5 ms·

Cue incoming Sabine Hossenfelder YT video takedown. > “I have not yet seen shocking results that we didn’t know before, but I have no doubt it’s quite likely t

Cue incoming Sabine Hossenfelder YT video takedown. > “I have not yet seen shocking results that we didn’t know before, but I have no doubt it’s quite likely this will happen, because this is clearly a much better way of thinking about the problem,” Seiberg said. This bothers me. What about the empirical evidence from experimentation? Shouldn't that be more important?

nhatcher 4y ago
Facepalm. That's exactly the first thing I thought. I don't know if I am more tired of those blatant statements without any basis or of Sabine's expected reaction. Theoretical particle physics is in a tough spot. I really hope in my lifetime I will get the change to learn new theories. I am hopeful, still. But we either invent or we fail.
asplake 4y ago
> But last May, three physicists proved that the 1969 verdict was only half the story. It wasn’t just that the presupposed symmetry wasn’t there — it was that higher symmetries were. And when those symmetries were incorporated into the theoretical picture, the predicted and observed decay rates matched exactly. … > [The] fractional quantum Hall effect, involves the spontaneous reorganization of electrons, but without any apparent symmetry being broken. This made it an uncomfortable outlier within the theory of phase transitions. That is, until a paper in 2018 by Xiao-Gang Wen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology helped establish that the quantum Hall effect does in fact break a symmetry — just not a traditional one.
rini17 4y ago
They do mention condensed matter physics. If it really makes maths easier there, that means instant practical relevance.
garbagecoder 4y ago
Good for her. Before her there were people like Lee Smolin. They eventually get cancelled by the physics community, like short sellers in investment, no one wants to hear the sad trumpet but the "market" doesn't function without skeptics. Theoretical discoveries are good, but some ego, some hype for funding, and some clickbaiting have made reporting on science even from the better sources like Quanta too focused on finding aliens and the grand unification or commercial fusion or whatever at least just by what gets written and posted, it seems like that.
- vitehozonage 4y ago
  >people like Lee Smolin. They eventually get cancelled by the physics community Could you tell me more about this or lead me where to read about it? All I know of him is that I came across some of his talks/interviews on youtube and found them incredibly refreshing. I am a physics graduate that left entirely dissatisfied and feel he's the lecturer that I wish I could have had. Is he viewed as a crackpot?
  - leephillips 4y ago
    It’s news to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Maybe “people like” Smolin but not Smolin. I mean, he has a very good job, and has recently published books and papers, and interviews. I’m not sure I even understand what “cancelled by the physics community” would mean. Journal editors have secret instructions to throw out your manuscripts instead of sending them out for review?
    - garbagecoder 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - leephillips 4y ago
        [flagged]
        garbagecoder 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 4y ago
        Personal attacks will get you banned here, no matter how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281554 (March 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29939445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29939445 (Jan 2022) If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
superposeur 4y ago
What is it about theoretical physics that makes people on the internet (with zero understanding of the context) feel entitled to snarkily attack results such as this? The research in the article is about as innocuous as it gets — uncovering another possible way to get a handle on the math of quantum field theories. It’s not like millions of dollars went into the research (just the modest salaries of the four theorists). No major applications as yet — the Quanta title “…shaking up physics” is certainly not true. But it’s another stone in the edifice of science. And my god when you see the esoterica in some (most?) other academic fields, the unrelenting complaints about the solipsism of physics seem totally misdirected. When an upper bound on some complicated measure on the distribution of prime numbers is lowered, no chorus of jackals assembles on the internet to mock the proof for its lack of real world relevance. The other day I spoke with a classics professor whose primary research was on a possible alternative interpretation of one line in a Latin poem. I found it interesting and worthwhile, but wow another level of remove from the so-called real world of engineering application and commerce. Also, to be clear, whether or not mathematical physics work winds up elucidating experiments, it is still correct and “useful” math. It’s not for nothing that the math community gave Edward Witten a Fields medal.
- acchow 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ethanwillis 4y ago
    If people wanted ChatGPT's response on this why couldn't they just ask it themselves? What is your thought on the topic?
    - acchow 4y ago
      My thought was the first sentence in my comment - that snarky responses are common in many subjects (not particular to theoretical physics). The Google results were absolutely useless (top result was "22 Screenshots Of Hilarious Internet Comments"). So I thought ChatGPT could tell me which subjects produced the snarkiest comments. It sort of worked.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
Theoretical results allow you to make experiments in the first place and to interpret empirical results. Sometimes experimental results aren’t even the important part. Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity make the exactly same predictions. Yet only one of them is considered revolutionary. And it isn’t the one that was invented first.
- codethief 4y ago
  > Theoretical results allow you to make experiments in the first place How so? > Sometimes experimental results aren’t even the important part. When are experiments ever not important? What is a theory without experimental results? I know you've mentioned Special Relativity but let me illustrate my point using General Relativity: When Einstein came up with General Relativity, few people believed him – until experiments proved him right[0]. But the hype was over soon after because there were not many things one could predict (beyond rather simple things in cosmology). While hype came back briefly during the Golden Age of Relativity between 1960 and 1975[1], afterwards everyone lost interest in GR once more because there were still barely any experiments you could do. That is, until recently, when people found gravitational waves and started taking "photos" of black holes. So do you think that Special Relativity would be as well-known and popular today if people hadn't proven it right in countless experiments and found applications in many other areas? Personally, I think SR would probably be known only among physicists today, as a correct but somewhat arcane theory some patent clerk from the early 20th century came up with. Don't get me wrong. Some theories are impressive. But they're much more impressive if they turn out to be correct. :) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#cite_ref-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#cite_ref-14 [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-017-2203-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-017-2203-1
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    > How so? A theory created after an experiment is just fudging. A new theory allows you to come up with new experiments to test it. Or to come up with new theoretical extensions. Or to build a research agenda. > So do you think that Special Relativity would be as well-known and popular today if people hadn't proven it right in countless experiments and found applications in many other areas? There is no empirical evidence that supports SR over LET. There can’t be any, mathematically.
mcint 4y ago
(Even?) Sabine understands following the beauty. Formalisms are thinking tools. Let them think.

nhatcher 4y ago

Facepalm. That's exactly the first thing I thought. I don't know if I am more tired of those blatant statements without any basis or of Sabine's expected reaction. Theoretical particle physics is in a tough spot. I really hope in my lifetime I will get the change to learn new theories. I am hopeful, still. But we either invent or we fail.

asplake 4y ago

> But last May, three physicists proved that the 1969 verdict was only half the story. It wasn’t just that the presupposed symmetry wasn’t there — it was that higher symmetries were. And when those symmetries were incorporated into the theoretical picture, the predicted and observed decay rates matched exactly. … > [The] fractional quantum Hall effect, involves the spontaneous reorganization of electrons, but without any apparent symmetry being broken. This made it an uncomfortable outlier within the theory of phase transitions. That is, until a paper in 2018 by Xiao-Gang Wen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology helped establish that the quantum Hall effect does in fact break a symmetry — just not a traditional one.

rini17 4y ago

They do mention condensed matter physics. If it really makes maths easier there, that means instant practical relevance.

garbagecoder 4y ago

Good for her. Before her there were people like Lee Smolin. They eventually get cancelled by the physics community, like short sellers in investment, no one wants to hear the sad trumpet but the "market" doesn't function without skeptics. Theoretical discoveries are good, but some ego, some hype for funding, and some clickbaiting have made reporting on science even from the better sources like Quanta too focused on finding aliens and the grand unification or commercial fusion or whatever at least just by what gets written and posted, it seems like that.

vitehozonage 4y ago
>people like Lee Smolin. They eventually get cancelled by the physics community Could you tell me more about this or lead me where to read about it? All I know of him is that I came across some of his talks/interviews on youtube and found them incredibly refreshing. I am a physics graduate that left entirely dissatisfied and feel he's the lecturer that I wish I could have had. Is he viewed as a crackpot?
- leephillips 4y ago
  It’s news to me, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Maybe “people like” Smolin but not Smolin. I mean, he has a very good job, and has recently published books and papers, and interviews. I’m not sure I even understand what “cancelled by the physics community” would mean. Journal editors have secret instructions to throw out your manuscripts instead of sending them out for review?
  - garbagecoder 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - leephillips 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - garbagecoder 4y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 4y ago
        Personal attacks will get you banned here, no matter how provocative another comment was or you feel it was. We've had to warn you about this kind of thing more than once before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35281554 (March 2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29939445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29939445 (Jan 2022) If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

superposeur 4y ago

What is it about theoretical physics that makes people on the internet (with zero understanding of the context) feel entitled to snarkily attack results such as this? The research in the article is about as innocuous as it gets — uncovering another possible way to get a handle on the math of quantum field theories. It’s not like millions of dollars went into the research (just the modest salaries of the four theorists). No major applications as yet — the Quanta title “…shaking up physics” is certainly not true. But it’s another stone in the edifice of science. And my god when you see the esoterica in some (most?) other academic fields, the unrelenting complaints about the solipsism of physics seem totally misdirected. When an upper bound on some complicated measure on the distribution of prime numbers is lowered, no chorus of jackals assembles on the internet to mock the proof for its lack of real world relevance. The other day I spoke with a classics professor whose primary research was on a possible alternative interpretation of one line in a Latin poem. I found it interesting and worthwhile, but wow another level of remove from the so-called real world of engineering application and commerce. Also, to be clear, whether or not mathematical physics work winds up elucidating experiments, it is still correct and “useful” math. It’s not for nothing that the math community gave Edward Witten a Fields medal.

acchow 4y ago
[flagged]
- ethanwillis 4y ago
  If people wanted ChatGPT's response on this why couldn't they just ask it themselves? What is your thought on the topic?
  - acchow 4y ago
    My thought was the first sentence in my comment - that snarky responses are common in many subjects (not particular to theoretical physics). The Google results were absolutely useless (top result was "22 Screenshots Of Hilarious Internet Comments"). So I thought ChatGPT could tell me which subjects produced the snarkiest comments. It sort of worked.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

Theoretical results allow you to make experiments in the first place and to interpret empirical results. Sometimes experimental results aren’t even the important part. Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity make the exactly same predictions. Yet only one of them is considered revolutionary. And it isn’t the one that was invented first.

codethief 4y ago
> Theoretical results allow you to make experiments in the first place How so? > Sometimes experimental results aren’t even the important part. When are experiments ever not important? What is a theory without experimental results? I know you've mentioned Special Relativity but let me illustrate my point using General Relativity: When Einstein came up with General Relativity, few people believed him – until experiments proved him right[0]. But the hype was over soon after because there were not many things one could predict (beyond rather simple things in cosmology). While hype came back briefly during the Golden Age of Relativity between 1960 and 1975[1], afterwards everyone lost interest in GR once more because there were still barely any experiments you could do. That is, until recently, when people found gravitational waves and started taking "photos" of black holes. So do you think that Special Relativity would be as well-known and popular today if people hadn't proven it right in countless experiments and found applications in many other areas? Personally, I think SR would probably be known only among physicists today, as a correct but somewhat arcane theory some patent clerk from the early 20th century came up with. Don't get me wrong. Some theories are impressive. But they're much more impressive if they turn out to be correct. :) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#cite_ref-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#cite_ref-14 [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-017-2203-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10714-017-2203-1
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > How so? A theory created after an experiment is just fudging. A new theory allows you to come up with new experiments to test it. Or to come up with new theoretical extensions. Or to build a research agenda. > So do you think that Special Relativity would be as well-known and popular today if people hadn't proven it right in countless experiments and found applications in many other areas? There is no empirical evidence that supports SR over LET. There can’t be any, mathematically.

mcint 4y ago

(Even?) Sabine understands following the beauty. Formalisms are thinking tools. Let them think.