You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Big, vague queries need to be brought down to earth so that researchers can look for evidence
Nobel and Templeton Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek explores the secrets of the cosmos. Read previous columns here.
Most of my scientific working hours are devoted to the business of answering questions. But some of the time I get to decide what questions to ask. That’s by far my most important work. It’s a blessing to have such freedom, but it’s also a challenge. How does one formulate good scientific questions? I’ve learned a lot about that by studying the masters
In 1973, as a young graduate student, I went to a renowned annual summer school on high-energy physics, located atop a mountain overlooking the Mediterranean in the postcard-worthy Sicilian town of Erice. In that awesome environment the faculty and students shared meals at the few local restaurants. There I hit it off with the legendary Columbia University physics professor and Nobel Prize winner I.I. Rabi, who discovered the basis for magnetic resonance imaging, among other techniques through which we access and harness the quantum world. (He features prominently in the “Oppenheimer” movie, too). A warm, earthy man, Rabi was happy to talk with a fellow New Yorker.
Naturally, our conversations often wandered across physics. I was full of theoretical ideas and quasi-philosophical speculations. Rabi pressed me—gently, with a twinkle in his eye, yet relentlessly—to describe their concrete meaning. In the process we often discovered that there wasn’t any!
But not always—and the questions that survived those dialogues were leaner and stronger. I internalized this experience, and since then my inner Rabi (he died in 1988) has been a wise, inspiring companion.
Several times, an exasperated Rabi had asked me in response to my speculations, “OK, but what am I supposed to do when I come in to the lab in the morning?” I was tempted to say “That’s your problem,” but of course I bit my tongue. Eventually I realized what he really meant: Fully worked-out answers to good scientific questions should include solid experimental prospects.
That is a surprisingly controversial view today, as some prominent philosophers of science promote a “post-empirical physics” that doesn’t require proof, or evidence. And there’s no doubt that physically inspired mathematics, or for that matter pure mathematics, can bring people great joy. But I lean toward Rabi’s attitude: In science, reality rules.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
苏格拉底学园
-
撰文 | Frank Wilczek
翻译 | 胡风、梁丁当
中文版
在科研生涯里，我大部分的时间都用在了回答问题上。但有的时候，我会仔细思考应该问什么样的问题，这也是我迄今为止最为重要的工作。拥有提问的自由是一件幸福的事。但如何提出好的科学问题，却是一个挑战。在这方面，我从众多大师身上学习到了很多。
1973年，我还是一名年轻的研究生。那年我参加了一个著名的高能物理年度暑期学校，它的举办地点位于意大利西西里岛风景如画的埃里切小镇。这座小镇坐落在山上，从那里可以俯瞰地中海的美丽风光。在令人沉醉的梦幻美景中，我们这些师生经常会跑去当地为数不多的餐馆聚餐。
在这个过程中，我与哥伦比亚大学的传奇物理学教授、诺贝尔奖得主伊西多 · 艾萨克 · 拉比（Isidor Isaac Rabi）一见如故。拉比提出了核磁共振成像的理论基础，奠定了核磁共振成像技术的发展——这是能让我们接触和利用量子世界的技术之一。（他也是电影《奥本海默》中的一个重要角色。）拉比十分平易近人，他很乐意与我这个来自纽约的半个同乡交谈。
自然地，我们经常聊到物理。我高谈阔论着抽象的理论想法和近哲学化的思考。
拉比是一位温柔的长者，他总是目光炯炯地看着我，专注地倾听着我的想法，却又一边毫不留情地追问我它们的具体物理含义是什么。而往往，我们发现这些想法并没有实际的物理意义。
但也不乏例外 ：在经过对话拷问后幸存的那些问题变得更加精简、有力。我把这段经历内化为最宝贵的财富。
从那以后，我的内心中一直住着一个拉比（他于1988年去世），睿智地启发着我提出好的科学问题。
有好几次，拉比都被我的想法惹恼 ：
“好吧，但是请问我早上到了实验室后，该怎样去实现这个想法呢？”
我很想反驳他 ：“这是你的问题。”但每次我都没有说出口。
最终，我领会到拉比话语中的真正用意 ：一个好的科学问题，它的完整答案应该包括一个可行的实验前景。
令人震惊的是，这个观点在当今的科学界竟颇具争议。一些著名的科学哲学家倡导所谓的不需要证明或依据的“后经验物理学”。诚然，受物理启发的数学，或者纯粹的数学，都能给人们带来巨大的快乐。但我更倾向于秉持拉比的态度：
在科学中，现实是最重要的。
无论如何，应对拉比的挑战让我获益匪浅。我努力地在理论梦想（尤其是与轴子和任意子相关的想法）和实验可行性之间建立起联系。这种冒险颇有成效，激发了许多新的想法。它还促使我更多地了解实验技术的前沿，而那里蕴藏着天才创造的宝库。
大多数好的科学问题还有一个特点 ：它们的答案只是看似遥不可及——绝对不是显而易见，但也不是无法触及。
宏大的问题并不总是好问题。诸如“生命是什么？”“量子理论的意义是什么？”或“什么是意识？”这类问题都太过空泛、抽象且难以触及。尽管它们指向了有趣的研究方向，但需要通过拉比式的质疑落到实处。换言之，在成为——或者更准确地说，在提出——好问题之前，它们需要先落地、转变为真正有意义的形式。
要找到好的问题，一个有用的办法是先想出很多的问题，从中剔除那些太模糊的、太简单的、太难的或者无关痛痒的问题。这需要耐心，因为这些缺陷通常不是一开始就能发现的，而且绝大多数问题最终都会被剔除掉。
筛选问题需要强大的心理调节能力和韧劲 ：你得不怕失败，敢于向前。也正因如此，提问成为了一场科学冒险。
英文版
Sifting for the Right Questions in Science
Nobel and Templeton Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek explores the secrets of the cosmos. Read previous columns here.
Most of my scientific working hours are devoted to the business of answering questions. But some of the time I get to decide what questions to ask. That’s by far my most important work. It’s a blessing to have such freedom, but it’s also a challenge. How does one formulate good scientific questions? I’ve learned a lot about that by studying the masters
In 1973, as a young graduate student, I went to a renowned annual summer school on high-energy physics, located atop a mountain overlooking the Mediterranean in the postcard-worthy Sicilian town of Erice. In that awesome environment the faculty and students shared meals at the few local restaurants. There I hit it off with the legendary Columbia University physics professor and Nobel Prize winner I.I. Rabi, who discovered the basis for magnetic resonance imaging, among other techniques through which we access and harness the quantum world. (He features prominently in the “Oppenheimer” movie, too). A warm, earthy man, Rabi was happy to talk with a fellow New Yorker.
Naturally, our conversations often wandered across physics. I was full of theoretical ideas and quasi-philosophical speculations. Rabi pressed me—gently, with a twinkle in his eye, yet relentlessly—to describe their concrete meaning. In the process we often discovered that there wasn’t any!
But not always—and the questions that survived those dialogues were leaner and stronger. I internalized this experience, and since then my inner Rabi (he died in 1988) has been a wise, inspiring companion.
Several times, an exasperated Rabi had asked me in response to my speculations, “OK, but what am I supposed to do when I come in to the lab in the morning?” I was tempted to say “That’s your problem,” but of course I bit my tongue. Eventually I realized what he really meant: Fully worked-out answers to good scientific questions should include solid experimental prospects.
That is a surprisingly controversial view today, as some prominent philosophers of science promote a “post-empirical physics” that doesn’t require proof, or evidence. And there’s no doubt that physically inspired mathematics, or for that matter pure mathematics, can bring people great joy. But I lean toward Rabi’s attitude: In science, reality rules.
Frank Wilczek
弗兰克·维尔切克是麻省理工学院物理学教授、量子色动力学的奠基人之一。因发现了量子色动力学的渐近自由现象，他在2004年获得了诺贝尔物理学奖。
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions