Sabine Hossenfelder has written a book entitled Lost in Math.
In the book she says that theoretical physicists waste a lot of time trying to solve problems that don’t exist. They do this because they are unhappy that the current theories are not beautiful enough to their taste. She regards this as bad scientific methodology which has to stop.
She thinks the public has been misinformed. We have been told that theories like supersymmetry and string theory and multiverses can be tested, even though it’s not true.
Sabine sums it up thus: "If it’s not testable, it’s not science. Why do we even have to discuss this?"
https://orbitermag.com/theoretical-physics-bad-science/
In the book she says that theoretical physicists waste a lot of time trying to solve problems that don’t exist. They do this because they are unhappy that the current theories are not beautiful enough to their taste. She regards this as bad scientific methodology which has to stop.
She thinks the public has been misinformed. We have been told that theories like supersymmetry and string theory and multiverses can be tested, even though it’s not true.
Sabine sums it up thus: "If it’s not testable, it’s not science. Why do we even have to discuss this?"
https://orbitermag.com/theoretical-physics-bad-science/
Attachments
Steve, these 24-cell 4D space time models are tools or concepts that help us translate physical reality (a separate thing altogether) into something we can consider in mathematical terms. The problem modern physics has, if I understand SH correctly, is that we’re throwing up equations and looking for phenomena to fit. Einstein started from the other perspective.
just listen to Brian Greene on string theory. The guy is a good evangelist, I’ll grant you that.
just listen to Brian Greene on string theory. The guy is a good evangelist, I’ll grant you that.
From your Wikipedia link: Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations of gravitation. Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives.
Doctor Becky certainly noticed the same things I did about recent Cosmology Black Hole discoveries:
TBH, I spend more time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
https://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/csmce/9393/54550
Up to M51!
https://www.mersenneforum.org/
TBH, I spend more time on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
https://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/csmce/9393/54550
Up to M51!
https://www.mersenneforum.org/
She has some very fixed views.... But given that she espouses the idea that everything is predetermined - why would she worry?
Mostly though - it's likely those things can be tested, just not yet. And maths has it's own set of probably untestables too...
Oh, and I didn't know she was American: "Lost in Math" - not Maths...
We are missing new experimental results.
So far we got those from experiments becoming more and more expensive asking for more power.
It seems we are reaching the limit power wise. The largest so far is CERN Large Hadron Collider. There is a project to supersede LHC, a ten times larger ring collider, but there is trouble to finance it and that would for 2050.
Have we reached a power limit ?
Are they, ways, out of more power, to get new experimental results ?
So far we got those from experiments becoming more and more expensive asking for more power.
It seems we are reaching the limit power wise. The largest so far is CERN Large Hadron Collider. There is a project to supersede LHC, a ten times larger ring collider, but there is trouble to finance it and that would for 2050.
Have we reached a power limit ?
Are they, ways, out of more power, to get new experimental results ?
What is it?
Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder "Lost in Math"?
Or Doctor Thabine Hossenthelder "Lost in Mass"?
Current low budget Physics explorations:
What are we looking at here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider
Doctor Sabine Hossenfelder "Lost in Math"?
Or Doctor Thabine Hossenthelder "Lost in Mass"?
Current low budget Physics explorations:
What are we looking at here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider
What are we looking at here?
Didn't I advise you to give up the gaspers, Steve?
Attachments
She has some very fixed views.... But given that she espouses the idea that everything is predetermined - why would she worry?
She, Sabine Hossenfelder, is working on Superdeterminism, which could provide the key to uniting quantum theory with relativity to create the final theory of the universe.
Superdeterminism makes sense of the quantum world by suggesting it is not as random as it seems, but critics say it undermines the whole premise of science.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full
An illustration of determinism in physics may be helpful:
Newton's laws allow you to calculate where a ball will land given its initial position and velocity. That's determinism - everything that happens follows from what happened earlier.
However, quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities for measurement outcomes, rather than determine the actual outcomes themselves. That makes quantum mechanics indeterministic.
And superdeterminism? Watch the video contained within this transcript: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html
Newton's laws allow you to calculate where a ball will land given its initial position and velocity. That's determinism - everything that happens follows from what happened earlier.
However, quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities for measurement outcomes, rather than determine the actual outcomes themselves. That makes quantum mechanics indeterministic.
And superdeterminism? Watch the video contained within this transcript: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/12/does-superdeterminism-save-quantum.html
Last edited:
Is this because outcomes are not observable but intuitively determined? Is the double slit experiment outcome probable?
Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Except it states the Universe can be random:
Hope that clears it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
Except it states the Universe can be random:
Hope that clears it up.
However, it also seems that an oscillating universe would in part violate the second law of thermodynamics since entropy should decrease on a contracting phase.
You can use say Newtons universal laws to predict the flight of a ball, so as Galu says, it’s deterministic. But how do you predict the path of a water molecule bring hit by other molecules in a jug of warm water? You can use statistics and get some probabilities but you can never say for certain what path it will take in the future. However you will always know what path it took in the past.
Certain experiment results came out. Hear is the experiment setup. I mixed wheat flour with tomato paste. Put some water in it. And cooked it like pizza dough.
Results : hmm
1) I don't recommend it
2) it was rather unpleasant
Output : have you ever tasted something and it taste odd first time. But after some time after some more tries it taste decent. That thing was radiation that energy.
Results : hmm
1) I don't recommend it
2) it was rather unpleasant
Output : have you ever tasted something and it taste odd first time. But after some time after some more tries it taste decent. That thing was radiation that energy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.