5 ms·

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 4y ago
Why would that imply he wasn't a narrow specialist?
- mannykannot 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      Coincidence?
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        That isn’t at all clear to me as a physicist Are you a physicist?
        mannykannot 4y ago
        So you think your being a physicist gives you special insight into whether Sommerfeld, Born and Heisenberg understood the significance of what they were working on? Explain.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        Yes, of course. I am an expert in physics, you are not...
        mannykannot 4y ago
        That's not an explanation, that's a rather trite attempt at an ad-hominem evasion. What (and how) does your exhaustive knowledge of physics allow you to conclude about how Sommerfeld, Born and Heisenberg viewed the significance of what they were working on, that you assume is not available to me? Use whatever physics is necessary to explain how you came to your position - I might know more than you assume.

bowsamic 4y ago

Why would that imply he wasn't a narrow specialist?

mannykannot 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    Coincidence?
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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 4y ago
        That isn’t at all clear to me as a physicist Are you a physicist?
        mannykannot 4y ago
        So you think your being a physicist gives you special insight into whether Sommerfeld, Born and Heisenberg understood the significance of what they were working on? Explain.
        bowsamic 4y ago
        Yes, of course. I am an expert in physics, you are not...
        mannykannot 4y ago
        That's not an explanation, that's a rather trite attempt at an ad-hominem evasion. What (and how) does your exhaustive knowledge of physics allow you to conclude about how Sommerfeld, Born and Heisenberg viewed the significance of what they were working on, that you assume is not available to me? Use whatever physics is necessary to explain how you came to your position - I might know more than you assume.