4 ms·

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that the non-string-theory camp (Rovelli, Smolin etc.) have a fairly large (probably justifiable) chip on their shoulder

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that the non-string-theory camp (Rovelli, Smolin etc.) have a fairly large (probably justifiable) chip on their shoulder regarding the amount of funding and support that string theory research has had over the last few decades, in comparison to "competing" theories. It's a pity to see this come out in some of Rovelli's statements in this interview, because the rest of it is so wonderfully measured and thoughtful.

grizzles 12y ago
It needed to be said. Nowadays theoretical physicists are often working on theories 100 years ahead of even the chance of empirical validation. I for one would like to see a greater portion of funding going towards experimental physics. Here is a startup analogy. One is having a dream about building google and writing a paper about it. How it might work, eg. 20% time, etc. The other is actually building google.
- afafsd 12y ago
  We're already spending vast amounts of money on high-energy experiment, and building ever-larger particle smashers seems to have limited payoff from here on out. I don't know how to figure out quantum gravity. I don't even know how to do an experiment which could distinguish between different models of quantum gravity. But I do know there's plenty of other interesting stuff (much of which is actually useful) we don't know about physics at other scales which we can spend our time and money on.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > We're already spending vast amounts of money on high-energy experiment, and building ever-larger particle smashers seems to have limited payoff from here on out. This sentiment has a long and storied past. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everyt... > But I do know there's plenty of other interesting stuff (much of which is actually useful) we don't know about physics at other scales which we can spend our time and money on. Yes, true, but the low-level stuff only describes. Theory formation attempts to explain. Explanations are required for science.
- Mvandenbergh 12y ago
  >I for one would like to see a greater portion of funding going towards experimental physics. What do you imagine the current portion is? Most funding does go to experimental physics.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    True. If you count heads, there seems to be an equal number of theoretical and experimental physicists. But if you tally budgets and compare the cost of an accelerator versus the cost of a blackboard, experimental physics has a much higher cost.
    - mtdewcmu 12y ago
      Perhaps we should pitch in a little more so that the experimental physicists can also have blackboards.

grizzles 12y ago

It needed to be said. Nowadays theoretical physicists are often working on theories 100 years ahead of even the chance of empirical validation. I for one would like to see a greater portion of funding going towards experimental physics. Here is a startup analogy. One is having a dream about building google and writing a paper about it. How it might work, eg. 20% time, etc. The other is actually building google.

afafsd 12y ago
We're already spending vast amounts of money on high-energy experiment, and building ever-larger particle smashers seems to have limited payoff from here on out. I don't know how to figure out quantum gravity. I don't even know how to do an experiment which could distinguish between different models of quantum gravity. But I do know there's plenty of other interesting stuff (much of which is actually useful) we don't know about physics at other scales which we can spend our time and money on.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > We're already spending vast amounts of money on high-energy experiment, and building ever-larger particle smashers seems to have limited payoff from here on out. This sentiment has a long and storied past. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everyt... > But I do know there's plenty of other interesting stuff (much of which is actually useful) we don't know about physics at other scales which we can spend our time and money on. Yes, true, but the low-level stuff only describes. Theory formation attempts to explain. Explanations are required for science.
Mvandenbergh 12y ago
>I for one would like to see a greater portion of funding going towards experimental physics. What do you imagine the current portion is? Most funding does go to experimental physics.
- lutusp 12y ago
  True. If you count heads, there seems to be an equal number of theoretical and experimental physicists. But if you tally budgets and compare the cost of an accelerator versus the cost of a blackboard, experimental physics has a much higher cost.
  - mtdewcmu 12y ago
    Perhaps we should pitch in a little more so that the experimental physicists can also have blackboards.