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

The contrarian physics podcast subculture

timothynguyen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 269 posts

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#61

Post by crinkly »

nis0s wrote: post #39

I don’t think it’s appropriate to use anonymity to criticize published research. My guess is that because of the (assumed?) politics of the people involved, the anonymous author could have been a target because of their nationality or ethnicity. I think the problem is that this field is poorly understood by 98% of the commenters, so it’s impossible to decide who is wrong or right based on the science alone, so even n…

It depends who you are picking on and in which field. From direct experience some fields are very well organised when it comes to protecting their lack of scientific integrity.

Gotta bag those conference expenses!

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#62

Post by seanhunter »

calf wrote: post #31

The author's accusations about Sabine are buried in the middle but I could not follow the main point. If anyone actually reads this carefully perhaps they could paraphrase a summary of their claims for the rest of us. (Actually come to think of it, Sabine saying at one time that Weinstein's work is bad, at another time that professional physicists failed to engage with Weinstein properly--this is not a contradictory…

There is history here and Sabine is being particularly dishonest saying that professional physicists failed to engage with Weinstein. Tim Nguyen specifically along with a couple of others made a detailed analysis of the paper [1] and responded very thoughtfully. He got involved because his research area touches on gauge theory (which is the source for some of Weinstein’s Geometric Unity thing).

Here’s a page giving some of his side of the picture and he includes the original Weinstein paper etc if you want to read it https://timothynguyen.org/geometric-unity/

[1] https://files.timothynguyen.org/geometric_unity.pdf

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#63

Post by jacksnipe »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #43

Physics has a surprising amount of drama for such a hard science, and I have a theory about that: Physicists, more than chemists or biologists, need more of a solid foundation in logic (of the Aristotle kind), and they really don't have it. Take this article. It's incredibly, incredibly flawed, and that was evident to me after reading it for 10 seconds. The author immediately starts saying that Weinstein's Geometric…

The author has previously published an article with a detailed analysis of the math of GU, and why it doesn't work: https://files.timothynguyen.org/geometric_unity.pdf

The reception of that article by the group in question, and their refusal to engage on the math side of it, is what led to him writing this blog post in the first place.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#64

Post by nis0s »

tptacek wrote: post #54
nis0s wrote: post #39

I don’t think it’s appropriate to use anonymity to criticize published research. My guess is that because of the (assumed?) politics of the people involved, the anonymous author could have been a target because of their nationality or ethnicity. I think the problem is that this field is poorly understood by 98% of the commenters, so it’s impossible to decide who is wrong or right based on the science alone, so even n…

Anonymity is a red herring here, since the original GU critique has a named and significant co-author (the author of this post).

Note that I am not saying that what this author is saying is necessarily wrong. But I don’t like the inclusion of the anonymous author, so I made a point of it.

I think there’s lots of lived experience that led to the inclusion of the Sixth Amendment into the U.S. constitution, so I don’t see why it should be ignored for other fields.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#65

Post by nurettin »

There are numerous "everything theorists" who appear in a bunch of yt channels/podcasts. Stephen Wolfram, Christopher Langan, Terence Howard, Eric, etc.

Sabine's grift is artificial controversy rather than some unified theory, but at least she is willing to discuss it and cares about her public image.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#66

Post by dr_dshiv »

jurking_hoff wrote: post #44
PaulHoule wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real root of brokenness in physics is not bad ideas or a lack of good ideas but it is that experiments are nowhere near being able to answer the big questions. Ok, we will probably get some insight into the neutrino mass from KATRIN but we are in the dark when it comes to dark matter, proton decay (predicted by all GUTs including string theory), etc. In the absence of real data there is all sorts of groupthink an…

> but was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office on grounds of being a perpetual motion machine The implication that being a “perpetual motion machine” is a specific reason for patent denial is kinda funny.

Dutch alchemist Cornelis Drebbel got a patent in 1598 for the design of a perpetual motion machine. It was a clock that was powered by daily changes in barometric pressure. In the early 1900s, he was largely scrubbed from the history books because everyone knows that perpetual motion is impossible.

The clock worked, of course. There are still paintings of it — based on those, rolex made a functional replica.

But if you've never heard about Drebbel, perpetual motion is the reason. That wasn't his only invention, of course. He also invented:

* The first cybernetic system (a thermostat; a self-governing oven for incubating eggs)

* The first air conditioning system

* The first functional submarine

* Magic lanterns, telescopes (including the one used by Galileo), microscopes, camera obscuras, and pump drainage systems (credited for draining cambridge and oxford)

He was also a beautiful artist — he made engravings of topless women teaching men science and math (the seven liberal arts). Actually, maybe that's why he was erased? IDK. But he was definitely a free thinker and 100% legit. Look him up.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#67

Post by cycomanic »

boxed wrote: post #10
tombert wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I know a lot of engineers like that (and I'm certainly guilty of that kind of thinking sometimes though the jury is still out on if I'm extremely talented). I have no doubt at all that she understands her niche of physics better than most other humans on the planet, but that doesn't…

> Something I've noticed is people who are extremely talented in one field will sometimes think they're extremely talented in every field. I'm pretty sure Sabine has made this exact statement too.

Exactly she used to say this all the time and now she's weighing in on topics ranging from EVs to nuclear power to 5G causing cancer (yes she did a show on that, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOvAZPHDogs and she was peddling to the "sceptic" crowd by saying that "she doesn't have any reason to believe that it's is unsafe, but ..." and pointing to doctors saying smoking was save in the 50s).

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#68

Post by glenstein »

cycomanic wrote: post #46

I have written previously about Sabine. I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory. Initially I quite liked her show and my impression was that it gave valuable insights and critique of some branches of modern theoretical physics. At some point I noticed that her shows were starting to significantly diverge from her area of expertise and she was weighing in on much broader topics, something in her early shows…

Wholehearedly agree, I found her intellectually very interesting for a time before thinking that some controversies were kind of manufactured out of uncharitable interpretations to find a contrarian angle, but I can't make a specific case to that end, it's more a general gloss.

I'd be interested if you can say any more about comments she made that are closer to your wheelhouse.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#69

Post by f137 »

cycomanic wrote: post #46

I have written previously about Sabine. I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory. Initially I quite liked her show and my impression was that it gave valuable insights and critique of some branches of modern theoretical physics. At some point I noticed that her shows were starting to significantly diverge from her area of expertise and she was weighing in on much broader topics, something in her early shows…

This is a very good summary of the evolution of her writings and videos. Unfortunately it seems many many people still see her as the best source of scientific truth.

Re: The contrarian physics podcast subculture

#70

Post by antithesizer »

cycomanic wrote: post #46

I have written previously about Sabine. I think it's fascinating to follow her trajectory. Initially I quite liked her show and my impression was that it gave valuable insights and critique of some branches of modern theoretical physics. At some point I noticed that her shows were starting to significantly diverge from her area of expertise and she was weighing in on much broader topics, something in her early shows…

I noticed exactly the same thing with Sabine. Her spiral into crankery has been disappointing.

It's very pleasant to see someone else saying it, too. Thank you.

Post reply on HN