For those who, like me, prefer to read the actual paper instead of some science journalist's spin on it, the arxiv preprint is here:
Granted clickbait is what YouTube algorithm demand.
Remind me of Jurgen Klopp rebuking some journos that wanted his opinion, as successful football coach, on COVID.
Hossenfelder is definitely qualified to talk about the OP, but her videos about transgender people shouldn't be given more credit than videos from almost any other person.
Being publicly contrarian about stuff you're an expert in can be interesting, being publicly contrarian about stuff you just don't know much about is at best not very useful and at worst harmful.
I laugh at the silly attempt at negging and move on with my life.
Why?
- Comment is +5
- even though it cuts against the grain
- because it was such a boring boorish thread.
- you demonstrated you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Recap: I observed the thread was absurd because:
- it opened complaining about the science journalist writer who didn't know the topic.
- after it was resolved the author wasn't a science journalist or someone who didn't know anything, people were arguing about the stack-ranking of the imaginary science journalist
Now you're here, continuing to argue against a strawman for no discernable reason. We all get it, you and some other people are making sure we understand we're wrong, it can be bad when people write things they don't know about.
I definitely never argued or even believed any such thing. I started off in this (granted, rather silly) thread with a lukewarm defense of Hossenfelder, then you took a weird tangent on it and I disagreed with your framing (or what I could grok of it). Maybe you have me confused with someone else?
Certainly, her value and contributions to society have been infinitely greater than a string theorist.
The article spends about a third of its time waxing loquacious about MOND - hossenfelder's own theory - before dismissing the current paper for having equations that are just "too simple" .
Now I'm not a physicist. I'm an applied category theorist working in business process modeling of all things. But when I was reading hossenfelder's article I was hoping it would describe how oppenheim models the spectral dispersion of stochastic gravity. This is the linchpin of how oppenheim predicts physically observable phenomenon from the model.
That was missing. There have been other articles, which at least mentioned it in passing. I was hoping hossenfelder, being a physicist, could help clarify that for a wider audience. They made a choice not to.
"Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) [...] Created in 1982 and first published in 1983 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom" [1]
"Born 1946" [2]
"Sabine Karin Doris Hossenfelder (born 18 September 1976) is a German" [3]
I suppose a SciFi story where it eventually turns out that they are the same person (presumably as an unintended consequence of an experiment designed to test their theory) could be fun.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
"Testing MOND using the redshift-dependence of radial acceleration – Sabine Hossenfelder and Tobias Mistele propose a parameter-free MOND model they call Covariant Emergent Gravity and suggest that as measurements of radial acceleration improve, various MOND models and particle dark matter might be distinguishable because MOND predicts a much smaller redshift-dependence.[81]"
That is the theory I'm talking about.
It also seems like I exaggerated how much of the article was dedicated to MOND, which was my bad.
The article is still poor coverage of the actual research
And in this piece she is both excited and cautious, explaining fairly well what’s at stake.
It’s interesting because I think her writing follows her thought process:
- ugh? Yet another attempt to reconcile gravity and quantum physics
- wait a minute, adding randomness to gravity is not a terrible idea
- what? They say it explains both dark matter and dark energy? How cool!
- meh… it probably doesnt work.