Steven Weinberg (Steven Weinberg, 1933 Nian 5 3 -), born in New York, American physicist, Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979.
"Four golden lessons" American physicist, Nobel Prize (1979) laureate Steven Weinberg published an article in Nature-scientist, the article, graduate student Weinberg is about to enter the field of scientific research summarizes four proverbs.
Advice to students at the start of their scientific careers。
English original article in layman's language, wording and beautiful. Weinberg is a master of nearly 50 years of scientific research insights and career summary. Classic, reading benefited by many research mentor Daniel and highly recommended.
After Yan Ning (internationally renowned biologist, National Academy of foreign academicians) to see, saying that "to write nice"! "I turned out to be the first time I saw this essay 11 years ago."
The following is the "Four golden lessons" of the Chinese translation / English text:
- golden lessons1:
- Nobody knows everything, so you do not need
- No one knows everything, and you don't have to.
When I get a bachelor's degree, now very far away. At that time, the physics literature for me, is a vast and unknown ocean. Before beginning any research, I want to examine the contents of each part of it. Because, if you do not know each study have been done in this area, how can I research it? Fortunately, the first year of graduate school, I was good luck. Although I am full of anxiety, but it has been a senior physicist their guide, they insisted that I must first began to study, access to relevant knowledge in the course of the study. It's like swimming or select drowned or swam past. To my surprise, I find this really works, I soon gained a doctorate. Although he earned his PhD, I know almost nothing about physics, but I did learn an important truth: No one knows everything, so you do not need.
When I received my undergraduate degree - about a hundred years ago - the physics literature seemed to me a vast, unexplored ocean, every part of which I had to chart before beginning any research of my own. How could I do anything without knowing everything that had already been done? Fortunately, in my first year of graduate school, I had the good luck to fall into the hands of senior physicists who insisted, over my anxious objections, that I must start doing research, and pick up what I needed to know as I went along. It was sink or swim. To my surprise, I found that this works. I managed to get a quick PhD - though when I got it I knew almost nothing about physics. But I did learn one big thing: that no one knows everything, and you don't have to.
- Golden lessons2:
- March to the confusion, because there was promising
- Go for the messes - that's where the action is.
If you continue to make an analogy with swimming, I learned another important reason is this: do not want to drown while swimming, it should go to the rushing waters to practice. In the late 1960s, when I was teaching at MIT, a student told me that he wanted to study general relativity, rather than my own professional particle physics research. His argument is that the principle has become known as the former, but the latter like a mess. In my opinion, what he said exactly the opposite is the perfect reason to make a choice. There are a lot of creative work in particle physics can do it in the 1960s really like a mess, but since then, many theoretical and experimental physicists gradually clarify for all this, everything (almost everything) included a we are talking of a theoretical "standard model" is called. So my advice is: to enter the confusion, because there was promising.
Another lesson to be learned, to continue using my oceanographic metaphor, is that while you are swimming and not sinking you should aim for rough water. When I was teaching at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the late 1960s, a student told me that he wanted to go into general relativity rather than the area I was working on, elementary particle physics, because the principles of the former were well known, while the latter seemed like a mess to him. It struck me that he had just given a perfectly good reason for doing the opposite. Particle physics was an area where creative work could still be done. It really was a mess in the 1960s, but since that time the work of many theoretical and experimental physicists has been able to sort it out, and put everything (well, almost everything) together in a beautiful theory known as the standard model. My advice is to go for the messes - that's where the action is.
- Golden lessons3:
- Forgive yourself wasting time
- Forgive yourself for wasting time .
My third recommendation is perhaps the hardest to accept: that is a waste of time to forgive yourself. The students were asked to answer only professors (of course, not including the cruel professor) believe that the answer to the problem. However, whether these issues has important scientific significance it does not matter - because the meaning of answers to these questions just to allow students to pass the exam. But in the real world, it is hard to know whether the problem is important, but at some point you can not even know the history of this problem is solvable. The early twentieth century, several important physicists, including Lorentz (Lorentz) and Abraham (Abraham) is trying to establish an electronic theory, partly to explain why the effects of the Earth's motion through the ether produced why not be detected. We now know that they are trying to solve the wrong problem. At that time, no one can put forward a theory of electron successful, because then not discovered quantum mechanics. Until 1905, the genius scientist Albert Einstein discovered that the problem should be studied to measure the movement of the space-time effects. From this idea, he created the special theory of relativity. You can never determine what kind of research question is correct, so most of the time you spent in the laboratory or in front of the desk will be wasted. If you want to be creative, then you should get most of their time are not creative, should also be in the habit of getting lost in a sea of scientific knowledge.
My third piece of advice is probably the hardest to take. It is to forgive yourself for wasting time. Students are only asked to solve problems that their professors (unless unusually cruel) know to be solvable. In addition, it doesn't matter if the problems are scientifically important - they have to be solved to pass the course. But in the real world, it's very hard to know which problems are important, and you never know whether at a given moment in history a problem is solvable. At the beginning of the twentieth century, several leading physicists, including Lorentz and Abraham, were trying to work out a theory of the electron. This was partly in order to understand why all attempts to detect effects of Earth's motion through the ether had failed. We now know that they were working on the wrong problem. At that time, no one could have developed a successful theory of the electron, because quantum mechanics had not yet been discovered. It took the genius of Albert Einstein in 1905 to realize that the right problem on which to work was the effect of motion on measurements of space and time. This led him to the special theory of relativity. As you will never be sure which are the right problems to work on, most of the time that you spend in the laboratory or at your desk will be wasted. If you want to be creative, then you will have to get used to spending most of your time not being creative, to being becalmed on the ocean of scientific knowledge.
- Golden lessons4:
- Learn the history of science, at least in the field of research to understand you
- Learn something about the history of science, or at a minimum the history of your own branch of science.
Final advice: Learn the history of scientific development, at least, the history of your field of study to understand. At a minimum, history may provide some help for your own research. For example, past and present scientists often because I believe, like Francis Bacon (Francis Bacon), Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn), over-simplified models of science in ancient Popper (Karl Popper) and other philosophers proposed to be hindered. The best way to break free of the shackles of the ancient philosophers thought, it is to understand the history of science.
More importantly, the understanding of the history of science can make you more clearly the value of their work. As a scientist, you may never become rich; maybe your relatives and friends will never know what you're doing; further, if you work in the field of high-energy particle physics like this, you You can not even get the satisfaction of doing the kind of immediate work brings. However, if you realize that your work is part of the world history of science, you can get great satisfaction.
Finally, learn something about the history of science, or at a minimum the history of your own branch of science.The least important reason for this is that the history may actually be of some use to you in your own scientific work. For instance, now and then scientists are hampered by believing one of the over-simplified models of science that have been proposed by philosophers from Francis Bacon to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. The best antidote to the philosophy of science is a knowledge of the history of science.
More importantly, the history of science can make your work seem more worthwhile to you.As a scientist, you're probably not going to get rich. Your friends and relatives probably won't understand what you're doing. And if you work in a field like elementary particle physics, you won't even have the satisfaction of doing something that is immediately useful. But you can get great satisfaction by recognizing that your work in science is a part of history.
Looking back a hundred years ago in 1903, who was the British Prime Minister, who is the President of the United States are no longer important. It seems to us the true importance, Rutherford (Ernest Rutherford) and Soddy (Frederick Soddy) reveals the nature of radioactivity at McGill University. Of course, there is the practical application of this work, but more importantly, it is one of the content. Understanding of radioactivity was finally able to make physicists explain why over millions of years later, the sun and the Earth's core is still hot. Many former geologists and paleontologists believe that the Sun and the Earth has a very great age, which eliminates this last objection on science. Since then, Christians and Jews either had to give up to believe that the doctrine of "Bible" described, either had to admit that he had nothing to do with rationality. From Galileo to Newton, and then to Darwin, to the current scientists, their research time and again weakened the detention of dogmatism, but Rutherford and Soddy worked just step in them. Today, just casually reading a newspaper, you'll know that this task has not been completed. However, this is a make work civilized society, scientists should be proud to work for this purpose.
Look back 100 years, to 1903. How important is it now who was Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1903, or President of the United States? What stands out as really important is that at McGill University, Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy were working out the nature of radioactivity. This work (of course!) had practical applications, but much more important were its cultural implications. The understanding of radioactivity allowed physicists to explain how the Sun and Earth's cores could still be hot after millions of years. In this way, it removed the last scientific objection to what many geologists and paleontologists thought was the great age of the Earth and the Sun. After this, Christians and Jews either had to give up belief in the literal truth of the Bible or resign themselves to intellectual irrelevance. This was just one step in a sequence of steps from Galileo through Newton and Darwin to the present that, time after time, has weakened the hold of religious dogmatism. Reading any newspaper nowadays is enough to show you that this work is not yet complete. But it is civilizing work, of which scientists are able to feel proud.
Article Source: Nature 426, 389 (27 November 2003)
doi:10.1038/426389a
Scientist: Four golden lessons by Steven Weinberg
Reference: Chinese Association of Automation