[HN Gopher] Did the W-boson just "break the standard model"? ___________________________________________________________________ Did the W-boson just "break the standard model"? Author : IdealeZahlen Score : 204 points Date : 2022-04-30 13:22 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (backreaction.blogspot.com) (TXT) w3m dump (backreaction.blogspot.com) | pigtailgirl wrote: | space time covered this well a few days back-- | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw&ab_channel=PBSSp... | tizio13 wrote: | Yep, good video for anyone interested. The visuals in this one | are particularly good. | k2xl wrote: | I just started watching (and enjoying) Sabine's YouTube channel | after one of her posts were shared on HN the other week. | | I am surprised to find so many people here have negative opinions | on Sabine. I've probably seen a dozen videos about the double | slit experiment but her explanation about it (and why the other | videos were not precise/accurate) was really eye opening for me | as a layman. Also her explanations about delayed observer not | being as "weird" as people claim was also very helpful in | demystifying quantum weirdnesses. | | She seems like a competent physicist with strong opinions that | are grounded in some basis - can someone elaborate why they don't | like her points of view? Are they problematic scientifically or | do they just not like her style of rhetoric? | ravi-delia wrote: | She's a contrarian physicist. Every good physicist has one | weird opinion, but she's collected every one of them and used | them to beat anyone in hearing range over the head. No single | take is far from the norm, but in terms of layman's content | it's easy to get a really warped idea of the dominant paradigm. | | Honestly I think fewer people would have an issue with her if | she was like 80% less abrasive, no matter how out there her | ideas are. So keep watching, but be aware that there are | conflicting viewpoints with more significant backing. | kristianp wrote: | This is the tldr for me: | | "the mean value of the new measurement isn't so different from | earlier data analyses. The striking thing about this new analysis | is the small error bar. That the error bar is so small is the | reason why this result has such a high statistical significance. | They quote a disagreement with the standard model at 6.9 sigma. | That's well above the discovery threshold in particle physics | which is often somewhat arbitrarily put at 5 sigma." | | "What did they do to get the error bar so small? Well for one | thing they have a lot of data. But they also did a lot of | calibration cross-checks with other measurements, which basically | means they know very precisely how to extract the physical | parameters from the raw data, or at least they think they do. Is | this reasonable? Yes. Is it correct? I don't know. It could be. | But in all honesty, I am very skeptical that this result will | hold up. More likely, they have underestimated the error and | their result is actually compatible with the other measurements." | | I think it's great that someone can tell me about the nature of | the difference in the mass and whether it's likely to hold up | under more scrutiny (no). I believe Sabine's judgement here as | other small discrepancies have disappeared in the past. | shadowofneptune wrote: | What implications would this discovery have if the evidence for | it was overwhelming? The article talks about super-symmetry, but | couldn't it be also possible that we get out of it just some | small revisions to the standard model? | msarchet wrote: | My understanding is that the mass relates to particles that the | w boson would have to interact with during collisions for it to | have the mass that was measure. Our known model doesn't predict | this which means there might be particles that we haven't found | in our current model. Which is where the super symmetry comes | from | thayne wrote: | Historically, that is usually what happens. This wouldn't be | the first time the standard model was adjusted to fit observed | phenomena, and it probably won't be the last. | PaulHoule wrote: | Supersymmetry is simple in the context of string theory, which is | where it came from. | | Write it down for particles and it is as godawful mess. | analog31 wrote: | I'm a physicist, but was never smart enough to grok particle | physics. Today I work on measurement instruments. | | Still, I think breaking the standard model is a good thing. It | means there's more physics to be discovered. | | Like Tolstoy said about happy families, successful physics | theories are boring. In fact, if a fundamental theory is too | successful, physicists start to get restless. The people who have | a problem with breaking the standard model are those who were | looking for a perfect final theory, or who wasted their time | looking for its philosophical implications. | rob_c wrote: | No. Particle physics has shown a clear need for a clean next gen | e/p collider. The author unfortunately got caught up in the grind | of the field and not the context or big picture. And frankly this | is exemplified by the US having an even stronger publish or | perish attitude. Almost nobody ever in the field has used the | phrase "god particle", at least in Europe. Thats yet another | american contribution I'm sorry. | | Fine, leave the field, thats your prerogative, and do whats best | for you. But please get back down off a soapbox and stop | attacking the field that trained, educated and gave you the | knowledge you have. | 8note wrote: | Has it shown a clear need? What's the required energy needed to | show the new thing, and what what need does it fill? | | Will the next collider solve climate change? | edgyquant wrote: | > Will the next collider solve climate change? | | This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion, try to engage | faithfully | rob_c wrote: | Higgs energy, discrepencies, and the need for precision | higgs-science which we can only really do with a precision | e/p collider rather than the dual-barral shotgun that is the | LHC. The need it fills is to answer open questions about the | standard model not explaining all known particle (the stuff | you're made from) interactions or behaviours. | | Asking if it solved climate change is like me asking if your | netflix subscription does. I'll ask nicely please don't be | facetious. | saiya-jin wrote: | However pressing you may feel climate change is, it shouldn't | be the sole focus of mankind for around trillion reason, give | or take. We need progress on all fronts, hard science as much | as more societal-oriented ones and everything around and in | between. Just look at current world... | acim wrote: | Yes, it did. We know nothing. | SubiculumCode wrote: | It is not my field, but the post, the video, has all the markings | I see of outrage influencers on youtube: acting like they know | better than everyone else, making broad swipes and claims, | posting monetized videos with exaggerated eye popping photo | covers, and the whole "I used to be them but saw the light and | left schtick.", claims of scientists lying, without the honesty | of naming names. Well, I'd rather get this kind of review from a | review article in a solid journal than this tabloid. | pessimizer wrote: | Don't respond to tone rather than content, _especially_ if you | 're in no position to evaluate the content. Otherwise you'll | fall for horseshit spoken in a tone you like. | saiya-jin wrote: | There are numerous problems with approach you mention, ie | strong push for emotions to sway opinion. If one resorts to | attacking primitive emotions, hard facts clearly are not most | important in the discussion anymore. In proper science, that | should never be the case. | SubiculumCode wrote: | Judging a book by its cover is actually not the worst | strategy for picking a book. And I WAS responding to the | content; content like accusing scientists of lying, content | like silly photos designed to get you to click. | | edit: To sum in Bayesian terms, the prior probability of | reading a good book is greater if the publisher had sunk | money into a high quality cover, because they believe in its | content, while a trashy cover might be the only thing a trash | book could obtain. Likewise, the prior probability of | bullshit is greater if the tone is shrill, accusatory, and | exaggerated, while the prior probability of quality content | is greater if the scientific commentary is academic, serious, | and professional. | stevenhuang wrote: | Bayesian reasoning has its limits. If one is lazy and don't | think to reconsider when warranted, it's often accidentally | used as a crutch. Works in most cases I grant you that, | just user beware. | | > "The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its | life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more | refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have | been useful to the chicken" - Bertrand Russel | cwillu wrote: | https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/heuristics-that- | almost... | stevenhuang wrote: | I liked that article very much when it was shared, | perhaps time for a rereading! Cheers. | cwillu wrote: | I will tolerate an abrasive tone in an emotionally charged | discussion where people's lives are affected. I will do so | carefully, because it's incredibly easy to be mislead by | emotional content, but I will put in the effort, because | important viewpoints can't be usefully distinguished from | manipulation by their tone in those arenas. | | Physics is not one of those arenas. I am not even remotely | worried that selecting explorations of QM interpretations | based on tone might result in giving me a skewed perception | of the topic due to my ignoring the views of those being | harmed by them. | ravi-delia wrote: | Speaking as someone who works with people on the math side of | things, the author is a contrarian but not super far outside | the norm. This is far from a "tabloid", this is real criticism | from within the field. The tone is abrasive, but every | technical field has people like that. I definitely dislike the | layman audience she has built up, since just reading criticism | without understanding what's being criticized is a recipe for | truly stupid takes, but all of these are opinions plenty of | people support, even in particle physics. | joseluis wrote: | I really think this paper should be more widely known, because | it's eye opening: https://physicsdetective.com/something-is- | rotten-in-the-stat... | | It made me realize QED is the equivalent of a million lines | spaghetti codebase that's been continually built upon, fudge | after fudge since the 40s, while being sold as the best thing | ever, the ultimate model of reality, etc. While it really started | as a temporary solution like a bash script that should've been | replaced by something more elegant... many decades ago. And now | we are in this mess. | joshcryer wrote: | That paper unfairly jabs at "Schwinger's numerology" because he | chose the fine-structure constant in the equation (probably a | guess, because he never published the theory behind it). It | turns out the magnetic moment of the electron is one of the if | not the most accurately measured thing in all of physics, and | it fits _perfectly_ with it. So the basis of the entire | article, that the g-factor "was obtained using illegitimate | mathematical traps" is just misleading. | | You have to do the experiment to get the number, if the number | doesn't fit with the experiment you have to figure out how to | arrange the equation to fit with the experiment. I find this | truly the basis for scientific progress. Even if we don't | understand yet why it works the way it does. Why is the fine- | structure constant everywhere in physics? It's not a hack it's | experimentally derivable and has been reproduced over and over | again. | | I don't see anything inherently wrong with what those | scientists "did" with their fudging and playing with numbers. | Experimentalists are not infallible. That's why we need | reproduction and for others to think up other experiments and | to do them. That's what science is about. Nice history paper | though. | peteradio wrote: | Newton didn't predict the exact constant of acceleration, he | predicted the form of the equation and experiment fills in the | rest. There is no conspiracy of "fitting the equations", that's | the whole point of experimental physics. | davrosthedalek wrote: | Oh wow, that's quite a crackpot-y web page. | jfengel wrote: | Every physicist knows about renormalization. It's not a secret. | | An "independent researcher" might consider that a discovery, | but you could learn a lot more just by picking up any textbook. | | It's not "rotten". It's an open research question. One that | every physicist already knew about. | spekcular wrote: | The person who wrote that paper doesn't understand the basics | of the field that he's talking about. | | For example (from the blog post): "Consa gives an analogy | wherein Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan has claimed | that the sum of all positive integers is not infinite, but is | instead -1/12. It's wrong, it's absurd, but renormalization has | now been accepted, and is even sold as a virtue." | | One when performs zeta function regularization, one gets -1/12. | This isn't some mystery; it's a perfectly reasonable thing to | do. Analytic continuation has been understood since the 1800s. | | Reference: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_function_regularization | | Edit: I read more of the linked paper. The claim that Karplus | and Kroll committed "fraud" is basically libel, as can be seen | by reading the complete account. The worst one can say is that | people didn't publish full details of calculations due to page | limitations or laziness, but this is hardly a special feature | of QED. For instance, Onsager famously solved the 2-d Ising | model exactly in 1944 but never provided details in print, just | the final solution. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | Onsager was a bastard with omitting details. He has a 1949 | paper on packing of hard rods (and other anisometric | particles), which is 4 pages long, but a colleague who went | through the details of the derivation spent half a year and | filled a ring binder with intermediate calculations. | sva_ wrote: | I wonder if this is a consequence of people demanding more | "rigor" nowadays? | stjohnswarts wrote: | Well with electronic form it is now quite trivial to | include the derivation, so no real reason not to publish | it or at least a detail set of steps so demanding more | rigor seems fair. | spekcular wrote: | Damn. | | I never actually learned this stuff. Is there a good | textbook account of this isotropic-to-nematic transition | that includes full details? Or is there still a gaping hole | in the published literature? | | In other words, did your colleague do this as a kind of | history project, or because the details weren't available | anywhere else? | semi-extrinsic wrote: | I don't think there are textbooks on this stuff, it is | too much of a niche, you probably need to read journal | papers. A place to start might be the classic "What is | liquid?" review paper by Barker and Henderson: | | https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.48.587?casa_t | oke... | | ... and then the classic review paper on liquid crystals | by Stephen and Straley: | | https://link.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/RevModPhys.46.617?casa_t | oke... | | But I believe the "gaping hole" as you call it has been | mostly filled by the recent work. You probably still need | to spend some weeks to follow along though. | | The motivation for my colleague was to develop the | Onsager theory further, since Onsager only went to the | second virial coefficient. They were able to go to | higher-body contributions and get nice algebraic results | for the equation of state, IIRC. I can probably dig up | the DOI if you want to read it. | spekcular wrote: | Yes, I'd love to read it, if you have time to find the | DOI. Thanks! | Mo3 wrote: | > but to borrow a German idiom, don't eat the headlines as hot as | they're cooked. | | I'm German and I have never heard this before, but I like it. | jhgb wrote: | It's definitely a Czech idiom - "nic se neji tak horke, jak se | to uvari". But apparently German has this, too: | https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/es_wird_nichts_so_hei%C3%9F_g... | Mo3 wrote: | That reminds me, I saw something similar on this Ukrainian | music video about Bayraktar drones too. | | Timestamp 0:25 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo | selimthegrim wrote: | It appears the Russians are getting their soup warmed even | hotter than the cooking temperature. | treeman79 wrote: | Is that like the German Christmas Pickle tradition that no | Germans have heard of? | | https://youtu.be/Sb0qu_RjQ6I | Mo3 wrote: | That was excruciating. | | Just like the "Oktoberfests" that take place in America. It's | a shit-show. | davrosthedalek wrote: | They also tend to be in the wrong month. | Mo3 wrote: | Depends, when are they? The real Oktoberfest starts mid | September. (Don't ask.) | davrosthedalek wrote: | Well, they often start in October instead of ending just | at the start of it. | Aaargh20318 wrote: | Dutch has something similar: " de soep wordt nooit zo heet | gegeten, als zij wordt opgediend" (The soup is never eaten as | hot as it was served). | kalimanzaro wrote: | "the headlines never get as hot on the plate as they did in the | pan." | | --English speaker trying to make sense of it | mikub wrote: | I think it's reffering to "Nichts wird so heiss gegessen wie es | gekocht wird", which translates to "Nothing get's eaten as hot | as it get's cooked.". | Mo3 wrote: | Ahhhh, that. I only ever heard it being used in relation to | imagining bad future events that turn out far better than | expected. | samstave wrote: | German is an interesting tongue... | | Einsturzende Neubauten - the band, but the word means "a | new building thats always in disrepair" (or so I was told) | Mo3 wrote: | Nah, it means "collapsing newly constructed buildings", | lol. | | Einsturzend = collapsing | | Neubauten = made of "Neu"=new and "bauten"=buildings | LegitShady wrote: | Except overnight oats | qsi wrote: | Similarly in Dutch, de soep wordt niet zo heet gegeten als ze | wordt opgediend. In this case it's soup that's not eaten as | hot as it is served. | ethbr0 wrote: | Is soup popular in Dutch cuisine? Honestly asking. | Etymologies of aphorisms (especially multiple cultural | ones) fascinate me. | dtech wrote: | Not particularly popular, especially nowadays. "Snert", a | thick pea soup with pork, is a classic winter dish | though. | galgalesh wrote: | In Dutch-speaking Belgium, soup used to be a staple of | our diet. Every meal started with soup when I was young. | Mo3 wrote: | Een Nederlander zegt tegen zijn vrouw: "Johanna, giet een | liter water bij de soep, we hebben gasten!" | | (I'm German, but I live in the Netherlands. I absolutely | love these jokes between you) | mellosouls wrote: | Other recent discussions on the subject fwiw: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30955033 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30977931 | paulpauper wrote: | I dunno why this blog keeps be voted to the top. Yeah, current | physics research is lacking in some areas .since when was it | perfect? | stjohnswarts wrote: | Because she does a great job breaking it down for us mere | mortals who only know basic calculus and linear algebra. I | think it's great, and I like seeing stuff. I always take it | with a bit of "this is one physicist's opinion" though. | mhh__ wrote: | Because Sabine is has the bona fides to know her stuff but also | a contrarian and a bit of an outcast, and she knows how to | market herself. All of this combined is perfect for hackernews. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Yeah, it's weird how she transitioned from being a fairly | normal popsci blogger into being a sort of lubos light. | mhh__ wrote: | Populism is like gravity, to paraphrase the Joker in the | dark Knight. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Yes, she is the Trump of Science. And I do not say that | be be demeaning of either. While I do not care for Trump, | he knows what he is doing when it comes to showmanship, | and so does she. | LordDragonfang wrote: | This comparison strikes me as much more unfavorable than | you admit, because while Trump is categorically not an | expert on what he purports to be (running a successful | business) Sabine _is_ clearly an expert in her field. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Yeah while not on the same order of magnitude it's like | "You're a great orator, I mean your technique has a lot | in common with Hitler's talents as an orator" | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Trump is successful with media, not his businesses. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Really all he's managed to do is hang on to the money his | father left him. He is good at hiring lawyers & | accountants that can put a wall between his personal | fortune and corporate business that inevitably go | bankrupt. | paulpauper wrote: | tbh, business success and understanding is much more | subjective than physics understanding. | spaetzleesser wrote: | I think too much activity on social media does this to | people. | [deleted] | spaetzleesser wrote: | It seems publishing a lot on YouTube or Twitter is often very | unhealthy for people. Over time it seems they all get sucked | into the conflict machine that attracts viewers but is | ultimately useless. | | I watched that with Sam Harris. He seemed to have interesting | ideas but now he seems just to be good at debating. Same for | Jordan Peterson. | robonerd wrote: | The author has a popular (and imho pretty good) youtube | channel. | qsdf38100 wrote: | I liked her content at first but now I'm tired of the way she | implies that "scientists" are lying to us, stealing our | money, and that she is here to reveal some truths that are | kept hidden from us. After watching any of her video, I don't | feel like I've gained any insights, except that I shouldn't | trust "science". | DangitBobby wrote: | Can you point to any examples where she show distrust of | science that was misguided? I felt her video about | misleading PR for fusion was very eye opening. | simulate-me wrote: | I feel like this was too much a diatribe on why supersymmetry is | not a good solution and didn't spend enough time on evaluating | what the actual implications are of this result holding. | gus_massa wrote: | The problem is that (if confirmed) no one has any clue about | how to fix the Standard Model to fix this. It will be a small | fix, not a total rewrite like other alarmist articles claim. | Anyway, no one know how exactly will be the fix. | | So each one propose her/his own pet theory. Supersymmetry? A | second Higgs boson? Other ...???? | | She doesn't like supersymmetry, and rants too much about the | people that guess the fix will use supersymmetry. | | (I like supersymmetry, but this is not my research area, so she | knows much more about this than me about this.) | mannykannot wrote: | On the one hand, it does not strike me as unreasonable to point | out that experience suggests that this, too, will turn out to | be an experimental or methodological error. | | Nor do I think it is unreasonable to point out that this | result, if correct, would not validate supersymmetry (if that | is, in fact, the case.) | | On the other hand, the fact that supersymmetry isn't a theory, | but a property of a class of models that can be tweaked to fit | a broad range of experimental results (again, if that is, in | fact, the case) does not rule out the possibility that the LHC | could have found evidence that strongly supported one specific | theory that happens to be supersymmetric. Hossenfelder seems to | be saying that the LHC definitively ruled out what was | considered to be the most plausible candidate(s), which would | imply there was at least one such falsifiable theory. | Allegations of incompetence or mendacity should not be made | lightly, and unless the promoters of the LHC routinely said | supersymmetry in general might be disproved, the allegations | seem unwarranted. | lisper wrote: | Falsifying supersymmetry is like falsifying Ptolemaic | epicycles. You can never falsify it with data because | epicycles can always be constructed to fit any data set [1]. | Likewise, a sypersymmetric theory can be constructed to fit | any set of parameters. But fitting the data is not enough. | You have to fit the data with substantially fewer parameters | than data points. That's the challenge. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS4H6PEcCCA | ravi-delia wrote: | I feel like that example assumes the conclusion. A better | analogy would be "spinning objects theories". It's a | category so broad you could always find _something_ which | works, but since it 's not really thought of as a | particular solution, it isn't so vulnerable to overfitting. | Epicycles were bad largely because they gave a false | impression of closing in on reality; every new round of | additions consisted of smaller and smaller tweaks. Spinning | object theories are even more broad and adaptable, but | since they aren't basically one solution you don't have the | same issue. When Kepler found a spinning object theory | which worked, it wasn't overfitting. | mannykannot wrote: | Indeed. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the promoters of | the LHC were making claims that they knew could not be | satisfied by it - or, perhaps, that nothing they said could | reasonably be interpreted as such a claim? The trouble is, | I don't know which specific claims Hossenfelder is basing | her allegations on. | robonerd wrote: | She explains that here | | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-multiworse- | is-c... | | Quote: | | _Before the LHC's launch in 2008, many theorists | expressed themselves confident the collider would produce | new particles besides the Higgs boson. That hasn't | happened. And the public isn't remotely as dumb as many | academics wish. They'll remember next time we come ask | for money. | | The big proclamations came almost exclusively from | theoretical physicists; CERN didn't promise anything they | didn't deliver. That is an important distinction, but I | am afraid in the public perception the subtler | differences won't matter. It's "physicists said." And | what physicists said was wrong. Like hair, trust is hard | to split. And like hair, trust is easier to lose than to | grow. | | What the particle physicists got wrong was an argument | based on a mathematical criterion called "naturalness". | If the laws of nature were "natural" according to this | definition, then the LHC should have seen something | besides the Higgs. The data analysis isn't yet completed, | but at this point it seems unlikely something more than | statistical anomalies will show up. | | I must have sat through hundreds of seminars in which | naturalness arguments were repeated. Let me just flash | you a representative slide from a 2007 talk by | Michelangelo L. Mangano (full pdf here), so you get the | idea. The punchline is at the very top: "new particles | must appear" in an energy range of about a TeV (ie | accessible at the LHC) "to avoid finetuning." | | I don't mean to pick on Mangano in particular; his slides | are just the first example that Google brought up. This | was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To | avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness. | | I explained many times previously why the conclusions | based on naturalness were not predictions, but merely | pleas for the laws of nature to be pretty. Luckily I no | longer have to repeat these warnings, because the data | agree that naturalness isn't a good argument._ | mannykannot wrote: | Thanks for this information. I agree with Dr. | Hossenfelder about naturalness, but personally, I don't | think that (or anything else here) justifies saying, | about those who promoted the LHC with their expectations, | that they were "either incompetent or lying or both." | Irresponsible? maybe, depending on how influential their | position was and how forcefully they made the claim. | photochemsyn wrote: | Well this is kind of funny and I mostly agree so TLDR: | | > "I'm afraid all of this sounds rather negative. Well. There's a | reason I left particle physics. Particle physics has degenerated | into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no | relevance for societal progress or for progress in any other | discipline of science. The only reason we still hear so much | about it is that a lot of funding goes into it and so a lot of | people still work on it, most of them don't like me. But the | disciplines where the foundations of physics currently make | progress are cosmology and astrophysics, and everything quantum, | quantum information, quantum computing, quantum metrology, and so | on, which is why that's what I mostly talk about these days." | | The popular science literature is also full of string theory this | and god particle that, and it's really not very satisfying or | illuminating. If people want to get into this general subject, | I'd recommend instead Stephen Hawking's compendium of classic | papers on quantum physics, with commentary, "The Dreams That | Stuff is Made Of." | gotaquestion wrote: | > string theory this and god particle that, and it's really not | very satisfying or illuminating | | I think what would be interesting would be a study of why | researchers are drawn to string theory. I remember reading | about it in OMNI magazine as a teen back in the 80's. During my | studies at university, I learned about many proposals in | physics that failed after people spend decades trying to hammer | into reality (like the electrical ether, or planetary motion), | only to have a genius show up and resolve the dilemmas with a | completely different proposal. Going on its 5th decade, string | theory feels like one of these ancient red herrings, but maybe | it just needs a few more centuries? | tambourine_man wrote: | Sabine went on full rant/iconoclastic/grudge mode IMO recently. | It's a shame, as she a good communicator, but I just see myself | skipping her content when it pops up. | | "I left the field because it's a paper production machine that | adds no value to society" without substantiation is simply a | frustration ridden meme. | ralfn wrote: | She wrote a book about this topic. | | So the claim that there is no substantiation is false. You | just didn't bother to find out. | elorant wrote: | While I don't generally like her tone, I liked her book a | lot. It has a lot of stuff for further research, and there | are at least a dozen book suggestions in there. On the | other hand she attacks the "beautification" of physics' | theories without providing any alternative approach | whatsoever. | [deleted] | bardworx wrote: | How is attacking her character contributing to the | conversation? | tambourine_man wrote: | Fair enough, I wasn't aware. I'll check it out. | | I think you mean this: "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads | Physics Astray" | | https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics- | Astray/dp/04... | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1KFTPqc0nQ | | I still find the tone off putting, reminds me of the fox | and the grapes fable, not sure if it's known to most | cultures. | | Nevertheless, I'll watch the video and reexamine my | opinion. | ianai wrote: | I'm just generally increasingly off put by the internets | incessant "quibbling". This seemingly endless | juxtaposition of antithesis to follow any thesis. At some | point that becomes just more noise, and that can be used | by an agenda. | | I still found her point valid and interesting and not at | all noise. My takeaway is more that new physics might | well be out of our energetic grasps until we build some | much larger accelerators. Little idea how to convince | society of the worth of that expense. Maybe if it can | produce useful substances for industrial use. I'd love | more knowledge on expansions to the periodic table, for | example. | thechao wrote: | The HN-centric term for this is "middlebrow"; a good | middlebrow filter is definitely required to navigate HN. | ianai wrote: | Can you elaborate? | pegasus wrote: | Searching HN for it brings up this explanation as the | first hit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224 | gralx wrote: | ya i aint never heard the term b4 neither. colorful. | wonder if _middlebrow_ refers to furrowing between teh | browz?? > | edgyquant wrote: | I am as well, because the internet isn't designed for | people to reach an objective consensus about reality nor | does it account for the way humans really engage one | another naturally. We need a platform designed to | encourage people to reach understanding but anyone, | myself included, who wants to do this is looking for a | profit motive when some things are more important than | profit as much as I hate to say it. | rad88 wrote: | Adding more because I've read her book (not to quibble). | I wouldn't say the point is that new physics is out of | reach until we build more expensive accelerators. She | herself is a theoretical physicist, has theories she'd | like to see tested and proposes experiments that could do | so. I think she's saying rather that particle physics | involves enormous opportunity costs -- decades long / | billion dollar experiments -- and that the research | agenda is not scientifically justified, but is | sociological and even aesthetic in origin. | robonerd wrote: | > _fox and the grapes fable, not sure if it 's known to | most cultures._ | | That's one of Aesop's fables. I believe it's widely | known, at least in all western cultures. The fox can't | reach the grapes he desires, so he concludes the grapes | were sour and he didn't want them anyway. | tambourine_man wrote: | That's the one, yes. | thechao wrote: | The idiom "sour grapes" comes from that story! | cwillu wrote: | If it's what I think it is, it's usually (in english at | least) succinctly referred to as "Sour grapes" | matthewdgreen wrote: | I've read a few of these articles and they all have | basically the same format, which is similar enough that | they're not quite as interesting to read. First a headline | "does the invention of Swiss Cheese mean that Cheddar | Cheese is extinct?" Followed by a little bit of interesting | and useful scientific summarization. Then onwards to a | point about how we're dealing with lots of theories and not | enough empirical data, so the whole field is useless and | also not worth spending time on. | | I would point out that lots of other important scientific | fields have been in this situation before. Maybe there's an | interesting argument to the overfunding (but then again, | developing theories is also pretty important!). But mostly | it just feels like she's made the point and while it's an | important point, getting a clear picture of the scientific | results is more valuable than this particular opinion. (But | I stress, it is her platform to do with as she wants.) | dylan604 wrote: | >without substantiation | | Really? Pretty much every article in this field is some click | bait title similar to "did this recent discovery break | science?" and is quite tiresome. But a more accurate title | like "Results from new experiment are so far out of norm for | prior understanding that much more scrutiny is needed" | doesn't gain attraction. | folkrav wrote: | I wouldn't describe those pop-science articles as the | scientific "papers" I assumed was talked about. | bawolff wrote: | I feel like everytime her name comes up, its always a bunch | of comments like "i don't like her tone" or whatever, but | never much in way of substantiated disagreement. | | I can't help but wonder if she is just speaking uncomfortable | truths about things a lot of the hn audience like, where | nobody can really come up with a counter per se but there is | still a negative gut reaction of i-don't-like-people- | challenging-my-world-view so the criticism comes out as, i | dont mind your view i just hate the way you say it. | johnny22 wrote: | I can't say I know enough to say she's "challenging my | world view" since i don't necessarily know enough about the | subject to have a world view. | | But I still have a negative reaction to the way she (and | others in other fields) does it. | | Because whether it's true or not, it doesn't tend to get | results in changing how things are done. | bawolff wrote: | > Because whether it's true or not, it doesn't tend to | get results in changing how things are done. | | But at the same time, several comments on this post are | talking about how they think her diatribes will have an | undue influence on funding decisions, so i doubt that | accounts for all the negativity. | davrosthedalek wrote: | I do think that her "the mainstream scientists are doing | it wrong/lying/wasting money" shtick advances mistrust in | science in general. That worries me. | beezle wrote: | There are a lot of other areas of physics, some even involving | the use of colliders, that are in better position and value to | make discoveries that either advance our understanding and/or | have applied/commercial application. | | One example is the National Synchrotron Light Source II at | Brookhaven. The money spent nationally and globally on these | types of facilities are a fraction of what goes to LHC or, not | long ago, the Tevatron at Fermilab. | photochemsyn wrote: | Yes, those kind of projects have a lot more uses and deserve | more funding and attention. Stanford's Linac Coherent Light | Source is another example: | | > "The Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC takes X-ray | snapshots of atoms and molecules at work, revealing | fundamental processes in materials, technology and living | things." | octonion wrote: | Contrarianism should never be confused with intelligence. When | someone says "most of them don't like me", you can hear the | underlying hisses of "because I am right and they are wrong" | and "because I am smart and they are dumb". If most people | don't like you, there's a very simple reason for it. | stubish wrote: | She never said 'most people don't like me'. She said 'most | [particle physicists] don't like me'. It just means she has | touched on a point of contention that particle physicists | care a lot about. | d0mine wrote: | This part also stand out to me. It is unfortunate that a | science communicator would express her research preference in | such a way. It is true there were no breakthrough in ages in | the particle physics (standard model works extremely well), it | is true "paper production" has disproportionate influence on | funding (applicable to academia in general), personally I'm | excited about the recent deployment of Webb space telescope | (new instruments are often good for scientific progress), and | quantum computing is gobbledygook (theoretically there were | some exciting algorithms, in practice I expect at best modest | but nonetheless important [cryptography] applications--that we | could duplicate in less elegant way in a classical way) | | but for people unfamiliar with science it may sound like | "defund LHC" (that would be unfortunate) | slibhb wrote: | > It is unfortunate that a science communicator would express | her research preference in such a way. | | Why is it a bad thing to have preferences? | | > but for people unfamiliar with science it may sound like | "defund LHC" (that would be unfortunate) | | She's on the record against building bigger colliders. It | follows from her views that we should fund other stuff and | not colliders. | kingkawn wrote: | Then the Trisolarans will win without question | adrian_b wrote: | Unfortunately the standard model does not work "extremely | well". | | Even if we suppose that the standard model is completely | correct, it does not allow the computation of the majority of | the useful physical quantities. | | What is needed is a model that would be able to compute all | the physical quantities that are important in practice, e.g. | the masses of all hadrons and of all atomic nuclei, also | their magnetic moments, the energies of their excited states, | the energies of the excited states of the atoms and of the | ions, and so on, starting from the properties of the | elementary particles and of their interactions. | | Despite the huge progresses which have happened in | experimental physics, we are now no closer of having a useful | theory able to compute what we need _ab initio_ , than we | were exactly one hundred years ago, before the most | influential work in quantum physics was published by de | Broglie, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Dirac, Born et al (from | the point of view of the computable values, the Dirac theory | of the hydrogen atom was only a minor improvement over what | could be done using the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantization | condition from 1915 and the more complex systems remained | uncomputable; the quantum field theory improved a little the | precision of some previously computable values, but only very | few other additional quantities became computable _ab initio_ | ). | | All the useful applied physics, e.g. the theory of the | semiconductor devices, or theory of the lasers, and any other | theory used to design real devices, do not have any use for | the standard model, but they use various empirical | mathematical models, which contain lots of parameters that | are determined experimentally, in order to match the | predictions of those models with the experiments. | selimthegrim wrote: | Would you be complaining about Copernicus not adding | anything to equants and epicycles if you lived then? | adrian_b wrote: | While another poster rightly pointed that Copernicus | still used epicycles, you are correct in implying that | the greatest contribution of the theories created after | 1920, e.g. quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, | chromodynamics etc. has been in the enhancement of our | _qualitative_ understanding of the physics of the | elementary particles and of their interactions. | | This _qualitative_ understanding has been very helpful as | a guidance in the development of various approximate | methods used for the modeling of the systems that are too | complex to be computable _ab initio_ , e.g. atomic | nuclei, atoms with many electrons, molecules, | semiconductors, superconductors and so on. | | Nevertheless, while the _qualitative_ understanding was | improved by the more recent theories, they remain useless | for obtaining _quantitative_ results. | | All physical systems that are interesting are too complex | to be computable _ab initio_ , so in order to predict | anything about them, wild approximations must be used, | which are different for every physical system. There are | no universal rules about how to develop such | approximations. | | If an approximation method is found, which after | measuring experimentally the values of various parameters | allows a model to predict other experiments with | sufficient precision, then good. If not, there is no way | to know if some other acceptable method can be found, and | how to search for it. | robonerd wrote: | Copernican heliocentrism still used epicycles, so fans of | those would not have been completely disappointed. | evanb wrote: | I think your comment is far behind the times. Directly from | QCD we have: computed the low-lying parts of hadronic | spectrum, computed the proton-neutron mass splitting, made | _pre_dictions about hadronic masses that were then found at | the LHC, computed the nucleon axial coupling g_A, vacuum | polarization and light-by-light, and so on. It requires | supercomputers. But so what? Nobody promised that physics | should be easy. | | We know how to match our effective field theory of protons | and neutrons in nuclei to QCD observables. This project has | been under way for 20 years. Expect major breakthroughs as | the exascale machines mature. If we match our EFTs to QCD | calculations then there would be no additional parameters | fit to data, and our intellectual edifice will have | quantitative predictivity from fundamental particles to | neutron stars. It's hard. Nobody promised that physics | should be easy. | katmannthree wrote: | > It is unfortunate that a science communicator would express | her research preference in such a way. | | It is disappointing, and more unfortunately pretty much her | personal brand now. There are, as she seems to have | discovered, a lot of eyeballs to be had when you bash things | that are poorly understood and already looked down upon for | it. | | She's a fine physicist and her points have merit, but she's | smart enough to be perfectly aware that rather than improving | the field through discussions with peers what she's doing | here is just capitalizing on that distaste people have for | their work and doing what she can to undermine them. | rout39574 wrote: | I think her perspective is quite a bit more productive than | just capitalizing on distaste. For example, in this | discussion she's making concrete criticisms of specific | communications patterns. | | I don't think it's too strong to call it "disinformation" | out of the journals. They claimed that the next big toy | will prove or disprove supersymmetry. They never | acknowledged that their claim had been incorrect, or that | it was misleading. | | Calling out that repeated pattern is, I think, on the | respectful side of the public gadfly playbook. | | I think she wants to "improve the field" by incenting | theoretical advances that actually lead to testable | predictions. Unfortunately, that transition will put a lot | of e.g. string theorists out of work. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Not really, in the sense that Hossenfelder only advocated | for subtracting resources from particle physics, never | about what should be funded instead. | robonerd wrote: | > _never about what should be funded instead._ | | This isn't entirely true. In this blog post | (http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/04/does-world- | need-lar...) she recommends: | | > _" One of the key motivations for building a larger | particle collider that particle physicists like to bring | up is that we still do not know what dark matter is made | of. But we are not even sure that dark matter is made of | particles. And if it's a particle, we do not know what | mass it has or how it interacts. If it's a light | particle, you would not look for it with a bigger | collider. So really it makes more sense to collect more | information about the astrophysical situation first. That | means concretely better telescopes, better sky coverage, | better redshift resolution, better frequency coverage, | and so on."_ | | Though she goes on to say | | > _" But really my intention here is not to advocate a | particular alternative. I merely think that physicists | should have an honest debate about the evident lack of | progress in the foundations of physics and what to do | about it."_ | SiempreViernes wrote: | > better telescopes, better sky coverage, better redshift | resolution, better frequency coverage | | And all of this is being built currently or already | exists (ELT, ASSN, Vera Rubin, SKA, CTA), so it's not | clear what she's advocating. | brabel wrote: | > doing what she can to undermine them. | | She's not trying to undermine anyone, just giving her | opinion about where funding should go in order to actually | advance our knowledge of the world. | dekhn wrote: | She definitely tried to undermine LIGO. This is a very | carefully written article designed to cast shade: | http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/whats-up-with- | ligo.... | pessimizer wrote: | Characterizing all (or even just the most dismissive) | criticisms as attacks or devious attempts to undermine | keeps nice people from being truthful. | dekhn wrote: | I'm not sure what that means, but she definitely was | outright wrong on that one, and she used all her skills | to make what looked like a convincing argument for "there | just isn't enough data there to conclude gravity waves". | robonerd wrote: | I don't think the contention here is whether she's right | or wrong. Phrasing like _' undermine'_ and _' cast | shade'_ seems to imply malicious intent, which is going | too far. Being wrong isn't the same as being wrong with | malicious intent. | davrosthedalek wrote: | The fact that she chooses to bring forward here doubts | via youtube, books, and blogs (i.e. the things she earns | money with) instead of/in addition to a well written | paper on arxiv (i.e. like everyone else who wants to | partake in a honest physics discussion*) lets me question | her intent. (She has papers to some of the things she | complains about, which normally get answered by | rebuttals. This is normal scientific discourse. A blog | with locked comments is not.) | robonerd wrote: | Maybe she's in it for the fame and money, but I don't | think that would make her intentions malicious. | pa7x1 wrote: | She abuses an information asymmetry and social | conventions. Scientific discourse is usually conducted in | academic papers, for better or worse this is how the | community conducts itself. When she criticizes others | work or the usefulness of the fields outside this channel | she is addressing as a singular voice the general public. | Which gives her voice an outsized presence with a public | that is not prepared to engage on equal terms on that | discourse or prepare any rebuttal. Meanwhile the rest of | the physics community looks dumbfounded because she is | escaping the typical means of discourse and ratting them | out to the general public, that can't really make an | informed judgement. | | Either she is socially clueless on how this can be seen | negatively by the rest of the scientific community or she | is malicious in her attempts to defund parts of science | she believes shouldn't get funding. | photochemsyn wrote: | There is a limited pool of resources available to do basic | fundamental science and it's fair to argue that things like | LHC have absorbed a disproportionate share of these scare | resources, without a whole lot to show for it. Since it's | the general public that ultimately funds these projects | (unless the LHC can attract its own Jeff Bezos), I think it | is OK to have a public discussion about it. | davrosthedalek wrote: | Is it fair to argue that though? What's the metric for | that? $ per Nobel prize? If you look at $ per scientist, | LHC is actually quite cheap. $ per "theory tested", LHCb | has disproved so many theory papers it's not even funny. | | If you compare how much money is spend on fundamental | research (or research in general), the pool of funds for | a given direction is not limited because of other | research. It's limited by all the other things we spend | money on. If society wants to fund more DM, astro, | whatever research, it would be much easier to find that | money for example in the military spending. A minimal | haircut there and you could double the research funding. | XorNot wrote: | > LHC have absorbed a disproportionate share of these | scare resources | | As opposed to? This sentiment was bandied around _a lot_ | before the LHC went online, but no one ever had a | proposition of what the alternative was is the goal was | to advance fundamental particle physics. You 've got | exactly 2 ways to probe subatomic interactions: (1) | particle accelerator measurement and (2) incidental | measurements of high-energy spaceborne collisions. | | We're doing both. Theoreticians being unable to | conclusively find a new measurement is a problem | independent of the fact the LHC exists _to do those sorts | of measurements that they 'd need_. | jcranmer wrote: | Proton decay experiments? Magnetic monopole searches? | | Providing better bounds on the (non-)existence of | phenomena predicted by existing non-Standard Model | particle physics theories sounds like a worthwhile | endeavor rather than praying that particle accelerators | will maybe uncover a particle if you give it just a | little bit more juice. | davrosthedalek wrote: | What's the difference to new particles predicted by BSM | theories you might uncover if you give it just a little | bit more juice? Especially if you measure a ton of other | things at the same time? | patrick451 wrote: | As opposed to funding things that are not particle | physics at all. As far as I can tell, knowing that bosons | exist has had approximately zero impact on our ability to | engineer new stuff. Personally, I'm tired of footing the | bill for a field that requires the one of the largest, | most expensive experimental systems ever conceived yet | seems unable to produce more than useless factoids. | JackFr wrote: | Maybe the physicists are looking for their car keys under | the streetlight. Unable to find, them the only solution | they can conceive of is a bigger streetlight. | davrosthedalek wrote: | Which might be the right approach in a world without | torches? | robonerd wrote: | > _no one ever had a proposition of what the alternative | was is the goal was to advance fundamental particle | physics. You 've got exactly 2 ways to probe subatomic | interactions: (1) particle accelerator measurement and | (2) incidental measurements of high-energy spaceborne | collisions._ | | Sabine has recommended funding more telescopes to learn | more about dark matter. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | As opposed to open season on new theory - or even new | kinds of theory. | | The Standard Model is a bit of a franken-theory of a | thing, a kit of parts bolted together in awkward ways. It | looks a lot like the pre-quantum ad-hoc theories that | attempted to describe quantum effects before QM was | invented. | | It's hard to believe that physics can't do better. But | easy to believe that physics won't do better while most | of the money and all of the mental space is owned by | concepts that are more than a hundred years old now. | gizmo686 wrote: | That sounds like you are complaining about the amount of | investment in experimental physics in general, rather | than the LHC in particular. It is true that fundamental | physics could use a major breakthrough from the | theorists. However, the theorists we do have are | desperate for more experimental evidence to help them. | | Add to that that experimental physics is simply far more | expensive then theoretical physics, and it should come as | no surprise that we spend more money on experiments then | pure theory. | | The complaint about LHC is more about questioning weather | spending $5 billion to smash protons together is the most | effective way of getting more empirical evidence to the | physicists. | spekcular wrote: | "Not a whole lot to show" from the LHC? We got the Higgs | Boson, and piles of data providing more accurate | measurements of fundamental constants in the Standard | Model, along with a ton of progress in various "applied" | areas related to developing the materials/tools for | constructing the thing. | bigbillheck wrote: | > But the disciplines where the foundations of physics | currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics, and | everything quantum, quantum information, quantum computing, | quantum metrology, and so on | | Everybody ignores the condensed matter people! | DrBazza wrote: | Another reason many leave is that new ideas don't get funding. | So physics, in particular becomes a monoculture. There is | always merit in bad ideas even if the only conclusion is that | it was wrong. | robonerd wrote: | > _" Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production | enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal | progress [...] But the disciplines where the foundations of | physics currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics | [...]"_ | | Can anybody explain the relevance of cosmology and astrophysics | to societal progress? I'm sure these are very worthwhile fields | of study in other respects.. but societal progress? | noobermin wrote: | Cosmology and astro fundamentally can be tested. The models | therein have implications on things like the Cosmic Microwave | Background, so it fits "societal progress" in the sense it | pushes humanity's knowledge of the universe forward. | | I do think particle theory probably does push knowledge | forward, the problem is it is quite a bit further from | something that can be tested, it is more akin to mathematics | these days where they're not really trying to describe | reality because as she says, susy and friends could be | morphed to fit anything. In fact, and this might be a | stretch, but I feel like there is a motivation not to have | predictions sometimes because then you could be proven wrong. | Perhaps this is still "pushing knowledge in general forward" | as opposed to knowledge that actually describes reality, | similar to mathematics perhaps. | | Not really related to societal progress, but the difference | between particle theory with mathematics is mathematicians | are actually rigorous while particle physicists get by with | the usual lack of rigor (relatively) of physics in general. | The argument usually employed by theorists in other physics | fields is that this lack of rigor is okay because physics is | science and you could always do an experiment afterwards to | validate theory. Particle physics less and less has that, so, | where does it sit? I feel like may be a valid path forward is | for particle physicists to embrace that they are no longer | really doing science and are rather doing mathematics, and | probably to even adopt some of the rigor of mathematics, then | particle theory could really bloom into a really valuable | field of study on the "pushing general knowledge forward" | side of things. | tsimionescu wrote: | Well, Newton's laws of motion are a direct result of | cosmology/astrophysics. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Have you heard how the military makes a lot of technology | that benefits society? Well, it's the same principle for | esoteric experimental science: unique requirements leads to | new tech being developed and then you can turn around, and if | you find some use for some bit of the new tech you can tout | it as a "boon to society". | TomSwirly wrote: | > Have you heard how the military makes a lot of technology | that benefits society? | | No, not since World War 2. Examples? | davrosthedalek wrote: | ARPANET and GPS come to mind. Both were developed with | large military impetus. | tshaddox wrote: | > Have you heard how the military makes a lot of technology | that benefits society? | | I've heard that, yes, as well as NASA inventing velcro and | zippers and teflon, and all of it has a faint tinge of "not | actually true at all" to it. | [deleted] | dwaltrip wrote: | You don't see how NASA has pushed technology and science | forward? The inspiration it provides for people becoming | engineers and scientists is alone probably worth a non- | trivial fraction of the US GDP. | robonerd wrote: | Couldn't the same be said for particle physics? The | accelerators and detectors seem very high tech. | spaetzleesser wrote: | The LHC computing infrastructure is also quite | impressive. | jfengel wrote: | And CERN is literally the reason we're here on th Web | right now. | moonchrome wrote: | That's a huge stretch. CERN might be a reason we have the | web that looks like it looks today, but we would have | something similar with or without CERN. | davrosthedalek wrote: | We might be stuck with compuserve and AOL. | vidarh wrote: | We had the internet before the web, and we had gopher. So | we had an open network, the client server model and | links. What the web brought was a more flexible protocol | and document format. That was important, but there's no | way we'd have been stuck with compuserve or AOL. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Do you remember the time when messenger services were | open to third party clients? You could actually talk to | all your friends using only one app! | | Those days have _ended_. | Barrin92 wrote: | there's a lot of learning potential in building one or | two but after that you're pretty much just making them | bigger. There's a lot of engineering and construction | involved but the new ones are really just very expensive | and huge without netting necessarily much in terms of | engineering science. In particular if you consider | opportunity costs. With the 23 billion(!) it costs to | build the new Large Hadron collider you could fund | 230.000 100k grants to young scientists. That's enough | money to fund entire disciplines. | | And that's important to keep in mind because money is a | limited resource and what's relevant is where that money | didn't go rather than just speaking idealistically about | the potential benefits of a megaproject. | spekcular wrote: | "There's a lot of engineering and construction involved | but the new ones are really just very expensive and huge | without netting necessarily much in terms of engineering | science." | | This is extremely false. The new engineering science | required to make the incredibly strong magnets for each | collider (newer colliders requiring stronger magnets) is | one obvious counterexample. | davrosthedalek wrote: | The world spends about 2 Trillion dollars on military per | year. 23 billion over, say, 10 years as a lower bound, is | a per mille of that. NASA has a _yearly_ budget of 20 | billion, ~1 /3 of which goes into science. | | (BTW, with 100k, in experimental physics, you can't even | pay for a postdoc at an US institution for a year) | | That shouldn't mean NASA should get less money. But 23 | billion for a world-wide, multi-decade project isn't that | much. | SiempreViernes wrote: | Your comment about skill transfer is about as accurate as | if you had meant going from "toy boat" to "Ever Given | (the ship)". | welterde wrote: | The technology used in the accelerator and the detectors | keeps changing though. Particle accelerators today are | quite different to those in the 60ies. | | Also not sure where you got the 23 billions from. Total | budget for LHC is less than 8 billion euros. And that's | over quite a long time frame. The whole CERN budget is | only 1.1 billion a year (and they run quite a few | different experiments apart from the LHC). That's within | a factor of a few of a major sports club! | Barrin92 wrote: | I'm talking about the _new_ collider (FCC), the LHC is | already finished so there 's not much point talking about | its costs. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Circular_Collider | nobodyandproud wrote: | No, not if take her at face value. She's saying particle | physics has built a framework where the goalpost can keep | moving. | | It's become a bottomless trap of sorts. | | Given that resources--money and bright minds--aren't | infinite, she then proposes that there are other areas of | research that received less attention and are ripe for | discovery. | colechristensen wrote: | Every human society more or less has had a religion with a | version of their cosmology, it seems universally relevant to | human interests to have an actual set of answers. And what is | "societal progress" anyway? | FollowingTheDao wrote: | My view of societal progress would look retrograde to | almost everyone. | dehrmann wrote: | Have you considered becoming Amish? | FollowingTheDao wrote: | If you met me and saw how I lived you would probably | think I was close enough. | jll29 wrote: | Modulo Internet access? | | Out of (off-topic) curiosity, what is the reason for that | choice of life style? Just minimalism? | FollowingTheDao wrote: | Homelessness. Not really much of a choice. | couchand wrote: | Well, I'd argue that till now many of our most vibrant | flowers of innovation ultimately grew out of basic research | into how the universe works. A deeper understanding of the | fabric of the universe seems enough to me to call it | "societal progress" (with the OP saying particle physics no | longer provides such new insight), but if you're looking for | specific technologies that might come of it, perhaps consider | the benefits that could accrue to human space travel. | 8note wrote: | The black hole has become a culturally important concept, | being the center of different media as well as a common | metaphor, allowing us new descriptions of ideas | dEnigma wrote: | I don't think she was trying to say that those disciplines | contribute to the progress of society in any meaningful way. | The point, in my opinion, was that particle physics has | neither relevance for societal progress, nor currently makes | progress in the foundations of physics (as opposed to the | other two disciplines). | StanislavPetrov wrote: | >Can anybody explain the relevance of cosmology and | astrophysics to societal progress? | | What is "societal progress" anyway? I'd argue that society is | regressing, not progressing. I'd further argue that the worth | of your pursuits and endeavors have no relation to the | progression or regression of society at large. | klyrs wrote: | I dunno about "progress" per se but when smart physicists and | mathematicians leave their fields, they often end up in | finance and tech. Mostly doing the opposite of "societal | progress," they're pulling levers to maximize profit from the | destruction of society. | | What I'm saying here is essentially "idle hands are the | devil's playground." Keeping wonks fascinated by the minutae | of the nature of the universe is, in my mind, better for | society than many alternatives I see. | photochemsyn wrote: | Pale Blue Dot, the snapshot of Earth taken by Voyager I, | comes to mind. | | https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/536/voyager-1s-pale-b. | .. | | The effect is more psychological than technological, but it | shows the foolishness of global warfare and resource | exhaustion in the name of short-term profit, and encourages | people to live together peacefully and work together to solve | global-scale problems. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | > and encourages people to live together peacefully and | work together to solve global-scale problems. | | Hey, guess what? It didn't work. Have you read the news | lately? | | Besides, I know a few sociopaths that would look at that | Pale Blue Dot and think "I want it all". | r3trohack3r wrote: | According to many metrics, it seems the world is indeed | improving over time. The news is a poor source for | evaluating the net sum of human suffering - the incentive | model is all wrong. | | https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_is_the_world_gett | ing... | FollowingTheDao wrote: | As the island of improvement grows, so grows the shores | of suffering. | | But can a dataset really encapsulate human suffering? Is | there a lower percent of people suffering but are they | each suffering more individually? What is the quality of | the suffering? Is it better to suffer 30 years with pain | or to die after a month of it? | tick_tock_tick wrote: | > But can a dataset really encapsulate human suffering? | | Yes | | > Is there a lower percent of people suffering but are | they each suffering more individually? | | No | | > What is the quality of the suffering? | | Lower | | > Is it better to suffer 30 years with pain or to die | after a month of it? | | Depends on quality of life. | FollowingTheDao wrote: | >> But can a dataset really encapsulate human suffering? | | > Yes | | Suffering its subjective so it is impossible. And you | proved it with: | | > Depends on quality of life. | | because quality of life depends on how much suffering you | can live with. | nine_k wrote: | An easy, direct link, for example: | | Careful observation of the orbit of Mercury --> Special | Relativity --> General Relativity --> GPS satellites able to | keep exact time --> the map app on your mobile phone. | salty_biscuits wrote: | This idea that you need to model GR to do GNSS is very over | stated. You need to correct for a GR effect, but it is a | small part of a residual in a least squares problem that | gets regressed away. So it is important for understanding | the error budget but it really is a small effect, compared | to say ionospheric delay due to atmospheric charge or clock | drift. | gizmo686 wrote: | Was the orbit of Mercury (or any other astronomical | observations) important for the discover of Relativity. My | understanding was that experimental impetus for relativity | was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was an in-lab | experiment, not an astronomical observation. General | relativity was then developed on a purely theoretical | basis. | | That it was able to explain Mercury's orbit was a nice bit | of empirical confirmation after the theory was developed. | Having such evidence probably helped get the theory | accepted faster; but probably wasn't necessary. Almost by | definition, a theory that is ultimately useful can be | confirmed without need of astronomy. If the theory is | useful to do X, then we can try doing X as an experiment | and see if it works how the theory predicts. | | As a secondary point, we could probably get GPS to work | even without relativity. The core idea makes just as much | sense under any theory of a finite speed of light. When we | actually launched a GPS constellation and try it, the | engineers would notice that the clocks were drifting for | some unknown reason. Some ad-hoc corrections later and the | engineers could account for the drift based on empirical | evidence, likely with regular re synchronization and | recalibration of the fudge factors. | pdonis wrote: | _> Was the orbit of Mercury (or any other astronomical | observations) important for the discover of Relativity._ | | For _general_ relativity, yes. | | _> My understanding was that experimental impetus for | relativity was the Michelson-Morley experiment_ | | This was one of the results that pointed the way to | _special_ relativity. It had nothing to do with general | relativity. | | _> General relativity was then developed on a purely | theoretical basis._ | | No, it wasn't. There was a huge body of experimental | evidence already about gravity. It was true that all of | that evidence, _except_ for the anomalous precession of | Mercury 's perihelion, could be explained by Newtonian | gravity; but general relativity, as a proposed new theory | of gravity, had to also account for all of that | experimental evidence. In other words, in the appropriate | limiting case (weak fields and low speeds compared to the | speed of light), general relativity had to reproduce all | of the correct predictions of Newtonian gravity. That was | a huge, and very important, experimental constraint. | | _> Almost by definition, a theory that is ultimately | useful can be confirmed without need of astronomy._ | | Not if the differences between its predictions and the | predictions of the previous theory (in this case | Newtonian gravity) are only measurable in astronomical | observations at the time the new theory is proposed. That | was true of general relativity in 1915 and for at least a | couple of decades afterwards. The differences between GR | and Newtonian gravity for earthbound experiments were | simply too small for the technology of the time to | measure. So astronomical observations were the only way | to test GR when it was proposed. | | _> we could probably get GPS to work even without | relativity_ | | Technology can of course be developed on a purely | empirical basis, if you're prepared to make a lot of | mistakes along the way that you wouldn't make without a | good theoretical foundation. If it hadn't been for the | knowledge of relativity on the part of the scientists | involved, the GPS satellites probably would have been | launched without _any_ capability for adjusting their | clock rates. Which would have meant that, once clock rate | drift due to relativistic effects was seen, there would | have been no way to adjust for it. So those satellites | would have become expensive but useless toys, and a new | constellation of satellites would have had to be built | and launched. | gizmo686 wrote: | > No, it wasn't. There was a huge body of experimental | evidence already about gravity. It was true that all of | that evidence, except for the anomalous precession of | Mercury's perihelion, could be explained by Newtonian | gravity; but general relativity, as a proposed new theory | of gravity, had to also account for all of that | experimental evidence. In other words, in the appropriate | limiting case (weak fields and low speeds compared to the | speed of light), general relativity had to reproduce all | of the correct predictions of Newtonian gravity. That was | a huge, and very important, experimental constraint. | | Yes. I assumed that reproducing Newtonian gravity in the | classical limit would be considered theoretical, as we | had a solid theoretical understanding of Newtonian | physics. Implicit in that would be a bunch of empirical | evidence; but Einstein wouldn't need to explicitly think | about the details of what evidence supported Newtonian | mechanics (beyond the general understanding that it was | all in the classical limit). | | > Not if the differences between its predictions and the | predictions of the previous theory (in this case | Newtonian gravity) are only measurable in astronomical | observations at the time the new theory is proposed. | | Such a theory is not "useful", for many definitions of | useful. Astronomical observations allowed us to verify | Relativity earlier than we otherwise would be able to; | but eventually technology advanced to the point where we | could conduct satellite based experiments to directly | confirm it. The theory was not practically useful until | we had this technology. | | > Technology can of course be developed on a purely | empirical basis, if you're prepared to make a lot of | mistakes along the way that you wouldn't make without a | good theoretical foundation. If it hadn't been for the | knowledge of relativity on the part of the scientists | involved, the GPS satellites probably would have been | launched without any capability for adjusting their clock | rates. | | Its not like we launched the entire GPS constellation | then just hoped it would work. Before launching the GPS | constellation, we launched the experimental Timation | satellites to act as a proof of concept. Difficulties | with maintaining accurate clocks in orbit would have been | noticed then (if not sooner). | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Good luck finding a $1Tr project without real world | evidence - just theoretical models. | flaburgan wrote: | You mean like we do at CERN? | fhars wrote: | No, there was basically no empirical input into the | development of special relativity either, Michelson- | Morley was already perfectly explained by Lorentz | contraction caused by movement of matter through the | ether. | | What special relativity did was solve the purely | theoretical contradictions between Newtonian mechanics | and Maxwell's electrodynamics (hence the title of | Einstein's paper "On the electrodynamics of moving | bodies"), reinterpreting Lorentz' math for the | description of movement through the ether as | transformations of spacetime itself and doing away with | the ether. | robonerd wrote: | True, but if we graft this argument onto Sabine's argument, | it doesn't seem very fair. Those astronomical observations | and the development of General Relativity were done a | century ago and have relevance today. But if particle | physics is being judged against astronomy, then shouldn't | the modern societal benefits of century old of particle | physics count as well, contradicting the claim that | particle physics lacks societal benefits? | noobermin wrote: | While she makes the rounds on HN, it is really worth noting | that as she says, Sabine Hossenfelder is more or less a pariah | amongst particle physicists, as was Lee Smolin before her. It's | disappointing though because I largely agree with her | assessment, too much of particle physics has left what I would | consider science and is now a paper generation exercise (not | that that isn't throughout science, but particle theory is even | more so in that direction). | | This is one of those places where peer-review fails, if you | study or proclaim something against the prevailing norms. There | is a slight hope for you if you're a well known name already, | like Hossenfelder, but it's pretty much a death sentence for | you if you're at a no-name university somewhere. There really | is no motivation to pierce the wall vs. just silently doing | little incremental work that continues the current established | theory even when on a whole that theory is leading the field | nowhere. | | Usually, at some point the funding dries up but they're lucky | all the big famous names are sympathetic to particle physics | and it continues to command a large amount of funding amongst | those studying fundamental physics. So things march on. | olaf wrote: | to paraphrase a german ... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-30 23:00 UTC)