Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by cambalache on Monday January 13, 2020 @11:59AM (#22036198)

This is so general and vague that it is useless, even more considering that the author has been saying the same for the last 10 years (the same timeframe her career progression stopped) and there is not a single valuable paper proposing a somewhat-valuable idea. I hate to sound like Lubos Motl (for the cognoscenti) but Sabine's criticism is trite.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by danharaj on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:06PM (#22036277)

It's not general and vague if you're a practicing physicist and know what those inconsistencies are. For example, the Standard Model assumes neutrinos don't have mass, but they do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by pdonis on Monday January 13, 2020 @12:39PM (#22036634)

> the Standard Model assumes neutrinos don't have mass

No, it doesn't. The original Standard Model from the 1970s did, but then neutrino masses were discovered and the Standard Model was modified to include them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by danharaj on Monday January 13, 2020 @02:09PM (#22037501)

By which mechanism do neutrinos gain their mass?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40... by pdonis on Monday January 13, 2020 @03:19PM (#22038178)

AFAIK the seesaw mechanism is the one currently used to model neutrinos in the Standard Model.

[ Parent | on HN ]