5 ms·

Want to know why you are being downvoted? 1 - Your comment isn't about content of the article. I don't use apple hardware or software. There are tons of apple

Want to know why you are being downvoted? 1 - Your comment isn't about content of the article. I don't use apple hardware or software. There are tons of apple posts, especially about the M1. How would it work out if all the people who aren't part of the apple ecosystem hit every apple story with a "Sheesh, not another apple article! Can't we get something more interesting?" 2 - You are free to submit things you think are interesting. Be the change you want to see, etc. 3 - People who whine about being downvoted tend to get more downvotes

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Your comment isn't about content of the article. It is a commentary on the article. Having read the article, I think regardless of Sabine's credentials, she has gone the wrong path in terms of science communication. Apple is a topic, Sabine is an author. It's the physics equivalent of asking for a source other than the Daily Mail. > People who whine about being downvoted I'm legitimately curious about the opinion of professional physics. I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  You won't be downvoted if you've said this in the first place.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    Downvoting is reasonably considered peer punishment. To infer it has value as a (other than last ditch) teaching tool, seems like poor judgment to me. There are better options to apply to people who want to learn - which is mostly everyone. edit: I can appreciate the snark value, however.
- noch 6y ago
  > I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low. Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions. All books are free. This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework. There is no way around it. Needing other people's opinions before rigorously forming our own quickly devolves into talking about people and other people's opinions instead of talking about fundamental ideas. Unless of course one is more interested in talking about opinions and personalities than understanding ideas. If her "content" is poor in someone's eyes, the question that remains relevant is: what are the ideas and their principles?
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions I studied physics at Harvard, I'm hardly unstudied in the area, but yes, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know QFT or really anything beyond basic QM and general relativity. > This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions. Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Physicists can't spend their whole life validating that basic mathematical axioms are true, they have to trust the body of academic mathematicians who have done that work. I reject the entire premise of your comment.
    - noch 6y ago
      > Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Trust but verify. Better yet, trust your effort first, then trust others later. > I studied physics at Harvard, Wow. Harvard! > Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions Consider if all the people whose opinions you want studied at Harvard like you and also believe the statement you made. Will the blind lead the blind?
  - davrosthedalek 6y ago
    Sorry, but this doesn't scale. You have finite time available, you cannot be a master of everything, and recognizing this and asking for the opinions of those who are, is the right way to handle that.
    - noch 6y ago
      > Sorry, but this doesn't scale. As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. If we don't make the effort, there's no chance of going beyond frontiers. We are left discussing what so-and-so said they think about what so-and-so thinks about what so-and-so wrote about a paper and the author's personality.
- blincoln 6y ago
  I'm also very curious about the opinions of other physicists. Dr. Hossenfelder seems to have a lengthy, strong background in physics. On the other hand, every time I read one of her transcripts, I see something along the lines of the "superluminal travel doesn't necessarily result in the possibility of causality violations" claim in this one. Every modern text I've read about physics has indicated that superluminal travel (or signaling) inexorably means that causality can be violated, unless Einstein was missing something. In the last one I read, there were claims about Hawking radiation and virtual particles that also seemed to contradict everything I've read. Now, it may be the case that those texts really are simplified down and one learns what's really going on in some advanced physics course, but twice in as many transcripts is a red flag for me. It's not at the Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais level yet, but usually people who consistently claim that all of the experts are wrong are themselves wrong, and so I'd like to see some non-self-referential confirmation.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Hossenfelder doesn't claim that all the experts are wrong. She has a reputation as a maverick because she published a book claiming that some experts were wasting time. In fact I think a term she used to describe it was, "not even wrong."
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - blincoln 6y ago
      > Hossenfelder doesn't claim that all the experts are wrong. "In his book, Hawking painted a neat picture for black hole evaporation that is now widely used. [...]. It’s simple, it’s intuitive, and it’s wrong."[1] When I read that quote, I originally took it at face value, because she seems like an expert in her field, and it certainly sounds plausible. But now, in the next writeup of hers that I've come across, I find a claim that the description of FTL and causality portrayed by every legit source I've ever encountered is wrong, and that FTL without violating causality is somehow possible within Einstein's framework. That's two incredible claims in as many writeups. Why haven't I seen similar claims from e.g. Brian Greene or David Deutsch? Is it something specific to her own theories? Is it from some branch of theoretical physics that's not accepted by mainstream physicists? Am I misunderstanding the claims? Etc. [1] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html?m=1 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-i...
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  > > Your comment isn't about content of the article. > It is a commentary on the article. I stand by what I said: you weren't commenting on the article. You were commenting about the author of the article, and that you were tired of seeing news about her.
- qndreoi 6y ago
  Others here refer to the author as Dr. Hossenfelder. But to you she is Sabine. Would you refer to Brian Greene as Brian or Sean Carroll as Sean? It seems you are not even aware of your biases.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Others here refer to the author as Dr. Hossenfelder. But to you she is Sabine. Would you refer to Brian Greene as Brian or Sean Carroll as Sean? It seems you are not even aware of your biases. I doubt anyone is aware of all of their biases. I'm assuming you're making reference to gender bias - totally possible that I am susceptible to that, although I think: a. Sabine is a more unique name than Brian. b. In almost all discussions I see of her, she is referred to as Sabine - I was just following along with that precedence. She also goes by "Bee" and dislikes her last name [0] [1] [0]: 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... http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-game.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-game.html

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Your comment isn't about content of the article. It is a commentary on the article. Having read the article, I think regardless of Sabine's credentials, she has gone the wrong path in terms of science communication. Apple is a topic, Sabine is an author. It's the physics equivalent of asking for a source other than the Daily Mail. > People who whine about being downvoted I'm legitimately curious about the opinion of professional physics. I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
You won't be downvoted if you've said this in the first place.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  Downvoting is reasonably considered peer punishment. To infer it has value as a (other than last ditch) teaching tool, seems like poor judgment to me. There are better options to apply to people who want to learn - which is mostly everyone. edit: I can appreciate the snark value, however.
noch 6y ago
> I've worked with quite a few professional AMO physicists and the opinions of Sabine's content there are very low. Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions. All books are free. This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework. There is no way around it. Needing other people's opinions before rigorously forming our own quickly devolves into talking about people and other people's opinions instead of talking about fundamental ideas. Unless of course one is more interested in talking about opinions and personalities than understanding ideas. If her "content" is poor in someone's eyes, the question that remains relevant is: what are the ideas and their principles?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Think for yourself. Learn the math or physics you need and try to form your own conclusions I studied physics at Harvard, I'm hardly unstudied in the area, but yes, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know QFT or really anything beyond basic QM and general relativity. > This is the great responsibility for anyone alive in our time and it's hard, thankless work: to think from first principles and to do our own homework Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions. Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Physicists can't spend their whole life validating that basic mathematical axioms are true, they have to trust the body of academic mathematicians who have done that work. I reject the entire premise of your comment.
  - noch 6y ago
    > Humans have to learn to rely on trusting the judgements of others in order to make scientific advancement. Trust but verify. Better yet, trust your effort first, then trust others later. > I studied physics at Harvard, Wow. Harvard! > Absurd. I do not need to learn advanced GR/QFT from first principles to know enough to comment on Sabine, nor do I need to verify every principle from first axioms in order to come to conclusions Consider if all the people whose opinions you want studied at Harvard like you and also believe the statement you made. Will the blind lead the blind?
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  Sorry, but this doesn't scale. You have finite time available, you cannot be a master of everything, and recognizing this and asking for the opinions of those who are, is the right way to handle that.
  - noch 6y ago
    > Sorry, but this doesn't scale. As my cello teacher said: the effort is the thing. You probably won't become a master but you have to make the effort. The effort is all. Importantly, everything valuable that is known was once unknown by everybody, including masters. If we don't make the effort, there's no chance of going beyond frontiers. We are left discussing what so-and-so said they think about what so-and-so thinks about what so-and-so wrote about a paper and the author's personality.
blincoln 6y ago
I'm also very curious about the opinions of other physicists. Dr. Hossenfelder seems to have a lengthy, strong background in physics. On the other hand, every time I read one of her transcripts, I see something along the lines of the "superluminal travel doesn't necessarily result in the possibility of causality violations" claim in this one. Every modern text I've read about physics has indicated that superluminal travel (or signaling) inexorably means that causality can be violated, unless Einstein was missing something. In the last one I read, there were claims about Hawking radiation and virtual particles that also seemed to contradict everything I've read. Now, it may be the case that those texts really are simplified down and one learns what's really going on in some advanced physics course, but twice in as many transcripts is a red flag for me. It's not at the Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais level yet, but usually people who consistently claim that all of the experts are wrong are themselves wrong, and so I'd like to see some non-self-referential confirmation.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Hossenfelder doesn't claim that all the experts are wrong. She has a reputation as a maverick because she published a book claiming that some experts were wasting time. In fact I think a term she used to describe it was, "not even wrong."
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - blincoln 6y ago
    > Hossenfelder doesn't claim that all the experts are wrong. "In his book, Hawking painted a neat picture for black hole evaporation that is now widely used. [...]. It’s simple, it’s intuitive, and it’s wrong."[1] When I read that quote, I originally took it at face value, because she seems like an expert in her field, and it certainly sounds plausible. But now, in the next writeup of hers that I've come across, I find a claim that the description of FTL and causality portrayed by every legit source I've ever encountered is wrong, and that FTL without violating causality is somehow possible within Einstein's framework. That's two incredible claims in as many writeups. Why haven't I seen similar claims from e.g. Brian Greene or David Deutsch? Is it something specific to her own theories? Is it from some branch of theoretical physics that's not accepted by mainstream physicists? Am I misunderstanding the claims? Etc. [1] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-is-not-produced-at.html?m=1 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/hawking-radiation-i...
tasty_freeze 6y ago
> > Your comment isn't about content of the article. > It is a commentary on the article. I stand by what I said: you weren't commenting on the article. You were commenting about the author of the article, and that you were tired of seeing news about her.
qndreoi 6y ago
Others here refer to the author as Dr. Hossenfelder. But to you she is Sabine. Would you refer to Brian Greene as Brian or Sean Carroll as Sean? It seems you are not even aware of your biases.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Others here refer to the author as Dr. Hossenfelder. But to you she is Sabine. Would you refer to Brian Greene as Brian or Sean Carroll as Sean? It seems you are not even aware of your biases. I doubt anyone is aware of all of their biases. I'm assuming you're making reference to gender bias - totally possible that I am susceptible to that, although I think: a. Sabine is a more unique name than Brian. b. In almost all discussions I see of her, she is referred to as Sabine - I was just following along with that precedence. She also goes by "Bee" and dislikes her last name [0] [1] [0]: 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... http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-game.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2007/09/name-game.html