I agree that @skdh has made an important, and lucid point that needs to be addressed.
That said, your chauvinistic rant seems to indicate you don’t actually understand her argument.
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @skdh
The premise of the criticisms I take issue with is that “new physics” can only mean “new particles,” and can only be discovered by bigger linear accelerators. The certainty with which Sabine’s critics believe that there is only one way forward in physics is the problem.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VivaMachina @skdh
But saying theoretical physicists have made a terrible life choice is not only wrong, but it’s philosophically naive, as if QM, EM, and GR etc weren’t once “pure theory”. We follow our nose, and it’s the best we can do..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @skdh
If you look at my whole rant, I mention quantum information, condensed matter, and non-eq thermo just off the top of my head as things that physicists in “our generation” (I’m 36) might have found more interesting/fruitful than searching for beyond SM-physics via new particles
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VivaMachina @skdh
The problem is that those are investigating different things.. none of those (except for QIS) are “fundamental” Physics .. they’re neat, sure but they don’t tell us anything deep
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @skdh
quantum computers might actually shed new light on the halting problem. That would be deeper than any new particle. There are questions that could be addressed at low energy that are as fundamental as any bsm particles, but high-energy tunnel vision ignores these possibilities
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That’s why I didn’t exclude those in my previous comment...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.