Not without fine-tuning. The issue is that high-energy supersymmetry no longer removes the "ugly constants" of the standard model -- it just shifts them somewhere else. Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I learned a lot reading "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".
I treat her like Jordan Peterson. Obviously smart, but also obviously bitter and if/when they have a valid point I’m sure someone else has said it in a less grating manner.
Sabine argues the data, in good(ish) faith, but she does carry a chip on her shoulder.
Peterson does not argue data - he suggests analogies and then holds those analogies as iron-clad transitive relationships to argue his preconceived position.
I hear this a lot from people. As a non-physicist who enjoys her content, what am I missing? is she wrong on any specific physics? Without specific criticism this comes off as insiders being upset that a fellow insider is critical of the field
Part of the issue for me is that I don't think her research on quantum foundations is viewed very highly. Some would probably consider it completely pointless. In her videos, she claims that the majority of physicists do not understand quantum mechanics and that AI might find patterns in the randomness of quantum mechanics. This doesn't put her tendancy to tell lay people how everyone else's research is a waste of time in a good light. She's just arguing that her research is more deserving of funding.
Plenty of her points aren't without merit but she's frequently disengenious and doesn't give the full argument for what she criticises.
An example is her criticism on "decoherence solves the measurement issue" where she explains the average of multiple particles doesn't tell you what happens to just one of the particles involved. She's not wrong in the example she gives but decoherence actually can be applied to a single particle. Compare with PBS space time, they present both sides and offer an opinion as their opinion not fact.
I recently watched a lecture on issues in particle physics. Naturalness was mentioned due to a need to ensure the theory gave sensible answers, to ensure it was renormalizable, that's far more reasonable to how Sabine presents it.
I'm no insider but I haven't found Hossenfelder's stuff that impressive. Her reasoning tends to take the form "X is true, therefore Y", where "if X then Y" is a valid deduction, and X hasn't been proven false, so we can't say she's wrong on specific physics. But the presumption that X is true is unjustified even if X hasn't been proven false. Example: she likes superdeterminism instead of quantum mechanics with its various weird consequences. Ok, her version of superdeterminism hasn't been proven wrong, but that's a long way off from saying that it is right. It comes down to her saying "I believe X and I haven't been proven wrong, even though most other physicists believe not-X, but I like my theory better, so there". Perfectly fine and legit, but I'll take X seriously when I see more recognition for it from the rest of physics.
The same goes for this stuff about tests of string theory. As far as I can tell, string theory is perfectly good physics whether or not it is experimentally testable. That is, there is a viewpoint called "naive Popperianism" that if something isn't experimentally testable then it it isn't science, but from what I can tell, that viewpoint is not truly decisive (thus "naive"), and its proponents don't have the authority that they wish they did. As a comparable situation, there is not much dispute that general relativity (GR) is perfectly good physics except at the center of a black hole, where it predicts a singularity which people consider non-physical. Particularly, GR makes predictions about the interior of black holes (points inside the event horizon) that are considered perfectly good except at the center. But, since there is no way to observe the inside of a black hole, those predictions of GR are also not verifiable. So I'm not bothered by unverifiability. Theory is good if it has explanatory or interpretive power, not just testable predictive power.
She's not wrong about any of the empirical content of physics (so far as we know), but neither are the people she criticizes. It's a philosophical conflict.
Most physicists are at least weakly inclined towards scientific realism, whereas Hossenfelder is a radical instrumentalist - and doesn't seem to think any other view is even worth engaging with.
Jordan Peterson has had many iterations. The year -5 edition had good psychology lectures and I disagree with the above poster who says he doesn't know what he is talking about. Within his academic realm, I think he did, although there would be points other academics would contest (this is what academics do). He has then gone through at least two transformations.
His position regarding a lot of religious topics seems tainted by his personal beliefs.
He makes frequent reference to judaeo-christian archetypes, which seems to me to grossly overstate the relevance of the belief systems.
The fundamental archetypes represented in the human mind are far older than any current form of religion, to the extent that there's overlap then either the archetypes have been co-opted, or have been overlaid with a culturally mediated avatars.
I don't think that you ever find him framing those underlying structures in a way that does not tie back to Christ.
> which seems to me to grossly overstate the relevance of the belief systems.
It is hardly possible to overstate the relevance of those archetypes and beliefs. Nothing else has been more widespread on earth for as long to have anywhere close to the same influence on humanity.
I'm not familiar enough to know what a "Judeo-Christian archetype" is, but Indian/Chinese origin religions are older, just about as numerous, and not particularly similar.
(Where Buddhism is similar, it's because "religion" as a concept had to be made legible to Westerners when they showed up so they wouldn't colonize you so hard, and they did this by putting Western philosophy in it.)
Things like the virgin mother (bare in mind, much like Peterson, I'm pulling this out of my arse).
My take on that it is a perspective based subset of actuality; in the case of the mother (as opposed) to the wife, 'she' is measured from the perspective of the child, she has her nurturing capabilities but not those of reproduction.
Reproduction is outside of the child's need to understand, and is not a property of the mother as it is seen from the child's perspective.
Bare in mind that the archetype is always perceived by the child, the husband will see something else.
These restrictions are based on perspective and need, and are reflective only of a limited subset of reality.
Christianity has taken that childish abstraction, and declared it to be an actual thing, that actually existed.
It doesn't take much consideration to understand that virgins don't give birth to sons (and if they ever give birth to daughters, they'll be genetic clones of the mother).
> Where Buddhism is similar, it's because "religion" as a concept had to be made legible to Westerners when they showed up so they wouldn't colonize you so hard, and they did this by putting Western philosophy in it.)
Reworded:
Where Buddhism is similar, it's because Westerners showed up and were going to colonize anyone who didn't have something called a "religion", so they had to turn it into a recognizable "religion", which they did by copying a bunch of Western philosophy. So the older forms were even less similar.
I do not mean in terms of pervasiveness - I mean in terms of them innately making up a piece of the underlying structures of human consciousness.
And to the extent that those beliefs are actually archetypal, they are not fundamentally judaeo-christian but predate and have been co-opted by those religions.
