Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Sabine Hossenfelder: Maybe I’m crazy

#1
C C Offline
Even for scientists, funding and career/job security concerns can trump application of reason in evaluating whether or not particular pursuits and sub-categories of physics should be kept alive. Whatever propaganda acrobatics and rewriting of disciplinary traditions it takes... Similar in spirit to the humanities jumping on the social justice and utopian aspirations bandwagon back in the 1950s so as to appear useful and relevant.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02...crazy.html

INTRO: How often can you hold up four fingers, hear a thousand people shout “five”, and not agree with them? How often can you repeat an argument, see it ignored, and still believe in reason? How often can you tell a thousand scientists the blatantly obvious, hear them laugh, and not think you are the one who is insane? I wonder. Every time a particle physicist dismisses my concerns, unthinkingly, I wonder some more. Maybe I am crazy? It would explain so much. Then I remind myself of the facts, once again.

Fact is, in the foundations of physics we have not seen progress for the past four decades. Ever since the development of the standard model in the 1970s, further predictions for new effects have been wrong. Physicists commissioned dozens of experiments to look for dark matter particles and grand unification. They turned data up-side down in search for supersymmetric particles and dark energy and new dimensions of space. The result has been consistently: Nothing new.

Yes, null-results are also results. But they are not very useful results if you need to develop a new theory. A null-result says: “Let’s not go this way.” A result says: “Let’s go that way.” If there are many ways to go, discarding some of them does not help much. To move on in the foundations of physics, we need results, not null-results.

It’s not like we are done and can just stop here. We know we have not reached the end. The theories we currently have in the foundations are not complete. They have problems that require solutions. And if you look at the history of physics, theory-led breakthroughs came when predictions were based on solving problems that required solution.

But the problems that theoretical particle physicists currently try to solve do not require solutions. The lack of unification, the absence of naturalness, the seeming arbitrariness of the constants of nature: these are aesthetic problems. Physicists can think of prettier theories, and they believe those have better chances to be true. Then they set out to test those beauty-based predictions. And get null-results.

It’s not only that there is no reason to think this method should work, it does – in fact! – not work, has not worked for decades. It is failing right now, once again, as more beauty-based predictions for the LHC are ruled out every day. They keep on believing, nevertheless....

MORE: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02...crazy.html
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
Social pressure/disagreement is like more keenly felt by women.
Reply
#3
Yazata Offline
(Feb 6, 2019 07:17 PM)C C channeling Sabine Wrote: ...Every time a particle physicist dismisses my concerns, unthinkingly, I wonder some more. Maybe I am crazy? It would explain so much. Then I remind myself of the facts, once again.

Fact is, in the foundations of physics we have not seen progress for the past four decades. Ever since the development of the standard model in the 1970s, further predictions for new effects have been wrong. Physicists commissioned dozens of experiments to look for dark matter particles and grand unification. They turned data up-side down in search for supersymmetric particles and dark energy and new dimensions of space. The result has been consistently: Nothing new.

Certainly physics is making progress around the edges, in lots of research areas like astrophysics. Theories of planetary formation have been revolutionized by the discovery of exoplanets. But the foundational stuff that the theoretical physicists love so much? 40 years is a long time without notable successes.

What we seem to get instead are wonderful new theories like string theory, that generate excitement and attract lots of young researchers looking to advance their careers, attracted by all the mathematical elegance and by the promise that the theory holds out. But experimental results? Not so much. These things will linger on, increasingly passe, until the next new thing hits.

Which of course explains why they aren't all that eager to agree with Sabine. If their careers and their reputations are identified with a particular kind of research program, they aren't going to be very quick to admit that particular emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Quote:Yes, null-results are also results. But they are not very useful results if you need to develop a new theory. A null-result says: “Let’s not go this way.” A result says: “Let’s go that way.”If there are many ways to go, discarding some of them does not help much. To move on in the foundations of physics, we need results, not null-results.

Yes. It kind of looks like they are missing something, some new way conceptualizing things that will suddenly enable them to start constructing models that actually produce positive results. Then there will be an exciting golden-age period when lots of hot new possibilities are explored and lots of researchers win Nobel prizes. Eventually, things might bog down again and some new conceptual breakthrough will be needed, some new way of looking at things.

But having said that, I'm not entirely clear on how this...

Quote:It’s not like we are done and can just stop here. We know we have not reached the end. The theories we currently have in the foundations are not complete. They have problems that require solutions.

Is supposed to be different than this...

Quote:But the problems that theoretical particle physicists currently try to solve do not require solutions. The lack of unification, the absence of naturalness, the seeming arbitrariness of the constants of nature: these are aesthetic problems.

So how would she explain her distinction between "foundations" problems that "require solutions"... and what she apparently wants to dismiss as "aesthetic" pseudoproblems, such as where the constants of nature come from. Why doesn't that require a solution? It looks pretty foundational to me.

Certainly she's right in wanting to find theories that produce positive experimental predictions. Theories shouldn't be embraced merely because the mathematics is elegant and beautiful.

Quote:It’s not only that there is no reason to think this method should work, it does – in fact! – not work, has not worked for decades.

I like Sabine Hossenfelder, admire her attitude and think that she's one of the most interesting thinkers currently out there at the intersection of physics and philosophy.
Reply
#4
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Feb 6, 2019 07:17 PM)C C Wrote: Even for scientists, funding and career/job security concerns can trump application of reason in evaluating whether or not particular pursuits and sub-categories of physics should be kept alive. Whatever propaganda acrobatics and rewriting of disciplinary traditions it takes... Similar in spirit to the humanities jumping on the social justice and utopian aspirations bandwagon back in the 1950s so as to appear useful and relevant.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02...crazy.html

INTRO: How often can you hold up four fingers, hear a thousand people shout “five”, and not agree with them? How often can you repeat an argument, see it ignored, and still believe in reason? How often can you tell a thousand scientists the blatantly obvious, hear them laugh, and not think you are the one who is insane? I wonder. Every time a particle physicist dismisses my concerns, unthinkingly, I wonder some more. Maybe I am crazy? It would explain so much. Then I remind myself of the facts, once again.

Fact is, in the foundations of physics we have not seen progress for the past four decades. Ever since the development of the standard model in the 1970s, further predictions for new effects have been wrong. Physicists commissioned dozens of experiments to look for dark matter particles and grand unification. They turned data up-side down in search for supersymmetric particles and dark energy and new dimensions of space. The result has been consistently: Nothing new.

Yes, null-results are also results. But they are not very useful results if you need to develop a new theory. A null-result says: “Let’s not go this way.” A result says: “Let’s go that way.” If there are many ways to go, discarding some of them does not help much. To move on in the foundations of physics, we need results, not null-results.

It’s not like we are done and can just stop here. We know we have not reached the end. The theories we currently have in the foundations are not complete. They have problems that require solutions. And if you look at the history of physics, theory-led breakthroughs came when predictions were based on solving problems that required solution.

But the problems that theoretical particle physicists currently try to solve do not require solutions. The lack of unification, the absence of naturalness, the seeming arbitrariness of the constants of nature: these are aesthetic problems. Physicists can think of prettier theories, and they believe those have better chances to be true. Then they set out to test those beauty-based predictions. And get null-results.

It’s not only that there is no reason to think this method should work, it does – in fact! – not work, has not worked for decades. It is failing right now, once again, as more beauty-based predictions for the LHC are ruled out every day. They keep on believing, nevertheless....

MORE: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02...crazy.html

it was fairly obvious science had already lost when the US school system allowed creationism to be put into schools.
do they preach creationism with sex ed to young teens ?
"you only get pregnant & catch diseases if its gods will..." ?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Five multiverse theories - Sabine Hossenfelder (video) C C 1 624 Jun 5, 2019 07:26 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  QM is wrong (Sabine Hoss...) + Antimatter & gravity + Chemistry automation downside C C 0 627 May 15, 2019 03:59 PM
Last Post: C C
  Exotic spheres, or why 4-dimensional space is a crazy place C C 1 833 Oct 22, 2014 07:57 PM
Last Post: krash661



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)