Thursday, October 05, 2006
oh well...
I'm really excited about tomorrow.
But...
I went into the science center today and asked a few of the other physics professors if they knew about the "Revolutions in Cosmology" conference and/or were going to it. They hadn't even heard of it. Even the astrophysics department at RPI didn't know about it. It's shocking enough that an astrophysics department at a top 50 university wouldn't know about this conference, but it's even more shocking if you consider that it's taking place only about four miles away!
What's weird about RPI is that although it's a world leader in physics education (one of the authors of "Fundamentals of Physics"- the most-widely used undergrad physics textbook- is an emeritus professor here), we don't have ANY researchers in string theory or cosmology. We have one of the largest departments in the country, but we don't have string theory or cosmology, the areas of physics that are getting the most coverage these days. One gets the impression from the leading physics bloggers (well, at least the dissenters) that if you're not a postdoc in string theory, you won't get a faculty position. It's absolute nonsense. We have NO ONE in string theory here. NO ONE in cosmology, but some astronomers and astrophysicists. We have a lot of professors in more applied areas like optics, photonics, terahertz research, and condensed matter. We have some experimental physicists and particle theorists (but not LQG/ string people). We have a class or two in general relativity, but those are only 4000-level (mainly for advanced undergrads). We don't have "string theory for undergraduates" (or grad students). We don't have a whole lot of astronomy courses; general relativity is the most advanced one.
You would get the impression from physics bloggers and people who write pro-string (or anti-string) books that the string theory controversy is what physics is all about. Not so! I haven't heard anyone, in the two and a half semesters I've been here, talking about "the trouble with physics". (I'm not referring to the book.) "Anyone" refers to students (in any department) and professors (in any department.) You would get the impression that physics is a subject you could study for... well, about ten years or so, then do research in as a postdoc, and then end up unemployed. Sometimes that happens, but eventually you will find a job, not necessarily in physics, but one that you could apply your advanced knowledge in. The Columbia University math department contains such an example.
I think the trouble with physics is enormously exaggerated, mainly by the horrible coverage that physics has gotten in the past few months. I still think physics is the most exciting thing you could possibly study, and I don't think anyone should be discouraged from studying it. Here's a discouraging essay: http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
I think that essay is self-explanatory, but if you look at the other essays on his site, you'll probably find them even more alarming. I'm sure he's an excellent professor, but I'm shocked that some of those writings haven't gotten him in major trouble.
Incidentally, I got "The Trouble with Physics" in the mail today, just before the colloquium. I'm very anxious to read it, since I will meet the author this weekend.
And that's the memo. ¶ 5:42 PM
But...
I went into the science center today and asked a few of the other physics professors if they knew about the "Revolutions in Cosmology" conference and/or were going to it. They hadn't even heard of it. Even the astrophysics department at RPI didn't know about it. It's shocking enough that an astrophysics department at a top 50 university wouldn't know about this conference, but it's even more shocking if you consider that it's taking place only about four miles away!
What's weird about RPI is that although it's a world leader in physics education (one of the authors of "Fundamentals of Physics"- the most-widely used undergrad physics textbook- is an emeritus professor here), we don't have ANY researchers in string theory or cosmology. We have one of the largest departments in the country, but we don't have string theory or cosmology, the areas of physics that are getting the most coverage these days. One gets the impression from the leading physics bloggers (well, at least the dissenters) that if you're not a postdoc in string theory, you won't get a faculty position. It's absolute nonsense. We have NO ONE in string theory here. NO ONE in cosmology, but some astronomers and astrophysicists. We have a lot of professors in more applied areas like optics, photonics, terahertz research, and condensed matter. We have some experimental physicists and particle theorists (but not LQG/ string people). We have a class or two in general relativity, but those are only 4000-level (mainly for advanced undergrads). We don't have "string theory for undergraduates" (or grad students). We don't have a whole lot of astronomy courses; general relativity is the most advanced one.
You would get the impression from physics bloggers and people who write pro-string (or anti-string) books that the string theory controversy is what physics is all about. Not so! I haven't heard anyone, in the two and a half semesters I've been here, talking about "the trouble with physics". (I'm not referring to the book.) "Anyone" refers to students (in any department) and professors (in any department.) You would get the impression that physics is a subject you could study for... well, about ten years or so, then do research in as a postdoc, and then end up unemployed. Sometimes that happens, but eventually you will find a job, not necessarily in physics, but one that you could apply your advanced knowledge in. The Columbia University math department contains such an example.
I think the trouble with physics is enormously exaggerated, mainly by the horrible coverage that physics has gotten in the past few months. I still think physics is the most exciting thing you could possibly study, and I don't think anyone should be discouraged from studying it. Here's a discouraging essay: http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
I think that essay is self-explanatory, but if you look at the other essays on his site, you'll probably find them even more alarming. I'm sure he's an excellent professor, but I'm shocked that some of those writings haven't gotten him in major trouble.
Incidentally, I got "The Trouble with Physics" in the mail today, just before the colloquium. I'm very anxious to read it, since I will meet the author this weekend.
And that's the memo. ¶ 5:42 PM
