tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3581331826933744768..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Dear Dr B: What do you actually live from?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60769222580525448902018-12-02T09:01:21.750-05:002018-12-02T09:01:21.750-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.JeanTatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08737430572613792118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76459474191882279402018-10-28T06:58:43.654-04:002018-10-28T06:58:43.654-04:00Dear Sabine,
You should really check out my books...Dear Sabine,<br /><br />You should really check out my books.<br />What do you have to lose?<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Greg Feild <br /><br />Good luck!Greg Feildhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11893021846714172269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8404854598994197382018-10-22T21:49:01.969-04:002018-10-22T21:49:01.969-04:00I come here for the great debates of the age, and ...I come here for the great debates of the age, and I am rarely disappointed.<br /><br />My first exposure to the idea of multiple universes was in a lecture on Kripke's doxastic and epistemic logic formulated in the 1950s and 1960s. Kripke casually suggested, based on the model, that one could thing of it as navigating multiple universes. According to the lecturer, a few years later Kripke Kaleberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283840743310507878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75045015721125662532018-10-21T12:25:11.675-04:002018-10-21T12:25:11.675-04:00OpaManfred,
My criticism about biases is general,...OpaManfred,<br /><br />My criticism about biases is general, applies to all of science. Beauty is a specific bias that is relevant mostly in the foundations of physics. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55610387748878654062018-10-21T05:26:09.984-04:002018-10-21T05:26:09.984-04:00@Don
The foundations of QM have been studied from ...@Don<br />The foundations of QM have been studied from A to Z (from Aspect to Zeilinger...). I don't know why you think otherwise. Not a single deviation has ever been observed from the standard QM predictions, and the possible loopholes (which would allow for local hidden variables) are very unlikely indeed. There is a good book by Nicolas Gisin ("Quantum Chance") on this topic. TheLambLiesDownOnBroadwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07148586222290109507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92162982839173195392018-10-21T01:15:06.717-04:002018-10-21T01:15:06.717-04:00Don,
As this blogpost tells you I have done reaso...Don,<br /><br />As this blogpost tells you I have done reasonably well in the system, at least so far. It is not my own situation that I am worried about. What worries me is that I know how the game works and that I can see what it leads to. It leads to a lot of wasted money. <br /><br />I have in fact in my book not written about what what I work on - as I said in my blogpost - to avoid the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25774061642925437882018-10-20T18:17:35.878-04:002018-10-20T18:17:35.878-04:00I tell you what. I'll stop stating opinion as...I tell you what. I'll stop stating opinion as fact when you do. <br /><br />Mind you, it is common for smart people with strong opinions to do that. It's an occupational hazard for both of us.<br /><br />It is true that I've done respectably in the existing system. Maybe you haven't. I don't know. But it's easy for someone to say that they have not done well under theDon Lincolnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09766988402389295390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67400293389330404522018-10-20T13:33:06.131-04:002018-10-20T13:33:06.131-04:00"How come biases are so important today, but ..."How come biases are so important today, but did not slow down science in the past?"<br /><br />Personally, I think it did, always has, and always will. Leibniz and Newton clashed over the development of calculus and whether Newton's Law of Gravity (spooky action at a distance according to Leibniz) made sense philosophically. Galileo clashed with a lot of people. Aristotle clashed JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52258488919905431272018-10-20T12:31:25.376-04:002018-10-20T12:31:25.376-04:00opamanfred,
I explain in my book how science is d...opamanfred,<br /><br />I explain in my book how science is different. I even have numbers. How about you read it?<br /><br />I explain things to you in an oversimplified manner because it seems necessary. You make an argument of the sort "but it's always worked before" without factoring in that today isn't yesterday. That's not a good argument. <br /><br />Of course I am Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88650079648414764832018-10-20T12:20:45.011-04:002018-10-20T12:20:45.011-04:00Sabine,
Thank you for the "silly" and th...Sabine,<br />Thank you for the "silly" and the womansplaining*.<br />Society has changed many times since science was invented. Newton's times were very different from Einstein's, and Einstein's from Feynman's. What is so special about our today? <br />Second, which you did not address in your response, what about your own biases? <br />For instance, we all think that weTheLambLiesDownOnBroadwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07148586222290109507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64949569030627782442018-10-20T11:37:55.199-04:002018-10-20T11:37:55.199-04:00Opamanfred,
In my book I have a section that is e...Opamanfred,<br /><br />In my book I have a section that is especially dedicated to the claim "but it has always worked before" and I also debunk this - rather silly - argument in all of my talks. Science today is not what it was a century ago. It's just not. Society has changed, science has not adapted. Look at the facts. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49965408105694484402018-10-20T04:10:19.847-04:002018-10-20T04:10:19.847-04:00@ Sabine, @Don
The problem with psychological bias...@ Sabine, @Don<br />The problem with psychological biases, is that we all have them and always did, including those who (like you) like to denounce other people's biases. Incidentally, science has worked very well in the past even though past scientists were arguably even more culturally biased than we are today. How do you explain that? How come biases are so important today, but did not TheLambLiesDownOnBroadwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07148586222290109507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32138958060373167862018-10-20T00:33:24.311-04:002018-10-20T00:33:24.311-04:00Don,
If you don't want me to lecture you on s...Don,<br /><br />If you don't want me to lecture you on selection bias, then please stop quoting your own opinion as if it was an objective argument for anything. You say you think I overstate the problems. You did not take into account that you are likely to think so because you are in the sample of those who do well in the current system. Neither, for that matter, did you actually consider Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37524283387855053842018-10-19T18:51:16.320-04:002018-10-19T18:51:16.320-04:00Lost in Math has some interesting passages where p...Lost in Math has some interesting passages where people pursuing non-mainstream but not obviously crazy ideas faced a brick wall of indifference and/or hostility. So it isn't just a matter of positive reinforcement of the popular, but of active discouragement of the unpopular.SRPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14905952909862780492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-59983954955626886782018-10-19T17:20:17.964-04:002018-10-19T17:20:17.964-04:00Off topic ... about that new haircut ... they say ...Off topic ... about that new haircut ... they say everything is time-reversible in physics, right ?? ;-)Denishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397987560490330965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-46681362804694405602018-10-19T11:40:17.907-04:002018-10-19T11:40:17.907-04:00"The majority of researchers who stay in the ...<i>"The majority of researchers who stay in the system are those comfortable with doing what there is money for, which is the same stuff over and over again, stuff that is done by too many people already."</i><br /><br />I'm not sure what "the system" is here. Sure, those who stay are usually comfortable with it (including those who can't get anything better), Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1004936338687505662018-10-19T11:22:16.644-04:002018-10-19T11:22:16.644-04:00@Don
I’m not sure where I’d heard GR wasn’t widel...@Don<br /><br />I’m not sure where I’d heard GR wasn’t widely accepted for several decades after it came out, I’ll take your word I was wrong and it was after Eddington’s observations.<br /><br />I wasn’t blessed with the level of intelligence that most PhD’s in physics have, but I was born with a talent for seeing better than most how things like self-interests, group think, and ego affect our Louis Tagliaferrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698865662162457632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35835371780297578622018-10-19T11:03:42.558-04:002018-10-19T11:03:42.558-04:00I haven't read your book. I will, as soon as ...I haven't read your book. I will, as soon as I can. Perhaps I will understand your criticisms better than I do from sporadically reading your blog.<br /><br />I don't know you funding situation, so I won't comment on it. I got lucky and got a permanent position. It didn't have to go that way. Had it not, I would have picked a different path. As it happens, the job I got isn&Don Lincolnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09766988402389295390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81066818073210307762018-10-19T10:22:20.117-04:002018-10-19T10:22:20.117-04:00Don,
I can't do the science I want to do simp...Don,<br /><br />I can't do the science I want to do simply because I don't have the money. I know a lot of people who, once they realized this is how academia works, left. That I'm still here is somewhat of a miracle. The majority of researchers who stay in the system are those comfortable with doing what there is money for, which is the same stuff over and over again, stuff that is Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79387276683580111752018-10-19T10:00:55.980-04:002018-10-19T10:00:55.980-04:00@Louis Tagliaferro
GR was accepted in 1919, a mer...@Louis Tagliaferro<br /><br />GR was accepted in 1919, a mere four years after its proposal. The Eddington observation on 1919 is what rocketed Einstein to a household name.<br /><br />Regarding your advice to do research based on an assessed probability of it working, well good luck with that. If that were possible, we'd have done it a long time ago.<br /><br />I agree with some of Sabine&Don Lincolnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09766988402389295390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-47737170764233610332018-10-18T23:06:21.259-04:002018-10-18T23:06:21.259-04:00Mr. Goopta, I am sorry for your loss, and can'...Mr. Goopta, I am sorry for your loss, and can't help you much with prospects or your studies, but I can ramble with the worst of them.<br /><br />Dr. Hossenfelder will probably reply for herself but I don't think there is harm in studying whatever aspects of science interest you, nor will Dr. Hossenfelder, I think, but her argument is that there is not much point in funding further JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-28795284066841105822018-10-18T18:10:44.486-04:002018-10-18T18:10:44.486-04:00Sabine, it may be that in this Universe, your tale...Sabine, it may be that in this Universe, your talents and knowledge are, and will be, less than fully appreciated. So my suggestion is that you get yourself over to one of them multiverse universes where that is not the case. <br /><br />Me? I would like to hop over to a universe where physicists were smart enough to never come up with multiverse theories in the first place. There must be at Anthony Verbalishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060520707969857204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58272596058545419802018-10-18T16:08:21.167-04:002018-10-18T16:08:21.167-04:00@Rolf,
There are connections between solid states...@Rolf,<br /><br />There are connections between solid states physics and quantum field theory. Largely this is because the crystal lattice is a discrete group model of QFT. The vacuum in solid state physics is the ground state for phonons. It also turns out the physics of HiTCs is remarkably similar to AdS_2/CFT_1. Lawrence Crowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12090839464038445335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26885651456197455452018-10-18T15:20:04.158-04:002018-10-18T15:20:04.158-04:00@Don Lincoln
Don Lincoln said…
“And a lot of the...<br />@Don Lincoln<br /><br />Don Lincoln said…<br /><br />“And a lot of the ad hoc ideas that people have come up for BSM aren't beautiful at all. But they're ideas at least. There is no reason to rule out ideas, so it makes sense to look for them.”<br /><br />What instantly comes to mind when I read that comment is, it is sensible but not efficient. Physics is likely to advance more Louis Tagliaferrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698865662162457632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55038515516343094652018-10-18T14:06:20.344-04:002018-10-18T14:06:20.344-04:00"Mostly deans and tenured professors of prest...<i>"Mostly deans and tenured professors of prestigious universities. Martin Rees is definitely an authority."</i><br /><br />And Lee Smolin is a homeless tramp? According to Wikipedia, he is "a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo and a member of the graduate faculty of the philosophy Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.com