Incremental steps

On a recent post were I showed the blessed results of my analysis of Z->bb decays, I received a very interesting question:

[...] Why you and fellow particle physicists don't (at least publicly) get discouraged that experiments like this don't yield physics information that wasn't already known? [...] Didn't you and your particle physics colleagues--among the brightest, hardest-working, most mathematically talented scientists--go into physics to discover more new things than this? From my (uninformed!) point of view, it seems that particle physicists are celebrating very incremental steps like these, rather than worrying that the return of truly significant, worldview-altering scientific knowledge appears to be very low at this point. [...] - Ben

Ben, you are right when you say that we study Particle Physics to hit on big new things, which can bring sudden advances to our field and to science in general. However, there are then several constraints:

• First of all, one is not always free to pick the kind of research one thinks is the most interesting, the most useful, or the most likely to produce a Nobel prize. To first order, after a PhD all but the very brightest (who are able to pick exactly what they want) are typically just happy to be able to stay in the business, and will conform to the research program of the University or Institute that hires them.
• After a few years, one gets to a tenured position and can then have more freedom to choose... But will one then be still able to have the energy and the stimulus to do groundbreaking research ? Not easy!
• The other constraints come from one's background. It is hard to leave one's specific expertise (which is a valuable asset) to move to another more promising research.
• Finally, the most promising things are the ones where there is more competition, and one cannot always afford to have to fight.

Most of the big advancements in Physics, and I would say in Science in general, are indeed pictured as quantum leaps, but are rather the result of the collection of a mass of independent, smallish pieces of information. Then there is a stroke of genius, sure. But if you look closely, the genius was first of all a very well informed person! And without all the work of obscure colleagues, even a Planck would not have figured out how to fit a power spectrum the right way. In order to have the need of hypothesizing a quantization of energy Planck needed a very precise measurement of the emission spectrum of a blackbody to have to fit: and the higher precision of that measurement was - one could argue - a small incremental step from less precise measurements available at that time, to use your words.

Another instance of that mechanism is the discovery of Parity violation. Lee and Yang produced a earthquake when they speculated that Weak Interaction did not conserve the Parity symmetry, in a paper in 1956. But that paper was just a small bit of genius sprayed on top of a very detailed, precise and methodical review of all data available to that point: small experiments, tiny bits of information, sometimes imprecise, sometimes incomplete. Incremental steps!

So, am I worried by doing my tiny little bit of Science instead than concentrating on the big issues ? No. I am a soldier, not a general. Maybe one day I will be a general, but I have the feeling I will enjoy Particle Physics less then!