3 ms·

From the outside, this seems to rhyme with epicycles. You’re missing a core concept, so you pile on complexity to paper over the failed predictions. The indust

From the outside, this seems to rhyme with epicycles. You’re missing a core concept, so you pile on complexity to paper over the failed predictions. The industrial organization failure is understandable. It’s all well and good to say “they should have recognized it wasn’t working and stopped” … but even if that’s true at the macro level, it’s very hard on an individual level. An established physicist working on string theory has every incentive to keep building on that line of research. They have no competitive advantage switching to a new line. The specifics about how much expertise translate how far is beyond me, but it seems that nearby better ideas would have been found given the resources poured into this. This is exactly The Innovator’s Dilemma. It’s even worse in academia than industry because the whole sector is so insular. I look forward to the reinvention of higher education and theoretical research…

ghaff 3y ago
Well, and add to that the fact that it's probably not clear what all these expensively-trained and equipped physicists should be working on. That may not be totally fair but you essentially have a large subset of scientific academia that has very little idea of how to go forward.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  These physicists aren't that expensive, in the grand scheme.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    True. And at least some of them would probably be doing pure math if they weren't doing physics. Some of their toys are, but again probably not that much really in the grand scheme. I think there's just a generalized frustration that a cadre of mostly very bright people seem to have largely spun their wheels for 20 years.
    - RetroTechie 3y ago
      > I think there's just a generalized frustration that a cadre of mostly very bright people seem to have largely spun their wheels for 20 years. Otoh: very possible their work produced spin-offs that were useful in other fields (math advances, thought experiments, practical research tools & equipment, people in other fields having a look at their work from a different angle, etc) AND having bright people chew on a subject for decades & come up (mostly) empty, is a good hint there's nothing there. 'Unknown' vs. 'we've tried hard & not found much' is a useful result by itself. Think of it as reducing the search space.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        The problem with this argument is that it's very hard to quantify or even to test in general. And, of course, the obvious next question then is: if they were working on something else, could that have produced a lot more useful spin-offs?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Oh man, what a shame all these people spent 20 years building tools in math, don't they know they could have been building advertising systems instead, and made a few people enormously wealthy!
      - pbronez 3y ago
        I think it actually runs the other way. Because Physics is in the doldrums, intelligent people trained in Physics show themselves out and start building those advertising systems. Personally I know many people who abandoned Physics to reinvent themselves as data scientists. Good for them that they were able to re-purpose their training; that doesn’t mean physics training is the best way to become a data scientist. My bias is that quantitative social science is a better route, although some of what it gains from focusing on people is often lost through less rigorous mathematics and software development requirements.
  - samatman 3y ago
    The opportunity cost of wasting exceptionally intelligent people on unproductive and useless intellectual labor is substantial. The opportunity cost of those individuals educating exceptionally intelligent students to specialize in this particular blind alley is even greater.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Is it? The world only needs a handful of physics every year. However the world needs a large number of people who are trained in the things you need to be good at complex tasks - they type of training you get when working on string theory.
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      I think you might overestimate how fungible people exceptionally talented at physics might be towards other ends. I was an exceptional physics student and I've frankly never been all that productive at more prosaic tasks. The fact is there just aren't that many people out there interested in string theory for you to get up in arms about. People don't complain nearly as much about mathematicians, who spend their time on much less practical areas of endeavor. Frankly, the fact that some people get to make their living working on marginally-productive things that they like makes me feel a bit warm and fuzzy inside, in a way not unlike the experience I get giving my cat cat food and a place to sleep.
nradov 3y ago
Well noted physicist Dr. Sheldon Cooper did eventually give up on string theory and switch to another line of research. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3554854/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3554854/
gopher_space 3y ago
> It’s even worse in academia than industry because the whole sector is so insular. I look forward to the reinvention of higher education and theoretical research… I went back for another degree a few years ago and from my perspective there's a "here's what the old people think" line drawn in conversations the old people aren't invited to. I don't know if a reinvention is in the cards but there are a lot of folks on their way up who don't seem to be particularly impressed with the current state of affairs.

ghaff 3y ago

Well, and add to that the fact that it's probably not clear what all these expensively-trained and equipped physicists should be working on. That may not be totally fair but you essentially have a large subset of scientific academia that has very little idea of how to go forward.

nathan_compton 3y ago
These physicists aren't that expensive, in the grand scheme.
- ghaff 3y ago
  True. And at least some of them would probably be doing pure math if they weren't doing physics. Some of their toys are, but again probably not that much really in the grand scheme. I think there's just a generalized frustration that a cadre of mostly very bright people seem to have largely spun their wheels for 20 years.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    > I think there's just a generalized frustration that a cadre of mostly very bright people seem to have largely spun their wheels for 20 years. Otoh: very possible their work produced spin-offs that were useful in other fields (math advances, thought experiments, practical research tools & equipment, people in other fields having a look at their work from a different angle, etc) AND having bright people chew on a subject for decades & come up (mostly) empty, is a good hint there's nothing there. 'Unknown' vs. 'we've tried hard & not found much' is a useful result by itself. Think of it as reducing the search space.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      The problem with this argument is that it's very hard to quantify or even to test in general. And, of course, the obvious next question then is: if they were working on something else, could that have produced a lot more useful spin-offs?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Oh man, what a shame all these people spent 20 years building tools in math, don't they know they could have been building advertising systems instead, and made a few people enormously wealthy!
    - pbronez 3y ago
      I think it actually runs the other way. Because Physics is in the doldrums, intelligent people trained in Physics show themselves out and start building those advertising systems. Personally I know many people who abandoned Physics to reinvent themselves as data scientists. Good for them that they were able to re-purpose their training; that doesn’t mean physics training is the best way to become a data scientist. My bias is that quantitative social science is a better route, although some of what it gains from focusing on people is often lost through less rigorous mathematics and software development requirements.
- samatman 3y ago
  The opportunity cost of wasting exceptionally intelligent people on unproductive and useless intellectual labor is substantial. The opportunity cost of those individuals educating exceptionally intelligent students to specialize in this particular blind alley is even greater.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Is it? The world only needs a handful of physics every year. However the world needs a large number of people who are trained in the things you need to be good at complex tasks - they type of training you get when working on string theory.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    I think you might overestimate how fungible people exceptionally talented at physics might be towards other ends. I was an exceptional physics student and I've frankly never been all that productive at more prosaic tasks. The fact is there just aren't that many people out there interested in string theory for you to get up in arms about. People don't complain nearly as much about mathematicians, who spend their time on much less practical areas of endeavor. Frankly, the fact that some people get to make their living working on marginally-productive things that they like makes me feel a bit warm and fuzzy inside, in a way not unlike the experience I get giving my cat cat food and a place to sleep.

nradov 3y ago

Well noted physicist Dr. Sheldon Cooper did eventually give up on string theory and switch to another line of research. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3554854/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3554854/

gopher_space 3y ago

> It’s even worse in academia than industry because the whole sector is so insular. I look forward to the reinvention of higher education and theoretical research… I went back for another degree a few years ago and from my perspective there's a "here's what the old people think" line drawn in conversations the old people aren't invited to. I don't know if a reinvention is in the cards but there are a lot of folks on their way up who don't seem to be particularly impressed with the current state of affairs.