Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years • Hacker News Board

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#41

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:18 PM UTC

frostburg wrote: post #27

wallace_f wrote: post #25

Physics has made a lot of progress in social justice and representation and these kinds of comments putting down "her point of view" is the type of toxic masculinity that will send us back 100 years.

That statement would read as arrogance from anyone.

It isn't a throwaway comment, it is reference to writing and work she has been doing for quite a while. It does come across as fairly arrogant without the context of all her other writing and work. With that context it comes across to me as more of an expression of frustration.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#42

Post by jml78 » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

nablaoperator wrote: post #28

andrewl wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She says: "And please spare me the complaints that I supposedly do not have anything better to suggest, because that is a false accusation. I have said many times that looking at the history of physics teaches us that resolving inconsistencies has been a reliable path to breakthroughs, so that’s what we should focus on . I may be on the wrong track with this, of course. But for all I can tell at this moment in histor…

But isn't that exactly what was done, e.g. in supersymmetry? The Standard Model could not explain dark matter etc., so physicists tried to come up with a new theory potentially explaining it. Yes it's based on math, on beautiful math, but isn't it always the case in physics? How did Newton create his laws? By using math. How did Einstein create his theories? By using math. It's math, math, math. So create your math t…

Quantum mechanics is an example. We know how to use QM. It is an amazing theory. But physicists aren't probing QM anymore. Well most aren't. It does such a good job spitting out answers, we don't ask why. There is a lot to be explored there but academia tells people to avoid it. They say don't look at the man behind the curtain. QM is equations that gives good answers but we don't really know why.

Something Deeply Hidden is a good book on the subject(as a non physicist).

Of course I am just a layman who likes to read books about these subjects but I honestly don't know shit. Just what I read.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#43

Post by Pigo » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #25

Physics has made a lot of progress in social justice and representation and these kinds of comments putting down "her point of view" is the type of toxic masculinity that will send us back 100 years.

Just out of curiosity, how was op supposed to phrase that sentence in order to keep from being toxic? Was it just the pronoun that was offensive, or was it just having any critique at all?

Disagreement and critique is a positive thing if it's done with respect. Handling someone with kid-gloves is demeaning.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#44

Post by rom16384 » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

eitland wrote: post #16

empath75 wrote: post #5

I don’t get it. What does she want people to do?

Look for minor inconsistencies and start from there.

There's no need to look for minor inconsistencies when we have huge ones such as the Cosmological constant problem.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#45

Post by pxhb » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

I think that the article raises some interesting points, with some that I agree with and some that I do not.

I think it would have been helpful for the article to put the 40 years of no progress in perspective. Are we looking for progress on the scale of the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, and so should we be comparing to the timescales between Newton and Einstein/Schrodinger? How should we think about the rate of progression in a ‘mature’ field such as physics? Should it be linear (big discovery every 40 years), faster (new discoveries are faster due to bootstrapping from other discoveries), or slower (diminishing returns)?

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#46

Post by DanielBMarkham » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

hhas01 wrote: post #37

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Good essay. Yes, the sociology and politics of the way we do science is overtaking the reproducible learning aspect. Foundations for many things, like physics, are as solid as necessary for doing a lot of work, but by the time you get to the point where you should be testing, rearranging, and ferreting out flaws in the foundations, you're so indoctrinated into a culture that you don't have the mental tools necessary…

Stagnant? Or just mature , like a fine cheese and wine?

As an outsider, I don't know. There is a presumption that since things have changed over time, they will continue to change. This very well might not be true. I didn't want to get too Kuhnian, so I just used the word "stagnant" for effect.

Once again, as an outsider it doesn't seem to me that they are anywhere near "done", but they sure as heck look like a mature science. Physics and its children have given us amazing things. Spending a lot of time playing with math wasn't one of them. All sciences have one aspect in common: until you get to reproducibility, the conversation in the community tends towards groupthink over time. That's a human characteristic not related to any one field of study.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#47

Post by strangescript » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

I have become a bit more pessimistic about it the state of discovery. Things have slowed despite the current generation having abundant access to overwhelming compute power and the internet, things that did not exist even 30 years ago. There has never been a better time to collaborate or prove out theoretical models, yet there has been a decrease in needle moving discoveries.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#48

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

hhas01 wrote: post #37

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Good essay. Yes, the sociology and politics of the way we do science is overtaking the reproducible learning aspect. Foundations for many things, like physics, are as solid as necessary for doing a lot of work, but by the time you get to the point where you should be testing, rearranging, and ferreting out flaws in the foundations, you're so indoctrinated into a culture that you don't have the mental tools necessary…

Stagnant? Or just mature , like a fine cheese and wine?

Mature implies that no further major improvement is required. That does not seem to be the case with the foundations of physics given some of the fundementally unresolved inconsistencies.

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#49

Post by wolfgke » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:22 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #26

Good essay. Yes, the sociology and politics of the way we do science is overtaking the reproducible learning aspect. Foundations for many things, like physics, are as solid as necessary for doing a lot of work, but by the time you get to the point where you should be testing, rearranging, and ferreting out flaws in the foundations, you're so indoctrinated into a culture that you don't have the mental tools necessary…

> but by the time you get to the point where you should be testing, rearranging, and ferreting out flaws in the foundations, you're so indoctrinated into a culture that you don't have the mental tools necessary to do the required work.

Don't you rather believe that a much simpler explanation is that the incentives and terms for grants are at fault?

Re: Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

#50

Post by Koshkin » Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 2:26 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #33

Koshkin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point was, math is one thing, reality is another.

From an outsider's point of view (i.e. mine) it looks like physics has become too enamored with mathematics, "thinking" that reality can be totally described by mathematics. Which brings us to one of the author's point of views, the fact that physicists (and I guess most scientists) nowadays dismiss things like philosophy of science or epistemology, they just continue head-on on their "quest for knowledge" not realiz…

There's nothing wrong with the way math is used in physics. Consistency is a good thing; whether calculations possess explanatory power is another question.