NYT recognizes physics needs new options

[Martin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/science/04phys.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

 

Physics Awaits New Options as Standard Model Idles

(a July 4 science essay by Dennis Overbye)

 

Dennis Overbye is the top science writer covering theoretical physics at the NY Times. Here is how he introduces the theme of this short article in today's Times:

 

"...Forget the lifetime tenure, the travel, the six-figure book contracts — what professional physicists live for is the tsunami moment when they know something that nobody else has ever known, the revelatory flash of a new glimpse into the workings of what Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University cosmologist, called 'the Mind of God.'

 

Alas, God, as reflected in the known laws of physics, hasn't gotten any smarter since the 1970's. It was then that particle physicists put the finishing touches on the Standard Model, a collection of theories describing all the physical forces except gravity.

 

They have been stuck in that model, like birds in a gilded cage, ever since..."

 

I don't think there is anything that would surprise an insider. He quotes string thinker David Gross. He quotes Lee Smolin, a loop quantum gravitist (LQG).

 

He conveys how hungry theorists are for something really new to show up at LHC. Given that the public doesnt have a lot of feel for the situation in particle physics, I think this short essay does shed some light.

[Skye]

Forget the lifetime tenure, the travel, the six-figure book contracts — what professional physicists live for is the tsunami moment when they know something that nobody else has ever known, the revelatory flash of a new glimpse into the workings of what Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University cosmologist, called 'the Mind of God.'

Because after that they can get a seven figure book contract, give up their job and travel where ever they like.

[Martin]

Because after that they can get a seven figure book contract, give up their job and travel where ever they like.

 

dreams, dreams

 

I'm sure that Overbye knows better. physics is rarely a road to fame and ease. but he is a journalist---has to embellish his story.

(besides, he didnt say they actually GET sixfigure contracts only that they have different aspirations from that----I hear these days that young theorists may not find academic jobs and instead go work in software or finance)

[Royston]

I hear these days that young theorists may not find academic jobs and instead go work in software or finance)

 

These were precisely the two jobs that got mentioned as career choices when I signed up for my degree...yawn. I suppose it's easy to understand, when there have been no huge leaps and bounds since the 70's, and with the comparitively low wages offered by academic careers, there's also the issue of demand. Regarding theory's, with GR and QM firmly in place, and such a huge gap of 'lot's of work, but no solid results' only seems more disheartening, but I personally think the next decade for physics will be incredibly interesting. The rapid increase in computing power, LHC, the continous research into the CMB, and the study of neutrinos at Sudbury to name a few could have profound effects on future theories.

 

I think technology is going to breath new life into the theoretical side of physics. I don't think it's time for getting jaded just yet.

[Locrian]

Alas, God, as reflected in the known laws of physics, hasn't gotten any smarter since the 1970's.

 

Hmm. This does not seem the least bit true to me. Of course, the "laws of physics" is a terrible, outdated phrase that has little meaning, so I suppose it depends on your definition, but I would consider the quantum and fractional quantum hall effects laws under any reasonable definition, and they were discovered in the 80's.

 

I suppose it's easy to understand, when there have been no huge leaps and bounds since the 70's, and with the comparitively low wages offered by academic careers, there's also the issue of demand. .

 

This of course is very true of high energy physics. I'll point out - as I'm sure you already know - that there have been huge leaps in almost every other area of physics, even theoretical ones, in the past 25 years. It's only at the extreme of one spectrum that we seem to have lost steam.

[5614]

I'm sure hoping for something new and exciting to come out of the "new generation" of subatomic-bullies (aka particle accelerators).

 

I've been visiting universities recently and Imperial College London was a great example where too many of the students completing their physics degrees go straight into banking and finance. It offers a great pay and the jobs are easily available especially to students coming out of respectable univerisities with respectable degrees, of which physics is one.

 

The good news is that the physics departments (at least where I'm looking) are all flourishing and somewhat oversubscribed, however the number of graduates who are not going to work in the field of physics is quite high. So with fewer practicing physicists one could argue there is a smaller probability of finding this break-through discovery.

 

But these particle accelerators can, at least for the moment, give us hope of a breakthrough.

[GutZ]

Isn't there funding (large quantities) for projects by "interested" parties and companies?

 

If not maybe there should be ideas projected towards technological advancement if physics passes this threshold. Turn something (From what I understand) is mostly theoritical research, to more of a practicial aspect. To my understanding technological advancement depend on or wait for physics to come up with knew ideas to work with, but may if they worked together as a whole instead of parts they will have more chance.

 

maybe it is different then it was 50 -100 years in the that respect because the influence to discover was greater. Lifestyles were different too. Maybe a new approach is need or a more direct look at what needs to be accomplished instead of "just" researching. Maybe I am just not so comfortanle with waiting for something to happen like particle accelerators. Maybe though thats all you can do.

 

Personally I think computer simulation and generating larger PC to power greater and more complex simulations would benefit not only physics but engineering, medicine, and biology.

 

Where calculations come so close to reality it's difference is almost redundant.

[Locrian]

Isn't there funding (large quantities) for projects by "interested" parties and companies?

 

Sure, just not so much for very high energy physics. And you are right about physics leading the way in many technologies. This has continued to be true regardless of decades where little to nothing has come from hep because physics is more than high energy physics.