|
|
|
|
|
|
by temporaryi3
1680 days ago
|
|
|
You'll also need to pay for the people doing the research to buy houses, have cars, retirement savings, raise families, and have a decent quality of life too. Add that to a bare bones optics lab with a few staff and you will be running about $1 million startup costs for benches, lasers, optics, closed loop cryogencics, He4, interferometers, etc, plus half a million a year salary costs for 3-5 people in a low cost of living area. It would also need job security to be competitive with going into something like data science, making the startup costs a careers worth of funding otherwise it would be insanity to choose. Source: PhD in quantum optics, no longer do science. |
|
|
Newton and Cavendish didn't have any of those, except that Cavendish had retirement savings. So while not having houses, cars, retirement savings, the ability to raise a family, and a decent quality of life might be a reason for not achieving more than Newton or Cavendish, it's not a reason for achieving less.
(I suspect that raising a family is actually counterproductive. I've seen an awful lot of promising researchers of both genders stop publishing after their first baby.)
I don't have any of those things, but while I'm no Newton or Cavendish, I can't attribute the difference to my lack of a car. Most of the people in my country don't have any of those except for houses; most of the people here who own houses built them with their own hands rather than buying them.
It's true that if you have to choose between going into data science and owning your own house and car, or doing quantum optics while living in poverty, the former is a lot better for you. But for most of us it's not an either-or choice:
1. Why not both? Lagrange did a significant amount of his work while subsisting on a day job teaching ballistics to gunners. Vipul Ved Prakash wrote Vipul's Razor by working one month out of the year in Delhi, then spending the other 11 months up in the mountains working on whatever he wanted to. Sidis deliberately didn't do anything others would consider useful, surviving on a series of menial jobs, but if he'd turned his formidable intellect on the problems of automatic computation or chemistry instead of collecting streetcar transfers, possibly he would have made significant progress. I've been living on US$6k a year, so a single year of a US$250k salary and stock package at Google or Fecebutt would allow me to survive for 40 years.
2. For most of us, it's neither. Most people don't have a data-science job available, or cars, or job security, or retirement savings. Given the choice between spending your spare time on watching Westworld and setting up experiments with Kerr cells and third-harmonic-generation crystals, what could possibly make the former a better choice? Though I'm one to talk! Here I am wasting my time commenting on the orange website, arguing about physics with people (who aren't you) whose understanding of physics evidently comes from WGBH Boston.
So, while I agree that everyone should live in material abundance, I don't agree with your apparent conclusion that more abundance of non-experimental-apparatus material goods would boost the world's research productivity. Many more people can buy houses, buy cars, have retirement savings, and raise families than 50 or 100 years ago, while the speed of scientific advancement has increased only modestly.