Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!tor.dont-email.me!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Aether Regained 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: References: <1sednT_WUutGkWb4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@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: 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?