Comment by amadeoeoeo
3 days ago
Sabine papers, those in "her area of expertise" were pretty bad, at least those I read. We reviewed several of them out of curiosity in several journal clubs. She is pure show.
3 days ago
Sabine papers, those in "her area of expertise" were pretty bad, at least those I read. We reviewed several of them out of curiosity in several journal clubs. She is pure show.
Several of her first-or-sole-author minimal length quantum gravity phenomenology papers have more than a hundred citations:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NaQZcyYAAAAJ&hl=en
and if nothing else, that's strong evidence that she has made a contribution to academic dialogue in that area.
Hossenfelder et al. 2003 in particular, is quite striking for an early career researcher: <https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...>. Also noteworthy are several early publications on either side of her 2003 doctoral thesis on microscopic black holes in large extra dimensions. In that period numerous co-authors, reviewers, and editors supplied indirect evidence against your claim that her papers "were pretty bad".
Quite a lot of strong constraints on large extra dimensions came out of the LHC work eight to twelve years after these publications. Her old link-rotting written blog captures some of that: <https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2011/06/extra-dimensions-a...>, for instance.
There is an enormous difference between being wrong and publishing nonsense.
> at least those I read
You could have usefully supplied a short annotated bibliography. It would certainly make your final sentence
> She is pure show
less likely to be seen as nonsense and more likely to be seen as wrong.
Whatever she has become in the past couple of years, she was certainly not pure show in the first eight or so years after her doctorate.
Sometimes contrarianism is just sour grapes.
Maybe she is projecting how she did science onto others?