4 ms·

> I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit Not entirely sure how th

> I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results. Or are you seriously imagining that there is a cabbal of old researchers that have found a much better way to explore things but for political reasons is keeping it secret? Why is it so impossible for you to believe that people have done honest attempts at finding new ways to do the fundamental physics they want to explore for decades and keep coming to the conclusion that they'll need big machines to do anything worthwhile on the timescale of a PhD position?

dylan604 4y ago
>Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results. This is coming from a forum where it's normal to see "something that already exists, but written in $newLanguage/Framework" as a thing to celebrate. So why not just redo science but with newShiny so we haven't actually achieved anything? /s
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  Just do "import SUSY" I don't know why you think it's hard to find!
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure this is wrapped in all sorts of dependancy hell
tsimionescu 4y ago
It's also often said that science advances one funeral at a time. It's entirely possible for an entire field to be stuck in a local maximum and refuse to admit that they are not advancing, especially when huge money depends on it. A recent example is the amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimers, which has failed every single time it was tested in clinical trials, but is still being pushed again and again, mostly by a cabal of academics that refuse to accept that were wrong, and industry bureaucrats that are afraid to challenge the orthodoxy (no one was ever fired for approving research proposed by the foremost expert in their field!).
- XorNot 4y ago
  Yes it's said a lot by non-scientist commentators on internet forums, frequently about 5 seconds before they push whatever bizzare conspiracy theory they've made their pet cause. And there it is right in this post.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It was said by Max Planck (well, not this exact quote, but the spirit is entirely there), not exactly a non-scientist commenting on an internet forum. Also, the controversy over the amyloid hypothesis is real. Here [0] is a paper showing arguments for and against with 268 citations. Here [1] is a more journalistic article in Nature. While this is still up in the air, it's nby no means a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that it's possibly a 25-year wild goose chase, or close to it. I would love to be wrong about this, but I suppose time will tell. [0] https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40478-014-0135-5 https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4
    - XorNot 4y ago
      A better qualified person saying something doesn't make you qualified to repeat it.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        It's not like it's some subtle mathematical conjecture that laymen can't possibly comprehend. It's a social comment by a well known researcher that has a good chance of being a fact of the scientific community today just as much as then. If you believe things have changed, just say so, and move the conversation on. If you don't think it's a fruitful conversation, don't participate. I specifically replied to someone claiming that new minds re-thinking the foundations of a field couldn't possibly be a good idea, and I did so with a relevant quote from one of the new minds that completely re-wrote the foundations of their field. I believe this was a constructive observation moving the conversation.
rocqua 4y ago
> "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" The idea of getting young physicists to do lots of research is not at all about ignoring the old knowledge. These young people will have gotten a PhD in physics. They will have absorbed a lot of the relevant old knowledge. The idea is that, because they came to this knowledge quite quickly, they have a fresh view on it. You simply get a different view on knowledge you build over decades as opposed to knowledge you learnt in a few years. This different view could very well lead to new and valuable insights. There is not a "cabbal of old researchers that have found a much better way to explore things but for political reasons is keeping it secret". But there is a "group of people who have been doing high energy physics that want to keep doing high energy physics". It makes sense that they want to keep doing it, even if other approaches would be more fruitful. They have invested lots of time into it, and they might not even know about the other approaches. And doing 'more of the old thing' is a safe bet. It's just that by now 'more of the old thing' is getting really stupidly expensive. And it looks to be a lot more efficient to try a lot more new things. Give the people with a fresh look on it a change to come up with ideas. > Why is it so impossible for you to believe that people have done honest attempts at finding new ways to do the fundamental physics they want to explore for decades and keep coming to the conclusion that they'll need big machines to do anything worthwhile on the timescale of a PhD position? These people surely do exist. But there are plenty of others out there that have ideas for 10 million dollar machines rather than 100 billion dollar machines. Try some of the 10 million dollar machines rather than only the 100 billion dollar machines. I think many of the 10 million dollar machines are currently not being funded because that level of funding requires clout, reputation, and political acumen to get. This currently lies with the people who like doing accelerators. They don't like building non-accelerators that cost 10 million dollars, so they don't help the 10 million dollar machines as much. That is not malice, these people aren't evil. They just like a tool that is getting inefficient.
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > But there is a "group of people who have been doing high energy physics that want to keep doing high energy physics". Apparently it needs to be said because people act like they don't know it: those are the only people interested in answering questions about the fundamental particles! Diverging interests is the fundamental reason people separate into different fields. > they might not even know about the other approaches You can easily find the lists of seminars given at CERN and other places: they do know about other fields. In fact people from HEP move to other fields, and folks from other fields move into HEP. > Try some of the 10 million dollar machines rather than only the 100 billion dollar machines. They are being built though! In fact there are 2 billion experiments being built. The argument here is something else: that High energy physics should just stop building big machines at all, and instead magically solve the problem that small machines were built and fully exploited many many decades ago. The proposed FCC cost is 30 billion.

dylan604 4y ago

>Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results. This is coming from a forum where it's normal to see "something that already exists, but written in $newLanguage/Framework" as a thing to celebrate. So why not just redo science but with newShiny so we haven't actually achieved anything? /s

SiempreViernes 4y ago
Just do "import SUSY" I don't know why you think it's hard to find!
- dylan604 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure this is wrapped in all sorts of dependancy hell

tsimionescu 4y ago

It's also often said that science advances one funeral at a time. It's entirely possible for an entire field to be stuck in a local maximum and refuse to admit that they are not advancing, especially when huge money depends on it. A recent example is the amyloid hypothesis for Alzheimers, which has failed every single time it was tested in clinical trials, but is still being pushed again and again, mostly by a cabal of academics that refuse to accept that were wrong, and industry bureaucrats that are afraid to challenge the orthodoxy (no one was ever fired for approving research proposed by the foremost expert in their field!).

XorNot 4y ago
Yes it's said a lot by non-scientist commentators on internet forums, frequently about 5 seconds before they push whatever bizzare conspiracy theory they've made their pet cause. And there it is right in this post.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It was said by Max Planck (well, not this exact quote, but the spirit is entirely there), not exactly a non-scientist commenting on an internet forum. Also, the controversy over the amyloid hypothesis is real. Here [0] is a paper showing arguments for and against with 268 citations. Here [1] is a more journalistic article in Nature. While this is still up in the air, it's nby no means a "conspiracy theory" to suggest that it's possibly a 25-year wild goose chase, or close to it. I would love to be wrong about this, but I suppose time will tell. [0] https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40478-014-0135-5 https://actaneurocomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s4... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4
  - XorNot 4y ago
    A better qualified person saying something doesn't make you qualified to repeat it.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      It's not like it's some subtle mathematical conjecture that laymen can't possibly comprehend. It's a social comment by a well known researcher that has a good chance of being a fact of the scientific community today just as much as then. If you believe things have changed, just say so, and move the conversation on. If you don't think it's a fruitful conversation, don't participate. I specifically replied to someone claiming that new minds re-thinking the foundations of a field couldn't possibly be a good idea, and I did so with a relevant quote from one of the new minds that completely re-wrote the foundations of their field. I believe this was a constructive observation moving the conversation.

rocqua 4y ago

> "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" The idea of getting young physicists to do lots of research is not at all about ignoring the old knowledge. These young people will have gotten a PhD in physics. They will have absorbed a lot of the relevant old knowledge. The idea is that, because they came to this knowledge quite quickly, they have a fresh view on it. You simply get a different view on knowledge you build over decades as opposed to knowledge you learnt in a few years. This different view could very well lead to new and valuable insights. There is not a "cabbal of old researchers that have found a much better way to explore things but for political reasons is keeping it secret". But there is a "group of people who have been doing high energy physics that want to keep doing high energy physics". It makes sense that they want to keep doing it, even if other approaches would be more fruitful. They have invested lots of time into it, and they might not even know about the other approaches. And doing 'more of the old thing' is a safe bet. It's just that by now 'more of the old thing' is getting really stupidly expensive. And it looks to be a lot more efficient to try a lot more new things. Give the people with a fresh look on it a change to come up with ideas. > Why is it so impossible for you to believe that people have done honest attempts at finding new ways to do the fundamental physics they want to explore for decades and keep coming to the conclusion that they'll need big machines to do anything worthwhile on the timescale of a PhD position? These people surely do exist. But there are plenty of others out there that have ideas for 10 million dollar machines rather than 100 billion dollar machines. Try some of the 10 million dollar machines rather than only the 100 billion dollar machines. I think many of the 10 million dollar machines are currently not being funded because that level of funding requires clout, reputation, and political acumen to get. This currently lies with the people who like doing accelerators. They don't like building non-accelerators that cost 10 million dollars, so they don't help the 10 million dollar machines as much. That is not malice, these people aren't evil. They just like a tool that is getting inefficient.

SiempreViernes 4y ago
> But there is a "group of people who have been doing high energy physics that want to keep doing high energy physics". Apparently it needs to be said because people act like they don't know it: those are the only people interested in answering questions about the fundamental particles! Diverging interests is the fundamental reason people separate into different fields. > they might not even know about the other approaches You can easily find the lists of seminars given at CERN and other places: they do know about other fields. In fact people from HEP move to other fields, and folks from other fields move into HEP. > Try some of the 10 million dollar machines rather than only the 100 billion dollar machines. They are being built though! In fact there are 2 billion experiments being built. The argument here is something else: that High energy physics should just stop building big machines at all, and instead magically solve the problem that small machines were built and fully exploited many many decades ago. The proposed FCC cost is 30 billion.