I don’t get it
Ok, so there’s a problem in physics. General relativity and quantum mechanics both beautifully describe the universe at very large and very small scales respectively. However, they disagree with each other (general relativity breaks down when applied to quantum objects).
Many physicists since a long time have been believing that string theory would be the theory that would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity to get the theory of everything.
Why do so many ppl believe this? It’s because the math of string theory is very elegant. Why is it elegant? It’s because it strongly hints at unification.
But this is the problem - there is zero experimental evidence for string theory. In fact, certain requirements for string theory to be true have not been proven to be true yet (and have started to become less and less likely as experiments have progressed). This is why, string theory is just this incredibly complicated and mathematically intense theory without any practical applications.
The mathematician here hates her math to be practically applied. However, when she’s told that it’s being applied in string theory, she’s relieved as she knows that it won’t ever be practically applied. That’s the joke lmao
Many physicists since a long time have been believing that string theory would be the theory that would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity to get the theory of everything.
So string theory is the Chosen One and which one of the other two has the high ground?
The string theory bit aside, the implications of being an applied mathematics professor is pretty grim: you’re going to be known as the one responsible for the application, good or bad, and it’s also a pretty different profession from theoretical mathematics. Like, a worse profession.
Say more about this? Why is it a worse profession? Anywhere I can get a layperson-friendly deep dive on this (that doesn’t require a graduate degree in mathematics)? I’m fascinated by the nuance between niche academic disciplines and the “politics” of academia.
AFAIK it is just a form of elitism, where they argue applied science exists only because theoretical scientists “did” something. Like you are just using someone’s stuff.
Another thing is theoretical science “indicates” advancement of science, where the applied side is just growth in sideways.
This kind of reductionism is hilariously unscientific.
Many theories were only able to advance after we had the tools to experimentally review them and quite frankly often weed the bad ones out. Modern tools like computing enable the development of theories that before were unimaginable, leaving aside the necessity of modern communication to grow and share knowledge.
Or in other words: Nobody who now writes his theories on chalkboard would have done so with charcoal on a cave wall after hunting mammoths during the day.
Don’t ask me, man, I used to be an engineer. I figure it’s kind of like being a poet and suddenly you’re designated as a semantic English Teacher.
Maybe because people get into this kind of very abstract field to escape reality and that would mean reality is catching up on them and reducing their freedom to not have to care about consequences.
