Physics Is Not In Crisis

S

socrat44

Guest
Physics Is Not In Crisis
Chad Orzel, Jan 15, 2019, 11:17am
We're in a bull market for "Crisis in Physics!" stories at the moment.
This is a thing that happens from time to time, the most memorable example
of which was the "String Theory Backlash" circa 2006, when Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong
and Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics created a huge amount of buzz.
The standard bearer at the moment is probably Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math
(which, I should note, I enjoyed very much, and not just because
I'm one of the people interviewed in it).
The issue is the continued failure of searches for physics "beyond the Standard Model"
with new particles and fields that might explain dark matter and dark energy.

I find this very frustrating, because physics as a whole is not in crisis.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2019/01/15/physics-is-not-in-crisis/#25413be2174c
====
 
Physics Is Not In Crisis
Chad Orzel, Jan 15, 2019, 11:17am
I find this very frustrating, because physics as a whole is not in crisis.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2019/01/15/physics-is-not-in-crisis/#64c40bbc174c
====
Yea, Physics IS NOT in crisis, we can see this using modern technology.
The Philosophy of Physics IS in crisis because we cannot understand
the strange behavior light / electrons in QM / QED.
#
If I say [electrons] behave like particles I give the wrong impression;
also if I say they behave like waves.
They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called
a quantum mechanical way.
They behave in a way that is like nothing that you have seen before.
/ — Richard P. Feynman /
#
etc . . . etc . . .
=======

IF-i-say - ELECTRONS - FEYNMAN.jpg
 
Yeah well, the press. They aleays want to tell an exciting story.
 
socrat44 said:
Physics Is Not In Crisis
Chad Orzel, Jan 15, 2019, 11:17am
We're in a bull market for "Crisis in Physics!" stories at the moment.
This is a thing that happens from time to time, the most memorable example
of which was the "String Theory Backlash" circa 2006, when Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong
and Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics created a huge amount of buzz.
The standard bearer at the moment is probably Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math
(which, I should note, I enjoyed very much, and not just because
I'm one of the people interviewed in it).
The issue is the continued failure of searches for physics "beyond the Standard Model"
with new particles and fields that might explain dark matter and dark energy.

I find this very frustrating, because physics as a whole is not in crisis.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2019/01/15/physics-is-not-in-crisis/#25413be2174c
====
Click to expand...
It would appear that it's M/String theory that's in crisis. Now they want a bigger collider to look for super-symmetry at higher energies.

Even Leonard Susskind who essentially invented string theory says now that it has become too rigorous to be of much use, except as a beautiful mathematical thing. It doesn't have flexibility.

Basically only evidence of super-symmetry would rescue string theory from being 'not even wrong'.

Perhaps everyone is a bit tired of waiting now, since the LHC turned up nothing useful for string theory, and not much other useful stuff either, after the spectacular proof of the Higgs boson?

But I'm just an interested layman, so please don't dump on me too hard, lol ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

'The Smolin–Susskind debate refers to the series of intense postings in 2004 between Lee Smolin and Susskind, concerning Smolin’s argument that the "anthropic principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science."
 
Last edited:
socrat44 said:
To prove ''string theory'' is needed LHC around our solar system.
Click to expand...

Or it could be just around the corner, lol. Just one small step away.

But I think the blog you posted probably sums it up. The LHC was built to find the Higgs, to confirm the last particle necessary for the standard model.

It did so in a spectacular way. What spectacular science and engineering!

But it was expected to go on finding a whole lot of interesting new particles -- and hopefully string theory's super-symmetry particles, of course.

Instead it hasn't really.

Upping the energy doesn't guarantee finding super-particles. And if it doesn't, will the string people request an even bigger one?

The effect of finding the super-symmetry particles would really be huge. But there may be other projects where the money will be better used.

From what I've read. Imo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top