I kinda like the fact the '''''answer''''' isn't some V-superstring effect obtained from a model that approximates entire universe as a new type of quasiparticle. V stands for Valyrian.That said, it’s somewhat uninspiring to live in an era when we seem to be constantly refuting any need for “new physics”.
“Ok guys, so we did have to roll it to a 23-dimensional pseudo-hologram, in the end, but.. no no, wait, guys, no, WHERE ARE YOU GOING, GUYS??” I’m such a spoiled brat of an experimentalist. For realsies, I don’t think experimentalism requires as much rigor and brilliance as theoretical work does. And yet I see the experiment side more often employed and in demand, I think. It’s most clear to me in my own field (as it should be), but it seems to generally be the case across most fields of physics. Still working on a better explanation for that one than “No one wants to just pay people to sit around and think“. Edit: it may be much better to relate experimentalism to typically more marketable products and the private sector It turns out, sometimes, I do wanna pay people to think, though. Maybe almost all the time. Articles like this one really make me wanna do that. But then yeah. Maybe some string theory is half-cooked spaghetto. String theory’s kinda the extreme case, though. “So what, DAD, I always hated the stars, ‘cuz you NEVER TAKE US.”“Happy birthday, son. Now that you’re 18, I can legally tell you that we’ve made only a wee bit of progress on cosmology over the last 50 years, what with 9-11 only 100 years ago and the A-Rabs still existing.”
I've been asking around about that, and it might boil down to relative rarity of experimentalists. It's between one in three to one in twelve physicists, depending on year and colleague's universities. Purely from my own experience, forgetting about the fact you first have to understand theoretical result and then come up with a way to make mindbogglingly subtle measurements (e.g. Beth experiment, anything I ever read about detecting Aharonov–Bohm effect, fucking LIGO), so far my only contributions to physics came as a result of either working with or consulting experimentalists. The last thing I got so excited about was a direct consequence of considering measurement difficulties followed by trying to be clever/mathy about it. I've been kinda harsh about ST, but it comes from a place of appreciation. It jump-started research into new avenues of mathematical physics, and it's important even if those were to pan out in decades to come. But, seeing how two most mathematically gifted people I met to date beelined there, I can't help thinking it's a brain-drain. Here's where appreciation kicks in: I use ST tools. A lot. The clever/mathy thing? It might not have happened if not for attending SUSY seminar and leading professor's instruction on how to 'quickly' detect cases where gauge invariance shouldn't be taken for granted. Fundamentally, I go out of my way to work closely with experimentalists because it's always a source of insights which, for the most part, are alien to my way of thinking. Both branches should do all they can to bridge the gap between disciplines. And having each other's perspective is a good reminder how impossibly clueless you can be outside your own field.Still working on a better explanation for that one than “No one wants to just pay people to sit around and think“
For realsies, I don’t think experimentalism requires as much rigor and brilliance as theoretical work does.
Maybe some string theory is half-cooked spaghetto. String theory’s kinda the extreme case, though.
This is so important. I worked on the experimental side, and then went to a grad school where there are no laboratories for space physics, and only a handful of people who remember the days when the university used to have them. My instruction was entirely theory. So I've kinda been un-pigeonholed by accident. It really, really, really sucked to get launched into theoryland after four years of lab work, but knowing a bit of both helps me get a leg-up on the competition. I'm working with a guy to run some simulations that'll require superclusters at a scale only available through entities like NERSC. It's going to take me about a year to make damn sure I've got my parameters right before pressing "go". Fuck-ups at that scale can probably ruin careers. Without e-mails, I would've never seen this response. Hadn't cleared out my notifications, and since this is several layers deep in a thread, my hubwheel didn't turn orange. I'm not sure if this is a bug or intentional, but clearly, I need to dismiss my notifications more often than once every few weeks. It's safe to assume that I've accidentally ghosted people because of this. My bad!Both branches should do all they can to bridge the gap between disciplines.
Funny thing those labs. The main reason I hated most of them was writing reports that were often longer than my masters thesis on a (bi)weekly basis. Well, not really 'hated'. Everything after freshman labs landed somewhere between mild grumbling (radon concentration measurements in a 2nd floor room with six windows) and "I'm having a blast here!" (fibreoptics, 'nuff said). One thing we do here to build bridges over those gaps is deliberate mixing of seminars and making open journal clubs. Apart from normal specialization-specific, there are mixed ones as well, and I find it helps to have experts from both sides weighing in. It seems to be doing something right. It's been present for at least as long as I'm here, that I can tell you with certainty.Without e-mails, I would've never seen this response. Hadn't cleared out my notifications, and since this is several layers deep in a thread, my hubwheel didn't turn orange. I'm not sure if this is a bug or intentional, but clearly,