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

Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 245 posts

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#61

Post by phkahler »

btilly wrote: post #39
ricksunny wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is beautifully articulated. And reinforces my general below-the-line (layperson) fear about the state of physics today (as reinforced ofc by the likes of Sabine Hossenfelder & Eric Weinstein).

Thank you for the compliment. I've been working on how to formulate that idea clearly for a while. It is a problem that goes well beyond physics. For example I believe that the same cognitive error is behind the fact that experts do significantly worse than chance in actually predicting the world, and the more certain the expert sounds, the less likely they are to be right. See https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political…

>> I've been working on how to formulate that idea clearly for a while. It is a problem that goes well beyond physics.

It's a really fundamental thing in psychology. The solution is something like the destruction of the ego, and many people who push hard enough to be a PhD tend toward larger ego to start with. Meditation and practicing martial arts can help. Apparently psychedelics can as well.

It's a real pain because if you try to tell someone their ego is preventing them from seeing things clearly... Well that's going to trigger the same problem. So yes, it's good to find ways to articulate the message so it can get through to those that suffer from it the most.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#63

Post by btilly »

m101 wrote: post #34

I've said this before in not the same words, and I am always downvoted here on hackernews: people need to understand theory of knowledge before they understand science. Physics and physicists are the worst offenders.

This strongly depends on what you mean by "theory of knowledge".

If you mean the practical importance of self-honesty, and a historical awareness of how easily we slip into self-delusion, then I agree. See, for instance, https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm for a very famous speech on exactly this topic. A lot of Feynman's writing touches on the same issue.

If you mean the musings of philosophers on epistemology, then I emphatically disagree. The philosophers in question generally have failed to demonstrate that they understand science. And when they venture into science, they generally fail to live up to the ideals that they proclaim that scientists should follow. As an example I direct you to the sight of Karl Popper arguing to the end of his days that quantum mechanics cannot be a correct scientific theory. An opinion that began because a probabilistic theory cannot in principle be falsified.

In fact QM is a scientific theory, and it stands as an example falsifying Popper's criterion for science!

I find it very ironic that Feynman is so disliked by philosophers for having been honest about how irrelevant they are to science. And philosophers in turn have failed to recognize Feynman's explanations of how to do science as a key topic that should be included in any proper philosophy of science.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#64

Post by phkahler »

btilly wrote: post #46
ants_everywhere wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (And, historically, you only need less than a dozen.) This seems initially like a pretty outlandish claim to me. Could you clarify what you're referring to here?

I'm not the one you're replying to, but the claim seems very reasonable to me. Fundamental breakthroughs in how to think about scientific subjects usually are created by fairly small groups of people. A lot more people are involved in popularizing it, and then filling out the details. But it is rare for it to start with a large number of people. For example that list in the case of quantum mechanics was Max Planck, A…

>> For example that list in the case of quantum mechanics was Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, and Erwin Schrödinger.

Those were not the only people working in that field at the time. Not by a long shot. In order to have pioneers in a field, there has to BE a field with a bunch of people in it.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#65

Post by lazide »

farts_mckensy wrote: post #14
lazide wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There is no evidence to suggest that string theorists designed the theory to be untestable.

After this much time and that much work, how is it possible for a physics theory to not have a single testable/falsifiable prediction without it being intentional? It has been over 80 years. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory].

The evidence is in the absence.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#66

Post by seanhunter »

drdeca wrote: post #42
mhh__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non string theorist my understanding was that string theory actually makes quite a lot of empirically verifiable statements, just that those statements are only interesting at either never or extremely high energies. I think ppl are asuming that sting theory comes from the meme about turning 1+1 = 2 into some massive integro differential equation. The world is rarely so simple.

I’ve heard that it also predicts at very low precision, some values that are practically measurable, and, unsurprisingly for how little precision these predictions have, these predictions are correct (I.e. the experimental results are within the predicted range). (Or, maybe “a prediction” rather than “predictions”? I only heard about one, and I forget what it was.)

I think the prediction you may be referring to is supersymmetry, which was apparently empirically disproved by the LHC, or at least the supersymmetric extension to the standard model was disproved.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/supersymmetrys-absence-l...

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#67

Post by btilly »

phkahler wrote: post #61
btilly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the compliment. I've been working on how to formulate that idea clearly for a while. It is a problem that goes well beyond physics. For example I believe that the same cognitive error is behind the fact that experts do significantly worse than chance in actually predicting the world, and the more certain the expert sounds, the less likely they are to be right. See https://www.amazon.com/Expert-Political…

>> I've been working on how to formulate that idea clearly for a while. It is a problem that goes well beyond physics. It's a really fundamental thing in psychology. The solution is something like the destruction of the ego, and many people who push hard enough to be a PhD tend toward larger ego to start with. Meditation and practicing martial arts can help. Apparently psychedelics can as well. It's a real pain becau…

The problem is that we need an ego to be healthy. Attempts to destroy it can wind up compromising your mental health.

The first part of the solution is to be careful what's in your ego. See https://paulgraham.com/identity.html on this topic. See https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-ten-commandments-of-egoles... for how careful choices in what we value in ourselves, can lead to thinking better.

This of course still leaves us with an identity. For that I've found that gratitude can help us deal with pain. And so targeted gratitude can help us avoid cognitive dissonance when we otherwise would be overrun by it.

Sadly, neither skill is widely taught in our society.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#68

Post by seanhunter »

lazide wrote: post #65
farts_mckensy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence to suggest that string theorists designed the theory to be untestable.

After this much time and that much work, how is it possible for a physics theory to not have a single testable/falsifiable prediction without it being intentional? It has been over 80 years . [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_string_theory ]. The evidence is in the absence.

It predicted supersymmetry, which has been experimentally disproved.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#69

Post by j_crick »

dang wrote: post #88

If you want to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41811140 or say something Sabine-adjacent, please do it here. (This is so https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41808143 doesn't get too offtopic)

When I read the submission title here I immediately wondered if it was Sabine again and, well, there she was.

Re: Fundamental physics is dying? [video]

#70

Post by hyperbrainer »

m101 wrote: post #34

I've said this before in not the same words, and I am always downvoted here on hackernews: people need to understand theory of knowledge before they understand science. Physics and physicists are the worst offenders.

Amusingly, the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programma - an A-Levels like uni-prep course - has a subject called TOK: Theory of Knowledge with these intentions.
Post reply on HN