🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug3.172547.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <25173@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>> I tell them I'm a nuclear physicist.  The typical response is "Really! How
>> interesting... What do you do/study?" at which point I ask whether they
>> want the real (5 minute) answer or the 10 second answer.  99% of the time,
>> people request the 10 second answer, at which point I say that I bang
>> nuclei together at high energy, and isn't the salmon mousse tasty... 
> 
>> Only twice can I recall someone asking for the long version[...]
>
>I can't help thinking that you're going to the wrong parties.
>
>[I give people a two-word answer:  "Smash atoms."  If they still 
>seem interested, I feed 'em a bit more detail.]

I agree with "smash atoms".  Academics have a habit of talking to each
other in mini-lectures -- the way we do on sci.physics!  This is great
for communicating complex material to someone who is already interested,
but it ain't gonna make you the life of the party.  If you ask a truck
driver what he does, I doubt he will even consider giving a 5-minute
explanation of the trucking business (which is no doubt fairly complex).
He will probably say "I drive rigs back and forth between here and Baton
Rouge" (or whatever - I actually don't what they do!).  So say "smash
atoms" and if they say how, feed them another tantalizing bit.

I'm actually not very good at this myself.  Someone asks me what I do
research on and I say "knots and physics" and they get excited but at
this point I get stuck because I want to say "well, Wilson loops in
topological quantum field theories define knot invariants", but that
is already too hard for most folks.