Theoretical Physics in the Third World?
After reading Smolin's book I became a interested in the Perimeter Institute. PI seems to be like one heck of a place to be at! That's not what spiked my interest, though, but rather how it was formed. In a nutshell, a rich startup CEO decided that he would like to contribute to science by starting an institute for theoretical physics, so he donated the cash and hired an executive director. Five years later we have PI.
To do experimental physics one needs a lot of things. Particularly, one needs large sums of money to buy and develop all kinds of technology to meet the demands of the next experiment. This in turn drives technology and is good for the economy so we like to do it. Theoretical physics is quite a bit different. Other than an office, internet connection, plenty of paper, chalkboard and writing utencils one only needs a salary to pay for food, rent and necessities. It is a much cheaper endeavor. Nonetheless, it is harder to get funding to pursue theoretical research because the return of the investment if not null is always less explicit and usually takes longer to arrive. But, if CEOs or anyone else are willing to donate to the cause, we might as well try to make that money go as far as possible. If this is the number one priority then setting up institutes such as PI in the States or Canada seems to make little sense.
More apt scenarios would be countries where the cost of living is a fraction of that in the US. This seems doable largely because the internet exists. Geographic proximity used to have a definite advantage, but the internet is maturing to the point where one can exclusively use the internet to communicate with peers about technical matters. See here (the comments section), for some discussion on the matter. It seems physical proximity is losing value quickly and may even be at a point where its value is small compared with other factors.
A back of the envelope calculation tells me that one can potentially cut the costs of running a theoretical institute by a factor of 2 or 3 by setting it up in Bolivia. (I mostly used Bolivia as my example as I have some real feel for the cost of living and that of services down there). A brief discussion with Kunal and Nikhil tells me that in India the same calculation would yield a factor of 4 or 5. India, of course, seems to be a much better choice of location based on the fact that the education system (e.g. IITs) seems to be top notch over there -- I know I argued that physical proximity could be of little value, but perhaps we can have both.
Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of reasons why we don't seem to be doing this type of thing just yet. The first, government money. In the case of PI, for example, about half the money is from the Canadian government and their desire to promote science in Canada. This seems to rule out places like Bolivia. But perhaps not places like India. (Is India is the only place like this?)
The other reason is that it may be hard to convince academics to go to relocate to a different continent in order to pursue science. But, given the job market in theoretical physics, this seems to be the easier of the battles.
To do experimental physics one needs a lot of things. Particularly, one needs large sums of money to buy and develop all kinds of technology to meet the demands of the next experiment. This in turn drives technology and is good for the economy so we like to do it. Theoretical physics is quite a bit different. Other than an office, internet connection, plenty of paper, chalkboard and writing utencils one only needs a salary to pay for food, rent and necessities. It is a much cheaper endeavor. Nonetheless, it is harder to get funding to pursue theoretical research because the return of the investment if not null is always less explicit and usually takes longer to arrive. But, if CEOs or anyone else are willing to donate to the cause, we might as well try to make that money go as far as possible. If this is the number one priority then setting up institutes such as PI in the States or Canada seems to make little sense.
More apt scenarios would be countries where the cost of living is a fraction of that in the US. This seems doable largely because the internet exists. Geographic proximity used to have a definite advantage, but the internet is maturing to the point where one can exclusively use the internet to communicate with peers about technical matters. See here (the comments section), for some discussion on the matter. It seems physical proximity is losing value quickly and may even be at a point where its value is small compared with other factors.
A back of the envelope calculation tells me that one can potentially cut the costs of running a theoretical institute by a factor of 2 or 3 by setting it up in Bolivia. (I mostly used Bolivia as my example as I have some real feel for the cost of living and that of services down there). A brief discussion with Kunal and Nikhil tells me that in India the same calculation would yield a factor of 4 or 5. India, of course, seems to be a much better choice of location based on the fact that the education system (e.g. IITs) seems to be top notch over there -- I know I argued that physical proximity could be of little value, but perhaps we can have both.
Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of reasons why we don't seem to be doing this type of thing just yet. The first, government money. In the case of PI, for example, about half the money is from the Canadian government and their desire to promote science in Canada. This seems to rule out places like Bolivia. But perhaps not places like India. (Is India is the only place like this?)
The other reason is that it may be hard to convince academics to go to relocate to a different continent in order to pursue science. But, given the job market in theoretical physics, this seems to be the easier of the battles.
posted by rz at 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home