Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI

On 10/11/2024 02:37 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 3:25:32 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

I've been sustaining for years that what is known as physics is DEAD, at
least since the 70s.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBIvSGLkwJY
>
I want to share this video that Google presented to me (very new), with
a rant of Sabine Hossenfelder about the current state of physics.
>
I invite reading some of the 9,000+ comments, many of them made by
physicists very critical of what physics means today and in the last 50
years.
>
Also, as a proof of the confusion (and corruption) in physics, the fact
that the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two pioneers in
neural networks (the foundation of OpenAI, ChatGPT, etc.) BECAUSE it
used tools of STATISTICAL PHYSICS, among many other branches, in their
work.

>
Only the cutting edge of fundamental particle physics appears to be
"dead" as you put it. The "easy" problems were all resolved by the
middle of the last century and in subsequent years have been amply
verified by experiment. This includes parts of physics that you
despise like SR, GR and QED. Verified, re-verified and re-verified.
No grand conspiracy, just good science, despite your incorrect gut
feelings.
>
For the past four decades, theoreticians working in fundamental
particle physics have found themselves in a situation where experiment
is incapable of validating or definitively rejecting their theories
and speculations, and it is this unpleasant situation that
Hossenfelder describes.
>
Fundamental particle physics, however, is only a small part of the
entire field termed "Physics". Huge areas are vibrant with astounding
progress. Simply browse through any issue of Physics World or Physics
Today. The 2024 Nobel Prize was awarded to researchers in a subfield
of physics that didn't even exist four decades ago, which today
embodies a close collaboration between theory and experimental science
and technology, precisely the sort of collaboration which leads to
amazing progress in the field.

The inflationary epoch and cosmological models have been
pretty roundly paint-canned by JWST, though of course
the WMAP finding infrared and 2MASS establishing blueshift
for at least several decades already built "Hubble tension".
Heh, giving physics prizes for Hopfield or Kohonen or the
various contributors into neural nets, and calling that
"experimental" physics, has that they're experimenting
on their sims I suppose - heh.
The prevalent "apparent dark matter" and "apparent dark energy"
means usual theory today is, ..., "wrong".
The, "apparent super-luminal", is another sort of example,
that thankfully the sky survey and its huge variety of
apparent configurations and energies of experiment,
makes it so that anybody invoking "apparent illusions"
or "apparent missing things" is invoking "non-science",
and furthermore SR is local and there are Aspect/Bell
type experiments, Lense-Thirring appears real, and
otherwise the coterie of coat-tailing paper-hangers
getting a bigger mainframe is about as useful as
giving a janitor a mechanical car-wash.
I.e., some have that as "not doing physics" any-more.
"Were you able to reproduce their results?"
"Well yeah we downloaded the code they gave
and it runs just fine."