Should top Universities engage in nonstring QG research

[kodama]

doesn't tenure address this?

 

[Fra]

I see the main problem in the extremal job uncertainty for scientists. Almost everybody has a more safe job than a scientist, almost nobody has to look for a new job regularly after two years or so when the grant ends, with the risk of the end of the carer as a scientist if he does not find another grant. Such extremal job uncertainty is the opposite of what one would need for an independence of science.

Agreed. Which is why i didnt go this route myself.

My conclusion was that the only way i can keep and defend my own research "independent" was to not mix up my intellectual quest with the practical problem of making a living.

But even so nature limits the extent to which they can ever be truly independent of course, just to avoid illusions!

However ppl have different mindsets and current system likely recruit those which don't insist too strongly on following their own belief.

You want judges who get a grant for two years, and have a hope for a continuation only if they win in a "punish or perish" competition? I'm not. I prefer judges which are really independent. And the way to reach this is to give them a safe job.

What does "truly independent" actually mean?

Resources are bounded so even tenure deployments needs a risk analysis otherwise we should all get tenures. So academia as part of society can never be truly independent. So i argue that the dependence is not a pathology.

/Fredrik

 

[Denis]

But even so nature limits the extent to which they can ever be truly independent of course, just to avoid illusions!

Of course. Independence in fundamental physics is, given the actual situation, restricted to one-person groups without experimental support. But fundamental physics is the domain where experiments do no longer matter anyway. And to create a new direction, one person may be sufficient.

Resources are bounded so even tenure deployments needs a risk analysis otherwise we should all get tenures. So academia as part of society can never be truly independent.

"All get tenures" was the Soviet system. And even if they got almost every wrong in their economy, they were very good in fundamental sciences. So, it worked, and was not even risky. The payment can be low, this is not what scientists care about if they can do what they like.

 

[Fra]

The payment can be low, this is not what scientists care about if they can do what they like.

Yes agree. A passionate scientist value intellectual freedom and growth more than material growth and can thus trade a lower income for freedom.

But i think some kind of quality control is still needed as society face a lot of challenges in which the endavors of those seeking a GUT seem like a luxury problem. And the majority of society most probably does not grasp the potential future benefits of this. And unfortunately we are all in the hands of these people.

Another reason i did not go the mainstream way was that i concluded that i would have to spend significant time in research political battles - also something that does not attract me.

/Fredrik

 

[Denis]

But i think some kind of quality control is still needed as society face a lot of challenges in which the endavors of those seeking a GUT seem like a luxury problem.

This control is easily done over the number of physics students, and evaluation of their knowledge via graduation. In the university, competition among the students may be heavy. If society does not need that many physicists, no problem, don't pay that much for physics departments of the universities.

It may be as well made by payment. Those who work in applied physics, doing things for industry and so on, will get higher payments. High payments for theoreticians may be restricted to those really successful.

 

[Fra]

This control is easily done over the number of physics students, and evaluation of their knowledge via graduation. In the university
...
If society does not need that many physicists, no problem, don't pay that much for physics departments of the universities.

Except for the twist that you suggest that

"don't take in more students than we can afford to give tenured positions when graduated"

this is effectively how it currently works, right?

And its here the dependence lies -universities would then be inclined to adapt their selection of tenured posistions or students for that matter to prevent society from thinking that they don´t need as many physicists. Ie they need to "demonstrate" the community-value of these tenured positions by making sure they are likely to publish things. Thus getting too many physicists onboard that just sit in their closets pondering and publish nothing will make society question what they are doing as the intellectual satisfaction of the individual is not an argument back to society.

I do not like they way - ie. i "wish" the world was different. But i prefer to face the apparently flawless logic behind this non-desirable outcome. An ugly world actually gets instantly more beautiful once you see the logic behind it :) The main problem is that those that dominate decisions does not have our mindset, or our visions. One could choose to try to change this somehow and get into "politics"...

/Fredrik

 

[Denis]

Except for the twist that you suggest that
"don't take in more students than we can afford to give tenured positions when graduated"
this is effectively how it currently works, right?

No. The main problem is that most physicists do not have tenured positions, but grants, for one or two years or so. Take all the money paid for grants, cut something, given that most will prefer a permanent position even if wage is less, and give them all permanent positions. Much less politics (no longer any need to fight for grants), even some economy of money, and much more independence of science.

This proposal is not at all about how much society is ready to pay for fundamental science, this number is taken as given.

Ie they need to "demonstrate" the community-value of these tenured positions by making sure they are likely to publish things. Thus getting too many physicists onboard that just sit in their closets pondering and publish nothing will make society question what they are doing as the intellectual satisfaction of the individual is not an argument back to society.

The "ability to publish" is anyway only an ability to waste resources. "Publish or perish" heavily decreases the quality of the average paper, in particular decreasing its content toward "one publon" (the quantum of new results to be publishable in a separate paper). The papers, as well as their citations, will become even more useful information if the "publish or perish" pressure disappears. One way is to find alternatives for those who are not successful: Public presentations, popularization of science, public discussions with dissenters, education, writing better books, writing software and so on.

Then, think about all the social "sciences", which produce almost nothing useful at all.

I also see the logic behind the idea of competition between physicists, but the point is that observable facts show that the actual approach is wrong. During the time of the scientific revolution where were much more permanent positions, after the university you usually got, if you were good enough, some position as a teacher at the university, those not good enough as teachers in schools or so. Some at patent offices. All these positions were permanent positions - ok, you could be fired if you failed miserably, but there was no such animal as a grant finished automatically after some time.

I suspect those in power are actually quite comfortable with having no longer any independence of science, except in pious speeches.

 

[Vanadium 50]

the LHC showed weak scale supersymmetry does not exist

I really wish you would stop spreading this hogwash.

 

[Fra]

Take all the money paid for grants, cut something, given that most will prefer a permanent position even if wage is less, and give them all permanent positions. Much less politics (no longer any need to fight for grants), even some economy of money, and much more independence of science..

I am not sure what level that would end up at. I mean, a scientist might accept a bit lower payment, but even a scientist has to "live", so there has to be some sensible limit to this, otherwise possibly good scientists that still wants also a "normal life" might be lost as well.

But i have sympathy with what you say.

Then, think about all the social "sciences", which produce almost nothing useful at all. .

LOL. I wouldn't be that harsh :-) It is a matter of perspective. Society after all has many more challenges besides unification of forces.

Even from such a distorted perspective as physics social science has some things where i see strong parallells to open questions in physics where we might learn something! As you maybe know already, Smolin has had imo a brilliant cooperation with social theorist Roberto Unger when discussing this evolution of law ideas.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1107074061/?tag=pfamazon01-20

If you ever try to read that book or the popular version or listen to these talks (http://pirsa.org/08100049/) you might while reading realize the deep similarity with how social laws emerge, rule and evolve AND how physical laws emerge, rule and evolve. IMO Smolins cooperation with Unger is both brave and brilliant.

/Fredrik

 

[kodama]

I really wish you would stop spreading this hogwash.

other physicists have said weak scale SUSY is dead

do you think SUSY will show up at LHC ?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Don't defend your nonsense by hiding behind your anonymous "other physicists". You made a factually incorrect statement. You've made that same incorrect statement in the past. I'm asking you not to keep making it.

 

[kodama]

fine, the latest LHC results strongly disfavor natural susy

 

[Vanadium 50]

That's not true either, and indeed, it's only slightly less false.

 

[kodama]

That's not true either, and indeed, it's only slightly less false.

are you familiar with the latest SUSY results ?

What would be a sentence that you consider to be "true"

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, I am familiar with the latest SUSY results.

I asked you not to keep making false statements. You're arguing with that. Your choice, I guess.

 

[kodama]

Yes, I am familiar with the latest SUSY results.

I asked you not to keep making false statements. You're arguing with that. Your choice, I guess.

what would be a "true" statement regarding natural SUSY and latest results + electron EDM

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, that's not what this thread is about.
Second, my goal is not to waste screen after screen trying to explain something to you. It's to get you to stop posting things that are untrue.