http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/bing/0704/gallery.bing_50jobs.for...

Quantum physicist/string theorist
Produce theories about the nature of the universe that are not
amenable to proof by normal human means.


$$: Academic professor salary. If you become a cultural icon, like
Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking, you can be one of the few who attain
rock star status equal to that of, say, the host of a popular cooking
show.


The upside: In your hands you hold the secret to the machinery that
runs the universe. That's heady stuff, which is good--because you're a
head case, dude! But seriously. The media loves you. Your last book
was a best seller that everyone bought but nobody read, which, as you
know, is the very best kind. And while other guys from your class are
playing with petri dishes, you're accelerating fictional particles at
hyperspeed underneath the mountains of Switzerland.


The downside: None of what you do helps anybody understand anything.


The dark side: Tomorrow... next week... perhaps a year or two from
now... some sharp kid is going to come along with a theory that takes
a wicked detour directly from Einstein, goes completely around quantum
theory, and explains the entire universe in simple, elegant terms that
do not need a billion-dollar machine to prove. Your entire realm of
endeavor will be relegated to a footnote on the twentieth century, the
way the nineteenth was obsessed with phrenology--the science of
reading head bumps.


I think this nomination is rightfully deserved. I would add many more science occupations to that BS list though.

I like how so many people discriminate against that which they know nothing of.

and by like I mean 'am disgusted by'.

If there were no theoretical quantum physics, would there be a "sharp kid" who takes the right detour? If there is nothing to detour from, how can one take such a detour?

dead link

I like how so many people discriminate against that which they know nothing of.

and by like I mean 'am disgusted by'.

If there were no theoretical quantum physics, would there be a "sharp kid" who takes the right detour? If there is nothing to detour from, how can one take such a detour?
To smell BS one doesn't need to know what exact compounds are causing stench. "Highbrained" BS Hawkins and likes are cashing on is just that - BS, it serves nothing, it helps nobody, including a hypotetical kid I doubt will ever exist. I would not call that stuff "science" either, it has much more in common with Bible interpretations. The same goes to the labors (or imitations of those) of hundreds of thousands of scientists - almost nobody reads most of the published papers, nobody cares, nobody is being helped. Absurd wrapped in the noble causes in action.

Hmm.
Sounds like you're mixing up at least three seperate branches of physics in your umbrella term of quantum theory.

Imaginary particles? Seriously?

I've heard of virtual particles, but not imaginary. Unless they mean complex numbers, but those are used all over electronics and nobody thinks that doesn't work.

Working link the the article, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/bing/0704/gallery.bing_50jobs.fortune/index.html

Well that's pretty damned annoying. It begins with Advertising Executive as one of fifty, then the Next arrow takes you to a link to buy the book. I'm not that curious about what he has to say.

To smell BS one doesn't need to know what exact compounds are causing stench. "Highbrained" BS Hawkins and likes are cashing on is just that - BS, it serves nothing, it helps nobody, including a hypotetical kid I doubt will ever exist. I would not call that stuff "science" either, it has much more in common with Bible interpretations. The same goes to the labors (or imitations of those) of hundreds of thousands of scientists - almost nobody reads most of the published papers, nobody cares, nobody is being helped. Absurd wrapped in the noble causes in action.

If one does not even know what they are doing, how does one know that it is "BS"?

Well, even "BS" can lead to good science.

Bad lab technique led to the discovery of penicilin. And not all of the research done at Fermilab or CERN is based on the Higgs Boson - an apparently theoretical particle that may indeed join the Graviton on the "fiction" list some day. Quark theory is pretty well established through this kind of research and our investigations of strong and weak nuclear forces are pretty tight.

If one does not even know what they are doing, how does one know that it is "BS"?

How do you you know that Dragons do not exist? You can't prove that they don't exist, can you? Nobody can prove that cosmological insinuations are wrong, nobody can prove that they are right either. Sounds like a perfect job similar to that of the Pope. One just need to pick up few smart misterious science words and let stream of consciousness go.

If one does not even know what they are doing, how does one know that it is "BS"?
You don't know what Jerry Falwell is doing either, do you? He could be given extra prayer power by God to keep this Planet going.

Imaginary particles? Seriously?

I've heard of virtual particles, but not imaginary. Unless they mean complex numbers, but those are used all over electronics and nobody thinks that doesn't work.


Virtual particles or imaginary ones, what's the difference? They DO NOT exist, but make calculations and theories simpler and prettier. Spinons, magnons.... are found in some heads and books only.

Well, even "BS" can lead to good science.

Bad lab technique led to the discovery of penicilin. And not all of the research done at Fermilab or CERN is based on the Higgs Boson - an apparently theoretical particle that may indeed join the Graviton on the "fiction" list some day. Quark theory is pretty well established through this kind of research and our investigations of strong and weak nuclear forces are pretty tight.

That's called "carpetbombing". Let's throw some $ to the rats, let them fight for it, whoever wins will produce some results, most of the results will be BS, but there are going to be jewels inside. That's how science (and especially military projects) is funded these days. Unfortunately, such an approach produces more and more BS and less and less jewels. DOD projects, the largest carpetbomber out there, is just Godgiven to charlatans with Ph.D.

Virtual particles or imaginary ones, what's the difference? They DO NOT exist, but make calculations and theories simpler and prettier. Spinons, magnons.... are found in some heads and books only.

Actually, particle theory is just about completely wrapped up. If a Higgs Boson is produced in the next generation of particle accelerators with nothing else that is particularly strange produced, then there will be a lot of particle physicists looking for work.

Actually, particle theory is just about completely wrapped up. If a Higgs Boson is produced in the next generation of particle accelerators with nothing else that is particularly strange produced, then there will be a lot of particle physicists looking for work.

That seems like a pure arithmetic progression, particle A consists out of particles B, c, D. Particle B consistist of particles E, F, G and so on to the infinity and beyond. Sheer futility. What I've mentioned are virtual/imaginery particles/waves (spinons, magnons,...) operated with in solid state theory. Those are pure products of imagination.

That description in the OP is a shameful example of the anti-intellectualism that is rampant these days (especially in America), and it appears that Dixon here is our local ambassador of those forces. I would be absolutely fascinated (well, not really) to hear more about the "many more science occupations" that he would add to the "BS list."

As long as there has been science, much of the research would have been characterized by people at the time as "serving nothing, helping nobody." But many benefits ultimately came from such research later on. The end benefits of science are hard to predict, and so there's a strong case to be made for the primacy of fundamental, basic, and theoretical research, even without knowing if it will ever lead to any specific benefit. Carl Sagan was an insistent and eloquent proponent of this idea, and I happen to agree fully.