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.
The main disadvantage of not acknowledging the philosophy from which we proceed is that we assume it to be “the correct view of all right-thinking people.” That’s almost a definition of narrow-mindedness. It’s worth considering that many Darwinians who can’t get with the times about problems in evolution may have precisely that problem: They have never asked themselves why they are attached to a picture of the world of life that does not appear to be correct or complete.
An astrophysicist dismisses the concerns as “ideologically-driven diatribes.”
It really is quite funny. And physicists should stick to physics.
Walker disagrees with this view, of course, but the problem is, physics is a mess just now and whether biology can be derived from it might depend on which piece you are holding. And who agrees that that piece is indeed a part of physics?
If the Moon was really formed when the early Earth was hit by a Mars-sized object, it should mostly be the detritus of that object. But it is mostly Earth stuff. So…
Sheldon: There are red flags all over this data, but the investigators are standing by their measurement. This is what irreproducible papers look like in physics, and why the same crisis that afflicts other disciplines also afflicts physics.
Naturally, they’re hoping for some new physics to come out of these surprises. Just think, if new physics comes out of this, it will be real physics too, not rubbish about the multiverse or how we are all living in some space alien’s giant sim world.
The two methods differ in that one is “direct” and the other “indirect”. Clearly one or both of them is making a mistake. Since it is hard to find (and people have looked) a reason why the direct method is failing, the feeling is that the indirect method must have a mistake in its model.
Sabine Hossenfelder thinks that in fundamental physics the problem is not a shortage of smart people but a shortage of smart people who grasp that they are simply “wheels in the machinery.”
Possibly, but maybe it’s inherently fuzzy. Meanwhile, an update on Adam Becker’s attack on Inference Review as an ID-friendly rag; Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder weigh in.