August 3, 2004
DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO THEIR OWN NAVELS:
After Triumph and Disillusionment, Wonder Re-enters the Story (DENNIS OVERBYE, 7/27/04, NY Times)
For most of the 20th century there had been a general agreement that at the core of physics was what Dr. Galison called "the march inward," the use of larger and more energetic particle accelerators to bore deeper and deeper into the heart of matter, looking for its most basic constituents and the rules they lived by. But by the 1990's, physicists themselves had begun to squabble over priorities, with some arguing that the reductive approach of particle physics, of breaking things into smaller and smaller pieces, left a lot of nature unexplored. [...]Can physics ever scare us or inspire us as much as it did 40 years ago?
The world, you might argue, does not need yet another subatomic particle. But even particle physics has not been about particles for a long time, physicists say. Rather it is about the relationships between particles, the symmetries that nature seems to respect, in short, about the beauty that physical laws seem to embody.
"The goals of the field are much grander now," Dr. Turner said in an e-mail message, ticking off understanding mysteries like the nature of space and time, and how the cosmos began.
Albert Einstein was a world figure long before he wrote a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and caused a project to build an atomic bomb to lurch into motion. Ideas also touch people, which is why books by physicists like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene become fixtures on the best-seller list when they are published.
Physicists think they have a pretty good story to tell these days, about the Big Bang, black holes, dark energy, extra dimensions and multiple universes. In the 30 years I have been following this stuff, it has never been wilder. But the real best seller here is wonder. It was popular science books that reminded me finally why I had been interested in science. There's a whole universe out there, and nobody knows how or why.
Another subatomic particle, it is true, would not bring world peace, tell us what to eat or convince us that God loves us.
Why should we care about science that doesn't ask, nevermind try to answer, the questions that matter? Posted by Orrin Judd at August 3, 2004 7:41 PM
Maybe they don't matter. Maybe they are not answerable by any approach. Who knows?
Anyhow, Fritjof Capra probably sells as many books as Hawking, maybe more, and he asks those questions, but I bet you wouldn't care for his answers.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 3, 2004 8:48 PMMr. Judd;
Because it lets us build cool stuff. Surely even you believe that God gave us the world to master and science is the best way we've found to do so. Is pursuing understanding of reality not then following God's path?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at August 3, 2004 10:26 PMIt's possible to live a life consisting solely of meditation, and attempting to conceive of God.
To anyone doing that, the fact that science has practical applications in making our lives better and more comfortable is meaningless.
However, there has never been a time in human history when any appreciable number of people have opted to live as monks/monkettes, and such a time won't come soon.
Therefore, the frivolities and hedonisms of particle physics and other sciences are likely to continue for some time.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 3, 2004 10:27 PMWe can only get to the questions that matter through the ones we can answer. And it may well be the answers we get along the way don't conform to the questions you prefer.
Oh well.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 4, 2004 7:22 AM"Why should we care about science that doesn't ask, nevermind try to answer, the questions that matter?"
OJ, don't you mean "why should we care about science that doesn't confirm relgion's answers to the questions that matter"?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 4, 2004 9:15 AMJeff, well said.
Dennis Overbye presents puerile comments, and may reflect the perspective of a lot of humanities-oriented writers.
"...the reductive approach of particle physics, of breaking things into smaller and smaller pieces, left a lot of nature unexplored." - - SO WHAT!! there are far more physicists(i.e., outside of particle physics) who do not catch the eye of newspeople, who are contributing in ways that the writers and newspeople find boring.
"Can physics ever scare us or inspire us as much as it did 40 years ago?" - - assessment is based upon, not-so-unexpectedly.. emotional response. What more need be said?
"Physicists think they have a pretty good story to tell these days..." - - even the wino with the cardboard sign at the end of the exit ramp THINKS he has a pretty good story to tell. Dennis Overbye at least deserves applause for getting such a banal piece into the NYT.
"Another subatomic particle, it is true, would not bring world peace, tell us what to eat or convince us that God loves us." - - neither would 90% of the words and ads in the NYT, 95% of the stores in our malls, 80% of Hollywood, ... where does this list end?
Vapidity reigns supreme. Could this dude another NYT intern?
Posted by: LarryH at August 4, 2004 9:28 AMChoose one: super-conducting super-collider, or international space station.
Did we make the right choice?
Posted by: jim hamlen at August 4, 2004 2:32 PMNo
Posted by: Dave at August 4, 2004 2:59 PMNeither one was a good idea. The space station was obviously stupid and so appealed to Reagan.
The objections to the collider were rather more subtle but equally valid.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 4, 2004 9:24 PM"The objections to the collider were rather more subtle"
You mean that it cost 50 BILLION FRIGGIN DOLLARS!!!!
Posted by: Robert Duquette at August 5, 2004 12:03 AMCheap, if it did what it would have been asked.
Turns out, probably, that the same question can be answered a lot cheaper and may be pretty soon.
The problem, as my physics adviser put it at the time, was that the collider money would have displaced, just about dollar for dollar, other government science. Some of which was useful and some vital.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 5, 2004 5:04 PM