Case in point, David Bohm. In reality, just about everything except non-materialism is forgiven, despite the history.
She doesn’t so much oppose it as she doesn’t want to “wait another 40 years for physicists to realize that falsifiability alone is not sufficient to make a hypothesis promising.” In any event, those who remember science from fifty or thirty years ago find this state of affairs odd.
Researching the distribution of light following the Big Bang shows no evidence of these anomalies. Either they are flukes of statistics or evidence of new physics, the researchers say.
His view: What this recent paper with a qutrit experiment shows, is that it is possible to do QM communication or QM computing at high volume and high speed. No need to wear headphones. Our view of the universe has not changed.
Broussard is about to do tests to find out if it is true. That’s fun, of course, but in reality, no one can prove it false and it will therefore always be real when cosmologists need it. It would be still more fun to see Sabine Hossenfelder tackle this one.
Rob Sheldon: This article illustrates the reason why the scientific method is going extinct, not just in Darwin’s circular logic, but also in physics and cosmology.
Jonathan Bartlett offers some thoughts on a frantic, bizarre – but instructive – computer-driven prediction.
But wait! There might be an infinity of multiverses in which you are not unique. This is the only one in which your head has not exploded.
The Large Hadron Collider just keeps confirming the Standard Model, almost as if there was some basis for believing it to be correct. Rob Sheldon thinks the current mood is desperation: If you don’t know where you are going, you will certainly arrive. Information is finite, ignorance infinite.
Sabine Hossenfelder’s view: Realism is a philosophy. It’s a belief system, and science does not tell you whether it is correct.
Rob Sheldon’s alternative headline for the same story: The expansion rate from Planck (68 km/s/Mpc) doesn’t match the expansion rate from Hubble Easy to account for. (There are enough real mysteries in the universe without this nonsense.)
Sheldon: My objection, which I will develop in two streams, is that both reductionism and emergence are just wrong, as is the philosophical denial of free will based on them.
Her view: Most physicists believe that the solution is that the Hawking radiation somehow must contain information after all.
My, my. A commenter formed the correct impression and suggests, “Could you please answer the very valid questions raised by Sabine [Hossenfelder] instead of smearing her like this?”
Just because it’s not clear that the hypothetical particle she studies exists. Okay. But perhaps some physicists will still choose to research particles for whose existence there is actually evidence.