5 ms·

Yeah she sounds like a frustrated person seeking revenge. Because someone has to be responsible for her frustration, right? To be fair it’s a trend we see a lot

Yeah she sounds like a frustrated person seeking revenge. Because someone has to be responsible for her frustration, right? To be fair it’s a trend we see a lot currently. Angry people seeking revenge because they feel their life didn’t go as well as they deserve.

qsdf38100 4y ago
I’d appreciate feedback from people downvoting. I don’t care about HN karma, I’m just curious as to why denouncing her unconstructive and angry takes on particule physics is frowned upon.
- mistermann 4y ago
  I downvoted for clairvoyance - one of my pet peeves.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Now, I too would appreciate feedback from people downvoting!
- gramie 4y ago
  I didn't up- or down-vote you, but I would guess it is because your comment was an ad hominem, attacking her personality rather than her arguments. People can be angry for good reasons or bad, so calling her angry doesn't advance the debate at all. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that her main point seems valid: for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding (with research money, publications, tenure, prestige, etc.) people creating theories that cannot ever be proven true or false. Science is supposed to be founded on the scientific method: create a theory, then create an experiment that can prove or disprove it. Now we have a hamster-wheel of experiments producing theories that produce more experiments, and the goal is to keep the hamster-wheel running rather than come to a conclusion.
  - quantum_mcts 4y ago
    > for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding people creating theories that cannot ever be proven true or false. This is not true on several levels. First of all, there is a place for studying mathematical abstractions (strings and such) and there is nothing wrong with doing mathematics. Second, theoretical physics rewards theories that can be falsified - there is a huge subarea called "phenomenology" that in engaged in linking theoretical abstractions and experiments. Third, there is no "process" to the contrary and in the last ~50 a number of fundamental new discoveries was performed. > hamster-wheel of experiments producing theories that produce more experiments That makes no sense. Are you, like, rejecting collider experiments altogether?
    - beezle 4y ago
      It might be more accurate to say "there has been a place for the industry of mathematical abstractions (strings and such)" since the very late 1960s/early 1970s S-Matrix theory. I think the various funding agencies around the world are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research (theory and experiment) efforts are focused. "Efforts" can be read as man-years and money.
      - quantum_mcts 4y ago
        > S-Matrix theory I don't get it. You have something against S-Matrix theory? Why do you call it an "industry"? > funding agencies are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research efforts are focused Current situation in HEP is fine. The whole theoretical physics community decides where research efforts should be focused. No one else can do that even if he wanted to.
        beezle 4y ago
        A long winded reply - S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY leading no where beyond some interesting maths (imho). I call it an industry because of the number of people involved and the self-preservation need to keep the funding going. I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decision. Clearly, there are groups within interest areas that make recommendations to those agencies and nominally propose long term plans. But no dollars, no research - plans or not. Communities also tend towards preserving the status quo rather than cutting losses, splitting up and moving on to new things. If there was more pushback from the funders we would not have seen so many working in and around string theory and susy for such a very long time with so little to show for it. That is not to say nobody should do such research, just that at some point someone has to say this no longer looks like it warrants the effort of so many, bring some new ideas/areas of research for the majority of you. In the case of HEP experimentalists, the problem is magnified as the monies involved are very large as are the number of people, many of whom have nothing directly to do with physics (techs, etc). CERN quotes a figure of 17,500 including 2500 of their own staff. All involved have a very vested interest in making sure things do not change meaningfully and that upgrades continue to be made to LHC until funding is secured for another collider. Otherwise where do they go? The notion that it is not in the best interest of the entire physics community or the wider public tends to fall on deaf ears when your career and paycheck are on the cutting block.

qsdf38100 4y ago

I’d appreciate feedback from people downvoting. I don’t care about HN karma, I’m just curious as to why denouncing her unconstructive and angry takes on particule physics is frowned upon.

mistermann 4y ago
I downvoted for clairvoyance - one of my pet peeves.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Now, I too would appreciate feedback from people downvoting!
gramie 4y ago
I didn't up- or down-vote you, but I would guess it is because your comment was an ad hominem, attacking her personality rather than her arguments. People can be angry for good reasons or bad, so calling her angry doesn't advance the debate at all. I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that her main point seems valid: for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding (with research money, publications, tenure, prestige, etc.) people creating theories that cannot ever be proven true or false. Science is supposed to be founded on the scientific method: create a theory, then create an experiment that can prove or disprove it. Now we have a hamster-wheel of experiments producing theories that produce more experiments, and the goal is to keep the hamster-wheel running rather than come to a conclusion.
- quantum_mcts 4y ago
  > for the past ~50 years, theoretical physics has been engaged in a process that is rewarding people creating theories that cannot ever be proven true or false. This is not true on several levels. First of all, there is a place for studying mathematical abstractions (strings and such) and there is nothing wrong with doing mathematics. Second, theoretical physics rewards theories that can be falsified - there is a huge subarea called "phenomenology" that in engaged in linking theoretical abstractions and experiments. Third, there is no "process" to the contrary and in the last ~50 a number of fundamental new discoveries was performed. > hamster-wheel of experiments producing theories that produce more experiments That makes no sense. Are you, like, rejecting collider experiments altogether?
  - beezle 4y ago
    It might be more accurate to say "there has been a place for the industry of mathematical abstractions (strings and such)" since the very late 1960s/early 1970s S-Matrix theory. I think the various funding agencies around the world are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research (theory and experiment) efforts are focused. "Efforts" can be read as man-years and money.
    - quantum_mcts 4y ago
      > S-Matrix theory I don't get it. You have something against S-Matrix theory? Why do you call it an "industry"? > funding agencies are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research efforts are focused Current situation in HEP is fine. The whole theoretical physics community decides where research efforts should be focused. No one else can do that even if he wanted to.
      - beezle 4y ago
        A long winded reply - S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY leading no where beyond some interesting maths (imho). I call it an industry because of the number of people involved and the self-preservation need to keep the funding going. I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decision. Clearly, there are groups within interest areas that make recommendations to those agencies and nominally propose long term plans. But no dollars, no research - plans or not. Communities also tend towards preserving the status quo rather than cutting losses, splitting up and moving on to new things. If there was more pushback from the funders we would not have seen so many working in and around string theory and susy for such a very long time with so little to show for it. That is not to say nobody should do such research, just that at some point someone has to say this no longer looks like it warrants the effort of so many, bring some new ideas/areas of research for the majority of you. In the case of HEP experimentalists, the problem is magnified as the monies involved are very large as are the number of people, many of whom have nothing directly to do with physics (techs, etc). CERN quotes a figure of 17,500 including 2500 of their own staff. All involved have a very vested interest in making sure things do not change meaningfully and that upgrades continue to be made to LHC until funding is secured for another collider. Otherwise where do they go? The notion that it is not in the best interest of the entire physics community or the wider public tends to fall on deaf ears when your career and paycheck are on the cutting block.