Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!tor.dont-email.me!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: 20 Years of Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong"
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 12:27:00 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <utueti$1qamu$1@tor.dont-email.me>
References: <utega2$1f2hj$1@dont-email.me>
 <1sednT_WUutGkWb4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v42cnQsnk8Q5epz7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 13:26:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: tor.dont-email.me; posting-host="23632f22c21adfea22cfd5f17631197d";
	logging-data="1911518"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xyVyZmnClmLvxq3CrhZhWzlTS7JbOVII="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:weaLXmquff1oaxloBWqOhQtVBPo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v42cnQsnk8Q5epz7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 7029

Ross Finlayson:
> On 03/20/2024 09:20 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 03/20/2024 04:13 AM, Aether Regained wrote:
>>> https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13864
>>>
>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39753115
>>>
>>> " When I started the blog I was 20 years past my Ph.D., in the middle of
>>> some sort of an odd career. Today I’m 66, 40 years past the Ph.D., much
>>> closer to the end of a career and a life than to a beginning. In 2004 I
>>> was looking at nearly twenty years of domination of fundamental theory
>>> by a speculative idea that to me had never looked promising and by then
>>> was clearly a failure. 20 years later this story has become highly
>>> disturbing. The refusal to admit failure and move on has to a large
>>> degree killed off the field as a serious science. " -- Peter Woit
>>>
>>
>>
>> Supersymmetry has come back umpteen-many times.
>>
>> That's basically what it does, supersymmetry,
>> like "we found a new rule and as long as you
>> don't look at it cross-wise, the supersymmetrical
>> explanation for it is now gone!"  Then, somebody
>> looks around, and it results, "hey, you know,
>> supersymmetry isn't dead again".
>>
>>
>> He says "higher energy scales" but doesn't mention
>> "running constants" so I kind of wonder whether
>> he just thinks the universe grows and particles
>> shrink or, what.
>>
>>
>> I'm a fan of Woit among some physicists,
>> but I'm not quite sure how he's, "not even wrong".
>>
>> The title "Not Even Wrong" is pretty great,
>> it indicates several things, about first of
>> all the "purely theoretical" theories what
>> can't be applied, then in the applied, what
>> results either not observables or not falsifiables.
>>
>> It reflects on the usual greatest credo
>> or maxim "Quantum Mechanics is Never Wrong",
>> vis-a-vis, doing it wrong or not right.
>>
>> I don't follow Woit's blog, but read it
>> at least since more than a decade ago,
>> and usually when it was a strong enough
>> statement about the direction of physics,
>> that I relate it in some sense to Turok's
>> "Crisis" in physics, or in terms of evolution
>> and revolution, conceptually or theoretically,
>> and also to Penrose's "Fashion, Faith, and
>> Fantasy", with regards to the crisis in
>> physics, that functional freedom arrives
>> at GR and QM both right to 30 orders of
>> magnitude, yet in extrapolation disagreeing
>> to 120 orders of magnitude.
>>
>>
>> My own sort of theory is rather "theory first",
>> with regards to not having to be right, while
>> at the same time, theoretically it's eventually
>> so that the practical and applied, is from
>> pure principles, vis-a-vis Einstein's "model
>> physicist" and Einstein's "model philosopher",
>> vis-a-vis "shut up and compute", and these
>> kinds of ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> So anyways, supersymmetry is not dead:  AGAIN,
>> and it's the way of things, and Quantum Mechanics
>> is Never Wrong, and Continuum Mechanics is what's right.
>>
>>
>> Similarly the super-string theory, that being
>> just a backdrop for Continuum Mechanics under
>> atomism and the Democritan and Planckian,
>> if "Not Even Wrong" it's also "Never Wrong".
>>
>>
>> One wonders about taking blog feeds and finding
>> their Atom or RSS feeds and making digests what
>> result summary and digest NNTP feeds,
>> it's sort of an open system.
>>
>>
>> "Is it Mach-ian?"  What kind of question is that, ....
>>
>>
>> So, the age of electron physics, and the ultraviolet catastrophe,
>> is for supersymmetry super-string neutrino physics,
>> then as for an infrared catastrophe,
>> where a catastrophe is a singularity
>> is a perestroika is an opening is a multiplicity:
>> is a good thing, then for space terms and getting
>> electromagnetic and nuclear radiation better understood
>> about the special optical visible light,
>> as what's old is new again, and not just wrapped as new.
>>
>> Warm regards, good luck
>>
>> Luck:  you can't need it.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> One of the conceptual challenges of supersymmetry
> is partners and partnerinos, two concepts, one of
> them about the "high energy unification", the other
> about the "low energy unification", the one at too high
> energies to be found, the other at too low energies.
> 
> Being kinetic and all the atom is sort of the graviton,
> then with "bigger bosons" and "gravitinos", supersymmetry
> and for "symmetry-flex" as a concept is at least two concepts,
> with a usual idea that high-energy is totally contrived as
> according to either cosmology or collider, while low-energy
> happens all the time and represents the flux of arbitrarily
> small and fast and "ultramundane corpuscles", if only
> because everything's a particle.
> 
> The term "flux" then also has quite a variation in terms of
> its meaning. The Gaussian sort of flux is like potential
> of a surface, like a Poincare surface, that just illustrate
> continuity laws, while it's arbitrarily non-zero, in closed
> systems. The fleeting flux then, like photons for example
> but all the neutrinos and other fast parternerinos,
> and for example photinos, is quite altogether about
> the two notions of the one term, two definitions.
> 
> So, supersymmetry and flux and symmetry-flex, with that
> not being the symmetry-breaking either way yet flex,
> is sort of like Aristotle's versus Leibniz' entropy, which
> isn't disorder yet simply minimization in whatever terms,
> potentials, sum-of-histories, sum-of-potentials.
> 
> When half the people don't even know there are
> two meanings to "supersymmetric", "flux", and "entropy",
> then, it's usually easier to leave out the other half
> they don't know also.
> 
> 

@Ross, IIRC you used to write with a lot more clarity. Have you
outsourced your thinking to a hallucinating AI bot or what?