🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:42:50 UTC No. 16433471
Today I've seen a video that really fucking grinds my gears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4
dl;dr
>particle physics are pointless because Standard Model is internally consistent and makes accurate predictions, henceforth adding new particles onto it is redundant, oh and any unsolved problems in physics are trivial and not problems at all
I first admit I'm not a physicist (biochemist here) but even I know enough about particle physics to get somewhat angry at this line of reasoning
She's basically saying, "admit the status quo and don't look for anything more fundamental"
Or how, and I quote, "details about the nature of Dark Matter are unnecessary" and therefore particle physicists shouldn't bother
I admit she's right that a lot of it is guess work and loosely following scientific modelling, but at the same time particle physics is at the point where it becomes necessary to move the needle forward
Also it angers me off how many people in the YouTube comments blindly agree with her, without actually knowing what she's talking about, when she also presents stuff like
>we failed to observe proton decay therefore it doesn't happen, even though there is aboslutely no theory that would explain why it shouldn't happen
It's basically "you must be wrong, but I won't give any evidence as to why you're wrong"
Any physicists would like to share their opinion on this?
>inb4 blogpost
piss off
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:55:44 UTC No. 16433488
>>16433471
Corporate physicists in academia being wrong doesn't that the people who rightfully criticize them are right. Sabine is right in saying they suck, but the specific reasons she gives for them being wrong are dubious
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:59:23 UTC No. 16433494
>>16433471
It's more the scale of it. The LHC cost like $4b to build, and they're planning a new one at like $25b. We barely have the tech to even observe these things, so what good is knowing more about them? It's just a way to fund the paychecks of a thousand physicists who are all hoping no one notices they haven't actually contributed anything
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:51:49 UTC No. 16433570
>>16433471
She did a similar video on the progress of AI. If you take a pessimistic point of view on any given topic, it's next to impossible to prove you wrong and it's easy to look "wise" and "insightful"...you see this with movie YT channels all the time.
It's a pretty obvious psychological trick, but /sci/ is a bunch of mindbroken doomer-zoomers, so they're all simps for this bitch.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:53:41 UTC No. 16433574
>>16433471
>because Standard Model is internally consistent
so is Newtonian gravity. So? The empirical evidence showed that it's not correct. Same way neutrino oscillations have shown that the SM can't describe all particle physics phenomena.
Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:54:33 UTC No. 16433575
>>16433570
>but /sci/ is a bunch of mindbroken doomer-zoomers, so they're all simps for this bitch.
huh, I don't really lurk or post on /sci/ all that often so I had no idea she's even popular here
just randomly got her in my recommended this evening and got annoyed enough to be compelled to make a post about it
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:17:37 UTC No. 16433718
>>16433488
Really they just make shit up particle physics is inherently flawed mostly because you can see particles they are infered. Aa well as the human limit of observation. Like how far can we really observe? Even Moores law hit it's limits because semiconductor photo lithography has gotten as small as you can physically go.
Its over
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:30:52 UTC No. 16434526
>>16433471
>oh and any unsolved problems in physics are trivial and not problems at all
It seems her gripe is not with any unsolved problems but with those problems which arise from some kind of naturalness argument. Specifically she doesn't believe in the hierarchy problem and the strong CP problem, which supersymmetry and axions respectively are sometimes considered to "solve."
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:00:18 UTC No. 16434564
Its about the costs vs reward. All the current models beyond the standard model suck and aren't worth investing in. If we are spending $12B on something, I'd rather it just be a rover on Titan or Enceledeus.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:07:03 UTC No. 16434579
>>16433471
Sabine is a fucking idiot. She makes brainlet takes like this all the time. She's aggressively stupid and she believes in dumb shit like mond which has been all but disproved by inability to explain the observations we make, but she'll then go online and spaz out about how physicists need to stop following other theories she personally dislikes because (insert brainlet noises here), and of course this advice doesn't apply to her own mond predilection.
Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:27:24 UTC No. 16435003
This bitch is a retard and doesn't even know null geodesics and coordinate time. She didn't understand Kerr's paper on singularity. Kerr was wrong in using affine parameter as a proper time, bitch blindly followed kerr and had a video on how this "new" idea will prove singularities doesn't exist because the affine parameter doesn't vanish for null geodesic lol.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:21:21 UTC No. 16435536
She is 100% right and the encroachment on the territory of the chad naturalist phycisist by the anti-social mathematicians is the greatest tragedy in the wests since the fall of the east india trading company.
Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:28:23 UTC No. 16435545
>>16434564
>If we are spending $12B on something, I'd rather it just be a rover on Titan or Enceledeus
Yeah, physicists expend far too many resources on pointless esoteric bullshit that has no application and will never have an application. There's plenty of scientific frontiers that actually have potential impacts on society that funding would be much better directed to - something like biology is much more feasible to "solve" than physics.