In my write-up about the Hidden Dimensions panel, I mentioned in passing that:
I also would've liked to see an experimental physicist up there, to provide a little more grounding about what the actual problems are, and how you might hope to look for something. But then, I always think there should be more experimental physicists involved in everything.
I'm going to be traveling today, so I thought I would throw up a filler post offering a list of things that would be improved by the inclusion of an experimental physicist. Then I realized that that would be kind of difficult, as everything is improved by the inclusion of an experimental physicist. Politics (empiricism, pragmatism, ability to do math), art (ability to devise new technologies for making art, plus most experimental set-ups look really cool), theoretical physics (grounding in observable reality)-- all are better with experimental physicists than without.
So, instead, consider this an open thread to speculate about the possible existence of things that wouldn't be improved by the inclusion of an experimental physicist. There's a good chance that no such thing exists, but trying to find one could be an interesting experiment...
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Pure mathematics?
@Matt Leifer:
Good one. Of course, theoretical physicists should still be allowed in pure maths, no?
Homeopathic treatment development? A physicist wouldn't be able to stop laughing.
There are lots of things that would be harmed by the inclusion of an experimental physicist....mainly the self esteem of the people who now found themselves irrelevant because the experimental physicist was so great!
I think JG's comment is rather ironic. As an experimental physicist, I think if the data showed that a homeopathic treatment worked (assuming the right controls) if would be a useful tool in treatment. Hell, I might even try it.
That's exactly the point of experiments. To see if one can actually isolate a relationship between the proposed causes and the effects. So any experiment, whether believable from the beginning or not, is going to benefit from someone's opinion who partakes in experiments on a daily basis.
There are situations where being grounded in the possible is not a useful tool, like children's books maybe. I think that might be a place where the practical world of an experiment physicist might not help greatly.
A magic show?
Homeopathic treatment development? A physicist wouldn't be able to stop laughing.
Which would lead to less homeopathic treatment development, which would be a net win for humanity. Thus, homeopathic treatment development would be improved by the addition of experimental physicists.
Similar reasoning works for pure mathematics, though it's not as harmful in its current form.
Chocolate cake.
How about, an argument over the implications of what we already know? But an experimental physicist might have insights to offer even then. I think that "pure math" is the best answer.
Similar reasoning works for pure mathematics, though it's not as harmful in its current form.
That's an interesting view, as the majority of mathematical tools used in both theoretical and experimental physics arose from developments in Pure Mathematics. Also, the entire Information Security industry stands upon a basis of Pure Mathematics, and the continued development of Number Theory is essential for security on the internet.
There are numerous other examples one could throw out - these are just the ones that leap to mind as being the most relevant. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a branch of Pure Mathematics that has not been used in some way for the benefit of some other community, such as the Physics community.
Chemistry.
The experimental physicist would get too bogged down in the details to get any progress in actual chemistry done. All experiments would be reduced down to physics experiments and thus the chemistry would be destroyed.
Andre - I fail to see how that would be a problem hehe.
-the theoretical physicist who works with chemists.
Istarian, it's true that pure math can be used for practical use, but it's harder to see it go the other way around (experimental physicist useful to pure math.) But even then, an EP might think of techniques (numerical analysis?) that he or she used that wouldn't come to the mind of the typical pure mathematician.
If it's not OT to bring up the converse of how useful can an EP be, there's an active thread: MAYBE THE NOBEL LAUREATE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT....
at Washington Monthly about DOE Sec. Steven Chu's gamma-ray imaging/NDT idea that was applied to the blown-out BP pipe. I don't see why others were skeptical of it. BTW I had the honor and pleasure to hear Dr. Chu talk at Jefferson Lab (VA) several months ago.
NYC fashion week?
Maybe EP's are like Hellman's mayo. Or salt.
@Jo Walton: I think that chocolate cake is vastly improved when I eat it. Before applying an experimental physicist, it merely looks pretty (at least when baked by someone who is not me). Exciting my organs of deliciousness is clearly a net win for humanity.
Competitive tanning is a maybe - laboratories tend not to be good training environments. On the other hand, developing better sunscreens ...