Mehta replies: I thank both authors for their thoughtful responses and appreciate the interdisciplinary span of their ideas.
Ramesh Gopalan’s point, about people taking the underlying physics of everyday gizmos for granted, is well made. The “marketplace of ideas” to which he refers puts technology on a far higher pedestal than the basic physics behind it. In my opinion, the way to fight that attitude is not by speed (physicists will never overtake engineers in that regard!), but by innovation. Physics needs to come back to its status as an art and a philosophy, where space is made for originality of thought, rather than sticking to the assembly-line mentalities I’ve alluded to in my article.
Lance Nizami’s letter spells out possible reasons for these assembly-line mentalities—although I’m not convinced that international political competitiveness is the only cause of such academic philistinism, or, indeed, that physics across the globe could lay claim to being a big-stakes business, as it might be in relatively developed countries. However, his letter certainly provides an interesting perspective.
Finally, I plead guilty to being understated, both for reasons of personal preference, and because it leaves space for interesting discussions such as these by Gopalan and Nizami.
