Physics, Community and the Crisis in Physical Theory
DOI: 10.1063/1.881368
A deep sense of unease permeates the physical sciences. We are in a time of great change: The end of the cold war has ushered in an era of shrinking budgets, painful restructuring and changing objectives. At the same time, the underlying assumptions of physics research have shifted. Traditionally, physics has been highly reductionist, analyzing nature in terms of smaller and smaller building blocks and revealing underlying, unifying fundamental laws. In the past this grand vision has bound the subdisciplines together. Now, however, the reductionist approach that has been the hallmark of theoretical physics in the 20th century is being superseded by the investigation of emergent phenomena, the study of the properties of complexes whose “elementary” constituents and their interactions are known. Physics, it could be said, is becoming like chemistry.
This article is only available in PDF format
References
1. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 126, 114 (1929).
2. Quoted in C. Domb, Contemp. Phys. 26 (1), 49 (1985).https://doi.org/CTPHAF
3. For an entry into the enormous body of works on the physicists and World War II, see M. Fortun, S. S. Schweber, Social Studies of Science, Fall 1993, in press.
4. For a historical overview, see T. Y. Cao, S. S. Schweber, Synthese, Fall 1993, in press.
5. S. S. Schweber, Hist. Studies Phys. Biol. Sci. 10 (2), 339 (1990).
J. D. Bernal, The World, the Flesh and the Devil, Button, New York (1929).6. P. W. Anderson, Science 177, 393 (1972).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
7. F. J. Dyson, report to the Oldstone Conf., April 1949;
see S. S. Schweber, QED and the Men Who Made It, Princeton U.P., Princeton, N.J. (1994), p. 554.8. S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 515 (1980).
9. E. C. G. Stueckelberg, A. Petermann, Helv. Phys. Acta. 26, 499 (1953). https://doi.org/HPACAK
M. Gell‐Mann, F. Low, Phys. Rev. 95, 1300 (1954). https://doi.org/PHRVAO
See also S. Weinberg, in Asymptotic Realms of Physics: Essays in Honor of Francis E. Low, A. H. Guth, K. Huang, R. L. Jaffe, eds., MIT P., Cambridge, Mass. (1983), p. 1.10. D. Gross, in Recent Developments in Quantum Field Theory, J. Ambjorn, B. J. Durhuus, J. L. Petersen, eds., Elsevier, New York (1985), p. 151.
For an overview of Wilson’s contributions, see his Nobel lecture:K. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 583 (1983).https://doi.org/RMPHAT11. H. Georgi, in The New Physics, P. Davies, ed., Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, England (1989), p. 446.
12. P. G. Lepage, in From Action to Answers, Proc. 1989 Adv. Inst. in Elementary Particle Physics, T. DeGrand, T. Toussaint, eds., World Scientific, Singapore (1990), p. 483.
13. L. P. Kadanoff, W. Götze, D. Hamblen, R. Hecht, E. A. S. Lewis, V. V. Palciauskas, M. Rayl, J. Swift, D. Aspnes, J. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 395 (1967).https://doi.org/RMPHAT
14. A referee of this article stressed the points made in this and the previous paragraph. See also M. Dresden, in Physical Reality and Mathematical Description, C. P. Enz, J. Mehra, eds., Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1985), p. 133.
15. This point was made by Harvey Brooks already in 1973;
see H. Brooks, Am. Sci. 75, 513 (1987). https://doi.org/AMSCAC
B. L. R. Smith, American Science Policy since World War II, Brookings Inst., Washington, D.C. (1990).16. S. S. Schweber, in The Rise of the Standard Model, Proc. June 1992 SLAC Conf., L. Brown, L. Hoddeson, M. Riordan, eds., Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, England, to appear in 1994.
I also draw on a draft for a proposed workshop on the crisis in physics prepared by T. Y. Cao and S. S. Schweber.17. R. J. Bernstein, ed., Habermas and Modernity, MIT P., Cambridge, Mass. (1985).
18. I. I. Rabi, in The Scientific Endeavor: Centennial Celebration of the National Academy of Sciences, Rockefeller Inst. P., New York (1963), p. 303.
More about the Authors
Silvan S. Schweber. Martin Fisher School of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham.
