Jul 16, 2019 04:34 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 16, 2019 04:40 PM by C C.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2...7435d92556
EXCERPT (Chad Orzel): . . . A bit more than a week ago, Sabine Hossenfelder posted a response to my earlier post here about physicists starting new experimental searches for dark matter, which was in response to an earlier post of hers, and so on. This is all part of a long-running debate...
[...] Hossenfelder's argument, as I understand it, is that the current paradigm for theory generation in fundamental physics, based on the idea of looking for mathematical elegance in fundamental theories, is fatally flawed. Any prediction based on such theories is suspect, bordering on meaningless, and thus pointless to test experimentally. More than that, though, she sees the mathematical beauty paradigm as an active impediment to progress, and believes that no new advances will be made while it holds sway. For that reason, any activity providing aid and comfort to beauty-paradigm theorists ought to be discontinued at once...
[...] This is essentially elevating the crisis in theoretical particle physics to the level of a moral imperative, or even an existential crisis, the way some people regard climate change. It's saying that even scientists who aren't directly involved in this problem need to involve themselves in it at once, or disaster will follow. [...] I find this even less convincing as applied to theoretical physics. For one thing, this gets my back up a bit because it's just a new twist on the same old line about how the only physics that really matters is fundamental particle physics. It's at least not saying that anyone working in other fields is second-rate at best, which is the most offensive variant, but it's saying that the goals and concerns of other fields of physics need to be subordinate to those of particle theory.
[...] To me, then, the current situation in theoretical physics isn't clear enough to provide the kind of moral imperative Hossenfelder is arguing for. I agree that they have problems, and I am sympathetic to her view of the origin of those problems, but at the present moment the problems of particle theory are for particle theorists to sort out. [...] Particle theories may provide a target to aim for, but most of these experiments aren't really about particle physics, they're about pushing the boundaries of measurements for the fields in which they're based. Assessing their value on their chances of success in detecting a specific dark matter candidate is largely missing the point.
So, as I said above, it's a classic agree-to-disagree situation... (MORE - details)
EXCERPT (Chad Orzel): . . . A bit more than a week ago, Sabine Hossenfelder posted a response to my earlier post here about physicists starting new experimental searches for dark matter, which was in response to an earlier post of hers, and so on. This is all part of a long-running debate...
[...] Hossenfelder's argument, as I understand it, is that the current paradigm for theory generation in fundamental physics, based on the idea of looking for mathematical elegance in fundamental theories, is fatally flawed. Any prediction based on such theories is suspect, bordering on meaningless, and thus pointless to test experimentally. More than that, though, she sees the mathematical beauty paradigm as an active impediment to progress, and believes that no new advances will be made while it holds sway. For that reason, any activity providing aid and comfort to beauty-paradigm theorists ought to be discontinued at once...
[...] This is essentially elevating the crisis in theoretical particle physics to the level of a moral imperative, or even an existential crisis, the way some people regard climate change. It's saying that even scientists who aren't directly involved in this problem need to involve themselves in it at once, or disaster will follow. [...] I find this even less convincing as applied to theoretical physics. For one thing, this gets my back up a bit because it's just a new twist on the same old line about how the only physics that really matters is fundamental particle physics. It's at least not saying that anyone working in other fields is second-rate at best, which is the most offensive variant, but it's saying that the goals and concerns of other fields of physics need to be subordinate to those of particle theory.
[...] To me, then, the current situation in theoretical physics isn't clear enough to provide the kind of moral imperative Hossenfelder is arguing for. I agree that they have problems, and I am sympathetic to her view of the origin of those problems, but at the present moment the problems of particle theory are for particle theorists to sort out. [...] Particle theories may provide a target to aim for, but most of these experiments aren't really about particle physics, they're about pushing the boundaries of measurements for the fields in which they're based. Assessing their value on their chances of success in detecting a specific dark matter candidate is largely missing the point.
So, as I said above, it's a classic agree-to-disagree situation... (MORE - details)
