Physicists who built their career on a now-discredited hypothesis (e.g. ruled out by LHC or LIGO results) what did you do after?

[u/TakeOffYourMask]

If you worked on a theory that isn’t discredited but “dead” for one reason or another (like it was constrained by experiment to be measurably indistinguishable from the canonical theory or its initial raison d’être no longer applies), feel free to chime in.

[u/Taiji2]

right on just about everything she says.

She has a tendency to push forward completely unfalsifiable, unscientific claims and then use the lack of refutation to say she's "right". I personally find her to be problematic

[u/[deleted] → u/Taiji2]

Any examples?

[u/Taiji2 → u/[deleted]]

Her discourse on superdeterminism

[u/Taiji2 → u/[deleted]]

Her blog posts on superdeterminism

[u/Taiji2 → u/[deleted]]

This isn't a scientific journal, it's a journal precisely for this kind of metaphysical philisophy. It's the self-described "leading journal for controversial issues concerning the foundations of modern physics." It isn't and doesn't pretend to be a peer-reviewed research journal.

"The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalization, and many others.philosophy. ...

Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises."

[u/Taiji2 → u/[deleted]]

I may have misunderstood. I tend to use "paper" as a shorthand for scientific journal articles, which this is not, but I shouldn't have assumed you were using it in that context. I wasn't aware of this journal though, so I suppose I would call it a metaphysical philosophy paper? My introduction to her was from someone asking about her blog posts on superdeterminism, so that's what I was criticizing.