3 ms·

Yeah, that's not surprising. Cutting-edge R&D is very boring hyper-parameter tuning basically, and requires a kind of person that is able to do things for a lon

by pas 7y ago

Yeah, that's not surprising. Cutting-edge R&D is very boring hyper-parameter tuning basically, and requires a kind of person that is able to do things for a long long time (to gather data) and then to think a bit later. The same goes on with neuro folks. Consciousness, mind, hello? No, just let's poke rats, thanks. But this works. And that's why I don't understand Sabine's viewpoint. She can't just sit in an ivory tower and stare down the cosmos in a contest until it reveals its secrets. We need data, better models, better measurements, etc. Yes, sure, it needs better theorists too, but then why not let the experimentalists do what they do best? It's not like there isn't a bunch of theorists in every serious university on the planet, maybe organize them better?

Ma8ee 7y ago
Sabine's point is that the current approach doesn't work any longer. > She can't just sit in an ivory tower and stare down the cosmos in a contest until it reveals its secrets. That is a gross misrepresenation of what she is saying. Did you actually read anything she wrote? She is criticising the notion that you can make progress, sitting in the ivory tower, as you exprss it, and coming up ideas about strings and super symmetries without any experimental data or other validation from reality. But she is also critical to the approach: just throw more money and manpower into even bigger experiments before we even know what to look for and hope something interesting reveals itself.
- pas 7y ago
  But.. but... she can't have it both ways. The current unexplained data is not much, and the best explanations involve a lot of hard to test things. Why? Because there's not enough unexplained data. The easy to test theories have been already thrown out. Yes, sure, what she is saying is nice, let's try to explain stuff the simplest way possible. Occam's razor. But theorists already do this.
  - Ma8ee 7y ago
    Of course she can have it both ways. Don’t be stupid. There’s plenty to do in physics without building an even bigger collider which likely won’t teach us more than the current one.
    - pas 7y ago
      plenty to do, such as? also, she can't wish away the fact that without data any new theories are worthless, even if someone conveniently comes up with one. also, saying that the LHC haven't taught us anything ignores the reality of all the data that it has generated. is it shiny "new" physics? no, but it's a crucial prerequisite for that. particle physics needs new data for new physics eventually.

by pas 7y ago

Ma8ee 7y ago

Sabine's point is that the current approach doesn't work any longer. > She can't just sit in an ivory tower and stare down the cosmos in a contest until it reveals its secrets. That is a gross misrepresenation of what she is saying. Did you actually read anything she wrote? She is criticising the notion that you can make progress, sitting in the ivory tower, as you exprss it, and coming up ideas about strings and super symmetries without any experimental data or other validation from reality. But she is also critical to the approach: just throw more money and manpower into even bigger experiments before we even know what to look for and hope something interesting reveals itself.

pas 7y ago
But.. but... she can't have it both ways. The current unexplained data is not much, and the best explanations involve a lot of hard to test things. Why? Because there's not enough unexplained data. The easy to test theories have been already thrown out. Yes, sure, what she is saying is nice, let's try to explain stuff the simplest way possible. Occam's razor. But theorists already do this.
- Ma8ee 7y ago
  Of course she can have it both ways. Don’t be stupid. There’s plenty to do in physics without building an even bigger collider which likely won’t teach us more than the current one.
  - pas 7y ago
    plenty to do, such as? also, she can't wish away the fact that without data any new theories are worthless, even if someone conveniently comes up with one. also, saying that the LHC haven't taught us anything ignores the reality of all the data that it has generated. is it shiny "new" physics? no, but it's a crucial prerequisite for that. particle physics needs new data for new physics eventually.