Uruk wrote on 08/26/10 at 03:01:23:
Saying current funding in physics is determined by an eclipse in 1919 is like saying today GMs prefer 1.d4 because Lasker beat Schlechter with it.
Wake up sloughter. Oil, silicon & weapon industries are the real fashion makers in research.
EDIT : forgot drugs, but I'm not that much into chemistry.
You are right---the physics community is the handmaiden of the military/industrial complex.
Funding in science depends on the ability of scientists to convey their sense of worth to the American public. Without the bugaboo of the Soviet Union to define us militarily, the need for Big Physics is less obvious, hence funding in new energy research would be far more likely to define our long-term future with minmal need for oil except for petrochemical products.
We would have a far less gluttonous military/industrial complex and the attendant increase in socially responsible (civilized) activities, like promoting the arts.
Funding in physics projects stems from a belief that physics is "important" science. How else do you justify the multibillions spent on neutrino detectors worldwide that have absolutely no practical value, have no theoretical existence, yet somehow, Big Physics has thought them important and by default, middle America?
Why are particle accelerators more important than focussing billions more on medical breakthroughs and other beneficial activities like earthquake prediction?
Funding is driven by passion. The whole, "Let's put a man on the moon and bring him safely home again." was perhaps the greatest misdirection of this country's resources towards physics and engineering that was designed as "proof" of the intellectual superiority of America.
Suppose Kennedy had said two things instead: 1) "We are going to cure poverty, hunger and disease world wide in two generations" (no need for physicists here), 2) "We are going to demonstrate intellectual superiority over the Russians in a proxy battle over the chessboard (obviously phrased differently---we need no physicists here). To that end we are going to invest $100,000,000 to train and promote chess talent in the U.S." Wouldn't this have been an incredibly cheap program of psychological warfare?
Do you think that a team starting with Bobby Fischer and Sammy Reshevsky on first and second board could defeat the Soviets on their first two boards in the mid 1960's? What if we had dozens of training centers around the U.S. to recognize chess talent at an early age, an educational system to support and promote chess in this country and the rock star treatment chess athletes have in the Soviet Union? Do you think that we, within a decade, couldn't take the measure of the former Soviet Union?
This would be no different than if the Soviets could defeat us at basketball, football and baseball. It would have a devastating effect on the American psyche.
Taking away the Soviet's intellectual superiority by virtue of their prowess at chess, would severely crimp their confidence in defeating us militarily---and a fraction of the cost of the Cold War artifacts, the manned space program, MAD and the hot fusion program, a Cold War relic. Not to mention that we might not have gotten involved in the Vietnam War with more "boots on the ground" by the CIA giving us much better intelligence by understanding the mind set of the Vietnamese and their attitude towards the French.
We could have avoided the entire weapons race with a confidential CIA report detailing the long-term effects of a limited nuclear war where both sides wiped out each other's major ports, economic centers, petroleum industries and governments. This could have been done by targetting population centers, not military targets.
You are absolutely right about the silicon monster, but in another website, it is interesting to speculate what the world would like today without computers.
We would have limited or no credit card debt because the whole billing process, applications for credit, etc. can't be done efficiently without computers thereby limiting indebtness. There would be no flat earth because computers would not make the instantaneous transfer of wealth, resources, automation, etc. possible; hence there would be no ablility to sell ourselves to China and Wal Mart's would not be able to compete nearly as successfully.
The financial services industry might only occupy 4% of the GDP instead of the 8% we have today. We would have a prosperous middle class because manufacturing jobs would still be abundant in the U.S. (but union contracts, pensions, etc. would have to be renegotiated to make us competitive).
There would no computer trading on Wall Street hence far less exotic financial vehicles cooked up by physicists, movies would have plots rather than special effects, cursive writing would still be an art form, social networking would consist of writing, personal visits, and the telephone.
Music, art and literature, by virtue of 10-50 hours of free time/week would be valued commodities, thus we would not see the dumbing down of America.
People would be far more physically active so that obesity would not be the scourge of America today that it is. In short if we look at the computer revolution in the past fifty years, can you make a compelling case that we are better off with computers?
By the way---this letter would not be possible and the sizeable waste of intellectual capital this thread occupies would have been devoted to more productive activities.
Pages: 
Einstein's Methodology (Read 102453 times)
