tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post5628166677394140596..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: A new theory SMASHes problemsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12276153915446865532016-11-23T07:27:04.611-05:002016-11-23T07:27:04.611-05:00This paper underscores the fact that we seem to be...This paper underscores the fact that we seem to be confronting a new 'aether' conundrum. The world awaits another Einstein, whether individual woman or man, or research team, who will illuminate the darkness, and perhaps usher in a major paradigm shift in our thinking. David Schroederhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18048116250413347228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82870108510066351882016-11-23T00:26:34.270-05:002016-11-23T00:26:34.270-05:00I like the general approach of the model: bottom-u...I like the general approach of the model: bottom-up rather than top-down. We've had forty years of supersymmetric, top-down models, each usually adding dozens of new fields and hundreds of new parameters, all in the name of more symmetry. But now that it's starting to look like supersymmetry isn't going to pan out--at least not in the energy ranges accessible to the LHC--I think it&Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07133184819402137578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73774790614890121932016-11-22T10:23:25.810-05:002016-11-22T10:23:25.810-05:00@ piein skee Science is rigor that survives empir...@ piein skee Science is rigor that survives empirical falsification (Galileo, Popper). The penultimate sentence of my prior post is crap. Don’t believe proclaimed authority. Look.<br /><br />If the equations’ periods are equal, then time = time. LOOK at the two equations’ dimensions, run the math (torque constant). Bee knows physics (uncomfortably) has never observed whether opposite shoes Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80061887815856827602016-11-21T17:29:02.118-05:002016-11-21T17:29:02.118-05:00I don't know why people publish papers based o...I don't know why people publish papers based on speculations, this way you'll get a new speculation which is based on a speculation, and others will use this new paper to publish a newer one, so it'll be speculation based on speculation based on speculation !! Speculationception !! I mean it's interesting and all, but it makes no sense to do all that work when there is no solid Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15797220503032854208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32229504465828497892016-11-21T16:02:56.415-05:002016-11-21T16:02:56.415-05:00Hi Uncle-Al - you might be right, but just to say ...Hi Uncle-Al - you might be right, but just to say that being 'like' something leaves a large amount to the context in play. Clearly, there's no way to write equations and benefit from mathematical certainty, at that sort of stage. But it is 'like' simultaneous equations in that you are trying to solve a set of problems in terms of each other. I'm going to try to capture Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44212503482898022602016-11-19T10:44:06.929-05:002016-11-19T10:44:06.929-05:00@piein skee "This is like simultaneous equat...@piein skee "<i>This is like simultaneous equations. It's not curve fitting. </i>"<br /><br />A swing pendulum measures weight. It fails in vacuum free fall. Its equation omits the bob. A torsion pendulum measures mass. It works in vacuum free fall. Its equation has the bob. Given equal periods, equate the equations. Gravitation/length is then inversely proportional to Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9567009347134162182016-11-18T14:13:38.945-05:002016-11-18T14:13:38.945-05:00hi doc hossenfelder - I'm not making those mis...hi doc hossenfelder - I'm not making those mistakes but I'm not being very clear either. What I'll do is assemble my best eloquence (which isn't great) and try again later. The reality is that you already will know the distinction - I'd take poison on that. I've seen you say it. It's just a case of knowledge that is general in of itself, does not automatically rise to Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82357711838475204232016-11-18T13:12:30.926-05:002016-11-18T13:12:30.926-05:00xerxes says: I'm confused. All the ideas &quo...xerxes says: <i> I'm confused. All the ideas "proposed" in this paper are just Standard Model (plus axions). Right-handed fermions? SM. Inflaton is an existing field? SM. Strong-CP problem solved by axions? Not the SM but certainly a standard solutio </i> <br /><br />That's right, though I think you're reacting to the negative signalling from commenters more than doc Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-13865753333503018872016-11-18T13:04:36.389-05:002016-11-18T13:04:36.389-05:00piein,
And what makes you think that your argumen...piein,<br /><br />And what makes you think that your argument "changes the equation"? Exactly what about it supposedly changes it? We have here a conjunction of ideas that supposedly explain a conjunction of problems (several of which didn't need solving in the first place). How do you think this makes this multi-model any more likely to be correct than right-handed neutrinos to be Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75890906203426902016-11-18T12:05:21.452-05:002016-11-18T12:05:21.452-05:00Sure that's right for the situation he strings...Sure that's right for the situation he strings together several independent ideas into a sequence where the subsequent depends the preceding being correct, because in that scenario the probabilities multiply. And that is what he's doing on one side hence it seems a very plausible first-approximation <br /><br />But what he's actually doing is marrying from two different conceptually Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80009522517819728112016-11-18T11:18:25.113-05:002016-11-18T11:18:25.113-05:00piein,
I think you misunderstand my point. I thin...piein,<br /><br />I think you misunderstand my point. I think you are saying that by throwing n ideas together you don't necessarily get Sum_n parameters. Fine. Though in this case for all I can tell you still indeed have all the parameters, you just remove some problems that previously were entirely fatal. What I said however was merely that the probability that a conjunction of two untestedSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56929909482960533542016-11-18T10:25:41.566-05:002016-11-18T10:25:41.566-05:00hi I'm just reposting the above comment becaus...hi I'm just reposting the above comment because the excerpt from your post dropped out somehow. It's not really readable without the excerpt because the context for certain words is taken from there (e.g. 'speculation')<br /><br />Doc Hossenfelder's concluding prognosis was <i>"But when you combine several speculative ideas without observational evidence, you don’t get a Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82642872331947754502016-11-17T20:43:51.882-05:002016-11-17T20:43:51.882-05:00No, because he's transformed x stand-alone ide...No, because he's transformed x stand-alone ideas, each requiring effectivrly arbitrary parameter setting decisions. into a partially self-referential equation. As such the individual speculations, which would have to be summed, are exchanged for one level of speculation applicable to the system as a wh9ole. That hugely enhances the potential of the solution, compared with the sum of those Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17852247942652368610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48536986300120339422016-11-17T10:33:33.073-05:002016-11-17T10:33:33.073-05:00Thanks for the post and comments, Sabine.
It seem...Thanks for the post and comments, Sabine.<br /><br />It seems that particle physicists today are relying more and more on theories with clever pop culture titles (MADMAX, ORPHEUS, [Hulk] SMASH) based on hypothetical unseen or undetectable particles and fields. If a theory can never be tested (especially one based on Planck-level energies or ad hoc piled-on parameters), then it's no different Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13243006930165511059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84913759086195419802016-11-17T10:23:04.742-05:002016-11-17T10:23:04.742-05:00http://www.mpbio.com/images/product-images/molecul...http://www.mpbio.com/images/product-images/molecular-structure/05211962.png<br />http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/images/stories/610_Polymethyl/PolyM2MP_01.JPG<br /><br />Phthalo Blue hugely self-associates like a deck of cards. Even a dimer changes the optical absorption spectrum. It dissolves in 338 °C boiling concentrated sulfuric acid. Dissolve it in Plexiglas.<br /><br />One free Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4628580628783066652016-11-17T08:31:12.052-05:002016-11-17T08:31:12.052-05:00Maro,
It's a phenomenological model. The whol...Maro,<br /><br />It's a phenomenological model. The whole point of making phenomenological models is that you can test them. So, yes, you can test that, in principle. Look for the axion, look for the signatures of Higgs inflation, and so on. Look at the paper?? <br /><br />Even if you'd find anything though, I suspect it would be very hard to find out it's this specific model. You'Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63172438555284509672016-11-17T08:18:48.632-05:002016-11-17T08:18:48.632-05:00Sabine, do you know if it's possible to make n...Sabine, do you know if it's possible to make new predictions / experiments that can be used to verify/disprove this model? I'm asking because you write "... if I think this model might be correct. The answer is almost certainly no.", which implies to me you think this is the sort of model that _does_ make testable predictions, so it's (fortunately) possible to talk about Marohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510024368951870757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65382051713201493692016-11-17T06:36:27.861-05:002016-11-17T06:36:27.861-05:00Maro,
I don't know, it doesn't say so exp...Maro,<br /><br />I don't know, it doesn't say so explicitly in the paper. Please see the second to last paragraph for my counting of what the model adds. It brings me to at least 12 new parameters, but I'm not sure that's a complete count. The reason is that the paper doesn't explain much about the Higgs portal thing and it's not a topic I know very much about. Best,<br />Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45543052675353705122016-11-17T06:33:45.942-05:002016-11-17T06:33:45.942-05:00How many (new) parameters does this model have?How many (new) parameters does this model have?Marohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13510024368951870757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36292660965861914262016-11-17T04:26:52.999-05:002016-11-17T04:26:52.999-05:00(Note that I am not claiming the CMB proves dark m...(Note that I am not claiming the CMB proves dark matter must be CDM, or that it must be WIMPS, or anything other than that it must be dark - not coupled to photons - and it must exist, even in theories of modified GR.)Sesh Nadathurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07155102110438904961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-62565269496047709112016-11-17T04:24:10.405-05:002016-11-17T04:24:10.405-05:00Alternatively, it could be a modification of gravi...<i>Alternatively, it could be a modification of gravity. Regardless of what xkcd says.</i><br /><br />Theories of modified gravity without any non-baryonic dark matter component fail to fit the CMB power spectrum. In fact they are guaranteed to fail to fit the CMB, unless they are also non-local - in that the gravitational force somehow points in a different direction to the location of baryonic Sesh Nadathurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07155102110438904961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1198397712067656192016-11-17T03:36:13.774-05:002016-11-17T03:36:13.774-05:00sabine:
"The name SM*A*S*H stands for Standa...sabine:<br /><br />"The name SM*A*S*H stands for Standard Model*Axion*Seesaw*Higgs portal inflation.". well, the model meets the first requirement for any model in theoretical physics - a clever or cute acronym.<br /><br />richardnaivetheoristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00425164894020381981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10792351090564356352016-11-16T12:04:01.899-05:002016-11-16T12:04:01.899-05:00N,
Don't know what you mean. For all I can te...N,<br /><br />Don't know what you mean. For all I can tell there are none of the troublesome operators in this model. Note that it's not a grand unification.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12811214309153152072016-11-16T11:38:29.791-05:002016-11-16T11:38:29.791-05:00How about proton decay?How about proton decay?Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17277418652411278565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16835416075832671382016-11-16T10:38:41.142-05:002016-11-16T10:38:41.142-05:00I'm confused. All the ideas "proposed&quo...I'm confused. All the ideas "proposed" in this paper are just Standard Model (plus axions). Right-handed fermions? SM. Inflaton is an existing field? SM. Strong-CP problem solved by axions? Not the SM but certainly a standard solution.<br /><br />Is the objection that the adjustable parameters won't actually work out to solve the problems it purports to solve?Xerxeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15920917340206828023noreply@blogger.com