Comment by nosianu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nosianu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I will never understand comments like this, where the author had to actively click on one of a large number of headlines to even get there, and than make a deliberate decision to spend even more effort on writing a comment.

You don't provide any information for evaluation, all we know is that you think you heard it too often. And why make a disparaging comment about her on top of that, without any substance added?

I would not have added a comment if I didn't find it disturbing how much attention your mean comment gets. Another person even saying they cannot "stand her" - of course also without anything of substance added. I hate adding my own comment along this mean-spirited, substance-free and OT thread, but I don't want to say nothing either.

If you dislike the topic, just don't click. Easy. Or, provide some real meat for the discussion, not an expression of personal dislike, especially not of the person, unless they actually did something despicable worthy of such dislike.

I think GP's disappointment isn't that there's another video complaining about particle physics.

I think they're complaining about Sabine making another video where she repeats the same unsubstantiated complaints. And they were disappointed because they are interested in novel critique of particle physics, and were let down.

Can't be any novel critiques of particle physics if the physicists themselves never do anything novel to be criticized for.

> I think they're complaining about Sabine making another video where she repeats the same unsubstantiated complaints.

What a weird comment. They're not substantiated at all, the whole video is literally substantiating her position, and does it quite well IMO.

> unsubstantiated complaints

In what way? Her line of reasoning was easy to follow and she gave some specific examples. Given the length and medium I felt it was substantial, certainly enough for a rebuttal. What's missing?

Novelty for one, she's been doing the "you should have been correct by now, for shame" routine for at least four years http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-lhc-may-spell-e....

In yhe video she makes it clear the real problem isn't that papers/models are wrong in their predictions, but that they aren't being selected to address an inconsistency or observation.

Exactly. They want to build ever larger accelerators just for the hell of it at this point. How is it not apparent that we've passed a point of diminishing returns? The LHC was justified to find the Higgs, perfectly reasonable. We found it roughly where we expected it, great! What justification is there now for a larger accelerator?

That funding could go towards thousands of research proposals that aren't suffering from diminishing returns.

> They want to build ever larger accelerators just for the hell of it at this point.

This is simply not true, as a quick perusal of any proposal for a future collider will show: they all start with motivational statements, not with "it is a truth universally acknowledged we need another" as you claim.

What you are thinking of is ballistic missile defence, now that's a self-serving boondoggle.

> This is simply not true, as a quick perusal of any proposal for a future collider will show: they all start with motivational statements

They are pseudo motivations "justified" by appeals to pseudo problems. They are pseudo problems for exactly the reasons Hossenfelder discusses in this video and in her book.

says >"The LHC was justified to find the Higgs, perfectly reasonable. We found it roughly where we expected it, great! What justification is there now for a larger accelerator?"<

Glad you asked. The Higgs boson was just the thing I needed for my new Tesla and, thanks to LHC, I now always carry a spare in the trunk. But in all honesty it's slightly off-center and I am hoping that a new larger accelerator will provide a particle that precisely fills the bill.

I concur with your last point.

Please give a timestamp or direct quote of for that claim, because I don't think Hossenfelder is so far gone she'd just straight up lie like that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com