Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense? Moved

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the value and relevance of theoretical physics, particularly in light of criticisms regarding its focus and the perceived waste of intellectual resources. Participants explore various perspectives on the significance of theoretical pursuits, the naturalness problem, and the career trajectories of physicists.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants draw analogies between the naturalness problem in physics and external societal issues, suggesting that it may be a pseudoproblem.
  • There are mixed feelings about the significance of criticisms directed at theoretical physics, with some finding them redundant and others questioning the motivations behind them.
  • A participant reflects on the career paths of physics PhDs, noting that many do not remain in academia and suggesting that their training can be beneficial in other fields, such as engineering or finance.
  • Another participant points out that the surplus of PhD positions compared to permanent roles in physics may contribute to the trend of physicists leaving academia.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the value of theoretical physics or the implications of criticisms. Some view the criticisms as valid, while others see them as unfounded or redundant.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the issues surrounding theoretical physics, including the influence of personal biases and the nature of scientific progress. There are unresolved questions regarding the motivations of physicists and the societal implications of their work.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those engaged in theoretical physics, philosophy of science, or the career trajectories of scientists, as well as individuals curious about the intersection of science and societal perceptions.

swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
An interesting essay:

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sumerion and Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
Interesting analogy between the naturalness problem and the Forbes list, which further supports the idea that the naturalness problem is a pseudoproblem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sumerion
Please someone move this to The Lounge and let's see if it sparks some interesting discussion
 
Moved to GD.
 
I saw the title and I immediately expected an article written by Hossenfelder. Turns out she didn't write the article, but the article is still about her book. She makes a career out of hating her previous career now. A questionable decision.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier and weirdoguy
I have to admit I don't really understand why some thinks this being something significant. These warnings and rumblings feels redundant for me.
Inspiration can come from anywhere, really. And it's just human nature that if something seems to work then try it again: regardless of how silly it may be (the whole gambling industry can testify for that). Then some people wins the jackpot and the others got forgotten.
Without a clear lead forward physicists are squeezing their personal lucky coins and fishing for the jackpot.
That's how people work. The result (only the result!) will become science at the end.
 
I don't criticize the choices of people who are much more informed than I.

Established people can be expected to bias things in their own favor. But that doesn't mean its wrong. Or right. Nobody knows.
 
Last edited:
I used to read Hossenfelder‘a blog. As an engineer I found it interesting, even though I am too ignorant to have an informed opinion.

all I know is that many physics PhDs trained In those fields do not stay in them. I used to work with someone trained as a string theorist. Based on this sample size of 1, it is fantastic training. He was probably the best “mathematical engineer” I have ever known. The number of contributions he made to our R&D group was enormous. He left to make big bucks in finance.

not a waste at all. I’d rather have someone like him working on string theory than designing weapons.

jason
 
jasonRF said:
all I know is that many physics PhDs trained In those fields do not stay in them.
That's trivial as there are more PhD positions than permanent positions, and some physics topics don't exist outside academia.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
970
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
967
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K