Theoretical Physicist? Go Get A Real Job

[Bignose]

http/www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/06/01/opinion/doc4c04756303926753836832.txt

The article kind funny in a sad way, but the comments are what really make this worth a read.

 

[chrisbassist]

That's odd.

I can see a couple of points in the messy, messy article. Although to be fair, he doesn't seem to be a good enough writer to convey sarcasm, or separate his beliefs from facts.

Easy job? No way.
He's right that after inventing or discovering something you lose control over how it's used, but let's be fair, of course you would be upset if you've discovered a way to harness massive amounts of energy using the atom, and it gets used to kill millions.

There is a comment about being able to prove gravity with maths, I'm sure you can but why bother? I can tell it exists without the maths thanks. I'm sure the maths can be incredibly useful when predicting the affects of orbits or even turns at high speed. But you don't need the maths to prove gravity itself.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Well, you kind of do, for various reasons that are probably not very obvious. Especially when you take into account things like dark energy.

 

[chrisbassist]

Like isay, the maths can be useful for predicting other things, and to reveal things you can't see, but just using it to show that gravity exists it's rather redundant.

Example: analysing the orbits of the planets we could see, told us there was another planet we couldn't yet see. So it has it's use, but using maths to show it exists becomes pointless.

 

[Bignose]

The best comments was that the simple fact that that guy can have his writing posted on online is thanks to an incredible amount of work by theoretical and applied physicists. The fact that a computer works as it does, re-proves the theories on electromagnetism billions of times every second. A theory that was originally proposed by theoretical physics. And, then he has an Internet to connect those computers, the theories of messaging in accurate and fast ways which we being analyzed by mathematicians long before hooking two or more computers together with a wire was even possible. And, I am sure he uses such thing as a cell phone and GPS. GPS satellites only work because the theory of special relativity works (again, first developed by theoretical physics). If this guy ever gets sick and needs an MRI, I think that he'll be pretty pleased that someone dreamed up the theories that allow such modern machines to operate like they do.

And on and on and on.

It is really almost uncountable how much of our modern day-to-day lives are touched by things the physicists were pondering 100-150 years ago.

Does that necessarily mean that what they are doing today will be just as awesome? Of course not. And, if you look through a lot of theories of yesteryear, they ended up being proven wrong. That's a neat paradox of science -- almost every single theory offered up has been proven wrong, and almost every single theory we have today almost undoubtedly will be proven wrong or at least incomplete sometime in the future. ("Wrong" is a loaded word. Take Newtonian physics for example. Technically, it is "wrong" or at least "incomplete", but it is still the foundation of every physics class taught in every school or university on this planet. It may be wrong, but the degree to which it is wrong is completely insignificant for most everyday situations and problems. Newtonian physics are behind every single bridge and airplane design today. Only when things are moving at speeds nearing the speed of light, or when they are very massive, do the errors in Newtonian physics become significant).

But, the process of trying to prove the current theories wrong will no doubt spur the thinking about the replacement theories. And, ultimately that is the true power of science, is that the scientific method also shows objectively when the old theories need to be replaced, and when they are good. And that may be the true point the author of the piece is missing. Is that science in itself is a rational method by which to weed out the unsupported and keep only the supported.

And, someone needs to keep being creative and coming up with the theories to be tested. It is unknowable exactly what will come of the theories being thought of now. (A good example would be that if the King of England in 1850 demanded that his top scientists and engineers develop a way to allow his voice and image to appear in the domicile of every one of his subjects, they wouldn't be able to do it, even with all the wealth of the crown put into the project. At that time, James Clerk Maxwell was doing some theorizing about the nature of electricity and magnetism, and he didn't publish what would be known as Maxwell's equations until 1864. Those equations were the first to accurately describe how electromagnetism works, and would lead to the development of radios and televisons and computers and wi-fi and etc.)

Sure, the only "testing" that can be done with them today is to ensure that they don't make predictions that are wrong with what is known today and are self-consistent. But, someday, there will tests to objectively test whether the theory is right or wrong. So, while it may seem silly or "Star Trek" for someone to sit around and think about wormholes today, who knows what the future holds. What some theoretical physicist writes today may be the reason mankind can travel to distant planets someday. Or, it may end up being proven completely wrong.

Who doesn't get at least a little excited at that kind of thought? Well, at least I do.

 

[chrisbassist]

I believe we will surpass star trek.

If our technology or the power of our tech is doubling every couple of years, pretty soon we will have better software for the physics guys to play with. When they have software which allows quick easy testing of theories against all known data, things speed up more, theories can be set aside or proven quicker.

I don't think it's going too far to say at some point instead of building a regular space station, NASA, or whoever else will be building a ship designed purely for space travel.

We have people working on teleporters, which realign atoms to form an object. That's not far from star trek.

Assuming our computational power continues to grow at it's current rate, I expect my children or their children will at least SEE the launch of enterprise mk 1.

 

[Dave Spencer]

The fact that a computer works as it does, re-proves the theories on electromagnetism billions of times every second. A theory that was originally proposed by theoretical physics....

....It is really almost uncountable how much of our modern day-to-day lives are touched by things the physicists were pondering 100-150 years ago....

Which gives me licence to mention George Boole, a fellow former resident of Waddington village, Lincolnshire, England. This chap is a perfect example of how apparent mindless musings will later form the bed rock of future inventions.

Sadly, I am a forlorn engineer.

Dave.

 

[BecciMac1987]

You lot are all far too intelligent!

** wanders off in a daze thinking who, what, eh? **

 

[dipsydoodlenoodle]

Ok I haven't read the article, but the problem with physics is that a lot of it is "made to fit" - we can't prove it therefore there must be something there...

for example: Glu-ons (spelling?) glu-ons are the particles which hold everything in the world together; they are mass-less, charge-less but SOMETHING must exist to hold things together; therefore glu-ons must clearly exist.

If I'm right in remembering, with atoms, we have a neutron and a proton in the centre and electrons circling from outside...the neutron was "discovered" because there was extra mass but no charge; therefore there "had" to be something existing to bulk it out a bit.

Oh yes physicists can predict time travel, but we can either tell you when it will appear or where it will appear. It's no use saying xx will appear on the 14th june 2010 - WHERE??? the universe is too big to just find it. Or we can say XX will appear on the top of mount everest, the problem is when?

ARGHHHHHHHHHH! lol.

 

[chrisbassist]

Of course things are made to fit. How else can you make theories which have some kind of possibility of being right?

Until you have the means to look at things at a close enough level to SEE all the different particles clearly, and I'm talking neutrons, electrons, etc not atoms. How do we know what's there? It's not like we can look and see what is there, which is why we have to guess at these things. Your glu-on thing shows this quite well, after all, if you get a couple of marbles, there's no way you could get them to hold together with using glue, yet the atoms which form them are held together how?

Oh and beccimac1987, I'm not that intelligent, I just pretend to be.

 

[dipsydoodlenoodle]

Of course things are made to fit. How else can you make theories which have some kind of possibility of being right?

Until you have the means to look at things at a close enough level to SEE all the different particles clearly, and I'm talking neutrons, electrons, etc not atoms. How do we know what's there? It's not like we can look and see what is there, which is why we have to guess at these things. Your glu-on thing shows this quite well, after all, if you get a couple of marbles, there's no way you could get them to hold together with using glue, yet the atoms which form them are held together how?

Oh and beccimac1987, I'm not that intelligent, I just pretend to be.

Held together by magic obviously ; I did physics at university and if my lecturers heard me saying that my head would be off. One of my lecturers said to me "Imagine you were on a train and the guy next to you asked you to explain string theory what would you say..." my first thought was 'wierdo' .

For me it's the fact that everything is "in theory this should be there but we can't prove it".

 

[chrisbassist]

In all honesty I think if someone asked me to explain string theory on a train I'd just say it's the theory of hanging idiots who talk too much to me.

I don't know anything about physics really. I haven't been to uni. So school is as far as regular education had taken me as far as physics is concerned. But I do have one of those brains that analyses everything.

 

[dipsydoodlenoodle]

But I do have one of those brains that analyses everything.

You can tell (I mean that nicely ).

Good sting theory answer

 

[chrisbassist]

Thanks!

I can see all these things around us changing for the better. Better technology, like microwave receivers which can pull more power from the sun in the dark than solar can in daylight, that's impressive and will help us avoid using fossil fuels. But some areas seem to get a little left behind. Economics for example. I'm sure there isn't much physics could do for us in that arena but it requires as much improvement as anything else.

How long before NASA get their elevator up and running do you think?

 

[dipsydoodlenoodle]

I think everything needs updating; I don't see why we don't use nuclear power; it's cleaner (but yes if it goes wrong it's terrible); France use 70% nuclear power for their electricity.