In this module, we’ve learned about how ideas from condensed matter physics were able to inform particle physics. Do you see so-called “cross-fertilization” as being something that has to happen again and again in science to deepen our understandings of the natural world? Why?
Yes, I regard this as most fundamental to gain a deeper inside, e.g. the discovery that the spin direction of electrons can provoke longitudinal molecules whereas the other direction result in clumsy molecules (life, dead matter) was only possible with an interdisciplinary team.
More to follow
“If the particles initially didn’t had mass(before higgs field gave them mass) , how did they existed physically?
What’s the physical interpretation about existence of these particles even?”
Mass is not really the amount of matter in an object, although it is often described to us that way in physics classes. Mass is a characteristic that enables particles to interact gravitationally. It is not essential for a particle to have mass, any more than it is essential for a particle to have electrical charge.
Nevertheless, the question of what is the physical interpretation of existance is an interesting one – it may even be the most fundamental question. What is left when we strip away the gravitational, electromagentic, strong and weak nuclear interactions? What are the objects themesleves, the things that are interacting?
As I wrote before, there has to be a payoff for the research at some point. Cross-fertilization not only creates use for the knowledge but it also creates business activity, bringing tax money, that brings revenue to needed research. Taxpayers don’t think highly of science that has no tangible benefit. Perhaps short-sighted but true. Taxpayers aren’t there to have the “Great Hand” pulling money out of their pockets for nothing. Taxpayers are the bosses of the government and can, by voting, pull the plug on research that is not in the public interest.
You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.
Send this to a friend