Pop science writing typically misleads us by portraying the conflict as if the rightness of the Copernican universe were self-evident. For sure not at the time.
At Nautilus: “My sense,” I say to Christopher, “is that the search for dark matter has produced an elaborate, delicate edifice of presuppositions, and a network of worship sites, also known as laboratories, all dedicated to the search for an invisible universal entity which refuses to reveal itself. It seems to resemble what we call religion rather more than what we call science.”
Sabine Hossenfelder: Given how much brain-power physicists have spent on trying to figure out what dark matter and dark energy is, I think it would be a good idea to definitely settle the question whether it is anything at all. At the very least, I would sleep better.
Sheldon: “By measuring a hot stream of molecules with billions of states, this experiment may rule out CSL [Continuous Spontaneous Localization]. If so, it would be the first time an interpretation of QM was actually invalidated, suggesting we have entered a new era of testing theories of the foundations of QM.”
Or is it just not giving some people the answers they want?
The interesting thing is that the science writer portrayed string theory as a religion, a sort of “mathematical theology.” And he is right. But what follows now?
Hossenfelder: The standard model works just fine with that number and it fits the data. But a small number like this, without explanation, is ugly and particle physicists didn’t want to believe nature could be that ugly.
She definitely does not think that looking for shorter distances and smaller particles is the answer.
Rob Sheldon: Despite McMaster U. thinking this odd, and believing (hoping?) for a failure of the Standard Model, I see this as a necessary means of storing the information in the hot Big Bang, and demonstrating the ultimate fine-tuning of the cosmos.
Hossenfelder: In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several universes.
At Youtube, here: Note, the assumption that the cosmos is a closed system, which is philosophically loaded. Let us monitor — note, several hours from the beginning. END
Her view: “Personally I think that the motivations for the holographic principle are not particularly strong and in any case we’ll not be able to test this hypothesis in the coming centuries. ” And in our next post, experimental physicist Rob Sheldon replies.
“Most, if not all the hype you read, is looking for more and more exotic particles, all the while ignoring mundane macroscopic things like comets and asteroids.”
If that’s true, then the idea that Darwinism (purely random mutations that survive or not explain the awesomely complex life forms we are engulfed in) is even less plausible.
His universe is deterministic, presumably, because everything happens. End of story. Actually, end of all stories.