Modern science and modern art
No law fails to disallow the absence of lack of falsehood in an untruth.
-- I could not fail to disagree with you more.
A glass of French wine and a piece of French cheese sit atop a coffee table, opposite to a plastic box with a hamburger. Wine to cheese: "Can you explain what that thing is over there?" Cheese to wine: "No, I don't get it either. It must be art."
Modern fundamental physics is in crisis because there are very few experimental results that can be used to develop a definitive, convincing new fundamental theory. Unless LHC discovers a new particle that could be, for example, a trace of supersymmetry or a constituent of the dark matter, and/or unless some new experimental breakthrough is achieved in the observation of dark energy, physicists will have to continue business as usual. The "business as usual" consists of inventing one highly contrived and hypothetical "model" or "scenario" after another, not necessarily with a connection to established theories or to experiment. These models are invented not because one hopes to find a pathway to a future theory, but because one needs to give one's students something publishable and educational to work on, and such that students are able to finish a project within reasonable time. The standards of what is acceptable for publication have been accordingly revised, in order to allow such highly hypothetical and (perhaps) useless research to be published as long as it fulfills suitable technical criteria; e.g. as long as the calculation presented is substantial and new. For example, papers are written about scalar fields in modified Einstein gravitation in five dimensions, not because experiment showed that scalar fields exist, or that the Einstein theory of gravitation is inadequate and must be modified, or that the spacetime is not four-dimensional but five-dimensional, nor because one hopes that the resulting theory is better in some sense, but because calculations in four dimensions as well as calculations in the unmodified Einstein theory are already available in the literature, while calculations with non-scalar fields (e.g. spinors) are much more technically difficult, so one chooses the next least complicated calculation that is still publishable (albeit perhaps not in a leading journal).
In the past, new fundamental physics was being spurred by a wealth of experimental data. It seems that all easy questions have been explored, and now we have only very scarce experimental data (or no data at all) that could be relevant to unresolved fundamental questions such as quantum effects of gravity. Nevertheless, the army of theoretical physicists continues to produce an ever-increasing stream of research papers.
It occurred to me that the situation is similar to that in modern art. I recently attended a concert by Volodos and asked him after the concert whether he composed his own music. He said no, because "the means of expression in music have been largely exhausted." So perhaps modern composers and modern artists feel that they have to invent something highly unusual, strange, or outrageous just in order to produce new and "publishable" music or art.
Modern art appeals only to a narrow circle of experts who have sufficient background and competence to judge the novelty and the "real" value of a new piece of art. It seems that this can be judged not on the basis of one's immediate impressions, as is normally the case with pieces of art, but only on the basis of a certain kind of intellectual understanding. Only experts can really understand a piece of modern art; the general public will at best get an impression that modern art is developing into something rather strange. Similarly, only experts can truly understand and properly assess a new statement (such as, when a new theory is being proposed by a really laid-back surfer dude) in the context of modern science. The general public can appreciate only the laid-backness or the surfer-ness of the theory's originator (mauitian) - in other words, anything but the actual scientific content of what's happening.
I am an insider in theoretical physics; I have a moderate understanding of modern music -- I understand music written before c.1950 but (with few exceptions) not if it's written afterwards; and at the same time I am aware of having a strictly nonpositive amount of clue regarding modern painting and other visual arts. Scratch that - I can't tell you how Leonardo's Gioconda (to me, a strange, unrealistic portrait of a slightly overweight person with an unattractive face) is different from Picasso's paintings (again, to me these are merely strange, unrealistic graphical representations of unattractive people), except that Picasso often painted both eyes to one side of the nose.
So I can appreciate how the situation must look to the general public. It looks truly awful. No wonder people nowadays prefer TV. I would only suggest that it's better to be an insider in some area; at least you can then appreciate something in a much more satisfying manner.
-- I could not fail to disagree with you more.
A glass of French wine and a piece of French cheese sit atop a coffee table, opposite to a plastic box with a hamburger. Wine to cheese: "Can you explain what that thing is over there?" Cheese to wine: "No, I don't get it either. It must be art."
Modern fundamental physics is in crisis because there are very few experimental results that can be used to develop a definitive, convincing new fundamental theory. Unless LHC discovers a new particle that could be, for example, a trace of supersymmetry or a constituent of the dark matter, and/or unless some new experimental breakthrough is achieved in the observation of dark energy, physicists will have to continue business as usual. The "business as usual" consists of inventing one highly contrived and hypothetical "model" or "scenario" after another, not necessarily with a connection to established theories or to experiment. These models are invented not because one hopes to find a pathway to a future theory, but because one needs to give one's students something publishable and educational to work on, and such that students are able to finish a project within reasonable time. The standards of what is acceptable for publication have been accordingly revised, in order to allow such highly hypothetical and (perhaps) useless research to be published as long as it fulfills suitable technical criteria; e.g. as long as the calculation presented is substantial and new. For example, papers are written about scalar fields in modified Einstein gravitation in five dimensions, not because experiment showed that scalar fields exist, or that the Einstein theory of gravitation is inadequate and must be modified, or that the spacetime is not four-dimensional but five-dimensional, nor because one hopes that the resulting theory is better in some sense, but because calculations in four dimensions as well as calculations in the unmodified Einstein theory are already available in the literature, while calculations with non-scalar fields (e.g. spinors) are much more technically difficult, so one chooses the next least complicated calculation that is still publishable (albeit perhaps not in a leading journal).
In the past, new fundamental physics was being spurred by a wealth of experimental data. It seems that all easy questions have been explored, and now we have only very scarce experimental data (or no data at all) that could be relevant to unresolved fundamental questions such as quantum effects of gravity. Nevertheless, the army of theoretical physicists continues to produce an ever-increasing stream of research papers.
It occurred to me that the situation is similar to that in modern art. I recently attended a concert by Volodos and asked him after the concert whether he composed his own music. He said no, because "the means of expression in music have been largely exhausted." So perhaps modern composers and modern artists feel that they have to invent something highly unusual, strange, or outrageous just in order to produce new and "publishable" music or art.
Modern art appeals only to a narrow circle of experts who have sufficient background and competence to judge the novelty and the "real" value of a new piece of art. It seems that this can be judged not on the basis of one's immediate impressions, as is normally the case with pieces of art, but only on the basis of a certain kind of intellectual understanding. Only experts can really understand a piece of modern art; the general public will at best get an impression that modern art is developing into something rather strange. Similarly, only experts can truly understand and properly assess a new statement (such as, when a new theory is being proposed by a really laid-back surfer dude) in the context of modern science. The general public can appreciate only the laid-backness or the surfer-ness of the theory's originator (mauitian) - in other words, anything but the actual scientific content of what's happening.
I am an insider in theoretical physics; I have a moderate understanding of modern music -- I understand music written before c.1950 but (with few exceptions) not if it's written afterwards; and at the same time I am aware of having a strictly nonpositive amount of clue regarding modern painting and other visual arts. Scratch that - I can't tell you how Leonardo's Gioconda (to me, a strange, unrealistic portrait of a slightly overweight person with an unattractive face) is different from Picasso's paintings (again, to me these are merely strange, unrealistic graphical representations of unattractive people), except that Picasso often painted both eyes to one side of the nose.
So I can appreciate how the situation must look to the general public. It looks truly awful. No wonder people nowadays prefer TV. I would only suggest that it's better to be an insider in some area; at least you can then appreciate something in a much more satisfying manner.