5 ms·

I know that this will probably be down-voted to death but I don't like these hyperbolic takes. I know that Sabine did use this title for click-bate purposes tha

I know that this will probably be down-voted to death but I don't like these hyperbolic takes. I know that Sabine did use this title for click-bate purposes that she is now mostly doing YouTube videos (she had horrible experience that unfortunately not rare in scientific community [1]). I understand that the field of particle physics which is the corner stone in fundamental physics is not showing the great advances that it used to have a couple of decades ago. But I think people really don't understand that the field is still advancing and although these advances are less catchy to be reported in mainstream (and don't get traction if posted on HN) it is not dead or dying. There is a reason why we had a particle data group updating the PDG [2] each two years (you can order physical copies for free but please don't do if you don't need one). People were writing about that since after the big discovery of Higgs boson (that was 12 years ago). We still have a lot of measurement and puzzles that is less about unification theory that people usually would talk about. Theory people are coming up with all different ideas even if some are not testable now but that job of theorist is mainly come up with ideas and help bridge the gap later. I would suggest everyone interested in this topic to read the electroweak current chapter of the book called "How experiments End" [3] to understand a historical example to how we approached the standard model when it was first proposed. Most of the particle physicists will not work on supersymmetry, string theory and these catchy theories that people will hear about. Most of the work is advancing and answering (and raise questions) piece by piece. Here is an example of interesting results that help us answer some questions [4]. Also I'm not saying that the field had its own problems and can improve on many aspects. I'm just against these extreme and hot takes that claims it is in a crisis or dying. for people who posted the comment from John Carlos, I like this toot/tweet/comment by Sven Geier [5] which was what John replied. Disclaimer: I'm a particle physicist and have a skin in the game. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8 [2] https://pdg.lbl.gov/ https://pdg.lbl.gov/ [3] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo5969426.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo596942... [4] https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/new-results-from-the-cms-experiment-put-w-boson-mass-mystery-to-rest?language_content_entity=und https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/new-results-from-th... [5] https://mathstodon.xyz/@SvenGeier/113284011925646281 https://mathstodon.xyz/@SvenGeier/113284011925646281

randomNumber7 2y ago
Seems like you are not downvoted on HN for rational argumentation. I still think sabine has a point. When we consider occam's razor string theory is absurd. Just because einstein used math to show our perception of the world is flawed, doesn't mean it is likely repeatable with an overly complicated mathematical model. Yet we live in a world, where highly decorated physicists spin a tale of consciousness beeing enabled by the collapse of the wave function (and other absurd stuff like many world interpretation). This wasted also my time, because it confused me for a while. Let religion for the religious, philosophy to the philosopher. Physics should be a science based on observation.
- elashri 2y ago
  My point was that sabine is claiming that the field is dying (or in a crisis). You can argue against string theory and quantum gravity research as much as you want. But this will not warrant sabine's conclusions about particle physics and why we should invest in other areas instead. She is doing this for almost a decade now. And I don't understand your point about statistical interpretation and how it is related to being a religion. Pick up any of the mainstream interpretation and start doing calculations of lets say ground state energy of H atom and you will get the same results. All mainstream interpretations yields the same results if calculations are done "correctly". The shut up and calculate works pretty well across interpretation because of two things you have to consider The first thing is that all interpretations rely on four things to be able to do the calculations. ( I simplified a little bit) 1- Hilbert spaces to represent quantum states 2- Operators for observables (like momentum and energy) 3- Unitary evolution of states through the Schrödinger equation 4- Born’s rule for calculating probabilities of measurement outcomes Thus, the underlying equations are the same regardless of interpretation. The second thing you have to understand the role of Interpretations. They aim to explain what the mathematical structure of QM means. They differ on issues like: collapse, Is it real (Copenhagen)? just an apparent phenomenon (Many-Worlds)? or governed by additional variables (Bohmian mechanics) or the question of Determinism. Is the universe fundamentally deterministic (Bohmian mechanics)? or indeterministic (Copenhagen)? The last thing is a really philosophical question about what exists physically—wavefunctions, particles, or multiple worlds? These philosophical questions don’t affect the numerical predictions of quantum theory and that's part of the reason you shouldn't learn physics from science communication books.

randomNumber7 2y ago

Seems like you are not downvoted on HN for rational argumentation. I still think sabine has a point. When we consider occam's razor string theory is absurd. Just because einstein used math to show our perception of the world is flawed, doesn't mean it is likely repeatable with an overly complicated mathematical model. Yet we live in a world, where highly decorated physicists spin a tale of consciousness beeing enabled by the collapse of the wave function (and other absurd stuff like many world interpretation). This wasted also my time, because it confused me for a while. Let religion for the religious, philosophy to the philosopher. Physics should be a science based on observation.

elashri 2y ago
My point was that sabine is claiming that the field is dying (or in a crisis). You can argue against string theory and quantum gravity research as much as you want. But this will not warrant sabine's conclusions about particle physics and why we should invest in other areas instead. She is doing this for almost a decade now. And I don't understand your point about statistical interpretation and how it is related to being a religion. Pick up any of the mainstream interpretation and start doing calculations of lets say ground state energy of H atom and you will get the same results. All mainstream interpretations yields the same results if calculations are done "correctly". The shut up and calculate works pretty well across interpretation because of two things you have to consider The first thing is that all interpretations rely on four things to be able to do the calculations. ( I simplified a little bit) 1- Hilbert spaces to represent quantum states 2- Operators for observables (like momentum and energy) 3- Unitary evolution of states through the Schrödinger equation 4- Born’s rule for calculating probabilities of measurement outcomes Thus, the underlying equations are the same regardless of interpretation. The second thing you have to understand the role of Interpretations. They aim to explain what the mathematical structure of QM means. They differ on issues like: collapse, Is it real (Copenhagen)? just an apparent phenomenon (Many-Worlds)? or governed by additional variables (Bohmian mechanics) or the question of Determinism. Is the universe fundamentally deterministic (Bohmian mechanics)? or indeterministic (Copenhagen)? The last thing is a really philosophical question about what exists physically—wavefunctions, particles, or multiple worlds? These philosophical questions don’t affect the numerical predictions of quantum theory and that's part of the reason you shouldn't learn physics from science communication books.