Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #657903

Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > rhertz wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been sustaining for years that what is known as physics is DEAD, at
> > > least since the 70s.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBIvSGLkwJY
> > >
> > > I want to share this video that Google presented to me (very new), with
> > > a rant of Sabine Hossenfelder about the current state of physics.
> > >
> > > I invite reading some of the 9,000+ comments, many of them made by
> > > physicists very critical of what physics means today and in the last 50
> > > years.
> > >
> > > Also, as a proof of the confusion (and corruption) in physics, the fact
> > > that the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two pioneers in
> > > neural networks (the foundation of OpenAI, ChatGPT, etc.) BECAUSE it
> > > used tools of STATISTICAL PHYSICS, among many other branches, in their
> > > work.
> > >
> > > Relativity: DEAD by corruption of mathematical physics, since 1905.
> > > Cosmology: DEAD by corruption of mathematical physics, since 1922.
> > > Astrophysics: DEAD by corruption of mathematical physics, since 1952.
> > > Particle Physics: DEAD by corruption of mathematical physics, since
> > > 1960.
> > > Quantum Physics: DEAD by corruption of mathematical physics, since 1925.
> > > Many other branches (too long to cite).
> > >
> > > **************************************************
> > >
> > > Some comments on the video link:
> > >
> > > I am an astrophysicist.  When I was in graduate school in the early '90s
> > > it became apparent to me that the theorists were doing exactly what this
> > > video says.  They were using mathematics to "explain" some idea they had
> > > with absolutely no interest or ability for this idea to be tested in the
> > > real universe.  In many cases their ideas inconsistent with observations
> > > (after all astronomy is primarily an observational science) and they
> > > didn't care.  They often didn't bother to claim the observations were
> > > erroneous.  They just didn't care.
> > >
> > > *********************************************
> > >
> > > As an applied physicist, something that constantly irks me is when
> > > people say "physics" and what they mean is one this one sub-discipline
> > > of fundamental theoretical physics. Plenty of physics is working
> > > perfectly fine and not at all dying:  optics, plasma physics, materials
> > > physics, nano-physics, biomedical physics, geophysics to name but a few
> > > - all alive and kicking thanks - don't lump us all in with these guys.
> > >
> > > *********************************************
> > >
> > > Prof here. I work in a fairly applied area of plasma physics and even
> > > we've seen a significant slowdown in progress. This discussion is
> > > something that affects both the applied and fundamental areas.
> > >
> > > From our end its the need for "risk management" and "predefined impact"
> > > in grant funding. In short, we basically need to already know the
> > > outcomes of our grants in order to have any chance of getting any
> > > funding... So we apply for incremental projects that don't really
> > > provide real insight. If you buck this trend you get no money, lose
> > > respect, and fall out of the system within a few funding cycles.
> > >
> > > ***********************************************
> > >
> > > "I don't know how it ever became accepted that inventing some math and
> > > insisting that its real counts as theoretical physics. It's insane,
> > > they're all crazy." The most accurate statement about the sad state of
> > > theoretical physics over the past couple of decades.
> > >
> > > **********************************************
> > >
> > > Sabine I left theoretical physics around 1979 because of this very virus
> > > that’s been damaging physics for over 40 years, keep working to keep
> > > physics alive it feels like it on respirators.
> > >
> > > **********************************************
> > > If only this was limited to physics...
> > >
> > > Academia as a whole has become widely corrupted with self-interest,
> > > prideful self-indulgence and outright greed. Science "journalism" isn't
> > > helping at all either, as they can take perfectly reasonable research
> > > and spin it into something sensationalized. Because of course,
> > > self-interest, prideful self-indulgence and outright greed is not
> > > limited to scientists.
> > >
> > > *********************************************
> > >
> > > It seems ironic to post this here, but the problem with Physics is the
> > > problem we have now with everything:  Everything must be monetized.  The
> > > goal is to make money, not science, and this extends to every other
> > > area.  Computer Science is dominated by the creation of toys for people
> > > to play with on phones.  Finance is a quagmire of invented technical
> > > terms and convoluted systems meant to be mind-boggling to the average
> > > person in order to allow specialists to dominate a field that should be
> > > much simpler.  The legal system got there first by using a dead language
> > > for their technical terms and establishing procedures based on tradition
> > > rather than the actual written law.  "Stare Decisis" anyone?
> > >
> > > Funding comes from people who do not understand a technical field, so it
> > > is not necessary to be right in order to win.  All one has to do is to
> > > impress the right people.  Many of us have had the experience of being
> > > in a room with someone that was full of crap but had funding behind them
> > > and so ended up in charge.  I've literally heard the owners of a company
> > > react to a presentation by saying that they couldn't understand most of
> > > what the presenter was saying but they could tell he was a genius.
> > >
> > > When you use a system of rewards and penalties to guide an endeavor, you
> > > don't get what you intended, you get what you get.  For example, simply
> > > making something illegal does not usually get rid of that thing.
> > > Instead it spawns a system of workarounds.
> > >
> > > If you want a better building you need better bricks.  If you want
> > > better systems, it seems we need better people.
> > >
> > > ***********************************************
> > >
> > > As others have pointed out, the issue is that the mathematics of physics
> > > got so hard there was an influx of mathematicians who started thinking
> > > that if something was mathematically sound it must reflect reality (of
> > > course they don’t always get the mathematically sound bit right).
> > >
> > > Perhaps Paul Dirac can be blamed for mathematically predicting
> > > antimatter by accident and being right! If Dirac could do it, then why
> > > can’t they? One big difference is Dirac doubted his result and was
> > > reluctant to discuss it until Carl Anderson showed the existence of the
> > > positron in his cloud chamber experiments in 1932.
> > >
> > > So we had a theoretical physicist being humble about a prediction until
> > > an experimental result demonstrated the existence of one particle that
> > > was consistent with the theory. Today we have theoreticians boldly
> > > claiming their mathematical proofs say something about reality and
> > > telling the experimentalists to hurry up and spend billions to show the
> > > world that they are right.
> > >
> > > ***********************************************
> > >
> > > Thank you for your rant....it's very much needed.  I'm a retired,
> > > blue-collar physicist.  By that I mean, I was an experimentalist working
> > > in, for that realm, high energy ion-molecule collisions; a field far
> > > from the so-called "frontier" of quantum gravity.  Nonetheless, I've
> > > watched our beloved field fall into the irrelevancy that you point out.
> > > It started with fusion, and now has moved into high energy and quantum
> > > theory.  I blame the money....stop funding this increasingly silly
> > > research and maybe we can get back to reality.  The good news is that
> > > this period of stagnation may find someone who can break through to a
> > > new paradigm.  Probably after I die.
> > >
> > > **********************************************
> > >
> > > Business schools repeat stuff they know is wrong because it's what
> > > business wants their employees to practice. It boils down to 2 words
> > > "money corrupts."
> > >
> > > *********************************************
> > >
> > > You are absolutely right. Physics used to be about explanations of
> > > observations. And when new observation invalidated the explanations, new
> > > explanations were developed to factor in the new observations.
> > > Once particle physics got under way the game flipped around: theories
> > > were developed abstractly and then observations sought to validate the
> > > theories. The Hicks Boson was an observation that came along after the
> > > theory to validate it, so this entirely abstract new discipline,
> > > strangely still called physics, worked in this single instance. I
> > > remember being surprised and impressed. But many more of these abstract
> > > theories have been developed and no doubt some will never achieve
> > > validating observations.
> > >
> > > **********************************************
> > >
> > > In the interest of fairness, there was a time in physics where theorists
> > > were predicting the existence of particles before they were discovered
> > > in the particle accelerator. It was a small parenthesis in the history
> > > of science. The issue is that a whole generation of physicists got
> > > convinced this is how science was done, and in my humble opinion is how
> > > we ended up in this situation where theories don't require being
> > > falsifiable....
> > >
> > > ********************************************
> > >
> > > This is what mostly disillusioned me with physics academia. We spend
> > > endless time and effort going down math's rabbit holes, with zero
> > > insight of what it actually means in terms of physics. Practically all
> > > the great breakthroughs in Physics have come from realizations about the
> > > physics, and we have then built a math's framework around that. But in
> > > my experience, universities are so focused on pure mathematics. I saw so
> > > many brilliant people that had great insights into the physics just
> > > getting worn down and forced out, while people with no clue how the
> > > physics worked were elevated because they could just memorize standard
> > > problems.
> > >
> > > ******************************************
> > >
> > > A very good video that gets to the heart of the problem. I did my PhD in
> > > theoretical particle physics in 2004 and then left science for exactly
> > > those reasons. I looked at a theoretical small part that probably had
> > > nothing to do with reality, while people added more dimensions and
> > > particles to the theory or screamed for a larger LHC, which should prove
> > > it. Even Sheldon Cooper in TBBT quit String Theory 🙂
> >
> > don't to forget to add engineering is dead...those exploding rockets
> > sent to space are
> > designed by (cough) highly qualified engineers.
> >
> > (i also notice there are more women in college than men in engeineering
> > classes nowadays, God help us all!)
> 
> So, why is it these rockets sent keep exploding???? I say, 'very
> confident highly qualified' people with
> wrong information.
> 
> You cna see their confidence even when they are wrong.
> 
> These people lack complete information.
> 
> And they are confident with very little information that their
> information is...complete.
> 
> And then, they send up the rocket...and a teacher is dead.
> 
> A teacher who BELIEVED those 'very confident highly qualified' people
> are right and trusts them.
> 
> Notice how confident CHATGPT sounds even when it's wrong?
> 
> It's programmed to be confident wrong.
> 
> And when the rocket explodes...the 'very confident highly qualified'
> people say "I knew it." "Dumb teacher fell for us."
> 
> "Get in teacher, the rocket is safe!"
> 
> What are the odds? oh fuck it, you're gonna die.
> 
> We got stupid people working for us.
> 
> very highly qualified stupid people.
> 
> "Hey kid, what do you wanna be when you grow up?" "AN ASTRONUT!!!!"
> 
> stupid kid.
> 
> How come we haven't got back to the moon?
> 
> Any teachers wanna go??
> 
> It's safe. what are you worry about. get your fat ass in there!
> 
> HELP!
> 
> They are simply..very confident highly qualified ...MURDERERS.
> 
> Albert Einstein wrote a letter to his son...September 2, 1945
> 
> "My scientific work has only 'a very indirect connection' with the
> atomic bomb."
> 
> Ants...when they crawl on the ground zig zag on their way...



Professor EINSTEIN told the FBI said that he sees SZILARD quite frequently as SZILARD visits him to 'inform him as to his work on the uranium experiment.' 


In other words, Albert Einstein was the shadow chief executive and the
guiding force of The Manhattan Project.

Albert Einstein concealed his managerial role to avoid getting blood
on his hands

Albert Einstein 'used' Leo Szilard as a buffer and liaison to conceal
his connection to the Manhattan Project. 









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz) - 2024-10-09 03:25 +0000
  Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-08 21:22 -0700
    Fahrenheit 451 (Was: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-09 08:40 +0200
    Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-10 08:20 -0700
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-10 08:25 -0700
        Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-10-11 09:52 +0200
          Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-10-11 12:30 +0000
            Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-11 08:46 -0700
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-11 11:20 +0000
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-11 10:05 -0700
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 06:52 +0000
        Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-10-12 09:47 +0200
          Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 09:27 +0000
            Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-10-12 13:45 +0200
        Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Bertietaylor @novabbs.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 08:09 +0000
          Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 09:27 +0000
            Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 11:38 +0000
              Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 11:59 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-12 20:43 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI kazu <f00@0f0.00f> - 2024-10-12 21:35 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 00:35 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 17:58 -0700
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 01:25 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-10-12 19:34 -0700
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-10-13 08:20 +0200
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-13 07:07 +0000
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-10-13 08:20 +0200
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-12 22:41 -0700
                Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-10-13 14:15 -0700
  Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-09 17:18 -0700
  Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI tomyee3@gmail.com (ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog) - 2024-10-11 09:37 +0000
    Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Bertietaylor @novabbs.com (Bertietaylor) - 2024-10-11 10:55 +0000
    Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-11 09:37 -0700
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-10-12 09:02 +0200
      Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-10-17 11:26 -0700
  Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@somewhere.in.the.aether> - 2024-10-11 12:17 +0000

csiph-web