinder to ourselves. | | _Everyone else_ needs to be kinder to themselves. I, on the | other hand, am a worthless piece of shit who deserves no | kindness. | | Resolving that obvious hypocrisy would require me to accept | that I'm "not special"; see, singling myself out as the sole | human being who deserves to hate themselves keeps me in a | special category. You already mentioned the real problem: | | > identity | | Yup, there it is. "Part of my identity" and "not part of my | identity" are stupid and useless characterizations that we all, | me included, cling to desperately. It's extremely freeing to | give up parts of your own identity. I try, but it's hard. It | feels like death ... but then if it works, it feels like a | rebirth. Hating myself is one of the hardest parts of my | identity to give up. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to. | | But let's all agree to ruthlessly murder those awful "I'm just | not good at math" parts of our identities, and help everyone | else murder their own. It's such an easy virus to catch, and so | damaging. | shigawire wrote: | Psychedelics can help with this for some people. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | Interestingly, this type of entrenchment has not changed in my | opinion. | | There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten | and superseded past-expertise on the orals. | | They will insist on nuanced competence in an area no longer | necessary to forge ahead. They become petty and claw with every | breath to maintain relevance, despite all the others on the panel | fully aware of the opposite. | | Academia is a cesspool of barely-mediocrity, envy, and jealousy | with pockets of brilliance flashing up time to time. | | In my opinion. | JadeNB wrote: | > There is always a professor of distinguished, but long | forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals. | | Wait, are you claiming that knowledge of experimental physics | is "long forgotten and superseded"? As a mathematician, I'm all | for recognising the importance of theoretical physics, and | think that there's no reason a good theoretical physicist has | also to be a good experimental physicist--but I wouldn't go so | far as casting experimental physics on the dustheap! From the | relatively sparse information given, the questions asked, about | the operation of basic optical instruments like the telescope | and the microscope, do not seem like questions that are | excessively recondite; they do seem to indicate a basis lack of | competence as an experimental physicist (which Heisenberg | neither was nor apparently much wanted to be). | WaitWaitWha wrote: | I think I did not make myself clear. | | When I read the article, I gathered that there was a | necessity for _expert_ in A to make orals in B because their | style of presentation. To achieve acceptance at B, there were | non-relevant to A requirements. | | Did I misunderstood? | mattkrause wrote: | I'd quibble with "non-relevant" | | The goal of qualifying exams to produce well-rounded | students---or at least ensure that they are minimally aware | of the major intellectual traditions in their field. | | It's not crazy to expect that a soon-to-be physics | professor understands how a battery works, at least | roughly. | JadeNB wrote: | > When I read the article, I gathered that there was a | necessity for expert in A to make orals in B because their | style of presentation. To achieve acceptance at B, there | were non-relevant to A requirements. | | But you did not say "knowledge in A is not relevant to B" | (itself an arguable claim, as my sibling commenter | mattkrause points out | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910025 )); you | seemed to be dismissing the validity of "knowledge in A" | entirely ("There is always a professor of distinguished, | but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the | orals"). If you meant only the milder claim you make here, | then, not being a physicist, I do not think I am qualified | to judge, and so withdraw my objection. | Invictus0 wrote: | Did we read the same thing? The article goes on to describe | that the exact thing that the professor insisted was important | for Heisenberg to know, was later on important for Heisenberg | to know. | max-ibel wrote: | OTOH, I will submit that oral exams can really test familiarity | of a subject well. | | I found this in my own high school and university orals - I | prepared much better for those and probably remember to this | day many things I would have otherwise forgotten. I also found | the exams absolutely terrifying, there's just no easy way to | bullshit your way out. My examiners weren't mean at all. | | Lem (of course!) expands on that in his Pilot Pirx stories esp. | [1]. He agrees with you ;) | | [1] | https://royallib.com/read/Lem_Stanislaw/The_Conditioned_Refl... | bowsamic wrote: | > In his laboratory work Heisenberg had to use a Fabry-Perot | interferometer, a device for observing the interference of light | waves, on which Wien had lectured extensively. But Heisenberg had | no idea how to derive the resolving power of the interferometer | nor, to Wien's surprise, could he derive the resolving power of | such common instruments as the telescope and the microscope. When | an angry Wien asked how a storage battery works, the candidate | was still lost. Wien saw no reason to pass the young man, no | matter how brilliant he was in other fields. | | As a physicist, I feel like standards were much higher then! | There's no way you would fail a student these days for not being | able to derive something on the spot or know anything about a | subject that isn't directly related to their PhD topic | | Also a great illustration at points here of "imposter syndrome", | or really that Heisenberg actually _was_ an imposter in certain | senses. I understand it all too well. Being a physicist, or any | kind of scientist, can be extremely emotional taxing and | alienating | | > When Heisenberg derived the uncertainty relations several years | later, he used the resolving power of the microscope to derive | the uncertainty relations-and he still had difficulty with it! | And again, when Bohr pointed out the error, it led to emotional | difficulties for Heisenberg. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | It's true of any profession. Most people only learn the exact | skills they need for their very specific job. If you ask them | about anything slightly out of the way they won't know. (Some | people are exceptions of course) | | I think it's one of the downsides of economic specialization. | Although the upsides probably outweigh it substantially. | tom-thistime wrote: | I don't think Heisenberg was necessarily a narrow specialist, | trained for just one job. He was one of the inventors of a | whole new theory of mechanics. | bowsamic wrote: | Why would that imply he wasn't a narrow specialist? | mannykannot wrote: | There is a very real sense that what he was a | 'specialist' in was figuring out what's fundamental to | all of physics - so not so narrow. | bowsamic wrote: | Well yeah but that is more of a coincidence that he | happened to be a specialist in something with wide | effects. QM had implications far beyond just those | fundamentals, but I would imagine that he would not have | known much about those fields that QM ended up having an | effect on. For example, did he know much about optics, | which was one of the fields most heavily affected by QM? | | The widespread impact of your field and the specificity | of actually working in your field are two very different | things. | mannykannot wrote: | Coincidence? | bowsamic wrote: | Meaning that he happened to work on something that had | widespread effect, he didn't plan for it. It was luck | that quantum mechanics was so successful | mannykannot wrote: | I think it is clear that Heisenberg, Sommerfeld, Born and | others at the forefront of theoretical physics at the | time were well aware of how important and far-reaching | the issues that comprised Heisenberg's real work were. | | As explained in the article, his diversion into | hydrodynamics was purely to secure a doctorate from a | physics establishment which had not yet caught up to this | fact, and I would say that, if anything, it is this | establishment which suffered a surfeit of narrow | specializations. | bowsamic wrote: | That isn't at all clear to me as a physicist | | Are you a physicist? | psychphysic wrote: | I'm not convinced people fail PhD viva all the time. | | It's only a real fail if they tell you to give up | bowsamic wrote: | Indeed in modern times you will know far in advanced whether | or not you will pass ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-08 23:00 UTC)