Does Physics Still Matter?
I’m not talking pedagogically of course – it’s pretty obvious that engineers, chemists, geologists and even biologists are going to have to keep studying a little physics for the foreseeable future. Certain areas of applied physics, including materials science, plasma physics, atmospheric physics, and optics are pretty solid too. But what about fundamental physics, does any of it still matter?
Legend has it that Prime Minister Gladstone once asked Michael Faraday what the good was of one of Faraday’s inventions. In the legend, Faraday replied: “Well sir, someday you can tax it.” Though the story is probably apocryphal, the technology of electromagnetism that came out of Faraday’s and others’ researches has dominated the world of the twentieth century to the present.
The influence of fundamental physics culminated in the Second World War, where radar (mainly 19th century electromagnetism) and the bomb (mainly 20th century nuclear physics) played key roles in the victory. After the war, funding fundamental physics research was considered necessary for national security and military power, and this rational was dominant for 50 years or more.
Eventually the question was bound to come up – “but what have you done for us lately?” The triumphant climax of twentieth century physics, in some ways as satisfying as Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, was the development of the standard model of elementary particles about a quarter century ago. If we ask about its technological implications though, it’s hard to come up with any. As far as I can tell, it shows us little or nothing new about how to control matter and energy and put them to work for us.
Physicists don’t do fundamental physics for the technology of course – they do it for the fun of it. On the other hand, very few physicists finance their own research. The money to finance physics research comes mainly from the taxes paid by what some Harvard string theorists (a bit ungratefully) have referred to as “the stupid people.” There are certainly many aspects of science well deserving of taxpayer support, but the time may be coming when fundamental physics will have to make its case – and the entertainment of physicists is unlikely to be a clinching argument.
So, what if any aspects of fundamental physics are likely to have technological implications? I’m eager to hear.
Legend has it that Prime Minister Gladstone once asked Michael Faraday what the good was of one of Faraday’s inventions. In the legend, Faraday replied: “Well sir, someday you can tax it.” Though the story is probably apocryphal, the technology of electromagnetism that came out of Faraday’s and others’ researches has dominated the world of the twentieth century to the present.
The influence of fundamental physics culminated in the Second World War, where radar (mainly 19th century electromagnetism) and the bomb (mainly 20th century nuclear physics) played key roles in the victory. After the war, funding fundamental physics research was considered necessary for national security and military power, and this rational was dominant for 50 years or more.
Eventually the question was bound to come up – “but what have you done for us lately?” The triumphant climax of twentieth century physics, in some ways as satisfying as Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory, was the development of the standard model of elementary particles about a quarter century ago. If we ask about its technological implications though, it’s hard to come up with any. As far as I can tell, it shows us little or nothing new about how to control matter and energy and put them to work for us.
Physicists don’t do fundamental physics for the technology of course – they do it for the fun of it. On the other hand, very few physicists finance their own research. The money to finance physics research comes mainly from the taxes paid by what some Harvard string theorists (a bit ungratefully) have referred to as “the stupid people.” There are certainly many aspects of science well deserving of taxpayer support, but the time may be coming when fundamental physics will have to make its case – and the entertainment of physicists is unlikely to be a clinching argument.
So, what if any aspects of fundamental physics are likely to have technological implications? I’m eager to hear.
Comments
Post a Comment