Hacker News Reader

Interesting that you cut off your quote right where you did. I feel her explanation makes complete sense:

> So, this is one of the points that I try to get across in the book, but I know that for someone who doesn't really know the math of the theories, it's hard to understand. So, let's take this example of the Higgs boson. If you have the standard model of particle physics without the Higgs boson, this theory just does not work at LHC [Large Hadron Collider] energies. You cannot make predictions with it. You get probabilities that are larger than 1; so this is obviously mathematical nonsense.

This seems to me like one of those cases where a woman can’t be confident or assertive without looking like an asshole. He was wrong, and wrong in a way she literally dedicated part of a book about, at that.

Just reading the transcripts above, she comes across as rude and condescending, not as confident and assertive

Although without knowing the tone of the interviewer before the excerpts above, I don’t know if it’s warranted

I don’t think this has anything to do with being a woman

Academics in general can be rude and condescending if you look up all the stories on the phd subreddit about the experiences of phd students with their supervisors. There are lots of stories of academia being a toxic workplace. I would presume at this point that the academic researchers themselves are a core causal factor of that phenomenon.

It doesn’t sound rude to me at all, just matter of fact. I would guess Sabine is ND in some way and this is a common misinterpretation of ND behaviours.

So... it _is_ rude. Just under the justification of being ND

ND?

Neurodivergent probably

That does not make sense to me.

AS far as i know, both the standard model and the higgs boson are proven. Why would you caveat that predictions cannot be made, by taking out the Higgs Boson ?

The analogy to what Russ Robers is making, is equivalent to her saying: "take radioactivity out of chemistry" "AHA! Now since atoms can't decay, then you cannot get certain elements, so now i can conclude that the periodic table is crap! it can't make predictions about atom size!"

Why ?

Maybe it's a matter of interpretation but in that sort of context I don't interpret it as rudeness because she's not really arguing with the host. The host is just setting up questions so the listeners can understand her views. When she says "that's a very sloppy look at history", she is actually arguing with the other physicists that Roberts has set up in his question and is merely expressing her opinion on those views.

You can't really be rude to views or ideas, only to people, so that matters.

Now if she had been debating with someone who disagreed with her, and then she said "You're looking at history very sloppily" that might be rude, but that isn't the case here.

Also this is a storm in a teacup compared to the other things she does and says. Hossenfelder pretty routinely names specific physicists and states openly that they're defrauding the public by lying about their research in order to gain grant funding. She states this politely but so what, it's obviously far more severe of an attack than using the word sloppy. If you want to pick on her style you'd really want to talk about that, but it's hard to abstractly criticize her for that because it immediately goes in the direction of whether she's telling the truth or not.

I'm with her. If you're interviewing someone, you should do your homework. Especially for someone like her with days of YT video out there, plus books to review, there's no excuse for asking dumb questions.

Terry Gross manages to do it right. So does Joe Rogan (sorry, you haters).

If you want to experience a rude guest checkout Gene Simmons on Terry Gross. I think it was the only time Terry Gross almost lost her cool.

https://freshairarchive.org/segments/gene-simmons

somehow I'd avoided ever listening to this. But now, my take is a little different from this:

https://www.insidehook.com/article/music/gene-simmons-terry-...

which I gather is the establishment take. After 20 years, no one cares anymore. However...

Leaving aside the fact that he IS a jerk and didn't do himself any favors: I don't think she handled it well at all. Her fixation on his makeup is weird. He gave her lots of openings at the beginning to make it an interesting interview, and she blew them off.

He started with some philosophy on why KISS is successful, and there was plenty of dumb things to argue with there, if she wanted to pick them up.

Instead she went on about his makeup, and how much money he had. Who, really, is going to answer that question?

There was also the O'Reilly episode, in which the guest left the interview.

I think Gross handled both appropriately.

Now I have two episodes to check out. Thanks!

NB: Fresh Air has an excellent archive site: <https://freshairarchive.org/>

Simmons: <https://freshairarchive.org/guests/gene-simmons> (2004-2-4)

O'Reilly: <https://freshairarchive.org/segments/bill-oreilly> (2003-10-8)

Though I'd argue there are many much-better interviews. Those two are instances of combative subjects, well-handled IMO. Total archive has > 20k segments.

The periodic table is a classification of the chemical elements based on their atomic number, electron configuration and chemical properties. It is a result of the empirical observation of the elements and their regular patterns. The periodic table does not depend on any particular theory of physics, but it can be explained by quantum mechanics and the structure of atoms.[1]

Grand unification is a hypothetical scenario in which the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are unified into a single force at very high energies. This would imply that the elementary particles of the Standard Model are composed of more fundamental particles, such as quarks and leptons, that interact through a single gauge group. Grand unification is motivated by the observation that the strengths of the three forces converge at high energies, suggesting a common origin. Grand unification also predicts the existence of new particles, such as magnetic monopoles and proton decay.[2]

Supersymmetry is a theoretical framework that proposes a symmetry between fermions and bosons, two classes of particles with different spin properties. It implies that for every known particle, there exists a superpartner with the same mass and quantum numbers, but with a different spin. Supersymmetry is not based on any empirical evidence, but on mathematical aesthetics and theoretical convenience. Supersymmetry can solve some problems in the Standard Model, such as the hierarchy problem and the dark matter problem, but it also introduces many new parameters and complications. Supersymmetry has not been observed in nature, despite extensive searches at the Large Hadron Collider and other experiments.[3]

The main difference between supersymmetry and the periodic table or grand unification is that supersymmetry is not a natural consequence of any observed phenomenon, but an ad hoc assumption that has no experimental support. The periodic table and grand unification are based on empirical data and physical principles, while supersymmetry is based on mathematical beauty and speculation. Therefore, supersymmetry does not make any expected predictions, unlike the periodic table or grand unification, because it is not constrained by any reality check. Supersymmetry can be adjusted to fit any observation or avoid any contradiction, making it unfalsifiable and arbitrary.[4]

[1]Supersymmetry - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry.

[2] Supersymmetry and what it means for particle https://www.space.com/supersymmetry-particle-physics-string-....

[3] The status of supersymmetry | symmetry magazine. https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-status-of-super...

[4] Supersymmetry: what? why? when? - Ohio University https://inpp.ohio.edu/~inpp/nuclear_lunch/archive/2005/kane_....

"The periodic table" in this case refers to the original idea of Mendeleev to arrange elements into eight columns. This was done emprically based on a few elements, but its predictions continued to hold after many more elements were discovered.

I'm not familiar with high energy physics, but from your description of supersymmetry: "It implies that for every known particle, there exists a superpartner with the same mass and quantum numbers, but with a different spin. Supersymmetry is not based on any empirical evidence, but on mathematical aesthetics and theoretical convenience.", it is on the same basis as the periodic table was when Mendeleev first published in 1869. It was only later that additional elements were found to validate the arrangement.

>The main difference between supersymmetry and the periodic table or grand unification is that supersymmetry is not a natural consequence of any observed phenomenon, but an ad hoc assumption that has no experimental support.

Can you clarify this? I would argue the periodic table to be "natural consequence of any observed phenomenon", insofar as there was no evidence or only circumstantial evidence to support that grouping. Indeed, that grouping was chosen because of aesthetic reasons and speculation: "I saw in a dream a table where all elements fell into place as required. Awakening, I immediately wrote it down on a piece of paper, only in one place did a correction later seem necessary."

>Therefore, supersymmetry does not make any expected predictions, unlike the periodic table or grand unification, because it is not constrained by any reality check. Supersymmetry can be adjusted to fit any observation or avoid any contradiction, making it unfalsifiable and arbitrary.[4]

Your reference doesn't seem to agree with you here. It claims several predictions that supersymmetry has gotten correctly, and doesn't claim that supersymmetry can be adjusted to fit any observation.