Sabitlenmiş Tweet
andrew
11.8K posts
andrew
@andrewbaums
theoretical physicist (strings ➡️ bio) | professional poser | he/him
Seattle, WA Katılım Mart 2009
1K Takip Edilen370 Takipçiler
the goal of science communicators should be to communicate science, not to "create enthusiasm"
English
@ThomasVanRiet2 @skdh i am truly baffled by how a trained theoretical physicist with a PhD does not understand the value in studying systems which may not ~exactly~ describe the universe. how can one even take an intro quantum class without taking away that conclusion?
English
@skdh 's crack down on curiosity driven research combined with her ignorance, arrogance&populist takes makes her an influential noise producer harming not the established profs, but the PhD & PDs in the field. Also the curious highschooler finds her/his way to the misinfornation.
English
@postdocforever its why in quantum, for example, theres always the boundary condition that the wave function should be normalizable. the unnormalizable solutions are thrown out because they aren't physically possible. but they are mathematically possible and well defined
English
@postdocforever things like divergences, singularities etc are not mathematical inconsistencies and, in fact, have very rigorous mathematical theories that surround them. but they are physically inconsistent, since singularities/infinites are not physical and so shouldn't show up
English
Sabine is clearly right, I don't see why physicists are resisting this! Mathematical consistency isn't necessary for a *hypothesis* because if reality is mathematically consistent then boundaries can be drawn and consistency worked out *later*. QFT itself wasn't consistent!!
English
@cosmicfibretion moreover every single criticism re: experimental data is so frustrating. its literally the most difficult thing to experimentally measure in the entire universe. like yes: if experimental data is acquired of course string theorists will use it
English
Lazy criticisms of string theory don’t add much to the conversation nor do they push physics forward. Painting an entire field with a broad brush and claiming no valuable knowledge was acquired is at best disingenuous and at worst socially opportunistic.
English
one more things that pisses me off about this shit: why do quantum gravity research not focus so much on experiments? is it, perhaps, because it is quite literally the most difficult thing to measure? and perhaps because the technology does not, and might not ever, exist?
Sabine Hossenfelder@skdh
Speaking of mathematical consistency. While you want a physical theory to be mathematically consistent, it's not necessary for it to be useful. The standard model without the Higgs eg violates unitary beyond a certain energy. That's not consistent. It's still a useful theory to very good approximation below that energy. And just because a theory is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. There is nothing specifically wrong, for example, with gravity in 1+1 dimensions -- it's even quantizable -- it just doesn't describe the world that we live in. Hence, mathematical consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient for a physical theory. That said, as I explained in my book "Lost in Math", mathematical consistency has historically been a good guide in theory development. If you look at the cases where breakthroughs have been made on theoretical grounds, these came from resolving inconsistencies. Eg: General Relativity, the Dirac Equation, the Higgs-Boson! Still, you need experiment after that because there are always many ways to achieve mathematical consistency. The problem with research in quantum gravity has been that for decades they focused exclusively on consistency and neglected the need for experimental test. (Interesting in itself, as one may ask why that happened.) That is changing now, which is an excellent development that gives me much hope. So, brief summary: Consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's useful.
English
@skdh the ising model also doesn't describe our world nor do i) ideal gasses ii) perfect fluids iii) particles in a box and pretty much every model system physics has. yet theres still value in studying them, no? why is 1+1 gravity different? why is string theory different?
English
Speaking of mathematical consistency. While you want a physical theory to be mathematically consistent, it's not necessary for it to be useful.
The standard model without the Higgs eg violates unitary beyond a certain energy. That's not consistent. It's still a useful theory to very good approximation below that energy.
And just because a theory is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. There is nothing specifically wrong, for example, with gravity in 1+1 dimensions -- it's even quantizable -- it just doesn't describe the world that we live in.
Hence, mathematical consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient for a physical theory.
That said, as I explained in my book "Lost in Math", mathematical consistency has historically been a good guide in theory development. If you look at the cases where breakthroughs have been made on theoretical grounds, these came from resolving inconsistencies. Eg: General Relativity, the Dirac Equation, the Higgs-Boson!
Still, you need experiment after that because there are always many ways to achieve mathematical consistency. The problem with research in quantum gravity has been that for decades they focused exclusively on consistency and neglected the need for experimental test. (Interesting in itself, as one may ask why that happened.) That is changing now, which is an excellent development that gives me much hope.
So, brief summary: Consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's useful.
English
absolutely necessary for understanding how abstract mathematics can be used to describe some sort of physical reality? its profoundly anti-intellectual. very much in line with "every undergrad degree needs to be comp science or STEM" type additutde towards academia. sickening.
English
what pisses me off about this current trend of string theory discourse is that when did physicists stop caring about models that describe things "like" our universe to gain better understanding of our universe? like sure SUSY may not exists, but studying supersymmetric theories..
Sabine Hossenfelder@skdh
Speaking of mathematical consistency. While you want a physical theory to be mathematically consistent, it's not necessary for it to be useful. The standard model without the Higgs eg violates unitary beyond a certain energy. That's not consistent. It's still a useful theory to very good approximation below that energy. And just because a theory is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. There is nothing specifically wrong, for example, with gravity in 1+1 dimensions -- it's even quantizable -- it just doesn't describe the world that we live in. Hence, mathematical consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient for a physical theory. That said, as I explained in my book "Lost in Math", mathematical consistency has historically been a good guide in theory development. If you look at the cases where breakthroughs have been made on theoretical grounds, these came from resolving inconsistencies. Eg: General Relativity, the Dirac Equation, the Higgs-Boson! Still, you need experiment after that because there are always many ways to achieve mathematical consistency. The problem with research in quantum gravity has been that for decades they focused exclusively on consistency and neglected the need for experimental test. (Interesting in itself, as one may ask why that happened.) That is changing now, which is an excellent development that gives me much hope. So, brief summary: Consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's useful.
English
what is appropriate music to listen to in the florida swamp (where i currently am for thxgiving)
English
this is normal and good!!
NWS Seattle@NWSSeattle
Tornado Warning including Aberdeen WA, Hoquiam WA and Ocean Shores WA until 4:45 PM PST
English
@andrewbaums I've tried to educate @ecapsoddity but it falls on deaf ears...
English