Not convinced that "beauty" is the core problem. It's a perfectly good source of intuition for hypotheses (as are all sources of intuition!). The other problems are very real. But the core problem has been a lack of differentiating data since the formation of the Standard Model.
@skdh says foundational physics is broken due to obsolete "beauty" criteria.
Plus general academic problems:
• Short funding cycle means you can't try anything new & difficult.
• Everyone piles into the hot area, to get cited. Redundant efforts.
http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs-211-sabine-hossenfelder-on-the-case-against-beauty-in-phy.html …
-
-
-
I agree, to the extent I’m qualified to have any opinion (which I’m not). I found the discussion of general problems with the social organization of scientific work to be more interesting.
-
But, as Kuhn pointed out, when a science reaches the crisis point, business-as-usual runs out, and you have to start experimenting with relaxing implicit social constraints, to find a new direction. Dropping the beauty constraint seems plausible to me (as a total non-physicist).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Theoretical physics is data starved due to technological limitations, together with models that have enough free parameters to accomodate any observation. That combination leads to stagnation, in any field.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.