Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake Physics

math.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Fake Physics

#41

Post by kurthr »

akavel wrote: post #32
sgt101 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be either obvious or dead). I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as well.

Not sure if you're serious or joking (the parenthesis suggests to me serious), but AFAIK it's a well known saying that fusion power is in permanent state of "to be delivered commercially in ~15 years" since '50s or something like that... Edit: ah, yes, and also the slightly more generic mandatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/678/

I think his point was that it's now 15 years away, which is not the 20 years away it was 5 (and 20) years ago. In that sense it is significantly closer. Many of the real challenges may remain monetary as solar becomes cheaper, and funding of fusion has never been particularly high (perhaps $10-15B over 50 years). However, it is ultimately a complementary technology (as are Thorium reactors and others) for scales, places, and times when Solar or Wind aren't appropriate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/fusion-energy-react...

Re: Fake Physics

#42

Post by Balgair »

Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

Well, do what all the 'cool kids' are doing in physics: comp-sci, neuroscience, and finance. Seriously though, the 'heroic' physicists out there are moving to other fields and are doing very well. They are smart people, and they can see that most of physics is stuck in a rut until a massive increase in funding comes along or some kid gets really lucky with the math. Neuro and the bio fields are getting shook up with the incoming physicists around, the nanoscope revolution has been kicking for about a decade. Finance has had quants for a while, but a pipeline to Wall Street is starting to emerge in force recently. Comp-sci has always been inundated with physics undergrads and PhDs, and we see the result in Silicon Valley's wealth.

Re: Fake Physics

#43

Post by Animats »

kurthr wrote: post #41
akavel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're serious or joking (the parenthesis suggests to me serious), but AFAIK it's a well known saying that fusion power is in permanent state of "to be delivered commercially in ~15 years" since '50s or something like that... Edit: ah, yes, and also the slightly more generic mandatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/678/

I think his point was that it's now 15 years away, which is not the 20 years away it was 5 (and 20) years ago. In that sense it is significantly closer. Many of the real challenges may remain monetary as solar becomes cheaper, and funding of fusion has never been particularly high (perhaps $10-15B over 50 years). However, it is ultimately a complementary technology (as are Thorium reactors and others) for scales, pla…

The real surprise here might come from Lockheed-Martin's fusion project.[1] They're pursuing an unusual approach to magnetic containment. It's not a tokomak, and it's not a stellarator.

Many people have treated this as a hoax, or a joke. But the work is being done by Lockheed-Martin's Skunk Works, which has quite a track record. (The U-2, the SR-71, and stealth aircraft came out of there. ) Lockheed-Martin is doing this with their own money, and last year, when asked about it, the CEO said it was doing well enough they were putting more money in.

[1] http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/compact-fusion.htm...

Re: Fake Physics

#44

Post by theparanoid »

bvv wrote: post #26

As usual I think that Woit's blog post is unnecessarily polarizing. If you decide to read his post then I would recommend you also read the excellent comment by Marty Tysanner on the same page. Also, sigh. If you dig deep into the dark corners of the internets then I am sure that you can find fake anything. Focus on the beauty and the truth, people. For example: [1] LIGO continues to work beautifully, as evidenced by…

I recommend Feynmans's http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Re: Fake Physics

#45

Post by indolering »

I'm surprised he didn't mention pilot wave theory. Cranks love it because it doesn't violate the notion of local realism and it has infected respected popular-science publications. But any "interpretation" of quantum mechanics that leads to violations of causality should be treated as illegitimate until proven otherwise.

Re: Fake Physics

#46

Post by paulddraper »

sgt101 wrote: post #9
Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

I think that the fusion guys think that they have made fusion work and are going to deliver it commercially in ~15 years (in ~5 years this claim will be either obvious or dead). I think that the quantum computer guys think that they are about to deliver as well.

> deliver it commercially in ~15 years

According to the researcher translation table, fusion is still a long ways off. https://xkcd.com/678/

Re: Fake Physics

#47

Post by paulddraper »

briantakita wrote: post #20
haberman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I propose (for the sake of argument) the following model: any message posted on an electronic message board that casts aspersions on "The Establishment" was actually written by an AI running on a computer in Siberia. Let's suppose that many people find this model useful, because it allows them to dismiss such posts without having to critically engage them. They downvote/flag all such messages, and they feel go…

It depends ;-) Useful to what systems & what aims? What's important to an Entity to engage what systems?

AI needs tuning. Doesn't seem to be reading the posts it's relying to. ("useful, because it allows them to dismiss such posts")

Re: Fake Physics

#48

Post by slavik81 »

haberman wrote: post #18
briantakita wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better indicator of quality of a model is to ask, "is this model useful?". At the end of the day, models are representations of another system. Like tools, some are more useful than others.

Ok, so I propose (for the sake of argument) the following model: any message posted on an electronic message board that casts aspersions on "The Establishment" was actually written by an AI running on a computer in Siberia. Let's suppose that many people find this model useful, because it allows them to dismiss such posts without having to critically engage them. They downvote/flag all such messages, and they feel go…

Useful in that context is typically used to refer to being able to make accurate predictions about the future.

Re: Fake Physics

#49

Post by tbabb »

Interesting; I didn't know that Nautilus was backed by a religious organization, but in retrospect I am not surprised at all.

They get a lot more credit and traction here than they deserve. Nautilus is usually full of bull but pretending to be intellectual.

Re: Fake Physics

#50

Post by scottlocklin »

reikonomusha wrote: post #8
Animats wrote: post #5

This is a frustrating era for physicists. In the mid 20th century they were like gods, giving the world the atomic bomb and the semiconductor. Today many branches of physics are stuck. The cosmologists can't find "dark matter", and aren't even sure it's necessary. The string theorists have pretty but un-testable theories. The fusion guys can't make fusion power work. Quantum mechanics and general relativity still hav…

I think this assessment is magnificently incorrect. Over the past 30 years there have been very important experiments, many of which have reached the mainstream. This includes anything from the Higgs experiments to the LIGO experiments. What about things closer to the HN crowd, like communications infrastructure like the Internet? The discovery of the transistor didn't bring an iPhone overnight. Same with many other…

Higgs and LIGO are big nothingburgers compared to anything that happened in physics in any given year between 1910 and 1950 or so. Meanwhile "physicists" spend their careers doing piffle like writing programs for quantum computers that arguably will never exist in the corporeal world.

Yeah, I coulda been one of those guys: I even had a pretty good idea for an imaginary QC platform and a position in a major research institution. I couldn't live with myself: I got a job in the valley.

Physics and science in general looks stagnant to the larger population because it is actually stagnating. Stating otherwise is mendacity of the highest order.

Post reply on HN