> There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals.
Wait, are you claiming that knowledge of experimental physics is "long forgotten and superseded"? As a mathematician, I'm all for recognising the importance of theoretical physics, and think that there's no reason a good theoretical physicist has also to be a good experimental physicist—but I wouldn't go so far as casting experimental physics on the dustheap! From the relatively sparse information given, the questions asked, about the operation of basic optical instruments like the telescope and the microscope, do not seem like questions that are excessively recondite; they do seem to indicate a basis lack of competence as an experimental physicist (which Heisenberg neither was nor apparently much wanted to be).
When I read the article, I gathered that there was a necessity for expert in A to make orals in B because their style of presentation. To achieve acceptance at B, there were non-relevant to A requirements.
The goal of qualifying exams to produce well-rounded students---or at least ensure that they are minimally aware of the major intellectual traditions in their field.
It's not crazy to expect that a soon-to-be physics professor understands how a battery works, at least roughly.
> When I read the article, I gathered that there was a necessity for expert in A to make orals in B because their style of presentation. To achieve acceptance at B, there were non-relevant to A requirements.
But you did not say "knowledge in A is not relevant to B" (itself an arguable claim, as my sibling commenter mattkrause points out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910025 )); you seemed to be dismissing the validity of "knowledge in A" entirely ("There is always a professor of distinguished, but long forgotten and superseded past-expertise on the orals"). If you meant only the milder claim you make here, then, not being a physicist, I do not think I am qualified to judge, and so withdraw my objection.
Wait, are you claiming that knowledge of experimental physics is "long forgotten and superseded"? As a mathematician, I'm all for recognising the importance of theoretical physics, and think that there's no reason a good theoretical physicist has also to be a good experimental physicist—but I wouldn't go so far as casting experimental physics on the dustheap! From the relatively sparse information given, the questions asked, about the operation of basic optical instruments like the telescope and the microscope, do not seem like questions that are excessively recondite; they do seem to indicate a basis lack of competence as an experimental physicist (which Heisenberg neither was nor apparently much wanted to be).