🚀 go-pugleaf

Response to response 11 to response 9 to basenote "Future of Physics":

In sci.physics, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>>    I find your otherwise laudable response to be marred by grumpy remarks
>>    about the use of math in theoretical physics.  Of course I would,
>>    wouldn't I, since I'm a mathematical physicist.  But you simply weaken
>>    your case by introducing the suggestion that you dislike particle
>>    physicist because of traumatic experiences with branch cuts at an early
>>    age.  As Galileo said (roughly), the laws of physics are written in the
>>    language of mathematics.  Many of the best theoretical physicists (let
>>    me list Archimedes, Newton, Laplace, Gibbs for a start) were
>>    forced to develop new branches of mathematics to describe the laws of
>>    nature, and this mathematics has ALWAYS seemed complicated and difficult
>>    at the time.  It is more sensible to argue that particle physics is a
>>    problematic use of government money, not because it uses yucky math, but
>>    because it costs a lot of money and seems unlikely to produce
>>    significant practical technological breakthroughs in the near future --
>>    as you pointed out. 

Thanks for the gentle reminder to not be grumpy.  I actually find theoretical
physicists and mathematicians rather charming - as long as they don't make
fun of the meaning of $8 billion in hard currency.  I don't mind paying
taxes for individual research that stretches beyond the limits of 
practicality, but our society can only afford so much play. . . .  

I did, of course, not mean to imply that particle physics is bad because of
my personal dislike of advanced mathematics, simply that the underlying
physics does not warrant such big budgets.  (I was just kidding about
branch cuts.  Every cut branch leaves a residue. . . . Not!!!)

Have fun thinking.
 
Alex