4 ms·

> crisis in physics Me: Hmm... interesting. Personally I think they should spend time consolidating the different mathematical techniques. > Maybe all these s

> crisis in physics Me: Hmm... interesting. Personally I think they should spend time consolidating the different mathematical techniques. > Maybe all these string theorists have been wasting tax-money for decades, alright, but in the large scheme of things it’s not all that much money. I grant you that much. Theorists are not expensive. > String theory, supersymmetry, multiverses. There’s math for it, alright. Pretty math, even. But that doesn’t mean this math describes reality. I don't really understand this part. I am not convinced that her post says much [], because consider this: she is encouraging observation at the expense of speculation and then arguing that observational techniques are more expensive and hence prohibitive in the long run? Is the real "unhappiness" in academia not just as simple as information overflow and the fact that only a few can be famous, whether there are a few or whether there are many? I don't know if that is what people get at with these kinds of blog posts. In any case, what I have found in mathematics is that the names of people whose work are worth reading are not necessarily the ones that you'll encounter first. OP does actually hint at this as well, but again, is it not just information overflow (and shouldn't be made more complicated than that)? [] The one good takeaway that I see is "focus on inconsistencies".

yummypaint 7y ago
For most problems in the history of physics, people have been able to use pre-existing math that had been developed sometimes hundreds of years before. String theory in an exception to this, and the math needed to do what people want doesn't exist yet. This is part of why im willing to give people who do string theory research a pass on not having testable predictions yet. They are still developing the tools, which is why there tends to be alot of collaboration with mathematicians. Even if this line of research doesnt ultimately yield physical insight, its still moving math forward, and that will ultimately benefit everyone.
mikorym 7y ago
Wow, forgot about the \asterisk being a reserved character.
- mikorym 7y ago
  > crisis in physics Me: Hmm... interesting. Personally I think they should spend time consolidating the different mathematical techniques. > Maybe all these string theorists have been wasting tax-money for decades, alright, but in the large scheme of things it’s not all that much money. I grant you that much. Theorists are not expensive. > String theory, supersymmetry, multiverses. There’s math for it, alright. Pretty math, even. But that doesn’t mean this math describes reality. I don't really understand this part. I am not convinced that her post says much [1], because consider this: she is encouraging observation at the expense of speculation and then arguing that observational techniques are more expensive and hence prohibitive in the long run? Is the real "unhappiness" in academia not just as simple as information overflow and the fact that only a few can be famous, whether there are a few or whether there are many? I don't know if that is what people get at with these kinds of blog posts. In any case, what I have found in mathematics is that the names of people whose work are worth reading are not necessarily the ones that you'll encounter first. OP does actually hint at this as well, but again, is it not just information overflow (and shouldn't be made more complicated than that)? [1] The one good takeaway that I see is "focus on inconsistencies".

yummypaint 7y ago

For most problems in the history of physics, people have been able to use pre-existing math that had been developed sometimes hundreds of years before. String theory in an exception to this, and the math needed to do what people want doesn't exist yet. This is part of why im willing to give people who do string theory research a pass on not having testable predictions yet. They are still developing the tools, which is why there tends to be alot of collaboration with mathematicians. Even if this line of research doesnt ultimately yield physical insight, its still moving math forward, and that will ultimately benefit everyone.

mikorym 7y ago

Wow, forgot about the \asterisk being a reserved character.

mikorym 7y ago
> crisis in physics Me: Hmm... interesting. Personally I think they should spend time consolidating the different mathematical techniques. > Maybe all these string theorists have been wasting tax-money for decades, alright, but in the large scheme of things it’s not all that much money. I grant you that much. Theorists are not expensive. > String theory, supersymmetry, multiverses. There’s math for it, alright. Pretty math, even. But that doesn’t mean this math describes reality. I don't really understand this part. I am not convinced that her post says much [1], because consider this: she is encouraging observation at the expense of speculation and then arguing that observational techniques are more expensive and hence prohibitive in the long run? Is the real "unhappiness" in academia not just as simple as information overflow and the fact that only a few can be famous, whether there are a few or whether there are many? I don't know if that is what people get at with these kinds of blog posts. In any case, what I have found in mathematics is that the names of people whose work are worth reading are not necessarily the ones that you'll encounter first. OP does actually hint at this as well, but again, is it not just information overflow (and shouldn't be made more complicated than that)? [1] The one good takeaway that I see is "focus on inconsistencies".