Mike H

Feather-

"The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact."-T.H. Huxley.

Someone has to keep the theorists honest! On a more serious note, I think the gap the previous poster was referring to was the decline of the physicist who was just as much a theorist as experimentalist, as well as the other way around. From my limited perspective, it seems that you sort of have to make a decision to be a theorist or experimentalist somewhere along the line. The problem doesn't seem to be as prevalent in certain areas (I know where I'll be starting grad school in the fall, they were quite enthused to hear I was considering a joint theory/experiment path in biological or chemical physics.) Of course, what do I know?

I've actually noticed there is more of a trend to bring scientists together in recent years, what with "nanotechnology" and materials science centers springing up nationwide, various blendings of engineers and scientists in various programs, a trend towards increased interfacing between math/comp sci types and scientists in numerous fields, et al. While one may not be able to be the "Renaissance scientist" ideal, one could develop a network of collaborators which would compensate for the lack of knowledge in related and supporting areas.

My $0.02 for what it's worth.

Steven S

At least in my field, particle physics, I suspect there might be more theorists than experimentalists. To work in theory all you really need is paper, a pencil, and occasionally a computer. An experimentalists needs a couple hundred million dollar piece of equiptment to do their experiments. So if you are a physicist in a second or thirld world country and want an active research program it pays to do theory. But I don't know the numbers so I could be wrong.

When I say there exists a gap between theory and experiment I mean how many experimentalists could show gravity is not renormalizable? How many theorists could build a LHC in their basement? Plus, in particle physics theory is way ahead of what is experimentally testable. What is it, SUSY & string theory are nearly 25+ years old and we will hopefully be able to detect superpartners at the end of this decade?
btw, where are you going for grad school? are you looking to do particle or something else?

Steven S

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Steven S ]</p>

Boro Nut

That just demonstrates FWH's whole point. If you only took the time to talk to an engineer in the first place you could all be working closely together in a nice warm building by now.

Boro Nut

Starboy

From my point of view the different sciences appear to be coming closer together than flying apart. New discoveries in Astronomy are sparking new particle physics, and the area of genetics is become more like physics everyday, and of course they all benefit from the fruits of computer science. No, science is now, as it always has been, building on the work of our predecessors, no matter what fields they have studied. The universe is made of whole cloth, it only the limitations of mankind that requires we cut it up into pieces.

Bill

I'd like to take your post in a somewhat different direction.

I'd like to point out that Philosophy has long been called "the queen of the sciences." All of the original scientists had formal training in Philosophy. And this relationship is why the top degree for most scientific disciplines is called the "Doctor of Philosophy."

And Philosophy itself, these days, even has its own specializations. One of these is called Philosophy of Science. These guys do look at the "big picture" and try to "make sense of it all." Currently famous Philosophers of Science would include people like Dan Dennett and Michael Ruse.

== Bill