Condensed concepts

What are the most amazing things that we know about the physics of the universe? If you were to pick ten what would they be? I recently read Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality (2021) a popular science book by Frank Wilczek. My interest in the book was piqued just to see what Wilczek's choices for his "ten" were. I got a copy from the public library and became entranced because I discovered what a gifted writer and expositor Wilczek is. I found I was learning some physics I did not know; or at least getting a deeper understanding of what I should know. I then bought my own copy so I could annotate it. I have previously enjoyed the insights in many of Wilczeks' Physics Today columns. The book gives a popular presentation of some physics "basics" such as celestial mechanics, the Standard Model of elementary particles (which he renames the Core), and Big Bang cosmology.  I found it full of insights. I also appreciated that Wilczek does not have the hard reductio

How should we live? What really exists? And how do we know for sure?  These three questions are at the heart of philosophy as an academic discipline.  This raises the question as to what the "philosophy of physics" is and what it should be? Philosophy of Physics: A Very Short Introduction by David Wallace explores this. He begins by stating that "Daniel Dennett defines philosophy as what we do when we don't know what questions to ask." I found that somewhat unsatisfying and went to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy.  Most definitions of philosophy are fairly controversial, particularly if they aim to be at all interesting or profound. That is partly because what has been called philosophy has changed radically in scope in the course of history, with many inquiries that were originally part of it having detached themselves from it. The shortest definition, and it is quite a good one, is that philosophy is thinking about thinking. That brings out the generally s

 Members of my family have been reading  Phosphorescence: On awe, wonder, and things that sustain you when the world goes dark , a personal memoir by  Julia Baird . This reminded me of how amazing and fascinating bioluminescence is, stimulating me to read more on the science side. One of the first things is to distinguish between bioluminescence, fluorescence, and phosphorescence. Bioluminescence is chemical luminescence whereby a biomolecule emits a photon through the radiative decay of a singlet excited state that is produced by a chemical reaction.  In contrast, fluorescence occurs when the singlet excited state is produced by the molecule absorbing a photon. Phosphorescence occurs when a molecule emits a photon through the radiative decay of an excited triplet state, that was produced by the absorption of a photon. Bioluminescence can occur in the dark. Fluorescence cannot as there are no photons to absorb. Phosphorescence is sometimes seen in the dark but this is because the molec

The physics department at the University of Queensland has just advertised for a junior faculty position in condensed matter. Only applications from women will be considered. The advertisement is here and the closing date is January 19. The photo is of the beach at Bribie Island, my favourite holiday location, about one hours drive away. Aside: it was gratifying that the last faculty hired in condensed matter at UQ, Peter Jacobson, first heard about the position on this blog.

 Is real scientific progress slowing? Are funders of research, whether governments, corporations, or philanthropies, getting a good return on their investment? Along with many others (based largely on intuition and anecdote) I believe that the system is broken, and at many different levels. What are possible ways forward? How might current systems of funding be reformed? The Economist recently published a fascinating column (in the Finance and Economics section!), How to escape scientific stagnation . It reviews a number of recent papers by economists that wrestle with questions such as those above. Philanthropists... funding of basic research has nearly doubled in the past decade. All these efforts aim to help science get back its risk-loving mojo. In a working paper published last year, Chiara Franzoni and Paula Stephan look at a number of measures of risk, based on analyses of text and the variability of citations. These suggest science’s reward structure discourages academics fro