"Einstein killed Physics" —Luke Smith

[Anonymous No.14569795]

>Physics is fragile because it is like a game of Jenga. Pull out or change one piece and the whole thing is either reordered or simply collapses.
>Modern physics now looks at the nature of our life on Earth as an exception to the general rule of frictionless and continuous movement in the vacuum of space.
>A valid question to ask is how much more that we take to be normal is a special case of reality? As we encounter more and more abberrant data, such as quantum mechanics, we might soon find ourself unifying seemingly disparate forces in the same was that Newton in a novel and seemingly absurd way the fact that objects fall to the ground with the apparent fact that the Earth orbits the Sun into one new concept: Gravity. Even worse with the unfalsifiable mess that is String Theory.
>Even if we have minutely mismeasured, the Jenga piece of light will radically alter everthing: our ideas of how old the universe is, our relationships with other planets, the solvency of general relativity, etc. We have many other things tied into our interpretation of light that will have to change if we realize our models of it are flawed.
>I remember talking to someone over the internet who accused me of having a low view of institutionalized science and being a dreaded epistemological anarchist because one of my degrees is in the "soft science" of linguistics: It is substantially more advanced and its findings are substantially more solid than physics. Since formalizing ideas in math doesn't just make something a better or a more rigorous science.
>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works. Even if we totally rewrite our narratives and theories about linguistic basics, there is no debate about the structure of language and how basic data relates to other data. This is absolutely the opposite of math and physics.

https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/the-fragility-of-physics/
thoughts?

[Anonymous No.14569811]

>>14569795
I didn't click the link, but read your post.
Sounds pretty pseudy to me. I'd wager his IQ is only 110-125.

[Anonymous No.14569865]

Relativity is highly questionable, but this /g/tuber is a midwit pseud whose arguments amount to vague language games. If he had the intelligence to study the math behind relativity he'd come up with convincing criticism. However, his IQ is too low and hence he talks like a philosotard.

[Anonymous No.14569941]

>>14569795
Linguists have the weirdest fucking egos of any human I've ever met. They think because they study language, they somehow understand the universe. It's like a physics undergrad who never grows up.

The only group like them is architects who have this similar ego for no real reason. It must have something to do with these fields having such high crossover with 'both halves' of academia (i.e. STEM and the Humanities).

Also physics is not fragile. The basics will always hold true. No one disproved classical mechanics and no one will.

>>14569865
This is what I'm talking about. You only get these type of pseuds from the crossover crowds. If he stayed within his space of comp sci and didn't branch out into linguistics (where many with backgrounds in the Humanities exist), I'm convinced he wouldn't be so pseudy.

[Anonymous No.14569973]

>>14569941
he is literally a linguistics professor

[Anonymous No.14570011]

>>14569973
You aren't contradicting anything he said.

[Anonymous No.14570018]

>>14570011
what does he mean by "If he stayed within his space of comp sci and didn't branch out into linguistics" then? linguistics is his main thing

[Anonymous No.14570039]

>>14570018
I was always under the impression that he started in comp sci, but maybe I'm wrong. Might just be my association with him and /g/.

[Anonymous No.14570048]

>>14570018
He's a linguistics professor now, but his background was being a quintessential computer dork. That's what >>14569941 is talking about.

[Anonymous No.14570056]

>>14569941
At least with architects, you can see their body of work and easily judge it. With linguists, they can quickly devolve into the philosopher's trick of "you can't prove anything" and they become pointless to converse with. Plus most architects spend most of their careers designing additions to houses and strip malls. Only a small percentage ever get to work on something notable. Linguists all seem to think they're at the top of their field.

[Anonymous No.14570067]

I used to semi-follow the guy until I watched one video of his live stream where he says relativity is essentially just Doppler shifts and some shit about how he doesn't really believe in the whole time dilation thing.

[Anonymous No.14570075]

>>14570067
Imagine if he read something "based" like Landau & Lifshitz as opposed to listening to the black science man on tv babble about how we're all star dust, bet his opinion would change immediately.
It's safe to say he's only ever been supplied with the schizo and pop-sci side of physics and never bothered to learn actual physics.

[Anonymous No.14570285]

>>14570075
>>14570075
I'm not sure if this is a thing that's happening more or if it's just highly visible because of the internet but this kind of contrarian pseudoscience confidence these people have is astonishing.

[Anonymous No.14570307]

>>14570075
>never bothered to learn actual physics.
you didn't if you think einstein's circular logic zero sum game garbage is real physics

[Anonymous No.14570392]

>>14569795
>the "soft science" of linguistics: It is substantially more advanced and its findings are substantially more solid than physics. Since formalizing ideas in math doesn't just make something a better or a more rigorous science.
Physishits on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.14570575]

>>14569795
Literally fucking who?

[Anonymous No.14571312]

>>14569795
How the fuck would he knows anything about it lol ?
Seriously, it's a fucking linguist who think bash is peak programming. Hard to be lower than that frankly.

[Anonymous No.14571341]

I can't unsee it

[Anonymous No.14571349]

>>14569795
>>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works. Even if we totally rewrite our narratives and theories about linguistic basics, there is no debate about the structure of language and how basic data relates to other data. This is absolutely the opposite of math and physics.
Luke "what are experiments" Smith

[Anonymous No.14571387]

>>14570067
>>14570075
Don't remember the name of the video, but there's one that shows him having torrented a bunch of Neil deGrasse Tyson videos, so you're probably right with him only ever having been exposed to the pop-sci side of things.
I think the reason why he doesn't read textbooks might be because he's a mathlet, just like all the other schizos. Probably also the reason for the hatred toward math in OP's article: Formalizing ideas in math absolutely does make something more of a rigorous science since math itself is one of the most rigorous, if not the most rigorous, things out there, he's coping.
>>14570307
Do what that anon said and read L&L. Will change your life. Or even better: Try finding a contradiction in L&L 2, the one about relativity.

[Anonymous No.14571394]

>>14570075
Landau & Lifschitz is peak reddit.

[Anonymous No.14571400]

>>14571394
No.

[Anonymous No.14571405]

>>14571387
>Try finding a contradiction in L&L 2, the one about relativity.
Why do relatishits not understand the claims raised against them?

[Anonymous No.14571407]

>>14571405
read it.

[Anonymous No.14571417]

>>14571407
It literally begins with the false premise of a "maximum speed of interaction"

[Anonymous No.14571428]

>>14571417
It's an empirical observation

[Anonymous No.14571433]

>>14569795
everyone here thinks you're a fucking retard luke. stay on /g/. better yet stop posting entirely

[Anonymous No.14571444]

>>14571428
>>14571405

[Anonymous No.14571447]

>>14571444
reminder that the burden of proof is on you as you made the claim you just quoted. Conversely, I can tell you to look into the sources L&L cited. In any case, it's a very well-founded theory with lots of evidence speaking for it. Read the book for an understanding of the theory you pretend to hate.

[Anonymous No.14571451]

>>14571447
The most conservative explanation for the experiments is the Lorentz contraction, not metaphysical spacetime.

[Anonymous No.14571540]

>>14570018
>people use language to define quantum physics
>since I am a language professor I can therefore pontificate about quantum physics
yeah, just like God created everything so if I'm a priest I automatically can talk about anything with some authority

[Anonymous No.14571667]

>>14571400
Yes. You need to go back.

[Anonymous No.14571775]

>>14569795
Luke isnt a complete idiot and sometimes brings up good points but its only when related to his field of economics and linguistics. Whether he likes it or not hes not a comp sci guy just because he wrote some bash script and is only now messing with Golang. Not saying he doesnt have an argument here but he clearly doesn't know what hes talking about and is speaking with a certain bone to pick.
>>14569941
>If he stayed within his space of comp sci and didn't branch out into linguistics (where many with backgrounds in the Humanities exist), I'm convinced he wouldn't be so pseudy.
You have it backwards. He started in a degree in economics then I believe got into linguistics and was teaching that, now he lives in the woods in georgia doing nothing pretending hes a programmer when none of us have seen him make anything notable past LARBS which is nothing for being in the woods for what, 3 years now? Hes not a programmer or computer scientist, he just fell for every /g/ meme known to man and now thinks hes part of the crew. Hes not totally bad but hes most definitely a pseud

[Anonymous No.14571836]

>>14569795
>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works. Even if we totally rewrite our narratives and theories about linguistic basics, there is no debate about the structure of language and how basic data relates to other data. This is absolutely the opposite of math and physics.

ok and? i can do the same.

>the reality of physical word is as secure as ever across all theoritical frameworks. That is, no matter how we change our models, there is no debate about the concreteness of real world.

in any case he sounds like he spurred his thoughts from that debate he had with someone over his degree. I stopped watching him seriously when i saw he synced and signed up with contemporary memes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYLun9rSWTE

[Anonymous No.14571881]

>>14571836
>there is no debate about the concreteness of real world
>quantum verbal diarrhea is exactly that

[Anonymous No.14571886]

>>14571881
meds

[Anonymous No.14571889]

>>14571881
you don't know anything about Quantum Mechanics.
Before you reply to me, read through Takhtajan's and Deligne's book.

[Anonymous No.14571904]

>>14571889
"Shut up and calculate" is a tacit endorsement of whatever interpretation the formulation you use to calculate with favors, which is probably Copenhagen. The Copenhagen interpretation IS the source of those pointless debates.

[Anonymous No.14571911]

>>14569865
>Relativity is highly questionable
It was literally proved over 100 years ago.

[Anonymous No.14571951]

>>14570039
He doesn't know comp sci. Heck, he can't even program. He's just somewhat knowledgeable about Linux.

[Anonymous No.14571972]

>>14571911
>proved
Lol no. It was just asserted axiomatically but is challenged every day by dark matter and dark energy.

[Anonymous No.14572134]

>>14571889
>read through Takhtajan's and Deligne's book
completely unnecessary for a quality QM education
Takhtajan in particular is not a strong writer imo

[Anonymous No.14572167]

>>14571911
Disproven by EPR paradox.

[Anonymous No.14572175]

>>14571394
What? The series was recommended by basically all of my theoretic physics profs

[Anonymous No.14572201]

>>14569795
Physics is bullshit general relativity is bullshit quantum is bullshit, Aether was alawyas the truth

[Anonymous No.14572202]

>>14569795
I had a dog whose forehead looked like that. He died of brain cancer.

[Anonymous No.14572232]

>>14569795
I will always remember Luke Smith as the perfect example of what happens when you fall for every single /g/ meme at once, without carefully analyzing them first. He owns four ThinkPads at least. While I see nothing wrong with them in themselves, as they are admittedly pretty good value for the price, four is just mindless consumerism, contradictory to his "philosophy". He started using every single shitty pseudominimalist, ncurses-based program, used a shitty riced out i3 setup of dubious actual productivity (like all tiling wms), then fell for the full Suckless meme and went in even deeper. Then he started making videos shitting on Python and praising C, which is ironic considering he is not even a programmer by his own admission. He effectively spent years trying out, configuring and hopelessly trying to integrate tens of meme programs to build what is, combined, effectively a shittier Emacs, just like most of /g/ was doing in their "productive" desktop threads a year or two ago. Then he read the Unabomber manifesto and blindly accepted it without constructively analyzing it first, same with the anarcho-primitivist ideology that was all the rage about a year and a half on 4chan and 8ch. While he stated on his website that he "didn't browse 4chan much anymore" it was obvious this wasn't the case. Then he went and took the memes way too far, and unironically went to live in isolation. While I see nothing wrong in itself, the actual reason he did it is massive cringe. He has the mentality of someone 10 years younger than he is, yet he acts like a literal boomer jokingly criticizing "zoomers" despite he himself being the worst example of a millennial. He attacks "nerds" when it't painfully obvious he's deeply unhappy with himself, as it was obviously self-directed criticism thinly veiled as an edgy dabbing video. He is a perfect example of someone you should avoid becoming at all costs.

[Anonymous No.14572260]

>>14571972
1919 solar eclipse retard. Einstein predicted literally the exact position of the stars during the eclipse accounting for the bend of spacetime around the sun.
>>14572167
I don’t see how that disproves relativity at all

[Anonymous No.14572313]

>>14572260
>I don’t see how that disproves relativity at all
The trichotomy it proposes between determinism, realism and locality is skewed against locality for any physicist that is intellectually honest.
Locality here is a cute name for compatibility with Einstein's relativity, because nothing would dictate that an object must only be causally influenced by an object in its light cone otherwise, in order for causes to be local.

[Anonymous No.14572558]

this guy is literally bald

[Anonymous No.14572605]

>>14569795
luke smith's views on pretty much anything are completely retarded
I feel like he's what uriel would be if uriel browsed /g/ and was 20x more retarded
also,
>we have """"fragile"""" ideas that we have developed on the bases of many decades of pretty much completely consistent data from experiments
vs
>we have no ideas at all which means no fragility at all, YAY!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.14572611]

>>14572605
basis*

[Anonymous No.14572617]

Never did it say that "Einstein killed physics". Stopped reading there. Einstein proposed the theory of ether, but it was shut down in public and Einstein didn't know how to test it properly, so not much on it was done since. Now, we are seeing that the only way we will travel to other stars is with dark matter/energy. Physics has to go back to ether.

[Anonymous No.14572648]

>>14569795
The last section about the blinders of positivism is excellent. The truth of the matter is that regardless of whether you say you're doing philosophy or not, if you're doing physics, then by default you've taken some philosophical position on the nature of reality and justifiable methods of obtaining knowledge. If you deny that you're engaged in a philosophical pursuit, all that does is guarantee that whatever knowledge you purport to discover is going to be epistemologically indefensible.

In any case, if you don't believe that the purpose of physics is to discover any useful knowledge about the underlying reality of the universe (or you deny that any such reality exists), then why bother with physics at all? Why not just be like Sabine Hossenfelder--declare that the universe is superdeterministic and there are no underlying rules at all; everything is predetermined. Therefore there's no point in making observations and performing experiments, since every possible outcome is already rationalized. We can explain everything even if we understand nothing, thus, there's no need for science at all.

[Anonymous No.14572667]

>>14569795
This guy's a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.14572862]

>>14569795
I will always remember Luke Smith as the perfect example of what happens when you fall for every single /g/ meme at once, without carefully analyzing them first. He owns four ThinkPads at least. While I see nothing wrong with them in themselves, as they are admittedly pretty good value for the price, four is just mindless consumerism, contradictory to his "philosophy". He started using every single shitty pseudominimalist, ncurses-based program, used a shitty riced out i3 setup of dubious actual productivity (like all tiling wms), then fell for the full Suckless meme and went in even deeper. Then he started making videos shitting on Python and praising C, which is ironic considering he is not even a programmer by his own admission. He effectively spent years trying out, configuring and hopelessly trying to integrate tens of meme programs to build what is, combined, effectively a shittier Emacs, just like most of /g/ was doing in their "productive" desktop threads a year or two ago. Then he read the Unabomber manifesto and blindly accepted it without constructively analyzing it first, same with the anarcho-primitivist ideology that was all the rage about a year and a half ago on 4chan and 8ch. While he stated on his website that he "didn't browse 4chan much anymore" it was obvious this wasn't the case. Then he went and took the memes way too far, and unironically went to live in isolation. While I see nothing wrong in itself, the actual reason he did it is massive cringe. He has the mentality of someone 10 years younger than he is, yet he acts like a literal boomer jokingly criticizing "zoomers" despite he himself being the worst example of a millennial. He attacks "nerds" when it't painfully obvious he's deeply unhappy with himself, as it was obviously self-directed criticism thinly veiled as an edgy dabbing video. He is a perfect example of someone you should avoid becoming at all costs.

[Anonymous No.14572920]

>>14572862
He's a nerd who likes tinkering around with the computer. I don't understand what you're mad about.
>unabomber manifesto
Whether you like it or hate it, it makes some interesting points worth talking about. I don't recall him endorsing it wholeheartedly.
>he attacks nerds
Where?
To me he looks like a fun well-adjusted individual.

[Anonymous No.14572942]

>>14572920
Ted's screed is just him nursing his strawman

Pynchon's better

[Anonymous No.14572943]

How can one guy generate all this seeth?

[Anonymous No.14572962]

>>14572920
It's well known pasta from /g/

[Anonymous No.14573384]

>>14569973
>>14570048
He never even finished his Phd.
He has said before he became disillusioned with linguistics, I doubt he has a clue what is going on in the field nowadays. He certainly is not (and would not want to be) a professor.
>>14569795
>The phenomenology of linguistics is as secure as ever across all theoretical frameworks. That is, we know how language works.
>It is substantially more advanced and its findings are substantially more solid than physics. Since formalizing ideas in math doesn't just make something a better or a more rigorous science.

This is such bullshit. There are lots of different schools of thought in linguistics and some of them are trash. I my mind many of the better parts of linguistics are actually those that have been mathematically formalized.
The basic building blocks of language (words production rules, features, phrases, you name it) are hotly contested and could only hope to be as solid as their equivalent in physics.
At least physics has found a way to connect it's different subfields though a common, formalized language. In linguistics you can (and lots of people do) ignore what goes on in neighboring fields (computational linguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics etc.) and nobody will ever notice since there are so few people in the field.

I am a linguist and I love linguistics but this is one of the most dense and ridiculous takes I have ever heard from Luke.

[Anonymous No.14573448]

>>14573384
somewhere on his website I think it says he finished his phd at arizona, where he's now a professor

[Anonymous No.14573453]

>>14571341
looks like a smart fish

[Anonymous No.14573610]

>>14569795
didn't read but holy shit this guy is a massive retard

[Anonymous No.14573970]

>>14572943
His fans make these threads every day, and every day he is pointed out for his stupid takes on things

[Anonymous No.14574565]

>>14573448
Well that's an elaborate joke on his part then.
He 100% is not a professor at Arizona.
He could not be if he wanted to and clearly he doesn't want to.
> Particularly Arizona was very cultlike, stifling and uncomfortable. I stayed alive by being blasé and jocular about things, as you may be able to tell in some of those recordings, but I want to make it clear that I regret going into a Ph.D. program and I consider it the third biggest mistake of my life.
>By the time I got a year or so into my Ph.D. at Arizona, I had pretty much not intention on continuing in the charade of academia.
from the "academia" page on his website.

[Anonymous No.14574598]

>>14573970
>fans
The majority of Luke Smith fans are in fact Luke Smith.

[Anonymous No.14574621]

People like this is what is really killing science, fucking dunning-kruger faggots shitting in peoples heads

[Anonymous No.14575527]

>>14569795
>thoughts?
Exactly why are we having this thread, AGAIN? Especially as he was debunked to pulp, line by line, this thread is highly suspicious. Is OP in reality trying to shill his useless blog?

How can we make Luke Smith posting a bannable offence?