5 ms·
There's a tendency in the popular science world and the physics world to glorify high energy physics, and string theory and all that goes along with it. It's d
by kitchi 10y ago
There's a tendency in the popular science world and the physics world to glorify high energy physics, and string theory and all that goes along with it.
It's definitely useful - After reading one of those books I was pretty convinced I wanted to do a PhD in Physics. I'm currently four years into a PhD in physics, except in something completely removed from what she works on.
There is also a tendency to elevate theorists and denigrate experimentalists. The experimentalists work is often portrayed as 'dull and technical' and they only worry about the details, whereas the theorist dreams up these wild theories in flights of genius. I can't speak for anyone else, but this was true of school where I was from.
I'm just a little tired of this fairly one dimensional portrayal of physicists (theoretical or otherwise). There's plenty of interesting stuff out there that doesn't involve dark matter or strings (or quantum field theory!). Fluid dynamics is endlessly fascinating to me, or non linear systems ("chaos theory").
Lisa Randall is a phenomenal physicist and I don't begrudge the author her admiration - There just need to be more pieces like this about other facets of the sciences.
- rubidium 10y ago"The experimentalists work is often portrayed as 'dull and technical' and they only worry about the details, whereas the theorist dreams up these wild theories in flights of genius. I can't speak for anyone else, but this was true of school where I was from." Woah woah woah. You trying to start a theory/experiment fight? I'll just put in my 2 cents. Experiments are where all the cool action is at. Also, scoreboard: Nobel prize distribution (as of 2014). Theory: 30.75 prizes (28.7%) Experiment: 76.25 prizes (71.3%)
- kitchi 10y ago> Woah woah woah. You trying to start a theory/experiment fight? Hahaha no. I'm an observational astronomer - Everyone hates us! I definitely fall on the experiment side of the argument. > Nobel prize distribution (as of 2014). Theory: 30.75 prizes (28.7%) Experiment: 76.25 prizes (71.3%) I didn't know that, that's pretty neat. Although I was talking more about how the perception is in the general science community (starting from high school onwards). Again, I can't say how true it is outside of where I live, because I haven't travelled much. But it definitely is true here from my experience.
- frozenport 10y agoThere are much fewer theorists compared to experimentalists.
- eanzenberg 10y agoThat's surprising if true because it doesn't take much resources to become a theorist vs. an experimentalist. Usually a modern computer will do. An experimentalist is usually out >$1e6 to setup a novel lab.
- Koshkin 10y agoI, too, have a feeling that in the 21st century theoretical physics (understood as mathematical, or computational, physics) is destined to replace experimental physics in all areas - except those that do not yet have an effective mathematical model to work with. (I do not know if String Theory can qualify as such.)
- frozenport 10y agoAn experimentalism promises results while a theorist promises commentary. In terms of funding, typically a large sum is awarded for equipment and students, and the 1M is never given to theorists.
- jschwartzi 10y agoThey don't typically give the Nobel for theory. For example, Einstein is best known for Relativity but his Nobel is actually for his experimental work on Brownian Motion.
- michael_nielsen 10y ago(1) Einstein's Nobel citation specifically mentions his work on the photoelectric effect, not his work on Brownian motion; (2) his work on Brownian motion was theoretical, not experimental; (3) there have been many Nobels for theoretical work --- all three of the 2016 Laureates, and both the 2013 Laureates, to pick some recent examples.
- jschwartzi 10y agoThank you. I meant to say Photoelectric Effect. I misremembered.
- sidlls 10y agoThat's probably about right, if a little too lopsided toward theory. Physics is empirical. We need hypotheses to test, but we should emphasize "test."
- duaneb 10y agoThis is true for giants of the past, but modern theoretical physicians have no way of distinguishing themselves to the public at large. Meanwhile, experimental physics produce novel results that actually prove other people wrong. I don't think the above effect will continue for much longer, if it is still in effect at all for people doing work now.
- GuiA 10y agoYour comment seems to imply that you got into a physics PhD from a non physics background - is that the case? If so, how can one message you to chat more about it?