Do you think the world needs more theoretical physicists?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether the world needs more theoretical physicists. Participants explore various perspectives on the implications of increasing the number of individuals in this field, touching on education, societal impact, and the potential for misuse of knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that more theoretical physicists could enhance math and science education by providing knowledgeable teachers.
  • Others express concern that an increase in theoretical physicists might lead to more individuals capable of creating dangerous weapons.
  • A participant argues that the potential for misuse of knowledge is not unique to theoretical physicists, as many professions can contribute to harmful outcomes.
  • There is a viewpoint that theoretical physicists are not directly involved in weapon creation, as that knowledge has shifted to applied physics and engineering.
  • Some participants question the value of theoretical research, suggesting it may be a waste of resources, especially during financial constraints.
  • Others counter that while theoretical research may not yield immediate benefits, it can be valuable in the long run.
  • A participant humorously suggests that the world needs fewer politicians and more theoretical physicists, indicating a preference for scientific inquiry over political maneuvering.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on whether more theoretical physicists are needed. Some support the idea, while others raise concerns about the implications of their work and the allocation of resources.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the societal roles of various professions and the potential for knowledge to be used for both beneficial and harmful purposes. There are also discussions about the financial viability and societal value of theoretical research, highlighting differing views on its importance.

xdrgnh
Messages
415
Reaction score
0
I'm sure this was asked before on here. The title is pretty self explanatory. Personally I don't know a good answer to this question. On the one hand you'll have a group of people who are very smart and are exploring why nature is the way it is. Also if there are more theoretical physicist it might have a positive affect on math and science education because more people that know there stuff would be available to teach it. On the other hand though it would mean more people out there who know how to make dangerous weapons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xdrgnh said:
I'm sure this was asked before on here. The title is pretty self explanatory. Personally I don't know a good answer to this question. On the one hand you'll have a group of people who are very smart and are exploring why nature is the way it is. Also if there are more theoretical physicist it might have a positive affect on math and science education because more people that know there stuff would be available to teach it. On the other hand though it would mean more people out there who know how to make dangerous weapons.

... seriously?
 
I'm serious. Are you serious?
 
What thne world needs is fewer politicians.
 
I was thinking the same thing as Pengy. What do you expect to accomplish by asking this question?

There's no governing body that decides when their habitat (temperate plains and labs) are overpopulated and the herd needs to be culled.

Or are you asking for personal reasons? If it's what you were put here to do, then do it. Damn anyone who tells you otherwise.
 
the thread inspired me to make a dangerous weapon out of a fallen tree in my backyard
 
I think the guy has a point. Have you seen a theoretical physicist lately ? They are almost as creepy as the pure math guys.I'm sure all they do is sit in their office an plan on how to give us a slow and painful death.
 
xdrgnh said:
I'm sure this was asked before on here. The title is pretty self explanatory. Personally I don't know a good answer to this question. On the one hand you'll have a group of people who are very smart and are exploring why nature is the way it is. Also if there are more theoretical physicist it might have a positive affect on math and science education because more people that know there stuff would be available to teach it. On the other hand though it would mean more people out there who know how to make dangerous weapons.

Hey xdrgnh.

The world needs a healthy mix of all kinds of people.

One thing that can happen though, is that some people, especially in their own field, think that they need more people in their own field! They may even say that they are under-appreciated by everyone else for the work they do for the rest of us in the world! If you were not in the field and you heard this, what would you think of these people?

Also with regard to people using knowledge to do "bad stuff", why would you worry about a theoretical physicist in contrast to say anybody else? We all have the potential to do anything and that includes being completely selfless or completely selfish. This applies to everyone, but I agree that if you had someone with a position in society with that kind of responsibility, that you would hope that they had certain values that they lived by. It's very rare to find this kind of person though.

If you really wanted to get an informative answer to your question, you would have to gauge firstly what people think a certain occupation "does" and then if they don't know tell them and then ask the question of how "valuable" they think the occupation is to society and in what way.
 
chiro said:
...gauge firstly what people think a certain occupation "does" and then if they don't know tell them and then ask the question of how "valuable" they think the occupation is to society and in what way.

I can see that conversation going well... :rolleyes:

"...and so that's what a mathematician does. Now that you know, do you think the world would be a better place with more of them, Mister ... uh ... Carl of Carl's Loose Meat Eatery?"
 
  • #10
I don't think that having knowledge of building "dangerous weapons" should be an argument to not have more theoretical physicists.

Not quite sure where you were headed with the entire statement to be perfectly honest...
 
  • #11
Physics isn't the only science. There are a lot of poorly written novels out there. Do we really need any more library scientists?
 
  • #12
What the world needs is better antipsychotic drugs liberally dumped into the water supplies.
 
  • #13
I would be a lot more wary of a blacksmith who could knock up a whole load of pretty damn lethal weapons in short order with his bare hands than a physicist who would have to be a billionaire with a super secret head quarters and thousands of specialised minions to make one basic atomic bomb.

By the logic of "do we want people who know how to make dangerous weapons" we would't have any chemists, biologists, physicists, doctors, politicians/public figures (a mob is a dangerous weapon), carpenters, blacksmiths, toolsmiths...the list goes on and on and on.

On the other (rational) hand more scientists allow society to conduct more research and grow both our knowledge and understanding of the world. This allows us to develop better technologies and techniques to ultimately improve both the quality and longevity of our lives. A fraction of that scientific understanding is devoted towards military matters because ultimately human social interaction is interwoven with violent tendencies. But that isn't going to change if you stop doing research, what will change it is more research in social sciences and more application of better economic and social theories towards reducing conflict in the world right through from neighbourhoods to nations.
 
  • #14
xdrgnh said:
On the other hand though it would mean more people out there who know how to make dangerous weapons.
Theoretical physicists for the most part don't make dangerous weapons. That knowledge has long since passed from the realm of theoretical physics to applied physics and engineering. One reason people go into theoretical physics is because they won't be making today's dangerous weapons.

They might however be developing the framework for some future weapon that is even more dangerous than those we use today. But how others use/abuse the knowledge they have developed isn't their problem.
 
  • #15
In financial times as of now, I think too much of theoretical research is a waste of money.
 
  • #16
rootX said:
In financial times as of now, I think too much of theoretical research is a waste of money.

Like what, specifically?
 
  • #17
Ryan_m_b said:
Like what, specifically?

Atom smasher just being one example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15079119"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
rootX said:
Atom smasher just being one example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15079119"

I hear this type of sentiment a lot from people. Why do you think expensive experiments like this should be cut in times of financial stress other than the fact they are expensive? Is it because you don't think they give anything back or that they are unimportant in some way or other?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Ryan_m_b said:
Is it because you don't think they give anything back

They turn out to be very beneficial in the long run but don't give us anything back in short run. We might be better off spending money providing everyone (skilled) jobs during financial stress times.
 
  • #20
I believe it does not.
 
  • #21
I was at my exes place and switched on the TV (I don't have cable anymore.) I was given a liberal dosage of Paris Hilton and some other airheads. Yeah, the world need lots of theoretical physicists.

(Actually, they'll be installing cable for the kids this month. Man, do I regret that decision.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
We don't need theoretical physicists, we need more soldiers, more politicians, more lobbyists, more scammers and anyone who should be on this list. (Sarcasm)

Complete the above list if you feel like it.
 
  • #23
Yes we do! Theoretical physicists are really hot...
 
  • #24
Ryan_m_b said:
I hear this type of sentiment a lot from people. Why do you think expensive experiments like this should be cut in times of financial stress other than the fact they are expensive? Is it because you don't think they give anything back or that they are unimportant in some way or other?

the article linked says it's been superceded. there is no reason to keep every piece of lab hardware running indefinitely. make it a museum or something and move on.
 
  • #25
nucleargirl said:
Yes we do! Theoretical physicists are really hot...

I must be the odd one out then :cry:
 
  • #26
maybe you should try talking physics to girls... give them a presentation or something...
:)
 
  • #27
rootX said:
They turn out to be very beneficial in the long run but don't give us anything back in short run.
That is exactly why such long term research is one of the few things that governments do do better than private industry. Private industry cannot afford to take a long term view (long meaning decades).

We might be better off spending money providing everyone (skilled) jobs during financial stress times.
This is one of the many things that governments do not do better than private industry. And where, pray tell, are those (skilled) jobs, and the (skilled) workers to fill those skilled jobs?
 
  • #28
rootX said:
They turn out to be very beneficial in the long run but don't give us anything back in short run. We might be better off spending money providing everyone (skilled) jobs during financial stress times.

I think it depends on the project but I would argue that big expensive projects are good for the economy in both long and short term ways. Firstly they ensure employment for the thousands of people involved and also for the thousands of people working in companies that have won various contracts. Secondly it would cost more to stop a project and restart it later, take the example of a particle accelerator or ITER, if it was scrapped now it would end up costing billions more at some point in the future to get it started again.
 
  • #29
rootX said:
Atom smasher just being one example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15079119"

Wasn't one of the spinoffs from CERN the www? (Which they were not allowed to patent).
Justifies a lot of physicists economically by itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate How do theoretical physicists know so much?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Other Potential Effects of Recent AI Developments on Physics?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Graduate Greatest Theoretical Physicists of 20th Century?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K
Can one do mathematical physics and theoretical physics at the same time?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Physicists in Industry - Action Needed
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Studying How Do You Evaluate Theories and Physicists in Theoretical Physics?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
The Education of a Physicist (1965)
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Other Overcome Challenges & Become a Theoretical Physicist at 13
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Physics How to go about pursuing career in theoretical physics
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Physics [Nuclear Experiment vs Nuclear Theory] [National Lab/General Outlook]
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K