5 ms·

> In fact, I don't think it's weird, I think it's reality. At the risk of sounding snarky, I think it's useful to point out that we call it the Standard Model

> In fact, I don't think it's weird, I think it's reality. At the risk of sounding snarky, I think it's useful to point out that we call it the Standard Model and not the Standard Reality. Model ≠ Reality, yadda yadda. We have an immensely useful model of fundamental physics as long as the energies are low enough. However, I feel that we lose a lot by letting that utility stop us from asking epistemic questions of the model itself. Historically, math has gained a lot by taking such questions seriously, especially in the areas of logic and computation.

astrodust 9y ago
Sure, but string theory shows what happens if you can't come up with a testable theory in a reasonable timeframe. It is the ultimate "version 2.0" product. Missing features in the original, vastly over-engineered, and never ready to ship.
- xelxebar 9y ago
  I wouldn't be so quick to judge. It's pure research, and String Theory has pioneered a lot of new ideas that have successfully cross-pollinated into other fields. Even the LHC employs String Theorists with good reason. Seems a mistake to write it off as "not delivering" simply because it hasn't given us exactly what we originally expected. On a more social level, a focus on "delivering" and "impact" in pure science seems like it can be taken to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot. Think of all the discoveries from pure exploratory research that we recognized as useful only after the fact.
  - nikofeyn 9y ago
    so quick? it's not as if string theory is just getting started.
- empath75 9y ago
  That string theory is already compatible with everything we know about reality is a titanic achievement. If you think it's not, go ahead and list all of the other alternatives that also have a hope of unifying gravity?
  - red75prime 9y ago
    String theory is in fact compatible with a large number of possible realities. That's the problem.
  - jcranmer 9y ago
    Except that string theory requires supersymmetry, and the latest LHC results are not happy for supersymmetry. As for other unifying theories, loop quantum gravity is somewhat popular. And Wikipedia has a nice list of alternative theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Other_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Other_approach.... String theory is far from the only game in town, despite what string theorists would have you believe.
platz 9y ago
> Model ≠ Reality, yadda yadda. I think im a fan of what is described as quantum bayesianism in the article, that quantum mechanics is basically a probabiltiy theory, and this probability theory is required to express our expectations from measurements (quantum mechanics encodes our beliefs about what will be observed given some knowledge about a system) and this is fundamentally a "retreat" because we dont know how to describe the underlying reality. even though calculating the probabilitoes may be very precise. but i am havig trouble distinguising quantum bayesianism from the standard "model vs reality" fare as the motovation seems very similar
- ianai 9y ago
  "model vs reality" implies a very clear delineation between theory and data. Bayesian models muddle that up - particularly with (based on my understanding of) the standard model. (Insert the classic statistical decision theory debate about classic/Bayesian models here.) What I really wonder about is how, if ever, we will refine our abilities to observe the finer grains - and to what extent that's possible. I remember physicists discussing the observations possible given particle accelerator size from lectures in undergrad. The future was not very bright.
- noobermin 9y ago
  The thing I say is "what underlying reality?" If you can't measure it, how can you make a theory out of it or research it (or publish papers on it unless you're a string theorist)? If something is not measurable, then how can you claim it exists or not? Whenever people ask me these "deep questions" after I tell them I'm a physicist, I tell them that. Science is all about the reality you can measure, not about meaning and what lies "deeper".
  - platz 9y ago
    I take it you are a fan of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. its the right answer for making calculations. but how do come up with a new theory? you have to tell a story or envision an underlying reason to justify it. new theories dont come out of nowhere. this is also like saying the universe in the time of newton consisted of only newtons laws, which is untrue. if the universe is science, then you have to say the universe is changing as science changes. unless the universe really is just made of published journal papers.
noobermin 9y ago
When I say "reality" as a scientist, I mean experiment, and the standard model does a pretty decent job of fitting experiment/observation. I just had this conversation last week actually, where a group mate and I were discussing "determinism" and basically, we agreed scientists have weaker definitions for words like "reality" and "determined" and such that essentially mean "within the error bars of repeatable experiment."

astrodust 9y ago

Sure, but string theory shows what happens if you can't come up with a testable theory in a reasonable timeframe. It is the ultimate "version 2.0" product. Missing features in the original, vastly over-engineered, and never ready to ship.

xelxebar 9y ago
I wouldn't be so quick to judge. It's pure research, and String Theory has pioneered a lot of new ideas that have successfully cross-pollinated into other fields. Even the LHC employs String Theorists with good reason. Seems a mistake to write it off as "not delivering" simply because it hasn't given us exactly what we originally expected. On a more social level, a focus on "delivering" and "impact" in pure science seems like it can be taken to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot. Think of all the discoveries from pure exploratory research that we recognized as useful only after the fact.
- nikofeyn 9y ago
  so quick? it's not as if string theory is just getting started.
empath75 9y ago
That string theory is already compatible with everything we know about reality is a titanic achievement. If you think it's not, go ahead and list all of the other alternatives that also have a hope of unifying gravity?
- red75prime 9y ago
  String theory is in fact compatible with a large number of possible realities. That's the problem.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Except that string theory requires supersymmetry, and the latest LHC results are not happy for supersymmetry. As for other unifying theories, loop quantum gravity is somewhat popular. And Wikipedia has a nice list of alternative theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Other_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Other_approach.... String theory is far from the only game in town, despite what string theorists would have you believe.

platz 9y ago

> Model ≠ Reality, yadda yadda. I think im a fan of what is described as quantum bayesianism in the article, that quantum mechanics is basically a probabiltiy theory, and this probability theory is required to express our expectations from measurements (quantum mechanics encodes our beliefs about what will be observed given some knowledge about a system) and this is fundamentally a "retreat" because we dont know how to describe the underlying reality. even though calculating the probabilitoes may be very precise. but i am havig trouble distinguising quantum bayesianism from the standard "model vs reality" fare as the motovation seems very similar

ianai 9y ago
"model vs reality" implies a very clear delineation between theory and data. Bayesian models muddle that up - particularly with (based on my understanding of) the standard model. (Insert the classic statistical decision theory debate about classic/Bayesian models here.) What I really wonder about is how, if ever, we will refine our abilities to observe the finer grains - and to what extent that's possible. I remember physicists discussing the observations possible given particle accelerator size from lectures in undergrad. The future was not very bright.
noobermin 9y ago
The thing I say is "what underlying reality?" If you can't measure it, how can you make a theory out of it or research it (or publish papers on it unless you're a string theorist)? If something is not measurable, then how can you claim it exists or not? Whenever people ask me these "deep questions" after I tell them I'm a physicist, I tell them that. Science is all about the reality you can measure, not about meaning and what lies "deeper".
- platz 9y ago
  I take it you are a fan of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. its the right answer for making calculations. but how do come up with a new theory? you have to tell a story or envision an underlying reason to justify it. new theories dont come out of nowhere. this is also like saying the universe in the time of newton consisted of only newtons laws, which is untrue. if the universe is science, then you have to say the universe is changing as science changes. unless the universe really is just made of published journal papers.

noobermin 9y ago

When I say "reality" as a scientist, I mean experiment, and the standard model does a pretty decent job of fitting experiment/observation. I just had this conversation last week actually, where a group mate and I were discussing "determinism" and basically, we agreed scientists have weaker definitions for words like "reality" and "determined" and such that essentially mean "within the error bars of repeatable experiment."