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

I've said it all before but here we go again

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 196 posts

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#151

Post by bowsamic »

iopq wrote: post #150
bowsamic wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politicians generally have almost no influence in scientific spending other than "here is a big block of R&D money". Those who dish out the money are not elected officials, at least not elected by the public.

Yet, politicians like Rand Paul constantly complain about publicly about specific studies that sound like a waste of the public's money https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1474101150874050561 > Pigeons playing slot machines (NIH) $465,339 even if he's not in charge of it, he still comments on the studies he thinks are a waste of the public's money

But that is just political posturing for the media and his fans. He doesn't actual influence the decisions, and even if he ends up doing so, he's not influencing decisions about large scale physics experiments

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#152

Post by User23 »

bowsamic wrote: post #148
User23 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s certainly true that the decades long continuing wealth transfer away from the middle class to well-connected elites that incidentally funds your work involves more than just elected politicians. As you note unelected bureaucrats also have their role to play, as do lawyers, lobbyists, and a whole host of other classes of more or less directly involved grifters in addition to ancillary beneficiaries such as yourse…

I don't think the public expect that their completely uneducated opinion on physics is in any way relevant to funding. Do you seriously think this will come as a shock to anyone?

Perhaps this lack of observational ability is a factor in your drought of new theoretical discoveries? It’s indisputable that the public believes that its completely uneducated opinion on any number of things is relevant to funding in particular and policy in general. That’s rather the point of democracy.

It’s not even a terrible system. I don’t have to be an expert on automobiles to rationally believe that we should spend less money on automobile infrastructure and more money on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Similarly nobody has to be an expert on particle physics to believe that money could better be spent elsewhere. When I clicked this story I was generally in favor of funding this research, but to a quite small extent the submission and to a considerably greater extent your clarification of the attitude of practitioners has gone a long way toward convincing me that it is in fact a complete waste of money.

Granted, we both agree that government spending is almost entirely undemocratic. And as I said, I appreciate your dispensing with that pretense.

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#153

Post by beezle »

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #111
ajdegol wrote: post #73

That started off like it was going to have useful suggestions, but then devolved into "me against particle physicists", and became a bit of a self-promotion-cum-pre-defence. I'd like to hear more about these suggestions.

You’ll never see a Sabine post with equations in it. Make of that what you will.

That is because her audience is not expected to be physics or math grads and is best viewed as interested laypeople who may have some very basic background in math/science.

Contrast to a blog like Tomasso's which is targeted at those in/near HEP those who have a reasonably advanced physics/math background at the BS level.

https://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#154

Post by bowsamic »

User23 wrote: post #152
bowsamic wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the public expect that their completely uneducated opinion on physics is in any way relevant to funding. Do you seriously think this will come as a shock to anyone?

Perhaps this lack of observational ability is a factor in your drought of new theoretical discoveries? It’s indisputable that the public believes that its completely uneducated opinion on any number of things is relevant to funding in particular and policy in general. That’s rather the point of democracy. It’s not even a terrible system. I don’t have to be an expert on automobiles to rationally believe that we should…

There isn't a drought of new theoretical discoveries, quantum mechanics is progressing at a more rapid pace than ever. Just because one section of theoretical particle physics is having some problem doesn't mean that theoretical physics in general is. Look at the rapid developments in entanglement, quantum correlations, macroscopic quantum systems, and quantum measurement. This is why the public can't be trusted when discussing physics in any sense, because the uneducated layman like yourself has almost zero idea about what is going on inside physics today

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#155

Post by beezle »

Animats wrote: post #35

Well, high energy physics does seem to be kind of stuck. The cosmology and big collider crowd don't seem to get much in the way of new results for the amount of effort expended. How are the string theorists doing? The interesting experimental results in recent years mostly seem to come from very low energy physics. Down around absolute zero, many interesting effects have been demonstrated.

I would argue there are also advances at the various light sources as well has facilities like CBAF/RHIC

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#156

Post by User23 »

bowsamic wrote: post #154
User23 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this lack of observational ability is a factor in your drought of new theoretical discoveries? It’s indisputable that the public believes that its completely uneducated opinion on any number of things is relevant to funding in particular and policy in general. That’s rather the point of democracy. It’s not even a terrible system. I don’t have to be an expert on automobiles to rationally believe that we should…

There isn't a drought of new theoretical discoveries, quantum mechanics is progressing at a more rapid pace than ever. Just because one section of theoretical particle physics is having some problem doesn't mean that theoretical physics in general is. Look at the rapid developments in entanglement, quantum correlations, macroscopic quantum systems, and quantum measurement. This is why the public can't be trusted when…

Is this a general principle that you cleave to? Would you also say that the uneducated layman can’t be trusted when discussing the Ukraine conflict as well? Perhaps I should only trust Russians on the subject of Russia, since they’re clearly the experts. Or is your position limited to areas adjacent to your paycheck?

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#157

Post by beezle »

vihren wrote: post #138

Particle physicist here (relatively new to the field). I mostly do not understand the problem of Dr. Hossenfelder and others like her. One thing I often see and it seems reiterated here is 'Why do we need more and bigger expensive colliders?'. In general, in the particle physics community right now there isn't much of a push for 'bigger colliders'. Scientists seem to have agreed that the low-energy precision physics…

And yet plans do continue for FCC as well as ILC/NLC, though of the two the latter seem to be the better "investment".

As to SUSY, while it is good if young post docs are avoiding it, that does not mean it has gone away (not if PRD table of contents is any indicator). It will take a long time for that paper mill to end, likely with the retirement/death of current researchers or sooner if funding agencies finally come to their senses.

I don't think she is suggesting there should be no efforts in some of the other areas you have mentioned, just that there needs to be a reassessment of how much effort and money should continued to be funneled in those directions.

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#159

Post by lamontcg »

Discussion about this on Woit's blog ("Not Even Wrong"), including a response from Hossenfelder:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13070

I've never really followed Sabine Hossenfelder but I think I prefer Peter Woit's skeptical takes over hers. It is kind of weird how they both agree more than disagree about the current state of high energy physics, but she seems to see the need to attack him over the details (and where I think Woit gets it more right than she does).

Re: I've said it all before but here we go again

#160

Post by bowsamic »

User23 wrote: post #156
bowsamic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a drought of new theoretical discoveries, quantum mechanics is progressing at a more rapid pace than ever. Just because one section of theoretical particle physics is having some problem doesn't mean that theoretical physics in general is. Look at the rapid developments in entanglement, quantum correlations, macroscopic quantum systems, and quantum measurement. This is why the public can't be trusted when…

Is this a general principle that you cleave to? Would you also say that the uneducated layman can’t be trusted when discussing the Ukraine conflict as well? Perhaps I should only trust Russians on the subject of Russia, since they’re clearly the experts. Or is your position limited to areas adjacent to your paycheck?

I only think it's the case in terms of medicine or science, especially disciplines that are so granular that even someone from one subfield can't fully understand a paper in the next. Most areas of physics are so specialised that they take at least a decade or two to become competent in. I don't think politics or war are as specialised. Also, those things are within the realms of daily experience, while most physics is not. You already demonstrated your ignorance on the current state of physics by asserting that theoretical physics has a drought.

I think you are just being contrarian really. You know well why a lay person's opinion on politics is more relevant than a lay person's opinion on physics.

Post reply on HN