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.
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 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.
Possibly atomic bombs existed as early as 1908, and the so called
'Tunguska event' was actually an atomic bomb explosion.
...
TH
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.
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...
we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental
research, no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure
research.
@ELON!!!
we need a bell labs type institution that can do fundamental research,
no timeline and no pre-defined expectations, just pure research.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So facts are that EVs are flammable and rockets pollute the upper
atmosphere causing greenhouse effects. And Musk is behind both these pollutions.
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.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:35:02 +0000, kazu wrote:
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.
What's ghgs?
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:35:02 +0000, kazu wrote:
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.
What's ghgs?
A concept post 1890, i.e. a time about 200 years after the time all your science education ends, Arindam.
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:58:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:35:02 +0000, kazu wrote:
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.
What's ghgs?
A concept post 1890, i.e. a time about 200 years after the time all your
science education ends, Arindam.
Your science education never began, Penisnino.
So facts are that EVs are flammable and rockets pollute the upper
atmosphere causing greenhouse effects. And Musk is behind both these pollutions.
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:58:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:35:02 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:What's ghgs?
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. >>>>
A concept post 1890, i.e. a time about 200 years after the time all your >>> science education ends, Arindam.
Your science education never began, Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed, I see, but be that as it may, tell us again how
you were cheated out of your degree and forced from your jobs leaving
you with nothing to do other than to post delusional crackpot babble, Arindam.
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 0:58:45 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 21:35:02 +0000, kazu wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:What's ghgs?
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. >>>>
A concept post 1890, i.e. a time about 200 years after the time all your >>> science education ends, Arindam.
Your science education never began, Penisnino.
Still penis obsessed, I see, but be that as it may, tell us again how
you were cheated out of your degree and forced from your jobs leaving
you with nothing to do other than to post delusional crackpot babble, Arindam.
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.
are you tryin to say
Musk
that is just a
chemical, a
collection of molecues
on the surface of the earth
is the cause of...global warming????
is the cause of the
magentic north pole movement away
from the north pole?
Musk is making bees fly west?
On 10/13/24 02:07, Bertietaylor wrote:
True Arindam was cheated of his PhD degree but that is nothing as
compared to what many others suffered at the hands of the unspeakables.
I don't think you have finished high school.
By the way, why so many Indians are dying very young by heart attacks?
Was it always like that until communication got much better?
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 4:13:31 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 10/13/24 02:07, Bertietaylor wrote:
True Arindam was cheated of his PhD degree but that is nothing as
compared to what many others suffered at the hands of the unspeakables.
I don't think you have finished high school.
We doggies go to dog school.
We are faithful unlike you stupid treacherous apes.
The higher the education of apes greater their stupidity and treachery.
By the way, why so many Indians are dying very young by heart attacks?
Who told you that?
Check out life expectancy in India.
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the
supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the
supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
You asked for the India stats and I provided them. What's your
point crackpot?
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:41:52 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the
supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
You asked for the India stats and I provided them. What's your
point crackpot?
I did not ask for anything, fool. I told you to go check.
stats you pull out reflects the bias and insecurities of your sort.
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:41:52 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the
supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
You asked for the India stats and I provided them. What's your
point crackpot?
I did not ask for anything, fool. I told you to go check.
I did and it is not my fault the data is not what you believe it is, crackpot.
stats you pull out reflects the bias and insecurities of your sort.
You mean the real world, crackpot?
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
On 10/14/24 04:11, Bertietaylor wrote:
Why are you interested?
Who said I'm interested? My dick is interested.
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 1:12:36 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:41:52 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the
supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
You asked for the India stats and I provided them. What's your
point crackpot?
I did not ask for anything, fool. I told you to go check.
I did and it is not my fault the data is not what you believe it is,
crackpot.
We never said we believed in any data, lying fool.
This newsgroup is about physics and not the conditions of Indians.
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2024 1:12:36 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:41:52 +0000, Jim Pennino wrote:
Bertietaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
What has that desperately negative stuff about India to do with the >>>>>> supreme Australian genius, Mr Arindam Banerjee!?
You asked for the India stats and I provided them. What's your
point crackpot?
I did not ask for anything, fool. I told you to go check.
I did and it is not my fault the data is not what you believe it is,
crackpot.
We never said we believed in any data, lying fool.
This newsgroup is about physics and not the conditions of Indians.
Then why did you bring it up, crackpot?
<snip crackpot babble>
Bertietaylor (Arindam's other personality)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 468 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:41:48 |
| Calls: | 9,440 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,591 |
| Messages: | 6,109,459 |