Physics in America at Crossroads and in Crisis

[yevaud]

<b>Physics in America at Crossroads and in Crisis, Panel Says</b><br /><br />By DENNIS OVERBYE<br />Published: April 27, 2006<br /><br /><i>Physics in America is at a crossroads and in crisis, just as humanity stands on the verge of great discoveries about the nature of matter and the universe, a panel from the National Academy of Sciences said yesterday.<br /><br />The United States should be prepared to spend up to half a billion dollars in the next five years to ensure that a giant particle accelerator now being designed by a worldwide consortium of scientists can be built on American soil, the panel said. If that does not happen, particle physics, the quest for the fundamental forces and constituents of nature, will wither in this country, it said.<br /><br />"That is a risky investment," Harold T. Shapiro, an economist at Princeton and chairman of the 22-member commission, said yesterday at a news conference in Washington.<br /><br />But, Mr. Shapiro added: "It's least risky path we could find. To stay where we are is equivalent to folding our cards."</i><br /><br />Full Story <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

Never happen -<br /><br />Congress killed our earlier super collider project and I don't see any basic changes in congress that would cause them to feel less indifferent to scientific funding...

 

[kmarinas86]

In any case, the old expensive particle accelerator technology will be made obsolete by newer technologies such as this:<br /><br />http://www.symmetrymag.org/cms/?pid=1000091

 

[doubletruncation]

I feel like they don't do a good enough job justifying why the public should care about us not spending a half billion dollars on a massive accelerator. Don't get me wrong, I love physics and would happily see congress spend money on this, but I just think they don't do a very good job selling the project to most people. I think that saying particle physicists will have to move to Europe is not really going to convince most people that they should shell out that much money. Nor is just saying that this is fundamental physics. Sure it's not going to give us better refrigerators... but there must be some way to convey why this is such a beautiful, interesting, and important thing for humans to do... something more than just calling it fundamental physics. <br /><br />I don't know exactly what I'd like them to say in the newspaper though... Does anyone have a good way of justifying it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Yes. We base our national prowess on being a technologicaly powerful nation, always on the cutting-edge. Not doing this up would be tantamount to stating we've given up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Firstly, what rational justifies spending oodles of billions building a massive project, rather than figuring out a way to do the same thing smaller, cheaper.<br /><br />Secondly: who says that its governments job to pay for it? What industries would benefit from this collider? Let them pay for it.

 

[doubletruncation]

I don't think any industry will benefit from it (financially) - which is precisely why I think the government should be the ones to pay for it. I think it's in the interest of humanity to observe the world around us in the hopes of getting a better idea of what we're doing here. Everyone benefits since the information becomes freely available. You can't sell this kind of information (sure you can write textbooks and magazine articles - but you can't copyright the fundamental laws of physics so you can't ensure that you will profit from your discoveries even if the whole world enjoys them), so I think it would be flawed to say that the people who are interested in this information should pay for it - everyone will reap the benefits regardless of whether or not they paid for it. In the long run these types of investigations may actually become profitable for a business - but what industry is really going to risk that much money without having any idea where its profit is going to come from? Frankly, I don't think we should only do things as a society if someone thinks they can profit from it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Firstly, what rational justifies spending oodles of billions building a massive project, rather than figuring out a way to do the same thing smaller, cheaper.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Granted - cosmology etc. may be quite promising. However, there is an advantage to doing accelerator experiments in that you get to control the experiment. Cheaper methods, I imagine, will always involve much more uncertainty in modeling to understand just what it is that you are measuring.<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

our problems go far deeper than a plithy particle accelerator. simply, america is just not producing enough scientists and engineers from year to year as compared to china, korea, japan, or india, for example. we are in the opposite of a "baby boom." america is bereft of adequate numbers of it's own citizens --a personnel shortage is afoot and is going to only exaggerate in the decades to come. <br /><br />as a nation, america is pathetically lacking in educational quality, overall, as compared to the above mentioned nations, as well. america is falling FAR behind in the sciences and this is merely the beginning of the end for america's "dominance" in world sciences and technology. america is undergoing an entire shift in it's worldly status right before our eyes and nobody gives a damn. nor is it really fixable as it has now taken on a life of it's own, marching to an inevitability of 3rd or 4th string quarterback status.<br /><br />furthermore, as the standard of living in this country goes from 1st to 3rd world status, which is happening, droves and throngs of engineers and scientists from abroad will flood the market with cheap and cutting edge talent --a process that is already actually happening. with the gigantic birth counts of "ethnics" other than u.s.citizens, and those peoples beginning to take the front seat insofar as sheer numbers --becoming the majority with no allegiance to america whatsoever, ie, multiculturalism--- america is under an inevitable edict of complete sell-out status currently supported by the so-called conservative bush administration. <br /><br />the existence of a mere particle accelerator, as in the story, will not in any way curtail this runaway train of sinking status for american science and technology. <br />

 

[spayss]

"If that does not happen, particle physics, the quest for the fundamental forces and constituents of nature, will wither in this country, it said." <br /><br />Overblown exaggeration. This type of rhetoric just attracts detractors to tell them to kiss the taxpyer's ass. <br /><br /> Sure, it would be great to have eneryone's billion dollar project funded but, if it isn't , all those physicists around the USA are going to take up carpentry? Some projects to promote pure science (this is one) have value that is hard to measure but the alternative isn't 'crisis'. <br /><br />

 

[hayagreeva]

SUBhysics in America is at a crossroads and in crisis,<br /> just as humanity stands on the verge of great discoveries<br /> about the nature of matter and the universe, a panel from <br />the National Academy of Sciences concludes in a new report. <br /><br /><br />"Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time, <br />Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics.<br />" Among its other recommendations, the group said the <br />United States should energetically pursue international<br /> collaborations in high-energy physics, expand programs in <br />related fields of research like cosmology and underground <br />experiments and take steps to make a long-term plan for<br /> particle physics research and then carry it out.<br /><br />IN REPLY: I suggest EAST-WEST INTERACTION and search for NEXT DIMENSION OF KNOWLEDGE ROUTES<br />Search:Google- Cosmology Vedas<br />Search beyond present day science: see key words<br />Interlinks many fields<br />http://in.geocities.com/vidyanand1941

 

[yevaud]

This was informational only, as in a news story. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

hayagreeva,<br /><br />Since you do not seem to look at PM's, I will have to do this publicly - please refrain from this sort of form letter dominated response to discussions. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Thank you, Wayne. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Some years ago (15 - 20), teaching positions in Physics were hyper-competitive and very hard to get, down even to the 2 year college level. <br /><br />I have lost some degree of touch with academia, so I do not know if that is still true...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I suspect this article is more than cynical and pessimistic, yet there is a grain of truth to it. We really must continue to fund big-ticket Physics venues or we are no longer in the running. I have felt this since the SSC was cancelled.<br /><br />Our prowess and strength is supposed to be technology and science. How can we remain so if we don't invest in it? Was the SSC less important than Robert Byrd's "Highway to nowhere?" <br /><br />Imagine if we had built the SSC. Where would we be now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[hayagreeva]

SUB:Earth"s Glow as Index: Cosmic Signatures<br />Search following:Earthshine inspires hunt for alien life<br />http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9223<br />Researchers demonstrated the potential for using Earthshine as a “practice” case for spotting life signs from other Earth-like planets, in a session at this week’s joint assembly of the American Geophysical Union in Baltimore, US. <br /><br />Leonardo da Vinci is credited as the first to explain the Earthshine effect, which is caused by sunlight reflecting off the Earth and illuminating the parts of the Moon that would otherwise be in total shadow.<br />Earthshine observations offer a potential window into the role of clouds in climate change. Variations in cloud cover affect Earth’s total reflectivity and so register as slight changes in the brightness of Earthshine from month to month. <br />2.Annexure - 3<br />EARTH'S GLOW AS INDEX TO COSMIC SIGNATURES<br /> The Cosmic Glow around Earth Planet should help to form an index to Intellectual growth. I consider this as a significant start when one looks at the Earth as a floating Body and the entire Solar System as a Reflector. The Van-Allen Belts, this Glow and the Solar Storms should provide the clues to Nature's function. What is the Cause? Where is the Effect?<br /> I have a number of Research reports (available) as background and I sincerely wish fellow Scientists to proceed carefully towards integration of various fields of Sciences that help understanding the Cosmic Function of the Universe. I suggest the following:<br />1.Assume a region beyond Sun i.e. say 12 Suns as a link. Here Philosophy through VEDAS provide a key. PRIDHVI - the Earth region is connected up to 100 m beyond Sun.<br />2.One reasonable assumption is AGNI- RAM in Philosophy at or around 1 Light Year. This helps to integrate all data around Earth for 365 days.<br />Search Philosophy through Scienti

 

[qso1]

doubletruncation:<br />I don't know exactly what I'd like them to say in the newspaper though... Does anyone have a good way of justifying it? <br /><br />Me:<br />Its very difficult to justify what much of the public really doesn't understand or worse, care about. But in all fairness, they see education system going downhill, $400 billion deficit, Iraq, the nuts and bolts of living is what they worry about. NASA has the same problem justifying human space flight.<br /><br />In the part of your statement I pasted at the top, you answered your own question in a way. The people who actually do the work often are not that astute at presenting their rational for it publically. I think the physics community will have to find a "Carl Sagan" styled populist scientist who understands what they are lobbying for. That person could be the chief spokesperson for the project. NASA needs one too.<br /><br />BTW, I see my response is a month late but I just became aware of this thread today, I thought it was a new one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

It's easy to justify physics research that has more direct benefits, and there are a lot of areas where it does; in solar energy, nuclear power, energy storage, biophysics, basic advances in semiconductors and electronics. All modern disk drives use a physics breakthrough called colossal magnetoresistance, or something like that, which multiplied drive capacity by a factor of 1000. Astrophysics has a lot of support because the astronomy community is organized. I recently saw a fantastic patient treatment system that uses proton beams generated by a real cyclotron and directed to various treatment areas by a beam path that looks like a real linear accelerator! The entire system looks like a particle physics lab, and is a major advance in treating many serious forms of cancer. Oh, and it was made in Europe! Physics isn't just giant accelerators; physicists should be interested in anything that involves energy and matter (which is almost everything), and applied research is as important as theretical research. <br /><br />Second, the physics community must organize and attract interested public. Scientific American magazine probably does the best job at this. Finally, read Albert Einstein's book "Relativity: A simple explanation that everyone can understand." It isn't a superficial book "about" science. Einstein was confident the interested layperson could actually understand not just what he had discovered, but how. He explores fundamental ideas about logic ("Are the axioms of mathematics "true"?"), the concepts that underlie scientific theory ("The system of co-ordinates"), and even, at the end, takes you through the actual process of discovery ("A simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformations"). After struggling over the path he dances along so effortlessly you say, amazed, "It's so simple! The Lorentz equations and E=mc2 follow directly from the constancy of the velocity of light. Now why didn't I think of that?".<br /><br />This is what we need to win public sup

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>doubletruncation: Does anyone have a good way of justifying it?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'd say if you have to justify it, it is too late. I mean you didn't have to justify funding all kinds of things like that to nation something like fifty years ago, at least not like these days. Then there was still enthusiasm from big advances in physics from the first half of twenties century and peple haven't been hit yet by this anti technological drive (back to nature) that they suffer from today. America untill nineteen sixties was fairly healthy and optimistic nation. And then there were the major discoveries of quantum mechanics and atomic power (Hiroshima) from first half of the century behind them and excitment of going to moon for the very first time etc etc. <br /><br />Second half of last century till today, physics made no fundamental advances, we still use QM and nuclear power more or less as discovered when it was discovered. Then also those advances made front pages of newspapers and even ordinary folk sensed it was something important even if they didn't understand it. <br /><br />Today's arcane advances that physics makes are so obscure that scientists themselves have trouble believing it deserves funding unless its their pet corner of it. And as I said, technology and science doesn't have the pull in todays back to nature green times. That's where the lack of new scientists comes from.<br /><br />Europe I'd say is funding some fundamental physics projects as a way to come up against USA at least in some ways if they can't compete economically. <br /><br />Bottom line is that fundamental science, physics, has ground to halt and became esoteric 'make work' pursuit in tenured positions in academia. Sure some of it is valid pursuit but mostly it is too arcane involved stuff that has no meaning for anybody except for scientists themselves or their enthusiastic followers - amateur scientists like us. <br /><br />QM pu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

vulture2:<br />It's easy to justify physics research....<br /><br />Me:<br />To you and me maybe, tell all that to Joe sixpack who is mainly interested in whether his kids are getting the quality education they should recieve or whether his tax dollars should go to rebuilding Iraq while his neighborhood streets are still in need of repair, rebuilding. When you tell most people that "All modern disk drives use a physics breakthrough called colossal magnetoresistance..." They will probably scratch their heads then say something like, "We need schools, infrastructure and the government wastes our money on this?" And I'm giving that as an example, not that thats what I think.<br /><br />vulture2:<br />Second, the physics community must organize and attract interested public. Scientific American magazine probably does the best job at this....<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree to a point on the Scientific American thing, but even they are still targeting a more specific market. But if the average person should look at it, your right, they have a better chance of understanding whatever is being written about because its gets closer to being in laymens terms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

vanDivX : welcome to the forums!<br /><br />About the points you have made, there are areas in which physicists have made major discoveries and improvements in the past few decades:<br />1. Astronomical physics has made significant strides in explaining observed astronomical phenomena.<br />2. Solid state physics has made huge strides in the understanding and manipulating semiconductor materials.<br />3. Big strides have been made in demonstrating and explaining Bose-Einstein condensates and high Tc superconductor physics.<br /><br />I do agree with you in one respect; I do think theoretical physics has become esoteric, non-experimental and has lost touch with much of society, technology and even scientists in other areas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yevaud: humanity stands on the verge of great discoveries about the nature of matter and the universe ... giant particle accelerator ...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>we were on 'the verge' of something big too many times already, as much as I see that money spent on science is definitely better spent than on some public welfare where it won't do any good anyway (on the contrary), I just don't see that this giant accelerator ring would bring about those big discoveries that the existing accelerators didn't when the same hopes were put into them when those were in design stages.<br /><br />Reason is, I don't believe in those theories that the present and projected accelerators are designed to test. At the same time I wouldn't dismiss high energy collision experiments as such. Its just that it has got to the point where maybe the expenditure doesn't warrrant possible results regardless of those theories it is designed to test.<br /><br />Probably others here will remember what I have read somewhere a while back, some article or book about giantism as the end of physics or something along those lines, when the lack of new ideas leads to replication of the current way of doing physics on larger and larger scale and that that is a sign of physics approaching dead end. <br /><br />Perhaps the 'crisis' and this accelerator funding difficulties are not as tightly related as the "panel from the National Academy of Sciences said yesterday" and that if this accelerator gets funded, it might still not fill schools with budding scientists. That depends more on the times we live in, not so much on the results science gets or not or even opportunities.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Welcome aboard, vanDivX!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Perhaps the 'crisis' and this accelerator funding difficulties are not as tightly related as the "panel from the National Academy of Sciences said yesterday" and that if this accelerator gets funded, it might still not fill schools with budding scientists.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't think that the accelerator would fill schools with more students. Rather, wherever the accelerator gets built, it will attract a certain number of professors to do their research with it, and consequently the quality of education might diminish as well. I'm not sure how valid that concern is, but I think that's what the fear really is about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i agree w/you that the existence of such an accelerator will not really do jack diddly bop to overhaul or realign america's scientific leadership status. it's too little too late of a propostion. all of science does not revolve around a particle accelerator.