4 ms·

Sabine has made a name for herself being a contrarian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZI8-9i0SOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZI8-9i0SOo https://blogs.s

by bawana 6y ago

Sabine has made a name for herself being a contrarian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZI8-9i0SOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZI8-9i0SOo https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-sabine-hossenfelder-fears-theorists-lacking-data-may-succumb-to-wishful-thinking/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-s... She'll even take your money to answer your questions if you dont like physics forums https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201611/hossenfelder.cfm https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201611/hossenfelder... I dont mean to sound critical, but her statements remind me of Lord Kelvin's statement "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" Personally, I think theoretical physics should never be discussed in the absence of the specific data it is trying to address. So much confusion happens when the details are not understood first before the grand theory is proposed. Theories too often are presented as gifts from the heavens and without the corpus to which they speak.

platz 6y ago
- your initial comments are only ad-hominem - i don't think kelvin's statement represents her views - Being against a new collider does not mean one takes the position of Kelvin, or is anti-science. She doesn't argue against investment in novel science. Her argument is that a larger collider is the wrong kind of investment to make, based on what we've already observed at the LHC
dnautics 6y ago
> "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" It's not being critical, it's just a mischaracterization. I think that Sabine very much thinks there are new things to be discovered in physics, and she is taking an opinionated stance about what is the right way to get to them. > I think theoretical physics should never be discussed in the absence of the specific data it is trying to address. That's exactly what Sabine says.

by bawana 6y ago

platz 6y ago

- your initial comments are only ad-hominem - i don't think kelvin's statement represents her views - Being against a new collider does not mean one takes the position of Kelvin, or is anti-science. She doesn't argue against investment in novel science. Her argument is that a larger collider is the wrong kind of investment to make, based on what we've already observed at the LHC

dnautics 6y ago

> "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" It's not being critical, it's just a mischaracterization. I think that Sabine very much thinks there are new things to be discovered in physics, and she is taking an opinionated stance about what is the right way to get to them. > I think theoretical physics should never be discussed in the absence of the specific data it is trying to address. That's exactly what Sabine says.