It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
about the content, but it's an entertaining article:

Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
spiders.

The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.

Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
become common among physicists to invent new particles for
which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
the hypothesis be experimentally tested. Many of these tests
have actually been done, and more are being commissioned
as we speak. It is wasting time and money.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:

> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists

It might be in the Grauniad, but it's from Sabine Hassenfelder,
who is pretty reputable in my estimation.

On the other hand, although I haven't heard of most of the hypothetical
particles she lists, I have heard of WIMPs: Weakly Interacting Massive
Particles, which are the prime candidate for the gravitational effects
attributed to Dark Matter. As she says, we don't need to know what
comprises Dark Matter in order to do most astrophysics. However, it
does seem inelegant to not look into what apparently makes up 85% of
the matter in the universe.

ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
undesirable.

<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>

--
Michael F. Stemper
What happens if you play John Cage's "4'33" at a slower tempo?

In article <th1rdj$d4a4$1@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>
>It might be in the Grauniad, but it's from Sabine Hassenfelder,
>who is pretty reputable in my estimation.
>
>On the other hand, although I haven't heard of most of the hypothetical
>particles she lists, I have heard of WIMPs: Weakly Interacting Massive
>Particles, which are the prime candidate for the gravitational effects
>attributed to Dark Matter. As she says, we don't need to know what
>comprises Dark Matter in order to do most astrophysics. However, it
>does seem inelegant to not look into what apparently makes up 85% of
>the matter in the universe.
>
>ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
>specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
>undesirable.
>
><https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
>

On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
Divinity instead.

Or *something* like that. YASID?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 28 Sep 2022 12:12:33 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>
> Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
> talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
> lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
> admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
> a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
> spiders.
>
> The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
> it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
> but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
> has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.
>
> Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
> But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
> just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
> become common among physicists to invent new particles for
> which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
> more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
> the hypothesis be experimentally tested. Many of these tests
> have actually been done, and more are being commissioned
> as we speak. It is wasting time and money.
>
> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists

Sounds like something someone who didn't get their grant might say.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:06:15 PM UTC+1, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
> > about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
> > www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>
> It might be in the Grauniad, but it's from Sabine Hassenfelder,
> who is pretty reputable in my estimation.
>
> On the other hand, although I haven't heard of most of the hypothetical
> particles she lists, I have heard of WIMPs: Weakly Interacting Massive
> Particles, which are the prime candidate for the gravitational effects
> attributed to Dark Matter. As she says, we don't need to know what
> comprises Dark Matter in order to do most astrophysics. However, it
> does seem inelegant to not look into what apparently makes up 85% of
> the matter in the universe.
>
> ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
> specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
> undesirable.
>
> <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
>
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> What happens if you play John Cage's "4'33" at a slower tempo?

I agree that Hassenfelder is reputable - I thought it was surprisingly authoritative for a Guardian article.

I think that whether these theoretical physics papers are SF is probably a matter of definitions, and less interesting than whether they are useful.

If Hassenfelder has a way forward more systematic than "guess, then check" - which is what these papers are - then there is a Nobel prize out there waiting for her. If not, the question is whether the resources allocated to theoretical physics reduced to these strategies are well allocated. If we stopped training theoretical physicists and convinced them all to be e.g. statisticians, then the resultant flow of cheaper brighter labour would probably mean better decisons in both government and industry. Arguably, theoretical atomic physics has not paid off since the atom bomb and the semiconductor.

There is a whole field of study about resource allocation under risk - some of it under the term of "bandit problems" Simple approximate solutions for this (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit#Semi-uniform_strategies) include decisions to spend most of your resource on the obvious sensible choice, but to hold back a small amount to be distributed among the more risky unknown alternatives. By this reasoning, it is worthwhile to spend some amount of your nation's GDP on theoretical physics even if it is not getting anywhere - but I freely admit that this does not tell me whether what we are currently spending is the right amount.

On 28/09/2022 11.17, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <th1rdj$d4a4$1@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>>
>>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists

>> ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
>> specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
>> undesirable.
>>
>> <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
>>
>
> On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
> Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
> desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
> like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
> the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
> Divinity instead.
>
> Or *something* like that. YASID?

I dunno, but it was mentioned here earlier this year. (If that was
by you, I'm afraid that's not much help.)

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

In article <th1vsi$dgu2$2@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 28/09/2022 11.17, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <th1rdj$d4a4$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>>>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>>>
>>>>
>www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>
>>> ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
>>> specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
>>> undesirable.
>>>
>>> <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
>>>
>>
>> On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>> Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>> desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>> like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>> the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>> Divinity instead.
>>
>> Or *something* like that. YASID?
>
>I dunno, but it was mentioned here earlier this year. (If that was
>by you, I'm afraid that's not much help.)
>

No, that wasn't me. Not sure how I missed that, unless it was in
a thread I had stopped following.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>
> Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
> talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
> lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
> admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
> a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
> spiders.

Actually, Darwin did predict the existence of creatures not yet seen.

And they were found.

In particle physics, decades between prediction and discovery are commonplace. The neutrino, the various quarks, the Higgs.

Though if I'd spent my entire career on supersymmetry I'd be feeling a bit nervous about now. Surely it's time they found at least *one* of them. I'd have to console myself with the idea that the mathematics will be useful even if the particles don't exist, something that is not without precedent.

>
> The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
> it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
> but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
> has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.
>
> Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
> But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
> just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
> become common among physicists to invent new particles for
> which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
> more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
> the hypothesis be experimentally tested.

You cannot actually demand such tests. Experimental physicists rather like to have successful careers, so they won't conduct such experiments unless there is a good chance of a positive outcome, or the particle is so credible that a negative outcome would be important.

Experimentalists are well aware that not all testable hypotheses are worth testing.

William Hyde

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:22:57 PM UTC-6, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 8:12:38 AM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

> > But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
> > just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
> > become common among physicists to invent new particles for
> > which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
> > more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
> > the hypothesis be experimentally tested.

> You cannot actually demand such tests. Experimental physicists
> rather like to have successful careers, so they won't conduct such
> experiments unless there is a good chance of a positive outcome,
> or the particle is so credible that a negative outcome would be important.
>
> Experimentalists are well aware that not all testable hypotheses are worth testing.

And thus, saying "they do it with more maths" of the theoreticians, as
if the postulations of hypothetical particles by them are as devoid of
any rationale as the suggestion that there may be flying earthworms in
our caves, really buries the actual distinction.

The various particles discovered in accelerators have certain regularities
and symmetries; an early one, originally called "the eightfold way" in a
reference to Buddhist ethics, led to the discovery of quarks. So it actually
makes sense to suggest that a particle may exist having such-and-so
characteristics.

John Savard

On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 18:22:31 UTC+1, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 11.17, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> > In article <th1rdj$d4a4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Michael F. Stemper <michael...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
> >>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
> >>
> >>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
> >> ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
> >> specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
> >> undesirable.
> >>
> >> <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
> >>
> >
> > On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
> > Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
> > desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
> > like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
> > the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
> > Divinity instead.
> >
> > Or *something* like that. YASID?
> I dunno, but it was mentioned here earlier this year. (If that was
> by you, I'm afraid that's not much help.)

If I'm not muddled, it was by you.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.sf.written/c/YRjp1r_miWI/m/0VxjsPh5AQAJ>

Stephen Harker got it (he thinks):

> I can recall a story that matches. [...]

> The story I was thinking of is Quiddities, by Ray Brown, Analog,
> March 1983, pp 92--113. It matches the key points of the
> description above.*
>
> http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?49387
>
> It is not listed as being in any collection or anthology.

*
In fact what you asked about is:

"In a comment on a recent video[1] by physicist
Sabine Hossenfelder, somebody says:

"It reminds me of an Asimov short story: particle physicists
kept discovering smaller and smaller particles. A graduate
student proved it was an infinite progression and got his PhD -
in theology."

So that's back with Sabine Hossenfelder. Recursion.

On 2022-09-28 10:06 a.m., Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 28/09/2022 07.12, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>
> It might be in the Grauniad, but it's from Sabine Hassenfelder,
> who is pretty reputable in my estimation.
>
> On the other hand, although I haven't heard of most of the hypothetical
> particles she lists, I have heard of WIMPs: Weakly Interacting Massive
> Particles, which are the prime candidate for the gravitational effects
> attributed to Dark Matter. As she says, we don't need to know what
> comprises Dark Matter in order to do most astrophysics. However, it
> does seem inelegant to not look into what apparently makes up 85% of
> the matter in the universe.
>
> ObSFW: "The Dead Past", in which there is a government organization
> specifically dedicated to suppressing some research that it deems
> undesirable.
>
> <https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55741>
>

And then they try to convince us that it's all about protecting _our_
privacy.

On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>Divinity instead.
>
That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.

Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
physicists doing experiments.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>Divinity instead.
>>
> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>
> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
> physicists doing experiments.

The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.

I first remember hearing speculation that modern physics has more to do
with making the equations come out right than actual physical reality in
an undergrad quantum mechanics class in the late 1970s. The thing is,
nobody has come up with something that models physical reality better.

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>Divinity instead.
>>>
>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>
>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>> physicists doing experiments.
>
>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>

Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?

In article <6WV0L.111440$OR4c.62699@fx46.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>>Divinity instead.
>>>>
>>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>>> physicists doing experiments.
>>
>>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>>
>
>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?

(Hal Heydt)
It works as a definition, but lacks the utility of a single
syllable for daily use.

I wonder how much of the use of "phud" is derivative of its use
in "Yellow Submarine".

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>>Divinity instead.
>>>>
>>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>>> physicists doing experiments.
>>
>>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>>
>
> Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?

That's decoding the acronym, not pronouncing it.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:24:02 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>>Divinity instead.
>>>>
>>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>>
>>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>>> physicists doing experiments.
>>
>>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>>
>
>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?

This particular fellow is extremely distinguished and pushing 80. You
can ask him :)

"phuddy duddy" reminds me of "fuddle duddle" which is what Pierre
Trudeau claims he said in the Canadian House of Commons in 1971 when
he lost his temper and dropped the f-bomb. The Toronto Gobe + Mail
reported the incident as "The Prime Minister told the honorable member
(this is what the Canadian parliament calls members of parliament) to
'go forth and multiply'!" which is as gracious a reference to the
f-bomb that I've ever heard.

Dear God - 50 years since Fuddle Duddle? I am REALLY getting old - I
thought it was when I was in high school but....

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:13:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <6WV0L.111440$OR4c.62699@fx46.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>>>Divinity instead.
>>>>>
>>>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>>>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>>>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>>>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>>>
>>>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>>>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>>>> physicists doing experiments.
>>>
>>>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>>>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>>>
>>
>>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>It works as a definition, but lacks the utility of a single
>syllable for daily use.
>
>I wonder how much of the use of "phud" is derivative of its use
>in "Yellow Submarine".

Oh, about 100% would be /my/ guess.

Unless the Beatles got it from somewhere else, perhaps.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:13:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <6WV0L.111440$OR4c.62699@fx46.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>>>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Sep 2022 16:17:42 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On further reflection, I think I remember a story on this theme.
>>>>>>Maybe a "Probability Zero"? Anyway, a future grad student is
>>>>>>desperately trying to get a Phd (which had some future cutsy name
>>>>>>like "now we actually pronounce it: "phud") and finally decided all
>>>>>>the particles were religion and was able to get his doctorate in
>>>>>>Divinity instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds very odd to me - a close personal friend of mine was
>>>>> Director of Scientific Computing at TRIUMF (nuclear facility at U of
>>>>> BC in Vancouver) before his retirement and while his PhD is in Physics
>>>>> can't imagine him ever saying anything like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not surprisingly he is VERY good at computers in a "power user" kind
>>>>> of way - his job was basically facilitating software + hardware for
>>>>> physicists doing experiments.
>>>>
>>>>The number of PhD's pronouncing it as phud is only exceeded by the
>>>>number pronouncing it phuddy duddy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>It works as a definition, but lacks the utility of a single
>>syllable for daily use.
>>
>>I wonder how much of the use of "phud" is derivative of its use
>>in "Yellow Submarine".
>
>Oh, about 100% would be /my/ guess.
>
>Unless the Beatles got it from somewhere else, perhaps.

Or derived, perhaps, from Elmer Fudd?

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:13:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <6WV0L.111440$OR4c.62699@fx46.iad>,
>>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>It works as a definition, but lacks the utility of a single
>>syllable for daily use.
>>
>>I wonder how much of the use of "phud" is derivative of its use
>>in "Yellow Submarine".
>
> Oh, about 100% would be /my/ guess.
>
> Unless the Beatles got it from somewhere else, perhaps.

I would expect it to have predated the Beatles. Pronouncing initialisms
as acronyms is a habit that's been around for a long, long time (my wife
works for White Sands Missile Range, or WSMR, universally pronounced
wizmer).

On Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 20:39:28 UTC+1, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> > On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 18:13:15 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> > Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <6WV0L.111440$OR4c....@fx46.iad>,
> >>Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Has "Piled Higher and Deeper" become no longer fashionable?
> >>
> >>(Hal Heydt)
> >>It works as a definition, but lacks the utility of a single
> >>syllable for daily use.
> >>
> >>I wonder how much of the use of "phud" is derivative of its use
> >>in "Yellow Submarine".
> >
> > Oh, about 100% would be /my/ guess.
> >
> > Unless the Beatles got it from somewhere else, perhaps.
> I would expect it to have predated the Beatles. Pronouncing initialisms
> as acronyms is a habit that's been around for a long, long time (my wife
> works for White Sands Missile Range, or WSMR, universally pronounced
> wizmer).

To be sure; "Wrens" were or are members of
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Royal_Naval_Service>

On 9/28/2022 7:12 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>
> Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
> talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
> lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
> admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
> a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
> spiders.
>
> The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
> it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
> but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
> has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.
>
> Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
> But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
> just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
> become common among physicists to invent new particles for
> which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
> more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
> the hypothesis be experimentally tested. Many of these tests
> have actually been done, and more are being commissioned
> as we speak. It is wasting time and money.
>
> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists

Oh my. It is actually worse than the race for a working fusion reactor.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:

> On 9/28/2022 7:12 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>> Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
>> talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
>> lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
>> admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
>> a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
>> spiders.
>> The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
>> it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
>> but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
>> has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.
>> Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
>> But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
>> just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
>> become common among physicists to invent new particles for
>> which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
>> more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
>> the hypothesis be experimentally tested. Many of these tests
>> have actually been done, and more are being commissioned
>> as we speak. It is wasting time and money.
>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>
> Oh my. It is actually worse than the race for a working fusion reactor.

Didn't see Ted's post, so I'm responding to Lynn's -- while there's no
observational evidence for the particles being proposed so furiously,
they do make the math work out better. Whether that's evidence is at
the heart of the question of whether physics has gone off the deep end,
or if the critics just aren't good enough at math (and to be clear,
I realize they're immeasurably better than me).

On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 12:59:56 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:

[snip]

> Or derived, perhaps, from Elmer Fudd?

Don't forget Fudd's First Law.....

https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/talks/nissc-2000-pgn/tsld002.htm

--

Kevin R

On 10/11/2022 9:10 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/28/2022 7:12 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> It's "The Guardian", so there's that, and I have no way to say yea or nay
>>> about the content, but it's an entertaining article:
>>> Imagine you go to a zoology conference. The first speaker
>>> talks about her 3D model of a 12-legged purple spider that
>>> lives in the Arctic. There's no evidence it exists, she
>>> admits, but it's a testable hypothesis, and she argues that
>>> a mission should be sent off to search the Arctic for
>>> spiders.
>>> The second speaker has a model for a flying earthworm, but
>>> it flies only in caves. There's no evidence for that either,
>>> but he petitions to search the world's caves. The third one
>>> has a model for octopuses on Mars. It's testable, he stresses.
>>> Kudos to zoologists, I've never heard of such a conference.
>>> But almost every particle physics conference has sessions
>>> just like this, except they do it with more maths. It has
>>> become common among physicists to invent new particles for
>>> which there is no evidence, publish papers about them, write
>>> more papers about these particles' properties, and demand
>>> the hypothesis be experimentally tested. Many of these tests
>>> have actually been done, and more are being commissioned
>>> as we speak. It is wasting time and money.
>>> www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
>>
>> Oh my. It is actually worse than the race for a working fusion reactor.
>
> Didn't see Ted's post, so I'm responding to Lynn's -- while there's no
> observational evidence for the particles being proposed so furiously,
> they do make the math work out better. Whether that's evidence is at
> the heart of the question of whether physics has gone off the deep end,
> or if the critics just aren't good enough at math (and to be clear,
> I realize they're immeasurably better than me).

My impression is that at our current level of understanding the math can
be made to more closely mirror reality by introducing these unknown
particles so that we can try to experiment to see if said particles
exist. Less "this must exist, find it!" and more "what if this exists?
Can we find out?"

The Guardian however wants to sell ads so they are slanting their
article to catch the eye of certain demographics by giving them a
bogeyman to lynch.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.