I've said it all before but here we go again • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by bowsamic » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 7:20 PM UTC

User23 wrote: post #168

bowsamic wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Paycheck adjacent it is then. > 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. Evidently we all have our areas of ignorance. It’s silly that y…

The opinions of lay people are not relevant to the funding of physics at all.

Feel free to construct anything else I say into a form that does not contradict that statement, because that's the only one I really care about.

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

#172

Post by floxy » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 7:38 PM UTC

quantum_mcts wrote: post #170

mikewarot wrote: post #158

Sabine seems to be promoting a twist on Newton's flaming laser sword, also known as Alder's razor: What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating. What cannot be disproven by experiment, is not worth funding I'd say she's right.

How would you disprove Big Bang cosmology by an experiment?

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/inflation-status-u...

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

#173

Post by floxy » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

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.

>That started off like it was going to have useful suggestions

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/good-problems-in-f...

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

#174

Post by beezle » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

quantum_mcts wrote: post #169

beezle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be more accurate to say "there has been a place for the industry of mathematical abstractions (strings and such)" since the very late 1960s/early 1970s S-Matrix theory. I think the various funding agencies around the world are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research (theory and experiment) efforts are focused. "Efforts" can be read as man-years and money.

> S-Matrix theory I don't get it. You have something against S-Matrix theory? Why do you call it an "industry"? > funding agencies are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research efforts are focused Current situation in HEP is fine. The whole theoretical physics community decides where research efforts should be focused. No one else can do that even if he wanted to.

A long winded reply -

S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY leading no where beyond some interesting maths (imho). I call it an industry because of the number of people involved and the self-preservation need to keep the funding going.

I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decision. Clearly, there are groups within interest areas that make recommendations to those agencies and nominally propose long term plans. But no dollars, no research - plans or not. Communities also tend towards preserving the status quo rather than cutting losses, splitting up and moving on to new things.

If there was more pushback from the funders we would not have seen so many working in and around string theory and susy for such a very long time with so little to show for it. That is not to say nobody should do such research, just that at some point someone has to say this no longer looks like it warrants the effort of so many, bring some new ideas/areas of research for the majority of you.

In the case of HEP experimentalists, the problem is magnified as the monies involved are very large as are the number of people, many of whom have nothing directly to do with physics (techs, etc). CERN quotes a figure of 17,500 including 2500 of their own staff. All involved have a very vested interest in making sure things do not change meaningfully and that upgrades continue to be made to LHC until funding is secured for another collider.

Otherwise where do they go? The notion that it is not in the best interest of the entire physics community or the wider public tends to fall on deaf ears when your career and paycheck are on the cutting block.

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

#175

Post by mistermann » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #133

qsdf38100 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d appreciate feedback from people downvoting. I don’t care about HN karma, I’m just curious as to why denouncing her unconstructive and angry takes on particule physics is frowned upon.

I downvoted for clairvoyance - one of my pet peeves.

Now, I too would appreciate feedback from people downvoting!

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

#176

Post by quantum_mcts » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:08 PM UTC

floxy wrote: post #172

quantum_mcts wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you disprove Big Bang cosmology by an experiment?

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/inflation-status-u...

I think you are confusing Big Bang Cosmology with theory of cosmic inflation.

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

#177

Post by quantum_mcts » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:15 PM UTC

stdbrouw wrote: post #80

amelius wrote: post #25

> More importantly, everyone can see that nothing useful is coming out of particle physics, it’s just a sink of money. So is most of botany.

That's not what the author means by "useful". If you spend a year describing a particular kind of plant, then you know that much more about it and that's a useful contribution to science if not society. If you keep coming up with zany theories and predictions that do not just turn out to be wrong (that's fine, "I've successfully found 10,000 ways that will not work") but where there's really no reason to even suppose…

I'd suggest you read on scientific outputs of collider experiments. They do perform precision experiments and detailed measurements of particle properties and fundamental parameters of the settled fundamental models. The picture you are painting of "some theorists come up with crazy ideas and then we spend billions on colliders and then nothing" - is completely bogus. And that is very illustrative of the harm that Dr. Hosssenfelder does as a popularizer.

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

#178

Post by quantum_mcts » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:33 PM UTC

beezle wrote: post #174

quantum_mcts wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> S-Matrix theory I don't get it. You have something against S-Matrix theory? Why do you call it an "industry"? > funding agencies are largely to blame for the current situation in HEP and how/where research efforts are focused Current situation in HEP is fine. The whole theoretical physics community decides where research efforts should be focused. No one else can do that even if he wanted to.

A long winded reply - S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY leading no where beyond some interesting maths (imho). I call it an industry because of the number of people involved and the self-preservation need to keep the funding going. I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decisi…

> S-Matrix was the beginning of fifty years of string and SUSY

S-Matrix is a scattering matrix - a basic notion in QFT. S-Matrix theory is an attempt of axiomatization of particle physics with S-Matrix analyticity axioms as a basis. It still makes sense to this day - and still at the brink on unresolved questions in QFT, like QCD vacuum and/or confinement. A popular notion that S-Matrix theory was "replaced" with QCD is bogus (not to mention that bulk of publications by Gell-Mann was on S-Matrix theory). String theory is just a thing that was inspired by S-Matrix theory. And SUSY has almost nothing to do with it.

> I would disagree with the idea that the theoretical community decides where efforts should be focused - who ever is paying the bills ultimately makes that decision.

It is a very naive view of how research works. It is like saying that who ever pays the bills gets to decide what startup is going to succeed.

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

#179

Post by User23 » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:40 PM UTC

bowsamic wrote: post #171

User23 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Paycheck adjacent it is then. > 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. Evidently we all have our areas of ignorance. It’s silly that y…

The opinions of lay people are not relevant to the funding of physics at all. Feel free to construct anything else I say into a form that does not contradict that statement, because that's the only one I really care about.

Completely unprincipled naked self interest. I admire the chutzpah.

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

#180

Post by nealeratzlaff » Wed, Sep 28, 2022, 8:41 PM UTC

bjornsing wrote: post #9

I only have a master in (engineering) physics but working with statistical modeling and AI I’ve come to appreciate the “all models are wrong but some models are useful”-mindset, and I’ve started applying that to physical “laws” as well: I no longer see them as some divine truths waiting to be discovered, but more like models of the world that will always be wrong but sometimes useful. From that point of view what’s h…

I used this quote in the heading of my dissertation on uncertainty in deep learning, and I think its simultaneously true for lots of fields. In ML research we celebrate these enormous models that do everything (GATO, Flamingo, CoCa, etc.) since it feels like we're getting close to something real or universal. I imagine particle physicists feel something similar about expanding the standard model (SUSY(?), quantum gravity),

So in the sense that people get excited about science (see AI lately), I think these models are useful, even if they are pretty mis-specified in the grand scheme of things. I can't speak to Sabine's specific frustrations, but it sounds a little bit like Gary Marcus's concerns about neural networks. In my day-to-day I definitely value a useful model over an exact one.