FWIS3

Fotini Markopoulou, who walked away from theoretical physics. (At least for now.) Currently she runs a company developing useful-but-artsy gadgets based on cognitive science.

Another nail in the coffin of the idea that Science/Logic and Art/Emotion are complete opposites IMO.

OTOH, this

“String theory has a very strong pecking order,” she says. “It comes with a strong machismo: What complicated stuff can you do? They’re very good at maintaining that.”

leaves me pretty uneasy, seeing how similar machismo and pecking order crap sometimes hampers computer stuff. Same could be said of how she distinguishes between "beauty" and "truth", a distinction that was not in vogue last time I was reading about String Theory.

GJ ... like me, I bet you have very little of interest to add to String theory or any of its variants.

@squ1d

No, I don't. But that is not what I'm talking about.

Edit: I appreciate that orthodoxy can be a needful thing in the sciences. And sure I don't know what I'm talking about re: string theory. You're right about that.

But seriously, does "We're laying you off because you're working on less popular theory" sound like a good thing in an academic setting? Not a normal thing, mind, a good thing.

The thing is in academia is there is insanely little money to support everyone who wants to do it. String theory has even less than my field, and I guarantee you that any permanent position probably has at least 200 applicants, of whom a few dozen are likely good enough to be successful at it. And frankly, they've done studies that show grants are literally crapshoots. And then, of course, whoever gets money trains PhDs to work on what they work on, because that's what they're familiar with.

Am I defending the fact that one theory becomes much more popular than others? Not at all, and I guarantee you that people working in the field don't like it either. But I think most people who decry it don't realize just how little funding there is, and how competitive it is, and under such pressures how such things can come about. I don't even think "fashionable" is the right word because it sounds too flippant for the serious situations and decisions going on here.

Hope that makes sense.

It does.

I know it's not your field, but how exactly is string theory looked upon in Academia? I've always had the impression that it's considered somewhat far out, sometimes even kooky.

@Rommie

Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer. (And sorry for the pomposity above.)

Sigma_Orionis wrote:It does.

I know it's not your field, but how exactly is string theory looked upon in Academia? I've always had the impression that it's considered somewhat far out, sometimes even kooky.

Well I confess I did once say "my string theorist friend" when discussing the culture around it and then die of embarrassment because I realized it was like someone referring to "my black friend."

I mean, it's far out, but frankly most of theoretical physics really is when you get down to it. Kooky is too strong though as it's really cool maths, but I think there's reasonable debate on whether it should be in a math dept or a physics one. String theorists will all strongly disagree of course, but I'm a hardcore experimentalist so no surprise what my thoughts are there.

Rommie wrote:Well I confess I did once say "my string theorist friend" when discussing the culture around it and then die of embarrassment because I realized it was like someone referring to "my black friend."

I mean, it's far out, but frankly most of theoretical physics really is when you get down to it. Kooky is too strong though as it's really cool maths, but I think there's reasonable debate on whether it should be in a math dept or a physics one. String theorists will all strongly disagree of course, but I'm a hardcore experimentalist so no surprise what my thoughts are there.

Yeah, from what little I saw of theoretical physics I agree that it can be considered far out. From your answer I gather that so far there haven't been all that many experimental results that can be better explained by anything predicted by string theory

I am forced to tell an old joke about theoretical chemistry.....


How is theoretical chemistry like masterbation?
The more you do it, the more you think it's the real thing.

Swift wrote:I am forced to tell an old joke about theoretical chemistry.....


How is theoretical chemistry like masterbation?
The more you do it, the more you think it's the real thing.

So, in hard science, the "theoretical" folks fill the roll the "White Paper Industry" does in IT

Gullible Jones wrote:Fotini Markopoulou, who walked away from theoretical physics. (At least for now.) Currently she runs a company developing useful-but-artsy gadgets based on cognitive science.

Another nail in the coffin of the idea that Science/Logic and Art/Emotion are complete opposites IMO.

That coffin has so many nails in it that we could build a guggenheim

grapes wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:Fotini Markopoulou, who walked away from theoretical physics. (At least for now.) Currently she runs a company developing useful-but-artsy gadgets based on cognitive science.

Another nail in the coffin of the idea that Science/Logic and Art/Emotion are complete opposites IMO.

That coffin has so many nails in it that we could build a guggenheim

Like