3 ms·

I have a friend who worked on the construction of the CMS at CERN. Calibration, actually. He has a similar ability to very clearly explain the technology and

I have a friend who worked on the construction of the CMS at CERN. Calibration, actually. He has a similar ability to very clearly explain the technology and what it is trying to accomplish. And an innate curiosity or interest that causes him to learn that -- beyond just his specific technical area. In other words, some engineers are very effective networkers and communicators. When I stop to think about it, they have to be, to ever succeed in building such a large and complex device -- in the company and at the behest of so many other disciplines, both practical and theoretical. P.S. I should add that he does this with everything that really interests him and/or that he is doing. It's not confined to one topic or things he formally works on. P.P.S. This may be a "Captain Obvious" comment; nonetheless, the presentation reminded me of him. And of how some comment science stereotypes really are far from the mark.

ethbro 9y ago
My personal observation is that experimental physicists seem to be better (on average) at this than other disciplines. Maybe something about having to deal with the physical world?
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It depends... Dirac is a counterexample, while Bohr is a supporting example. It may just be that experimentalist who can explain their ideas with clarity and passion are the ones we notice first/most?
  - stefco_ 9y ago
    Dirac and Bohr were both theorists, not experimentalists! But you're right that it varies within disciplines. I'm an experimental physics Ph.D. student working on LIGO, and I have also found that experimental physicists are often very good at motivating engineering from top to bottom. I think having depth of knowledge is part of it. My advisor has told me that some of the best experimentalists have sufficient depth of expertise to be theorists. I can't comment on how this compares to other fields (since I haven't worked outside of academia) but I have been very satisfied with how eloquent and deeply informed experimental physicists usually are.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Experimental physics require large teams, thus communicators are more probable to be seen.

ethbro 9y ago

My personal observation is that experimental physicists seem to be better (on average) at this than other disciplines. Maybe something about having to deal with the physical world?

QAPereo 9y ago
It depends... Dirac is a counterexample, while Bohr is a supporting example. It may just be that experimentalist who can explain their ideas with clarity and passion are the ones we notice first/most?
- stefco_ 9y ago
  Dirac and Bohr were both theorists, not experimentalists! But you're right that it varies within disciplines. I'm an experimental physics Ph.D. student working on LIGO, and I have also found that experimental physicists are often very good at motivating engineering from top to bottom. I think having depth of knowledge is part of it. My advisor has told me that some of the best experimentalists have sufficient depth of expertise to be theorists. I can't comment on how this compares to other fields (since I haven't worked outside of academia) but I have been very satisfied with how eloquent and deeply informed experimental physicists usually are.
nine_k 9y ago
Experimental physics require large teams, thus communicators are more probable to be seen.