[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)