What's the hottest area in theoretical physics?

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
In what area of research is the most creative work-----most likely to have longterm significance----currrently being done?


On PF the question surfaces from time to time----who's the greatest living physicist? Who's the most like Newton, but active today, or like Einstein etc.?

Wolfgang77 raised this issue just now, in Community/General Discussion forum, with some reference to "up and comers".

I think to get perspective you need to look at the fields of research first, before you look at personalities.

Unless a person creates an entirely new field of research all by himherself, then much of what decides on the longterm significance of a person's work is how critical the research area is to future developments. Is that too vague? I mean the area matters. So where is the most creative work being done now in theoretical physics, do you think?

cite some examples, with urls or links, if you want
 

LogicalAtheist

Science is really treated differently now. I don't think we're going to have einstien's and newtons again. Partly because science isn't spoken outside of science. The general public doesn't know a damn thing about what science has done, and they aren't educated enough to understand. Also, because the fundamentals have very much been covered. I mean, surely some of them will prove to be insufficient, but basically the niches of the universe have been found out, and we're mostly working on higher levels based upon those initial observations.

As far as hottest areas, my guess would be it's a tie between the large and the small. There's a big race to understand the smallest units and also to get energy from them.

The second area is the large - cosmology, there's a huge field of scientists who studying it because of it's relationship to energy.

Energy is surely at the heart of it all.
 
398
0
I would like to say Solar Physics,

at least it would be a good place for a budding physicist because it has so many unanswered questions combined with excellent experimental data, and the experiments will only improve greatly with time. The Trace and Solo satellites, and other instruments, have produced a treasure trove of information. Just put Trace into your search engine, you'll get the NASA and Lockheed websites.

Combine this data base with the fact that the current theory of Magnetic Reconnection has proved incompetent to account for results, in computer simulations sunspots last fifteen minutes instead of fifteen days or weeks, and I think a good theorist would have a field day finding the right answers.
 
30
0
Hottest area?

Astrophysics seems to be very hot topic right now( Einstiens and nowtonian physics). But it's opinion. Many people might say solar physics or other. Like in market the new demand is Solar cell and Fel cell.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Seems to me the hottest topics are on the quantum theory of gravity and the grand unification.

- Warren
 
477
4
i'd say research in the feild of fusion and other power is probobly the most important in the longterm. but then again it could all be a waste of time.
 
167
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Science is really treated differently now. I don't think we're going to have einstien's and newtons again. Partly because science isn't spoken outside of science. The general public doesn't know a damn thing about what science has done, and they aren't educated enough to understand.

What about the Brief history of time and other books for the layman?

Im sure these things were not around in Newton's time.

People said used to say that there would never be a golfer who could dominate the game again. Then comes tiger woods.
 

LogicalAtheist

Golf doesn't get more complex. It just gets better players.

Anyone who reads a brief history of time isn't a layman.

Remember that over 90% of the population have nothing to do with science at all.

Even wanting to read hawking makes you ahead of the game. Let's not underestimate the unscientific nature of the current population.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Anyone who reads a brief history of time isn't a layman.
Certainly, people who read Hawking's pop-sci are one notch above the normal unscientific populus, but the word layman quite clearly is defined (in OED, for example) as:

"A man who is a nonprofessional."

Certainly, reading Hawking's pop-sci does not make you a professional -- as a result, such people certainly are laymen.

- Warren
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Anyone who reads a brief history of time isn't a layman.
That may be a nice motivational phrase, but it is only valid metaphorically. Popularizations cannot possibly replace years of formal and experimental training, and sometimes make people honestly think that physics (or science in general) is much less involved and detailed than it actually is.

Many readers of such books end up with the wrong impression that they have a "profound understanding of physics, without the unnecesary math". This just cannot be the case.

Those books can be good, as long as people don't loose sight of their purpose and reach.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
quantum gravity

Originally posted by chroot
Seems to me the hottest topics are on the quantum theory of gravity and the grand unification.

- Warren
Roughly speaking I would agree. Actually I asked the question about *theoretical* physics----many of the answers concerned applied physics and specialized problems of modeling and prediction, but were interesting all the same.

Referring to part of what chroot said here, does anyone know a good survey article describing the state of "grand unification" theories?

As for quantum gravity, I know of a good survey article
that came out this spring, Smolin's

"How far are we from the quantum theory of gravity?"

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0303185

It lists the problems that have been answered and those that remain to be solved and gives an overview of the competing theories. I was impressed at how clearly a difficult subject was laid out.
Can recommend it.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
marcus,

I'm about halfway through reading that paper right now. I think I first need to consult some of the "introductory" references contained therein to really understand it.

- Warren
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by chroot
marcus,

I'm about halfway through reading that paper right now. I think I first need to consult some of the "introductory" references contained therein to really understand it.

- Warren
Yes let me say right out that the paper is dreadfully hard going.

But in spite of this it is possible to glean stuff from it!

I do not demand of myself that I understand everything,
and I have also been trying to download some key papers
referred to like his references [17] and [99]

17. Rovelli and Smolin---Spin networks and quantum gravity 1995
99. Smolin---Linking topological quantum field theory and nonperturbative quantum gravity 1995

both are in arXiv and the survey paper gives the url number.

my feeling is that no matter how rough going it is better to
learn the lay of the land directly than to depend entirely on popularized accounts for one's impressions.

I am very glad that you are trying to do this too.

I am beginning to get some intuition of how loops can serve as an algebraic classification of the diffeomorphisms of a manifold.
Dont press me on it, but I'm getting some glimmers. Congratulations to us both for trying to read this quantum gravity survey paper.
 
1,596
0
Hottest area in physics? In the fraction of time after the big bang.
Several trillionf of degrees, many degrees hotter then the temperature inside stars.
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by heusdens
Hottest area in physics? In the fraction of time after the big bang.
Several trillionf of degrees, many degrees hotter then the temperature inside stars.


Yes the planck temperature is E32 kelvin

or more exactly 1.4E32 kelvin

a plausible rough estimate of the temperature during the first natural unit of time
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by chroot
Seems to me the hottest topics are on the quantum theory of gravity and the grand unification.

- Warren
I agree.
 
167
1
Originally posted by chroot
Seems to me the hottest topics are on the quantum theory of gravity and the grand unification.

- Warren

Neither of these theories are much use, as normal quantum is accurate to lots and lots of decimal places and so is relativity in the situations in which they are used.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by plus
Neither of these theories are much use, as normal quantum is accurate to lots and lots of decimal places and so is relativity in the situations in which they are used.
Yes, but they are both trying to describe the same Universe. If one disagrees with the other, one of them must be wrong.
 
167
1
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but they are both trying to describe the same Universe. If one disagrees with the other, one of them must be wrong.

But if you know when to apply both theories, then the combined theory is correct up to equivalence to any other theory produced.

So in my opinion, studying this yields no results in physics, unless it happens to simplify formulae, which I doubt.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
Originally posted by plus
So in my opinion, studying this yields no results in physics, unless it happens to simplify formulae, which I doubt.
We will eventually (in fact, pretty soon!) have the technology to explore energies in which we know quantum mechanics will fail. Pretty soon the grand unification and quantum theory of gravity will be necessary to explain run-of-the-mill experiments in particle physics labs around the world.

Besides, are you trying to say that physics is done? We should just put down our pencils and call it a wrap?

- Warren
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by plus
But if you know when to apply both theories, then the combined theory is correct up to equivalence to any other theory produced.

So in my opinion, studying this yields no results in physics, unless it happens to simplify formulae, which I doubt.
I don't understand the first statement here. You cannot apply both of the theories at once.
 
167
1
Originally posted by chroot
We will eventually (in fact, pretty soon!) have the technology to explore energies in which we know quantum mechanics will fail.
When will we have this energy? Not in next 20 years.

There are plenty of areas in which physicists can work. They don't all work on GUT.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but they are both trying to describe the same Universe. If one disagrees with the other, one of them must be wrong.
We have also two competing models for describing an electron. One as a particle and another as a wave. Now, obviously, the logic that since these models describe something different, either one of them must be wrong, is not considered viable logic.
 

Related Threads for: What's the hottest area in theoretical physics?

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
726
Replies
42
Views
15K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top