2 ms·
Two earlier posts of hers that got a lot of commentary on HN (2016).: Why not string theory? Because enough is enough. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=118
by kristianp 8y ago
Two earlier posts of hers that got a lot of commentary on HN (2016).:
Why not string theory? Because enough is enough.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11885036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11885036
and
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12238197
Very similar theme of lack of verifiable theories.
I wonder what the experimental physicists have to say about this topic? I feel like theories are also driven by new observations. However the observations that the theorists have to go on are very indirect compared to those of 100 years ago. "The mass of this galaxy is out by x percent" isn't doesn't give many clues as to what's wrong.
Compare that to observations of Mercury's orbit that happened 2 centuries before Einstein published his Relativity theories. ( http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest... )