andrew

theoretical physicist (strings ➡️ bio) | professional poser | he/him

[andrew @andrewbaums]

me and the boys on the way to olive garden to use the gift card my grandma got me

[andrew @andrewbaums]

i'm the ben shapiro of the left: short, dumb, and secretly gay

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@skdh actually science communication is only effective if people give a shit about what you’re saying. hope this helps!!!!!

[andrew @andrewbaums]

dreamt of a band called “jesse ventura and the body”

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@ThomasVanRiet2 @skdh i am truly baffled by how a trained theoretical physicist with a PhD does not understand the value in studying systems which may not ~exactly~ describe the universe. how can one even take an intro quantum class without taking away that conclusion?

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@postdocforever its why in quantum, for example, theres always the boundary condition that the wave function should be normalizable. the unnormalizable solutions are thrown out because they aren't physically possible. but they are mathematically possible and well defined

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@postdocforever things like divergences, singularities etc are not mathematical inconsistencies and, in fact, have very rigorous mathematical theories that surround them. but they are physically inconsistent, since singularities/infinites are not physical and so shouldn't show up

[andrew @andrewbaums]

very "everything done in academia must be materially useful"

[andrew @andrewbaums]

can't explain it fully, but being a string theory hater is conservative-coded

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@cosmicfibretion moreover every single criticism re: experimental data is so frustrating. its literally the most difficult thing to experimentally measure in the entire universe. like yes: if experimental data is acquired of course string theorists will use it

[andrew @andrewbaums]

obviously not. its because string theorists have a monopoly on theory research and eat up all the funding (painfully untrue)

[andrew @andrewbaums]

one more things that pisses me off about this shit: why do quantum gravity research not focus so much on experiments? is it, perhaps, because it is quite literally the most difficult thing to measure? and perhaps because the technology does not, and might not ever, exist?

[Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh]

Speaking of mathematical consistency. While you want a physical theory to be mathematically consistent, it's not necessary for it to be useful.

The standard model without the Higgs eg violates unitary beyond a certain energy. That's not consistent. It's still a useful theory to very good approximation below that energy.

And just because a theory is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. There is nothing specifically wrong, for example, with gravity in 1+1 dimensions -- it's even quantizable -- it just doesn't describe the world that we live in.

Hence, mathematical consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient for a physical theory.

That said, as I explained in my book "Lost in Math", mathematical consistency has historically been a good guide in theory development. If you look at the cases where breakthroughs have been made on theoretical grounds, these came from resolving inconsistencies. Eg: General Relativity, the Dirac Equation, the Higgs-Boson!

Still, you need experiment after that because there are always many ways to achieve mathematical consistency. The problem with research in quantum gravity has been that for decades they focused exclusively on consistency and neglected the need for experimental test. (Interesting in itself, as one may ask why that happened.) That is changing now, which is an excellent development that gives me much hope.

So, brief summary: Consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's useful.

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@skdh the ising model also doesn't describe our world nor do i) ideal gasses ii) perfect fluids iii) particles in a box and pretty much every model system physics has. yet theres still value in studying them, no? why is 1+1 gravity different? why is string theory different?

[andrew @andrewbaums]

guess what also doesn't actually describe reality: the ising model. yet its one of the most important mathematical models of the last century? interesting...hmm....what can we learn from that.... also i spelled attitude wrong

[andrew @andrewbaums]

what pisses me off about this current trend of string theory discourse is that when did physicists stop caring about models that describe things "like" our universe to gain better understanding of our universe? like sure SUSY may not exists, but studying supersymmetric theories..

[Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh]

Speaking of mathematical consistency. While you want a physical theory to be mathematically consistent, it's not necessary for it to be useful.

The standard model without the Higgs eg violates unitary beyond a certain energy. That's not consistent. It's still a useful theory to very good approximation below that energy.

And just because a theory is mathematically consistent doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality. There is nothing specifically wrong, for example, with gravity in 1+1 dimensions -- it's even quantizable -- it just doesn't describe the world that we live in.

Hence, mathematical consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient for a physical theory.

That said, as I explained in my book "Lost in Math", mathematical consistency has historically been a good guide in theory development. If you look at the cases where breakthroughs have been made on theoretical grounds, these came from resolving inconsistencies. Eg: General Relativity, the Dirac Equation, the Higgs-Boson!

Still, you need experiment after that because there are always many ways to achieve mathematical consistency. The problem with research in quantum gravity has been that for decades they focused exclusively on consistency and neglected the need for experimental test. (Interesting in itself, as one may ask why that happened.) That is changing now, which is an excellent development that gives me much hope.

So, brief summary: Consistency is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's useful.

[andrew @andrewbaums]

absolutely necessary for understanding how abstract mathematics can be used to describe some sort of physical reality? its profoundly anti-intellectual. very much in line with "every undergrad degree needs to be comp science or STEM" type additutde towards academia. sickening.

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@reductiondan CCR

[andrew @andrewbaums]

kids today will never know what it’s like to get lando at tanta, which i highly recommend

[andrew @andrewbaums]

this is normal and good!!

[NWS Seattle @NWSSeattle]

Tornado Warning including Aberdeen WA, Hoquiam WA and Ocean Shores WA until 4:45 PM PST

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@benrogan @ecapsoddity @velvetqueeer boom? more like DOOM

[andrew @andrewbaums]

kinda of pisses me off that my irl friends in seatte don’t know shit about aj, big justice, the rizzler and the whole costco-verse gang. wake up sheeple

[andrew @andrewbaums]

@benrogan @ecapsoddity this is me with @velvetqueeer too, sadly