3 ms·

Lee Smolin deals with this question in Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum. He relies on the same facts, makes many of

Lee Smolin deals with this question in Einstein's Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum. He relies on the same facts, makes many of the same points you do, and he comes to the exact opposite conclusion (assuming, of course, that I actually understand your position fully, and his as well). That's interesting to me because I think it might point to a philosophical disagreement between your views and his, especially in epistemology.

ISL 7y ago
Part of the difference may stem from the fact that I am an experimentalist, and he is a theorist. Theoretical progress has been slow, in large part because Nature has been unwilling to show any new experimental deviations from the Standard Model. Experimentally, people continue to hammer away at the Standard Model (and gravity, my specialty), and the paradigm continues to hold. With few exceptions, most ideas from 40 years ago have been put to significant tests and turned out not to be how Nature operates. From a theory standpoint, without new guidance from us, theorists are forced to attempt to out-think Nature, which is extremely hard to do. Smolin may be bummed, but theorists can take solace in the fact that the problem is extremely difficult. In the particular case of quantum-mechanics, the day that theorists divine a compelling way that one interpretation of QM makes a prediction that differs from that of another interpretation is the day that an experimentalist starts building a test to find out which one is true.
- cynusx 7y ago
  The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yield. With increasing costs in experimentation it makes sense to prioritize for impact. In a way it is a meta-science because you need to find a methodology to evaluate which theory, when proven or disproven has the most impact. I would imagine that the current working method would be to look at how often theoretical physicists cite a specific theoretical result/paper and hence "popularity" is the prioritization mechanism.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    Honestly why is popularity not a good mechanism to determine how we allocate experimental investment? If a large cadre of highly educated people find a particular theoretical mechanism sufficiently compelling to dedicate their careers and time to it, then surely that's a good basis on which to develop experiments to try and confirm whether it's right? Because the benefit of proving it wrong means they'll reallocate their resources.
    - cynusx 7y ago
      well, the author argues it is not optimal due to human fallacies such as group-think and institutional incentives Presumably the economical cost of the experiments are higher at this point then the resource-allocation of that cadre of highly educated people. It's worth thinking about, but not sure if there is a viable alternative methodology to be found

ISL 7y ago

Part of the difference may stem from the fact that I am an experimentalist, and he is a theorist. Theoretical progress has been slow, in large part because Nature has been unwilling to show any new experimental deviations from the Standard Model. Experimentally, people continue to hammer away at the Standard Model (and gravity, my specialty), and the paradigm continues to hold. With few exceptions, most ideas from 40 years ago have been put to significant tests and turned out not to be how Nature operates. From a theory standpoint, without new guidance from us, theorists are forced to attempt to out-think Nature, which is extremely hard to do. Smolin may be bummed, but theorists can take solace in the fact that the problem is extremely difficult. In the particular case of quantum-mechanics, the day that theorists divine a compelling way that one interpretation of QM makes a prediction that differs from that of another interpretation is the day that an experimentalist starts building a test to find out which one is true.

cynusx 7y ago
The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yield. With increasing costs in experimentation it makes sense to prioritize for impact. In a way it is a meta-science because you need to find a methodology to evaluate which theory, when proven or disproven has the most impact. I would imagine that the current working method would be to look at how often theoretical physicists cite a specific theoretical result/paper and hence "popularity" is the prioritization mechanism.
- XorNot 7y ago
  Honestly why is popularity not a good mechanism to determine how we allocate experimental investment? If a large cadre of highly educated people find a particular theoretical mechanism sufficiently compelling to dedicate their careers and time to it, then surely that's a good basis on which to develop experiments to try and confirm whether it's right? Because the benefit of proving it wrong means they'll reallocate their resources.
  - cynusx 7y ago
    well, the author argues it is not optimal due to human fallacies such as group-think and institutional incentives Presumably the economical cost of the experiments are higher at this point then the resource-allocation of that cadre of highly educated people. It's worth thinking about, but not sure if there is a viable alternative methodology to be found