| ▲ | bxsioshc 5 days ago |
| Just look at HN. Nominally an educated crowd, but talk about physics, and you immediately see terms like "ivory towers" or "return on investment", despite the fact that most on HN doesn't understand in fundamental science works. |
|
| ▲ | cyberax 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| There are _plenty_ of areas in physics where investment is paying off. Condensed matter physics, optics, material research and so on. We mostly question the fundamental subatomic particle physics that is not producing any returns on the investment. E.g. the galvanic effect was discovered in 1780, and there were long-distance telegraph lines by 1845 - so 65 years. The last major theoretical advance in particle physics was around 1965 (Higgs mechanism). That's already 60 years ago. |
| |
| ▲ | nobody9999 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's at least one actual physicist who will provide you with appropriate counterpoint. Here they are. And you're welcome. a physicist responds: physics has done very little for like 70 years[0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_o4k0eLoMI | | |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | She is speaking about physics in a very narrow sense. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 5 days ago | parent [-] | | >She is speaking about physics in a very narrow sense. In what respect? Did you bother to actually watch the video or read a transcript or did you just watch the first minute and a half and assume that was the point? It wasn't. the ensuing thirty-two minutes serve to debunk the idea that there hasn't been progress in physics over the past seventy years. Which GP claimed was the case. GP is wrong. And she covers a wide array of physics areas -- she even mentions that she could have gone year by year starting in 1953 and cover at least one advancement per year, but she limited it to just her top ten which was pretty wide ranging. |
| |
| ▲ | cyberax 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | She's confirming my point. There are plenty of advances in physics outside of the foundational subatomic physics. And literally nothing in subatomic physics. The theories from 1960-s made predictions that were later confirmed: Higgs boson, neutrino oscillations, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | bxsioshc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | nradov 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A lot of the complaints here about physics have to do with focusing so heavily for decades on string theory (or M-theory) which hasn't produced much in the way of practical results. At some point we have to quit throwing good money after bad and redirect funding towards other lines of inquiry. |
| |
| ▲ | OccamsMirror 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is the purpose of life purely to seek a monetary return on investment? | | |
| ▲ | nradov 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Is the purpose of theoretical physics purely to seek mathematical innovations with no connection to objective reality? | | |
| |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, but this is cartoon shit. String theory was a major research program in theoretical physics for a few decades but theoretical physics involves quite a lot more than string theory and physics involves quite a lot more than theoretical physics and if you stacked up all the budgets you'd find that string theory is a minor footnote. And also, its been a few decades since people took it very seriously as a strong candidate for a TOE. I really don't get it. As a total amount of any budget from any perspective, string theory has always been a blip whose cultural impact is much wider than its actual budgetary one. Like this critique about string theory is just a thing that people who are physics "enthusiasts" say and even to the extent that it is true, its really been more than a decade since it was a problem. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is string theory was pushed by people who were really good at getting attention and so they appeared to be outsized. Eventually everyone realized they were never making good on their promises and it was time to quit given them money - but most people who are not physics insiders don't really understand the other parts and so the total budget was cut to punish string theory - but by more than just the string theory part. There is a warning above about something, but I'm not sure exactly what. | | |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I actually think that for the most part string theory and its detractors and its rise and fall have had little effect on total physics budgets in the last 30 years. I will say that theoretical physics is in a hard spot, but the problem isn't string theory. It is that we are short experimental data because the domain of validity of our theories is currently somewhat larger (in most obvious ways, anyway) than the domains we can reach with experiment. I don't think any amount of clever budget allocation is going to make progress in theoretical physics go faster, nor do I think we'd be in a different position if we had allocated the resources differently. Notably, LQG and similar approaches (of which there is hardly any shortage) have not made noticeable progress either. My perspective is this: string theorists are cheap. We may as well have a few for some long shot research, and while we fund them they teach kids math and physics. Seems like a good trade. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > My perspective is this: string theorists are cheap. We may as well have a few for some long shot research, and while we fund them they teach kids math and physics. Seems like a good trade. We need kids learning math because it is useful for engineering and other parts of life. However there are large parts of math that are useless in the real world and we don't need to each at all. (we need enough to teach rigorous logical thinking because that is useful in the real world - but there are lots of ways to get there) Is there value in more theoretical physics - at what point do we know the constants to enough values? This is a reference to just before relativity was discovered when it was thought refining the constants was all that was left - it turned out that some major things were left, but is there anything more? This is an unanswerable question, but what if we redirected those working on string theory to a hobby if they want to and made their day job either teaching math (which they are already doing part time), or some engineering type job? If we distribute the workload that implies everyone could work half an hour less every day, is that a bad trade? | | |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > However there are large parts of math that are useless in the real world and we don't need to each at all. The way I see it is thus: life is objectively pointless. There is no god and time will erase everything anyone ever builds one way or another. Human life is predicated on doing work to survive, but that isn't the point of life. Instead of asking how we can only do what is useful, we should be asking how we can do more and more useless stuff while still providing for our bodily needs. Show me a mathematician working on pure math and I see a person at the absolute peak of human potential. I do not resent the mathematician. On the contrary, I aspire to their place. I guess you see one and you think they are useless and should be writing code for an ad company somewhere. What a dogshit world. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > I do not resent the mathematician. On the contrary, I aspire to their place Those two do not follow. I resent the mathematician because the world can only afford to pay a small number of them (we need to eat and that consumes far more people), not to mention shelter and such - I'm not one of those society has chosen to do math all day (for good reasons - I'm not that great at math - my math minor makes me a better choice than average, but still not anywhere near good enough). Even those who do math all day are mostly professors who do math between teaching classes and advising students. The time / taxes that are spent from my paycheck to pay someone to do math is time that I'm working for someone else to achieve a peak that I cannot and without them I could work less (we are talking a second per year or something, but still...) Yes I'm admitting to jealousy here. I aspire to their place. > . I guess you see one and you think they are useless and should be writing code for an ad company somewhere. You picked a bad example. I'd call most ad work useless too - they are not informing me of something new that I need but trying to get me to buy something either I already know about or worse things that would make my life worse. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bxsioshc 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | bxsioshc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
