4 ms·

It's not disqualified for not being simple, it's disqualified for not making testable predictions. Given two theories, neither of which make testable prediction

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...

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...