On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 3:26:34 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply] wrote:
In article <th771r$sqlc$2...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>, Thomas Koenig <tko...@netcologne.de> writes:
In https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
Sabine Hossenfelder offers rather scathing (and funny) comments on
particle physics, in which she likens the search for new particles
to zoologists who have developed a computer model of a purple
12-legged spider in the Arctic, and (because it is a testable
hypothesis) argue that a mision should be sent to search for it.
So, what is the general opinion on her article?
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> replied:
Bad. While some points might be valid, it is an exaggeration. [[...]]
Hossenfelder also treats "particle physics" as pretty much a single undifferentiated field of study. But it actually has many subfields --
both theoretical and experimental -- with significantly different intellectual traditions, cultures, successes, and (no doubt) failures.
I think reading this news story from /Science/,
https://www.science.org/content/article/showdown-two-huge-neutrino-detectors-will-vie-probe-matter-s-origins
*Clash of the titans*
/The United States and Japan are embarking on ambitious efforts to
wring a key secret of the universe from the subatomic phantoms known
as neutrinos/
Science, volume 377 (29 Sep 2022), doi: 10.1126/science.adf0547
By Adrian Cho
gives a *very* different impression of (one subfield of) particle physics from that conveyed by Hossenfelder.
It is always unfair to hold an entire group at fault for the excesses of
a few, but I feel there is room for criticism of some who make
exaggerated claims. I often read, mostly in the popular press and in
university press releases, about how some discovery is going to
revolutionize the world. Someone makes an incremental improvement in
battery chemistry and then claim that it will enable battery powered
airliners and electric cars that can be recharged in 5 minutes. Someone
sees a minor blip on some cross section and claims that it may indicate
a new particle that will reveal the nature of dark energy or dark
matter. Or the need for a new ultra high energy synchrotron to reveal
the ultimate secret of the universe. I see this sort of thing happening
often in all scientific reporting, not just physics but all fields of
science and engineering reporting.
After a while it is like the boy who always cries wolf. It degrades the credibility of the scientific community and our scientific process. I
think this is bad for all of us and deserves to be criticized.
Unfortunately this criticism itself can degrade our credibility. I
think most of us realize that self criticism is part of the scientific
process, but the public apparently does not, they just take it as
"scientists are confused and don't know what is going on".
Self criticism is part of the scientific process. So is speculation and extrapolation. The problem comes when it becomes unrealisitic and too
public, and the public needs to be sold on spending money on research.
That is the real harm, of course, the impact on funding for research.
Everyone is trying to get more money for their research and thus is
"selling" it.
I for one do not criticize Sabine for her criticism. It may be too
focused on high energy physics, but I think it is deserved. It be
better if we could somehow police the wild and irresponsible ideas, but
that would be too much like censorship.
Rich L.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)