tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post7941879749159775890..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: What is transformative research and why do we need it?Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61468821862236788422012-08-17T16:42:04.152-04:002012-08-17T16:42:04.152-04:00@Uncle Al,
"Total empirical failure of strin...@Uncle Al,<br /><br />"Total empirical failure of string/M-theory, quantum gravitation; SUSY and all the parity violations and symmetry breakings in the standard model are exactly what they appear to be - fundamental."<br /><br />Have you changed your mind about SUSY? Also, my understanding is that SUSY isn't part of the standard model and hasn't been empirically validated yet. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-21854999368933374792012-08-17T11:28:02.267-04:002012-08-17T11:28:02.267-04:00In spite of my pledge to ignore the barkings of He...In spite of my pledge to ignore the barkings of Helbig, I thought this one last post might be of interest to some readers.<br /><br />1. Scientific discussion implies that one tries sincerely to understand the other's ideas, and there is the implicit understanding that one might learn something new from the other's ideas. It is a cooperative effort, even if there is considerable Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38281581177623751962012-08-17T07:02:42.389-04:002012-08-17T07:02:42.389-04:00"Can you process that? Do you need it explain...<i>"Can you process that? Do you need it explained to you a 4th time? "</i><br /><br />Yes, already have. I think readers of this blog now have enough evidence to make up their own minds whether you hold your own research to the same standards you hold that of others.<br /><br />Since accelerators have probed much smaller scales by now, why has no structure been detected? Or is it Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30307023584925797422012-08-16T10:41:50.268-04:002012-08-16T10:41:50.268-04:00A completely bogus "try".
But of course...<br />A completely bogus "try".<br /><br />But of course, you have an agenda and cannot evaluate things objectively.<br /><br />Here is some enlightenment even you might have trouble misrepresenting.<br /><br />1. If you predict that low-mass "sparticles" will be found when LHC starts up. Then that is falsified, so you say: "Well, they must have higher masses". That Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90861528012039324312012-08-16T09:08:15.831-04:002012-08-16T09:08:15.831-04:00Hi Christine,
I am assuming that personal risk to...Hi Christine,<br /><br />I am assuming that personal risk tolerance is is knoweable data, if not very precise and available in data form. It is then possible to pre-select peers who will make the assessment about a proposal of whether the potential payoff justifies the risk, and that sample will be biased towards being more risk taking. As I wrote, that is not what one ideally should be doing Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63755936667894981842012-08-16T02:59:20.671-04:002012-08-16T02:59:20.671-04:00"I have patiently explained how research afte...<i>"I have patiently explained how research after 1987 has led me to believe that the electron is more accurately modeled in terms of a nearly naked singularity with a sparse halo of subquantum particles extending out to 4 x 10^-17 cm.<br /><br />Also mentioned in the 1987 ApJ paper is the possibility that the electron could be a naked singularity."</i><br /><br />Last try: If you <i>Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91766481831931525042012-08-15T10:52:38.044-04:002012-08-15T10:52:38.044-04:00Good Grief Helbig!
We have been thoroughly throug...Good Grief Helbig!<br /><br />We have been thoroughly through this issue of the electron substructure at least 2 different times. You keep pretending you are totally clueless about this. That is dishonest!<br /><br />I have patiently explained how research after 1987 has led me to believe that the electron is more accurately modeled in terms of a nearly naked singularity with a sparse halo of Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55257775941823771942012-08-15T09:14:33.410-04:002012-08-15T09:14:33.410-04:00Hi Sabine,
Do you mean to use some statistical in...Hi Sabine,<br /><br />Do you mean to use some statistical inference method to pick your selection? If so, what would be the assumptions and dataset? Depending of those you could end up being even more conservative than the usual flow of the system. Or not. I don't see how this could work in a real situation, with concrete examples. I have an admittedly more idealistic view in which the value Christine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74022682008226730382012-08-15T07:53:47.365-04:002012-08-15T07:53:47.365-04:00Hi Christine,
Which is why I said better call it ...Hi Christine,<br /><br />Which is why I said better call it potentially transformative. Right, you can't identify it previously, but you can increase the chances that it's in your sample. Forget about the "transformative" stuff for a moment because that's just misleading. Think of it as high risk, high payoff. Of course you can't predict the future and so you can't Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68989403765331273812012-08-15T07:37:58.341-04:002012-08-15T07:37:58.341-04:00Sabine wrote:
What's new is the attempt to id...Sabine wrote:<br /><br /><i>What's new is the attempt to identify and harness it in an organized way.</i><br /><br />If I read Uncle Al correctly, transformative research can't be a priori "identified" or "organized" due to its own nature. I agree with him.<br /><br />Best,<br />ChristineChristine Cordula Dantashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05271747374185459530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73012063800804417362012-08-15T02:53:23.364-04:002012-08-15T02:53:23.364-04:00"But if you finesse the testable predictions ...<i>"But if you finesse the testable predictions when they fail by adding epicycles, or by adjusting the theory so that it makes new testable predictions that are safely beyond current empirical limits, then that is not science.<br /><br />That is postmodern pseudo-science."</i><br /><br />I couldn't agree more. Here is a paper which makes a definitive prediction. It is called &Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68467132647255642562012-08-15T00:27:35.700-04:002012-08-15T00:27:35.700-04:00Hi Andrei,
Everybody will tell you that their res...Hi Andrei,<br /><br />Everybody will tell you that their research is an important step on the way to solve the great problem X, whatever that is. You evidently don't think this is relevant. But, as I've now told you several times, almost every researcher will disagree with you, after all that's the point of their research. There's nothing "objective" about your opinion. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73410315982030721082012-08-15T00:21:37.707-04:002012-08-15T00:21:37.707-04:00Hi Eric, Robert,
I notice you repeating the same ...Hi Eric, Robert,<br /><br />I notice you repeating the same mistake over and over again. You take some few exceptions and argue that they are the rule. You have totally lost perspective what most of physics is like. Of course there isn't really anything new about the idea of transformative research. It's just a name attached to something that has always existed. What's new is the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67724890553997532232012-08-14T19:17:51.771-04:002012-08-14T19:17:51.771-04:00
But if you finesse the testable predictions when ...<br />But if you finesse the testable predictions when they fail by adding epicycles, or by adjusting the theory so that it makes new testable predictions that are safely beyond current empirical limits, then that is not science.<br /><br />That is postmodern pseudo-science.<br /><br />Like Eric, I see a large amount of hype and arrogance (not to mention unseemly commercialism) - but a dearth of Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80004236607075859772012-08-14T13:21:02.838-04:002012-08-14T13:21:02.838-04:00I think Robert nailed it on this one. This whole i...I think Robert nailed it on this one. This whole idea of transformative research just reeks of the mindset, in which the previous failed ideas Robert mentions, came out of. There is nothing new in the idea of transformative research that we haven't already seen before. They are high sounding words with the whiff of bullshit about them.<br /><br />The problem (as I see it) is that there is a Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72863831037273535802012-08-14T13:00:05.310-04:002012-08-14T13:00:05.310-04:00Transformative experiments require mixing bureaucr...Transformative experiments require mixing bureaucratically orthogonal folks. "Interdisciplinary" is a sound bite. Dump money on a PERT chartless project? That's crazy talk! All it gets you are penicillin, sulfa drugs, Valium, cyclosporin, valproic acid, cis-platin, Super Glue, nylon, polycarbonate, olefin polymerization, polyacetylene... alpha-particles rebounding from gold leafUncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67647826998936446782012-08-14T11:10:21.104-04:002012-08-14T11:10:21.104-04:00What is the lifetime of a particle accelerator? A...What is the lifetime of a particle accelerator? Are all discoveries made only at the beginning of its lifetime, or are some made only after more data is collected?<br /><br />Of course, the idea is to test theories which make testable predictions by looking to see which, if any, predictions are falsified (ruling out the theory) and which are not (strengthening confidence in the theory). This isPhillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29441851531294885532012-08-14T10:31:38.041-04:002012-08-14T10:31:38.041-04:00
Hi Helbig,
How are things in the world of high f...<br />Hi Helbig,<br /><br />How are things in the world of high finance these days?<br /><br />Here is what the LHC has not found.<br /><br />no string/brane exotica,<br />no sparticles,<br />no WIMPs,<br />no supersymmetry exotica,<br />no extra-dimensions,<br />no mini-black holes,<br />no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.),<br />no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,<br />noRobert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-11887001331768725912012-08-14T10:22:44.749-04:002012-08-14T10:22:44.749-04:00No, they don’t solve (true, major, essential) prob...No, they don’t solve (true, major, essential) problems, only artifacts of their models (definitely irrelevant from the outset). Proof: the list of major problems doesn’t shrink, even worse, it quickly grows. End of proof.<br /><br />Everyone should care what everyone else thinks, in a normal state of science (because it’s all about thinking). Scientist, transform thyself.<br /><br />Among other Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63252706769431032082012-08-14T09:08:25.075-04:002012-08-14T09:08:25.075-04:00Hi Andrei,
To repeat what I already said earlier,...Hi Andrei,<br /><br />To repeat what I already said earlier, that there are no "problem-solving results" is your opinion, and it's a subjective opinion. It is an opinion that very few researchers will share. Every paper that is published is a problem-solving result. Apparently people are just solving problems you don't think are relevant. But why should anybody care what you Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85489907678724537842012-08-14T09:00:50.761-04:002012-08-14T09:00:50.761-04:00Bee: “The idea of self-organization seems have pas...Bee: “The idea of self-organization seems have passed you by entirely.”<br /><br />Not at all, I just consider it as a strongly negative, rather than positive factor. Indeed, groups of “governing” priests are very well “self-organised” and continue to dominate science agenda, despite the evident total failure of their concepts, both in theory and experimental verification. But nobody can change Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15940979163301972582012-08-14T06:36:29.195-04:002012-08-14T06:36:29.195-04:00"negative observational results produced so f...<i>"negative observational results produced so far at the LHC"</i><br /><br />What negative observational results do you mean?<br /><br />As Robert Pirsig wrote, the television scientist who sighs "The experiment is a failure; we didn't find what we expected" is suffering mainly from a bad script writer.Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83367490023069704362012-08-14T01:38:11.771-04:002012-08-14T01:38:11.771-04:00Hi Andrei,
The whole point of my post was to expl...Hi Andrei,<br /><br />The whole point of my post was to explain that you don't need an objective criterion. You don't need it for the same reason that you don't need an objective criterion to value a product in an economy. The idea of self-organization seems have passed you by entirely. You also don't seem to know much about the history of science. There are countless examples Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86238608651556315272012-08-13T22:06:14.131-04:002012-08-13T22:06:14.131-04:00Well, I would certainly agree that the responses o...Well, I would certainly agree that the responses of the overwhelming majority of string theory and supersymmetry advocates to the negative observational results produced so far at the LHC have been alarmingly unscientific, if you advocate theories of principle and are bone-tired of endless "model-building".<br /><br />A little bit of m-b is understandable when a field is new and when Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69715349366435618192012-08-13T13:11:42.783-04:002012-08-13T13:11:42.783-04:00If objective criterion doesn't exist including...If objective criterion doesn't exist including experiments that become practically unfeasible or strongly ambiguous, then it's not science any more. Maybe a special kind of fiction literature for a narrow circle of adherents combined with a yet more special kind of religion assuming a "mathematical reality"... (Honestly, is this far from truth, for today's official "Andrei Kirilyukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15407274342959324969noreply@blogger.com