- #71
Frabjous
Gold Member
- 1,600
- 1,927
The goal of an op-ed is to provoke is a serious discussion. Looking at the previous 70 posts, I think she mostly succeeded.
In a nutshell, Hossenfelder says that theoretical particles are being conjured up out of thin air to explain some of the anomalous findings physicists have seen in particle colliders and high-energy physics experiments. She contends that an entire "zoo" has been invented featuring an array of strange particles like "wimps," "axions" and "sterile neutrinos."
As she notes in her piece, particle physicists have been looking for the inhabitants of the "zoo," but experiments designed to find them haven't discovered anything. So, she writes, researchers are wasting time looking for made-up particles beyond the Standard Model, which she believes "works just fine the way it is." Many particle physicists disagree with that idea, noting in particular that it doesn't describe dark matter.
Speaking to particle physicists over the last week, it's clear Hossenfelder's claims rankled the field.
Many view the framing of Hossenfelder's article as unfair. Some believe it simply contains mistruths and false information. The major concern I've heard is how Hossenfelder presents particle physicists working "in private" as if they've been acting conspiratorially, keeping the truth about their work from the public.
Interesting analogy follows.Hossenfelder points out she used to be a particle physicist and has now "left the field." This distance, she writes, renders her "able and willing to criticize the situation." However, it may leave readers thinking that basically every working particle physicist is somehow untrustworthy.
Hossenfelder has been rattling cages in physics for some time. She has questioned whether big particle colliders, like the one that may replace the Large Hadron Collider, should be built at all because we haven't found these new particles scientists have been predicting for decades.
Hossenfelder's skepticism of scientific results and theories is absolutely warranted. Science is about refining our understanding over time as new results yield new insights. In this way, Hossenfelder's critiques of particle physics can be helpful.
Hossenfelder's piece paints the field of particle physics with one very broad brush, suggesting "thousands" of tenured professors are "ambulance chasing" and operating in secret, some sort of shady cabal that exists purely to continue existing and siphoning up research money. Particle physicists I spoke with disagreed with these generalizations.
However, the practice of "ambulance chasing" Hossenfelder calls out in her piece is something that's worth exploring.
This puts a lot of pressure on scientists to publish and particularly affects those early in their careers and from diverse backgrounds. As the funding for scientific research dwindles, as it has in places like Australia, that pressure grows. Scientists get caught in the cycle of publishing to stay in a job. They're fighting each other to survive.
During my qualifying exam oral, I was asked "So, tell us about supersymmetry". I started, "It's a theory where every partner has a superpartner differing by 1/2 a unit of spin. For example, every boson has..." and I blanked on the word "fermion" and all I could think of was "boson's mate".neilparker62 said:I always thought a bosun was a member of the ship's crew but now I know better
They might very well. There is nothing prohibiting a neutrino getting a Dirac mass via a Higgs Yukawa. And indeed, this is what people were writing pre-SuperK and SNO. But this is probably best discussed on another thread - ideally the one where I was posting what people were writing pre-SuperK and SNO.malawi_glenn said:Why do all the other fermions receive their mass by Yukawa coupling with the Higgs field and the neutrinos don't?
... which is perhaps why her article should be put in proper context. I.e., she wrote it in response to a fresh series of attacks against her. See her more recent response here. In particular:Astronuc said:I agree that it is poorly written, and largely defensive.
Hossenfelder said:[...] As a consequence of these recent insults targeted at me, I wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian that appeared on Monday. Please note the causal order: I wrote the piece because particle physicists picked on me in a renewed attempt to justify continuing with their failed methods, not the other way round.
Interestingly this article refers to her as a former physicist. As I noted earlier this is absurd - 4 papers published in reputable peer reviewed journals in 2022 so far is an admirable productivity rate for a physicist.Astronuc said:Another take on Hossenfelder's article and related blog(s) -
https://www.cnet.com/science/are-pa...-new-particles-for-no-reason-its-complicated/
Jackson Ryan, CNET's science editor, ponders "Are Particle Physicists Inventing New Particles for No Reason? No, but It's Complicated"
A former PARTICLE physicist, was one of the headlines.PAllen said:Interestingly this article refers to her as a former physicist. As I noted earlier this is absurd - 4 papers published in reputable peer reviewed journals in 2022 so far is an admirable productivity rate for a physicist.
Never read any of those. If there is no source, it might as well be made upThe controversial takes have often led to unjustified personal insults and harassment for Hossenfelder by other scientists.
Can we see those attacks or do we have to take her word for it?strangerep said:... which is perhaps why her article should be put in proper context. I.e., she wrote it in response to a fresh series of attacks against her. See her more recent response here. In particular:
That is true, which I mentioned. But overall, it is a small percentage.ohwilleke said:New anomalies routinely produce hundreds of such papers over a few weeks with a long steady drip afterwards.
Physicists also waste a lot of time eating, sleeping, watching TV, playing video games, reading spiderman comics. I for instance spent during my PhD 3000 hours in the gym.ohwilleke said:The problem is that physicists waste a lot of time studying dubious models that would be better spent elsewhere. This is a problem whether the papers get published or not. The time spent writing the papers and the time by others reading the papers (who waits until publication to read papers anymore?)
Excellent plan:malawi_glenn said:. I for instance spent during my PhD 3000 hours in the gym.
2 ¾ hours per day?malawi_glenn said:That is true, which I mentioned. But overall, it is a small percentage.
Physicists also waste a lot of time eating, sleeping, watching TV, playing video games, reading spiderman comics. I for instance spent during my PhD 3000 hours in the gym.
PHD in sweden is 4 years, but yes about 2h/day, 6 times/week. Lots of warm ups, stretching etc. Also bringing in/out strongman equipment and so on, and helping others to train.pinball1970 said:Every day for three years?
What value parameter a physical constant of nature has is a physics problem.malawi_glenn said:Why is this parameter ##\theta## identical to zero in this term in the QCD lagrangian? ##\theta F_{\mu \nu} \tilde F {}^{\mu \nu} ##
Either it is identical to zero just by pure chance, or its very very very close to zero and we have not yet been able to experimentally to measure it (not enough statistics), or there is symmetry/mechanism for setting it to zero (axion models), or we do not understand how quantum Yang-Mills theories work. All of these options, except the first one, are open for scientific investigation.
The "measurement problem" at its most tepid is how to determine what constitutes a "measurement" in a less subjective and more rigorously defined way.vanhees71 said:Particularly, I never understood, why there is a "measurement problem in quantum theory". For me the opposite is the case: QT is so successful concerning the agreement between theory and experiment that there cannot be any measurement problem, because obviously we have a mathematical formalism with a suffcient interpretation enabling this "success" of QT. The minimal statistical interpretation without any unnecessary philosophic ballast seems to me the most scientific one, but all the others are not much worse, because they lead, usually by construction, to the same scientific predictions. I think thus at this point Hossenfelder contradicts herself, because this apparent "measurement problem" is neither a discrepancy between experiment and theory nor a inner-theoretical inconsistency. It's simply a pseudo-problem based on age-old philosophical prejudices about the indeterministic Nature of QT. So following Hossenfelder's definition of a "good problem" there's be no reason to think about this pseudo-problem to begin with.
This is why in Finland they don't give you a sword until after you are awarded your PhD. (They also give you a funny hat.)Vanadium 50 said:Excellent plan:
View attachment 314953
On what physical ground should the initial mix of baryons and anti-baryons be identical? This is merely an axiom with no basis to support it. The existing theory and observational evidence point to a non-zero initial baryon number.PAllen said:One of the things she rejects as a good research area is the origin of matter/antimatter asymmetry. We should just chalk it up to initial conditions. This one I find quite absurd.
"Baryon Asymmetry and The Horizon Problem
These are both finetuning problems that rely on the choice of an initial condition, which is considered to be likely. However, there is no way to quantify how likely the initial condition is, so the problem is not well-defined."
from: "http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/good-problems-in-foundations-of-physics.html"
If I had to guess, I'd put it about about 20%-30% of hep-ph (and maybe 10-15% of hep-ex).malawi_glenn said:That is true, which I mentioned. But overall, it is a small percentage.
If the initial number of baryons is zero, and they come to being from some other field, any SM production process will produce only a tiny asymmetry. If you believe a model of this type (as most cosmologists do) then it is simply wrong to treat this as a question of initial conditions.ohwilleke said:On what physical ground should the initial mix of baryons and anti-baryons be identical? This is merely an axiom with no basis to support it. The existing theory and observational evidence point to a non-zero initial baryon number.
Throughout the history of our understanding of the universe, if something is allowed, it happens - unless there something we don’t yet understand that prevents it. This is why it is wrong to view this as a parameter value issue. QCD allows CP violation. By all prior experience we shoud expect it to occur unless there is something disallowing it - and that is worth understanding. Plus, as I noted previously, it is even possible that the resolution of this is related to baryon asymmetry. And this is NOT a question of initial conditions unless you accept that Sabine’s way of looking at physics is the only permissible way. The way I look at things has baryon asymmetry not even remotely a question of initial conditions.ohwilleke said:What value parameter a physical constant of nature has is a physics problem.
Why it has that value instead of another one in a counterfactual version of reality is not a "problem". Maybe it's natural philosophy, but it isn't science.
Baryon asymmetry is an issue only if one assumes an initial condition based upon conditions that do not flow from any empirically tested physical theory.PAllen said:The way I look at things has baryon asymmetry not even remotely a question of initial conditions.
Why should the initial number of baryons be zero? Nothing we have observed compels or even directs us to that conclusion. The fact that lots of scientists think it is pretty that way isn't a scientific answer.PAllen said:If the initial number of baryons is zero, and they come to being from some other field, any SM production process will produce only a tiny asymmetry. If you believe a model of this type (as most cosmologists do) then it is simply wrong to treat this as a question of initial conditions.
Because you have an era when quarks don’t exist yet. You may not like such a model, but for those who do, you cannot even pose baryon asymmetry as an initial conditions question. Instead you must have a creation process that favors quarks over anti quarks. I believe most cosmologists favor such models. Sabine first rejects such models without stating or explaining it, before she can even pose the question of initial conditions.ohwilleke said:Why should the initial number of baryons be zero? Nothing we have observed compels or even directs us to that conclusion. The fact that lots of scientists think it is pretty that way isn't a scientific answer.
No early cosmology theory can ever be tested under early conditions. We do the best we can.ohwilleke said:Baryon asymmetry is an issue only if one assumes an initial condition based upon conditions that do not flow from any empirically tested physical theory.
Hmm -- as if personal attacks were something that one should spread.martinbn said:Can we see those attacks or do we have to take her word for it?
Then we are back to "me too" movement, no proofs required.strangerep said:Hmm -- as if personal attacks were something that one should spread.
I'm out.
So you have no interest in all to know why the photon mass is zero? After all, it might just be a paramter that is exactly zero. Or why electric conductivity for some materials become 0 below a certain temperature? As I wrote earlier, physics is also about finding patterns. Would just be stamp collection otherwise. I bet we would not have special or general relativity with this mindsetohwilleke said:Why it has that value instead of another one in a counterfactual version of reality is not a "problem". Maybe it's natural philosophy, but it isn't science.
I was referring to "2sigma" anomalies papers. Not the other cathegories mentioned.ohwilleke said:If I had to guess, I'd put it about about 20%-30% of hep-ph (and maybe 10-15% of hep-ex).
During the "string wars" she did post a long series of horrific posts by supposedly serious physicists on her blog, that she deleted from the main blog, but posted separately for documentation. I have no doubt she has received vile posts due to her current critiques. As noted above, I disagree substantially with much of her current critique, but more so with anyone who responds inappropriately.malawi_glenn said:Then we are back to "me too" movement, no proofs required.
There is nothing subjective in what our experimental colleagues do when investigating quantum phenomena but a well-defined setup of preparation and measurement devices, which can be objectively verified and reproduced (at least in principle).ohwilleke said:The "measurement problem" at its most tepid is how to determine what constitutes a "measurement" in a less subjective and more rigorously defined way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universeRoza said:For example, why do we need Dark Energy? The recession of galaxies can be explained by known physical phenomena. And gravity, using also known quantum phenomena and some more.
"Our experimental colleagues" work well away from the gray areas.vanhees71 said:There is nothing subjective in what our experimental colleagues do when investigating quantum phenomena but a well-defined setup of preparation and measurement devices, which can be objectively verified and reproduced (at least in principle).
If we can't test it, it isn't science. It is speculation, perhaps informed speculation, perhaps natural philosophy. But nothing more. Some questions are unanswerable, at least with available technology and knowledge.PAllen said:No early cosmology theory can ever be tested under early conditions. We do the best we can.
Pretty much true, but not an argument against trying to improve the status quo. Bureaucracies are subject to external constraints including the economic resources available to the scientific enterprise. So, there are always going to be outside pressures to be less wasteful. Whether the outside pressures are sufficiently strong to overcome the problems partially depends on the priorities of the leaders in the community of physicists.Hornbein said:Returning to the original topic:
Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy is that the main goal of any institution will eventually change. Solutions for the problem it was created to solve will be pushed aside. The true purpose will become to preserve and increase the income of this organization. I don't see that physics is any worse in this regard than anything else.
So true! It's good to remain open to new ideas on cosmology and critical of your own preferred view.ohwilleke said:The discipline might be better served by more humility about what we know or can know, and less guesswork