Two "mainstream" news servers posted their stories based on delusions of cranks yesterday. One of them is supposed to be pro-business and is owned by a former Republican presidential candidate but it had no problem with spreading the "ideas" of our well-known Marxist whore Sabine Hossenfelder:
What I find stunning is the inconsistency of this science-hating Šmoitian vermin. On one hand, they – including Ms Hossenfelder – have been screaming for years that theories have to deal with some new experimentally demonstrably phenomena. They have been criticizing theorists, including the world's best theorists, for doing more conceptual work. They have been organizing whole conferences about "phenomenology" of hypothetical effects that clearly cannot exist.
On the other hand, these individuals use the success of the Standard Model – and the absence of qualitatively new phenomena (with exceptions) – as some kind of a vindication of their views. There can be absolutely no vindication. This absence shows that everything they have been saying about the right way to do science is wrong. Science just shouldn't desperately insist that there have to be experimentally testable new consequences around every corner.
Physics' goal is also – or primarily – the deeper explanation of the phenomena we have already observed. And theoretical physicists have achieved an absolutely amazing progress in the foundations of physics during the last four decades, a fact that can't be "erased" by the fact that the pseudo-scientific vermin of Hossenfelder's type has contributed to and doesn't get this amazing progress at all.
When an experiment generates null results, we're also learning the information about Nature and we must be ready for any kind of a lesson. On the other hand, null results tell us less new information about Nature because the survival of the Standard Model to higher energies has always been plausible.
The probability believed by particle physicists in 1973 that the Standard Model would be sufficient for all accelerator experiments published by June 2016 could have been 30%. We may say that this "30% of the probability pie" became real. So we have learned something like \(-\log 0.3\approx 1.2\) nats of information. However, if and when the experiments begin (or would begin) to produce deviations from the Standard Model, we could learn bytes or much more of new information about new physics. We would actually be told which new physics is right. We could see a confirmation of a particular paradigm/theory whose prior probability was just 0.1% – that would give us \(\log 0.001\approx 6.9\) nats of information. We could even find phenomena that no theorist was imaginative enough to even speculate about. The information one could learn from such experimental finding could be priceless, in some sense.
It's not shocking that particle physicists generally consider the confirmation of the null hypothesis – the Standard Model, in this case – to be less interesting than a new finding. We're learning nontrivial positive information in both cases but the information in the case of new phenomena beyond the Standard Model would simply be more interesting.
The last two sentences of that Forbes rants are really combative:
Sometimes things have to get really bad before they can get better. That’s why for me no-bump is the most hopeful outcome.But things are only bad with messed up lying parasites like you, Ms Hossenfelder. You may "hope" that something wrong will happen to physics (it's nice that you told us so candidly) but nothing wrong will ever happen to physics so that real physicists would drop to your level – it's more or less physically impossible.
A left-wing news outlet, NPR, started with a "provocative" title yesterday:
book by two crackpots, the notorious Lee Sm*lin and his unknown appendix, "philosopher" Roberto Unger. The 2014 book offers some "deep" ideas such as the proposition "time is real". I can't imagine what sort of losers are wasting time with similar "literature".
To make things worse, we're also taught that "mathematics is selectively real" – which basically means that you should replace some 50% of research that depends on mathematics by the feces coming from Sm*lin's and Unger's rectums. Thank you very much, I will continue without this "selection". And there must be "just one Universe". Unfortunately, the cranks don't have any argument for their assertion and no interesting idea at all.
Instead, the NPR piece tells us about a "crisis in physics". The word appears twice. The readers are also told that "the crisis is real – and acute". The words "is real – and acute" remind me of the phrase "the climate change is real – and acute" – I guess that the same kind of a left-wing propagandist dirt is behind both. To make things even "better", the Amazon.com page of the book also tells us about a "crisis in cosmology".
There is no crisis in physics or cosmology and the individuals spreading these memes are science-hating parasites and charlatans. I am absolutely disgusted by the tendency of news outlets – whose goal should be to inform the readers – to allow similar pests to spread this low-brow, hateful, anti-science misinformation and even promote their books. Something must be done about this infestation.