Supersymmetry has failed every test to date

[paladin17]

If that's the case then so-called science owes everyone a standard disclaimer: Here go monsters. No more elaborations on the status quo as sole authority; no more rejecting those other theories out of hand; no more grants based on favoritism; none of that.

That science must also disclaim itself as a mathematical abstract and not a concrete reality - the word science has to return to its dictionary definition.

The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).
All these alternative theories of everything are welcome to form their own ensembles of power and receive whatever support they like. If they are strong enough, they can.

Lastly, if no method works then they're all equal in that condition. No more exemptions because of momentum or status.

I absolutely agree. E.g. I'd never use the term "pseudoscience" seriously, because there is no such thing (per se) - there is simply good science and bad science. Good science allows one to do stuff - explain, invent, observe, develop new things etc. Bad science doesn't. That's pretty much all.
By the same token there is no "mainstream science" in my books.

[Solar]

"There is no reason this method should work and it does, as a matter of fact, not work - but they have done this for decades and still have not learned that it does not work." - Sabine Hossenfelder

Is there an alternative?
One could propose a "simple theory of everything", maybe. But then again there are hundreds and thousands of such theories already, so does this method work?..

Seriously? The work of Simon E. Shnoll "Cosmophysical Factors in Stochastic Processes" is just one area that has demonstrated the potential for an alternative based on an immense amount of scientific data. Unfortunately, Mr. Shnoll already realizes that nothing will probably come of his serendipitous discoveries. He wasn't expecting the results, he didn't want the results and yet, there there it is. He is also desirous that theoretical physicist get involved but no one seems to be interested in how distant stars might effect the fine structure and synchronization of what were thought to be "random" emissions. With regard to Shnoll's work some aspect of a TOE/GUT might lay in waiting but it might look nothing like the "big bang". Therefore, it will not be considered.

Instead, this ongoing menagerie called "particle physics" which is aimed at nothing more than "... fixing the Higss boson" which is too small, supersymmetry, then onward to "dark matter", will continue.

Nature has already provided the best “particle accelerators” with evidence of “new physics” while the results of these attempts to mimic the dynamic while repeatedly guided by the dopamine rush of mathematical aesthetics are said to be remarkably inconsistent and utterly problematic with one another. It is the constant "churn" (constant turning in a machine) that this group is after; not answers. There is no such thing a "new physics". There is only learning to understand the old in a different light as Shnoll's work, and others, are already pointing to.

[Solar]

The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).

That is not true.

As long as science is attached to tax payer dollars and/or working for corporate interest at corporate expense in product development and refinement it is indebted to hopefully produce, account for, an explain results. That is why "there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity)."

[JHL]

The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).
All these alternative theories of everything are welcome to form their own ensembles of power and receive whatever support they like. If they are strong enough, they can.

I'll use that as a springboard:

1. Any reference to science must, to be credible, use the term in absolute passive objectivity. It has no voice - science never, ever says X or Y - and it has no bias. No dogma, no determination, no consciousness, nothing. It is a constantly evolving receptacle of and for knowledge and it is only as good as that knowledge is abstract and completely free-standing, separate from our leveraging it for another purpose.

2. That said, in the free market sense you're right: Science owes nothing too. However in the real world that's simply not the case. Science is routinely narrowed, conditioned, usurped, repurposed, incentivized, rendered exclusive and exclusionary, and on and on.

3. Linguistically, science absolutely does "owe", so to put it, the above. If it is not freighted with that objectivity then it ceases to be science. Linguistically, science certainly is a single entity, just one possessing a myriad of forms. Each must be objective and passive, properties that do not exist in our world of bias, agenda, dogma, and so on.

I'd never use the term "pseudoscience" seriously, because there is no such thing (per se) - there is simply good science and bad science. Good science allows one to do stuff - explain, invent, observe, develop new things etc. Bad science doesn't. That's pretty much all.
By the same token there is no "mainstream science" in my books.

Exactly. And all models of reality must, to be credible (and even useful) come so labeled. They are not science because they are facsimiles in the same way that I may model a pink elephant in ballet slippers with a tiny umbrella on the other side of the door because of the sounds its apparent phenomenon makes.

If models are scientific in our common vernacular, then they are projections and properties of the scientific community and not at all science itself. I reject scientists find almost as much as I reject science says. Both are extensions of abstract knowledge which change into irrelevance or worse as soon as they are launched.

The point being that society has a remarkable propensity to create mad bullsh*t out of anything and everything thought to be true and certain and take it to the very limits of absurdity - sometimes involving millions of lives - before out of the most brutal of emergent realities thereof, to one day stop calling it truth, goodness, or even science.

Cosmology is less crucial or costly than our many collective failures, but it still suffers to a rather remarkable degree from - or risks suffering from - these same damn fool intellectual trajectories.

[Michael Mozina]

Sounds like an example of a confirmation bias.

How so? What I like about Sabine is that she's not afraid the be brutally honest when it she feels it's warranted, and she's far more honest about presenting "evidence" in a fair and reasonable manner than most physicists I've heard in recent years. The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate. Exotic particle physics models and exotic forms of "dark matter" are typically "assumed" to exist by particle physicists and astronomers alike. Particle physicists use "dark matter" to "sell" their next collider to politicians and the public, and astronomers use it to prop up their otherwise falsified cosmology model. Most physicists tend to never even openly question it's value or it's accuracy.

[paladin17]

Seriously? The work of Simon E. Shnoll "Cosmophysical Factors in Stochastic Processes" is just one area that has demonstrated the potential for an alternative based on an immense amount of scientific data.

I know about his work - in fact, I have a suspicion it was me who introduced it to the EU community. But maybe not.
Anyway, the point is that he doesn't actually propose any "theory of everything". What he clearly shows is that microscopic events are connected to macroscopic ones. But (as far as I know) doesn't tell us why or how.

The thing is, science doesn't really owe anyone anything and is not really must do anything (even after forgetting the fact that there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity).

That is not true.

As long as science is attached to tax payer dollars and/or working for corporate interest at corporate expense in product development and refinement it is indebted to hopefully produce, account for, an explain results. That is why "there is no such thing as "science" as a single entity)."

It's not the scientists' decision on where to put the taxpayer's dollars. So my point stands. If politicians/administrators keep funding it and the public is OK with that, then apparently everything is cool. I wouldn't agree with that myself (I'd get rid of taxes altogether in the first place), but it's not me who created this system.

The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate.

The last 5 words here is an example of why I made the confirmation bias claim: when one praises and over-accentuates the views similar to their own.
In reality there are many people with alternative theories of gravity - all of which (the following) don't have any dark matters in them. To name just a few: Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia, Erik Verlinde's emergent (entropic) gravity, Mordehai Milgrom's MOND. Etc. So it's nothing unusual or refreshing really. Routine scientific search.

[Michael Mozina]

The mere fact she even openly questions the existence of exotic forms of "dark matter' is quite unusual, refreshing and scientifically accurate.

The last 5 words here is an example of why I made the confirmation bias claim: when one praises and over-accentuates the views similar to their own.
In reality there are many people with alternative theories of gravity - all of which (the following) don't have any dark matters in them. To name just a few: Mike McCulloch's quantized inertia, Erik Verlinde's emergent (entropic) gravity, Mordehai Milgrom's MOND. Etc. So it's nothing unusual or refreshing really. Routine scientific search.

Well, you're right of course that MOND proponents don't support "dark matter" either, but they still assume that mainstream mass estimation techniques based on light measurements are correct when in fact there have been *numerous* published studies since the now infamous bullet cluster fiasco which which have demonstrated *conclusively* that the baryonic mass estimation techniques themselves are *flawed* to the point of ridiculousness.

We now know for instance that the mainstream underestimated the number of stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. They also underestimate the number of stars between galaxies in clusters. We also have found more mass in plasma halos around our galaxy in the last ten years than all the mass in the stars combined. It's entirely possible that ordinary plasma accounts for any and all "missing mass" in lensing studies.

I've yet to hear *any* astronomer, including MOND proponents, *deal* with that core problem in their baryonic mass estimation techniques and I don't expect they ever will either. They can't deal with that problem because it blows their dark matter and nucleosynthesis estimates out the water, and it eliminates the need for MOND theory too.

MOND theory is also based on Newtonian models of gravity rather than GR, so it's not particularly compatible with 'space expansion" claims, nor is it compatible with Planck data sets AFAIK. It's also not compatible with nucleosynthesis estimates, so it's traction within the Big Bang community is quite limited.

I'm aware however that we all have "biases", including me. I'm just appreciative of the fact that Sabine is so openly willing to question the physics "establishment", both in the realm of particle physics, but also it's effect on cosmology theory and astronomy. She's a rare breed in that sense, and I find it quite refreshing.