Page 2 of 2

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 3:35 pm
by ISayMoo

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 3:51 pm
by katastrofa
String theory is not the first violin any longer! Other discoveries are being drowned in news from genetics and biology or the AI buzz ;-)
Besides, it's probably hard to question something which consist of many separate parts floating in the sea of undefined or questionable philosophical and mathematical assumptions.

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 4:18 pm
by Alan
Looks like she has an interesting book -- just ordered a copy.

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 4:40 pm
by katastrofa
Reminded me a bit of the (negative) impact of Leon Kass (GWB's ethical adviser) and his "wisdom of repugnance" on stem cell research. It all sits in our cortex.

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 15th, 2019, 7:20 pm
by Cuchulainn
ie:  what was before the big bang ?
Was there a big bang?

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 16th, 2019, 5:17 pm
by frolloos
Looks like she has an interesting book -- just ordered a copy.

Wilczek's take on her book: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/PT.3.4022

Not that I understand all this stuff, but some of her papers on ArXiv cite and make use of Maldacena's work on AdS / CFT duality, the holographic principle and all that magic. Not sure it it can get more stringy than that.

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 16th, 2019, 7:28 pm
by katastrofa
"Hossenfelder’s real target, when you strip away some unfortunate terminology, is not beauty but self-satisfaction,which encourages disengagement from reality." - Wilczek is mansplaining what Hossenfelder really meant so nicely... :-)

Anyway, I thought of the experimental detection of Majorana fermions as a counterargument to the book, but indeed no spectacular discovery or theory come to my mind and Google didn't help.
I've seen this attraction to beauty (often associated with simplicity) at every step when I worked in physics. An example is Bloch theorem in condensed matter physics. Many modern materials are heavily diluted or defected crystals. Still, carriers in them are usually theoretically described by Bloch functions, derived under the assumption that the crystal lattice is perfectly periodic (i.e. no defects)!
A more correct (imho) model needs to take into account the disorder and correlations, and would be a nasty and difficult piece of work... I will mercifully stop here. Still, I believe in the power of aesthetic sense (there must be some connection in our brain between recognising the good and perceiving the beautiful, and evolution could have trained it both ways?). But beauty belongs to living forms and their morals/souls, and not loop corrections to muon decays, carbon allotropes and other objects and abstractions (diamonds are an exception which confirms the rule!).

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 16th, 2019, 8:19 pm
by Cuchulainn
"Hossenfelder’s real target, when you strip away some unfortunate terminology, is not beauty but self-satisfaction,which encourages disengagement from reality." - Wilczek is mansplaining what Hossenfelder really meant so nicely... :-)

Anyway, I thought of the experimental detection of Majorana fermions as a counterargument to the book, but indeed no spectacular discovery or theory come to my mind and Google didn't help.
I've seen this attraction to beauty (often associated with simplicity) at every step when I worked in physics. An example is Bloch theorem in condensed matter physics. Many modern materials are heavily diluted or defected crystals. Still, carriers in them are usually theoretically described by Bloch functions, derived under the assumption that the crystal lattice is perfectly periodic (i.e. no defects)!
A more correct (imho) model needs to take into account the disorder and correlations, and would be a nasty and difficult piece of work... I will mercifully stop here. Still, I believe in the power of aesthetic sense (there must be some connection in our brain between recognising the good and perceiving the beautiful, and evolution could have trained it both ways?). But beauty belongs to living forms and their morals/souls, and not loop corrections to muon decays, carbon allotropes and other objects and abstractions (diamonds are an exception which confirms the rule!).
Why can't mathematicians be as eloquent as physicists?

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 17th, 2019, 12:12 am
by katastrofa
I'm sorry, it's the middle of my non-working month and I'm feeling like a bunch of protons in LHC on the last stretch (you have no idea how much food I prepared tonight!). Next month I will be leaving only short erratic comments about airports, dry heaves, and how cold it is in Norway.

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: July 17th, 2019, 10:35 am
by ISayMoo
"Hossenfelder’s real target, when you strip away some unfortunate terminology, is not beauty but self-satisfaction,which encourages disengagement from reality." - Wilczek is mansplaining what Hossenfelder really meant so nicely... :-)

Anyway, I thought of the experimental detection of Majorana fermions as a counterargument to the book, but indeed no spectacular discovery or theory come to my mind and Google didn't help.
I've seen this attraction to beauty (often associated with simplicity) at every step when I worked in physics. An example is Bloch theorem in condensed matter physics. Many modern materials are heavily diluted or defected crystals. Still, carriers in them are usually theoretically described by Bloch functions, derived under the assumption that the crystal lattice is perfectly periodic (i.e. no defects)!
A more correct (imho) model needs to take into account the disorder and correlations, and would be a nasty and difficult piece of work...
So maybe "beauty" is an excuse for laziness?

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: August 1st, 2019, 3:11 pm
by Alan
I am enjoying Hossenfelder's book. It's a good read for the beach, but maybe not that interesting to non-physicists (or non-ex-physicists). I'm about half-way through and she's bemoaning her seemingly endless search for the next temporary research position. So, it's a nice mix of general critique, interviews, and her personal story.  

Re: Stuff that Physics_(+ &)_mathematicS can explain

Posted: August 1st, 2019, 4:38 pm
by Cuchulainn
I am enjoying Hossenfelder's book. It's a good read for the beach, but maybe not that interesting to non-physicists (or non-ex-physicists). I'm about half-way through and she's bemoaning her seemingly endless search for the next temporary research position. So, it's a nice mix of general critique, interviews, and her personal story.  
her sityation sounds like a lot of folk on Linkedin :D