tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3675668921184603986..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Physicists still perplexed I ask for reasons to finance their researchSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-40352965100574770552019-07-18T23:10:24.253-04:002019-07-18T23:10:24.253-04:00Jean,
I'm not at all suggesting physics shoul...Jean,<br /><br />I'm not at all suggesting physics should be a purely philosophical discipline or that experimental verification shouldn't be the ultimate goal of any theory. What I'm suggesting is that testability isn't necessarily a useful criterion in determining whether a particular theoretical path is valid, or indeed whether it's fundamentally correct. I also reject the CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38428828547137916402019-07-18T11:18:39.004-04:002019-07-18T11:18:39.004-04:00"The notion that physics should focus on test..."The notion that physics should focus on testable predictions and experimental verification is exceptionally myopic and misses the entire point of what physics is about."<br /><br />This has got to be the most hep-th statement I've ever heard. Such a statement would be rightfully dismissed without a second thought anywhere except for this small, isolated, and extremely unusual Kevin Z.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16937239109467104130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65957693092873270092019-07-18T09:42:07.290-04:002019-07-18T09:42:07.290-04:00CWebster, by writing this: "The notion that p...CWebster, by writing this: "<i>The notion that physics should focus on testable predictions and experimental verification is exceptionally myopic and misses the entire point of what physics is about.</i>" have you just declared that physics is no longer a branch of science?<br /><br />To turn up the contrast, you are advocating that the SKA (to pick one example) be scrapped, because JeanTatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737430572613792118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8903910122226767722019-07-18T00:15:08.651-04:002019-07-18T00:15:08.651-04:00CWebster,
(a) "And no, you didn't approv...CWebster,<br /><br />(a) <i>"And no, you didn't approve the comment I mentioned until after I called you on it."</i><br /><br />Has it occurred to you that you maybe just missed it? I don't even know what reason I could possibly have to not post your comment.<br /><br />(b) <i>"literally every one of your replies thus far has been ad hominem"</i><br /><br />False. You Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29799144157240735102019-07-17T19:26:17.219-04:002019-07-17T19:26:17.219-04:00"Fundamentally, physics is about understandin... "Fundamentally, physics is about understanding the mathematical framework of physical law. "<br /><br /> This phrase is a clear reflection of how far detached from Reality are some theoreticians.<br /><br /> If physics is about understanding the mathematical framework of "physical law(s)" who them will "discover" in the first place these physical laws? Are all Jeremy Jr. Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12101880943293972922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7559945706386720202019-07-17T14:42:24.919-04:002019-07-17T14:42:24.919-04:00Btw, literally every one of your replies thus far ...Btw, literally every one of your replies thus far has been ad hominem, so pot meet kettle. Given that your entire "argument" as you euphemistically call it is an attack on your colleagues' methodology, I'm not exactly sure what reaction you expected. "Oh, duh! Sabine is absolutely right. What were we thinking??" is not it.CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70979207516759983002019-07-17T14:23:04.822-04:002019-07-17T14:23:04.822-04:00It has to do with Yang-Mills theory and its relati...It has to do with Yang-Mills theory and its relationship to diffeomorphism invariance. Mathematically, GR has an underlying local YM gauge symmetry. Maybe wait until the paper comes out before disqualifying yourself as a scientist by criticizing something you've never read.<br /><br />And no, you didn't approve the comment I mentioned until after I called you on it.<br /><br />Had you CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24934062605282217482019-07-17T07:03:22.892-04:002019-07-17T07:03:22.892-04:00CWebster,
"Gravitational entanglement doesn&...CWebster,<br /><br /><i>"Gravitational entanglement doesn't work the way you think it does, and in fact that's the subject of a paper I have in pre-preprint. It's relatively straightforward to show that quantum gravitational effects vanish above the electroweak scale, which is why I said what I said."</i><br /><br />Thanks for voluntarily disqualifying yourself from any Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69789923058361070382019-07-17T07:01:45.604-04:002019-07-17T07:01:45.604-04:00CWebster,
Let me just note that your whole commen...CWebster,<br /><br />Let me just note that your whole comment is an ad hominem attack that bears no relevance to my argument whatsoever.<br /><br />I don't know what comment you are talking about that I supposedly didn't post. For all I can see, I approved all comments I received under the name CWebster.<br /><br />(Oh, and I spoke with Nima about modified gravity, thanks.)Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25439540255374872192019-07-17T05:56:13.167-04:002019-07-17T05:56:13.167-04:00My argument is the work I produce, which advances ...My argument is the work I produce, which advances the field in spite of your objections. That's how science works. You might consider that if others agreed with you and for one instant thought that what they were pursuing was pointless mathematical masturbation, they'd be smart enough to know when to quit and maybe take a different tack - because one thing is certain: Most of the people CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20227647263945640222019-07-17T05:21:09.435-04:002019-07-17T05:21:09.435-04:00Well I read your "When Gravity Breaks Down&qu...Well I read your "When Gravity Breaks Down" link and you call me ill-informed. As I stated in another comment that you didn't post, QM and GR are not two distinct things; they're complementary descriptions of the same underlying physics. As far as attempting to put macroscopic objects in a quantum superposition, good luck with that. Gravitational entanglement doesn't work CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32819878828597311432019-07-17T04:40:40.468-04:002019-07-17T04:40:40.468-04:00And there we go with the dismissiveness again, bec...And there we go with the dismissiveness again, because evidently we're all too stupid to understand what she's saying. Writing a 300-page book doesn't make your arguments any more plausible, so I'm not sure how that has any bearing on the discussion. I've read several of your papers, and while there are some good ideas there, you haven't exactly advanced progress in the CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53794835993268811012019-07-17T03:57:54.496-04:002019-07-17T03:57:54.496-04:00CWebster,
Yes, as I said, your comment about test...CWebster,<br /><br />Yes, as I said, your comment about testing the Planck scale is incredibly ill-informed. You'd think that someone who seems to be working on quantum gravity should know that the Planck scale is dimensionful. <br /><br />Readers of my blog know, of course, that I get this very comment, wrong as it is, frequently and have answered to it hundreds of times. <a href="http://Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65035818962414366582019-07-17T03:54:43.776-04:002019-07-17T03:54:43.776-04:00CWebster,
I have laid out my arguments very clear...CWebster,<br /><br />I have laid out my arguments very clearly, whereas you have no argument other than that you don't like what I say. How about you give that "rational thought" that you talk about a try?Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-42879740742055083692019-07-17T03:52:18.163-04:002019-07-17T03:52:18.163-04:00CWebster,
I totally 'accept' that you hav...CWebster,<br /><br />I totally 'accept' that you have opinions. Luckily science isn't about opinions. <br /><br /><i>"What exactly is your metric for progress, anyway?"</i><br /><br />No change to the foundations of physics since the 1970s. Problems that were unsolved then are still unsolved. Methods of theory development that have failed repeatedly are still in use. I am Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4307512531483665712019-07-17T03:30:31.426-04:002019-07-17T03:30:31.426-04:00Actually, I shouldn't even use the term "...Actually, I shouldn't even use the term "quantum gravity." All of the work on gauge-gravity duality over the past twenty years - AdS/CFT, the double copy, ER = EPR, Ryu-Takyanagi and the like - suggest that QFT and GR are merely mathematically equivalent descriptions arising from some more fundamental theory. (Hence my "incredibly ill-informed" comment about physics at 10^CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25766321488640532752019-07-17T03:12:12.948-04:002019-07-17T03:12:12.948-04:00All we theoreticians get paid to do is research an...All we theoreticians get paid to do is research and think - and Sabine certainly doesn't have the market cornered when it comes to rational thought, nor does she have any greater insight into the workings of science than the rest of us do. She's simply more vocal about her displeasure, which is fine. Alternative viewpoints are always welcome in science. But to borrow a quote from Amadeus,CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59145294698584872422019-07-17T03:04:21.487-04:002019-07-17T03:04:21.487-04:00Sabine, the real problem seems to be that you refu...Sabine, the real problem seems to be that you refuse to acknowledge or accept any opinion contrary to your own, which is hardly in the spirit of scientific discourse. And conflating science with mathematics? Seriously?<br /><br />At the end of the day, the relationship between physics and mathematics is so deeply intertwined that what we generally think of as the physical world may have no more CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90131734101103688602019-07-17T02:22:37.834-04:002019-07-17T02:22:37.834-04:00CWebster,
Well, thanks for illustrating the probl...CWebster,<br /><br />Well, thanks for illustrating the problem. You get top scores for <br /><br />(a) launching with an ad hominem attack<br /><br />(b) confusing math with science <br /><br />(c) accusing me of being "exceptionally myopic" while at the same time declaring that "all of the physics that lies between the GUT scale and the Planck scale will likely never be directly Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53026840297107795952019-07-16T02:40:48.296-04:002019-07-16T02:40:48.296-04:00My reading of this is Sabine is urging us to think...My reading of this is Sabine is urging us to think and consider all her arguments instead of having instant reactions to a summary blog. She has thought about this for a long time and laid out a case in books, blogs, talks etc. ‘think’ I.e research her entire body of work. Then reasonably you can state your case. Now there could be legitimate counter-arguments, but so far I haven’t seen one that Ahhh!https://www.blogger.com/profile/03154550609376626884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65925127401567290322019-07-16T02:29:34.363-04:002019-07-16T02:29:34.363-04:00I've read many of Sabine's essays, and I t...I've read many of Sabine's essays, and I think it's fair to say that her criticisms come across as more of a personal gripe than an objective assessment of the direction physics is heading. The notion that physics should focus on testable predictions and experimental verification is exceptionally myopic and misses the entire point of what physics is about. Fundamentally, physics is CWebsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13815786867651367319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3521777358529646522019-07-15T16:33:07.329-04:002019-07-15T16:33:07.329-04:00Michael,
Can you please be clear what it is that ...Michael,<br /><br />Can you please be clear what it is that you do not understand? I can't explain something if I don't have a question. Have you factored in that the reason you understand what you call "counterpoints" (which?) is that you have heard these multiple times?<br /><br />As to polemic. I am not talking about my writing style, which you may or may not like. I am Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3847206092903325972019-07-15T14:32:26.455-04:002019-07-15T14:32:26.455-04:00Sabine your arguing style is polemic. When challe...Sabine your arguing style is polemic. When challenged, even by well laid out arguments, you resort to demanding a burden of proof from them. I refuse to judge this debate as my knowledge is to poor but I have managed to understand their counterpoints due to their structure while struggling to understand what you are proposing.<br /><br />You are advocating change so if anything the burden of Michael Pyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10580694024166819537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27774533499027688072019-07-10T23:46:37.385-04:002019-07-10T23:46:37.385-04:00I'm late to this string so apologize for my la...I'm late to this string so apologize for my late comment.<br /><br />Re: Kevin Z...."There's definitely a divergence happening. I have lots of friends starting in formal theory that pride themselves on not knowing anything about real experimental data -- many people my age will say the real point of studying quantum gravity and whatnot is its mathematical appeal, not whether or not PatrickLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02807403543185813199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10603693077933066662019-07-08T23:28:49.278-04:002019-07-08T23:28:49.278-04:00Topher,
Aaand once again someone comes to complai...Topher,<br /><br />Aaand once again someone comes to complain that I do not deliver a list of experiments that should be done. And of course if I did come up with such a list you would criticize me for doing exactly this, wouldn't you?<br /><br />Let me say this once again: I am one person. It is literally not my job to evaluate potential project proposals of a 10,000 people community. And Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com