
The Sad Story of Heisenberg's Doctoral Oral Exam - bladecatcher
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199801/heisenberg.cfm
======
erikpukinskis
This highlights what was a huge misconception for me about a PhD. I thought a
PhD was about making an original contribution to my field. I thought Academia
was a place where you took risks in pursuit of knowledge, and a PhD was your
first real go at it.

In retrospect (I'm a PhD dropout) the PhD is really more about training in the
fundamentals of scholarship. It's about building up background knowledge, and
learning the mechanics of research and publishing.

The actual scholarly contribution matters _almost not at all_. This is why
faculty will pressure you to pick a conservative project... the results are
besides the point. The point is demonstrating that you can do all the steps.
Because lots of great people can only do half the steps. A PhD means you can
do all.

Once you have your PhD, then its your career on the line and you can do
whatever you want. Before that point, you're really working on borrowed (from
your advisor) time, and as much as it might seem like you are supposed to
blaze a path, they really just want you to show that you can walk in a
straight line.

~~~
arcanus
I'm getting a negative tone from this post and I don't really see why.
Training is the point of graduate school. That is why we still call them
graduate _students_.

> I thought a PhD was about making an original contribution to my field

> the PhD is really more about training in the fundamentals of scholarship

You realize that these two concepts are not mutually incompatible? And
furthermore, that the former is contingent upon capability in the latter?

> as much as it might seem like you are supposed to blaze a path, they really
> just want you to show that you can walk in a straight line

The vast majority of graduate students are not capable of conducting
independent research when they start (I certainly was not!). Often, it takes
_years_ of training to get them into a state in which they are sufficiently
knowledgeable to take a real leadership role. Expecting someone to be capable
of independent research would be wasteful: they need more guidance! This is
why they are called 'advisers', not bosses. Without them most students would
zig off into a direction that is fruitless.

However, to suggest that the work you do at this time is meaningless is also
wrong. Your adviser almost certainly has funding sources that support the
work, and this is likely directed towards productive and meaningful pursuits.
The fact that students are not leading these effort is not a detriment, and in
my experience even smaller research projects quickly provide amply
opportunities for taking initiative. Furthermore, very few students finish a
doctorate without writing papers, so I find the notion that there is no actual
scholarly contribution inaccurate.

~~~
klodolph
Hm, that's an interesting reaction. I also don't really see why that you're
getting a negative tone. I don't think the post is suggesting that the work is
meaningless (as your comment interprets) but rather that the meaning of a PhD
is mostly not in the thesis itself, but in the ability to conduct independent
research, like you said.

~~~
Retric
In science original research is only original if _you don 't know the
outcome._ There is a huge temptation to assume the outcome matters, but as
long as you can validate why you looked into something then the outcome should
be meaningless. Thus the thesis matter's, but only up to a point.

Otherwise you push people to either make things up, or only reward the lucky.

PS: Some non science fields have other criteria, but they are not
experimenting.

------
gumby
A reassuring story for those of us who feel we are strong in many areas but
fear we have deep, dangerous holes in certain fundamentals.

This vignette explains part of something I hadn't understood about the
emergence of Heisenberg's work
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#Matrix_mecha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg#Matrix_mechanics_and_the_Nobel_Prize)
): he seemed to work out the core theory of QM without really developing a
sensible, general approach. Compare this to Newton, who did develop calculus
to explain mechanics (even if we these days use Leibniz's contemporaneous
work). In Heisenberg's case, Born was the one who realized that we should use
matrices.

It's still weird that Born didn't get the nobel for this work and had to wait
20 more years to get one.

~~~
Cyph0n
Wasn't it Schroedinger who approached QM using matrix algebra?

~~~
potbelly83
no, Schroedinger approached QM via differential equations

~~~
Cyph0n
Thanks, I keep mixing them up...

~~~
gumby
Nothing wrong with that -- I find Schrödinger very hard to follow!

------
archgoon
"But that fall Heisenberg's worried father wrote to the famed Gottingen
experimentalist James Franck, asking Franck to teach his boy some experimental
physics. Franck did his best, but could not overcome Heisenberg's complete
lack of interest and gave up the effort. If Heisenberg was going to survive at
all in physics it would be purely as a theorist."

I had not heard this part; and might shed some additional light onto why the
German atomic project was significantly behind. When the lead of your project
is a famous physicist, but who isn't strongly grounded in experiment, but who
nevertheless feels like he can't simply be a manager and must have input,
you're likely going to have problems.

Maybe not though; be an interesting line of investigation though. Anyone know
if this was a documented issue? I know that Heisenburg had seriously
overestimated the amount of necessary fissile material needed for a bomb.

[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/13/what-did-the-
nazis...](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/13/what-did-the-nazis-know-
about-the-manhattan-project/)

~~~
Bartweiss
As I understand it, the overestimation was (at least partly) about a failure
to understand how cascades worked. In particular, to develop a proper model of
a 3D cascade in a sphere.

The result was a consistent underestimation of how quickly fission would
advance, implying the need for a larger reacting body than is actually
required to sustain a chain reaction.

------
ScottBurson
Jerry Lettvin used to tell a story, to support his contention that students
were no longer being taught how to _think_. He said there was a grad student
at whose orals Jerry was one of the professors. Before the student arrived,
Jerry noticed a beverage bottle sitting in a window, with the sun shining on
it. He went to the window and rotated the bottle 180°, and sat down. The
student came in, and Jerry asked him to examine the bottle. "Which side is
warmer?" Jerry asked. The student replied that the side facing away from the
window was warmer. Jerry said, "Explain this."

To my recollection, Jerry didn't relate the student's response, but from the
way he told the story I gather it was unsatisfactory.

~~~
cmplxconjugate
That is hilariously cruel.

~~~
bobsil1
"Find the height of a building with a barometer."

"Lower it on a string"

------
logicallee
I love this story! This isn't a quip: read the article, then finish reading my
comment.

"Was Heisenberg a good physicist" \- well, he was and he wasn't.

~~~
whatever_dude
This works at the macro and micro level.

~~~
coldcode
If you ask Schrödinger, he would comment "which depends on whether you ask him
or not."

------
davesque
It's always encouraging to be reminded of how the giants in the history of
science were also just people.

------
nmc
_" Accustomed to being always at the top of his class, Heisenberg found it
hard to accept the lowest of three passing grades for his doctorate."_

The only sad thing I can see is that, according to the story, receiving such a
low grade at his final oral exam in experimental physics undermined his
confidence in his own skills in experimental physics.

I would hate to sound blunt, but receiving a low grade for being unable to
answer basic questions should not be a surprise to such a theoretical genius.
He got his doctorate anyway.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Indeed. It should never surprise anyone when mediocrity is valued above all
else and ass kissing trumps brilliance. Never think that you are allowed to
focus your efforts where you can actually make a difference. Not while in
school anyway.

------
lb1lf
It is somehow reassuring that even a mind as brilliant as Heisenberg's had its
limits.

Mandatory lame joke - "I love driving my Heisenbergmobile, but every time I
look at the speedometer I get lost."

------
m_mueller
I don't know what's supposed to be sad about this story. It's interesting,
reassuring even about the high level of scrutiny physicists are in if geniuses
like Heisenberg even have such troubles. But sad?

~~~
busyant
I agree. "Sad" is the wrong adjective.

I've seen similar stories take place when I was in grad school.

In one instance, a professor wanted to fail a student (in his qualifying exam)
b/c he didn't seem to take one of his courses seriously (and showed limited
knowledge of this subject area).

The prof was willing to let the student re-take the qualifying exam, but he
wanted to prevent what he perceived as a student "skating through" the
program.

I think that's what happened to Heisenberg here. The only reason it's remotely
interesting is b/c Heisenberg is a legend and so we all feel like he deserved
to be forgiven for his distaste for experimental work.

------
kleiba
It shouldn't be surprising for anyone who takes an exam unprepared that you
may walk out with only an average grade. I mean, it's not like he didn't know
he was going to get questions on experimental physics, nor the impact they
would have on the final grade...

------
peter303
I was lucky to hear Heisenberg speak at MIT shortly before his passing. But I
forgot what he talked about, something historical I recall. His son was a MIT
professor. Dirac gave a talk that year too. But it was his silly numerology
topic on large numbers.

------
peter303
Some important scientists are smart about everything- polymaths- and other
smart only in their field of interest. Dyson and schrodinger were more
polymaths, while Heisenberg and Einstein more specialisrs.

------
waldrews
Well, if he did more interest/better skills in practical
experimental/engineering type applications, that might have had some, well,
unfortunate political consequences later on in life...

------
oldbuzzard
Sort of a more high stakes version of the Grothendieck "prime"... makes you
wonder how many more folks haven't made it through the gauntlet.

------
readams
Luckily now we have this useful FAQ on dealing with doctoral exams:

[http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/faq-the-snake-fight-
porti...](http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/faq-the-snake-fight-portion-of-
your-thesis-defense)

~~~
betenoire
What does the snake represent?

~~~
a_olt
It represents the type of A/V cable used to connect your laptop to the
projector

~~~
jawilson2
Oh, so THAT's why my projector that I used for my PhD defense didn't display
red.

~~~
mcguire
<dijkstra>

Why, did the red elements mean something special?

</dijkstra>

------
sarath749
Today i learnt haha

