4 ms·

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for

by hugh 19y ago

This is a very interesting question, but unfortunately in this case the author's answer is just the standard scientist's whine: "There's not enough funding for my kind of research". Better possible answers include: a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now b) There are several around, we're just not paying attention c) Einstein was really more of a media phenomenon than a physicist, and he wasn't really any more of a genius than several of his contemporaries, and several of ours. d) There are so many more physicists nowadays than there were a hundred years ago that it's harder for one to stand so far above the others e) Physics is almost over -- there's still things still left to discover, but no surprises on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics left. I'm not actually arguing for any of these possibilities right now, just saying that they are possibilities more interesting than Lee Smolin's "can has more money?" article.

yummyfajitas 19y ago
Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important. The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money: 1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research programs. I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned (foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality. Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it.
- bootload 19y ago
  "... Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion ..." Heretical for Science. I read this and think of some thinkers below each who are/where persecuted in some way for having unacceptable ideas: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin "... Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it. ..." True. Sometimes I think working at the edges of problems and across several fields reduces the chances of recognition. But it's here good ideas & people emerge.
- jamesbritt 19y ago
  "Diversity of ideas is important, ..." Wouldn't that be, diversity of informed ideas is important? Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? (Or maybe they are there, and politics keeps them out of the inner circle?)
  - yummyfajitas 19y ago
    >Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? For one reason or another, one viewpoint gets a leg up on the other one. After this, life is easier for those with the mainstream viewpoint, and new people join the establishment. Case in point: I'm working on a paper right now in foundations of quantum mechanics. I did most of the work with Bohmian mechanics as my mental model (as a result of being exposed to a "deviant"). That viewpoint helped a lot, and I probably wouldn't have built my model without it. Note that the model is completely justifiable without it, but it's an unmotivated magic trick. I've given talks about it from a non-standard perspective. People attack that. I've also talked about it, pretending it's black magic that yields a result everyone knows. People love that. The result is the same, but I have an easier time promoting it if it looks mainstream. It's no wonder people stick to the establishment. Even I'm going to stick to the establishment when it comes time to submit the paper.
nsrivast 19y ago
Lee Smolin's grievances are motivated by a greater concern than simply lack of funding for loop quantum gravity, his primary topic of research. The main problem is the unjustified (given the lack of falsifiable predictions, lack of proper formulation, lack of unique solutions) and unprecedented (given the proportion of string theorists in top-level research institutions) focus on string theories in the current environment. It's about the fate of a discipline, not simply about "not enough funding." See his book The Trouble with Physics for a more passionate defense. I do agree that the answer to "why no Einsteins" is more complicated that Lee Smolin suggests, though I doubt any of (a)-(e) are true, except maybe (a).
Hexstream 19y ago
"Physics is almost over -- there's still things still left to discover, but no surprises on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics left." If less than 100% of alien reports are fake/illusions/hallucinations, then we still have to discover faster-than-lightspeed travel and a bunch of other cool stuff.
nazgulnarsil 19y ago
a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now this is the big one. scientific breakthroughs move in waves, it's not just the right person but also being in the right place and time. However I believe that with all the holes being poked in the Standard Model by dark matter/energy and the fact that we STILL have no idea what gravity actually is, we're headed for another Einstein popping up.
whacked_new 19y ago
f) approaching singularity

by hugh 19y ago

yummyfajitas 19y ago

Actually, to my great surprise, "give my field more money" was only one of his suggestions. It was, in fact, the last suggestion of his, and (at least to my reading) least important. The rest of his answer is quite reasonable, and doesn't even need new money: 1. Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion. 2. Give money/influence to individuals, not to large fiefdoms/research programs. I think he is quite right on this. In at least one area the author mentioned (foundations of QM), even a single person with different views can be beneficial to a department. At Rutgers (where I got my Ph.D.) the math physics group has a single advocate of a deviant view. The department would be weakened if we replaced him with a normal scientist of equal quality. Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it.

bootload 19y ago
"... Seek out people with different points of view and invite them to join the discussion ..." Heretical for Science. I read this and think of some thinkers below each who are/where persecuted in some way for having unacceptable ideas: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Kosko - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin "... Diversity of ideas is important, and we definitely don't do enough to promote it. ..." True. Sometimes I think working at the edges of problems and across several fields reduces the chances of recognition. But it's here good ideas & people emerge.
jamesbritt 19y ago
"Diversity of ideas is important, ..." Wouldn't that be, diversity of informed ideas is important? Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? (Or maybe they are there, and politics keeps them out of the inner circle?)
- yummyfajitas 19y ago
  >Why might it be that people with the background to have an informed opinion on something do not show greater diversity in those opinions? For one reason or another, one viewpoint gets a leg up on the other one. After this, life is easier for those with the mainstream viewpoint, and new people join the establishment. Case in point: I'm working on a paper right now in foundations of quantum mechanics. I did most of the work with Bohmian mechanics as my mental model (as a result of being exposed to a "deviant"). That viewpoint helped a lot, and I probably wouldn't have built my model without it. Note that the model is completely justifiable without it, but it's an unmotivated magic trick. I've given talks about it from a non-standard perspective. People attack that. I've also talked about it, pretending it's black magic that yields a result everyone knows. People love that. The result is the same, but I have an easier time promoting it if it looks mainstream. It's no wonder people stick to the establishment. Even I'm going to stick to the establishment when it comes time to submit the paper.

nsrivast 19y ago

Lee Smolin's grievances are motivated by a greater concern than simply lack of funding for loop quantum gravity, his primary topic of research. The main problem is the unjustified (given the lack of falsifiable predictions, lack of proper formulation, lack of unique solutions) and unprecedented (given the proportion of string theorists in top-level research institutions) focus on string theories in the current environment. It's about the fate of a discipline, not simply about "not enough funding." See his book The Trouble with Physics for a more passionate defense. I do agree that the answer to "why no Einsteins" is more complicated that Lee Smolin suggests, though I doubt any of (a)-(e) are true, except maybe (a).

Hexstream 19y ago

"Physics is almost over -- there's still things still left to discover, but no surprises on the scale of relativity or quantum mechanics left." If less than 100% of alien reports are fake/illusions/hallucinations, then we still have to discover faster-than-lightspeed travel and a bunch of other cool stuff.

nazgulnarsil 19y ago

a) The time isn't right for the emergence of another Einstein just now this is the big one. scientific breakthroughs move in waves, it's not just the right person but also being in the right place and time. However I believe that with all the holes being poked in the Standard Model by dark matter/energy and the fact that we STILL have no idea what gravity actually is, we're headed for another Einstein popping up.

whacked_new 19y ago

f) approaching singularity