3 ms·

> Then there is literally decades of over promising on ground breaking discoveries right around the corner (super symmetry, extra dimensions, dark matter). Eve

> Then there is literally decades of over promising on ground breaking discoveries right around the corner (super symmetry, extra dimensions, dark matter). Every statement in your diatribe would seem to be predicated by the assumption that discoveries in theoretical physics (what you're complaining about) will result in revolutionary changes to your day-to-day experience (kinda i.e. applied physics) in a short enough span of time that you can actually enjoy them with an able body. Probably not. Flight/space and semiconductors were notable exceptions, and they were largely driven by the century of hot and cold war that we know to be the 1900s. Bad science is science that fundamentally doesn't yield a new understanding of the world, either by falsifying theories or confirming them. What you described is: 1. failure to meet exaggerated lay expectations, and 2. poor working conditions in the nonprofit space. #2 (and possibly #1 depending on where the theoretical discoveries take us) can largely be resolved by pouring more money into science, not less. I'll point back to our century of war if you need past precedent. Edit: removed a line that was unnecessarily insulting. Sorry about that.

knzhou 7y ago
Indeed, flight and space have applications, which is why they (completely justifiably) get more funding. People seem to forget this, but the space shuttle alone was funded over 15x more than the LHC was, and by a single country rather than many.
orbifold 7y ago
> Every statement in your diatribe would seem to be predicate... I would be happy if they found any experimental evidence for their predictions. If you have followed the field basically the majority opinion was that supersymmetry at the LHC would be inevitably found, as long as the Higgs mass was in a certain range (naturalness argument). Turns out it (narrowly) was in that range but supersymmetry was not found anyways. Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science in that way, because no new phenomena had actually been observed/measured and needed model building. Of course there is nothing inherently bad with conjecture or theory, but given the fact that there are lots of unsolved problems in physics on which progress was made in that time, a lot of what they were doing seems like a huge waste of time. Philip Anderson made his case for refocussing physics a long time ago: See his case against against the SSC: https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/the-case-against-the-ssc-63734 https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/the-case-against-t... and "More is Different" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393.
- peteradio 7y ago
  > Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science. Perhaps that wouldn't have gone on so long if the SSC wasn't fucking cancelled in '93.
- knzhou 7y ago
  > Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science in that way, because no new phenomena had actually been observed/measured That is an interesting observation. Would you be willing to guess specifically why there was such a long gap between the LHC and the previous collider? The answer is already in your comment.

knzhou 7y ago

Indeed, flight and space have applications, which is why they (completely justifiably) get more funding. People seem to forget this, but the space shuttle alone was funded over 15x more than the LHC was, and by a single country rather than many.

orbifold 7y ago

> Every statement in your diatribe would seem to be predicate... I would be happy if they found any experimental evidence for their predictions. If you have followed the field basically the majority opinion was that supersymmetry at the LHC would be inevitably found, as long as the Higgs mass was in a certain range (naturalness argument). Turns out it (narrowly) was in that range but supersymmetry was not found anyways. Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science in that way, because no new phenomena had actually been observed/measured and needed model building. Of course there is nothing inherently bad with conjecture or theory, but given the fact that there are lots of unsolved problems in physics on which progress was made in that time, a lot of what they were doing seems like a huge waste of time. Philip Anderson made his case for refocussing physics a long time ago: See his case against against the SSC: https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/the-case-against-the-ssc-63734 https://www.the-scientist.com/opinion-old/the-case-against-t... and "More is Different" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393.

peteradio 7y ago
> Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science. Perhaps that wouldn't have gone on so long if the SSC wasn't fucking cancelled in '93.
knzhou 7y ago
> Arguably a lot of particle phenomenology in the last 20+ years was bad science in that way, because no new phenomena had actually been observed/measured That is an interesting observation. Would you be willing to guess specifically why there was such a long gap between the LHC and the previous collider? The answer is already in your comment.