At the American Chemical Society meeting last week J.T. Hynes gave a talk
Some modest proposals for 21st century physical chemists
Here are his three main points.
(1) The most familiar problems/phenomena may in fact not be at all already understood, and can provide fertile areas for discovery;
(2) Just an experiment or a theory because it is 'old' (e.g. of a certain vintage) does not mean it is inferior/wrong despite the lack of novelty and modernity;
(3) Simple, well-constructed analytic models have a significant role to play in comprehending and advancing both theory and experiment.
Unfortunately, I was not at the meeting, but my colleague Seth Olsen was and told me I would have enjoyed the talk. These points certainly resonate with my own views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What criteria should be used to evaluate theories of emergence properties?
What criteria do people use to decide if a theory in physics is successful? For special relativity, general relativity, and quantum theory, ...
-
An interesting and controversial question for Ph.D's in science and engineering is too what extent students should be expected to have ...
-
Some of my colleagues and I have started an interesting discussion about how to teach quantum theory to undergraduates. We have courses in t...
-
As years go by the PhD thesis in science and engineering is less and less of a ``thesis'' and more just a box to tick. There was a t...
I am glad to see #3 on the list. Time and time again I have heard the argument that the way of analytical models are giving way to computational approaches alone. I think both are necessary. In particular, an analytical model that is well thought out leads to a deeper understanding of the underpinning physical phenomenon.
ReplyDelete