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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #657877 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#657877 — Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI

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 🙂

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#657878

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!)










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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657879 — Fahrenheit 451 (Was: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI)

Is Sabine Hosfelder a modern John Gabriel ?

Anyway fuck John Gabriel and fuck Sabine Hosfelder

Fuck anybody who doesn't understand Academic Freedom

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657902

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...












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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657903

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657905

Am Donnerstag000010, 10.10.2024 um 17:25 schrieb The Starmaker:
> 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.

I personally think, the atomic bomb was aready known, long before the 
Manhattan project was started.

Szillard and Einstein worked together in Berlin in the early 1930th.

They developed and patented together something called 'Einstein fridge'.

But the only known use of this device is as part of a fast breeding reactor.

(students who wanted to replicate the fridge found out, that it didn't 
cool).

Possibly atomic bombs existed as early as 1908, and the so called 
'Tunguska event' was actually an atomic bomb explosion.
...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657915

Le 11/10/2024 à 09:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :

> 
> Possibly atomic bombs existed as early as 1908, and the so called 
> 'Tunguska event' was actually an atomic bomb explosion.
> ...

It is quite possible.

It seems that this was the place where the Russians stored uranium.

It is impossible to know that uranium had a critical mass and would 
explode in an atomic bomb.

It is therefore possible that a fortuitous accident occurred by piling 
uranium on uranium.

And producing a critical mass without knowing it.

The genius of scientists then consisted in saying we know that it 
explodes, we must find a way
to control, or even miniaturize it.

> TH

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657917

In sci.physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> wrote:
> Le 11/10/2024 à 09:52, Thomas Heger a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Possibly atomic bombs existed as early as 1908, and the so called 
>> 'Tunguska event' was actually an atomic bomb explosion.
>> ...
> 
> It is quite possible.

Such is quite impossible.

The damage covered an area of about 800 sq mi and the estimated energy
released was 3 to 30 megatons, which would require a thermonuclear
explosion and rules out a fission explosion.

Ground analysis of the site from shortly after the event and as recently
as 2013 all gives results consistant with a meteor air burst, i.e.
siicate and magnetite spheres and high proportions of nickel relative to
iron.

> 
> It seems that this was the place where the Russians stored uranium.
> 
> It is impossible to know that uranium had a critical mass and would 
> explode in an atomic bomb.
> 
> It is therefore possible that a fortuitous accident occurred by piling 
> uranium on uranium.

It is quite impossible to get a fission explosion by simply piling up
uranium. The worst that could possibly happen is that a meltdown would
occur, which would NOT result in a fission explosion. Such would be
similar to the Chernobyl meltdown but would be much less severe as the
Chernobyl event had a steam explosion from the cooling water.

<snip remaing fantasy>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657911

No hope for physics' future unless it is revised by Arindam's physics.

Energy is constantly created and destroyed in our infinite universe.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657919

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...
> 


Ants...when they crawl on the ground zig zag on their way...

which means Ants like Einstein have  'a very indirect connection'.


di·rect
/d?'rek(t),di'rek(t)/
adjective

1. extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way without changing direction or stopping.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+direct



Ants like Einstein have  'a very indirect connection'.


in·di·rect
/?ind?'rek(t),?in?di'rek(t)/

not straight; not following the shortest way.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+indirect



Can you be charged with MURDER if you have  'a very indirect connection' to the murdered person's death????



you sent somebody to kill your wife...


 'a very indirect connection'.



Albert Einstein is quilty of...Murder.



cased closed.



















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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657929

we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental 
research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure 
research.

@ELON!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657932

W dniu 12.10.2024 o 08:52, kazu pisze:
> 
> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental research, 
> no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure research.

Oh, we have it working for some thousand years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657936

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> W dniu 12.10.2024 o 08:52, kazu pisze:
>>
>> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental 
>> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just 
>> pure research.
> 
> Oh, we have it working for some thousand years.
> 

meaning?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657943

W dniu 12.10.2024 o 11:27, kazu pisze:
> Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> W dniu 12.10.2024 o 08:52, kazu pisze:
>>>
>>> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental 
>>> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure 
>>> research.
>>
>> Oh, we have it working for some thousand years.
>>
> 
> meaning?

The humanity started with no predefined
expectations, and - while researching is
not its only activity - it still matches
your description.




> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657933

On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 6:52:41 +0000, kazu wrote:

>
> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental
> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure
> research.
>
> @ELON!!!

Anything to do with Elon Musk is pollution. Not content with flammable
EVs he wants to pollute the upper atmosphere with rockets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657937

Bertietaylor wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 6:52:41 +0000, kazu wrote:
> 
>>
>> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental
>> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure
>> research.
>>
>> @ELON!!!
> 
> Anything to do with Elon Musk is pollution. Not content with 
> flammable
> EVs he wants to pollute the upper atmosphere with rockets.


i totally and completely disagree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657941

On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:27:59 +0000, kazu wrote:

> Bertietaylor wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 6:52:41 +0000, kazu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental
>>> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure
>>> research.
>>>
>>> @ELON!!!
>>
>> Anything to do with Elon Musk is pollution. Not content with
>> flammable
>> EVs he wants to pollute the upper atmosphere with rockets.
>
>
> i totally and completely disagree.

You may not like facts, you can ignore them but cannot disagree with
them. Facts are not opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657945

Bertietaylor wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 9:27:59 +0000, kazu wrote:
> 
>> Bertietaylor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 6:52:41 +0000, kazu wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental
>>>> research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure
>>>> research.
>>>>
>>>> @ELON!!!
>>>
>>> Anything to do with Elon Musk is pollution. Not content with
>>> flammable
>>> EVs he wants to pollute the upper atmosphere with rockets.
>>
>>
>> i totally and completely disagree.
> 
> You may not like facts, you can ignore them but cannot disagree with
> them. Facts are not opinions.


correct, opinions are not facts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657956

So facts are that EVs are flammable and rockets pollute the upper
atmosphere causing greenhouse effects. And Musk is behind both these
pollutions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#657957

Bertietaylor wrote:
> So facts are that EVs are flammable and rockets pollute the upper
> atmosphere causing greenhouse effects. And Musk is behind both these
> pollutions.


another fact is that electricity generation, maintaining the 
global supply chain, all products and services you utilize, add ghgs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web