6 ms·

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is an opiniated physicist who gets a lot of flak for constantly commenting on this issue. Yet, I believe she does society a service in d

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is an opiniated physicist who gets a lot of flak for constantly commenting on this issue. Yet, I believe she does society a service in doing so. I have yet to see anyone contradict her basic premise with factual information. I wish she were wrong, as I would love to see a breakthrough towards an experimentally verified Grand Unified Theory, including an explanation for what we currently identify as dark matter (similarly for dark energy). From what I read, physicists that criticize her take their own wishes for reality, and prefer to attack the messenger rather than confront the reality of the message.

6nf 6y ago
Her opinion is totally legitimate and I’m glad people like her are speaking up. Everyone should agree that we need to spend money pushing the limits of science. That’s not the issue here. The point of Sabine’s criticism is that these empty promises need more scrutiny based on the failures of the recent past.
- cedilla 6y ago
  I don't really understand that argument. What does a failed prediction about super-symmetry in 1996 have to do with the opportunities of the next collider? How does "we didn't find evidence for or against supersymmetry at LHC" connect to dark matter experiments in its successor? I'm also not really convinced of what she categorizes as failure. She enumerates quite a few incorrect predictions, but is that sufficient to show that the experiments were a failure? There are literally thousands of papers published because of the LHC and CERN claims hundreds of results. Maybe you can show that they are mostly worthless (which is not the same as boring or not spectecular), but she doesn't really seem to even try to do that.
  - ehvatum 6y ago
    > She enumerates quite a few incorrect predictions You make a good point - without the expensive accelerator data, we’d have no idea that these omg ridiculous stupid waaaa predictions are true or false!!!
    - webmaven 6y ago
      > You make a good point - without the expensive accelerator data, we’d have no idea that these omg ridiculous stupid waaaa predictions are true or false!!! No, even with the accelerator data we probably still won't be able to conclusively rule out many approaches. We'll only be able to rule out overly specific variants of those predictions. Which, given the infinitude of available theories, doesn't do much to narrow things down. Think of it this way: At one point, geocentric theories of planetary motion based on nested crystal spheres were requiring ever more elaborate arrangements with more spheres. More observations with greater precision only required adding more spheres. We're somewhat in the same situation WRT high-energy physics today, in that larger and more powerful accelerators will only rule out particular theory variants, just as more powerful telescopes would only have ruled out particular arrangements of crystal spheres. Just as geocentrism as a category of theories isn't falsifiable by greater precision, many of the current approaches toward HEP aren't falsifiable by ever more powerful accelerators. You can always add another dimension or mathematical elaboration to explain the observations. Which simply means that right now, another large particle accelerator probably isn't the most useful experimental approach to figuring out how to reconcile the two well-supported theories we do have.
  - mnl 6y ago
    That's the Hossenfelder take on the scientific method for you: whereby you make the experiments to confirm the theory. Which is fantastic because if science had ever worked that way you would be done with all experiments as the sensible ones would give known results, so what's the point.
    - sgt101 6y ago
      The point is that you can spend a lump of money to check things out in that way, and fine - especially when you have the Higgs to confirm as well. But if you want to double down you need to have better evidence and a better argument. This is the logic that applies in any lab; sure take a punt look at x or y, if you're right then you'll get a grant and your career will thrive. If you're wrong you're out. That's happened to many people (Hossenfelder included?) but it's now happening to the community and no one likes it. But given that is how science as an institution operates they shouldn't be surprised. Here's a thought experiment. Would there be a bid for a new 100Tev machine if super symmetry had been confirmed at LHC? My bet is :for sure. And the key argument would be "we told you that we were good last time, so you have to back us this time"
      - mnl 6y ago
        The thing is we didn't know whether the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking involved the Higgs or something else. But we knew that there would be particles associated to electroweak symmetry breaking at TeV scale because of a unitarity bound, among other reasons (as happens with this particular kind of dark matter at 100 TeV that Sabine dishonestly calls "weasel words"). Something had to happen at that scale, the Higgs wasn't guaranteed. Sabine gets experimental physics backwards because no one planned the LHC to confirm the Higgs, but to know whether the Higgs existed and if it didn't what did instead. My money was mostly on it not showing up; many physicists were convinced it wouldn't, then it was there but we couldn't know beforehand. There's a scientific case for making precision measurements of it, as was done with the electroweak bosons for very good reasons that she dismisses without showing any kind of understanding about the research she wants to shut off.
        6y ago
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    > What does a failed prediction about super-symmetry in 1996 have to do with the opportunities of the next collider? There are two criticisms she articulates very clearly: 1. SUSY is not a testable theory, as it can always "retreat" to higher energy levels, without any real limit. 2. There is no scientific reason to believe SUSY should be true - it doesn't solve any real problem with any of the known theories of the universe. There are infinitely many ways that the universe could be different wherever we haven't looked yet - we can't possibly test all of those theories. The combination of both arguments leads to the following "law": until we have a theory that solves unsolved problems in physics AND that makes concrete predictions with bounded parameters (so that a failure will explicitly rule out this theory, instead of pushing it endlessly to "maybe at higher energy levels"), we shouldn't be paying huge amounts of money to test things blindly. This is the fundamental difference between, say, the Higgs prediction and SUSY - we were looking for a concrete thing that it was necessary to exist for the rest of the Standard Model to make sense; and we knew a clear range of energies where the Higgs must exist; if we found it like we did, we know the theory was correct. If LHC didn't find the Higgs, then it would have definitively ruled it out, leading to an explicit need for a new SM. By contrast, SUSY has not been confirmed, but it is also impossible to rule out entirely, and none of our models NEED SUSY to be right - so in the end, experiments for SUSY don't achieve anything. We might as well be launching space missions to look for Russel's teapot.
sega_sai 6y ago
In my opinion the problem with her messaging is that while she says that we should not fund the next collider, I think the argument should be, what's the best allocation of money in physics? And there are legitimate reasons to have the next collider even if we have no guarantee that it will deliver GUT or whatever. We have to venture into the unknown. We just should not lie that it will prove supersymmetry or is guaranteed to find dark matter because it sounds better.
- Invictus0 6y ago
  Let's not pretend that we can't find some other way to allocate billions of collider dollars. I don't see it as a problem with her argument that she doesn't promote an alternative, because I'm sure then the critics would say that the alternative isn't promising enough. Yes we need to go into the unknown, but the point is that at some point, it's not cost effective to do that, and we live in a world with constrained resources where we can do more good by investing elsewhere.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    How can you seriously make an argument about efficient allocation without discussing the alternatives you choose between? Is it even logically possible to define efficiency without comparing alternatives?
    - auggierose 6y ago
      Have you defined the word "seriously" before making that comment? Ridiculous.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Yeah, it does get tiring that all the novelty in her writing shows up in the sections describing the well known history of the standard model resisting all attempts at being made into a theory. But apparently the only point worth making is progress in particle physics has been slow. Well, to be fair the point Hossenfelder tries to make is that there's been no progress, and since that's not actually true convincing people of it regardless takes more work.
pmontra 6y ago
It's hard to be loved when one wants to take money away from other people and their projects. A more promising line of action would be building another community of particle physicists with different goals than building a bigger collider, possibly aligned with Hossenfelder's suggestions. In this way they'll have something to gain and will fight for the budget that otherwise would go into the collider.
- jrumbut 6y ago
  I'm not sure we're improving anything when we discover some public good is flawed, mediocre, or maybe even a little corrupt and respond by tearing it down and replacing it with nothing. I think we've done enough of that. At this point I'm really only interested in positive proposals, what new stuff can we do? If we have a wave of new successes any old failures will fade out on their own.
  - pmontra 6y ago
    Hossenfelder proposes the stuff at point 18 of http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-... I have no idea of they are something particle scientists do or if they belong to another branch of physics.
    - jrumbut 6y ago
      Sure the base is covered, but I'm calling for "20 arguments for quantum gravity experiments" and #18 is "we've tried bigger and bigger particle colliders and the results are disappointing" Everything's disappointing, I am (ironically given my tone here) only interested in hearing from those leading with solutions.
      - btilly 6y ago
        Then read http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-is-more-experiments http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-i... linked to from point 18. In summary, the reason for quantum gravity experiments is that investigating contradictions in our theory has always been the best source of progress in science, and experiment has to lead theory. We know that QM and GR contradict each other, and therefore we should research that. She gives a variety of experiments that can research that. The equipment for which is of use in a variety of other sciences. (Particularly astronomy.)
deepstack 6y ago
yeah more funding and focus should start to focus on stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory... Time to spend some money else well.
- aroberge 6y ago
  > yeah more funding and focus should start to focus on stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory... This Wikipedia entry is 1) generically about the type of unproven theoretical model without experimental support that is used in an attempt to justify investment in the next big collider; 2) more specifically, about a theoretical model that has been shown to be wrong in terms of describing what we observe.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Lisi's work is generally considered extremely unlikely by physicists. The eye-catching title and colorfulness of its author attracts a lot of attention with the public, but it doesn't match experiment. It has basically been abandoned. I agree that we could probably spend billions of dollars better than on another enormous collider, even within high-energy physics, but it probably wouldn't be best spent on E8 Theory. Figuring out how it would be best spent, however, would be contentious to say the least.
  - deepstack 6y ago
    be interested to see those paper that disproves them. Can't be any worse then the string theory.
magicalhippo 6y ago
She had a talk[1] at the Perimeter Institute a few years ago, which I recall thinking was rather good. [1]: http://pirsa.org/17110133 http://pirsa.org/17110133

6nf 6y ago

Her opinion is totally legitimate and I’m glad people like her are speaking up. Everyone should agree that we need to spend money pushing the limits of science. That’s not the issue here. The point of Sabine’s criticism is that these empty promises need more scrutiny based on the failures of the recent past.

cedilla 6y ago
I don't really understand that argument. What does a failed prediction about super-symmetry in 1996 have to do with the opportunities of the next collider? How does "we didn't find evidence for or against supersymmetry at LHC" connect to dark matter experiments in its successor? I'm also not really convinced of what she categorizes as failure. She enumerates quite a few incorrect predictions, but is that sufficient to show that the experiments were a failure? There are literally thousands of papers published because of the LHC and CERN claims hundreds of results. Maybe you can show that they are mostly worthless (which is not the same as boring or not spectecular), but she doesn't really seem to even try to do that.
- ehvatum 6y ago
  > She enumerates quite a few incorrect predictions You make a good point - without the expensive accelerator data, we’d have no idea that these omg ridiculous stupid waaaa predictions are true or false!!!
  - webmaven 6y ago
    > You make a good point - without the expensive accelerator data, we’d have no idea that these omg ridiculous stupid waaaa predictions are true or false!!! No, even with the accelerator data we probably still won't be able to conclusively rule out many approaches. We'll only be able to rule out overly specific variants of those predictions. Which, given the infinitude of available theories, doesn't do much to narrow things down. Think of it this way: At one point, geocentric theories of planetary motion based on nested crystal spheres were requiring ever more elaborate arrangements with more spheres. More observations with greater precision only required adding more spheres. We're somewhat in the same situation WRT high-energy physics today, in that larger and more powerful accelerators will only rule out particular theory variants, just as more powerful telescopes would only have ruled out particular arrangements of crystal spheres. Just as geocentrism as a category of theories isn't falsifiable by greater precision, many of the current approaches toward HEP aren't falsifiable by ever more powerful accelerators. You can always add another dimension or mathematical elaboration to explain the observations. Which simply means that right now, another large particle accelerator probably isn't the most useful experimental approach to figuring out how to reconcile the two well-supported theories we do have.
- mnl 6y ago
  That's the Hossenfelder take on the scientific method for you: whereby you make the experiments to confirm the theory. Which is fantastic because if science had ever worked that way you would be done with all experiments as the sensible ones would give known results, so what's the point.
  - sgt101 6y ago
    The point is that you can spend a lump of money to check things out in that way, and fine - especially when you have the Higgs to confirm as well. But if you want to double down you need to have better evidence and a better argument. This is the logic that applies in any lab; sure take a punt look at x or y, if you're right then you'll get a grant and your career will thrive. If you're wrong you're out. That's happened to many people (Hossenfelder included?) but it's now happening to the community and no one likes it. But given that is how science as an institution operates they shouldn't be surprised. Here's a thought experiment. Would there be a bid for a new 100Tev machine if super symmetry had been confirmed at LHC? My bet is :for sure. And the key argument would be "we told you that we were good last time, so you have to back us this time"
    - mnl 6y ago
      The thing is we didn't know whether the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking involved the Higgs or something else. But we knew that there would be particles associated to electroweak symmetry breaking at TeV scale because of a unitarity bound, among other reasons (as happens with this particular kind of dark matter at 100 TeV that Sabine dishonestly calls "weasel words"). Something had to happen at that scale, the Higgs wasn't guaranteed. Sabine gets experimental physics backwards because no one planned the LHC to confirm the Higgs, but to know whether the Higgs existed and if it didn't what did instead. My money was mostly on it not showing up; many physicists were convinced it wouldn't, then it was there but we couldn't know beforehand. There's a scientific case for making precision measurements of it, as was done with the electroweak bosons for very good reasons that she dismisses without showing any kind of understanding about the research she wants to shut off.
      - 6y ago
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > What does a failed prediction about super-symmetry in 1996 have to do with the opportunities of the next collider? There are two criticisms she articulates very clearly: 1. SUSY is not a testable theory, as it can always "retreat" to higher energy levels, without any real limit. 2. There is no scientific reason to believe SUSY should be true - it doesn't solve any real problem with any of the known theories of the universe. There are infinitely many ways that the universe could be different wherever we haven't looked yet - we can't possibly test all of those theories. The combination of both arguments leads to the following "law": until we have a theory that solves unsolved problems in physics AND that makes concrete predictions with bounded parameters (so that a failure will explicitly rule out this theory, instead of pushing it endlessly to "maybe at higher energy levels"), we shouldn't be paying huge amounts of money to test things blindly. This is the fundamental difference between, say, the Higgs prediction and SUSY - we were looking for a concrete thing that it was necessary to exist for the rest of the Standard Model to make sense; and we knew a clear range of energies where the Higgs must exist; if we found it like we did, we know the theory was correct. If LHC didn't find the Higgs, then it would have definitively ruled it out, leading to an explicit need for a new SM. By contrast, SUSY has not been confirmed, but it is also impossible to rule out entirely, and none of our models NEED SUSY to be right - so in the end, experiments for SUSY don't achieve anything. We might as well be launching space missions to look for Russel's teapot.

sega_sai 6y ago

In my opinion the problem with her messaging is that while she says that we should not fund the next collider, I think the argument should be, what's the best allocation of money in physics? And there are legitimate reasons to have the next collider even if we have no guarantee that it will deliver GUT or whatever. We have to venture into the unknown. We just should not lie that it will prove supersymmetry or is guaranteed to find dark matter because it sounds better.

Invictus0 6y ago
Let's not pretend that we can't find some other way to allocate billions of collider dollars. I don't see it as a problem with her argument that she doesn't promote an alternative, because I'm sure then the critics would say that the alternative isn't promising enough. Yes we need to go into the unknown, but the point is that at some point, it's not cost effective to do that, and we live in a world with constrained resources where we can do more good by investing elsewhere.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  How can you seriously make an argument about efficient allocation without discussing the alternatives you choose between? Is it even logically possible to define efficiency without comparing alternatives?
  - auggierose 6y ago
    Have you defined the word "seriously" before making that comment? Ridiculous.
SiempreViernes 6y ago
Yeah, it does get tiring that all the novelty in her writing shows up in the sections describing the well known history of the standard model resisting all attempts at being made into a theory. But apparently the only point worth making is progress in particle physics has been slow. Well, to be fair the point Hossenfelder tries to make is that there's been no progress, and since that's not actually true convincing people of it regardless takes more work.

pmontra 6y ago

It's hard to be loved when one wants to take money away from other people and their projects. A more promising line of action would be building another community of particle physicists with different goals than building a bigger collider, possibly aligned with Hossenfelder's suggestions. In this way they'll have something to gain and will fight for the budget that otherwise would go into the collider.

jrumbut 6y ago
I'm not sure we're improving anything when we discover some public good is flawed, mediocre, or maybe even a little corrupt and respond by tearing it down and replacing it with nothing. I think we've done enough of that. At this point I'm really only interested in positive proposals, what new stuff can we do? If we have a wave of new successes any old failures will fade out on their own.
- pmontra 6y ago
  Hossenfelder proposes the stuff at point 18 of http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-... I have no idea of they are something particle scientists do or if they belong to another branch of physics.
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    Sure the base is covered, but I'm calling for "20 arguments for quantum gravity experiments" and #18 is "we've tried bigger and bigger particle colliders and the results are disappointing" Everything's disappointing, I am (ironically given my tone here) only interested in hearing from those leading with solutions.
    - btilly 6y ago
      Then read http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-is-more-experiments http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/what-quantum-gravity-needs-i... linked to from point 18. In summary, the reason for quantum gravity experiments is that investigating contradictions in our theory has always been the best source of progress in science, and experiment has to lead theory. We know that QM and GR contradict each other, and therefore we should research that. She gives a variety of experiments that can research that. The equipment for which is of use in a variety of other sciences. (Particularly astronomy.)

deepstack 6y ago

yeah more funding and focus should start to focus on stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory... Time to spend some money else well.

aroberge 6y ago
> yeah more funding and focus should start to focus on stuff like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory... This Wikipedia entry is 1) generically about the type of unproven theoretical model without experimental support that is used in an attempt to justify investment in the next big collider; 2) more specifically, about a theoretical model that has been shown to be wrong in terms of describing what we observe.
jfengel 6y ago
Lisi's work is generally considered extremely unlikely by physicists. The eye-catching title and colorfulness of its author attracts a lot of attention with the public, but it doesn't match experiment. It has basically been abandoned. I agree that we could probably spend billions of dollars better than on another enormous collider, even within high-energy physics, but it probably wouldn't be best spent on E8 Theory. Figuring out how it would be best spent, however, would be contentious to say the least.
- deepstack 6y ago
  be interested to see those paper that disproves them. Can't be any worse then the string theory.

magicalhippo 6y ago

She had a talk[1] at the Perimeter Institute a few years ago, which I recall thinking was rather good. [1]: http://pirsa.org/17110133 http://pirsa.org/17110133