>a Sean Carroll 4hr rebuttal that there is a problem of physics by not opening up to new ideas
Indeed he likes to indulge in his solos (that's what they are for) but after almost 4 hours of reviewing the status quo[0]; he goes on to accurately describe the problem of actually choosing the set of possible ideas/theories to follow through.
Which basically boils down to who gets the funding (and by extension: tenure) and who not. As a part of that system (he sat on a committee) he seems to be aware of the flaws. Because of the incentive to be "effective" with the funds "popular ideas" (what resonates with the community) with a "high probability" of succeeding get chosen, a negative feedback loop if you will.
Interestingly, he sees that problem quite divorced from today's state of physics itself which is too successful (it's hard to come up with new ideas and with today's instruments (energy levels) very little "new" to find) in describing the physical reality.
My personal take:
The "effective"/"pragmatist" mostly American wrap up of two obscure subjects from the Old Continent has hit a wall. With String Theory - once also obscure - being comfortable in the platonic realms (Witten winning the Fields Medal) it's time to wrap it up and be more heterogeneous again let the small science do its brewing.
Yes, at first it will open up the most feared floodgates of crackpottery but after awhile it will subdue and finally slip into obscurity, most will jump the boat to whatever hype is the new hype and the one's left will hopefully have very weird ideas with high rigor devoid of most incentives to cheat/conform for a career; 99,9..% will fail of course but at least they will have a fun ride instead of clinging fiercely onto their careers.
Indeed he likes to indulge in his solos (that's what they are for) but after almost 4 hours of reviewing the status quo[0]; he goes on to accurately describe the problem of actually choosing the set of possible ideas/theories to follow through.
Which basically boils down to who gets the funding (and by extension: tenure) and who not. As a part of that system (he sat on a committee) he seems to be aware of the flaws. Because of the incentive to be "effective" with the funds "popular ideas" (what resonates with the community) with a "high probability" of succeeding get chosen, a negative feedback loop if you will.
Interestingly, he sees that problem quite divorced from today's state of physics itself which is too successful (it's hard to come up with new ideas and with today's instruments (energy levels) very little "new" to find) in describing the physical reality.
My personal take: The "effective"/"pragmatist" mostly American wrap up of two obscure subjects from the Old Continent has hit a wall. With String Theory - once also obscure - being comfortable in the platonic realms (Witten winning the Fields Medal) it's time to wrap it up and be more heterogeneous again let the small science do its brewing.
Yes, at first it will open up the most feared floodgates of crackpottery but after awhile it will subdue and finally slip into obscurity, most will jump the boat to whatever hype is the new hype and the one's left will hopefully have very weird ideas with high rigor devoid of most incentives to cheat/conform for a career; 99,9..% will fail of course but at least they will have a fun ride instead of clinging fiercely onto their careers.
[0]https://youtu.be/MTM-8memDHs?t=14354