The current crop of String Theory Backlash books has a lot of people wondering about what will replace string theory as the top fad in theoretical physics. Other people (well, ok, me) are worried about a more important question: What will replace string theory as the most over-hyped area in theoretical physics?
Dave Bacon selflessly offers up his own field of quantum information, noting that Lee Smolin praises quantum computing theorists as "young" and "smart." As Dave notes, this is the physics equivalent of "hip" or "hot" in more general pop culture.
And Scott Aaronson offers further evidence of the coming dominance of quantum information, pre-empting skeptics with a list of reasons to believe in quantum computation. Is there any surer sign of scientific overreach than making dubious lists of accomplishments to justify your field? I don't think so...
It may take a while to arrive, but twenty years from now, when the science world is all abuzz about the publication of Peter Shor Is a Big Fat Idiot, remember, you heard it here first: Quantum Computing is the next String Theory.
(Just in case it isn't obvious, this is not a serious post-- quantum computing is on more solid ground than string theory, and in no real danger of overhype...)
- Log in to post comments
I'm gonna go with The Standard Model. :P
Sweet, "quantum computing is on more solid ground" said by an experimentalist is also like being called "cool."
I am aiming for the synergy between quantum computing and nanotechnology. That is the ultimate buzzword trifecta.
The ultimate buzzword trifecta is nanobioquantum computing. As a graduate student the group I worked in had chemists, mathematicians, and physicists. We were always on the outlook for biology major to join us to make a nice quadfecta.