4 ms·

What I don't exactly understood is why the hostility toward theories that could lead to quantum gravity and whatnot? What are the historical reasons for it?

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
It's complicated, and it's going to take a long time for historians - and multiple books - to untangle the failure. But so far as I can tell it started because Bohr was a bit of a tyrant and didn't like having the Copenhagen Interpretation questioned. So that set the tone for the first few decades. And QM was still developing, so it was more important to solve specific problems than worry about generalities. After that, progress was still being made on the Standard Model, so there was academic selection pressure pushing graduates towards PhD specifics and away from more philosophical speculations about Quantum Origins. And after that the String Theory people were much better at aggressive self-promotion than any of the competing QG theories. So something related happened again. Now there's no data to allow further fundamental progress on the Standard Model. SM alternatives continue being ruled out. And String Theory has run into very serious problems, So there's more interest in Quantum Origins and alternative QG theories. The odds of a big breakthrough are very low, they're higher than they used to be. And also it's really kind of annoying not to understand what's happening.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >And after that the String Theory people were much better at aggressive self-promotion than any of the competing QG theories. I'm not sure if that's a fair interpretation of history. At the time string theory still looked like the best option, and some say that even today it is the closest thing we have to a consistent theory.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Was there ever a sting theory that looked plausible to explain gravity say? As far as I can tell it started off as a simple model of how the nucleus held together - to stop the protons flying apart lets model stings holding them together. And then after that it's been let's play with the maths and the aggressive self-promotion thing mostly.
abledon 7y ago
In this Lex Freidman interview, Eric Weinstein (a bit kooky) explains his view on the trenches of advanced mathematics/physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wq9x2QcZN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wq9x2QcZN0 He goes into depths about the problems right now in academia
tim333 7y ago
I think a problem is the current theoretical attempts to get to quantum gravity are not very good leading to a certain amount of waffling about probably irrelevant stuff.
pts_ 7y ago
Vote bank politics version of academia.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

It's complicated, and it's going to take a long time for historians - and multiple books - to untangle the failure. But so far as I can tell it started because Bohr was a bit of a tyrant and didn't like having the Copenhagen Interpretation questioned. So that set the tone for the first few decades. And QM was still developing, so it was more important to solve specific problems than worry about generalities. After that, progress was still being made on the Standard Model, so there was academic selection pressure pushing graduates towards PhD specifics and away from more philosophical speculations about Quantum Origins. And after that the String Theory people were much better at aggressive self-promotion than any of the competing QG theories. So something related happened again. Now there's no data to allow further fundamental progress on the Standard Model. SM alternatives continue being ruled out. And String Theory has run into very serious problems, So there's more interest in Quantum Origins and alternative QG theories. The odds of a big breakthrough are very low, they're higher than they used to be. And also it's really kind of annoying not to understand what's happening.

whatshisface 7y ago
>And after that the String Theory people were much better at aggressive self-promotion than any of the competing QG theories. I'm not sure if that's a fair interpretation of history. At the time string theory still looked like the best option, and some say that even today it is the closest thing we have to a consistent theory.
- tim333 7y ago
  Was there ever a sting theory that looked plausible to explain gravity say? As far as I can tell it started off as a simple model of how the nucleus held together - to stop the protons flying apart lets model stings holding them together. And then after that it's been let's play with the maths and the aggressive self-promotion thing mostly.

abledon 7y ago

In this Lex Freidman interview, Eric Weinstein (a bit kooky) explains his view on the trenches of advanced mathematics/physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wq9x2QcZN0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wq9x2QcZN0 He goes into depths about the problems right now in academia

tim333 7y ago

I think a problem is the current theoretical attempts to get to quantum gravity are not very good leading to a certain amount of waffling about probably irrelevant stuff.

pts_ 7y ago

Vote bank politics version of academia.