The State of the Physics

                       ________________________



                             M. Apostol 



                Department of Theoretical Physics

                   Institute of Atomic Physics

                     Magurele-Bucharest MG-6

                       POBox MG-35, Romania



                       apoma@theor1.ifa.ro



                    (received: April 2, 1996)

             (first printed - Vol. 2, No. 8 - May 1996)





		In order to understand what is going on at 

		present with physics in society we must 

		simplify the things a little. You might be 

		interested in the simplification I offer here.





	Physics research has been subsidized by two myths: the cold war and 

the development of civilian technological applications. These two myths have

disappeared. The former vanished, there is no cold war anymore. The latter

became reality, physics research has succeeded in producing an impressive

number of highly-valuable technological applications for the civilian life.

It is largely felt in society that there is no longer a reason for continued

financing of scientific research in physics. Physicists have lost the game,

and we should admit it.



	The few recent attempts of infusing money into physics research, 

like the big projects of thermonuclear fusion, superconducting supercollider 

and space research, have met with a complete failure. Those who control the

money no longer fear nuclear war, and already enjoy a wealth of science

by-products in the form of modern conveniences. Many others of the latter

are in stock for them for a long time to come. Why should they bother with

further funding for science? No need anymore. There are of course problems,

even for them, like diseases, famine, over-population, crime or the

weaknesses of democracies; and perhaps they would not be very reluctant to

pay for solving these problems. Unfortunately, physics cannot promise much

in these directions. The poor, on the other hand, have not gained much

apparent benefit from science, and, consequently, believe in it no more. We

have lost credit; though we should admit that we enjoyed it undeservedly.

The large body of the middle classes have no perception of these things, and

they are immaterial; politics is made by smaller and smaller groups.



	What will we be doing? Most of us will move to teaching in various 

schools, colleges and universities, which will be multiplied in small sizes 

and low standards. People at large will be more and more attracted by the 

outfits of physics: the fascination surrounding the scientific discoveries, 

the thrilling adventures of the human mind in unravelling the mysteries of 

the nature while searching for truth, the anecdotal life of the great

physicists, and a few other excitating, romantic things of this sort; the

minimal knowledge of switching on and off the electronic devices which make

the everyday life so sweet; and the fashionable diplomas and degrees.

Physics will become more of a cultural and educational pursuit as soon as it

will consent to lower its requirements. The only thing we are left with for

sale is the exterior appearrance of this science, and we shall peddle it.

Other physicists will remain in small experimental laboratories, which will

turn more and more technical and less scientifical, and will provide

assistance, counselling and expertise for business enterprises, either from

outside or from inside. Few others will enter other disciplines, like

engineering, chemistry, biology, medicine, climate and geophysics,

economics, social sciences, communications, food, transport and

entertainment industries, which are, more or less, at a descriptive level.

The analytical and technical skills of these persons, and their experience

of a scientifically, fully accomplished discipline will be, hopefully, an

asset for the development of the activities named above. None of this has

anything to do with scientific research: it is only what the physicists will

be doing soon, after there will be no more physicists.



	Most of us do not yet believe that the party is over, and we still 

indulge ourselves in the illusion that the things are still going on or will 

do so soon. Trying to keep the dead alive we are doing the best we know: lots 

of irrelevant publications, almost daily announcements of breathtaking new

discoveries proven false the next day, large conferences and congresses in

the hope that the big numbers are what matters, schools of all-

the-four-seasons to give the impression and convey the notion that someting

is still on the way and in the air; or inflicting upon ourselves the burden

of membership to small, exclusive circles which pretend to be the only ones

which are doing the "politically correct" science. The taste of money was

sweet, the vanity is a hugely driving force, and in all cases we show a lack

of critical thinking. Likewise the laymen, physicists have their own portion

of lack of common sense. Others agitate themselves in a confusing manner,

trying frantically to do something, which, in the best cases, is only a sort

of mimicry. Our professional journals are currently publishing wrong, or

trivial, papers, while systematically rejecting the few good ones. We have

to admit that, simply, we are too many and too bad. The scientific community

nowadays is order of magnitude larger than that of the last three centuries,

and still, since the quantum mechanics, there has been no basic advance in

knowledge within our science. Physics is still a science, and as such it is

only partially applicable to the human beings; it should, consequently, be

taken *cum grano salis*. While the public money proved to be so addictive for

us, the physicists, it is, however, obvious, on the other hand, that all of

the technological achievements of our present society do originate in our

work, and that the social cost of this work was extremely low. That is, we

all should be aware that we are also too cheap and too useful. It is

saddening, therefore, to see how much, we, the physicists, like many other

humans, display our own bad habits, lack of judgment, arrogance and

frustrations. After all, the scientific excitement and fun can no longer

compete with those the entertainment industry is currently delivering, and

acting as comedians is no longer a pallatable strategy. Fact is, however,

that there is just less and less money left for scientific research.



	Why did the whole business go wrong, except for a small minority of

fortunates? We do not know. But we have learned a good lesson, which might

help us become wiser. Now, in retrospect, since support has cooled down, we

can see how unwise we are and what foolish games we have played with the

society-funded research.



	After WWII, physicists and society decided to strike a deal and get 

physics research financed directly. The great "factories of science", i.e. 

the research institutes, were established. At that time neither side knew what

they were selling and what the other was buying. The only fact, which served

as a terrific credential for physicists (and a bargaining tool?), was the

atomic bomb. But the object of the deal remains a confusing dream, borne out

of a mixture of the desire for power, humanitarian ideals, elating

enthusiasm, fear, promises of comfort and wellfare, etc. Why should the deal

have gone well, when nobody knew what they were doing? Nobody could ever

possibly have figured out the astonishing output: nuclear reactors, silicon

microelectronics, the laser, magnetic resonance, magnetic memories, the

electronic microscope, molecular epitaxy and high-temperature

superconductivity. However, there were two subtle motivations for the deal,

which rarely receive attention, in spite of their utmost relevance. One from

the physicists. Scientific research is a continuous oscillatory motion

between belief and disbelief, at the border between knowledge and ignorance.

Researchers know only that something should be, but the particular form it

may take they know not. Consequently, they will ever be tempted to check

their visions, to see if really these are for real. When society offerred

them the opportunity to do this, they jumped to strike the deal. They always

will do, and never will they be able to tell exactly what they will come up

with. The object of any such bargain will always be largely unknown at the

beginning. On the other side, society invested an amazingly derisory amount

of money in research, and always will be the same, had the opportunity ever

occur. The fact is that the scientific research is extremely cheap, in

comparison with other social spendings. The general lack of interest in

research is the reason for its cheapness, there is no large market for

research, and never will be. The fact that the money invested in science was

so little was the second profound motivation for doing it. The risk was low.

Of course most of this money has been lost, but even the largest fraction of

something small is still small. The little remaining fraction, however,

turned out to be extremely profitable. This is how that small portion of

fortunates got richer and more powerful. Investing in science business was

an extremely profitable venture. So profitable, that now one must stop doing

it further and take the time to enjoy the revenues. "Economical

competition" should be read "collecting the gains from the scientifical

and technological achievements in the shortest time". Military strategists

will play computer wars for long decades to come, while their arsenals are

full with the final weapons, impossible to be further sophysticated. Bankers

will play infinitely with the speadability the electronic communications

allow money be shifted to and fro, while still keeping track of them.

Politicians will have a good nice time pondering over what all means, and

what to do with it, a period which will be everlasting. And above it all,

all the people will be wired up watching endless TV broadcastings and cable

pumpings, psychologically absorbed into cyberspaces, and enjoying the

limitless resources of nuclear energy. The crisis that afflicts the

scientific research nowadays is a crisis of over-production.



	Scientists behave amazingly in society. The critical thinking which 

is proper to science is seldom, if ever, showed by us when interacting with

society. We share our knowledge indiscriminately, with everyone, out of urge

to verify this knowledge; openess is a very fruitfull way of doing science.

While undertaking this indistinct dissemination we do not only trade our own

knowledge but the entire stock inherited from the past generations. When

asking for funding for our research projects we sell not only our own

knowledge but the entire tradition of science, which throws a shadow upon

our moral responsability, or, at least, upon our judgment as regards the

profitability of research. We never bothered to provide guaranties for

future developments, not even when we have witnessed the high profitability

of the output of our endeavours. On the other hand, we do not have the habit

to stress enough that science is still far away from solving the great

problems of the mankind, we do not say very often the basic tenets that

define our own profession: "we do not know", "we can not do". This is

why we lost so much of our credit at large. We lure the beginners into the

field of scientific research without being able to tell them what is all

about. The collectivity of scientific researchers has increased

indiscriminately over the years; society discovered another vocation for

itself, and there should be little surprise when the right to the scientific

research will be inscribed among the Human Rights. People will come to

science to see for themselves, through their own experience, what science

is, in fact. They will find out that science is the knowledge of our limits,

and doubts are to be cast whether this will ever please them.



	What about physics? In spite of the large amount of facts we have

accumulated, and in so many and diverse domains, no new problem emerged. On

the contrary, while identifying new physical objects, we are continuosly

losing at the same time old, good problems that are the breadth of our

science. The frequent announcements of new problems are of false problems.

There are many questions, but no new problem. We have tested all the known

ideas and concepts, and they work fine. We are still left with the old

puzzles (this does not mean that one should set oneself and try to solve

them!): why F=ma, why the entropy increases, why space is related to time,

and why particles and waves are the same thing? We do not know, but who is

asking? Nobody asked Descartes, Galilei or Newton to explain motion; they

were just curious (though they were asking for money!). There was no need in

epoch to figure out the chaotical motion of the atoms; Boltzmann did it, out

of a sort of enthusiasm, that could very well be what was fatal to him. The

practitioners of the electromagnetism equations were not at all aware of

their missing the displacement current, with one exception: Maxwell. Without

Bohr's stubborness that something must work with the electrons in atoms we

would not have, very likely, quantum mechanics. Silently and humble, after

the hubris that marked its interlude with society, physics will regain its

destiny: that of *Philosophiae Naturalis*.