A True Story: Real Genius
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Here is a great historical instance of out-of-the-box thinking:
The renown British physicist Ernest Rutherford was known as the father of nuclear physics. When he was a professor at an English university, he got a call from a colleague who asked if Rutherford would be a referee on the grading of an examination question. This fellow professor was about to give a student a zero for his answer to a physics question while the student claimed he should receive a perfect score and would have if the system were not set up against the student. Both instructor and student agreed to an impartial arbiter and Rutherford was selected.
Rutherford agreed to do so. He went to his colleague’s office and read the examination question: “Show how it is possible to determine the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer.” The student had answered: “Take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to the street, and then bring it up, measuring the length of the rope. The length of the rope is the height of the building.”
Rutherford pointed out that the student really had a strong case for full credit since he had really answered the question correctly and completely. On the other hand, if full credit were given, it could well contribute to a high grade in his physics course. A high grade was supposed to certify competence in physics, but the answer did not confirm this. Rutherford then suggested that the student be given another try at answering the question. He was not surprised that his colleague agreed, but he was surprised when the student did.
Rutherford gave the student six minutes to answer the question with the warning that the answer should show some knowledge of physics. At the end of five minutes, the student had not written anything. Rutherford then asked if the student wished to give up, but the student said, “No. I had many answers to this problem; I was just thinking of the best one.” Rutherford excused himself for interrupting the student and asked him to please go on. In the next minute, the student dashed off his answer which read:”Take the barometer to the top of the building and lean over the edge of the roof. Drop the barometer, timing its fall with a stopwatch. Then, using the formula x=0.5*a*t^^2, calculate the height of the building.” At this point, Rutherford asked his colleague if he would give up. The instructor conceded, and gave the student almost full credit.
In leaving his colleague’s office, Rutherford recalled that the student had said that he had other answers to the problem, so he asked the latter what they were.
“Well,” said the student. “there are many ways of getting the height of a tall building with the aid of a barometer. For example, you could take the barometer out on a sunny day and measure the height of the barometer, the length of its shadow, and the length of the shadow of the building, and by the use of simple proportion, determine the height of the building.”
“Fine,” Rutherford said, “and the others?”
“Yes,” said the student.” There is a very basic measurement method you will like. In this method, you take the barometer and begin to walk up the stairs. As you climb the stairs, you mark off the length of the barometer along the wall. You then count the number of marks, and this will give you the height of the building in barometer units.”
“A very direct method, indeed” Rutherford commented.
“Of course. If you want a more sophisticated method, you can tie the barometer to the end of a string, swing it as a pendulum, and determine the value of g at the street level and at the top of the building. From the difference between the two values of g, the height of the building, in principle, can be calculated. On this same tact, you could take the barometer to the top of the building, attach a long rope to it, lower it to just above the street, and then swing it as a pendulum. You could then calculate the height of the building by the period of the precession”.
Rutherford could only nod in agreement with the student’s answers.
“Finally,” the student concluded, “there are many other ways of solving the problem with a barometer. Probably the best is to take the barometer to the basement and knock on the superintendent’s door. When the superintendent answers, you speak to him as follows: ‘Mr. Superintendent, here is a fine barometer. If you will tell me the height of the building, I will give you this barometer.’”
At this point, Rutherford asked the student if he really did not know the conventional answer to this question. The student admitted that he did, but said, “I was just fed up with high school and college instructors trying to teach me how to think.” This marked the start of a professional and fruitful collaboration between Rutherford and this student.
Oh, and the name of this student? Neils Bohr, who went on to formulate the theory on quantum physics.
