3 ms·

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

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...
wwarner 6y ago
In this particular post, she referenced causality in one sentence > Neither does this faster-than light travel necessarily lead to causality paradoxes. I take this to mean that if you could travel FTL to a very distant place that you could never get to otherwise, like say whatever universe there is that is farther away than light can travel in age of the universe, then there isn't a causality problem. Which isn't controversial. I'm pretty sure there are other FTL scenarios in which there is no paradox.
- blincoln 6y ago
  > In this particular post, she referenced causality in one sentence Yes, precisely. She made an extraordinary claim, as if it were a minor footnote, instead of "every mainstream description of relativity is wrong in this very fundamental way." If it were the only time I'd seen her do that in her writings, it wouldn't trouble me as much. It seems to be common, and that makes me concerned that e.g. she may be off in some branch of physics that's not well accepted at this time.

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...

wwarner 6y ago

In this particular post, she referenced causality in one sentence > Neither does this faster-than light travel necessarily lead to causality paradoxes. I take this to mean that if you could travel FTL to a very distant place that you could never get to otherwise, like say whatever universe there is that is farther away than light can travel in age of the universe, then there isn't a causality problem. Which isn't controversial. I'm pretty sure there are other FTL scenarios in which there is no paradox.

blincoln 6y ago
> In this particular post, she referenced causality in one sentence Yes, precisely. She made an extraordinary claim, as if it were a minor footnote, instead of "every mainstream description of relativity is wrong in this very fundamental way." If it were the only time I'd seen her do that in her writings, it wouldn't trouble me as much. It seems to be common, and that makes me concerned that e.g. she may be off in some branch of physics that's not well accepted at this time.