Earlier quoted context omitted.
My view of societal progress would look retrograde to almost everyone.
Have you considered becoming Amish?
If you met me and saw how I lived you would probably think I was close enough.
Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
91–100 of 282 posts
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand, it does not strike me as unreasonable to point out that experience suggests that this, too, will turn out to be an experimental or methodological error. Nor do I think it is unreasonable to point out that this result, if correct, would not validate supersymmetry (if that is, in fact, the case.) On the other hand, the fact that supersymmetry isn’t a theory, but a property of a class of models that can…
Falsifying supersymmetry is like falsifying Ptolemaic epicycles. You can never falsify it with data because epicycles can always be constructed to fit any data set [1]. Likewise, a sypersymmetric theory can be constructed to fit any set of parameters. But fitting the data is not enough. You have to fit the data with substantially fewer parameters than data points. That's the challenge. [1] https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Indeed. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the promoters of the LHC were making claims that they knew could not be satisfied by it - or, perhaps, that nothing they said could reasonably be interpreted as such a claim? The trouble is, I don't know which specific claims Hossenfelder is basing her allegations on.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Characterizing all (or even just the most dismissive) criticisms as attacks or devious attempts to undermine keeps nice people from being truthful.
I'm not sure what that means, but she definitely was outright wrong on that one, and she used all her skills to make what looked like a convincing argument for "there just isn't enough data there to conclude gravity waves".
I don't think the contention here is whether she's right or wrong. Phrasing like 'undermine' and 'cast shade' seems to imply malicious intent, which is going too far. Being wrong isn't the same as being wrong with malicious intent.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
This part also stand out to me. It is unfortunate that a science communicator would express her research preference in such a way. It is true there were no breakthrough in ages in the particle physics (standard model works extremely well), it is true "paper production" has disproportionate influence on funding (applicable to academia in general), personally I'm excited about the recent deployment of Webb space telesc…
Unfortunately the standard model does not work "extremely well". Even if we suppose that the standard model is completely correct, it does not allow the computation of the majority of the useful physical quantities. What is needed is a model that would be able to compute all the physical quantities that are important in practice, e.g. the masses of all hadrons and of all atomic nuclei, also their magnetic moments, th…
Would you be complaining about Copernicus not adding anything to equants and epicycles if you lived then?
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#95Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sabine went on full rant/iconoclastic/grudge mode IMO recently. It's a shame, as she a good communicator, but I just see myself skipping her content when it pops up. “I left the field because it's a paper production machine that adds no value to society” without substantiation is simply a frustration ridden meme.
She wrote a book about this topic. So the claim that there is no substantiation is false. You just didn't bother to find out.
While I don't generally like her tone, I liked her book a lot. It has a lot of stuff for further research, and there are at least a dozen book suggestions in there. On the other hand she attacks the "beautification" of physics' theories without providing any alternative approach whatsoever.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you heard how the military makes a lot of technology that benefits society? Well, it's the same principle for esoteric experimental science: unique requirements leads to new tech being developed and then you can turn around, and if you find some use for some bit of the new tech you can tout it as a "boon to society".
Couldn't the same be said for particle physics? The accelerators and detectors seem very high tech.
The LHC computing infrastructure is also quite impressive.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#98No. Particle physics has shown a clear need for a clean next gen e/p collider. The author unfortunately got caught up in the grind of the field and not the context or big picture. And frankly this is exemplified by the US having an even stronger publish or perish attitude. Almost nobody ever in the field has used the phrase "god particle", at least in Europe. Thats yet another american contribution I'm sorry.
Fine, leave the field, thats your prerogative, and do whats best for you. But please get back down off a soapbox and stop attacking the field that trained, educated and gave you the knowledge you have.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely a Czech idiom - "nic se nejí tak horké, jak se to uvaří". But apparently German has this, too: https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/es_wird_nichts_so_hei%C3%9F_g...
That reminds me, I saw something similar on this Ukrainian music video about Bayraktar drones too. Timestamp 0:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo
It appears the Russians are getting their soup warmed even hotter than the cooking temperature.
Re: Did the W-boson just “break the standard model”?
#100I dunno why this blog keeps be voted to the top. Yeah, current physics research is lacking in some areas .since when was it perfect?
Because Sabine is has the bona fides to know her stuff but also a contrarian and a bit of an outcast, and she knows how to market herself. All of this combined is perfect for hackernews.
It seems publishing a lot on YouTube or Twitter is often very unhealthy for people. Over time it seems they all get sucked into the conflict machine that attracts viewers but is ultimately useless.
I watched that with Sam Harris. He seemed to have interesting ideas but now he seems just to be good at debating. Same for Jordan Peterson.