Ren

@c1c2c3c4c @martinmbauer Woah and it's almost like a lot of experiments revolve around trying to better understand and observe dark energy and the gaps in our understanding. And again, we don't know if "every experiment agrees with predictions" until we do those experiments.

@RenNotFun @martinmbauer The problem is that every experiment agrees with predictions, except solar bodies don't behave as expected, the math holes are called dark matter and dark energy. We have pretty thoroughly ruled out physics as the cause, so we are missing a observation of space.

Experiments don't "slow discovery", they make discoveries

@andrei_petrenko @martinmbauer Lmfao, how does "AI" then verify if you are right or not. How does it prove it. (Also no an orbital data center is not happening in 4 years)

@RenNotFun @martinmbauer It's right there, in the header of the quoted post: we ask AI (preferably Grok). Of course, we won't reach the full verification potential until we launch a gigawatt-class orbital AI datacenter, but that is confirmed to happen in 2030.

@c1c2c3c4c @martinmbauer "predicting a result" and "getting and verifying that result" are not the same thing. The second is often much harder, and just assuming you're correct is often foolhardy

@RenNotFun @martinmbauer Yes, actually we did almost immediately. Basically everything since the late 60s has been predicted.

@c1c2c3c4c @martinmbauer But we sure as hell didn't before we built the colliders and verified results, did we?

@RenNotFun @martinmbauer We literally know what every collision will produce at every energy level we can reach in the near future. It's very basic stuff.

@Harkmagic @martinmbauer No, we didn't know it. That's the point. If you don't confirm hypotheses then all you have is a guess. And also, again just untrue, just because particle colliders haven't "advanced beyond the standard model" doesn't mean they haven't driven scientific understanding

@RenNotFun @martinmbauer Colliders havent driven a single theoretical advancement and have failed to provide evidence for a single advancement beyond the standard model. There hasnt been any advancement in theoretical physics since the 70s. All colliders have done is confirm stuff that we already knew

@theLastFiire @martinmbauer Demonstrably untrue

@martinmbauer Look at the broader point. There are basically no new ideas, other than the same ideas being repeated again and again.

@andrei_petrenko @martinmbauer How do you know if you're right without the experimental verification

@martinmbauer Here's where you are wrong. Just imagine, how much more discoveries could be made if you don't bind yourself to those pesky experimental verifications.

@Jus492119260704 @martinmbauer Nuclear collapsed because governments refused to make better reactors because they didn't produce fissile material, and instead of rendering the waste inert they stored it poorly and poisoned communities. And companies refused to divest from oil, and refused to operate safely

@martinmbauer When it comes to physics aiding society by and large, the collapse of nuclear now finally under revival has suffered physics. Also other regulations too many to get into in many industries. We simply got lazy as I call it. We have fancy toys but stopped pushing societal progress.

@SunsetLearn @martinmbauer Well yeah as the physics gets more complicated and the stuff we're measuring gets smaller and smaller (or harder and harder to measure) *everything* about it becomes more difficult.

@martinmbauer It's too bad it requires billions of dollars to run these experiments. Early physics and mathematics discoveries were largely done by small groups and singular individuals using pretty inexpensive methods.

@GiaguDirk @martinmbauer And on what basis does he say that? Why are the tools wrong?

@martinmbauer I think what he is saying is the tools for discovery are all wrong in the nicest possible way. Not something people want to hear when they are busting budgets with inadequate tools.

@Fortrancookie @mediachecker @martinmbauer Bud most of our knowledge of subatomic particles comes from particle colliders

@mediachecker @martinmbauer Name one thing the LHC has contributed to society. Hint: absolutely nothing.

@OmegaTir @martinmbauer Viewing scientific research as about "return on funding" is part of the problem in the first place.

@martinmbauer There's a cost benefit analysis, as you only have limited resources and must choose what scientific project to finance. Many people have stated there belief that you would get a better return on funding many more small projects instead of a few massive projects.

@SteveR667 @martinmbauer Scientific advancements in physics are not actually measured by "how much does it directly lead to quality of life increases"

@martinmbauer The LHC took 20 years to design and build, cost about $5 billion, what impact has it had on your life, unless your a theoretical physicist I'm guessing not much. SpaceX was started 24 years ago but I can get Starlink right now.

@c1c2c3c4c @martinmbauer Lmfao what do you mean "we know what they will produce". We didn't know what they will produce (or what they might with better sensors) that's why we built them

@martinmbauer No he's right, we know what colliders will produce, there's basically a zero chance they will discover anything, meanwhile a much cheaper teliscope could actually solve things.

@BlipSethika @arthur_m1968 @reubes1 @martinmbauer "well, we haven't solved this one extremely difficult problem so all of the other knowledge and advancements we've gained don't mean much"

@arthur_m1968 @reubes1 @martinmbauer okay, imaging a black hole is an engineering feat, higgs boson yeah thats why he said almost and it's been 30 years we haven't been able to find a theory of quantum gravity

@TheRealVerbz @martinmbauer @DrBrianKeating How is it not needed?

@martinmbauer @DrBrianKeating The wrong experiments slow discovery. As Elon specified with the ridiculous hardware that is not needed.

@Harkmagic @martinmbauer Lmfao colliders have resulted in incredible knowledge about subatomic particles what are you talking about. By what basis do you say "there hasn't been a big discovery in physics in ages", what do you think the last "big discovery" was

@martinmbauer Colliders have largely been a waste of money and havent produced even a fraction of the results promised We need better theories and better technology This is far from a new concern. There hasn't been a big discovery in physics in ages We've only confirmed what we already know.

@KevinSVanHorn @martinmbauer And how will AI get rid of that cost

@martinmbauer You are uncharitably misconstruing his comment. He is referring to the immense cost.

@marka9619 @martinmbauer Lmfao no you can't just "simulate" the vast majority of scientific experiments. And "oh they'll figure out how to do it better" is a nothing claim based on nothing

I am baffled by this “smart person” being so incredibly stupid as completely missing the obvious point here. In fact the guy you post quoted breaks it down in detail in that chain. Elon isn’t saying experiments are bad, he is saying that hardware is the bottleneck. We have theory upon theory along with reasonable ways to test them but are limited by the hardware and hardware costs. Musk is saying that with AI we may be able to test these theories in a kind of simulation, or AI will come up with better theories and easier ways to test them. Basically you are a dunce who was trying to dunk on Musk for literally no reason and if you would’ve read what he said for 30 seconds instead of taking the first sentence and concluding the most braindead take you could possibly have.