|
|
Sifting for the Right Questions in Science
Big, vague queries need to be brought down to earth so that researchers can look for evidence
Frank Wilczek, 07/28/23
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.
In any case, the discipline of responding to Rabi’s challenge has served me well. Striving to make my theoretical dreams (notably, those related to the axion and anyon particles) relevant to experiments has been a fruitful adventure. Forging those connections inspired many new ideas. It also motivated me to learn more about the frontiers of experimental technique, where wonders of ingenuity reside.
Another characteristic of most good questions is that the answer is just a little bit out of reach. It should not be too obvious, but it should not be utterly inaccessible either.
Grand questions aren’t yet good ones. “What is life?” or “What does quantum theory mean?” or “What is consciousness?” are vague, elusive and inaccessible. Though they point toward intriguing directions, they need a big dose of the Rabi treatment. In other words, before becoming—or, rather, spinning off—good questions, they need to be brought down to earth and sculpted into truly meaningful forms.
The foolproof way to find good questions is to come up with a lot of them and then throw out the ones that are too vague, too easy, too hard or too inconsequential. This requires patience, because those flaws might not be obvious at first, and most candidates will ultimately fail. Culling also requires psychological flexibility and strength, as you’ve got to recognize failure and move on. But that’s what makes it an adventure.
Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Appeared in the July 29, 2023, print edition as 'Sifting for the Right Questions In Science'.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
回應給：
