Every issue of New Scientist since is available here for subscribers. Browse our previous issues below or use our search page to find the specific article you're looking for. If you want to go further back, you can read issues of New Scientist from its launch in to for free at Google Books. Home Magazine archive.
Year: December Issue 22 December View more. Issue 15 December View more. Issue 8 December View more. Issue 1 December View more. Issue 24 November View more. Issue 17 November View more. Issue 10 November View more. Issue 3 November View more. Issue 27 October View more. Issue 20 October View more. Issue 13 October View more. Issue 6 October View more. Issue 29 September View more. Issue 22 September View more. Barriers are observations. Four carbon-carbon bonds must be simultaneously broken, the ball turned inside out plus hydrogen tunneling , then four bonds reform.
The 2-position is substituted with three skeletal carbons and a -CF3 group 69 amu. No tunneling inversion! Either quantum mechanics or thermodynamics hugely fails. Follow the white rabbit :! Evolution is the best selector not only in a population of living organisms, but for scientific ideas. Program for: Institute of Advanced Risk Research.
Provide the variations in a population - grant relatively small amount of money to almost all candidates, including "Fleischman and Pons", for applied research projects. Allow almost all creasy ideas. No big labs, only individuals with free access to core facility and assistance by one or two technician.
Collaboration is free in house and outside. Apply natural selection - select result reports after a while years using as a criterium new adaptive features - new results, not like slightly modified form the mainstream, but new results. The selection process should be applied in broad environment outside the institute, blindly only project and results no authors information - including AI computing facility using novelty as a parameter. Prolong financing to the selected individuals after first selection step. Time limit - 5 years to get something new on the table.
Every year start the new 5 years selection cycle. This AI physicist is capable of teasing out several laws of physics in mystery worlds deliberately constructed to simulate the complexity of our universe. An AI physicist can derive the natural laws of imagined universes Teaching an AI system the tricks physicists use to understand the real world produces an extraordinarily powerful machine. Does anyone remember Julian Schwinger? Do you remember why he resigned from science? The pressure for conformity is enormous. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.
I'll try this here, since I don't do Twitter. Never saw the utility in it, since I have curse words longer than characters Sabine, Thanks for another stimulating post. I admire and appreciate you taking particle physicists and the associated theorists to task. Too few people are prepared to think this critically, ask the questions you do, particularly publically. Your NY Times piece was much needed. Sadly, Neil Turok's limited and impoverished vision for Perimeter is not unusual.
Indeed, I fear that most people in senior management at research universities, particularly in Australia and the UK, have a similar pedestrian vision: hire "high profile" people who will get lots of grants, graduate lots of students, and publish lots of papers in "high impact" journals. Promoting creative and rigorous science relevant to reality is an after thought. Keep up the great work. VYT said: "The selection process should be applied in broad environment outside the institute, blindly only project and results no authors information - including AI computing facility using novelty as a parameter.
ABOUT THE MAGAZINE
Bee that begins with: "Opamanfred, Yes, brillant, you have identified the problem very well. Either by having two completely independent selection tracks wherein one is handled exclusively by AI and the other exclusively by Human selectors, or by having a single track with Humans running the show, but with a weighted input of AI in the process? The reason I didn't submit the idea previously was because, of course, guess who sets up the AI? Would the results really be that different?
- Highlights and Press;
- Wicked Highlander: A Dark Sword Novel!
- New scientist international edition april 07 (1) by Manuel Guardia Araujo - Issuu?
- Editor's Pick.
- New Scientist becomes Non Scientist!
And with the "two-track" process, you'd have to come up with a method for deciding which prospects get fed into the machine, and which ones get fed to the Humans But what do I know? Where is Dr. Castaldo when you need him? The problem with your advice is, that it seems tailored to recommend your "ideal academic world", in which your job prospects would be better than they are in the actual world.
Series: New Scientist
This then allows you to privately blame your personal job problems on the failure of your peers to follow your advice. Good net-working is a desirable activity, in the academic world and elsewhere! Your recommendation to disregard it in hiring decision does not seem to be a good one. Why do you make it? My suspicion is that you gave it because you consider yourself as a high-quality researcher but not as a good net-worker.
Unknown, "Good net-working is a desirable activity, in the academic world and elsewhere! I said it is a statement about network connectivity, which you turned into "good networking". These are not the same things. I was talking about committee members making their judgement based on who they know. I was not talking about the candidates' skills whatsoever. Yes, one could make a point that networking is a valuable skill. Depends on the purpose you are hiring for. As I said, people should come up with their own way of assessment.
There isn't any one "best" method.
Highlights and Press
You're not any good at it. Do you agree? Unknown, You are still misunderstanding me.
- Working with interpreters and translators : a guide for speech-language pathologists and audiologists.
- New Scientist becomes Non Scientist.
- Magazine archive | New Scientist!
- ABOUT THE MAGAZINE.
- New Scientist | Awards | LibraryThing.
- Cover Stories;
- New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova?
- Editor's Pick.
I said a statement about network connectivity. About the connectivity of the network. Not about anyone's connections in particular. If person A knows person B this means they are connected in some social sense. Does this tell person A how many social connections person B has?
No it does not. Can person B have many connections and not be connected to person A. For sure. What happens if a committee member makes decisions based on who they know is that they prefer people from their own network and people from outside their network are at a disadvantage.
Hope that clarifies it. Unknown: I wouldn't agree with that. There are celebrities in physics just like in any field. My advisor was and is extremely well-known in our community; and I currently work for two levels of management up the most cited researcher in our field. When these people talk, or publish, or write opinion articles, people listen. That doesn't make them good net-workers, they really don't have to make any effort to network at all, so why assume they are "good" at it? Network connectivity doesn't require being good at networking. They are just famous for their results.
Similar to a TV or movie star, or music star, or sports star, or even a political star: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez currently has 2. Because she has become famous for her political accomplishments youngest congresswoman ever elected in the USA and political speech and positions. So people are seeking her out and increasing her "connectivity" by thousands of followers every day.
Your post reminds me of an interview that I read by Alain Connes a few years ago where he remarked that physicists were like bosons. And by that he meant that they jumped on the latest bandwagon. He felt it important that researchers were given time and resources to pursue ideas some of which that might not come to anything and maybe over years. It sounds similar to your own criticism of the field. I also recall Peter Higgs saying he felt sorry for younger researchers these days because of the pressure to publish. He said that if he had been under same kind of pressure he might not have done the work he did.
This led him to the conclusion that physicists are fermions. Unknown, I do not generally recommend against paying attention to personal connections. There are cases where that's important information. I was commenting here specifically on wanting to make breakthrough discoveries.
Volumes | Nature
If you rely on who-knows-whom, you run a risk of staying in the always-same circle of ideas. I don't know why you are now talking about "difficult personalities". Rest assured that if "excitement and happiness will build and build seemingly without limit" and "the ultimate truths of the cosmos will be gradually revealed" then my blog is not necessary to spread the awesome news. Phillip wrote: a professor observed the students coming into the lecture hall, most sitting by themselves, a few seats away from the nearest neighbor. I realize he was joking, but my memories of university physics courses are of friendly students and professors.
Chemistry and biology courses were friendly also. The students and professors in mathematics courses were somewhat less friendly and the least friendly students, oddly enough, were in my literature courses. This was just my personal experience and I have no idea if any generalities exist on a statistical scale. Philip "When I studied physics, one day a professor observed the students coming into the lecture hall, most sitting by themselves, a few seats away from the nearest neighbour.
To be categorized as bosons, they would have needed to sit on each other knees. I think Connes' full citation is that physicists are like bosons they like working in big collaborations on a few fashionable topics while mathematicians are fermions they work mainly alone or in pairs spin-up spin-down? Mathematics is no more sophisticated than any other language. It has its syntax and building of logical arguments. If you must use a thousand convoluted words in saying something simple, you are probably incorrect.
Today's theoretical physics are astray due to errors in its core theories. These errors create a need of ever-expanding explanation models to correct the failed assumptions of the core theory. These errors give rise to "dark" and "black" concepts that can only be derived indirectly. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy, in short all sorts of shadow phenomena that has no basis in a traditional scientific method of empirical experiments.
Comment moderation on this blog is turned on. Submitted comments will only appear after manual approval, which can take up to 24 hours. Comments posted as "Unknown" go straight to junk. You may have to click on the orange-white blogger icon next to your name to change to a different account. Unknown AM, January 27, Antti Kangasvieri AM, January 27, Arun AM, January 27, Wordmeme AM, January 27, Sabine Hossenfelder AM, January 27, Greg Feild AM, January 28, Bruce Rout AM, January 27, Knon Anon AM, January 27, Armin PM, January 27, Philip Thrift PM, January 27, Uncle Al PM, January 27, Adeel Ajaib PM, January 27, Castaldo PM, January 27, Taylor PM, January 27, Axil PM, January 27, Shantanu PM, January 27, Tom Aaron AM, January 28, Sabine Hossenfelder AM, January 28, Unknown AM, January 28, Hamish Johnston AM, January 28, Uli Thomsen AM, January 28, Lawrence Crowell AM, January 28, Uncle Al AM, January 28, Jonathan Starr AM, January 28, Mark B.
John Duffield PM, January 28, Louis Tagliaferro PM, January 28, David Bailey PM, January 28, Nick W PM, January 28, Sabine Hossenfelder PM, January 28, Every issue of New Scientist since is available here for subscribers. Browse our previous issues below or use our search page to find the specific article you're looking for. If you want to go further back, you can read issues of New Scientist from its launch in to for free at Google Books. Home Magazine archive. Year: December Issue 21 December View more.
Issue 14 December View more. Issue 7 December View more. Issue 30 November View more.
Issue 23 November View more. Issue 16 November View more. Issue 9 November View more. Issue 2 November View more. Issue 26 October View more. Issue 19 October View more. Issue 12 October View more. Issue 5 October View more. Issue 28 September View more. Issue 21 September View more.