tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post2499829634773310278..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: String phenomenology of the somewhat different kindSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3089899695783987082016-06-22T19:05:38.698-04:002016-06-22T19:05:38.698-04:00As a different note I would like to express this i...As a different note I would like to express this in different comment. These days I noticed that, people much more interested in science and this is i think because the effective access to sources are easier and more convenient. The can do from home and enjoy spending time on look up things in general. They are more informed on the current status on the developments of different physics branches Sheeverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931916936543585461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28156116431964975452016-06-22T18:57:27.287-04:002016-06-22T18:57:27.287-04:00I don't think people originally that stupid. S...I don't think people originally that stupid. Some percentage due lack of interest may accept such description and care no more about it. However some who have the intention to understand mathematical description will take its time to background check surely, on the level fit to their understanding. You know the good thing these days that, you just need to look up on the Stanford or Oxford Sheeverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931916936543585461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69802486220784643992016-06-22T07:45:15.792-04:002016-06-22T07:45:15.792-04:00I agree, and I would like to see more accounts of ...I agree, and I would like to see more accounts of accurate reports in the popsi section to keep the public informed on the actual status of things. Instead of the sensationalism that keeps the layman stupid. That is why I like blogs such as this one.<br /><br />An example. I saw a video online of the World Science Festival. A known physicist spoke the following words in the context of approachingKoenraad Van Spaendonckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090279727324831109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92000029392621945112016-06-21T16:04:50.400-04:002016-06-21T16:04:50.400-04:00Koenraad,
I havent ever heard a complaint from ta...Koenraad,<br /><br />I havent ever heard a complaint from tax payers,to pointing to slow or no scientific progress.To be fair,to actually monitor this by a layman, need quite a bit of study.. not just reading a paper or two,or blog posts because the lack of understanding of the contents in general.You may agree on this.<br /><br />Sheeverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931916936543585461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27278554104840958222016-06-21T03:49:02.723-04:002016-06-21T03:49:02.723-04:00Sheever,
We may have a simple misunderstanding he...Sheever,<br /><br />We may have a simple misunderstanding here, easy to clear up. By stagnation I mean precisely what you say, not that physicists would not be working very hard to obtain results.<br /><br />As for the tax payer, in recent years and years to come, he has access to much more than the popsi section, if he takes an interest.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />KoenKoenraad Van Spaendonckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090279727324831109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88734441353751345082016-06-20T08:51:30.112-04:002016-06-20T08:51:30.112-04:00Koenraad,
" But if we observe stagnation in ...Koenraad, <br />" But if we observe stagnation in both areas, then the tax payer might indeed become increasingly impatient."<br /><br />I haven't read such nonsense comment long time. Tax payers in general have no idea what is going on, they are flooded with physics news continously. Lets clear some misconception here, which is because one theory can't yet be tested Sheeverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931916936543585461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36208792095022954042016-06-19T13:44:17.524-04:002016-06-19T13:44:17.524-04:00Haelfix says " Then of course there is AdS/CF...Haelfix says " Then of course there is AdS/CFT which it's fair to say has objectively contributed to the understanding of physics in many different diverse areas of physics." (plus a more general statement of String Theory indirect contributions made) <br /><br />Haelfix - these contributions, if they lead to non-trivial predictions in the recipient field, are perfectly adequate as Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16936437708913931702016-06-19T13:28:00.115-04:002016-06-19T13:28:00.115-04:00Sabine - ok thanks for letting me know. So your co...Sabine - ok thanks for letting me know. So your comment referred to the QLG quote I took from you regarding Smolin?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48582475701020095602016-06-18T10:02:29.497-04:002016-06-18T10:02:29.497-04:00(piein: There's no unpublished comment from yo...(piein: There's no unpublished comment from you in the queue. It must have been a submission error.)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10497293334607554522016-06-18T09:29:00.637-04:002016-06-18T09:29:00.637-04:00Dr Bee "piein, The sentence you quote is abou...Dr Bee "piein, The sentence you quote is about communal reinforcement not about testability" <br /><br />Hi - I thought I replied to this already. You are referring to the comment you still have not published? In fact my response in that comment is also about communal reinforcement. The testing is for construction purposes, and is legitimate because his own context is very much that ofAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36450855821706190982016-06-17T06:48:17.999-04:002016-06-17T06:48:17.999-04:00@akidbelle
I don't think technological spin o...@akidbelle<br /><br />I don't think technological spin off should be the only motivation for physics research, although a very important one.<br />To understand more of our position as human beings in the great unknown universe is an equally valid reason.<br /><br />But if we observe stagnation in both areas, then the tax payer might indeed become increasingly impatient.<br /><br />Before theKoenraad Van Spaendonckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090279727324831109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31755730358526622272016-06-17T01:25:50.818-04:002016-06-17T01:25:50.818-04:00Jonathan,
I don't know, I'm not the right...Jonathan,<br /><br />I don't know, I'm not the right person to ask this, maybe ask <a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor" rel="nofollow">Tommaso</a> instead.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44609869682008615352016-06-16T14:10:01.206-04:002016-06-16T14:10:01.206-04:00When do you think we will get a final answer on th...When do you think we will get a final answer on the spin of the Higgslike particle that got discovered n 2012?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297797012627743675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72987729523012806582016-06-16T02:42:52.232-04:002016-06-16T02:42:52.232-04:00Jonathan,
I actually agree with you, that sentenc...Jonathan,<br /><br />I actually agree with you, that sentence of mine was somewhat sloppy, sorry about that. <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/12/dear-dr-b-is-string-theory-science.html" rel="nofollow">I expressed a very similar opinion to yours here.</a><br /><br />You write: <i>"The accumulation of many such attempts is success in itself because the history of science Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34961087427116944102016-06-15T10:55:53.470-04:002016-06-15T10:55:53.470-04:00I am going to have to disagree with you when you w...I am going to have to disagree with you when you write "The purpose of science is to describe nature." I think the purpose of science is to attempt to do that. The accumulation of many such attempts is success in itself because the history of science demonstrates that many attempts to describe invariably lead to increasingly accurate descriptions. I am compelled to point out that Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297797012627743675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14816382065503328002016-06-15T10:32:08.256-04:002016-06-15T10:32:08.256-04:00The Shroud of Turin projects a bicurved face onto ...The Shroud of Turin projects a bicurved face onto a planar cloth without distortion. Peer-voted faith and theory suffer Galileo, Popper; science.<br /><br /><i>Principia</i>'s first page assumes the pendulum equation has no bob. Newton bobbled c, h, and k_B. All are falsifiable, but not within the axiomatic system. Two fat black holes merged in external real time, with no firewall (Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63018084147502902882016-06-15T10:08:42.582-04:002016-06-15T10:08:42.582-04:00Sabine,
thanks; I'm not trying to fight, be s...Sabine,<br /><br />thanks; I'm not trying to fight, be sure of that. <br /><br />I agree with your description of the current definition of "success" without using the word. I agree from the beginning with all you said, I'm merely trying to discuss with you a different perspective (and I think you probably have it for long, or I would not even try). <br /><br />Now if scientistsakidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81489287901598847722016-06-15T06:43:59.215-04:002016-06-15T06:43:59.215-04:00akidbelle,
I'm not fighting facts. (Which fac...akidbelle,<br /><br />I'm not fighting facts. (Which facts anyway?) I am merely telling you how I used the word success. In the example you picked I even explicitly explained how I use it, so I don't understand why you insist on redefining it. <br /><br />You are telling me that for other people in other circumstances it might mean something else. I don't disagree. But fighting about Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45856873920906276762016-06-15T06:23:02.352-04:002016-06-15T06:23:02.352-04:00Sabine,
I am trying to explain you what success i...Sabine,<br /><br />I am trying to explain you what success is in practice. You are trying to tell me what it should be in science. All that for a word: "success". We could debate like this and not understand each other indefinitely. <br /><br />What I am trying to tell you is that if you fight facts, you loose. Not because you loose the debate/fight but because you loose your energy. (akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48434245947333605182016-06-15T02:12:30.063-04:002016-06-15T02:12:30.063-04:00akidbelle,
Well, then I don't know what the a...akidbelle,<br /><br />Well, then I don't know what the acronym means.<br /><br />I don't understand what you are trying to say with your example. I agree that in the first sentence I haven't explained "correct" and "describe," I hope we can agree that in conversation it's quite uncommon to define every word (not to mention that it's in most cases impossibleSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19371192626073439032016-06-15T01:58:36.077-04:002016-06-15T01:58:36.077-04:00Sabine,
Korzybski's work is not NPL.
Let us...Sabine,<br /><br />Korzybski's work is not NPL. <br /><br />Let us try with an example; for instance, you state in a response: "A theory is successful if it correctly describes nature." OK, but the words "correct" and "describes" are not clear to me. Let us try a definition. <br /><br />"correct" = sufficiently similar quantities pop-out of equations akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-43123223639022801482016-06-15T01:00:46.449-04:002016-06-15T01:00:46.449-04:00Jonathan,
You write
"It seems like if your...Jonathan,<br /><br />You write <br /><br /><i>"It seems like if your theory was good enough that someone might want to test it, that means it was a successful theory."</i><br /><br />I sincerely hope you are not a scientist. Because this sentence of yours sums up pretty much all that's going wrong in science right now. The purpose of science is to describe nature. A theory is Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70305273007881442862016-06-15T00:49:21.817-04:002016-06-15T00:49:21.817-04:00akidbelle,
I read a book about NLP many years ago...akidbelle,<br /><br />I read a book about NLP many years ago, but to my knowledge that idea itself turned out to be pretty shaky science. In any case, I'm always happy to learn something new, so if you have some reference, let me know. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80281494150615284352016-06-14T21:37:29.385-04:002016-06-14T21:37:29.385-04:00What is the difference between the case where one ...What is the difference between the case where one solves a physics problem only using math tools and the case where on develops a theory that can be considered successful even before it is tested? I don't get it. It seems like if your theory was good enough that someone might want to test it, that means it was a successful theory. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01297797012627743675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80208581961156288042016-06-14T13:44:52.669-04:002016-06-14T13:44:52.669-04:00Sabine,
I don'k know about your own mistakes...Sabine, <br /><br />I don'k know about your own mistakes; only you can. But I know there are training methods against projections. First one I heard of is by Korzybski (Science and sanity, 1933), which inspired PNL. Next, but not from Korzybski, there is a trick too long to explain here, about automatic judgement, personal history/training, refusal/denial and their relation to automatic and akidbellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292741599925116131noreply@blogger.com