John Baez wrote a Mastodon thread on this paper here:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114618637031193532
He references a posted comment by Shan Gao[^1] and writes that the problem still seems open, even if this is some good work.
Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
11–20 of 106 posts
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#12[flagged]
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI.
(Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#13[flagged]
Prof. Sabine Hossenfelder is a pretty clear-headed communicator. I've been following her for nearly 20 years, almost since she started writing the Backreaction blog.
Her criticisms boil down to:
1. Modern science spends perhaps too much time on frivolous research that doesn't lead to anything. This very much applies to the theoretical physics and the endless series of attempts at ToE. But it's not limited to theoretical physics.
2. Modern scientific communication is often misleading and exaggerated.
3. The internal workings of scientific institutions are broken.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#14[flagged]
Interesting, her videos have never struck me as contrarian for the sake of it, she seems genuinely frustrated at a lack of substantial progress in physics and the plethora of garbage papers. Though I imagine it must be annoying to be a physicist and have someone constantly telling you you're not good enough, but that itself is kind of part of the scientific process too.
The issue is that many of her videos argue that funding for particle physics should instead go into foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically research completely identical to what she works on.
This is not helped by the fact that she pushes an interpretation of quantum mechanics viewed as fringe at best. Her takes on modern physics seem typically disingenuous or biased.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#15Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI. (Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, her videos have never struck me as contrarian for the sake of it, she seems genuinely frustrated at a lack of substantial progress in physics and the plethora of garbage papers. Though I imagine it must be annoying to be a physicist and have someone constantly telling you you're not good enough, but that itself is kind of part of the scientific process too.
The issue is that many of her videos argue that funding for particle physics should instead go into foundations and interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically research completely identical to what she works on. This is not helped by the fact that she pushes an interpretation of quantum mechanics viewed as fringe at best. Her takes on modern physics seem typically disingenuous or biased.
Could she be correct in her assertion? Are we spending more on areas of physics which don’t require it?
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#18So where and how does a jump from nice symmetric reversible equations to turbulent irreversibility happen?
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not enough em-dashes for it to be AI. (Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
[flagged]
But you cannot prove it. So what value did your comment bring? The readership of this site should always question if a comment is in good faith, legitimate, and accurate.
Your commentary may only be one of those.
Re: Hilbert's sixth problem: derivation of fluid equations via Boltzmann's theory
#20This is the larger part of the work: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.07818
may you please elaborate on why it is important, why hasn't been solved before and what new applications may you imagine with it, please?
The short answers:
1. It answers how macroscopic equations of e.g., fluid dynamics are compatible with Newton's law, when they single out an arrow of time while Newton's laws do not.
2. It was solved in the 1800s if you made an unjustified technical assumption called molecular chaos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_chaos). This work is about whether you can rigorously prove that molecular chaos actually does happen.
3. There are no applications outside of potentially other pure math research. For a physics/engineering perspective the whole theory was fine by assuming molecular chaos.