In her post below, JoAnne refers to “the real world” in the literally accurate sense — the physical reality that exists independently of our understanding, in contrast to the tentative frameworks put forward by theorists as hypothetical models of that reality. But there’s a more metaphorical sense in which physicists (and academics more broadly) use the phrase “the real world” — to refer to the socio-economic milieu peopled by those outside the academy. We say things like “she spent a couple of years in the real world before going to grad school,” or “most of the time I hang out with physicists, but I do have some friends in the real world.”
I figure we can’t be the only people who talk this way. Professional actors or musicians (I’m guessing, and would love to hear confirmation/refutation) might think of themselves as being distinct from “the real world,” as might people serving in the military, or working in politics. We have the idea that certain kinds of lifestyles are stereotypically “real,” while others are somehow in a separate zone. And it’s generally a point of pride to consider one’s self and colleagues as non-real — we are privileged enough to operate outside the petty concerns of conventional reality, concentrating our powers on esoteric specialties with petty concerns of our own.
So, is there a flipside to this, with a corresponding feeling of pride? That is, are there occupations or milieux that think of themselves as quintessentially “real,” and wouldn’t have it any other way? (Presumably ones where people don’t babble on about “milieux.”) My many non-physicists friends are generally happily cocooned in lifestyles that are just as non-real-world as mine, so I don’t have much data here.
While I’m a physics major, most of my friends are not – most of them major in the biological and biochemical fields. That being said, they still also use the “academia”/”real world” division in that manner. In fact, one of my friends is planning to go “into the real world” to work for a pharmacutical company.
I think there are some that think their work is inherently more real – namely, people whose jobs integrate more with the day-to-day affairs of all people. This includes people involved in business, accounting, mom-and-pop stores, clerk/cashier/salesperson jobs, etc. This also includes people who, while their jobs are a bit disconnected from how the world actually is, may be oblivious to this fact. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about, watch the comedy Zoolander. Ignorance is bliss.
I suppose some of it also stems from our relative minority, both in understanding our fields and in scientific literacy. I wish that weren’t the case, though I still like the feeling of “academia” being separate from the “real world.”
I most certainly think that devoting the time and years of schooling you have, would make you feel different. A sense of kinship between those you work with, and those that are apart from the dynamics and sociological thinking that dominates your science.
So in the “other world” you might find the thinking vastly different then the responsibility you had assigned yourself. Have you ever tried to talk to a mechanic about the work of another mechanic trying to discredit them, lets say “within your group” in the “real world?”
I take exception to those that try to understand the “real world” of scientists, and thought less of because of the positions in life they may assume. By chance, the pizza guy who a true interest about the world you people working, and the chance person sitting beside you on that airplane. We have heard your stories.
My son when very young asked me once, if the “neighborhood” we were driving through was the world. It seems our lives can be circumvented to what is observble at the time. It may take a greater perspective to step back and see it all beyond the neighborhood? Our “feelings” may doimnate or our “thought processes” keeping us separate?
Yet we are all basically the same from a humanistic standoint? None of us should be thinking we are on some pedestal higher then another.
There is no real world 🙂
I don’t know, what exactly is the definition of reality? Something to do with observers or conciousness or something.
Manas, you are mixing it. There’s a real world, just no spoons in there… 😛 How much life in cube farms is real world? It feels real, except for never seeing that brilliant star who opaques the others. You basically deal with people with your major; but people think that’s how life is.
It is funny how the discussion of what do people in academia mean when they talk about “the real world” is confined within academic circles. What Sean suggests about this being true in most other fields generalizes to: “The real world” is a concept that is always going to be discussed outside of “the real world”! It seems that “the real world” is a secert too precious to be let out in “the real world.” One simply can’t be in “the real world.”
I know many people who would agree that they are better off having no connection with “the real world”. But I think it is worth visiting once in a while: to help amd be helped, or just for a change of view.
I’ve noticed that many people outside of academia also think of it as being distinct from the real world, but in a pejorative way.
To be brutally blunt, I find this MTV-style “Real World” stuff way over the top! It’s absolutely nauseating that these Hollywood/MTV types actually believe they hold a privileged status in the Universe: the status of cosmic interloper freely roaming–to and fro–between Reality and Fantasy.
Such nonsensical brand of thinking can only be defined as mere magic, pure and simple. No matter how hard these folks want to convince themselves–much less–persuade ordinary mortals that they really know the true ins and outs of Reality, they are eternally destined for failure. Thus, I strongly suggest that these real life wantabees remain fixed within the Cocoon of Fantasy—the only place they are worthy of existence.
I had the great fortune to have two parallel careers, one in academia and the other in emergency services-lifesaving. The difference between “worlds” was visceral, palpable. Nine months in classrooms on campus, were offset by four or five months (seasonal time and weekends during recreation months) on the beaches of SoCal, and then parks of NorCal. I too often found myself using that “out there in the real world” distinction, which though quite relevant, seemed to distance myself from my work in my other vocation. Surrounded as i was by professionals in both worlds who spent all of their time solely in those environments, i realized i was truly blessed. There is a quality to life that being on campus provides. It is the freedom to BE in one’s head, to listen and talk intently with the “disinterested spectator” (as Blake referred to our internal thought conversations), putting precedence to theory, formulation, philosophical wonderings, etc. But there was also the intense satisfaction from living in the now, interdicting in the lives of thousands, being cognizant as possible of paying attention to the needs and behaviors of others, not ever really thinking about oneself. In retrospect i would never trade one for the other, nor regret that i didn’t focus solely on just one. Retirement is the perfect blend.
Sean asks
It is my belief that when theoretical physics undergoes its sorely needed revolution and its newly accepted theories meet Einstein’s “close to experience” criterion, physicists will take pride at living in the “real” world and will be offended when accused of living in an ivory tower.
I believe that General Relativity and quantum mechanics and its iterations are the chief offenders that have to be gotten rid of. They will only disappear, as Ptolemaic Astronomy did, by being replaced by a more realistic, “close to experience” theory. When that happens, theorists and experimentalist will take pride in the applications that the new theories produce as what happened when Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism came on the scene in the last half of the 19th century.
pf
for reference to “close to experience” Sci. Amer. April 1950, p.13.
Sean the ‘physical reality’ is the commonality that people bumper to bumper on the highway experience during rush hour – of course aside from that ‘fact’ their reality is different, they are either listening to different tunes, talking to different people on the mobile, or angry at the world for whatever reason, each in their own version or vision of reality in their own little cocoon or mind, inside their own individual coccon or body – inside their own individual coccon or tin box with wheels (motorvehicle).
Like when you are on a plane (jumbo jet) you are sgaring the ‘physical reality’ with all the other passengers, but as you know each individual is travelling on their own ‘plane’ – just sharing the same spacetime with all the other passengers – ie only one can sit on each seat, or only one can use the toilet at a time, unless you are joining the mile high club.
But theoretical physics, like all other theories is the art of the possible. After all heart transplants were ‘impossible’ not that long ago – now they’ll transplant just about every part of your body (including hair onto Elton John’s head) – but not teeth it seems.
Yep, you’d think that if we can grow skin, organs, and nerve cells – teeth & nails would be childplay.
And head transplants – no, not frankestein revisited – you know some in medical science theory believe they may be able to make man inmortal – or even transplant your memory ‘chip’ into another brain.
But how can this be – can man’s memory and ‘soul’ possibly be ghost particles in another ‘dimension’ you think.
Possible? – Physics is The Art of the Possible.
After all if it is not possible, it is not ‘physically’ possible – right?
In the real world…
Most people are religious, but spend all their time trying to make money — except on weekends. People play on weekends, often with their kids.
In the real world the average IQ is 100.
I go there sometimes to get groceries. Or to play, on weekdays — never NEVER on weekends.
I tried living in the real world once, briefly, and decided I really didn’t like it.
In the Real World, actions have consequences.
Now I seem to spend all my time worrying over factors of 2.
I think it entirely healthy to talk of “real world” activities outside of your job. I think it speaks to the fact that people need to feel more viscerally connected to their creations and the consequences of their work. There is something terribly noble and exciting about physics, but there is also something quite removed about it. Coming from my (extremely limited) experience, you can’t show your work to someone outside the field with pride. There is (rarely) artistic merit to your papers. And your paper only helps other people in a very detached way; it is nearly impossible to argue how your work matters to your mother.
In addition, physics work is awfully sedentary, and that lack of exercise can decrease your satisfaction with life — exercise is necessary to maintaining a healthy outlook!
So please, let’s use that phrase as often as possible. Maybe it will encourage us to interact with the “real world” more!
The real world consists of gravity and the standard model Lagrangian. Everything is a direct result of these two things, including our society and our thoughts and actions.
I must go now and continue fulfilling my sector of the standard model + gravity = my life.
There are fans, and there are mundanes. There is very little way to bridge the gap between them. If you know science fiction culture, you will know what I mean. At conventions you can instantly tell the difference betwen fans and mundanes. Fans are even shaped differently than mundanes. I believe that fans are born different from mundanes. Some physicists are fans. Some physicists are mundanes. Which ones make the best scientists?
I’m a junior physics major, and next semester I will be studying abroad in New Zealand. It forever interests me that the only people who think this is a bad idea are physicists: profs who think I should get a head-start on my senior thesis, students who think I’ll be missing out on important classes, stuff like that. As I’m fairly certain they have physics in New Zealand and my senior thesis can wait until, gasp, senior year, I’m not too worried.
I just find it odd that physicists, who in one sense should be the most connected with the world around them, are often the ones who are least in touch with it. I hope I don’t find myself forced too much to choose between them.
In medical school, we don’t refer to it as the “real world” but instead as our “previous life.” Everything before seems totally separated from the present, and unlike the “real world” example, we can’t exactly go back.
“I just find it odd that physicists, who in one sense should be the most connected with the world around them, are often the ones who are least in touch with it. I hope I don’t find myself forced too much to choose between them.”
Don’t worry, for there is no such thing as free choice anyway. Your thoughts and actions are a result of gravity and the standard model. You are just a bunch of particles governed by gravity and the standard model. Whatever you “decide” won’t matter. The laws of physics will take care of you, my friend.
Vince, now you’re just being a troll. If you don’t have anything to add, resist the temptation to leave a comment.
Let us define real world as
Ensemble of each individual(‘s) world.
(Not exactly the serious physics theory, but maybe an analogy?)
It seems that most of us have a need for at least some amount of fantasy, imagination, creativity and humor in our lives. This seems like a very REAL part of what it’s all about to be human–at least that’s the view from my world.
Pingback: Continuation of my remarks to Asymptotia about UFOs & theorists « the luminous universe
You’re right, Sean. I’m sorry.