Representing the same thing in a different way is often key to understanding connections between things that didn't appear to be connected (ex., realising the connection between elliptic curves and modular forms was a fundamental step in proving Fermat's "last theorem"), which then leads to a deeper understanding of both, and / or allows overcoming some (previously thought to be) "impossible" calculations along the way. But it's hard to use "let's just represent this whole thing in a completely different way" as an argument to get a juicy grant or convince anyone to build a bigger particle accelerator. 🤑
Frankly, if 'let's just represent this whole thing in a completely different way' is not an argument that is likely to help get funding, I have to question the judgment of people awarding grants.
@@NemisCassander It is worth funding if the different way is computationally of a completely different algorithmic complexity class, say polynomial rather than exponential. As Scott Aaronson would say, if we can reduce some calculations to polynomial time we'd be "gods". I'd fund potential godhood. (I'd also say it is too good to be true. But, you know, worth wasting a few postdocs upon just in case.)
the Amplituhedron is beautiful and exciting work. It's legitimate to interpret it as being more than a calculation tool - there can be two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality (i.e. an implicate algebraic order vs. explicate geometric order). Double copy suggests that computational methods may be a promising way to discern new fundamental physics
My understanding of those Amplituhedrons is as follows: The Feynman diagrams and the integrals come from the attempt to solve the equation by perturbation theory. Now the problem is that the single integrals give infinity, a somewhat unwanted result. We deal with them by renormalization, a way to subtract infinity from infinity to gain a useful result. But nature says that the result should be finite so the problem might stem from the fact, that we calculate it wrongly. So lumping the integrals together in a way which does not give infinity might be a smart way to do the calculation. I have to admit that I did not understand the Amplituhedron ansatz so I cannot say whether this hope really is the smart way we need to find.
The shape might work as a nice pendant for that physics girl in our life. The inscription on the card would read, "The shape of this pendant mathematically describes the amplitude of our love in a way that makes it easier to calculate. You're welcome."
Glad you put that in lower case, as there’s only one Physics Girl - Dianna Cowern! Hoping Biology Girl and Medicine Girl are on the case to get her back to feeling her best!
I’m the absence of headline-worthy developments in fundamental physics, popular science media are giving us headlines about mathematics. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, they then dress up the mathematics headlines to make us *think* they’re about physics. Sadly this is a reflection of most media headlines these days: they’re just hype with little at their core. This has been happening in biomedical sciences for a long time; I suppose it was inevitable in physics.🙁 Thanks, Sabine, for keeping a cool head and distinguishing between maths and physics.
What's sad is the 'Spatial Dimensions' confusion, when space is clearly 3D... They should call them Geometric or Mathematical Dimensions to disambiguate from 'true' (utterly false nonsense) 'extra spatial dimensions' of 'Many Worlds' Literalists who believe in parallel universes and all that crazy confusion, on par with The God Squad. I'd call 'Time' 1/2D as it's one way, whereas 1D space is 2 way.
My previous field, linguistics, had papers about *data visualization* in the absence of actual progress in both the theory and the mathematics employed. I found that very depressing.
@@PrivateSi Many Worlds has nothing to do with extra dimensions, amigo. (...and, uh, what would "geometric dimensions" describe _except_ spatial dimensions?)
Thanks for what you do Sabine. I struggled in school as a kid mostly because I was bored. I am never bored listening to these little lectures and appreciate your humor.
Sabine - as a former science writer in the UK, I agree there's not much happening (one of the reasons for I'm "former"). But one of the developments I have found intriguing is Cohl Furey's work on octonions and the Standard Model. She and a colleague have just published a preprint on ArXiv about a very recent and intriguing development concerning symmetries in the SM. I'd love to hear your take on it. Thanks.
Octonions are fantastic. Most of us are used to seeing nomcommutativity when multiplying ordinary real matrices, say, or doing vector cross products, but non-associativity you have to work at.
Since 2015, Matt O'Dowd has been the writer and host of PBS Space Time, a video series by PBS Digital Studios that explores topics in physics and astrophysics. He is also a frequent guest on Science Goes to the Movies on CUNY TV and on StarTalk radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson...
UA-cam is full of quacks passing themselves off as Doctors, yet you Dr Sabine are a real Doctor and seldom use the title you have earnt. The thing I like about your content is that you refuse to pander to any one particular side; you can go with the establishment or against it depending on your good judgement and understanding of the FACTS. You absorb, understand and then present these facts to us laymans and you do it with objectivity and good humour. Your content is trustworthy, informative and entertaining. It is such a rare thing to see these days. Thank you :)
@@laestrella9727 Earnt, Dreamt, Learnt, Amongst are standard common words in the UK, alongside the ED versions. For some strange reason Americans are taught that these are misspellings or no longer valid.
@@alexojideagu Yes, I also learnt back in school those irregular endings, and nowadays (seemingly) nobody uses them any more, and I always fear I remember it wrong.
The amplituhedron is closely related to twistor string theory, which is a variant of string theory. The twistor string theory provides a framework for understanding the scattering amplitudes in terms of twistor diagrams, which are analogous to Feynman diagrams but based on the geometric language of twistors. The amplituhedron emerges from the positive Grassmannian, a space that is central to twistor string theory... So... Huh. I promise I have no idea what that means
🤔 *Arkani-Hamed's* amplituhedron thing here reminds me of the two separate ideas that *Klee Irwin* and *Antony Garrett Lisi* have found. Garrett Lisi found a way for all of these nerdy things that are unfathomable to most, to be visualized. But of course, with the caveat that these visuals merely *DESCRIBE* and who's particulars are REPRESENTATIONS of states, interactions, properties, etc. These idea's from minds outside of mainstream science could very well be pathways to some better understanding. I'm just saying, we shouldn't just poo-poo things that could be looked into that might actually combine and create eureka moments of greater understanding. We've got three names here, who all of which might not know of each other's work. Irwin and Lisi might be aware of each other, but I don't know about Arkani or whether he's aware of their's. Nima Arkani-Hamed Klee Irwin Antony Garrett Lisi
@@athews1976 I find it great when people, that perceive "things" differently, find a way and are also willing to show others how they perceive it. I am autistic and perceive a lot of things differently, and people always want that I must streamline my thought process to theirs (because it was always like that and it worked for THEM). That can be demoralizing and infuriating. So, I give everyone props who nontheless tries to educate others and doesn't give a F about what others think and want (in that respective). That also needs a framework that just let them work how they need it, though.
Indeed, the Wiki page on Amplituhedron itself states: "While amplituhedron theory provides an underlying geometric model, _the geometrical space is not physical spacetime."_ You'd have thought those publications might have done a little reading beforehand...
Well that's true for everything physical we describe though. First and foremost, a model describes an abstract something that correlates to our measurements/observations and a good model does that while also being able to make correct predictions. Due to the way perception works, we can never truly grasp reality. You think you see a tree, but what you're actually seeing is the result of some of the light (which is a concept in itself) reflected by it interacting with your eyeball and your brain interpreting that signal. And that's the point - we always have to use some interpretation/concept/abstraction/model.
The idea isn't that the geometrical space in which amplituhedron dwells is real space time, but that properties of space-time can be derived from the math of amplituhedron and therefore it's more fundamental than space-time. But I hate when people say "not real" to mean there's something more fundamental to it, because then you'd have to call basically everything "not real" and then the term "not real" itself becomes useless. What's actually not real is unicorns, and when you say atoms are not real because they consist of smaller particles you're putting atoms together with unicorns, where they certainly don't belong.
@@HanakoSeishin by your logic unicorns are in fact real. Wherever you see a unicorn and whenever you have an idea of one, you're also referencing particles and their interactions
It says something about both comedians and physicists that one of the funniest people on UA-cam is a physicist. You make physics and math(s) (yes, I'm from the US, lol) so much more interesting than any of my professors ever did, Sabine.
that visualisation of the amplituhedron at 2:30 an 4min looks like my migraine auras used to. i am so thankful that i have grown out of those. but the memory is still vivid and make me theorise that amplituhedrons were to blame all that time.
I actually think you might be on to something here. I had my first and only migraine aura 3 weeks ago at age 51......there is something "physics and fishy" going on with this phenomenon.
Don't dismiss these visions as of no value. German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé intuited the ring structure of the chemical benzene following a dream /reverie (? Aura) of a snake biting its tail!
@@Thomas-gk42 I cannot define the intention of that person's comment, if they lol about ProfDave or Sabine. I thought they laugh about his video. But after reading your comment... what is the truth?!
@@MsSonali1980 Hehe, not sure myself, but I assume she/he is pro-"Dave" guy. I mostly liked his way of talking until now, I just did not watch him, cause his content, sorry for my arrogance, was below my level of knowledge. But that vid was an unneeded, meaningless, boring, disrespectful pamphlet full of mistakes and lies. Cheers
He is talking about the locality of attractor fields that derive from mathematic equations, not locality of space time or using it to replace models. Weaving them together to understand the underlying principles that are causing them to congregate and orchestrate as they do.
Excellent work, yet again. Recall that physics was a "completed science" in the late 1800's. "Don't waste your time becoming a physicist, everything has been found." I wonder if we are in another of those situations, as we bump into the limits of our current understanding. Interestingly, the answers are already there...have always been there, deep in the universal coding...and will require both great minds and greater instruments to achieve the next level in the Great Game.
On the other hand, I think it's unfair to malign the viewpoint of the completeness of physics. We understand physics well enough to do loads of things in our daily lives. Look at how far you have to push to get into the domain of the unknown. Stuff like dark matter is of cosmological proportions. Over 99% of all humans then, now and in the foreseeable future will live and die on the Earth. Solving dark matter would satisfy curiosity more than improve our lives. Which is good. But that doesn't have the same impact as understanding the physics that allowed us to build engines, harness electricity, built semi-conductors and so on. And of course the answers are already there. With physics we're trying to describe the workings of reality. I think the phrase universal coding has some danger to it because it is indicative of several assumptions that need not be true at all.
@@FrancisFjordCupola You offer fair and accurate comments. Current physics has certainly improved our lives. We know enough to create and sustain societies. But the human quest for knowledge will never end. We will eventually evolve into newer physics with newer models and newer instruments. And some of us, those who dip our wicks into both science and the underpinnings of religions, predict a tremendous expansion of human knowledge as we go deeper into what is now a mystery. Nothing new here.
Sorry :/ The issue with the topic is that I can either make it very brief (it's a simpler way to calculate probabilities) or very very long and actually try to explain how it relates to Feynman diagrams. I think I'll leave the latter to someone else...
@@SabineHossenfelder actually anything that goes against Alberts equations I put no faith in and as a man way older than you it has served me well. My brain stops listening after these many decades when I hear certain words such as: Graviton, Axion, String theory and Super Symmetry. All the beautiful math in the world will not bring them into existence. yes that was a reference.
"Space and Time are fine, they just ask that you respect their privacy." - Sabine This is why you are among my favorite communicators. I could watch you and Sir Roger Pembrose almost continuously.
Have you looked into integrable systems before? They seem very closely related to Superdeterminism. With an integrable system, I think you can get a solution at a given point using some scattering data and the inverse scattering transform. I think this results in a field with a path independent evolution, so no problematic branch cuts. Integrable systems tend to possess solitons which act as particles. If GR could be reformulated as an integrable system, it would immediately be Superdeterministic. If QM and particle physics could be coaxed into falling out of that, then we'd have a Superdeterministic ToE. Thoughts?
Go, watch Dr. Becky's recent video about the "alien" signal and the dude (documentary maker) that claims he had inside source in Oxford. She focuses on Astrophysics, since it's her day (and night) job.
Worth remembering that Feynman Diagrams came about as a way of working around the infinities created by standard calculations. We know that a third expressed as a decimal results in an infinite series of 3’s and it is common to ignore the infinite series and round up to get the correct result, until it isn’t. The secret to making progress is to choose the right methods to solve such problems and sidestep the infinities that plague certain branches of mathematics.
Space time is doomed was the catch cry of Donald Hoffman when debating the very patient Anil Seth about consciousness. Hoffman blathered on about it and bought up negative geometry. Negative geometry is unremarkable in and off itself but in the context of a Menger Sponge it becomes interesting. That is a MS can be an object with near zero positive geometry volume and near infinite negative geometry surface area. This the long way round of saying daft head lines and wonky catch phrases can be an entry point to interesting knowledge if knowledge is pursued with an open mind. Thanks again Sabine for your open mind and pure scientific heart.
I have read "Lost in Math" and watched some of your videos. A thought just popped into my head when you said "More importantly, one shouldn't mistake maths for reality." Those physicists that really pushed physics forward, such as Einstein, Planck, Bohr, etc. were not coming at it with a mathematical approach. They were starting with physical observations. The maths were not the primary thing. Nima (and I have watched some of his videos as well) comes at all this more as a mathematician. Mathematics are essential for precisely describing physical phenomena, but they are not the phenomena themselves.
"They were starting with physical observations." The physical observations are an illusion, Mr Albert was attempting to describe the illusion so that you can have a way of understanding the real objects in the background :)
@@louisgiokas2206 Most people don't and that's OK. But math isn't physical reality, and photons paint a very distorted illusion of objects that we can't directly interact with. We can't avoid that problem :)
@@markdowning7959 So what? By saying that you ignore the basic role of science, and the last sentence of my original comment. The role of science is to describe the physical world. One can't describe anything without language. That is built into our nature as intelligent beings. Without language (and I include maths here) it is all impossible. Just think about it. When we search for intelligent life in the universe we search for signals (information) that are not the result of natural phenomena. In other words, language. Language conveys information.
I had been lead to believe the amplituhedron represented a more fundamental reality from which space-time would be an emergent phenomenon, so I'm glad you now explained that it does not represent anything physical.
It's already decided whether it is going to happen or not going to happen, so no point asking. (I am a disbeliever in determinism on information complexity grounds, regardless of whether or not free will exists, which I atill consider to be moot.)
@EbenBransome my understanding of superdeterminism... It doesn't mean every thing is pre determined. it means everything is chronologically connected that's it. Everything happend since the dawn of bigbang leads to Everything what ever happening now......which will eventually lead to everything what ever happens in the next second. English is not my first language..hope I am making some sense.
I would really like you to review Penrose's twistor theory, which is another "spacetime is doomed" theory but from someone I truly respect. The mathematics are beyond me and there's little online breaking it down, you would be the perfect person! :)
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such: In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
The way you've described it makes it sound like it might be a mathematically useful step to simplify calculations in the same way that I learned in high school how to use a Riemann sum to approximate the area under the curve, which helped to introduce the concept of integrals. Would that be accurate?
I truly like you analyzing the problems at hand, and the way you do it. It makes me feel that at least part of the physics society is like the children behind the pied piper of Hamelen (does this make sense in English?), you warn us against that pied piper. So, nothing happens in physics, the last 40 or so years are barren, fruitless, at least at the fundamental level. But I wonder: aren’t there breakthroughs at the other parts of physics, maybe less fundamental, and maybe because of this, very promising to society? Once in a while, when these breakthroughs occur, and you learn about them, I would appreciate you telling about them here, if only because it cheers up, giving hope that we humans still are able to produce something worth while.
I think there may be more to Nima's new formalism than Sabine is prepared to (grudgingly) acknowledge. Its computational power is formidable. Recall how Copernicus's heliocentric system reduced the number of epicycles, then how Kepler's and Newton's laws got rid of epicycles altogether. We might be at a threshold of a similar revolution. But as the insights of that time long ago took well over a century to fruition, it may take just as long this time around. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Well when it turns out Sabine will comment on it but 150 years or so might be too long, at least she did hedge her bets though, she didn't set fire to the bridge and trash the theorist, he should consider that a win, I was in suspense throughout as I couldn't determine which way she was going to take it, not that I understood much of it😂!?!
You are so much accurate mathematically and philosophically speaking you are leaving me speechless by the explanation and the mind blowing experience of imagine the world like that . Thank you for the knowledge your approach is really precious for humanity!
Continue the great work. Dave Explains made a pathetic video about you, I am glad a lot of people came to your defense on the silly accusations he made.
this seems nobel-worthy, if they can make a big impact with it. feinmann got the nobel for his diagrams or am i wrong? thw same way E&M's basic equations are like an evolution of the kinematic equations, the aplituhedron is like the evolution to feinmann diagrams.
Feynmann got his nobel for (co-)developing quantum electrodynamics, which is a tried and tested part of the standard model today. The diagrams were just a very handy tool he came up to make things easier. What Feynmann diagrams do is break one big monstrous computation into a bunch of physically interpretable objects (the diagrams) which encode each a smaller hard-but-not-impossible integral. But after you've broken your problem into smaller problem, you still have to compute the integrals!
@@alvaropiedrafita1438 I have a memory of someone explaining that stuff where, I thought, they said the diagrams also help to identify the integrals themselves? Or is that wrong. Like you need a rapidly increasing number of integrals as the complexity of the system increases. Is knowing what all those integrals are simple/possible without the diagrams? Maybe that is kind of what youre describing actually, now that I look at it again
@@Velereonics you got there on your own. Exactly, the diagrams as a whole are there to break a diverging integral into an infinite number of converging integrals. And each diagram itself helps you formulate a particular integral.
Mathematical models used to explain known phenomena or to make computations easier often expose things that we didn't expect. It can be unexpected relationships, equivalences, symmetries, emerging properties, etc. Maxwell's equations for instance led to the unification of electricity and magnetism but it was not the initial goal, which was purely descriptive.
Please don't be affected by Dave's worthless youtube channel. You are a strong and extremely smart woman. Dave is just jealous. His idea that "if it is good it will automatically be funded" is as questionable as his field.
Ah, good point, should have mentioned this. Yes, there are computer programs to do the integrals. But for this you have to know what the integrals are in the first place. (Also, most of them diverge.)
when they ask money for supercomputers, that's what they are are for, but you still have to write the programs to deal with them, and it would be nice to find something that simplifies things (both writing and computing).
If every particle interaction can be described in terms of spacetimeless amplituhedrons, then the integrals are redundant - and in fact worse, because they are unnecessarily complex. Then it seems reasonable to conclude that spacetime itself doesn't "exist". It'd be like if we counted apples by plotting y = 1, x = apples, then getting the count by integrating the area under the curve. It's much easier to just count the apples using integers, in which case we can say the continuous graph (analogous to spacetime) doesn't actually "exist".
You are a fire of enlightenment thank you for what you do!! You recently responded to Professor Dave with something to the effect of "I don't care about the incorrect conclusions that flat earthers draw from reading my video thumbnails." Congrats to you....thanks for defying obvious sexism. I love your style and you have helped me to understand so many different things that are beyond my scope and depth. I hope my daughters turn out as inspired to learn and grow as you.
dr dave dropped a diss video on you. Oh don't worry, illogical errors 100% of the time. He attack you from his high cloud, not commenting on anything specific you said. He even puts words into your mouth you never ever said. He keeps attacking his own strawman in his head, calling it Sabine. Such an honor :3
I watched the video. It was not a blatant diss,as you are stating here. Im a fan of both Dave and Sabine,and I see their strengths and flaws. Dave can be downright crude and childish at times,but his video on Sabine was anything but.
@@johngavin1175 Your argument is like his: no specifics. Just dogma from the high cloud of inquisition. Which part of what i said is wrong exactly please?
@Kraflyn It doesn't seem that you watched the whole thing. You are being dishonest by claiming that Dave was 100 percent wrong and that he was building a strawman. No,it is you that is doing the strawman building. Were you too disgusted to actually pay attention to what Dave said,or where you expecting him to go the same route that he did with the others he did videos on? So here is this: Specifics like an anti academic stance that may attract people like flat earthers and other pseudoscience pushers? Statements that certain areas of physics aren't advancing? I hate to have heard what she has had to go through,being treated like shit by misogynistic assholes. It's partly their fault for her anti academic position. You may think I'm parroting Dave here. He can defend himself,however. She isn't like the folks he usually does videos on: she's actually a scientist. He just got bothered by the statements of stagnant physics and an anti academic stance. I'm sure that she is thoroughly planning a rebuttal in kind,and it is possible that it may be dry and harsh per her way of doing things,and she may as well point out Dave's flaws in kind. I just hope for Dave's sake that he can take it and not be rude and brute as he is with some of the people in his comments. I refuse to be a part of your witchhunt,don't expect any more replies. Have a day. And try a little water with your straw next time.
@@johngavin1175 "No,it is you" - ad hominem. "It doesn't seem" - so you don't really know. "Were you too disgusted" - rhetorical question. "that may attract people like flat earthers" - so criticism is forbidden if it attracts lunatics? Everything attracts lunatics... Even physics itself does. This argument is false. It does not argue about the things that are specified as wrong with academia. It argues about the things not even said: from your high cloud, some peeps will get hurt, and some peeps will get attracted. Both is wrong in your head for some reason. Conclusion: one cannot criticize. Really? That is called censorship my friend. Dictators like it a lot. And so do inquisitors. "certain areas of physics aren't advancing" - yes, for instance, the fundamental object in Quantum Theory is the Plane Wave, it acts as a unit vector in the Hilbert Space. This fundamental object is not normalizable: its integral of its amplitude squared over all space is infinite. This goes on for the past century. No one resolved this yet. Renormalization issues arise from this alone. It is also connected to the interpretation of Quantum Physics, leading to the Spooky Action At The Distance. This is not resolved for the past century too. This then leads to infinities whenever one tries to actually calculate anything. "The most successful theory ever" cannot actually calculate shit: everything is fitted to data, there are no predictions. We have a theory with zero predictive power. In mathematics there is the Banach-Tarski Paradox: one can triple a sphere without adding any extra points. So you see: what certain areas exactly? Sabine mentions specifics. You see things from your high cloud in the distance. This is not an argument against anything Sabine said, because she mentions specifics. The rest of your comment is just some private sentimental subjective rumbling not worth mentioning, since it says exactly nothing... The critic can be criticized too. Especially in science: it is not a dogmatic religion. Oh wait... it is for the past century!
The spacetime manifold is often posited to exist in addition to matter because light bends around gravity fields without having any mass, a phenomena often described as the consequence of a continuous curvature of spacetime. But we could easily predict that the light should bend around such objects as black holes without positing a continuous space, by measuring that various processes, whether massless or not, slows down the further into the gravity field they are located (without a continuum having to exist between anything in addition to motions, where the concept of a field is just quantity of effect in the substance that determines relative location), thus accelerating in time relative to its path outside that gravity field and destination at which the light is measured. (it would be absurd if the direction of something did not change in proportion to how much you slowed down its internal processes since slowing down its internal process draws it towards the direction that caused it to do so), as well as accelerating it forwards in time (if the unit and metric of time is defined by the rate of process of the light prior to its proximity to the gravity field). I also have a phenomenological and epistemic empiricist argument against space-continuums if someone is interested in substantial criticism against Space-Continuums.
"better way to do calculations". This reminds me of solving physics problems using Euler-Lagrange equations to keep track energy rather than the more complicated method of Newton using F=ma and keeping track of forces
Im a fan of both Dave and Sabine. He did not trash her. Have you seen his videos on the other folk he has done videos on? He can get brutal and childish at times,that is clear. He didnt display that behavior on his vid on her. He brought up some valid points. Did you actually watch his video? Or just made an assumption that he did,in fact,trash her?
I f ing love Sabine. You are a bulwark against nonsensical hope. And bring scientists back to reality. You have to understand, folks, she is NOT a hater of new ideas. She LOVES new ideas, she is simply the matron of coming back home before the sun sets. Go out and explore! Have fun! Discover new things. Sabine will be cooking dinner when you come home, and listening to your stories about what you saw. Or think you saw. She will remind you that all we have is provability. And if you saw something amazing, well then show it to the rest of us.
Leonard Susskind has the idea that spacetime and gravity is created by complexity. He got this idea from black holes in thermal equilibrium while complexity is still growing.
@Sabine: Don't waste your time trolling the non-professor Dave channel. He is a complete unintelligent and nasty fool.. Not worth the time. Keep your great content up!!
Professor Dave has debunked several you tubers. I watched his evaluation of Sabine's channel and I'm skeptical that you actually took the time to review it carefully. He clearly stated that he liked a lot of her content, especially when that content described actual science. His criticism revolves around the topics of grievances, conspiracy, and broad brushing science without having first hand experience in the various corners of science that share little overlap with theoretical physics. Most viewers don't have a deep enough background to evaluate what is good verses bad science. They like conspiracy for its entertainment value which does a disservice to real scientists and as he points out, can have real negative impacts when political decisions based on inuendo and grievances come into play. Dave's analysis is compelling and, I believe, comes from someone who works very hard to produce high quality educational chemistry videos. He actually knows his stuff and, more to the point, knows how incremental results in science matter over the long haul.
@@johnl4885 Your little analysisis totally wrong. His vid is a direspectful pamphlet, beginning with the image in the clickbait. It´s a insubstantial mix of nonsense, mistakes and even lies. Who are you to claim, the first commenter hadn´t watched it "carefully", he and I are just not your opinion.
"It's just a better way to do calculations" was, indeed, how most of those reading Kepler regarded his heliocentric model - because it was certainly good for that. Once a couple of generations had grown up doing the calculations that way, they ended up thinking about the world that way, and that did end up making a difference - beyond just how they did their calculations.
(And, indeed, for a while the best it did was make all those epicycles easier to deal with - but changing how people do their computations lets them think about the physics they describe in new ways that they might not have though of had they been thinking about it the way the old computations forced them to.) I do agree that space-time isn't doomed - and I hope those thinking about the quantum stuff going on in it (a.k.a. matter, possibly also the "dark" kind, if it really does exist) can find a better way to match up the space-time and the quantum stuff once they're able to make sense of particle activity in an easier-to-compute way than by doing infinitely many infinite integrals over infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces that depend on assuming the space-time is a vector space (rather than a smooth manifold, which it plainly is).
Why, this aint an antisience channel, she speaks about some problems within fundamental physics, has Sabinne ever said something against QED, or the quark model, has she ever saif spin aint a thing, she complains about the corruption and sexysm within academia, but neve has she ever really atacked the already established science. That sounds like a huge leap
@@omardiaz6255 Just a joke. There was some other UA-camr yesterday who called out Sabine for criticising some misconducts or bad trends in academia because it "attracts science deniers".
Probably worth clarifying that the new approach is not actually the same thing as the amplituhedron. It shares some key methods, but it isn't "another amplituhedron" in any meaningful sense (and in particular it's less "purely geometric" than the amplituhedron). If you think Nima's work is overhyped, probably best to avoid unnecessarily adding to the buzzword density.
I didn’t realize Sabine was problematic until some guy calling himself a professor without a PhD who also won’t be voting for Harris because she’s “just as bad” as Trump because Gaza or something said Sabine was problematic. Now I realize it’s actually me who’s problematic and I kinda like it.
Yeah, he lost my sub for that drivel. He was a decent resource when he kept his opinions out of his videos, but his ego outgrew his intelligence level. He should've stuck to reading textbooks doing his little doodles.
@@keithpalmer4547 I'm sure I could come up with a worse insult, but it's the reasoning that's nonsensical: "Harris is just as bad because Gaza". This is completely untrue no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on.
Yeah, he really lost me there. He could've also chosen a different thumbnail picture, for a "factual" video, to discredit another science communicator. I get it, the clickbaity titles annoy everyone with half a braincell. Sadly, creators that earn income over youtube have to adhere to the grind in certain ways. And one that is title and thumbnail, not only being interesting but also over the top, somewhat. Ironically, he also does that. The other thing, he got corrected so many time in the comments of that video. Maybe there will be a follow-up where he explains what went wrong, corrects himself, and even can still give VALID criticism. What me annoyed were the people claiming, that Sabine and her team are to blame for all the science deniers, using her material on YT, as a kind of anti-science proof. You can't control people, especially not conspiracy type folks, if you are on the 180° point of view end of the spectrum from them. They hear and argument only selective. I know, he has a hate-b*n*r for anyone anti-science (I can relate to that) but that doesn't mean that everyone has to feel the same way and has to put the same energy into fighting against them, as he does.
@@MsSonali1980 And of course, Sabine is not anti-science, just because she´s crtical to the methodology of her field of research and to the rotten system in academia. Unfair and disrespectful of that guy: He copied the "clickbait"-image from Sabine´s twitter account, that she posted many months ago as a self-ironic joke.
I was listening too quickly and when you said, ‘So you get gravity out of it.’ I anticipated that you were going to say, ‘So you get grant money . . .’-yeah. Here’s a notion: the mathematics of a lot of physical theories could be understood as metaphors for what we’re trying to grasp; and there’s always going to be a better metaphor, but only some of those equations are actually going to do useful work.
Honestly, Sabine, I've been pretty disappointed by the quality of your reporting on high-energy theory recently. In the past year or two, it's felt like you've stopped trying to understand the merit in the subjects that you're reporting on in favor of a simplistic overview with just enough detail to talk about why the media is overhyping it. As an example: the reason that people are talking about the amplituhedron challenging notions of spacetime ISN'T because of the reasons that you've stated (you KNOW that no researcher worth their salt would say "spacetime is dead" just because you can carry out a calculation in a different parameter space, so I don't understand why you would think that people are doing this), but rather because, in the amplituhedron formalism, the individual diagrams (which are NOT Feynman diagrams) are often not Poincaré-invariant and *not even Lorentz-invariant*. The structure of the amplituhedron enables us to calculate a scattering amplitude without requiring that the individual diagrams are Lorentz-invariant, and, almost by coincidence, the scattering amplitudes that we get for any standard theory *are* Lorentz-invariant due to cancellation between the anomalous terms. This is a big deal because the only serious tool that we had for calculating scattering amplitudes before this was Feynman diagrams, which are manifestly Poincaré-symmetric, so it was nigh-impossible to imagine a theory that was not Poincaré-invariant; the amplituhedron shows us that, for example, it's quite possible to get a Poincaré-invariant low-energy theory from a Lorentz-breaking UV completion. Sabine, you have a PhD in theoretical physics! You could have watched any of Nima's talks and you would know this too! The fact that you seem not to makes it feel like you didn't even bother to listen to what Nima has to say, and rather just "reported on the reporting". It's really frustrating, because I watch your videos in trust that you've read the original materials in good faith and done your own research before arriving at your conclusions; I came for healthy skepticism, not flat denial, and I guess that's why I've written this wall of text. Sorry for the long read!
I agree, back when there weren’t videos on everything being churned out everyday, they were higher quality and much more well researched. I hope she will go back to quality over quantity.
It's not that there's not a lot happening in physics. It's that the problems that need to be solved have become much harder. We've picked the lowest hanging fruit. Solving these mysteries is not a linear endeavor, even if it may seem so during certain periods of time.
I like both Sabine and Dave. Dave does get outright petulant at times,but I feel his video on Sabine was done with honesty. Sabine is definitely different than the other folks he has done videos on.
@@Thomas-gk42 No mistakes, no lies. It was respectful and to the point. It's clear Dave has a lot more respect for Sabine than he does charlatans like James Tour and Eric Weinstein.
When I first heard about this I just thought it was the triumph of geometry over analysis, which in cases where couplings are higher order, makes a lot of sense. No matter what form the math you use to calculate takes, it has to relate to the physical space time in which we live. I mean, physics started using geometrical calculations until Newton invented calculus to leverage analysis in the first place, right?
Representing the same thing in a different way is often key to understanding connections between things that didn't appear to be connected (ex., realising the connection between elliptic curves and modular forms was a fundamental step in proving Fermat's "last theorem"), which then leads to a deeper understanding of both, and / or allows overcoming some (previously thought to be) "impossible" calculations along the way.
But it's hard to use "let's just represent this whole thing in a completely different way" as an argument to get a juicy grant or convince anyone to build a bigger particle accelerator. 🤑
This might be more relevant for the mathematics then the physics. Although, there's little to no physics in this research anyway.
I think its nice to have an alternative view.
If bar charts were so great why bother using pie charts?
Frankly, if 'let's just represent this whole thing in a completely different way' is not an argument that is likely to help get funding, I have to question the judgment of people awarding grants.
@@NemisCassander It is worth funding if the different way is computationally of a completely different algorithmic complexity class, say polynomial rather than exponential. As Scott Aaronson would say, if we can reduce some calculations to polynomial time we'd be "gods". I'd fund potential godhood. (I'd also say it is too good to be true. But, you know, worth wasting a few postdocs upon just in case.)
the Amplituhedron is beautiful and exciting work. It's legitimate to interpret it as being more than a calculation tool - there can be two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality (i.e. an implicate algebraic order vs. explicate geometric order).
Double copy suggests that computational methods may be a promising way to discern new fundamental physics
My understanding of those Amplituhedrons is as follows: The Feynman diagrams and the integrals come from the attempt to solve the equation by perturbation theory. Now the problem is that the single integrals give infinity, a somewhat unwanted result. We deal with them by renormalization, a way to subtract infinity from infinity to gain a useful result.
But nature says that the result should be finite so the problem might stem from the fact, that we calculate it wrongly. So lumping the integrals together in a way which does not give infinity might be a smart way to do the calculation.
I have to admit that I did not understand the Amplituhedron ansatz so I cannot say whether this hope really is the smart way we need to find.
The shape might work as a nice pendant for that physics girl in our life. The inscription on the card would read, "The shape of this pendant mathematically describes the amplitude of our love in a way that makes it easier to calculate. You're welcome."
Glad you put that in lower case, as there’s only one Physics Girl - Dianna Cowern! Hoping Biology Girl and Medicine Girl are on the case to get her back to feeling her best!
She would correct your work.
It just needs to be made from Cummingtonite and it’s perfect.
Is love a gauge theory?
@@steffenbendel6031 Only if you rotate all bodies by the same amount.
"You can express them as a polygon in a higher dimension of space"
I assure you I cannot do that. Awesome topic today!!
Is there such a thing as higher dimensional space?
@@aaronjennings8385 you mean third dimension is not a thing? bro stuck in 2d
@@aaronjennings8385 not physically, just conceptually
@@aaronjennings8385 Polygon is 2D
@@aaronjennings8385 mathematically, the set of all possible states of 3 chained springed pendulums is a 6 dimensional space
I’m the absence of headline-worthy developments in fundamental physics, popular science media are giving us headlines about mathematics. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, they then dress up the mathematics headlines to make us *think* they’re about physics. Sadly this is a reflection of most media headlines these days: they’re just hype with little at their core. This has been happening in biomedical sciences for a long time; I suppose it was inevitable in physics.🙁 Thanks, Sabine, for keeping a cool head and distinguishing between maths and physics.
What's sad is the 'Spatial Dimensions' confusion, when space is clearly 3D... They should call them Geometric or Mathematical Dimensions to disambiguate from 'true' (utterly false nonsense) 'extra spatial dimensions' of 'Many Worlds' Literalists who believe in parallel universes and all that crazy confusion, on par with The God Squad. I'd call 'Time' 1/2D as it's one way, whereas 1D space is 2 way.
Does this strange shape come from Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity?
----- hides behind a tree -----
My previous field, linguistics, had papers about *data visualization* in the absence of actual progress in both the theory and the mathematics employed. I found that very depressing.
Hey, the absence of headline-worthy developments in fundamental physics, nice to meet you; I'm Kvel!
_...i'll get me coat_
@@PrivateSi Many Worlds has nothing to do with extra dimensions, amigo.
(...and, uh, what would "geometric dimensions" describe _except_ spatial dimensions?)
Sabine makes my learning about science a little bit less annoying, so I think she's onto something! 🙂
Thanks for what you do Sabine. I struggled in school as a kid mostly because I was bored. I am never bored listening to these little lectures and appreciate your humor.
Thanks again for your great work.
Thanks for your support, much appreciated!
@@SabineHossenfelder 🥀
Sabine - as a former science writer in the UK, I agree there's not much happening (one of the reasons for I'm "former"). But one of the developments I have found intriguing is Cohl Furey's work on octonions and the Standard Model. She and a colleague have just published a preprint on ArXiv about a very recent and intriguing development concerning symmetries in the SM. I'd love to hear your take on it. Thanks.
Ah, thanks for letting me know. I looked at this some years ago, will have a look at the new paper!
Octonions are fantastic. Most of us are used to seeing nomcommutativity when multiplying ordinary real matrices, say, or doing vector cross products, but non-associativity you have to work at.
Efficiency gains are very good, much more usable than revealing a new truth that has no practical usage
Space-time doomed? That would be bad news for Matt O'Dowd. 😮
Ha, wish I'd thought of this!
Since 2015, Matt O'Dowd has been the writer and host of PBS Space Time, a video series by PBS Digital Studios that explores topics in physics and astrophysics. He is also a frequent guest on Science Goes to the Movies on CUNY TV and on StarTalk radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson...
@aaronjennings8385 you sound like his press agent.
@garrett6064 I apologize, I wasn't sure who he was referring to. I accept the pun-ishment.
@@aaronjennings8385 I, for one, appreciate your comment, because I had no idea who the heck Matt O'Dowd was
Interesting, never heard a about the Amplituhedron, looks logical, hope it works
UA-cam is full of quacks passing themselves off as Doctors, yet you Dr Sabine are a real Doctor and seldom use the title you have earnt. The thing I like about your content is that you refuse to pander to any one particular side; you can go with the establishment or against it depending on your good judgement and understanding of the FACTS. You absorb, understand and then present these facts to us laymans and you do it with objectivity and good humour. Your content is trustworthy, informative and entertaining. It is such a rare thing to see these days. Thank you :)
Haven't seen 'earnt' for a long time(!)
@@laestrella9727 Earnt, Dreamt, Learnt, Amongst are standard common words in the UK, alongside the ED versions. For some strange reason Americans are taught that these are misspellings or no longer valid.
I don't mind people genuinely trying to advance physics. All our modern science idols were considered quacks
@@alexojideagu Yes, I also learnt back in school those irregular endings, and nowadays (seemingly) nobody uses them any more, and I always fear I remember it wrong.
@@MsSonali1980In the UK we still use them a lot
The amplituhedron is closely related to twistor string theory, which is a variant of string theory. The twistor string theory provides a framework for understanding the scattering amplitudes in terms of twistor diagrams, which are analogous to Feynman diagrams but based on the geometric language of twistors. The amplituhedron emerges from the positive Grassmannian, a space that is central to twistor string theory...
So...
Huh.
I promise I have no idea what that means
Yes, that was the case for the early versions. I am not sure this is still the case for the newer ones.
@SabineHossenfelder I thought I was a good guesser.
That's okay no one else will either. Which won't stop them from extrapolating some literal interpretation from it anyway.
🤔 *Arkani-Hamed's* amplituhedron thing here reminds me of the two separate ideas that *Klee Irwin* and *Antony Garrett Lisi* have found.
Garrett Lisi found a way for all of these nerdy things that are unfathomable to most, to be visualized. But of course, with the caveat that these visuals merely *DESCRIBE* and who's particulars are REPRESENTATIONS of states, interactions, properties, etc.
These idea's from minds outside of mainstream science could very well be pathways to some better understanding. I'm just saying, we shouldn't just poo-poo things that could be looked into that might actually combine and create eureka moments of greater understanding.
We've got three names here, who all of which might not know of each other's work. Irwin and Lisi might be aware of each other, but I don't know about Arkani or whether he's aware of their's.
Nima Arkani-Hamed
Klee Irwin
Antony Garrett Lisi
@@athews1976 I find it great when people, that perceive "things" differently, find a way and are also willing to show others how they perceive it. I am autistic and perceive a lot of things differently, and people always want that I must streamline my thought process to theirs (because it was always like that and it worked for THEM). That can be demoralizing and infuriating. So, I give everyone props who nontheless tries to educate others and doesn't give a F about what others think and want (in that respective). That also needs a framework that just let them work how they need it, though.
Indeed, the Wiki page on Amplituhedron itself states: "While amplituhedron theory provides an underlying geometric model, _the geometrical space is not physical spacetime."_ You'd have thought those publications might have done a little reading beforehand...
Well that's true for everything physical we describe though. First and foremost, a model describes an abstract something that correlates to our measurements/observations and a good model does that while also being able to make correct predictions.
Due to the way perception works, we can never truly grasp reality. You think you see a tree, but what you're actually seeing is the result of some of the light (which is a concept in itself) reflected by it interacting with your eyeball and your brain interpreting that signal.
And that's the point - we always have to use some interpretation/concept/abstraction/model.
Right, like describe a 3 dimensional object with a cube?
The idea isn't that the geometrical space in which amplituhedron dwells is real space time, but that properties of space-time can be derived from the math of amplituhedron and therefore it's more fundamental than space-time. But I hate when people say "not real" to mean there's something more fundamental to it, because then you'd have to call basically everything "not real" and then the term "not real" itself becomes useless. What's actually not real is unicorns, and when you say atoms are not real because they consist of smaller particles you're putting atoms together with unicorns, where they certainly don't belong.
@@HanakoSeishin by your logic unicorns are in fact real. Wherever you see a unicorn and whenever you have an idea of one, you're also referencing particles and their interactions
@@NJ-wb1cz Unicorn is an idea that doesn't describe anything actually occurring in reality. Atom is an idea that does.
It says something about both comedians and physicists that one of the funniest people on UA-cam is a physicist. You make physics and math(s) (yes, I'm from the US, lol) so much more interesting than any of my professors ever did, Sabine.
that visualisation of the amplituhedron at 2:30 an 4min looks like my migraine auras used to. i am so thankful that i have grown out of those. but the memory is still vivid and make me theorise that amplituhedrons were to blame all that time.
I actually think you might be on to something here. I had my first and only migraine aura 3 weeks ago at age 51......there is something "physics and fishy" going on with this phenomenon.
@@BJT-li1xh I hope that you will be free of them
Don't dismiss these visions as of no value. German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé intuited the ring structure of the chemical benzene following a dream /reverie (? Aura) of a snake biting its tail!
I’m glad to hear that something I don’t understand is just a way to explain something I don’t understand.
Hi Sabine, I am going to take your advice and watch ALL your previous videos!!
It's worth it. And don't forget her old music videos
Professor Dave released a video debunking her😂😂
@@lwandomakaula3574 And you need that guy to build up an opinion? Congrats.
@@Thomas-gk42 I cannot define the intention of that person's comment, if they lol about ProfDave or Sabine. I thought they laugh about his video. But after reading your comment... what is the truth?!
@@MsSonali1980 Hehe, not sure myself, but I assume she/he is pro-"Dave" guy. I mostly liked his way of talking until now, I just did not watch him, cause his content, sorry for my arrogance, was below my level of knowledge. But that vid was an unneeded, meaningless, boring, disrespectful pamphlet full of mistakes and lies. Cheers
He is talking about the locality of attractor fields that derive from mathematic equations, not locality of space time or using it to replace models. Weaving them together to understand the underlying principles that are causing them to congregate and orchestrate as they do.
Excellent work, yet again. Recall that physics was a "completed science" in the late 1800's. "Don't waste your time becoming a physicist, everything has been found." I wonder if we are in another of those situations, as we bump into the limits of our current understanding. Interestingly, the answers are already there...have always been there, deep in the universal coding...and will require both great minds and greater instruments to achieve the next level in the Great Game.
On the other hand, I think it's unfair to malign the viewpoint of the completeness of physics. We understand physics well enough to do loads of things in our daily lives. Look at how far you have to push to get into the domain of the unknown. Stuff like dark matter is of cosmological proportions. Over 99% of all humans then, now and in the foreseeable future will live and die on the Earth. Solving dark matter would satisfy curiosity more than improve our lives. Which is good. But that doesn't have the same impact as understanding the physics that allowed us to build engines, harness electricity, built semi-conductors and so on. And of course the answers are already there. With physics we're trying to describe the workings of reality. I think the phrase universal coding has some danger to it because it is indicative of several assumptions that need not be true at all.
@@FrancisFjordCupola You offer fair and accurate comments. Current physics has certainly improved our lives. We know enough to create and sustain societies. But the human quest for knowledge will never end. We will eventually evolve into newer physics with newer models and newer instruments. And some of us, those who dip our wicks into both science and the underpinnings of religions, predict a tremendous expansion of human knowledge as we go deeper into what is now a mystery. Nothing new here.
great video, sabine! what's up with the audio issues?
While very interesting.......It flew so high over my head I never heard the wings flapping.
Sorry :/ The issue with the topic is that I can either make it very brief (it's a simpler way to calculate probabilities) or very very long and actually try to explain how it relates to Feynman diagrams. I think I'll leave the latter to someone else...
Me too. Haha
@@SabineHossenfelder actually anything that goes against Alberts equations I put no faith in and as a man way older than you it has served me well. My brain stops listening after these many decades when I hear certain words such as: Graviton, Axion, String theory and Super Symmetry. All the beautiful math in the world will not bring them into existence. yes that was a reference.
@@Taomantom I can totally see where you are coming from.
Confucius says: "Upon hearing a bird in the sky, one must resist the urge to look up."
"Space and Time are fine, they just ask that you respect their privacy." - Sabine
This is why you are among my favorite communicators. I could watch you and Sir Roger Pembrose almost continuously.
Have you looked into integrable systems before? They seem very closely related to Superdeterminism. With an integrable system, I think you can get a solution at a given point using some scattering data and the inverse scattering transform. I think this results in a field with a path independent evolution, so no problematic branch cuts. Integrable systems tend to possess solitons which act as particles. If GR could be reformulated as an integrable system, it would immediately be Superdeterministic. If QM and particle physics could be coaxed into falling out of that, then we'd have a Superdeterministic ToE. Thoughts?
Yours is my go to channel for accurate science news.
Go, watch Dr. Becky's recent video about the "alien" signal and the dude (documentary maker) that claims he had inside source in Oxford. She focuses on Astrophysics, since it's her day (and night) job.
4:05 If amplituhedrons used to calculate integrals of QFT, they automatically inherit locality and other spacetime properties from there.
Worth remembering that Feynman Diagrams came about as a way of working around the infinities created by standard calculations. We know that a third expressed as a decimal results in an infinite series of 3’s and it is common to ignore the infinite series and round up to get the correct result, until it isn’t. The secret to making progress is to choose the right methods to solve such problems and sidestep the infinities that plague certain branches of mathematics.
Space time is doomed was the catch cry of Donald Hoffman when debating the very patient Anil Seth about consciousness. Hoffman blathered on about it and bought up negative geometry.
Negative geometry is unremarkable in and off itself but in the context of a Menger Sponge it becomes interesting. That is a MS can be an object with near zero positive geometry volume and near infinite negative geometry surface area.
This the long way round of saying daft head lines and wonky catch phrases can be an entry point to interesting knowledge if knowledge is pursued with an open mind.
Thanks again Sabine for your open mind and pure scientific heart.
Hoffman, another half educalted guy, who thinks he has the knowledge about everything!
@@Thomas-gk42 Thomas, another half educated guy who thinks he has the knowledge about everything!
@@miersdelika5016 Hoffmann fan.
Nima Akkadi Hamid has a lecture titled "The End of Space-Time".
@@miersdelika5016 Might be, but I don´t pubish my nonsense.
Every improvement in the tooling is an absolute win in my opinion.
I have read "Lost in Math" and watched some of your videos. A thought just popped into my head when you said "More importantly, one shouldn't mistake maths for reality." Those physicists that really pushed physics forward, such as Einstein, Planck, Bohr, etc. were not coming at it with a mathematical approach. They were starting with physical observations. The maths were not the primary thing. Nima (and I have watched some of his videos as well) comes at all this more as a mathematician. Mathematics are essential for precisely describing physical phenomena, but they are not the phenomena themselves.
"They were starting with physical observations."
The physical observations are an illusion, Mr Albert was attempting to describe the illusion so that you can have a way of understanding the real objects in the background :)
@@axle.student Can't agree with you there.
@@louisgiokas2206 Most people don't and that's OK.
But math isn't physical reality, and photons paint a very distorted illusion of objects that we can't directly interact with. We can't avoid that problem :)
@@louisgiokas2206
Maths are not the phenomena itself, but neither is language.
@@markdowning7959 So what? By saying that you ignore the basic role of science, and the last sentence of my original comment.
The role of science is to describe the physical world. One can't describe anything without language. That is built into our nature as intelligent beings. Without language (and I include maths here) it is all impossible.
Just think about it. When we search for intelligent life in the universe we search for signals (information) that are not the result of natural phenomena. In other words, language. Language conveys information.
I enjoy your explorations and expanded discussions. Unlike physicists afraid to stand out, your work is creative, thought-provoking, and informative.
thank You, and the Team, what a great presentation!°
I had been lead to believe the amplituhedron represented a more fundamental reality from which space-time would be an emergent phenomenon, so I'm glad you now explained that it does not represent anything physical.
Dr Sabine some i feel its high time for an update on super determinism as end of the year is approaching.
It's already decided whether it is going to happen or not going to happen, so no point asking.
(I am a disbeliever in determinism on information complexity grounds, regardless of whether or not free will exists, which I atill consider to be moot.)
We may choose from the available options.
@@aaronjennings8385 I like to answer binary questions with a simple "yes".
@@EddieTheH lol.
@EbenBransome my understanding of superdeterminism...
It doesn't mean every thing is pre determined.
it means everything is chronologically connected that's it.
Everything happend since the dawn of bigbang leads to Everything what ever happening now......which will eventually lead to everything what ever happens in the next second.
English is not my first language..hope I am making some sense.
This was a fascinating episode! Im happy to finally understand shortly what feynamn diagrams are about. Really nice to know about this amplituxxxx!
Thank you for all your great videos Sabine! And don’t let the Professor Dave’s of the world get you down!
Yes❤
I would really like you to review Penrose's twistor theory, which is another "spacetime is doomed" theory but from someone I truly respect. The mathematics are beyond me and there's little online breaking it down, you would be the perfect person! :)
My research has determined integral calculus was created to turn math and science majors into business majors. I am looking to publish my findings...
... for a fee.
I have been thinking about this problem for a long time. My thoughts are as such:
In the order of operation, space could be seen as a higher dimension which forms the apparatus for the observations of time within space. Without space, we could not observe time because time is a measurement fundamentally of change or decay of an object(s) within space. Space is a constant, but time is relative to position... does anyone agree ?
In that concept I thing time is just an abstract human expression to describe motion of an object. Just a measuring tape or clock device.
4:49 Albert agrees 🤣
i love your humour about as much as i love the information, physicists are often comedians with a passion for science indeed
Yes, a positive Grassmannian space, suggests that space-time might not be a fundamental component but rather an emergent phenomenon.
Yes, exactly. I have no idea what Grassmanian is, but I'll agree that the 4th dimension is emergent. It's an illusion. Holographic?
Outstanding presentation! Thanks
Thanks!
Thanks from the entire team!
@@SabineHossenfelder Your UA-cam channel is my first port of call each day - I don't know how you keep up the quality but I'm glad you do 🙂
@@rangjungyeshe I agree it's worthwhile, even if I'm generally un-teachable.
Thank you, Sabine.
I find your videos inspiring. 😊
Happy Halloween🎃
The way you've described it makes it sound like it might be a mathematically useful step to simplify calculations in the same way that I learned in high school how to use a Riemann sum to approximate the area under the curve, which helped to introduce the concept of integrals. Would that be accurate?
Space-time is going to be replaced? But that's where I keep all my stuff!
😂
I truly like you analyzing the problems at hand, and the way you do it. It makes me feel that at least part of the physics society is like the children behind the pied piper of Hamelen (does this make sense in English?), you warn us against that pied piper.
So, nothing happens in physics, the last 40 or so years are barren, fruitless, at least at the fundamental level. But I wonder: aren’t there breakthroughs at the other parts of physics, maybe less fundamental, and maybe because of this, very promising to society? Once in a while, when these breakthroughs occur, and you learn about them, I would appreciate you telling about them here, if only because it cheers up, giving hope that we humans still are able to produce something worth while.
There are some pretty interesting subjects in physics. Do you have anything in mind?
@@aaronjennings8385 No, sorry, physics isn’t my subject (I did IT security in the past) so I just want to be surprised, and cheered up.
Sabine solved "The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder" with again a very understandable explanation!
Mmm. "The Problem with..." describes a trend. One video does not break the described trend.
@@nout4812there is no problem
If only. There's a reason I unsubscribed a while back.
it seems that you did not watch that video...
@@gilberito635 which do you mean?
I just love interdisciplinary representations of concepts so this is fascinating to me.
I think there may be more to Nima's new formalism than Sabine is prepared to (grudgingly) acknowledge. Its computational power is formidable. Recall how Copernicus's heliocentric system reduced the number of epicycles, then how Kepler's and Newton's laws got rid of epicycles altogether. We might be at a threshold of a similar revolution. But as the insights of that time long ago took well over a century to fruition, it may take just as long this time around. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Hence the "could be promising but let's wait and see" in the video.
Well when it turns out Sabine will comment on it but 150 years or so might be too long, at least she did hedge her bets though, she didn't set fire to the bridge and trash the theorist, he should consider that a win, I was in suspense throughout as I couldn't determine which way she was going to take it, not that I understood much of it😂!?!
You are so much accurate mathematically and philosophically speaking you are leaving me speechless by the explanation and the mind blowing experience of imagine the world like that . Thank you for the knowledge your approach is really precious for humanity!
Continue the great work. Dave Explains made a pathetic video about you, I am glad a lot of people came to your defense on the silly accusations he made.
Yes😊
Fascinating! Thanks, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
this seems nobel-worthy, if they can make a big impact with it. feinmann got the nobel for his diagrams or am i wrong?
thw same way E&M's basic equations are like an evolution of the kinematic equations, the aplituhedron is like the evolution to feinmann diagrams.
I guess it depends on whether they find a use for it. At the moment it's basically a hammer looking for a nail.
Feynmann got his nobel for (co-)developing quantum electrodynamics, which is a tried and tested part of the standard model today. The diagrams were just a very handy tool he came up to make things easier. What Feynmann diagrams do is break one big monstrous computation into a bunch of physically interpretable objects (the diagrams) which encode each a smaller hard-but-not-impossible integral. But after you've broken your problem into smaller problem, you still have to compute the integrals!
@@alvaropiedrafita1438 I have a memory of someone explaining that stuff where, I thought, they said the diagrams also help to identify the integrals themselves? Or is that wrong.
Like you need a rapidly increasing number of integrals as the complexity of the system increases. Is knowing what all those integrals are simple/possible without the diagrams?
Maybe that is kind of what youre describing actually, now that I look at it again
@@Velereonics you got there on your own. Exactly, the diagrams as a whole are there to break a diverging integral into an infinite number of converging integrals. And each diagram itself helps you formulate a particular integral.
Mathematical models used to explain known phenomena or to make computations easier often expose things that we didn't expect. It can be unexpected relationships, equivalences, symmetries, emerging properties, etc. Maxwell's equations for instance led to the unification of electricity and magnetism but it was not the initial goal, which was purely descriptive.
Physics amazes me.That such REALLY Clever people can also be THICK AS SHIT aswell❤
Hi Sabine, could you cover surfaceology too? What do you think about it?
Guten Abend Sabine,
Can you make a new birdflu episode, please 🥺
Thanks for the suggestion, will look into it!
Sabine, make some videos about thing in physics you think are worth pursuing.
Please don't be affected by Dave's worthless youtube channel. You are a strong and extremely smart woman. Dave is just jealous. His idea that "if it is good it will automatically be funded" is as questionable as his field.
I love your videos. I never understand a bit but you sound right to me.
And they are 😊
Cant computers do the integrals fast enough without developing this new mathematical tool?
Ah, good point, should have mentioned this. Yes, there are computer programs to do the integrals. But for this you have to know what the integrals are in the first place. (Also, most of them diverge.)
when they ask money for supercomputers, that's what they are are for, but you still have to write the programs to deal with them, and it would be nice to find something that simplifies things (both writing and computing).
Uh oh. “Nothing is happening in the foundations of physics” has a familiar ring.
If every particle interaction can be described in terms of spacetimeless amplituhedrons, then the integrals are redundant - and in fact worse, because they are unnecessarily complex. Then it seems reasonable to conclude that spacetime itself doesn't "exist". It'd be like if we counted apples by plotting y = 1, x = apples, then getting the count by integrating the area under the curve. It's much easier to just count the apples using integers, in which case we can say the continuous graph (analogous to spacetime) doesn't actually "exist".
You are a fire of enlightenment thank you for what you do!! You recently responded to Professor Dave with something to the effect of "I don't care about the incorrect conclusions that flat earthers draw from reading my video thumbnails." Congrats to you....thanks for defying obvious sexism. I love your style and you have helped me to understand so many different things that are beyond my scope and depth. I hope my daughters turn out as inspired to learn and grow as you.
😊
Are you planning to write any more books? I loved the ones you already released
Yes, they are brilliant both. I also hope for another one
5:05 "One shouldn't mistake math for reality" truly epic! I love you ❤
hehehe gothem
Thnx long time asked about this, very good video!
If someone makes a college class out of this I wonder how low the averages would be.
Thank you Sabine.
The multi -dimensional map is not the territory.
What do you mean?
First time I've come across The Amplituhedron. A cool name at the very least.
dr dave dropped a diss video on you. Oh don't worry, illogical errors 100% of the time. He attack you from his high cloud, not commenting on anything specific you said. He even puts words into your mouth you never ever said. He keeps attacking his own strawman in his head, calling it Sabine. Such an honor :3
I watched the video. It was not a blatant diss,as you are stating here. Im a fan of both Dave and Sabine,and I see their strengths and flaws. Dave can be downright crude and childish at times,but his video on Sabine was anything but.
@@johngavin1175His video was a disrespectful pamphlet full of mistakes and lies, bro.
@@johngavin1175 Your argument is like his: no specifics. Just dogma from the high cloud of inquisition. Which part of what i said is wrong exactly please?
@Kraflyn It doesn't seem that you watched the whole thing. You are being dishonest by claiming that Dave was 100 percent wrong and that he was building a strawman. No,it is you that is doing the strawman building. Were you too disgusted to actually pay attention to what Dave said,or where you expecting him to go the same route that he did with the others he did videos on?
So here is this:
Specifics like an anti academic stance that may attract people like flat earthers and other pseudoscience pushers?
Statements that certain areas of physics aren't advancing?
I hate to have heard what she has had to go through,being treated like shit by misogynistic assholes. It's partly their fault for her anti academic position.
You may think I'm parroting Dave here. He can defend himself,however. She isn't like the folks he usually does videos on: she's actually a scientist. He just got bothered by the statements of stagnant physics and an anti academic stance. I'm sure that she is thoroughly planning a rebuttal in kind,and it is possible that it may be dry and harsh per her way of doing things,and she may as well point out Dave's flaws in kind. I just hope for Dave's sake that he can take it and not be rude and brute as he is with some of the people in his comments. I refuse to be a part of your witchhunt,don't expect any more replies. Have a day. And try a little water with your straw next time.
@@johngavin1175 "No,it is you" - ad hominem.
"It doesn't seem" - so you don't really know.
"Were you too disgusted" - rhetorical question.
"that may attract people like flat earthers" - so criticism is forbidden if it attracts lunatics? Everything attracts lunatics... Even physics itself does. This argument is false. It does not argue about the things that are specified as wrong with academia. It argues about the things not even said: from your high cloud, some peeps will get hurt, and some peeps will get attracted. Both is wrong in your head for some reason. Conclusion: one cannot criticize. Really? That is called censorship my friend. Dictators like it a lot. And so do inquisitors.
"certain areas of physics aren't advancing" - yes, for instance, the fundamental object in Quantum Theory is the Plane Wave, it acts as a unit vector in the Hilbert Space. This fundamental object is not normalizable: its integral of its amplitude squared over all space is infinite. This goes on for the past century. No one resolved this yet. Renormalization issues arise from this alone. It is also connected to the interpretation of Quantum Physics, leading to the Spooky Action At The Distance. This is not resolved for the past century too. This then leads to infinities whenever one tries to actually calculate anything. "The most successful theory ever" cannot actually calculate shit: everything is fitted to data, there are no predictions. We have a theory with zero predictive power. In mathematics there is the Banach-Tarski Paradox: one can triple a sphere without adding any extra points. So you see: what certain areas exactly? Sabine mentions specifics. You see things from your high cloud in the distance. This is not an argument against anything Sabine said, because she mentions specifics.
The rest of your comment is just some private sentimental subjective rumbling not worth mentioning, since it says exactly nothing... The critic can be criticized too. Especially in science: it is not a dogmatic religion. Oh wait... it is for the past century!
The spacetime manifold is often posited to exist in addition to matter because light bends around gravity fields without having any mass, a phenomena often described as the consequence of a continuous curvature of spacetime.
But we could easily predict that the light should bend around such objects as black holes without positing a continuous space, by measuring that various processes, whether massless or not, slows down the further into the gravity field they are located (without a continuum having to exist between anything in addition to motions, where the concept of a field is just quantity of effect in the substance that determines relative location), thus accelerating in time relative to its path outside that gravity field and destination at which the light is measured. (it would be absurd if the direction of something did not change in proportion to how much you slowed down its internal processes since slowing down its internal process draws it towards the direction that caused it to do so), as well as accelerating it forwards in time (if the unit and metric of time is defined by the rate of process of the light prior to its proximity to the gravity field).
I also have a phenomenological and epistemic empiricist argument against space-continuums if someone is interested in substantial criticism against Space-Continuums.
My calculus professor used to say that maths isn’t a science. It’s a philosophy with extremely rigorous proof 😂
I wish I'd learned this sooner.
Thank you for the Video.
Please check your phone. It hasn't rung for a long time.
"better way to do calculations". This reminds me of solving physics problems using Euler-Lagrange equations to keep track energy rather than the more complicated method of Newton using F=ma and keeping track of forces
I just watched Professor Dave trash Sabina. What an Ice hole.
Im a fan of both Dave and Sabine. He did not trash her. Have you seen his videos on the other folk he has done videos on? He can get brutal and childish at times,that is clear. He didnt display that behavior on his vid on her. He brought up some valid points. Did you actually watch his video? Or just made an assumption that he did,in fact,trash her?
@@johngavin1175Are you a bot? Copying the same trash comment several times? And yes, he is an ass hole
Yes he is
Plato called he wants his shapes back
I f ing love Sabine. You are a bulwark against nonsensical hope. And bring scientists back to reality. You have to understand, folks, she is NOT a hater of new ideas. She LOVES new ideas, she is simply the matron of coming back home before the sun sets. Go out and explore! Have fun! Discover new things. Sabine will be cooking dinner when you come home, and listening to your stories about what you saw. Or think you saw. She will remind you that all we have is provability. And if you saw something amazing, well then show it to the rest of us.
Haha, thank you 😅
Leonard Susskind has the idea that spacetime and gravity is created by complexity. He got this idea from black holes in thermal equilibrium while complexity is still growing.
@Sabine: Don't waste your time trolling the non-professor Dave channel. He is a complete unintelligent and nasty fool.. Not worth the time. Keep your great content up!!
Professor Dave has debunked several you tubers. I watched his evaluation of Sabine's channel and I'm skeptical that you actually took the time to review it carefully. He clearly stated that he liked a lot of her content, especially when that content described actual science. His criticism revolves around the topics of grievances, conspiracy, and broad brushing science without having first hand experience in the various corners of science that share little overlap with theoretical physics. Most viewers don't have a deep enough background to evaluate what is good verses bad science. They like conspiracy for its entertainment value which does a disservice to real scientists and as he points out, can have real negative impacts when political decisions based on inuendo and grievances come into play. Dave's analysis is compelling and, I believe, comes from someone who works very hard to produce high quality educational chemistry videos. He actually knows his stuff and, more to the point, knows how incremental results in science matter over the long haul.
I agree 100%
@@johnl4885 Your little analysisis totally wrong. His vid is a direspectful pamphlet, beginning with the image in the clickbait. It´s a insubstantial mix of nonsense, mistakes and even lies. Who are you to claim, the first commenter hadn´t watched it "carefully", he and I are just not your opinion.
"It's just a better way to do calculations" was, indeed, how most of those reading Kepler regarded his heliocentric model - because it was certainly good for that. Once a couple of generations had grown up doing the calculations that way, they ended up thinking about the world that way, and that did end up making a difference - beyond just how they did their calculations.
(And, indeed, for a while the best it did was make all those epicycles easier to deal with - but changing how people do their computations lets them think about the physics they describe in new ways that they might not have though of had they been thinking about it the way the old computations forced them to.) I do agree that space-time isn't doomed - and I hope those thinking about the quantum stuff going on in it (a.k.a. matter, possibly also the "dark" kind, if it really does exist) can find a better way to match up the space-time and the quantum stuff once they're able to make sense of particle activity in an easier-to-compute way than by doing infinitely many infinite integrals over infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces that depend on assuming the space-time is a vector space (rather than a smooth manifold, which it plainly is).
Hello, my fellow science deniers! Here we meet again! /s
😂
Why, this aint an antisience channel, she speaks about some problems within fundamental physics, has Sabinne ever said something against QED, or the quark model, has she ever saif spin aint a thing, she complains about the corruption and sexysm within academia, but neve has she ever really atacked the already established science. That sounds like a huge leap
@@omardiaz6255 /s means sarcasm
@@omardiaz6255 Just a joke. There was some other UA-camr yesterday who called out Sabine for criticising some misconducts or bad trends in academia because it "attracts science deniers".
@@Devasantika oh, sorry, my bad, ill take a look on the other video to catch up, have a good day!
Probably worth clarifying that the new approach is not actually the same thing as the amplituhedron. It shares some key methods, but it isn't "another amplituhedron" in any meaningful sense (and in particular it's less "purely geometric" than the amplituhedron). If you think Nima's work is overhyped, probably best to avoid unnecessarily adding to the buzzword density.
That's a big carrot.
I love your videos. Thank you!
I didn’t realize Sabine was problematic until some guy calling himself a professor without a PhD who also won’t be voting for Harris because she’s “just as bad” as Trump because Gaza or something said Sabine was problematic. Now I realize it’s actually me who’s problematic and I kinda like it.
Yeah, he lost my sub for that drivel.
He was a decent resource when he kept his opinions out of his videos, but his ego outgrew his intelligence level.
He should've stuck to reading textbooks doing his little doodles.
Yep. I had a choice and chose Sabine over Dave. Dave is fine when it comes to topics like debunking the flat earth, but that’s about it.
Saying anyone is as bad as tRump is truly the worst insult.
@@keithpalmer4547 I'm sure I could come up with a worse insult, but it's the reasoning that's nonsensical: "Harris is just as bad because Gaza". This is completely untrue no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on.
My thoughts exactly!
👍👍👍 Interesting stuff. I wish I could understand better.
Sabine > Dave...
everytime
Of course, ten magnitudes, I estimate
Absolutely, he doesn't even have a doctorate but calls himself "professor".
Yeah, he really lost me there. He could've also chosen a different thumbnail picture, for a "factual" video, to discredit another science communicator. I get it, the clickbaity titles annoy everyone with half a braincell. Sadly, creators that earn income over youtube have to adhere to the grind in certain ways. And one that is title and thumbnail, not only being interesting but also over the top, somewhat. Ironically, he also does that.
The other thing, he got corrected so many time in the comments of that video. Maybe there will be a follow-up where he explains what went wrong, corrects himself, and even can still give VALID criticism.
What me annoyed were the people claiming, that Sabine and her team are to blame for all the science deniers, using her material on YT, as a kind of anti-science proof. You can't control people, especially not conspiracy type folks, if you are on the 180° point of view end of the spectrum from them. They hear and argument only selective.
I know, he has a hate-b*n*r for anyone anti-science (I can relate to that) but that doesn't mean that everyone has to feel the same way and has to put the same energy into fighting against them, as he does.
@@MsSonali1980 And of course, Sabine is not anti-science, just because she´s crtical to the methodology of her field of research and to the rotten system in academia. Unfair and disrespectful of that guy: He copied the "clickbait"-image from Sabine´s twitter account, that she posted many months ago as a self-ironic joke.
I was listening too quickly and when you said, ‘So you get gravity out of it.’ I anticipated that you were going to say, ‘So you get grant money . . .’-yeah.
Here’s a notion: the mathematics of a lot of physical theories could be understood as metaphors for what we’re trying to grasp; and there’s always going to be a better metaphor, but only some of those equations are actually going to do useful work.
Honestly, Sabine, I've been pretty disappointed by the quality of your reporting on high-energy theory recently. In the past year or two, it's felt like you've stopped trying to understand the merit in the subjects that you're reporting on in favor of a simplistic overview with just enough detail to talk about why the media is overhyping it.
As an example: the reason that people are talking about the amplituhedron challenging notions of spacetime ISN'T because of the reasons that you've stated (you KNOW that no researcher worth their salt would say "spacetime is dead" just because you can carry out a calculation in a different parameter space, so I don't understand why you would think that people are doing this), but rather because, in the amplituhedron formalism, the individual diagrams (which are NOT Feynman diagrams) are often not Poincaré-invariant and *not even Lorentz-invariant*. The structure of the amplituhedron enables us to calculate a scattering amplitude without requiring that the individual diagrams are Lorentz-invariant, and, almost by coincidence, the scattering amplitudes that we get for any standard theory *are* Lorentz-invariant due to cancellation between the anomalous terms. This is a big deal because the only serious tool that we had for calculating scattering amplitudes before this was Feynman diagrams, which are manifestly Poincaré-symmetric, so it was nigh-impossible to imagine a theory that was not Poincaré-invariant; the amplituhedron shows us that, for example, it's quite possible to get a Poincaré-invariant low-energy theory from a Lorentz-breaking UV completion.
Sabine, you have a PhD in theoretical physics! You could have watched any of Nima's talks and you would know this too! The fact that you seem not to makes it feel like you didn't even bother to listen to what Nima has to say, and rather just "reported on the reporting". It's really frustrating, because I watch your videos in trust that you've read the original materials in good faith and done your own research before arriving at your conclusions; I came for healthy skepticism, not flat denial, and I guess that's why I've written this wall of text. Sorry for the long read!
Wow what a big heap of great shit.
You're exactly right! This is what happens when your incentive is the number of likes.
I agree, back when there weren’t videos on everything being churned out everyday, they were higher quality and much more well researched. I hope she will go back to quality over quantity.
@@RHindriks-d9d Yes, YTers need views to survive, cause guys like you don´t pay one single cent for the content.
It's not that there's not a lot happening in physics. It's that the problems that need to be solved have become much harder. We've picked the lowest hanging fruit. Solving these mysteries is not a linear endeavor, even if it may seem so during certain periods of time.
Please address Professor Dave's criticisms.
I like both Sabine and Dave. Dave does get outright petulant at times,but I feel his video on Sabine was done with honesty. Sabine is definitely different than the other folks he has done videos on.
@@johngavin1175No, it was disrespectful nonsense, full of mistakes and even lies. It's unnecessary to react on such a pamphlet.
@@Thomas-gk42 No mistakes, no lies. It was respectful and to the point. It's clear Dave has a lot more respect for Sabine than he does charlatans like James Tour and Eric Weinstein.
When I first heard about this I just thought it was the triumph of geometry over analysis, which in cases where couplings are higher order, makes a lot of sense. No matter what form the math you use to calculate takes, it has to relate to the physical space time in which we live. I mean, physics started using geometrical calculations until Newton invented calculus to leverage analysis in the first place, right?
these videos always end at the most interesting point.