7 ms·

I'd guess Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder (herself a physicist, and a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies) must be pretty annoyed, to put

I'd guess Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder (herself a physicist, and a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies) must be pretty annoyed, to put it politely. She posits that a lot of current physicists are working with outdated notions of "beauty": (quote) But if it’s clear that putting forward new hypotheses just because they are beautiful doesn’t mean they’re likely to be right, then why do theorists in these fields focus so much on beauty? Worse, why do they continue to focus on the same type of beauty, even though that method has demonstrably not worked for 40 years? ... So I have historical evidence, math, and data. In my book I lay out these points and tell the reader what conclusion I have drawn: Beauty is not a good guide to theory-development. I then explain that this widespread use of scientifically questionable but productive methodology is symptomatic to the current organization of academic research, and a problem that’s not confined to physics. (/quote) --- I'd also recommend listening to the EconTalk podcast[2] where Hossenfelder was a guest. --- PS: I'm not judging this decision of funding, not least because I'm no where near qualified :-). I like what CERN does in general (and I sometimes interact with one of their Cloud Infrastructure teams.) [1] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/10/you-say-theoretical-physicists-are.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/10/you-say-theoretical... [2] https://www.econtalk.org/sabine-hossenfelder-on-physics-reality-and-lost-in-math/ https://www.econtalk.org/sabine-hossenfelder-on-physics-real...

jojobas 6y ago
>has demonstrably not worked for 40 years The beauty of Standard Model was affirmed with finding Higgs Boson mere 8 years ago, what is she getting at?
- aroberge 6y ago
  Actually, the Standard Model is NOT considered to be "beautiful". What is considered to be beautiful are extensions that include supersymmetry for which no experimental evidence exist but which have been used as justification for building larger colliders.
nix23 6y ago
I know her book, and i think quantum theory is NOT beautiful nor is the string/M-Theory beautiful, she's for sure is partially right because everyone want's to find a Einstein equation, but she also has a big blind spot for the dirty stuff that is the quantum-theory.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> everyone want's to find a Einstein equation Yeah, I've been thinking that for a while. Ever since relativity physicists have been looking for weird or counterintuitive explanations for things. This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory.
  - diegoperini 6y ago
    > This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory. You are mixing apples and oranges. -Dark matter: Observed phenomena, unexplained yet. Understanding of it is so little that mathematical beauty is a secondary concern. -Dark energy: Observed phenomena, multiple conflicting explanations with huge calculation mismatch. Einstein already said dips on this with his cosmological constant. -Many worlds: Unobserved and lacks a definitive consensus of what it could look like. -Spooky action at a distance (entanglement): Observed and understood with incredible accuracy. Remaining questions are more philosophical than scientific unless we understand other not yet solved problems. -String theory: This is an umbrella term for multiple theories, finally unified (kinda) under M-theory. Whether they are true or not doesn't change the fact that thinking about them has improved mathematics itself immensely. Leonard Susskind says string theory has been the best "calculator" ever invented to understand complex geometry spacetime "might" have. When the time we understand how silly we were with our guesses comes and these theories become obsolete, it still will not prove that thinking about them were a useless enterprise.
davrosthedalek 6y ago
Oh come on, every second sentence she writes outside of a book mentions her books. Do you really have to quote /that/ part. I am a Prof. for Nuclear Physics, so maybe HEP-adjacent and biased. I don't think I will ever get much use of LHC/FCC myself (EIC will do that for the stuff I'm doing), but I'm happy if they will build it. It's a fallacy to believe that this money takes away from other research. There would be enough money to do all possible research if one really wants to. Just a point to consider: A lot of money for the military is essential to prop up the economy. The same, maybe more effectively, is true for research, with the added benefit that you educate people, and maybe find some cool new stuff.
- kashyapc 6y ago
  Sorry, I didn't meant to quote "that" part (by that I take it that you're referring to the "beautiful theory" aspect — edit: I think you were referring to the mention about her book) to provoke. I just wanted to briefly mention Hossenfelder's position as I haven't seen it mentioned when I saw the thread. And yeah, this might be a "piddling" amount compared to the military spending. On the whole, we're in agreement; as the 'PS' in my first comment hints, I'm of course all for anything that instills scientific curiosity in the broader public, while discovering new stuff or carefully sussing out bogus hypotheses.
  - davrosthedalek 6y ago
    No offense taken! If anything, I'm annoyed by her, not by you quoting her. I meant the "in my book" part. But thinking about it, it's important to give the context: she is trying to sell a book, and why I don't want to speculate whether it's her primary motivation, it is /one/ motivation, otherwise she wouldn't mention it all the time.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
auntienomen 6y ago
Dr. Hossenfelder is not a professor. I think it is poor practice to inflate her title when citing her as some sort of authority.
- kashyapc 6y ago
  Did you consider that it was an honest mistake? I was not trying to "inflate" her title, nor was I trying to cite her as an authority. I merely tried to state her position as a 'contrarian' voice.

jojobas 6y ago

>has demonstrably not worked for 40 years The beauty of Standard Model was affirmed with finding Higgs Boson mere 8 years ago, what is she getting at?

aroberge 6y ago
Actually, the Standard Model is NOT considered to be "beautiful". What is considered to be beautiful are extensions that include supersymmetry for which no experimental evidence exist but which have been used as justification for building larger colliders.

nix23 6y ago

I know her book, and i think quantum theory is NOT beautiful nor is the string/M-Theory beautiful, she's for sure is partially right because everyone want's to find a Einstein equation, but she also has a big blind spot for the dirty stuff that is the quantum-theory.

phkahler 6y ago
>> everyone want's to find a Einstein equation Yeah, I've been thinking that for a while. Ever since relativity physicists have been looking for weird or counterintuitive explanations for things. This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory.
- diegoperini 6y ago
  > This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory. You are mixing apples and oranges. -Dark matter: Observed phenomena, unexplained yet. Understanding of it is so little that mathematical beauty is a secondary concern. -Dark energy: Observed phenomena, multiple conflicting explanations with huge calculation mismatch. Einstein already said dips on this with his cosmological constant. -Many worlds: Unobserved and lacks a definitive consensus of what it could look like. -Spooky action at a distance (entanglement): Observed and understood with incredible accuracy. Remaining questions are more philosophical than scientific unless we understand other not yet solved problems. -String theory: This is an umbrella term for multiple theories, finally unified (kinda) under M-theory. Whether they are true or not doesn't change the fact that thinking about them has improved mathematics itself immensely. Leonard Susskind says string theory has been the best "calculator" ever invented to understand complex geometry spacetime "might" have. When the time we understand how silly we were with our guesses comes and these theories become obsolete, it still will not prove that thinking about them were a useless enterprise.

davrosthedalek 6y ago

Oh come on, every second sentence she writes outside of a book mentions her books. Do you really have to quote /that/ part. I am a Prof. for Nuclear Physics, so maybe HEP-adjacent and biased. I don't think I will ever get much use of LHC/FCC myself (EIC will do that for the stuff I'm doing), but I'm happy if they will build it. It's a fallacy to believe that this money takes away from other research. There would be enough money to do all possible research if one really wants to. Just a point to consider: A lot of money for the military is essential to prop up the economy. The same, maybe more effectively, is true for research, with the added benefit that you educate people, and maybe find some cool new stuff.

kashyapc 6y ago
Sorry, I didn't meant to quote "that" part (by that I take it that you're referring to the "beautiful theory" aspect — edit: I think you were referring to the mention about her book) to provoke. I just wanted to briefly mention Hossenfelder's position as I haven't seen it mentioned when I saw the thread. And yeah, this might be a "piddling" amount compared to the military spending. On the whole, we're in agreement; as the 'PS' in my first comment hints, I'm of course all for anything that instills scientific curiosity in the broader public, while discovering new stuff or carefully sussing out bogus hypotheses.
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  No offense taken! If anything, I'm annoyed by her, not by you quoting her. I meant the "in my book" part. But thinking about it, it's important to give the context: she is trying to sell a book, and why I don't want to speculate whether it's her primary motivation, it is /one/ motivation, otherwise she wouldn't mention it all the time.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

auntienomen 6y ago

Dr. Hossenfelder is not a professor. I think it is poor practice to inflate her title when citing her as some sort of authority.

kashyapc 6y ago
Did you consider that it was an honest mistake? I was not trying to "inflate" her title, nor was I trying to cite her as an authority. I merely tried to state her position as a 'contrarian' voice.