Weinstein Theory Criticism

The recent discussions here on the article Dr Hossenfelder is sceptical about:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24940086https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25092231

Wait what?!PhD in Physics here.It's extremely frustrating, whenever a link like this, i.e outside of the IT and programming field, is posted, the number of people, who clearly have ZERO understanding of the subject matter, try so hard to sound smart. It's almost turning HN to another reddit!To suggest that people like Weinberg was just researching imaginary things is so unbelievably ignorant. Not to mention suggesting that there must always be ONE theory that explains everythi

It's important to note this is not a peer-reviewed publication, this is just some document that has been shared. While the author has a doctorate in theoretical physics, and has extensive experience in that field, their Wikipedia article also has the following line:> Hossenfelder's more recent content has received criticism for her attacks on academic research[13][14] and for conspiracy theory-style portrayals of the physics community.(The author recently had their affiliation

Counterpoint: https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/09/why-my-fellow-physic...

My satirical take on this phenomenon in physics: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.12201

For those with an interest in this topic, but a disdain for "science news", I recommend checking out Sabine Hossenfelder's youtube channel:https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelderShe's a theoretical physicist, and covers topics such as this from the point of view of a real expert, and doesn't "talk down" to the audience at all. (Though I must say, she does engage in

As a physics student, I feel compelled to point out, to any readers who might now go read Hossenfelders other articles, that many of her views are generally not shared by a majority of physicists today.She is a real physicist and not a kook, but she has been criticized for presenting her views (e.g. superdeterminism) as having much more acceptance than they actually do. She ignores and misrepresents counter-arguments regularly. Her ideas about, e.g. the explanatory power of entanglement wrt p

I'm not rejecting his theory because of pride or blindness. I'm rejecting it because I evaluated it with my brain and determined it to be bad. I'm saying that it is possible to 'know for sure' in some cases, insofar as my brain is working correctly. This is 2+2=5 stuff. I'm as sure he is wrong from reading his writing as I am sure that 2+2=4, because it's dead simple reading comprehension to be able to tell, if you have a bit of physics background.I'm t

Sounds like the physics community wrote him off without actually considering his ideas because he didn't fit the charlatan-leftist mold of your typical physicist academic.Per Wikipedia[1]: The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer", and it has received strong criticism from the scientific community[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org&#

I'm not saying he's correct because he's from Harvard, but he's not some crank outside the system to be lightly dismissed. He's firmly in the mainstream of physics and foundations of physics and seems to have gotten a new result. Time will tell.