I’ve just wrapped up on author Frank Wilczek’s book “A Beautiful Question” in which he explores the deep design of nature. The book dove into the “quarky” (no pun intended) world of quantum physics, a place where the imagination gets a real workout. For this discussion though, I’d like to focus on a recurring theme of Wilczek’s, which is his attempt at marrying the concepts of Real and Ideal. As an arborist, I felt as though this theme resonated quite deeply when thinking about trees, caring for them, and communicating with those who own them.

In the book Wilczek makes a superb argument for the beauty that is held in this relationship between the Real and the Ideal. In very simple and beautiful ways, the Real and the Ideal become unified because of how the symmetries they possess. A great image from the book in which Wilczek uses several times as an example of this symmetry is the classic Yin and Yang symbol. Entirety and balance, each half containing the other. This proves to be a wonderful image on many levels to understanding themes within the book.

The Yin-Yang serves not only as a great illustration of complementarity, but also in tree work when trying to reconcile real world situations and the ideal practices of BMP’s (best management practices).

To quote Wilczek’s book, “We say two ways of regarding the same thing are complementary when each is valid and coherent on it’s own, but they cannot both be used at the same time, because each interferes with the other. This is a common situation in quantum theory. For example, one can choose to measure the position of a particle, or alternatively to measure it’s momentum-but one cannot choose to do both simultaneously, because either measurement interferes with the other” (347, from the Terms of Art section).

Don’t we sometimes find ourselves at odds with tree owners and their perception of tree care? Here we see complementarity in arboriculture.

As I was reading I kept trying to make the connection in my mind to pruning standards and tree owners that are ignorant or unaccepting of those quality standards. It seems like the perfect allegory. The stubborn tree owner wants “as much gone without killing the tree” (Real); and you, the arborist, want to follow the BMP’s and make quality cuts without reaching a threshold the tree can’t handle. Or something like that. Never enough for ole’ Mr. Smith, always too much for you. The saga continues.

I think of this complementarity when trying to reconcile a tree owner’s relationship to their tree. For example: the tree owner wants to shape the tree a certain way, which wouldn’t allow for proper nodal cuts in which the tree could respond to in a healthy manner. You want to reduce the tree properly, which healthy, properly placed cuts that will help the tree with enhanced vigor and architecture. In this sense, complementarity exits in arboriculture the same way it does in quantum physics. It’s two ways of regarding the same thing. Worlds are colliding.

Many times arborists and tree owners do live in different worlds. Think about how hard it is to communicate the Ideal sense of arboriculture to someone that won’t listen. Or better yet, someone that’s had their trees abused for many years. It’s still alive isn’t it? And then I remember Wilczek’s reconciliation of the Real and the Ideal. The Yin and the Yang. Complementarity. Trees and their owners. And us, the arborists.

It is my belief that a good arborist can mend this equation. We are like a physicist in that sense. The problem before us is to prove the equation to the tree owner. There will be balance and harmony, like the yin-yang symbol suggests. And if we do everything right, and our calculations are precisely exact, and all the gluons and photons align, we’ll get paid. Even better, we’ll get called back.

Real=Ideal.