7 ms·

She's absolutely right. When I was a kid I watched and read a lot of Brian Greene's stuff about string theory. I even saw him give a talk in person about the mu

She's absolutely right. When I was a kid I watched and read a lot of Brian Greene's stuff about string theory. I even saw him give a talk in person about the multiverse in grad school (I studied biology). The truth is, Greene is brilliant but his idea of science veers into fantasy. There's an entire generation of physicists who grew up during an era where all the low hanging experimental fruit evaporated. A modern physics experiment costs millions if not billions of dollars. Some of these physicists in their 50s have no idea what experimental science looks like, and this mentality has bled into the popular consciousness of what scientists do. It's in biology where you still have ample low hanging fruit in terms of experiments. I feel if you're a brilliant physics grad in 2022, don't waste your time on string theory - apply some of that knowledge to chemistry and biology

europeanguy 4y ago
> She's absolutely right. I wonder how much contact you have with the world of research in theoretical physics that lead you to this conclusion. More to the point: do you have any, or is this person your only source of information? Do you know that phenomenon where you think you're learning good information from a source, until that source talks about a subject you're an expert in and you realize they have no idea what they're talking about? That's how I feel every time I see Sabine hossenfelder on HN. I have a PhD in theoretical physics in a string-adjacent field[1], and my view is that this person has had negative net contribution to physics. First by contributing zero from poor research, and second by detracting by spreading the impression amongst the general population that experts aren't really experts, they don't know what they're talking about, are stupid or corrupt etc etc. Seems to be the theme of the 2020s that the most incompetent of any field become financially the most successful by making a business out of writing about how their colleagues are ignorant. [1] my experience interacting with the kinds of muppets that are fans of Sabine is that at this point you'll have learned the argument that "well of course you think that way, that's because you're in the system and benefit from its rotting, being a PhD in X". If that's what you think about me, don't bother even responding. In reality I've left the academia for industry and am doing 10x better financially than any of my ex-colleagues - I benefit nothing from the effort I make in trying to communicate what is really going on here.
- epgui 4y ago
  I don't have a dog in this fight but as a biochemist, your frustration is exactly what I've felt for the last few years.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    Please allow me to state a more refined stance than either Sabine's or the perception of the type of criticism levelled against theoretical physics especially. I'm going to use biochemistry and several other fields as great examples to compare and contrast what happens when "religiosity" creeps into a field. Something that stuck with me was an article[1] describing how certain fields of medicine had languished, whereas others had made dramatic strides forward during the same period. For example, psychology is basically 90% hogwash. Meanwhile, the study of the the brain's biochemistry and therapeutic medication-based remedies for many common brain dysfunctions have made huge strides forward in recent decades. Back in the mid 20th century, the only treatment for most brain-related problems was "talk to a psychiatrist". This generally did nothing except help psychiatrists rack up billable hours. When medications eliminated the "need" for one-on-one therapy sessions, how do you think it went, trying to convince psychiatrists that their entire lucrative field is a giant waste of time? Yeah. Precisely how you think it went. Similarly, when I was at University around the late 1990s, the entire field of AI research revolved around only logic. As in, some person or a few people had decided that the path to general intelligence was to be via "fuzzy logic", or "predicate logic", or "probabilistic logic", or... well... some kind of logic at any rate. We had to learn LISP, Prolog, and Boolean algebra, and so on. That entire path was a giant waste of time, but... none of it was wrong. Not one bit. They were correct, confidently making slow but steady progress, and they weren't even going in the wrong direction! They were advancing AI! Just... very slowly, and with no chance at achieving the modern miracles of AI such a text-to-image generation. (DALL*E, Imagen, Stable Diffusion, etc...) Let's circle back to Sabine's criticism of theoretical physics. They're the same. They're confident that they're correct because they're not wrong! Sabine doesn't argue that they're wrong. I also don't believe physicists are wrong, and I've even studied physics to a graduate level, agreeing with at least 99% of it. What I believe is that theoretical physics specifically has gone down a parallel path that leads to a dead end. The path leads in the right direction, and every step along it leads to forward progress. The issue is that there are people that simply refuse to believe that maybe, just maybe, we're all stuck in a dead end. Quantum Mechanics researchers especially love to point to a small number of successes such as the precision numerical calculations related to the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron as proof that they're on the right path. This is cheerfully ignoring the minor detail that the equivalent calculation for the muon has a 3.5 standard deviation error when compared to reality. Oops. Just ignore that. We're on the right path, remember, because the step we took with the electron was forward! This is the problem. I remember my professors being so earnest about AI and logic, and how "one day", there will be intelligent robots programmed in Prolog. I also remember my Quantum Mechanics lessons where the professor very earnestly told me that microscopic systems change magically only when you look at them, which is patent nonsense, but is repeated to this day, just like Freud's idiocy is still taught to psychiatrists decades after much of their profession has been largely superseded by therapeutic drugs. [1] I wish I could dig it up, but I read it over a decade ago. The gist is pretty clear though, in that not all "sciences" are equal, and small branches even within the same larger field are often dramatically more effective and/or correct due to "cultural" reasons, or a better approach. The article listed many examples, but the criticism of certain areas of medicine and psychology were the most scathing. For a similar rant, see Richard Feynman's take on the topic: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
adastra22 4y ago
It's really frustrating because there are actual experimental results that need explaining. Particularly in cosmology and quantum gravity, but there are also open questions regarding neutrino flavors that don't conform to the standard model. But even more simply there is real work being done on such things as quantum computing and superconductors. Not to mention even more basic and practical things which are still not characterized well like the mechanics of piles of sand or grain (yes, really). I left physics in 2008 in part because I was in the same boat as you and had gotten disillusioned with both string theory and particle physics. Now I kinda wish I had stuck it out and focused on more practical, less hyped-up areas.
- s1dev 4y ago
  What experimental evidence of quantum gravity is there? I like to argue for theoretical evidence of quantum gravity, but afaik there hasn’t been any experiments to rule out classical GR coupled to a quantum matter sector
  - adastra22 4y ago
    The fact that there is gravity at all, which is not a part of the standard model.
herdcall 4y ago
She's been critical of string theory and multiverse, in good part due to their inability to be verified via experimentation. She comes off as abrasive to some and tends to ruffle feathers, but she is the only physicist I've found that isn't afraid to take a stand and is great in explaining hard concepts in relatively simple terms. Try watching a few of her videos, specifically on Physics, before forming an opinion of her. Especially see her debate, along with Roger Penrose (2020 Nobel), against Michio Kaku that is especially brutal on string theory and multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39kfrxOSHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39kfrxOSHg

europeanguy 4y ago

> She's absolutely right. I wonder how much contact you have with the world of research in theoretical physics that lead you to this conclusion. More to the point: do you have any, or is this person your only source of information? Do you know that phenomenon where you think you're learning good information from a source, until that source talks about a subject you're an expert in and you realize they have no idea what they're talking about? That's how I feel every time I see Sabine hossenfelder on HN. I have a PhD in theoretical physics in a string-adjacent field[1], and my view is that this person has had negative net contribution to physics. First by contributing zero from poor research, and second by detracting by spreading the impression amongst the general population that experts aren't really experts, they don't know what they're talking about, are stupid or corrupt etc etc. Seems to be the theme of the 2020s that the most incompetent of any field become financially the most successful by making a business out of writing about how their colleagues are ignorant. [1] my experience interacting with the kinds of muppets that are fans of Sabine is that at this point you'll have learned the argument that "well of course you think that way, that's because you're in the system and benefit from its rotting, being a PhD in X". If that's what you think about me, don't bother even responding. In reality I've left the academia for industry and am doing 10x better financially than any of my ex-colleagues - I benefit nothing from the effort I make in trying to communicate what is really going on here.

epgui 4y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight but as a biochemist, your frustration is exactly what I've felt for the last few years.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Please allow me to state a more refined stance than either Sabine's or the perception of the type of criticism levelled against theoretical physics especially. I'm going to use biochemistry and several other fields as great examples to compare and contrast what happens when "religiosity" creeps into a field. Something that stuck with me was an article[1] describing how certain fields of medicine had languished, whereas others had made dramatic strides forward during the same period. For example, psychology is basically 90% hogwash. Meanwhile, the study of the the brain's biochemistry and therapeutic medication-based remedies for many common brain dysfunctions have made huge strides forward in recent decades. Back in the mid 20th century, the only treatment for most brain-related problems was "talk to a psychiatrist". This generally did nothing except help psychiatrists rack up billable hours. When medications eliminated the "need" for one-on-one therapy sessions, how do you think it went, trying to convince psychiatrists that their entire lucrative field is a giant waste of time? Yeah. Precisely how you think it went. Similarly, when I was at University around the late 1990s, the entire field of AI research revolved around only logic. As in, some person or a few people had decided that the path to general intelligence was to be via "fuzzy logic", or "predicate logic", or "probabilistic logic", or... well... some kind of logic at any rate. We had to learn LISP, Prolog, and Boolean algebra, and so on. That entire path was a giant waste of time, but... none of it was wrong. Not one bit. They were correct, confidently making slow but steady progress, and they weren't even going in the wrong direction! They were advancing AI! Just... very slowly, and with no chance at achieving the modern miracles of AI such a text-to-image generation. (DALL*E, Imagen, Stable Diffusion, etc...) Let's circle back to Sabine's criticism of theoretical physics. They're the same. They're confident that they're correct because they're not wrong! Sabine doesn't argue that they're wrong. I also don't believe physicists are wrong, and I've even studied physics to a graduate level, agreeing with at least 99% of it. What I believe is that theoretical physics specifically has gone down a parallel path that leads to a dead end. The path leads in the right direction, and every step along it leads to forward progress. The issue is that there are people that simply refuse to believe that maybe, just maybe, we're all stuck in a dead end. Quantum Mechanics researchers especially love to point to a small number of successes such as the precision numerical calculations related to the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron as proof that they're on the right path. This is cheerfully ignoring the minor detail that the equivalent calculation for the muon has a 3.5 standard deviation error when compared to reality. Oops. Just ignore that. We're on the right path, remember, because the step we took with the electron was forward! This is the problem. I remember my professors being so earnest about AI and logic, and how "one day", there will be intelligent robots programmed in Prolog. I also remember my Quantum Mechanics lessons where the professor very earnestly told me that microscopic systems change magically only when you look at them, which is patent nonsense, but is repeated to this day, just like Freud's idiocy is still taught to psychiatrists decades after much of their profession has been largely superseded by therapeutic drugs. [1] I wish I could dig it up, but I read it over a decade ago. The gist is pretty clear though, in that not all "sciences" are equal, and small branches even within the same larger field are often dramatically more effective and/or correct due to "cultural" reasons, or a better approach. The article listed many examples, but the criticism of certain areas of medicine and psychology were the most scathing. For a similar rant, see Richard Feynman's take on the topic: http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html

adastra22 4y ago

It's really frustrating because there are actual experimental results that need explaining. Particularly in cosmology and quantum gravity, but there are also open questions regarding neutrino flavors that don't conform to the standard model. But even more simply there is real work being done on such things as quantum computing and superconductors. Not to mention even more basic and practical things which are still not characterized well like the mechanics of piles of sand or grain (yes, really). I left physics in 2008 in part because I was in the same boat as you and had gotten disillusioned with both string theory and particle physics. Now I kinda wish I had stuck it out and focused on more practical, less hyped-up areas.

s1dev 4y ago
What experimental evidence of quantum gravity is there? I like to argue for theoretical evidence of quantum gravity, but afaik there hasn’t been any experiments to rule out classical GR coupled to a quantum matter sector
- adastra22 4y ago
  The fact that there is gravity at all, which is not a part of the standard model.

herdcall 4y ago

She's been critical of string theory and multiverse, in good part due to their inability to be verified via experimentation. She comes off as abrasive to some and tends to ruffle feathers, but she is the only physicist I've found that isn't afraid to take a stand and is great in explaining hard concepts in relatively simple terms. Try watching a few of her videos, specifically on Physics, before forming an opinion of her. Especially see her debate, along with Roger Penrose (2020 Nobel), against Michio Kaku that is especially brutal on string theory and multiverse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39kfrxOSHg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39kfrxOSHg