I don’t think that most scientists today are blindly following current research like some sort of religious dogma. Most all scientists still heavily rely on experimentation to confirm their hypotheses. There are laboratories all over the world that do different, specialized physics research ranging from plasma physics to optics. The LHC is constantly running providing mountains of data for particle physicists to interpret and understand. So there’s nothing lacking in reality-rooted science-- especially today when new technologies and discoveries are popping up like crazy. With recently discovered materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes as well as a better understanding of quantum physics, a lot of great stuff is in development right now. And it’s all incredibly polished and peer-reviewed.
As for the landscape on theoretical physics, the goal for any field is to jump its work towards experimentation as soon as it can. Physicists are incredibly interested in reality and are always trying to find ways to test their assumptions. However, in the case of fields like String Theory, the science done does not have a feasible way to verify it yet. Are scientists ecstatic about this? No. Are these scientists doing what they can to move their work to something more rooted into reality? I would argue that they are. String Theory seems to be the field that gets the most publicity in the realms of theoretical physics, but there are also many other schools of thought that have experimental basis to back up their thought.
Here’s a video on NPR discussing the merits of String Theory and other fields of theoretical physics if anyone is interested: npr.org/templates/story/stor … Id=5670911
String theorists, however, do not comprise of the bulk of physicists working today. Though they are a massive public figure in theoretical physics, they are not the standard for how physics is conducted today nor should they be. Most physics is experimental and continues to advocate the tried and true scientific method for replication and peer-evaluation of research. The LHC is giving tons of data for physicists, as are the various research laboratories all over the country. None of this is any different from how physics has operated in the past. The center of the picture is still interpretation of experimental data and will continue to be interpretation of experimental data.
So I would like to place emphasis on the fact that physics, by no means, is waiting for technology to catch up, as is mentioned in the OP. The frontiers of physics are not at a stand-still waiting for some new conceptual model to revolutionize everything. On the contrary, there’s still a lot to learn about and understand about different realms of physics and engineering marvels like the LHC have only begun to give us a deeper understanding about what makes up the universe and how we can apply it.
In addition to this, it is obvious that String Theorists choose to dedicate their time to that field because they feel like it is a promising venture.This is the same reason that String Theory skeptics do not spend time working on String Theory and instead focus on other contemporary theoretical models like Loop Quantum Gravity and other stuff. I don’t think that any sane scientist is working on something that he knows will bring about no new scientific knowledge. Despite 10 years of not tying any sort of work to experiment, String Theory is still going strong, which may appear to be the work of some sort of dogmatic pressure from the physics community, but it’s definitely still operating for a reason. There’s something innately appealing about String Theory that compels physicists to continue research, which is alluded to in a lot of texts on the subject: The astounding beauty of the theory and its incorporation of many ideas in physics (Not that I personally know what these ideas are, but the books on String Theory that I have come across seem to all hold that belief). So I say let them continue doing what they believe to be a promising pursuit. I, for one, do not possess the scientific know-how to be content with an active discouragement of what they want to do and only if I become familiar with the mathematical models involved will I be able to arrive at an informed decision as to the prospects of the field.
And, once again, String Theorists are the exception, not the rule. There are many fields of theoretical physics that do, in fact, conduct experiments and aren’t exclusively mathematical squabblings on a blackboard. So physics hasn’t arrived at some sort of bleak future where physicists are scratching their heads, clueless as to where to direct their efforts next. There are a lot of people working in all sorts of different fields all trying to contribute to the big picture of science in whatever way they see fits.
You seem to have made the mistake of running with the ball here, I didn’t say it was the b all, just that fairy tales should be left to when you are a child.
Physics has been stalled for decades. String theory has absolutely failed (see Woit), HEP is going nowhere, celebrities talk moonshine, and the media promotes woo. There are good physicists out there but they struggle to get their papers into journals and thence out to the public at large. IMHO the big advance is coming out of condensed-matter physics and optics, but it’s being held back by vested interest on the theoretical side. Physics has always been like this to some extent, but nowadays it seems more like a “mystery business” than ever.
are you saying that the last 110 years has been a real bust for physics. we need to be more patient.
there are other things more important that are stalled in our society that will do us in.
No. I’m saying there has been scant progress in physics for decades. Governments and the public are running out of patience with theoretical physics, which is increasingly looking like pseudoscience, hence we’re seeing funding cuts. Try listing some important advances in the last 30 years and you’ll appreciate why I say this.
well i will say you have a point. but on the other hand. i cant believe the government is not spending money on hydrogen fusion here on earth for energy. IDK really. What has happened in your life that leads to this writing. why no patience.
I know too many good physicists with good papers struggling to get them into journals. They end up settling for a low-impact journal, whereupon the paper is “studiously ignored”. Meanwhile Hawking gets front-page billing in The Times for M-theory, the anthropic principle, and the multiverse. Try listing Hawking’s validated contributions to physics to further appreciate what I’m saying. See Doug Coulter’s website re fusion, along with The World’s Simplest Fusion Reactor by Tom Ligon.
It means either you wrong in your assessments of who is a good physicist, the good physicists you refer to are exceptions rather than rule or that the community of physicists doesn’t have professional or intellectual integrity.
You appear to be voting for the third option and so do I. But that seems to apply to all expert professions where the only accountability of the indivduals is to a community of experts and not outsiders.
I quite agree String theory is little more than religion dressed up as science for idiots.
That doesn’t annoy me human thought needs to be unrestricted, but lets call it what it is a hypothesis and a philosophically interesting mathematical sphere not a scientific theory, cart before the horse much?
It should be in a museum under follies!
Maths is not science unless it is applied, it is merely mental masturbation until then.
Thanks turtle. Yes, I do expect change, but these things take time.
IMHO it isn’t black and white like that. Think of the community of physicists as something like the community of people in a country. Only it’s a small medieval country operating under the feudal system. Many of those people are downtrodden serfs.
I guess I’m trying to offer a fourth option.
There is some truth in that. People are people, they form interest groups, they place their own interests and reputation above progress and public benefit. But IMHO it would be very wrong to suggest that all physicists are like that.
Calrid: I agree that mathematics is an issue at times. It’s a vital tool for science, we can’t do physics without it. I think of it as something like a car jack. I wouldn’t want to be without it, but it shouldn’t be in the driving seat. The scientific method should be in the driving seat instead, with its vital connection to empirical evidence and scientific evidence. I’m afraid to say that some “theories” appear to be deliberately insulated from this.
It was much more medieval when it was making strident progress! But the feudal lords (of physics) of the time had the intellectual integrity to acknowledge when they were bettered by a serf.
I am not trying to say every individual physicist lacks professional and intellectual integrity. There is no way of knowing that unless you actually know the physicist in question. But the community as a whole lacks it. But that is not unique to physicists and can be seen happening to almost all professional communities.
I know a few physicists myself and most of them quit active research in physics because they wouldn’t give up what it takes to be successful. About the only one I know that continues in the field is one who is no longer interested in talking about what he does.
Nature of humanity sooner or later morons will bring themselves down. Sadly though physics people really aren’t all that moronic but they suffer from the same flaw of hubris, pride and greed as everyone else. And of course the same lack of common sense of most herders and zealots. Help the herd destroy a hypothesis or a theory if you have time, the laws might be a bit tricky though.
How many physics professors does it take to screw in a light bulb?
