I have worked half of my life in both fundamental and applied science, I know how this work. In particular you can refuse jobs you deem unethical.
Why not funding energy transition research for instance. It’s know to science for half a century we’ll cook to death if we don’t phase out fossil fuel energy.
And by know, I mean there’s literally millions of papers on the topic.
> a project in collaboration with the oil and gas company Exxon Mobil
I find it a bit dark that, at a time people, crops, forests and biomes are dying due to extreme heat caused by the fossil fuel industry’s reckless behaviour the last 50 years, the said fossil fuel industry funds research on exotic rheology.
When I was doing my phd, around 2 decades ago, I was often going to the library’s compactus to fish for a Phys Rev from the 80s. Back then papers were sparse and expensive. But the quality!
The Higgs boson is 3 papers, 6 authors and 6 pages in total!
At the end of my phd, 30++ pages slop papers were the norm.
Nowadays, well..
The paper by Higgs was one page. The guy probably published less than a hundred pages in his career.
One reason that made me abandon a career was the disgust caused by the publishing frienzy.
agreed, when you start needing the the hodge star, diff form loose quite a lot of their interest.
i'd add it's quite nice in string theories for RR fields and coupling to D-branes, where writing 10 anti-symmetrized indices quickly gets annoying.. and topological field theories..
from a theoretical physicist point of view, i find GA don't add much to the standard tooling ppl use, i.e. Lie algebras, Clifford and (sometimes) differential forms. while it's always nice to have a formalism that "hides indices", in most cases (for (super-)gravitation at least) just writing tensor/clifford/lie indices is just much faster and less error prone.
i used to use differential form for gauge theories, einstein-cartan gravitation and ramond-ramond fields.
also, in a paper, we used O(D,D) clifford algebras/spinors to represent differential forms, which worked quite well in our very specific case (appendix A)
Well congratulations, you just stated the equivalence principle that led Einstein to GR (you need special relativity and a bit of maths and you’re there)!
you say we are "addicted" to cement/concrete which is correct, but then propose more cement? i get we might need cement here and there for energy transition and might need your tech. but isn't using less cement a better/complementary approach?
im addicted to tobacco, not sure natural tobacco is my best bet.
at a time where half of the world is burning, do we need more 10 ways bridges for huge cars?
how do you tackle the worldwide sand shortage problem?
does your tech solves the issue that comminution (grinding) of clinker is one of the biggest electricity consumers worldwide?
how does that scales up, how long to deploy? what are the consequences (please be honest) to marine life, knowing that most kelp forests/corals are now gone/bleached?
how does your tech tackles the massive corruption problems that come with concrete?
thanks in advance
edit: don't take it badly, your tech looks promising on paper.
Why not funding energy transition research for instance. It’s know to science for half a century we’ll cook to death if we don’t phase out fossil fuel energy.
And by know, I mean there’s literally millions of papers on the topic.