Fundamental Physics and the Useful Arts by Richard Easther

Richard Easther

Essay Abstract

Up until the middle of the 20th Century, advances in fundamental physics often led directly to technological innovations. However, since the construction of the Standard Model in the 1960s, it appears we have an essentially complete description of the fundamental constituents of the universe on ``human'' scales -- that is, larger than nucleons and smaller than galaxies. Discoveries of new fundamental interactions and particles beyond the Standard Model will illuminate the fundamental properties of the physical word, but cannot be expected to drive technological progress. Consequently, the long-standing assumption that advances in physics have practical implications may finally have reached its limit.

Author Bio

Richard Easther is a cosmologist and theoretical physicist.

Download Essay PDF File

[deleted]

Richard

Are you agree with my abstract?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

[deleted]

Dear Richard,

I enjoyed reading your essay, which was somewhat unusual in that the assumption it questions is not something about our fundamental theories per se but rather the societal implications of our current knowledge state.

I would like to suggest on a more optimistic note than in your essay that perhaps the financial constraints associated with building particle accelerators may itself provide an impetus for developing new technologies that help probe nature more deeply more efficiently. I am not convinced, for example, that there is no way to deliver a comparatively large amount of energy to an individual elementary particle without building enormous (and enormously expensive) facilities, but unfortunately I cannot offer an alternative. Someone who exhibits the right kind of ingenuity to overcome our current constraints would likely be richly rewarded, and, if such an event does really happen, then it would not be unreasonable that there may be more immediately recognizably useful off-shoots.

The anecdote about Bethe is inspiring, I hope when I'm 90 years old (If I even live that long) I'll keep just a fraction of that kind of activity.

All the best,

Armin

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Richard,

As a cosmologist and theoretical physicist, I hope you can evaluate the idea of nuons as the base of dark matter. These particles are supposed in the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay). More about it is in the article: Fedosin S.G. Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. Galilean Electrodynamics, Spring 2012, Vol. 23, Special Issues No. 1, P. 3 - 13.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Richard,

You make some excellent points here, although I hope the possible implications can be concealed from those in charge of the purse strings of scientific funding! The "superluminal neutrinos" graph is particularly amusing; I remember reading some of those articles for entertainment and feeling that many of them reflected a profound lack of self-respect; the ideas were obviously half-baked and were predicated on the cynical realization that no one would remember exactly who had filled out a lottery ticket with their favorite superluminal theory.

On a more serious note, I hope (very, very optimistically) that quantum circuits may be capable of modeling some aspects of "fundamental physics" at reasonable scales. There are a number of ideas about quantum gravity and the fundamental structure of spacetime that bear deep similarities to conventional quantum information theory. In the meantime, perhaps we should be thankful that nothing like the atomic bomb has come out of the last 50 years of particle physics. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Jonathan Dickau

Hello Richard,

I expect to read your essay soon, but I wanted you to know that I find your premise kind of scary. To some extent; I hope you are wrong. I hope that Physics is in a place like the turn of the 20th century. Though some felt that Science had already reached its pinnacle in Classical Physics, it turned out that a revolution in Modern Physics was well underway.

More poignantly; I echo Ben's comment above, in hoping that the people who control the funding for my next project have not read your essay. I just left a comment on Ian Durham's essay forum, that reductionist thinking on the part of Finance people hurts Science funding, but if it were true that even great strides in Physics will yield no important technologies, this could be the death knell for many worthwhile research programs.

More comments when I've read past the abstract.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Sergey Fedosin

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Helmut Hansen

Dear Richard,

I have read your well-written paper. I think your critical analysis is quite serious. At the end of your paper you are nonetheless expressing the hope to be shown overly pessismistic.

As you know there are 20 fundamental constants those origin is still unknown. I think a deeper understanding of these 20 fundamental constants will advance our understanding of reality tremendously.

I have found or discovered that at least one of these 20 fundamental constants is perceived insufficiently. That is the speed of light c.

My discovery is quite simple: If the Light is of Dual Nature, it seems quite natural, to assume, that the speed of light c is of Dual Nature as well. In other words: The fundamental constant of c is given twice - in two different modes - and not once as it is still implicitly assumed.

See my paper: Is the Speed of Light of Dual Nature?

If such a second still hidden face of c is really existing, it will change our fundamental understanding of the universe significantly because the discovery of every new fundamental constant does naturally imply such a paradigm shift .

Good Luck for Your Paper and Your Work.

Kind Regards

Helmut