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

Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#251

Post by Dylan16807 »

robonerd wrote: post #210
pa7x1 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She abuses an information asymmetry and social conventions. Scientific discourse is usually conducted in academic papers, for better or worse this is how the community conducts itself. When she criticizes others work or the usefulness of the fields outside this channel she is addressing as a singular voice the general public. Which gives her voice an outsized presence with a public that is not prepared to engage on e…

If she earnestly believes that particle physicists are lying to the public to get funding, then there's nothing malicious about going to the public and saying this. It makes her essentially a whistleblower, and there's nothing malicious about that. Even if she happens to be wrong, that still isn't malicious intent. If she's lying , then that's different. But I haven't seen any convincing evidence that she's lying. It…

Whistleblowing (real or false) is a type of undermining.

It's also a step beyond casting shade.

You're too focused on whether there is "malicious intent" to see that your description fits just fine with the initial words you were objecting to.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#252

Post by throwawaylinux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #248
throwawaylinux wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the Iraq War?

Is not a science project. If you're trying to make a weird point you need to be more direct, and if you're trying to make a political point you're just wasting everyone's time.

Original post didn't specify science project, just project.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#253

Post by macmuras »

Maursault wrote: post #207
fhars wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there was basically no empirical input into the development of special relativity either, Michelson-Morley was already perfectly explained by Lorentz contraction caused by movement of matter through the ether. What special relativity did was solve the purely theoretical contradictions between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics (hence the title of Einstein's paper "On the electrodynamics of moving b…

> No, there was basically no empirical input into the development of special relativity either There is a myth of Einstein that just isn't credible, which is that Einstein, while working as a patent clerk just came up with Special Relativity out of the blue without anyone's input, without the benefit of history. But Special Relativity was in the air. Henri Poincare was already writing about relativity, and so were ot…

This has been on my mind for a while now.

Heroes, such as Einstein, are good in that they motivate certain people, me included, to go into natural sciences, but once you start grasping more of historical context of scientific breakthroughs you begin to wonder why some scientists were elevated to that rank in general public's mind.

I would say that this is some kind of PR type selection. It's natural that general public is aware of science communicators (amongs other things) like Carl Sagan, Jacob Bronowski or Neil deGrasse Tyson, but it is interesting that they wouldn't know as much about Lorenz, Poincare or Riemann, even though they have played significant roles in Special and General Relativity developments.

There seems to be a preference for scientists that deal with more concrete problems, easier to understand in a very generic way (Cosmology seems to be a good pick).

Also particular personal struggle like in Hawking's case or personality (Feynman comes to mind).

So it is easier to talk about black holes and expanding universe (Hawking, Einstein) than abstract mathematics with none/loose/difficult to grasp connection to reality (Poincare, Riemann). Outside CS it might even be rare for people to know about Von Neumann.

I wonder from current generation of scientists who will be remembered and what would be a reason behind it.

There seems to be a requirement for some form of mystic atmosphere around a person in order to be talked about.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#254

Post by Dylan16807 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #252
Dylan16807 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not a science project. If you're trying to make a weird point you need to be more direct, and if you're trying to make a political point you're just wasting everyone's time.

Original post didn't specify science project, just project.

Even ignoring context it's a huge stretch to call that a 'project'.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#255

Post by killerstorm »

zone411 wrote: post #216
tambourine_man wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sabine went on full rant/iconoclastic/grudge mode IMO recently. It's a shame, as she a good communicator, but I just see myself skipping her content when it pops up. “I left the field because it's a paper production machine that adds no value to society” without substantiation is simply a frustration ridden meme.

Agree. I stopped watching her stuff after her really terrible video about the Simulation Hypothesis, which showed that she didn't even grasp the argument. Since she feels free to opine about things she clearly knows nothing about, I can't know if she's also talking about other topics without any real understanding (Gell-Mann Amnesia).

Her video on many-worlds interpretation was also rather disappointing, the main point being "Well, we can't test it, so it's not science".

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#256

Post by _s_a_m_ »

robonerd wrote: post #45
photochemsyn wrote: post #12

Well this is kind of funny and I mostly agree so TLDR: > "I’m afraid all of this sounds rather negative. Well. There’s a reason I left particle physics. Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress or for progress in any other discipline of science. The only reason we still hear so much about it is that a lot of funding goes into it and so…

> "Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress [...] But the disciplines where the foundations of physics currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics [...]" Can anybody explain the relevance of cosmology and astrophysics to societal progress? I'm sure these are very worthwhile fields of study in other respects.. but societal pr…

It is generally a weird attitude to required "societal progress" from scientists. Neither the term "progress" is clearly defined and does not need to be, nor does science at all work on such principle.

It is like asking artists what the benefit on society is, it does not make sense to ask that question in that context, because it is not about exploiting something for a moment in time for some purpose which is supposedly "progress".

I think Sabine is way overdoing her position for marketing purposes and everyone is biting..

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#257

Post by _s_a_m_ »

nine_k wrote: post #131
robonerd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Particle physics has degenerated into a paper production enterprise that is of virtually no relevance for societal progress [...] But the disciplines where the foundations of physics currently make progress are cosmology and astrophysics [...]" Can anybody explain the relevance of cosmology and astrophysics to societal progress? I'm sure these are very worthwhile fields of study in other respects.. but societal pr…

An easy, direct link, for example: Careful observation of the orbit of Mercury —> Special Relativity —> General Relativity —> GPS satellites able to keep exact time —> the map app on your mobile phone.

Science is about knowledge and not about serving the purpose of some people who define "progress" for some political or economic reasons, .. or because they want attention.

I wished everyone would read "Law, Legislation & Liberty" by Hayek, where he criticizes people who think systems, like economy, work like an organization. That is, that one can through rational planning and arrangement achieve some goal. That is NOT how markets, economy, society etc. works. That is of course an attack on the utilitarian principles.

Only uneducated minds could fall into the trap of thinking in exploitative utilitarian ways about everything, including themselves by self-abusive through productivity obsession. This discussion could not be more US American.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#258

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

efitz wrote: post #220
jfengel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And CERN is literally the reason we're here on th Web right now.

We had gopher and SGML before and independently of CERN. The internet was just starting to take off; dial-up modem BBS emigres were getting shell accounts at early ISPs around that time (I know; I had such an account and worked at such an ISP). Just because TBL happened to work at CERN and have a need for hypermedia, doesn't mean that we wouldn't have the WWW in approximately the same shape in approximately the same…

In an alternative timeline we could have had

[1] http://www.art.net/studios/Hackers/Hopkins/Don/hyperlook/ind...

[2] https://donhopkins.medium.com/hyperlook-nee-hypernews-nee-go... (with screen shots)

[3] https://libarynth.org/hyperlook (larger screenshots)

based on

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS

running atop of whatever, maybe even

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_project

&

[6] http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/homepage.html

instead of the bloat we have now.

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#259

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

photochemsyn wrote: post #21
beezle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of other areas of physics, some even involving the use of colliders, that are in better position and value to make discoveries that either advance our understanding and/or have applied/commercial application. One example is the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven. The money spent nationally and globally on these types of facilities are a fraction of what goes to LHC or, not long ago, th…

Yes, those kind of projects have a lot more uses and deserve more funding and attention. Stanford's Linac Coherent Light Source is another example: > "The Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC takes X-ray snapshots of atoms and molecules at work, revealing fundamental processes in materials, technology and living things."

Moin.

> "The European XFEL is a research facility of superlatives: It generates ultrashort X-ray flashes—27 000 times per second and with a brilliance that is a billion times higher than that of the best conventional X-ray radiation sources."

[bzzt bzzt bzzt] https://www.xfel.eu/facility/overview/index_eng.html

Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?

#260

Post by mhh__ »

paulpauper wrote: post #226
mhh__ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Sabine is has the bona fides to know her stuff but also a contrarian and a bit of an outcast, and she knows how to market herself. All of this combined is perfect for hackernews.

and she knows how to market herself. It's more like everyone is doing the marketing for her The field of physics has gotten bigger overall, including experimental physics. It's not like physics is 100% theoretical , untestable stuff.

Maybe, but she absolutely plays the to the HN-style "know enough to be sceptical but maybe not enough to make their own conclusions" crowd deliberately. She's toned it down a little bit but I recall her being a bit more egregious a while ago but I might be misremembering because I don't read her blog regularly.
Post reply on HN