3 ms·

> As I read that paragraph, I thought to myself that the author should read Sabine Hossenfelder's recent book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. Th

> As I read that paragraph, I thought to myself that the author should read Sabine Hossenfelder's recent book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. The author is Sabine Hossenfelder :)

jetrink 8y ago
I realized when I reached the bottom of the post. It is odd to me to see her saying that the new theory is disqualified for not being as simple as alternatives after reading her book.
- rwilson4 8y ago
  It's not disqualified for not being simple, it's disqualified for not making testable predictions. Given two theories, neither of which make testable predictions, the simpler one (and the one that has been studied more thoroughly) is the more reliable. Otherwise, why not just say that the missing mass is unicorns? And the energy driving the accelerated expansion of the universe is the energy of their love? There's no shortage of radical explanations for dark mass/energy. The scientific community takes them seriously to the extent that they are compatible with past observations and make testable hypotheses that distinguish them from other theories.
  - poopchute 8y ago
    The author of the negative mass theory said that it will be testable via the cubic kilometer ice array in Antarctica when it comes online (though I'm not sure how). He mentions it in his chain of 17 tweets that summarize the theory .
    - rwilson4 8y ago
      Then we'll find out when it comes online! If the new theory is compatible with past observations, and correctly predicts something that GR gets wrong, that will be a huge finding! But the press has gone wild prematurely, as they often do. As others have mentioned, that seems to be the real issue to which Dr. Hossenfelder objects.
    - fanf2 8y ago
      I thought he was planning to use the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope which is still in the works, and not to be confused with the Ice Cube neutrino detector which has been operational for several years. https://cdr.skatelescope.org/ https://cdr.skatelescope.org/ https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/icecube/detector https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/icecube/detector
      - poopchute 8y ago
        Yep, you are right - I was confusing the Square Kilometer Array for the Ice Cube neutrino detector. Heres a direct link to his tweet: https://twitter.com/Astro_Jamie/status/1070304980224172033 https://twitter.com/Astro_Jamie/status/1070304980224172033
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >It's not disqualified for not being simple, it's disqualified for not making testable predictions That's not uncommon. In their early development, most theories don't make testable predictions, especially when they attempt to expand the status quo, and not just add some incremental detail...
- acqq 8y ago
  > odd to me to see her saying that the new theory is disqualified for not being as simple No. Her main argument is, the way I read her article, is: "Farnes in his paper instead wants negative gravitational masses to mutually repel each other. But general relativity won’t let you do this. " The way I understand it, the author of the paper fails to be compatible with the theory that was confirmed time and again during the last 100 years. She just avoided to formulate that so bluntly.
sunstone 8y ago
In which case she probably has read the book.

> As I read that paragraph, I thought to myself that the author should read Sabine Hossenfelder's recent book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. The author is Sabine Hossenfelder :)

jetrink 8y ago

I realized when I reached the bottom of the post. It is odd to me to see her saying that the new theory is disqualified for not being as simple as alternatives after reading her book.

rwilson4 8y ago
It's not disqualified for not being simple, it's disqualified for not making testable predictions. Given two theories, neither of which make testable predictions, the simpler one (and the one that has been studied more thoroughly) is the more reliable. Otherwise, why not just say that the missing mass is unicorns? And the energy driving the accelerated expansion of the universe is the energy of their love? There's no shortage of radical explanations for dark mass/energy. The scientific community takes them seriously to the extent that they are compatible with past observations and make testable hypotheses that distinguish them from other theories.
- poopchute 8y ago
  The author of the negative mass theory said that it will be testable via the cubic kilometer ice array in Antarctica when it comes online (though I'm not sure how). He mentions it in his chain of 17 tweets that summarize the theory .
  - rwilson4 8y ago
    Then we'll find out when it comes online! If the new theory is compatible with past observations, and correctly predicts something that GR gets wrong, that will be a huge finding! But the press has gone wild prematurely, as they often do. As others have mentioned, that seems to be the real issue to which Dr. Hossenfelder objects.
  - fanf2 8y ago
    I thought he was planning to use the Square Kilometre Array radio telescope which is still in the works, and not to be confused with the Ice Cube neutrino detector which has been operational for several years. https://cdr.skatelescope.org/ https://cdr.skatelescope.org/ https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/icecube/detector https://icecube.wisc.edu/science/icecube/detector
    - poopchute 8y ago
      Yep, you are right - I was confusing the Square Kilometer Array for the Ice Cube neutrino detector. Heres a direct link to his tweet: https://twitter.com/Astro_Jamie/status/1070304980224172033 https://twitter.com/Astro_Jamie/status/1070304980224172033
- coldtea 8y ago
  >It's not disqualified for not being simple, it's disqualified for not making testable predictions That's not uncommon. In their early development, most theories don't make testable predictions, especially when they attempt to expand the status quo, and not just add some incremental detail...
acqq 8y ago
> odd to me to see her saying that the new theory is disqualified for not being as simple No. Her main argument is, the way I read her article, is: "Farnes in his paper instead wants negative gravitational masses to mutually repel each other. But general relativity won’t let you do this. " The way I understand it, the author of the paper fails to be compatible with the theory that was confirmed time and again during the last 100 years. She just avoided to formulate that so bluntly.

sunstone 8y ago

In which case she probably has read the book.