It’s controversial because it is sometimes used to support the idea of a multiverse. Otherwise, it should be common sense to assume that a venue in which we exist must feature conditions that allow for that. But the multiverse does not need logic, evidence, or science. Read More ›
Hossenfelder: But there is no reason to think that the forces of the standard model have to be unified, or that all the forces ultimately derive from one common explanation. It would be nice, but maybe that’s just not how the universe works. Read More ›
Many science writers probably like the current state of affairs because nonsense about the multiverse and space aliens is easy to write. Artists might like it because it is easy to illustrate. Only if you cared about physics would you want to spoil the party. Read More ›
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. Read More ›
Hossenfelder: In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several universes. Read More ›
Sheldon: ... it isn't just HEP theory, it is large swathes of all the sciences. They have painted themselves into a sterile, but formerly well-funded "consensus" corner, and are discovering that the younger generation (and the NYT) is quite flippant on their prospects for survival. Read More ›
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. Read More ›
As AI types like to say, the system is so easily fooled because it doesn’t “know” anything. We are slowly learning, in consequence, more about what it means for a human being to “know” something. Read More ›
Hossenfelder: "Now, a lot of people discard superdeterminism simply because they prefer to believe in free will, which is where I think the biggest resistance to superdeterminism comes from." Read More ›
My own view is that we need to go back to 1950 and revisit the alternatives. Because solving today's impasse doesn't require any new physics, but old physics done differently. Read More ›
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. Read More ›