3 ms·
I didn't say she's a fake physicist, just that I don't think she's a very good one. > She's as qualified as pretty much anybody else who's going to appear in p
by akvadrako 6y ago
I didn't say she's a fake physicist, just that I don't think she's a very good one.
> She's as qualified as pretty much anybody else who's going to appear in public to talk about such things.
Not at all. There are thousands of people who clearly have a much deeper understanding of fundamental physics and some of them are popularizers too. Lenny Susskind is a good example. Peter Shor, who sometimes comments on her blog. There are plenty of bloggers who aren't famous.
- jfengel 6y agoI suspect when somebody's coming out of nowhere offering to solve the whole shebang of physics, any advanced physicist is likely to be as good as any other. Weinstein is not, as I understand it, building off of the most cutting-edge work, but offering a new approach. Having deeper understanding of the state of the art may not be a benefit. It is almost certainly rubbish, and anybody could probably tell him that. It's probably not worth the time of anybody anywhere near the cutting edge, just a blogger who wants the attention. On the off chance it's actually correct, the person to affirm that it's correct is almost certainly not a popularizer at all. It'll be some obscure academics who see the merit and fill in the details -- which will be read by the popularizers and translated. But if I were one of them I wouldn't start sharpening my pencils yet.
- akvadrako 6y ago> any advanced physicist is likely to be as good as any other It certainly matters how well they understand the material for being able critique a new approach. And there is a big difference in understanding throughout the field – people are not interchangeable. Sabine hasn't said anything that would indicate she knows why Erik's theory won't work, unlike the post by Nguyen.