The years of my life dedicated to the fulfillment of my passion for mathematical physics (2003 – …) alone deserve a long chapter in the autobiographical novel that I might write one day.
The chance of birth (a rationalist and atheist father, passionate about chemistry and a superb cook in those early morning hours) and the chance of events pushed a Gallic dreamer (myself), to open his eyes to the nature of the place where his life unfolds, then to look up at the cosmos to finally realize the smallness of his ego.
Nothing could have foretold the importance that mathematical physics would one day take on in my adult life. And yet, little by little, step by step, it invaded my mind and then my entire life.
Among many other consequences, it allowed me to share for about twelve years (2004 - 2016) the adventure and collective reflection of thousands of other French and foreign amateurs (because we are not the only ones asking questions about the positioning of the contribution of people like me to the professional world). What conclusions can be drawn from all this?
When I began my journey, I certainly suspected that the road would be arduous. No degree, no connections in the academic world... the chances of being heard were slim to none from the start. As proof, I can cite the numerous letters sent here and there in an attempt to start a dialogue with a professional... but almost all of them went unanswered.
To my great astonishment, the only researchers in the world who agreed to communicate with me were not French, but American, Russian, German, English, and who knows what else. Ultimately, their nationality didn't matter anyway, since we simply shared the same passion for science and research.
Furthermore, today's research is primarily written in the languages of Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, or Confucius; much to the dismay of our budding neo-nationalists.
There are entire sections of current research that remain inaccessible to the French-speaking readership. This fact alone motivates the encouragement of French initiatives aimed at sharing the basics of scientific knowledge through entirely French-speaking media.
If we do not do this, and yet wish to continue taking part in global research, then logic dictates that we should teach the three languages mentioned above starting in elementary school!
But in the meantime we are being told about participatory democracy in the development of research programs and, as usual, tons of texts are written to explain to us why we should do this (the inventory), what justifies doing this (legal and regulatory legitimacy) and what should be done (the objectives).
But has this been done in the meantime or have all the funds intended for actual research been spent on stating the reasons for the research that should have been done?
Before research is once again conducted in the language of Molière, we will first have to relearn conviviality and the sharing of ideas. We will undoubtedly also need to review our economic model and the share of money that we collectively decide to devote to our future, which is to say to our research.
In an article published in 2015 in the "Dernières Nouvelles d'Alsace (DNA)", I discovered an article that left me flabbergasted. It reinforces the sense of fiasco surrounding French research organizations. The author was indeed explaining how difficult it was, that year, to manage to merge the fiefdoms, sorry I mean the universities, of the two departments of the region and that the most powerful man in French research came to royally distribute ten million euros to fourteen hundred researchers for their work - not for their salary - ... do the math (about one thousand euros per researcher) and, like me, weep ...
And yet, "amateurship" - a word used (invented?) by J.M. Levy-Leblond (1940 - ...) in his reflection on the participation of amateurs in the work of professionals - perhaps deserves to be considered with civic-mindedness. I will borrow from him here a few excerpts from a text available on the web; they deserve to be pondered.
... (Quote § 34): Not to sound overly pessimistic, however, I would like to conclude by raising a question that those involved in the acculturation of science may have neglected too much in recent years and that is coming back with force today - the question of amateurs. Alliage (culture, science, technique) recently published a special issue dedicated to science amateurs (end of quote)
... (Quote § 36): One only has to attend astronomy festivals such as the one in Fleurance in the Gers region, a remarkable place for experimentation on these issues, to observe this great diversity of the public, from the most lay person who observes the sky for the first time and learns the names of the constellations, to seasoned connoisseurs who do not hesitate to interrupt or even contradict the specialists (end of quote)... .
... (Quote § 37): But can there be (...) amateurs in high-energy physics? Could amateurs verify whether neutrinos sometimes really travel faster than light? It is obviously more difficult when one knows the sophistication of the equipment and formalisms of this physics (end of quote)... .
... (Quote § 39): Does this development of new forms of activities (involving) amateurs mean that we are entering a new phase of scientific acculturation? This is not obvious and the question arises. Because in the examples I have mentioned, it is scientists who organize these networks of amateurs and in some cases one is not far from the pure and simple exploitation of free volunteering (end of quote)... .
To finish, I will quote this message tinged with sadness by Marc Fontecave, quoted by a professor at the Collège de France: (start of quote) "We still live today in France with this idea, less and less justified and increasingly arrogant, that our capacity for innovation, due to the excellence of our teachers, researchers and engineers, and the quality of our infrastructures, is far superior to that of the countries of the South and East.
Remember the smugness with which, at the time of the first oil crisis, we declared: We have no oil but we have ideas.
We must face the facts: we still have no oil, but we are no longer the only ones to have ideas and the capacity to exploit them in the form of concrete applications for the benefit of economic and social development.
This is the novelty. It is a radical and irreversible change to which we will have to adapt (end of quote)".
© Thierry PERIAT, reformulation of a text published for the first time in october 2015.