[wmnwmn]

It's funny how nonphysicists (this author) and non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder) beat this drum most loudly. How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on, and have enough modesty to realize that their decision is better informed than our efforts to advise.

[pdonis]

> non-productive physicists (Hossenfelder)

Why do you think Hossenfelder is a non-productive physicist?

> How about we do this: let the people who are obviously smartest make their own decision about what is most promising to work on

We've been doing that all along in physics, and it doesn't seem to be working out.

[wallace_f]

It's remarkable how rotten the state of things are in academia while everyone beats around this bush without outright saying it.

Some of the best physicists in the world right now are likely to be caught up in just providing for themselves. Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard? Why do they need anyone's permission to have access to this? Why can't they at least have access to course material and testing, so they can openly compete? Who is afraid of the competition? There's no ethical justification for that. The world spends trillions in public and private money already. This is just one criticism, and I'm not alone in classifying academia as rotten. Feynman said the same. So few people have the bravery to stand up to an entire socioeconomic complex, even when it means people will die and projects will fail dramatically: see the Nasa Challenger Groupthink Disaster (which Feynman also criticized).

[pdonis]

> Why cant someone in Africa, or wherever, get a degree in physics from Harvard?

I would put this somewhat differently: why should you need a degree in physics from Harvard to do physics? What value does that credential actually add?

Note, btw, that my own alma mater, MIT, has all of its course materials (lectures, problem sets, selected solutions) available online for free:

https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

[wallace_f]

Yea, good point. But some kind of signalling is helpful, no?

And OCW is a great project, but all the course material isn't online. Also, saying to an employer or researcher "I took some OCW courses" isn't a very good signal. A much better signal would be, "I passed such and such examinations with such and such scores." Open competition I think is important.

[pdonis]

> some kind of signalling is helpful, no?

I think calling it "signaling" highlights an important (and troubling) point. Employers and researchers are trying to predict future performance; degrees are supposed to be a measure of one's potential for future performance, and the quality of the institution that granted the degree is supposed to factor into that measure. But over time, institutions have an incentive to reduce rigor and quality in order to cut costs, while still taking advantage of the full perceived value of the degrees they grant based on their past rigor and quality (for example, when charging tuition). I think the common tendency to regard degrees as a form of "signaling" is a tacit recognition that this goes on.

> A much better signal would be, "I passed such and such examinations with such and such scores."

I agree that this would be a much better predictor of potential for future performance, if the institutions grading the examinations and providing the scores were completely unconnected with the institutions that constructed the examinations. (And of course the examinations used for this would have to be different from the ones available over the Internet to everyone.)

[xv1823]

There is a very interesting interview with Edward Teller, who makes the exact point that throwing money at science does NOT produce results, whereas throwing money at technology sometimes does.

I think Teller qualifies as smart.

[neonate]

Because being smart doesn't make you immune from social biases and institutional incentives, which is the point of the OP.

[plmu]

Those that decide to stay in the race, are not necessarily the smartest. Maybe they are the most focussed, more blind to external impulses and "distractions". Plus they are more likely, being in the field, to be affected by these biases.

It would be unwise for any field, even that of brilliant physicists, to ignore external opinions and inputs.

[PopePompus]

Sounds good, as long as the public isn't expected to cough up the funds for their research. Otherwise, don't blame the public for wondering if the LHC was worth the cost.

[JoshCalbet]

"Their research" is the one that keeps pushing technology forwards, the technology that you are using in this moment

[xv1823]

What technology came from the LHC? Or string theory for that matter?

[cygx]

https://kt.cern/technologies

https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society

If you want to include past contributions, that WWW thing is kind of neat...

[T-A]

Except it had nothing to do with physics and was not a research project, just yet another hypertext system.

[yorwba]

Tim Berners-Lee developed HTTP (and the underlying idea of "hypertext" made of interlinked documents) to support scientific collaboration at CERN.

I'm not aware of any technological advances produced by the measurements at the LHC, but it has been running for barely 10 years. On the other hand, building the thing probably required significant innovations in magnets and sensors.