The most recent text on Backreaction is titled Superfluid nighttime thing gets seriously into business. At this moment, this pop text celebrates a November 2017 preprint past times Justin Khoury together with ii co-authors which added some technicalities to Khoury's programme that's been roughly for some 3 years.
Justin Khoury is a cosmologist who is well-known for his piece of occupation on colliding branes cosmologies, chameleon fields, together with a few other topics. You should also search Google Scholar for Justin Khoury superfluid. You volition notice several papers – the most famous of which has 62 citations at this moment. That's fine but much fewer than Khoury's most famous papers that are safely higher upward 1,000 citations. The "revolutionary" Nov 2017 newspaper on the "superfluid nighttime matter" solely has one self-citation together with thence far.
Hossenfelder's pop text ends upward alongside this brusk paragraph:
I consider this 1 of the most interesting developments inwards the foundations of physics I convey seen inwards my lifetime. Superfluid nighttime thing is without incertitude a pretty cool idea.These are big words. Is at that topographic point some kernel for such big words? Well, I could imagine at that topographic point could move together with 1% of the time, I could acquire slightly excited most the idea. But 99% of the time, I experience certainly that at that topographic point is no conceivable justification for such big words, together with non fifty-fifty a justification for words that would move 90% smaller.
Superfluid nighttime thing is supposed to move a hybrid of the "cold nighttime matter" epitome which is the measure way to explicate the anomalies inwards the rotation curves of galaxies together with "corresponding" aspects of the expansion of the Universe; together with the "modified gravity" which tries to alteration the equations of gravity, fails to supply us alongside a satisfactory motion painting of physics together with cosmology, but could move a "simpler" theory that intriguingly explains some universal phenomenological laws that appear to move obeyed fifty-fifty though "cold nighttime matter" has no explanation for them.
OK, according to superfluid nighttime matter, the Universe is filled alongside some low-viscosity fluid, a superfluid, together with it acts similar nighttime matter. But a standardized description of the dynamics inside this fluid may also move interpreted every bit "modified gravity".
It seems similar a plausible combination of approaches but the devil is inwards the details. However, what I notice extremely weird is the persuasion that this fossil oil epitome is plenty for a revolution inwards cosmology or physics. You know, the "anomalous" galactic rotation curves are either explained alongside the assistance of some novel thing – which may send some variable entropy density together with which is assumed non to move visible inwards the telescopes – or without it. This is a Yes/No question. So if there's some extra thing which is a superfluid, it's nevertheless some extra thing – inwards other words, it must move considered an illustration of nighttime matter. After all, fifty-fifty superfluid nighttime thing has to convey some microscopic demeanor which may move studied past times local experiments – it must move composed of some (probably new) particle species.
The Universe must nevertheless allow the idealized "empty space" phenomena that convey been measured extremely accurately together with incorporated into the state-of-the-art theories of particle physics. For this reason, whether or non someone (e.g. Erik Verlinde) gets completely lost inwards vague, almost religious musings maxim that the "spacetime mightiness move a fluid", whatever "dark thing superfluid" or anything of that sort but has to be some extra thing added on meridian of the things nosotros know to exist. Any such nighttime thing may also move captured past times some macroscopic, "hydrodynamic or aerodynamic" equations, together with if the nighttime thing is a superfluid, they may convey some particular features.
(The empty infinite mightiness inwards regulation move a "fluid" but if the entropy density were nonzero together with variable, the conflict alongside the tests of relativity would move almost unavoidable because such a fluid would move zilch else than a variation of the aether fifty-fifty though, inwards this case, it wouldn't move the luminiferous aether but rather the lumo-prohibiting aether. Lumo is light, non solely inwards Esperanto, exactly to move sure. The entropy density, along alongside an entropy flux, is a 4-vector together with its nonzero value breaks the Lorentz invariance. So whatever thing alongside some entropy density does together with thence which is bad. H5N1 Lorentz-covariant spacetime fluid could inwards regulation be but it would convey to move a novel dual description of string/M-theory together with it's clearly hopeless to dream most whatever Lorentz-covariant "fluid" without a glimpse of bear witness of such a connective to string/M-theory.)
But because every nighttime thing model has such emergent, "hydrodynamic" land equations, I shout upward it's exactly incorrect to sell the "dark thing superfluid" every bit a totally novel paradigm. These authors nevertheless add together nighttime matter; together with they must nevertheless arrive at upward one's take away heed whether Einstein's equations concur at the key classical level. One may spread lots of hype most a "revolution" but at the end, it's exactly some other technical model of nighttime matter, similar e.g. the ultralight axion model past times Witten et al.
Note that Witten et al. convey employed an extremely modest, technical linguistic communication – which is appropriate despite the fact that their proposal is clever together with attractive. This approach is together with thence unlike from the approach of Ms Hossenfelder.
I don't shout upward that the "superfluid nighttime matter" papers contain something that would brand their reading irresistible. But I notice the "framing" of these superfluid nighttime thing papers inwards the media together with the blogosphere – together with the "framing" of many other papers – to a greater extent than of import together with highly problematic. It seems utterly inconceivable to me that an honest yet competent physicist could consider these papers "one of the most interesting developments inwards her lifetime".
When yous aspect at the reply (followups) past times the other physicists together with cosmologists, these papers don't fifty-fifty acquire into to meridian 100 inwards the yr when they were published. Especially because I know quite something most Ms Hossenfelder, it seems vastly to a greater extent than probable that she has a completely unlike agenda when she overhypes such papers. What is it?
She has written at to the lowest degree 1 paper most these MOND together with Verlinde issues – the 300th most of import derivative newspaper commenting on the 101st most influential newspaper inwards a yr ;-) – together with she but has personal incentives to brand the basis shout upward that this sort of piece of occupation is rattling interesting fifty-fifty though it is not. She is working on similar things because she doesn't convey the skills (and vitality) needed to piece of occupation on to a greater extent than interesting together with deeper things. She says "it is most interesting together with cool" but she actually agency "its fame is beneficial for her".
The fiscal tidings servers (e.g. SeekingAlpha) unremarkably require the authors to divulge their positions inwards assets that they utter over inwards their articles. That has practiced reasons. Someone's beingness long or brusk may trim down his or her integrity together with encourage him or her to write positive or negative things most the asset. The readers convey the correct non to move scammed inwards an slowly way – which is why fair publishers insist on informing the readers whether at that topographic point could move a clash of interests. One should aspect the scientific integrity to move much deeper than the integrity of the journalists inwards the fiscal media. Sadly, it isn't together with thence these days. Self-serving scammers such every bit Ms Hossenfelder human face upward no restrictions – they are gratuitous to fool together with delude everybody together with lots of the people inwards the media desire to move fooled together with move parts of this scam because they're every bit unethical every bit Ms Hossenfelder herself.
Readers should larn how to usage Google Scholar to acquire some fossil oil clue most the importance of a newspaper or persuasion every bit evaluated past times the trunk of the genuine scientists. If the folks learned how to usage this "simple branch of Google", they could forthwith figure out that 99% of the hype is in all probability rubbish (well, of course, this method isn't waterproof together with thence at that topographic point would move mistaken positives every bit good every bit mistaken negatives). It's also bad that almost no laymen – and, inwards fact, almost no journalists – are doing these things. So they're constantly drowning inwards hype together with inwards a superfluid of fairy-tales that overhype papers that are either average or totally wrong.
Self-serving, faux scientists such every bit Sabine Hossenfelder are plainly the primary drivers that propagate this fog together with misinformation.
P.S.: In an older pop article most the topic, 1 at Aeon.CO, Hossenfelder emphasized the request that superfluidity represents a quantum demeanor across the Universe. This assertion – which is exactly some other way to add together the hype – is actually a deep distortion of the issues. H5N1 superfluid is nicely described past times a classical land theory. Some of the fields appear to conduct similar the moving ridge constituent but because this is a macroscopic boundary of many particles inwards the same state, it is actually a classical limit, alongside no minimal uncertainty etc., together with thence the constituent of the spacetime coordinates isn't a moving ridge constituent together with shouldn't move called a moving ridge function. It is a classical field. The classical boundary isn't actually whatever unlike inwards the instance of a superfluid together with inwards the instance of electromagnetism or whatever other twosome of a quantum land theory together with its corresponding classical land theory!
No comments:
Post a Comment