4 ms·
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 rev
by 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 agoBut.. 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 agoOf 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 agoplenty 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.