God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw


Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw book. Happy reading God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw Pocket Guide.


Publisher Description

God and Stephen Hawking. John C Lennox. God's Undertaker. Professor John C Lennox. Terrence W. The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. Roberto Mangabeira Unger. The Big Questions: Mathematics. Tony Crilly. The Great Mathematical Problems. Ian Stewart. The Great Philosophers: Turing. Andrew Hodges. Reality: A Very Short Introduction. Jan Westerhoff. Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction. A Beginner's Guide to Reality. Jim Baggott. Letters to a Young Mathematician. The Labyrinth of Time. Michael Lockwood. Gareth Southwell. Huw Price.

Sydney Self. Professor Keith Ward. Philosophy of Science: Teach Yourself. Mel Thompson. The Infinite Book. John D. Newton Fortuin. Information and the Nature of Reality. Paul Davies. Derryl Hermanutz. Donald R. The Laboratory of the Mind. James Robert Brown.

Philosophy and the Sciences for Everyone. Michela Massimi. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Karl Popper. Revolutions in Physics. Joseph P. Mihajlo Bugarinovic. Understanding Beliefs. Nils J. Signposts to God. Peter Bussey. The Metaphysics Within Physics. Tim Maudlin. String Theory and the Scientific Method. Richard Dawid. Physics and Philosophy. Sir James H. Philosophy of Science. Geoffrey Gorham.

The Open Universe. Many Worlds? Physics long ago left the realm of common sense, and those that do not understand the new ways long for the old ways, even the newest generations.

Nevertheless, physics did advance, amazingly well. Everything experimental requires more money and bigger teams, and everything theoretical requires more math and more genius. What we get is more science by speculation and more calls for diversity and equality. And quacks. When few can understand the real science, quacks prosper.

Jim, See my comment below It is a shame that he makes himself so poisonous reading. Motl grew up under communism. He certainly is not Politically Correct — but that does not make him wrong. He has been wrong on a few occasions but his strength is he can break most problems down to mathematics, where others can not. I think you got it all wrong and I also think Lubos Motl is very misguided in here.

I value Hossenfelder as a thinker, and Motl as a string theorist, but not the other way around. Motl in horrible in philosophical questions he trods on. However I think that Motl is correct that, unfortunately, a lot of protest and dissent against mainstream science including in the blogosphere, is not pure search for truth but is poisoned by envy of intelligence which turns into a form of general anti-intellectualism. Call it an intellectual penis envy. This often causes bloggers to turn on each other as well as lash out at the establishment.

The ego must die in the search for truth. Sabine does indeed have some interesting takes on philosophical questions and is probably a good mother and wife. That is pretty much how it will be recorded in history. Dark energy, dark matter, multiverse, string theory.

At this time, with near-observation and deduction, these ideas seem to intersect with, in the best case, faith, or, in the worst case, unknowable e. People want to believe, something, and political congruence is the mark of modern civilization. I have no qualifications to give me any hope at all of understanding these concepts. I guess I do react a bit against the idea of dark energy, strings, and branes, perhaps for no better reason than they seem so alien to my thought processes. Seems quite logical to me, and the only thing I ever heard that could make some sense of quantum weirdness.

I partly disagree. Dark matter is an answer to inconvenient observation of rotation of galaxies. It is posited to bring observations in accord with laws of gravity. No one has ever observed it directly. If you believe in it, you are limited only by your fantasy. Theorists believe that it is composed of particles, just like visible matter. Dark energy is more theoretical, posited to explain an observed? This observation is more indirect and has much larger error margins. I am old enough to remember the time when oldest Earth rocks were older than the Universe. The discrepancy was resolved by a discovery of two classes of Cepheids, variable stars which were used to measure the Universe -and suddenly the Universe was 15 billion years old, not 4 billion.

String theory is a brave attempt to create a Theory of Everything. Unfortunately, it requires many dimensions beyond the three plus time we are used to. There are almost infinitely many ways to account for these additional dimensions, and each of them comes with its own set of not yet observed particles. It might well be the Theory of Everything, but right now it is a Theory of Anything. It just seems too arbitrary and complex to be a good candidate for TOE.

We should go back to traditional ideals of free research of free men. Scientific peer review favors conjectures over validation. Students below PhD should just critically repeat existing papers. These publish research for public review that others can do. No one would read them. They are largely sycophantic and boring. It is at that level that the paradigms are enforced. Why are they written? Could they do something more useful? On the other hand, he did give me the lowest mark he could get away with. Sycophantic and boring? We need to expand near-frame observation and deduction, and leave logical domain conflation and inference behind.

Perhaps a venture beyond the fringe of our solar system, to confirm or reject the fidelity of signals received from without. Demonstrating how different the glacial earth is from present would stop the CO2 business cold. At my small liberal arts uni they were doing x-ray crystallography. Most of the PHD holders had their degrees in this subject area and all they did was pick a different crystal to analyze every couple years.

Write it up for the journals and they were all set for the next grant requests. Quantity in quotations, quantity in accepted! In the old Sovjet Plan Economy glass factories were paid for the number of tons of glass windows they were producing. It was the most easy only to produce thick windows. But the market asked thinner windows as well. So the system was changed and the factories became paid for the number of square meters of windows they produced. Wanting lower costs for raw materials, the factories than decided to produce only!

cpanel.wcs2015.org/92-come-acquistare-zithromax.php

‎God Versus Particle Physics on Apple Books

Eisenhower warned about it many years ago. Government science funding needs to be slashed, it not eliminated. Good review by Eric Worrall. When I graduated in , I thought there were far to may particles to remember then. However over the last decade, Svensmark and his team as well as work by Shaviv have made great strides with the cosmic ray-magnetic field variation-real climate change variation. Especially, the part when authorities in Europe tried to prevent Svensmark from using the accelerator to confirm his theory in the lab.

First there is no such thing as a discrete national economy. The original tout behind the formation of the Federal Reserve System was that it could prevent the financial setbacks that preceded recessions. There has been 18 recessions since the Fed opened its doors in January This has been an incredible display of audacity. I appreciate the analogy between physics and climate science. Theoretical physics must be a difficult discipline.

Not many have really made it to the top. So, is she referring to only theoretical physics, or is she referring to the whole scope of physics? If the latter then she could not be more wrong. Think in terms of the advances in particle physics LHC, FermiLab, and the like , results from the Hubble and other space telescopes, and recent advances in the application of quantum physics entanglement and computation, for example. Is this, for her, the difficulty?


  • Blood, Land, and Sex: Legal and Political Pluralism in Eritrea.
  • Navigation menu.
  • GATT Negotiations and the Political Economy of Policy Reform.
  • God versus Particle Physics: A No-Score Draw by John Davies (Paperback, 2013)?
  • Pro Excel 2007 VBA!
  • IronRuby Unleashed, e-Pub.

If so, why? It seems to me Stephen Hawking managed to gain support for the directions he wished to take. On the other hand, practical physicists, such as Rutherford, always managed to find support to build the instrumentation they could not otherwise obtain. The big difference between physics and climate science is, however, what the vast amounts of money are being spent for.

I would guess that many of us appreciate why the LHC cost many billions and the proposed Chinese accelerator many times more. Not many of us appreciate the similar amount of money spent on chasing the proverbial climate rainbow. There is a close analogy between particle physics and climate science, but a crucial difference. John R. I have an example about this present culture that physical science does not allow any new and radical ideas. In Finland is my country man Tuomo Suntola who has a remarkable career in developing new physical methods and innovations.

It has been a market leader in meteorological humidity measurements since its introduction in His second development work was the development of ALD Atomic Layer Deposition method for manufacturing semiconductors. This technology is used to manufacture ultra-thin material layers for a variety of devices such as computers, smartphones, microprocessores and memory devices enabling high performance in small size.

Archived Comments

What is more, he has developed a new theory called the Dynamic Universe DU theory. It is a holistic description of the observable physical reality. DU relies on absolute time and distance as coordinate quatitities essential for human comprehension and shows relativity in terms of local energy unit. According to Suntola, he could not get this paper published in any respected journal. So, he wrote a book about his theory and used his own money to get it published. Kepler defined the laws that explain elliptic planetary motion upon which Newton based his laws of motion and gravity.

Unless his theory does a better job of explaining all of the things that are explained by relativity, then it should be ignored. So he claims. The theory is old skool, and awkward, but Suntola is not so crackpot as rather old crank. Chasing ghosts e. After another unsuccessful attempt to detect dark matter I read the following: in old, good days physicists were explaining to us their findings and how Universe works. Noways they are explaining only why they cannot find anything dark matter, dark energy, multiverse etc.

Similar in Physics, according to Lee Smolin and now to Sabine Hossenfelder, your career is fine as long as your research proposal falls within the parameters of what everyone else thinks it should be. You see the same in Solar Science. Just think of [sometimes ugly] negative reactions to the revision of the Sunspot Number Series.

The solar physics field is healthy because arguments and disagreements can be discussed in the literature and conference presentations. So they suppress the dissent getting into publications. Those who try to are given pejorative labels to minimize them. In spite of this, the revision is often vehemently dismissed by people on both sides of the debate… Even here on WUWT.

Some of it was ugly anti-semitism. Some of it was jealousy. And some of it was just anti-science stubbornness from scientists unable to accept variable time. But he held the day. To this day, good physicists are trying to find exceptions to his Equivalence Principle that underpins GR to point to something beyond GR.

My suspicion is that will never succeed until we can examine the experiment from the outside. The observation that c never varies regardless of reference frame should be the big clue. Even dear Einstein was sufficiently overwhelmed by the grouptink of Solvay that he did not stand up for the young deBroglie who closed his books for decades afterwards. Born spent decades harassing Einstein who never submitted. It is the way with actual science no-one cares what you think, or who you are they care what you can prove to be true.

A good example i is the Big Bang thheory. No one assks where doess all the energy come from which would be required to expand a tiny ball, the condenssed Universe, to the giant size universe of today. Think energy and the whole concept of the Big Bang is nonsense. They solidify their pet theories and nothing changes, as fixation slows progress. Stanley Miller demonstrated abiogenesis over 60 years ago. I find that the more we discover, the more wonderful the world and the universe is.

Shame that the UNFCCC seem to want to end the spirit of discovery and pronounce their version of climatology as complete and irrefutable. Groupthink affects every avenue of human endeavour. Groupthink is the triumph of money over truth. In Climate science, corruption affects our finances. Crisis in science paradigms occurs when there are repeated, independent observations of a physical phenomenon that conflicts with or cannot fit into consensus theory.

Examples: — Once telescopes came along, the independent observations of the Jovian moons clearly orbiting Jupiter put Earth-centric Ptolemaic celestial models in crisis years ago. The list is rather long. Particle physics is not in crisis because every observation so far demonstrates the current Standard Model works very well.

Cosmology is not in crisis yet because every actual observation so far supports General Relativity. The problem here that Sabine Hossenfelder highlights is that experimentalists can find no evidence to constrain so many different theories that is to eliminate them , so they proliferate. The problem is they are finding no observational evidence from the LHC for things like the many different variations on Cold Dark Matter CDM theory envisions weakly interacting massive particles WIMPs to explain the rotation speed and formation of galaxies.

But without WIMPs, galaxies like our own cannot be explained. And without Dark Energy, the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe from 2 independent observations of type 1A Supernovae cannot be explained. And without Inflation at the Big Bang, the universe we see in both the vast clusters of galaxies early after that beginning and the Cosmic Microwave background CMB cannot be explained. So far, there is no evidence of extra-dimension GW energy bleed-off and thus no evidence of extra-dimensions. All of these things makes the Theoretical Physicists uncomfortable because theories are proliferating with experimentalists unable to constrain them.

At this point, it is not just a matter of building a bigger collider, but completely new kinds of basic experimental set-ups. This is all very different from the coming crisis in Climate Science, which is predictably coming. The adjustments to the surface temperature data sets can only go so far in a cooling planet that has seen many up and downs in the current interglacial. The crisis will happen because the decades of outright dishonesty will come crashing down on the RentSeekers.

I take exception to your assessment that cosmology is not in crisis because everything is consistent with General Relativity. Cosmology is still addicted to epicycles; the latest being dark energy. Dark energy can be made to disappear by means of one very modest change to General Relativity that only allows gravity to be regarded as a real field rather than being merely a manifestation of spacetime geometry.

Further, the cosmological redshift data can be encompassed nicely with only one free parameter and no dark energy. Partially separating gravity from General Relativity should also permit the development of a quantum field theory of gravity. It is amazing that no young theorists seem to be actively pursuing this at present.

And note I did put in the weasel word "yet". And despite intense efforts, the search is still empty on CDM. At this point, galactic unicorns or pixie dust theory works too. The only thing he got wrong was thinking that this referred to Science. It actually is the way ALL human thought works….

For Physics the answer is probably found in the necessitous of Dark Matter. But I am a believer that why it is needed is providing us a clue there there this is something as fantastic and revolutionary to be discovered as were Relativity and Quantum Mechanics where to 20th Century Physics. But as has been pointed out, the current incremental investigations may be insufficient. What happens to Physics when the energies required are beyond what is experimentally achievable? Or where there is no guidance in theory because there are no precedents?

Or even sparse variations? So if we have a few questions from time to time about what they are doing with our money, he can stick his arrogance up his proverbial if he wants the flow of cash to continue. Seriously, I know nothing of these people or their arguments, and know little about their science. But Motl comes across as a petulant man-child. Yes, maybe BBT is modelled after him. He is very definitely a fan of it. He writes about this a lot. He has research and he has opinions. You may not like his opinions, but it is very useful to hear what a true skeptic thinks.

They might seem like rants, but they are very well thought out. You beat me to the punch. They are going to be almost impossible to get rid of. If you propose doing that, they will run around screeching: Atomic Bomb, Transistor, Lasers …. Tell them that was 2 generations ago and ask them what have you done for me lately, they will yammer incomprehensible baffle-gab about the need for fundamental research.

What we have here is white people on welfare. How could they possibly have stagnating groupthink? It is forbidden by policy. Just about every university spends millions on diversity and inclusion, including hiring highly paid people to head up such efforts. The even have forced er, mandatory scoldings and indoctrination lectures on this essential subject. So,almost by law all of these teams are so diverse that groupthink is by definition impossible.

As proof of their diversity and inclusivity, just look at what percent of university faculty donated to the D party in the last election cycle. And it will prob always be this way!! He now in in touching distance of a working prototype. It seems like convention physics is just ignoring him. Probably the same in fusion research too.

Not enough time and resources given to people with genuinely new ideas, while the established elite gather ever more money and prestige to themselves, even as their discipline is being hollowed-out and rotting from within. In chemistry or molecular biology, competitors in the field can do an experiment to prove you wrong in less than a week, not fifty years.

This tends to help keep concentration here and now where it belongs. Be mindful of the living Force. Perhaps they should spend more time and money on something more immediately useful, not the grand problems of the universe or future climates. Sometimes the solution to a big problem arrives unexpectedly while you are doing something apparently much more trivial.

Lee Smolin is a fascinating character. He suggests that physical laws themselves are emergent and can vary over time. This is the opposite to the more common view that the laws are fixed and time itself is emergent. So the climate modellers turned to mathematics to correct this. What they did was use the Evans Searles fluctuation theorem to damp down the stochastic process of the chaotic atmospheric system. In the above link I quote :. The man- ner in which the ESFT fails for systems that are not time-reversible is presented, and results are shown which demonstrate that systems which fail to satisfy the ESFT may still satisfy the Crooks relation CR.

The earth atmosphere is not a reversible system. All these mathematical constructs were developed for enclosed energy systems where you can control everything. The attempt by climate scientists to use them in their computer code to model chaotic non linear systems where even all the degrees of freedom are not specified fully Do you really believe that all the variables have been included in climate models? Can we analyse by analogy? When will just one contemporary composer match Beethoven?

One modern artist match Rembrandt?

Slashdot Top Deals

Has society invented ways to suppress genius or even higher skill people? Have we turned gravels with the occasional diamond into uniform grey porridge? This article made me think of paper by Garrett Lisi a while back that took a fresh approach to a Theory Of Everything. It had its flaws but it was a very different way of looking for a TOE. Sabine and a few others were supportive but there was plenty of animosity from physicists including Motl. I never really understood why, but this article helps.

Garrett is talking about infinite-dimensional E8 group and infinite spacetime cosmology. There are technical problems with these. IDK if he can make a more sensible theory. After Lee Smolin; Time is real, endures eternally, while space is emergent and contingent. Roberto Mangabera Unger did Lee Smolin and us no favors. Our Univere does not admit the Supernatural, but some previous one did.

He evolved to persist apart from evanescent space. My only remaining question is; does the ego survive discorporation. At the same time they often show behaviors, such as phobias or preferences, that are unusual within the context of their particular family and cannot be explained by any current life events. Some of the children have birthmarks and birth defects that correspond to wounds or other marks on the deceased person whose life is being remembered by the child. In numerous cases postmortem reports have confirmed these correspondences.

Older children may retain these apparent memories, but generally they seem to fade around the age of 7. The young subjects of these cases have been found all over the world including Europe and North America. We have to die to find out, it seems. Supposedly, you keep coming back to rid yourself of illusions and when that has been acomplished you transcend birth and death, and perhaps then you can sit at the Right Hand of God.

I saw a television program some time ago a year of two about a young boy, who from a very early age, told his parents about a past life as a man who had served in the U. This kid knew names of fellow servicemenbers and naval ships. He described the name of a US Navy vessel that upon cursory search could not be found in the hstoric record, but a subsequent, more detailed search found that the kid was exactly right, there was a ship by that name and it was involved in the naval battle the kid described.

The kid has even connected with the family of the man who died in the battle and they also believe he is the reincarnation of their relative. According to the tv show, the university has about 1, similar cases on file of children recounting past life experiences. But I try to practice the Golden Rule so maybe that will be sufficient for either way it goes, death of the ego, or continuation of the ego. What went wrong? First prove that the molucle CO2, with two parts of Oxygen and only one part of Carbon, does not store heat, but re-radiates it in the real world, not the PC or a in a enclosed jar in a classroom.

They are the flywheels of the system. Via the wind they spread the heat energy around the globe. The bumps, ie Mountains, call local variations. One of the problems with physics today is that they are addicted to smashing things with bigger and bigger hammers. Most professors aren't out to solve the whole universe, and have no expectation of being hailed as a god-like figure on Mount Olympus next to Newton, Einstein, Feynman or Hawking.

What they study will not redefine the universe, time and space and matter. But that is true for physicists, and when you rightfully criticize them as approaching the problem all wrong, in a way that they feel threatens the funding for eventual fame, they attack you for trying to destroy their dream. Nuclear Physics, like "Rocket Scientist" before it, has become synonymous to the public with extraordinary intelligence and intellectual respect. When you publicly point out they are behaving like children and engaging in magical thinking naturalness, beauty , you threaten the public perception that they know what they are doing, threaten the cachet of their job and value to society, and this also threatens funding, and their jobs.

I think Ego is a large contributing factor to their hostile response. Everybody hopes to claim their seat in Olympus, as one of the world-famous Gods of Physics. IMO that kind of thing is not even a goal in most academic fields. There's just something special about fundamental physics that offers physicists their own little shot at immortality. Robert Oppenheimer said so.

Customer Reviews

Concerning the necessety for a new, larger accelerator, it's the same thing as with the global warming lie, the evil diesel slander and so many other mainstream items: a large-appearing group of conspired pseud-scientists or actual scientists try to secure their incomes by chatting up the oublic opinion by means of poor informed and badly skilles media and well-bred politicians. THX for your personal courage and endurance! I have been to a degree on fence with respect to this. I can see either side in the argument. The negativity against Hossenfelder is clearly similar to the anger one gets from the union membership of some company that is cutting back jobs.

It is the same; we prefer to have our careers or jobs maintained. I would say the most likely positive thing to come is more precise measurements of masses, such as the Higgs particle mass. We will also have a fair amount of data on the renormalization group flows of running parameters into a higher energy scale.

This will not likely produce some big Nobel Prize winning discovery. I would say the physics is likely to be standard model all the way up to TeV, where the prospects for some SUSY are small. However, this will constitute physical information and data. The other positive thing is there will be a population of people who do graduate work who will for the most part be employed in technology firms. This will keep the EU and maybe the western world at the lead in technology. We have a serious challenge from China, where the government there has clear goals of monopolizing the technosphere.

They are also making other power moves. The negative thing is this FCC means a large amount of science dollars are pooled into one program. If science funding in general where fungible to such changes that might be one thing. However there is a tendency when big programs get going for smaller programs to get pushed to the side.

Is filling out the RG flow of the standard model more important that research on edge states and symmetry protected topology in the phase structure of matter? On a far bigger scale this is one reason I groan ever time I hear about big space programs to send astronauts to Mars. We must never forget that funding for science programs, in particular big programs becomes political. Hi Sabine. Being called a "populist" aligns to Martin Gurri's book the Revolt of the Public. People in power made mistakes, but they were left quiet to keep faith in the elite. In the digital media age, everyone can go on facebook or have a blog.

And run around the gatekeepers. So the populist revolts in the Arab spring, french yellow vests, and yes, Donald Trump, all have this in common. I know you're busy, but I think it's an excellent book, and since you're getting attacked in exactly this manner, you may find it both an interesting and a useful read. Sabine, Thanks for taking a stand on this. I'd be willing to bet a large portion of people's unwillingness to openly discuss your observations is tied to the same rationalizations that have gamblers throwing more money when they're losing, because "my luck will change any time now!

Now look. I'm just a disabled veteran layman, whose highest academic achievement is becoming a Master ASE certified automotive technician, so my words likely wouldn't carry much weight in Ivory Tower Academia. However, one of the fundamental principles behind becoming a technician is the ability to develop logic and trace problems in an organized manner. What particle physics as a whole seems to do is what in the mechanical world we call "loading up the parts shotgun and blasting away. Long-winded way of saying, I agree with you, and while it might not matter much in the long run, you've got my support.

Yes, I agree with your diagnosis, they hope that throwing more money at the problem will solve it. Hi Sabine, Taking the heat for being Cassandra, and calling out the entrenched interests is essentially a negative message - and you will likely be criticized for negativity. Perhaps a go-foward strategy for you blog would be to highlight the work of those scientists with good ideas that haven't gotten much traction because their ideas aren't mainstream.

I know that there are many of those out there that are demonstrably serious and credible. I do highlight ideas I find noteworthy but haven't gotten much traction. Please note, however, that if anyhow possibie I try to not do this on my blog, but on a medium that reaches a larger audience. I have eg written about superfluid dark matter for Aeon and Scientific American and Asymptotically Safe Gravity for Quanta Magazine as well as quantum simulations in more general various places , emergent gravity ditto and ways to experimentally probe quantum gravity Nautilus.

What you find on this blog is, basically, stuff I can't pitch. Summaries of papers I've read. Comments on other people's papers or articles. Random thoughts. Personal matters. General writing overspill. I really don't get this Negatively criticism. I've read you book and follow the blog and all I see is positive exasperation.

Saying that something is wrong or that you shouldn't do something isn't negative, any more than telling someone not to walk into a burning house is. Nice essay Dr. You are not a mediocre thinker and I know you understand meaning knowing what motivates them the reactions to your views. Every mature field becomes self reinforcing and loses perspective.

A voice pointing this out is always good for the discipline eventually, but not always for the one to whom it falls to speak it. Calling particle physics mature is an interesting choice. It is by no means mature we are missing key components in just about every theory. Thank you for posting about theoretical developments for physics nowadays. That methods have not worked for decades is not something a physicist likes to hear. But it seems to be the truth indeed! I am a physicist following a very mediocre phenomenological approach. What is the situation now for physics? To get really new ways of thinking one can change one of the fundamentals of the theory or construct better apparatuses.

For instance a different better working apparatus like or not just a Collider for particle physics or better nano- photonic materials or whatever. One has to cross borders of todays paradigm. This paradigma forces everybody to see only limited possibilities to construct or interpret measurements anew and get new ideas for future developments. One area of research at CERN that I find particularly interesting is the ongoing investigation of the quark gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions. It is a laboratory reproduction of the entire universe at about 1 to 3 microseconds after the big bang.

The experimental results, based on the Landau hydrodynamic model, suggested at first that it behaved like a perfect classical Eulerian liquid to a good first approximation. As far as I understand, this behavior is incompatible with the models that are being used for inflationary cosmology. So I think that inflationary cosmologists think that or hope that the quark-gluon plasma will eventually at higher energies become asymptotically free and behave more like a gas than a liquid.

In addition, the early work on modeling in the standard model suggested that thermalization was occurring faster than the speed of light allowed in the quark gluon plasma. This was precisely the same reason that inflation was originally proposed for the early universe. I don't know if rapid thermalization is still a problem with the most recent studies of the quark gluon plasma, but if it is, this seems to be extremely important. It probably makes sense to delay a next generation accelerator to allow Moore's law and technology advancements to occur that could make the next generation much cheaper than it is now though.

Quantum computing could potentially greatly impact the ability to process the data and simulate Lattice models for example. There are arguments too that space-based accelerators could be constructed much more cheaply than land based ones at very high energies. Perhaps particle physicists should work on that idea for a while before committing to another land-based concept. But I think it would be a shame not to ever know what lies next around the next corner. CERN website for the next generation collider concept design report and short facebook?

However obviously difficult to present a theoretical counter argument since pretty much all the theory has been developed using the concepts of naturalness and beauty that Sabine argues against. There is a recent paper by Baer et al. It may be correct, it may be a pile of junk, but it's an hypothesis that at least deserves attention. Unfortunately the predictions made in the paper would require higher energies or luminosities than the LHC currently achieves in order to prove or falsify.

Which brings us back to where we started Sabines argument verses 'more energy please'. I find the idea that other people might disagree with what you have to say ordinary and reasonable. I find the fact that their response might be to try to silence you explicable but disgusting. If science is about anything at all, it is about being honest with ourselves. Attempting to silence dissent on the basis that we can't allow the hoi polloi to hear about the existence of an honest dispute has no place whatsoever in the scientific enterprise.

I think we've reached the limit of practicality for particle accelerators using conventional technology. My hope is that laser or plasma acceleration will eventually allow for dramatically higher energies with much smaller machines. Certainly looking to see if anything new turns up at higher energies is worthwhile provided it doesn't break the bank. Sabine, You are brave to give out a bleak but true message to your colleagues. I am sure high energy theorists are not the only group of scientists who deserve such a message.

For example the medical scientists chastised by Richard Harris in his book "Rigor Mortis", must have loathed him even more! It was interesting that some did not even cloak their opposition to your views in technical arguments - they just hated your message! I hope that your stand may encourage others in the know to come out in yet more areas of science that suffer from analogous problems I can think of 2 or 3! BTW, I like the new blog format.

You mean the threaded comments? Apparently Google introduced that option a while ago, but I didn't notice until someone told me yesterday! I hope it will declutter the comment sections somewhat. Though the formatting is somewhat screwed up, it seems to me. In any case, thanks for the kind words. Richard Harris is a journalist, so while I am sure some medical scientists were pretty unhappy he'd publicly document the miserable quality standards in their fields, it's somewhat of a different situation.

I realised there is a difference, but medical journalists don't like to upset the researchers, or they won't get the next scoop. I dare say something similar operates in HEP - I think it is another part of the problem.

Brian Cox Particle Physics Lecture at CERN

Also, I suppose it is much more attractive for a journalist to write about other universes, than explain that maybe the equations don't describe reality! Dear Sabine, I do not know You in person, but as I can see from your publications list, you specialized in Quantum Gravity and even made some predictions for black hole detection at LHC.

For me it is not suprising your current personal disappointment in High Energy Physics, but please take into account that High Energy Physics includes dozens of directions, and the fact that some QG or BSM predictions were not discovered by LHC really doesn't make any problem; there are a lot of important developments within Standard Models, especially its strong sector. Besides, we have an Intensity Frontier, and several accelerators working in that direction.

For this reason, I hope You will agree that your crusade against High Energy Physics "as a whole" is not well motivated. If You are interested, I have several new ideas "on hold" due to lack of time, and could help You to switch to our QCD field. I agree with You that the scientific society should "stop playing citation games"-I do not play it, and find it a bit funny to hear during discussion that somebody's paper is wrong just because it got low citation score.

But please note that this problem exists not only in HEP, nor is the fault of the HEP society alone-it is a general problem which appeared when the funding agencies started using this metrics for ranking the research projects. What we see now are the classical manifestations of the so-called Campbell's or Goodhart's laws in action. Maybe we should rethink how as a society we accumulate and rank the new knowledge, and if the classical publication processes might be improved in the fast-paced and interconnected 21st century.

If Your attempts to modernize relationships of HEP science with society are honest and not just a publicity stunt to sell your book , maybe we could discuss in details how this could be done. You sound like a particle physicist. Second, that's right, I once did BSM pheno. If you look somewhat closer at my publication list, however, you will also notice I stopped working on this in , before the LHC even turned on.

The reason is that I came to the conclusion naturalness-based arguments are unreliable. I tell the story in my book. So my personal involvement with the current data situation is very limited. I am disappointed because I guess I was hoping I'd be wrong after all. Third, you are right of course that the organizational structure that results in the amplification of hype and social reinforcement, especially citation games, are not specific to HEP. These problems exist in pretty much all scientific disciplines. I say this explicitly in my book. This does not mean, however, that HEP is excused.

As the German saying has it, you sweep your own doorstep first. Someone has to start. And HEP has a reputation for being ahead of the rest of science. No, this is not a problem that is handed down from funding agencies. This is a myth that I hear all the time I address this in my book.

It's an attempt to refuse to take responsibility.

Stolen Child

Funding agencies have no reason to want to make bad investments. They rely on reviewers. It's the reviewers who pay attention to oversimplified measures of scientific impact. As a matter of fact many funding agencies now ask applicants to only list 5 or 10 publications that are relevant to the proposal or such, in an attempt to prevent this.

Needless to say, that's rather pointless, if you can jut Google the applicant's name and get their full record. Yes, I would be more than happy to discuss what can be done about this in a practical way. I have some general recommendations in the appendix of my book, but some more specific ones which are not in the book. But not with an anonymous commenter on my blog. That does not look like a good investment of my time.

I hope you understand. It is sad to see the mud-slinging going on. Science should remain science and not turn into politics. I don't always agree with your views but as far as questioning a new accelerator is concerned, I think you have done a huge favor to the scientific community. The onus is on the particle physicists to explain and convince the community, and the society as a whole, as to why it is absolutely necessary to do what they have are doing. If I was one of them I would have been rather excited that I am getting a chance to engage with a fellow, and a well respected, physicist at a broader platform.

I would like to see more scientific arguments from both sides rather than unnecessary slandering. Having said that I feel you are doing your job just fine. Not to mix metaphors, but your contribution to discussions of both fundamental and applied physics are a light in my lane. As I said in alternet, it is a good thing Hossfelder isn't in charge of the budget appropriations for the future collider.

Though history there have been many Hossenfelders who their there handa up and exclaim we have reached the end! We know all, everything! All we can do now is refine our measurements! Where would we be? The only people who think there is no need for the future collider are the ones who lack imagination. David, This misrepresents my opinion badly.

We do not know everything. There is more to find. What I am saying is that, at the current state of knowledge, a larger particle collider is not a promising way to find it. It is not the best way to invest such a large amount of money. But then again, that may just be my impression. Sabine wrote: Now, look. I have a temper. I lack patience. When people are in conflict with each other, and one or more sides is playing dirty ad hominem, accusations, etc. It's natural and normal to get frustrated when dealing with difficult people. It isn't natural for humans to respond like emotionless robots.

Complicating matters even further, you're a woman. Men can get away with being more assertive and blunt, and they can even get away with more personal attacks, which is why we don't often see men conceding that they're not angels, have a temper and lack patience. I'm currently reading about Socrates and Peter Abelard, two geniuses who pissed people off. Abelard got castrated, but even that didn't stop him. Just this morning I read about the defense Socrates offered at his trial and I was very moved by it, especially in the context of the current political situation in America.

On the chance it might offer some inspiration for you, I'll quote it. I think it applies equally well to your situation: "I am the gadfly of the Athenian people, given to them by God, and they will never have another if they kill me. And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me, who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life.

I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long 1and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me, and therefore I would advise you to spare me. Consider the definition of idealist: a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations.

From my perspective, Sabine is guided by practical considerations. The entire foundation of her argument is based on practical considerations. I agree that it takes courage and integrity to do what Sabine is doing, two qualities that are often associated with idealists. Now that you've got me thinking, I'll give some thought to Martin Luther King. When he worked for basic civil rights and decency, was that idealism or pragmatism? I suppose "practical considerations" can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder.

Our job is discovery, evidence, analysis and good science. I'm not an entertainer or a politician, although there are many in this field. Motto: Call it like you see it. Defend your position. Keep chargin'! Those things people have called you in the second paragraph. I hope it was only from Motl. Almost of that came from particle physicists. Some of them I have known for quite a while, the others I checked.

No cranks, normal researchers in the field. The exception is the remark about "nest fouling" which came from someone who works primarily in GR. Most of this exchange is public, btw, you find it on my facebook timeline or in my twitter feed. Plenty of witnesses for that too. So, with that said, on one hand I applaud the work performed on the Standard Model neutrino mass, Higgs, etc. I am very grateful as a watching layman. However, I am becoming more and more dissolutioned with the theoretical particle physics community.

As a scientist and reviewer of preemminent journal manuscripts, I understand that this is "how science works" and is self-correcting. However, what bothers me is that the theory papers published will remain in the annals of the human knowledge and the authors allowed to cite and gain citations for what is probably crap speculatory research It sickens me that those particle physics papers with citations on the EM-Drive will not be retracted if the jury finally nails the coffin shut.

In terms of HEP, I have noticed the same movement as an xcited but cautious observer. In other words similar to R. Nature seems to have no preference in my work whether I think a scramjet engine is "beautiful", therefore it is truth. I find HEP physicist's sentiments for "Beauty" to be laughable!! It's pure arrogance, and anthropomorphic. And these are the people who claim there is no God, and herald themselves as beacons of "Truth".

I think that some are falling into the human trap of "getting high on their own supply". Thank you for trying to keep all of our feet on the ground! Per aspera, ad astra! As A last paragraph shows you are basically explaining people smartet than you how they should do their job. Please keep up the good work of getting science back to science. The situation reminds me a lot of what Robert Zubrin says. Space Exploration has been nobbled by cost plus research, the incentive is for all the companies to up their prices to increase their profits.

Zubrin, head of the Mars Society, came up with the Mars Direct idea of getting to Mars much more cheaply. Perhaps the problem is not the higher energies but finding some entrepreneur to do it more cheaply. They said that was impossible with space exploration, but this was the result of their own expensive approaches to the problem. Sabine, for those 'civilians' who love science but lament its descent into the realms of belief in the eyes of the public, you are a breath of fresh air. The problem you are encountering is fear that the image of science is more important than its achievements, that the public will begin to question its assertions.

God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw
God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw

Related God versus Particle Physics: A No Score Draw



Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved