3 ms·

The story of quantum and particle physics is more accessible to most people because of its interplay with modern (i.e., post World War I) popular culture. Peop

The story of quantum and particle physics is more accessible to most people because of its interplay with modern (i.e., post World War I) popular culture. People may not know the technical details, but they've heard of the players (Einstein, von Neumann,...) and they've seen the impact on the world (Manhattan project, World Wide Web). This gives them some basis for relating to news about particle physics. Maybe if we lived in a different world (underwater?), everyone might have heard of Kolmogorov instead. Then we'd be treated to lots of arm-chair speculation about whether Navier-Stokes solutions exist... Even if one doesn't find the physics intrinsically interesting, one can at least appreciate the engineering achievements.

btrettel 6y ago
I'll agree with you that culture is a major factor and that in a plausible alternative history Kolmogorov and others who worked on fluids would be better known. However, I disagree on the point that people see the impacts of modern physics more readily: > Maybe if we lived in a different world (underwater?), everyone might have heard of Kolmogorov instead. We are immersed in a fluid: air. One could argue that the 3 orders of magnitude difference in density could be a factor in popularity, but I'm not so sure. > one can at least appreciate the engineering achievements I don't think that (e.g.) aerospace engineering had worse achievements or marketing than nuclear weapons. Around and after WWII both made huge and impressive advances. One could argue that aerospace engineering was more visible as well, with flying being a common mode of transportation and the exploration of space being of popular interest. For some reason that doesn't seem to make fluid dynamics as interesting to most folks as modern physics. (Though I certainly would claim that the space race in particular improved the standing of fluid dynamics.)

btrettel 6y ago

I'll agree with you that culture is a major factor and that in a plausible alternative history Kolmogorov and others who worked on fluids would be better known. However, I disagree on the point that people see the impacts of modern physics more readily: > Maybe if we lived in a different world (underwater?), everyone might have heard of Kolmogorov instead. We are immersed in a fluid: air. One could argue that the 3 orders of magnitude difference in density could be a factor in popularity, but I'm not so sure. > one can at least appreciate the engineering achievements I don't think that (e.g.) aerospace engineering had worse achievements or marketing than nuclear weapons. Around and after WWII both made huge and impressive advances. One could argue that aerospace engineering was more visible as well, with flying being a common mode of transportation and the exploration of space being of popular interest. For some reason that doesn't seem to make fluid dynamics as interesting to most folks as modern physics. (Though I certainly would claim that the space race in particular improved the standing of fluid dynamics.)