What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below. To watch Sabine Hossenfelder debate the crisis of particle physics with Jim Baggott and John Ellis, visit iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-reality?UA-cam&
@Edysin Simon As long as universities and other institutions join in the mob mentality of the left, nobody will stick their heads out. The leftist radicalization will deprive the highest truth from our society the same way it did to the Chinese and Soviets, and we will be forced to recruit creative outsiders from free nations. Not that anyone would want to emigrate to psychocity.
Dr. Hassenfelder is a delight. She speaks directly & clearly, articulating her thoughts in a manner that can be digested by the average adult, w/o oversimplification. A+
She is lying about physics. She is not a genius. Here are the facts. THE ULTIMATE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=MA. Consider the man who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! E=mc2 IS F=ma. The linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE SUN is A POINT in the night sky. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, the linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE EARTH is ALSO A POINT in the night sky. Great. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA. The EARTH and the SUN thus constitute and comprise what are the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) INDEED, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great. NOW, OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE (AS WATER). GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this unifies AND balances gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This clearly explains BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, the BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Our EXPERIENCE is NECESSARILY that of what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS we are BALANCED between what are THE SUN AND c (A POINT); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/as F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. THINK about what is QUANTUM GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!! Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravitational force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Magnificent !!! E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE visible or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH. So, the electron AND photon are structureless. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to E=mc2 AS F=ma. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the Sun AND c (A POINT). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=MA. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=MC2 IS F=MA. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) It is a very great truth that THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Beautiful. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. By Frank DiMeglio
Very clear and informative. Thanks! It reminds me of a famous quote from Richard Feynman, '“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are or how many letters you have after your name. If your theory doesn’t agree with the results of the experiments, it’s wrong.”
Also Bertrand Russell: "Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts" and Carl Sagan: "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition"
I've noted before that I'm an architect not a physicist. However, the conventional attribution of beauty in architecture seems to suffer from the same issue as in physics in that it is construed classically in terms of simple one-point or two-point perspective, Platonic solids, symmetry, progressive proportionality or angular proportionality among others. These are the findings of classical times and art and architecture since have found a much wider and more sophisticated range of systems or arrangements of systems that are pleasing: multiple vanishing points, parallax, syncopation, balanced asymmetry, seriality, left or right ascendency. The issue here is that they work and are consequently, a posteriori, pleasing. They do not ascribe to an a priori condition that they must be beautiful. Thank you again for a stimulating talk.
I really enjoyed this talk. it reminds me of my graduate school experiences. I entered a Physics grad school program in 1980 and noticed the same thing. Tragically the mathematicians led all of the theoretical fields and they did not communicate well with the experimentalists. The result was that many of my brightest friends wasted their time on pointless failed theories instead of asking the experimentalists what was missing. I hope that the younger Physicist out there learn from what she is saying.
I've got to say that as one who would dearly love beauty to be an effective method in science, Dr. Hossenfelder makes a compelling case for dialing back our confidence in it.
Already quite many years ago I was in the audience of a conference where someone was talking about the (non-)results of looking for supersymmetric particles wrt to dark matter. I had the audacity to ask when they would realise that this is going nowhere and would simply stop looking. Of course, the answer was that they still have a few ideas about what masses they should be looking for.
The gaggle of professional students turned generously employed research physicists at CERN and other publicly underwritten institutions are horrified someone like her would expose the racket.
@@gkopeliadis I think Hossenfelder can make blunt statements that might be oversimplified, but her scientific work that I've seen looks pretty rigorous, although I confess to a severe lack of knowledge to be able to evaluate it.
Now, the problem with these kinds of videos is that they only propagate one valid viewpoint. Basically, what she is saying, and apparantly what many lay people are happily willing to believe, is that the greater part of all (theoretical) physicists went astray some time within the last 100 years. Obviously, this is a bold claim. So much so that I can understand those who find it to be bordering on arrogance. You see, I believe that she is smart enough to gauge the effect of her words in advance which implies that the wording and message of her statement are calculatedly provoking and scandalous. While this is THE way to go if you want yourself to be popular with the public it is not at all the way to open up a targeted discussion among scientific community. There are other people in science that are incredibly smart too and do not share her opinion. Go and check out their content as well before you settle for a viewpoint. Also, I personally dislike her influencing strategy in rhetoric. By this I mean, for example, the way she glosses over "some advances we (barely) managed to achieve (by the way, who is that "WE" she is talking about) within the last century" right in the beginning, deliberately belittling their meaning and relevance just to set the scene for a rant and to assume a pseudo-balanced stance that would make her less vulnerable to critiques like mine.
"Beauty being the endpoint" is exactly the thought I was having as you were evolving your discussion professor. No reason that the fundamental nature of reality shouldn't be elegant and simple. However, as you say, looks like the physicists have it the wrong way around in not first looking for problems of inconsistency to solve. Guess we have to wait for another Einstein to come along, and appears that we are far from the next lower level of description. At least Astronomy is making a lot of progress, by doing actual observations. And what seems more exciting to me is seeing the explosion in Biology, since the 'Human Genome Project' - which has brought us all the wonders of the inner universe and workings of the cell, CRISPR tech, and the latest vaccines.
Though pseudoscientific, here is some food for thought: If even calculus has no chance of precisely describing the trajectory of even a double pendulum, then how could it help in formulating a theory on the whole universe? The whole theory dilemma resides on the fact that calculus is an abstract data compression, and were it dropped, we'd have to take in account possibly uncoountably many irreducible/incompressible information. And at that point, it would be time for theoretical computer science to decide wether that is possible at all.
@@Wabbelpaddel I only got as far as adding up infinite numbers of little rectangles (well, maybe a little further), which I thought was valid and p r e t t y cool. So I'm a little 'pseudo-confused' with your point. Lol. However, if I'm generally familiar with your conjectures then consider this: If Unpredictability is inherently baked in; then emergence, complexity, and possibility are infinitely probable. That is the super cool thing I take from my amateur studies of intracellular molecular biology, abiogenesis, and chemical (as distinct from, and preceding, Darwinian) evolution. Inner Biology really destroys the classical conjectures of reductionism and clockwork nature in physics, which is why I think the next great physicist will probably have a multi-disciplinary background. On current explorations in physics, to mention a favorite movie quote: "It just seems too heartless." Once again, by looking inside the evolved 'planet' of a cell, and it's bio-informational and structural/functional Systems - with feedback loops between Information and Material Structure which defy 'the chicken and the egg' - a self-codifying and self-constructing computer - software and hardware indistinguishable - this tells one that the Universe will always be the first Inventor, the primary Instructor, and the One source of novel new Wonders of which we can barely yet Imagine.
"No reason that the fundamental nature of reality shouldn't be elegant and simple." True. No reason that the fundamental nature of reality SHOULD be elegant and simple. Also true.
I agree with her - there is no reason physical theories shouldn't be ugly from the standpoint of human beings. Who are we to dicatate how the universe behaves? It does what it does.
While I agree with what she is arguing, she does a horrible job of arguing it. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the history of science knows she is lying though her teeth. The best example would be that *every* conservation law has been discovered by an "argument from beauty." When(if) we discover something more fundamental than our current models, it will be, as a mathematical fact, more "beautiful;" that is just a mathematic property of emergent behavior and every law of physics has to follow it until we reach truly fundamental laws of physics. I very much agree with her that theoretical physicist are getting too attached to their models and a disproportionate amount of funding is going to trying to prove these grand theories instead of focusing in on where our current best models disagree.
@@SoundsSilver As I said, the truly fundamental laws don't have to. Everything else will follow patterns as a result of what math is. You can take any set of nonconflicting axioms(laws) and build a system of math on top of it.
She is political. She is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics. Here are the facts. Here is the proof. WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
Beauty is not an objective quality of the admired, beauty is a subjective prejudice of the admirers. Being aware of one's own prejudice is difficult; consequently many physicists have a very hard time recognizing their misconception.
The same can be said on religious dogmas. First you believe what fits best to your narrative and then you try to convince and prove the truth to yourself and everybody. It takes a Sabine to say" The Emperor has no clothes on"
In politics, it is not only group think, but also symbols instead of actions (yes to believe that this is enough is also group think). Things like, science and economics have to compromise on a topic (covid, climate, fisheries, etc.), are ludicrous.
@@AvatarOfBhaal - The whole point of democracy, political freedoms and human rights is, at least largely, to avoid groupthink, which is characteristic of dictatorships and oligarchic forms of government. Feedback is important even if it challenges authority (or should I say rather: especially when it challenges authority?)
I think part of the problem is also that in school and university when fiddling with math and theory you learn that when your formulas are getting too complex, they're probably wrong - to a degree where you inherently think something must be wrong just because it is complex. That is a reflex only of limited usefulness.
The drive to simplify complexity is a natural drive of self-preservation, if something is too complex it is becoming more difficult to control. A theory too complex will be less popular as being less accessible. However one need to keep in mind that the "simple" sometimes hides complexity. Once you have the root square of -1 admitted, the 3rd degree polynomial equations become almost "trivial" ... one only can look and weep when reading old texts on the subject. However this "simplicity" comes at a price: the road of transition from real analysis to the complex one is NOT trivial. Also, the complexity is sometimes the sign that the wrong side was chose to get around the forest, but nevertheless it may still lead to a valid conclusion. Very frequently the "elegant" solution becomes only obvious once somebody slogged the hard way through ...
@@Wabbelpaddel Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page: The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 I see, thank you. Good read so far, very interesting. I'll get in depth into the article and re-evaluate my standpoint. As for the meta-theory of physics and computability: I believe in an algebraic and category-theoretical approach which can be transformed to the analytic case (general relativity) yet supports a quantized description of fundamental forces via homological group complexes. There is a link between type theory, computability theory and this algebraic approach which may deliver a powerful approach for existential statements. Also, like Landau symbols, we need classifications of complexities and severity of computability, on which I am working by linking group theory with modal logic and category theory. Which in turn could lead to traces of the P-NP problem and maybe finally deliver an answer as to when and how an analytic solution can be interchanged with discrete solutions. The issue with this approach? It is extremely complex.
@Dan Campbell To be fair ,I've heard Sabine say she doesn't have a problem with Wolfram, Lisi, or even Eric Weinstein pursuing their respective theories. She just has a problem with these theories being institutionalized and wasting inordinate amounts of money and brain power.
@Dan Campbell I don't think the argument is that beautiful theories shouldn't be funded either, only that beauty alone is not evidence that a theory is worth pursuing or funding.
Ah, the beauty of slightly outcentered ellipses! Ah, the beauty of the irrationality of Pi! The ghosts of thousands of ancient mathematicians and philosophers rise up against this modern reevaluation of beauty. Ghosts are ugly, also dead.
@Dan Campbell - Did she even mention Wolfram at all. In her channel she did (briefly), search for "Do we need a Theory of Everything?" and had no qualms because Wolfram's team is working on very humble budgets and rather private kind of endeavor. She's fine with that, she's clearly more concerned about wasting too much money/resources on testing speculations that have no basis other than "popularity" (in academic circles), for example she's against wasting EU's resources in a larger particle accelerator just to further test the (very clearly weakened) Superstring Theory's always elusive "predictions". I would say that the logic applying here is: (1) get a sound theory that actually makes sense regardless of "beauty", (2) make predictions that can be tested without going sci-fi, (3) get positive results from such predictions, (4) get funding for further experimentation then and only then.
I'm not Physicist......by a looong shot but I've always been attracted to that subject and those who have lighted our path....My goal is not to understand in detail ....but in general advance my vision guided by those who do understand it, and try to follow as much as I can grasp with my limited means....
Thank you for your wonderful lectures. A suggestion : Why do you often find a way to talk about the cost of experimentation, without including the associated benefits? I am thinking of the repercussions in cultural terms (teams made up of scientists from all backgrounds), medical (MRI, PET ...), technological (electronics, WEB ...), ...
There’s very little benefit in terms of useful discoveries that translate to commercial technology from smashing protons together at higher and higher energies...... but there’s always the argument government sending stimulates the economy and generates secondary and so on, economic spending.... I’d argue paying the folks COVID-19 unemployment like what is being done, benifits a lot more people and “culture” than ten thousand absurdly paid scientists and construction workers building a $20 billion dollar collider that discovered essentially nothing outside of confirming something that had to exist. There is already a serious campaign by the same people proved wrong by the large Hadron collider debacle, to build a bigger and more powerful successor at again, even more absurd cost. It’s fine by me if that’s what these folks want to do, but at least let’s be honest like Ms Sabine H.
Certainly does seem that some rebuilding of the foundation is in order. We'll have to go back a bit - in order to go forward again. We can do it; afterall - I am going thru time @ the speed of sound.
One's sense of beauty should be guided by what functions in reality. The thing that works best is most beautiful. That is the function an assessment of beauty approximates in the first place. It's a coarse assessment of fitness.
Ms. Hossenfelder, I do my calculations (mostly geometric) with the possible motions permitted by the vertices of our human body (ankles, knees, hips, etc.). To create a motion rhythm I start with the axiom of bilateral equality. I always find beauty when I finally correctly accommodate the body motions. Beauty never escapes the symmetry in geometry. So for me, beauty always works.
Another wonderful talk. It reinforces the idea that reality is not pretty. In that, not much has changed since Aristotle and the eternal issue of Saving the Phenomena. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, nature does not respond to how we want it to behave; rather our ideas of reality needs to correspond to what is experienced.
Math can be beautiful, because math is an art and a science. Physics is an experimental science. It does not require beauty, or elegance, only results.
@@jaysalbhatt2501 Physics at its most fundamental is, and always will be an experimental science. There is no theoretical and experimental physics; they are the same thing. It doesn't matter how pretty or creative your theory is. If it doesn't fit the data, its bunk. As someone who has a degree in both math and physics, and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in physics, hearing you say theoretical physics requires more creativity than maths makes me think you lack experience in either.
@@CheeseAndCrackers404 I'm talking about thought process here. You don't just completely bunk something just cause it doesn't meet with experiments. The way that we slowly improve imperfect theories lets us tackle huge, tough problems. And when we do have to update our understanding, it certainly doesn’t mean we have to throw out the old ones. [information] that is somewhat wrong can be enormously useful for changing the thought process in a certain field.
Thank you for this perspective on physics. The slide at 24:00 sums up the video. Current theoretical physics seems to be another unchallenged bureaucracy wasting money and resources.
Only a minor sum of money is spent on theoretical physics. Vastly more money is spent on failed military projects, or failed experiments like the superconducting supercollider.
A very nicely and well argued discussion. I tend to agree with Sabine. Reality IS what Reality shows. We just need to put our best and most inquisitive people on the job. Spending money on Physics and Mathematics always produces useful and profitable understandings. Now I am a firm believer in God. The work is to discover and use these discoveries for the benefit of all people and all living creatures. Humans are the temporary stewards and servants of this Universe and any preconceptions about God or beauty or whatever need to be left at the doorstep before we ponder Reality. Do the mathematical and theoretical work to find out the parameters and workings of our Universe. Then go out of the work environment and ponder and meditate and consider the nature of God if you wish. I don’t think God will be offended. This is the Age of the Scientific Method and we require the truth about everything, no matter how ugly we or it may be.
The problem is the "cool kids" aren't the ones thinking outside the box. See Wojciech Zureck's derivation of PROBABILITY and the Born rule from 2 assumptions: 1. Unitarity, 2. Repeatability. This resolves one of her primary issues with Quantum measurement Quantum darwinism resolves another. A new approach to the gravity QM issue has been proposed, by taking a very close look at complex analysis and the details of the mathematics of the Feynman diagram and realizing that the sum of two objects that are NOT analytical can be analytical...and that a PHYSICAL (but off shell) term has been omitted from our calculations all these years this lets you smuggle gravity into the standard model without giving up renormalization or unitarity. See the papers and talks on "fakons" (by Damiano Anselmi) which are different than the old idea of ghost particles. This idea just extends the Feynman rules in a way that's NOT BEAUTIFUL...so Sabine should love it. Also it creates a small time windo of indeterminacy that's pretty consistent with QM Darwinism.
With all due respect it isn't just a question of "pretty". The direction of physics since, say, the 18th century has been toward explanations that include and codify seemingly disparate phenomena into a more unified explanation. Take Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism...before its acceptance static electric charges, moving electric charges, magnetic fields in coils, in ferromagnetic materials , etc was just a zoo of disparate phenomena. Maxwell brought it all under the umbrella of his equations that not only "explained" electric/magnetic phenomena but also brought light and optics into the fold as wave solutions to his equations. Maxwell did not explain everything (most notably the frequency distribution of black-body radiation) but it was an enormous improvement. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics and then the quantization of the electromagnetic field pushed understanding even further, general relativity unified space and time. The desire to unify the known forces derives from what physics understands as "understanding"...based on centuries of real progress...physics being able to effect solid advances incrementally without knowing everything completely and perfectly. In fact even Maxwell's classical equations are not "pretty" enough for some because they do not predict the magnetic monopole that "ought" to be there to make his equations nice and symmetric. This pushing to ever greater unification and generalization has paid off tremendously for about 250 years...so far so good and not to be abandoned without a fight.
Essentially I think Sabine is right. Beauty emerged from solved questions about nature, but was not the origin of a solution/theory. The realm of beauty is the one of mathematics and thus ideas. The question why math works so well to describe physics is also an interesting one in my view and might be a reason why physicists (especially theoretical ones) love beauty as a fruitful way to start looking at solutions. Also, the realm of physics is getting so far from our human experience (senses), either small or large scales) that we have less and less chance to get reliable real experiments (and thus data) in the years to come. Leonard Susskind even said so in a recent interview. We are thus left with metaphysical arguments or philosophies or belief systems which are by definition human-centric and not necessarily representative of how nature works.
@@CAThompson partly yes, but they do it unconsciously or not openly. To put in question 100 years of successful development in technology is hard, despite the fact that science is stuck since about the 1950s. When I was doing physics in the 80s people were so excited about strings and supersymetry.. still nothing except beautiful ideas and maths. So as I said, we are driven to philosophy and I think it is not a bad thing, anyway we are stuck with experiments and for a long time.
@@tixch2000 Maybe physicists need to do the equivalent of stepping out of the lab and taking a break, to see if fresh insights and ideas may come. I imagine it would be quite hard to make breakthroughs working on decades-old problems. Not to say no progress is being made at all. I'm no scientist; I'm following Dr. Hossenfelder because one of the first videos I watched of hers was a critique of particle physics' lack of progress and I've become more interested in physics since.
@@tixch2000 I've been interested in aspects of physics such as Chaos Theory, String Theory, astrophysics etc. for years and it's been disconcerting to find that what I thought I knew wasn't quite so. The good news is we're aware of this now. It's interesting to step into a space where stale ideas are being challenged to make way for fresh discoveries.
The Periodic Table was messy at first, and now it is orderly and very useful, so I have the same hope for physics, which is more tattered at the edges then the center (which is understandable).
My father was a math natural, was an engineer before he realized his destiny was as a physician..... he told me essentially the same thing she is saying 40 years ago.
This was wonderful. As a geneticist - while there are numerous beautiful biological systems and mechanisms, but most of biology is really messy. Totally agree on the approach of solving real problems - perhaps the best hypothesis will be beautiful - perhaps messy.
As an outsider I like Sabine for her clarity in describing difficult concepts that I can grasp, she admits to being a contrarian which I also like because she question’s the path physics seems to be taking.
You like contrarianism because you think that it saves you from having to get an education that would require you to read tens of thousands of pages of textbooks. That's called intellectual laziness, kid.
@@schmetterling4477 At 70 its rather nice to be referred to as a kid, I’m a retired blacksmith who loved his craft, as an amateur astronomer I love nothing better than to read many articles in the world of physics albeit in the popular format, however I was always taught to question everything as nothing is written in stone, things can change as we probe ever deeper.
This addresses my belief (from an amateur) that nothing really changed in particle physics ince the '70s. I expected the periodic table to be completed in some form, and that happened, but there was nothing for use, just ever shorter half lives and fewer actual particles. Things look like they have specific limits and beyond that none of the old rules apply. Black holes and gravity come to mind.
David Deutsch discovered what needed to change in the foundations of physics was the prevailing mode of explanations that theoretical physics has followed since Newton. In order to unify the theory of computation with the whole of physics, and so create a constructor theory that generalizes the former to be the theory of which physical transformations are possible and which aren't (instead of merely having a theory of which functions are computable and which aren't), what was needed was to relinquish the prevailing conception (a principle) that the laws of physics are expressed in terms that posit an initial state and the laws of motions that determine it's dynamical evolution. He's done this and introduced a new mode of explanations, and constructor theory already has produced results in the theory of information and thermodynamics
Beautiful! Oh, wait... LOL Anyway, I agree with Sabine... It seems to me that maybe there indeed is an ultimate beautiful theory of everything. Who knows? But, if there is, it does not necessarily follow that following 'beauty' is the best way to get there. It may be that the best way to discover it is to follow the inconsistencies, no matter how ugly the results may seem at the time. An analogy might be the difference between travelling to stars directly (the beautiful way, long scenic route) or taking a wormhole (I know, not proven, but go with it) which may get you to where you want to be quicker. Just my thoughts... How do you solve a mystery of any sort? Follow the clues, no matter where they may lead. Don't make up clues that seem to fit what your presuppositions are...
Very interesting summation of the situation physics finds itself. Also congratulation on your presentation style. I have followed you since the Perimeter Institute days through your own UA-cam channel and your style is clear and concise. I look forward to future presentations.
This video is a good summary of many of her views but she can't cover everything in a short video. She discusses string theory at more length in her book, "Lost in Math". Which I just finished yesterday - yeah, I'm behind in my physics reading. As M. le Viscount mentions below, she doesn't seem to be a fan.
Makes me thing there is a lot of not yet answered questions. Along with that recent news of the decay discrepancy from the LHC. I would have to listen to this three times to get a better feel for it.
After a second viewing I'm obliged to admit this is absolutely brilliant. Honest and convincingly delivered. But then again, I'm smashed. But not enough to think I won't be watching again.
Should I refer to you as “Mr.” van der Hoog? Why refer to “Mrs.”Hossenfelder when the marital status is irrelevant and is why Ms has replaced Miss and Mrs. As more enlightened people understand, women are not mere secondary byproducts of the patriarchy. Social norms don’t evolve any more quickly than does understanding in many fields of human endeavor.
@@janetbratter1 That's why I refer to and address her as Dr Hossenfelder when discussing physics - the distinction I'm dealing with is: formidable scientist.
@@CAThompson WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
On min 09:30 Ms. Hossenfelder is actually saying that the search for beauty can get to be like almost metaphysical. I think that the search for beauty is really our best tool for our sapiens logical reasoning. We just need to find the symmetry, where beauty is hiding.
Not trying to be controversial, but I wonder if trying to get the cosmos to fit into our pre-conceived theoretical and hypothetical maths equations and incomplete models (that don't always seem to fully fit and work conclusively... without some further additional tweaks, manipulation and modifications) Is this the best scientific approach and pathway? After all the cosmos is an ongoing construct and manifestation of the all the interactive/reactive/recycling processes going on within it. So perhaps rather than trap ourselves, would it not be also now equally valid to step back and outside these confines and just recheck, review and see if there might be other physical science processes and solutions that might better match and fit observations and data? As although the notions and additions of dark energy and matter and black holes only seems to show and imply that we might have missed or miss-understood or overlooked relevant data and research or haven't fully grasped the nature or potential of some or all of the physical, electromagnetic and elemental forces at play? So perhaps an interesting question or questions would and might be...If there was no general or super relativity theories, black holes, dark energy and matter (and unresolved gravity) ...What else might equally or better explain what we see and what is happening? That said... I am sure the scientific community are already investigating other alternative explanations but it seems the mainstream media does not fully present this...except to occasionally bang on about a crisis in science....where in reality is never a crisis! As science is only a rational/logical and proof driven process and pursuit that tries to establish and confirm truth and understanding from both facts and our man made fiction.
Recently I was involved in a discussion with an engineer who maintained that the first law of thermodynamics requires that the universe was created. I responded that there is no evidence of a point in time at which the energy of the universe did not exist. In fact, given that time and space are not orthogonal - the concept of "before the universe" is inherently meaningless. I was therefore very interested to hear you pose the question "How did the universe begin?". Was I incorrect in my suggestion? I'm a mathematical geophysicist - so this sort of discussion is not one I can really claim expertise in.
I wonder if the search for beauty, symmetry and simplicity might partly be a subconscious inheritance of the monotheistic cultures. Think, for instance, of the mediaeval idea that everything in the heavens could not be anything other than perfect.
Why “unlikely”? It’s not as if Martin is denying the ultimate origins of the concept which obviously transcend both medieval and Greek architecture (and long before as well).
Maybe it's likely an inherent human instinct that will ultimately doom us to fail the task. First of all, it's time to conquer the complexity of the brain to commence transhumanism. After that may come any possible solution.
@@pedrolmlkzk : You are right. However: the keyword for me here is subconscious. I believe that a subconscious desire for symmetry can lead scientists to favor a symmetrical looking theory over a more messy looking one and that this has consequences in choosing the direction of research, deciding on funding etcetera. Fortunately, we have the scientific method to help us overcome such prejudice and ultimately arrive at the best theory.
As a layperson, I see Dr. Hossenfelder keep on pursuing - with many reasons, in my humble opinion - her effort at raising discussion amongst her colleagues on fundamental, epistemological issues. As a reader of 'Lost in Math', I already knew the author's objections to the current scientific methodology. Nonetheless, as much as I appreciate her - along with other smartest people like Jim Baggot, Lee Smolin and many others with similar ideas - I can't help but wonder how can it be that so many other brilliant physicists and Ph.D. students around the world are still enthusiastically devoted to, for example, the umpteenth development of some esoteric supersymmetric string theory. No news, of course: I'm well aware of that sort of spell for which generations of physicists thoroughly avoided arguing about the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of QM. Just a human, all too human business? Or, can any deeper reason for such different approaches to the problem exist, other than some kind of 'narrow-mindedness'?
For the same reasons people follow religions, I guess - it's what they've been taught, they've been convinced of it and it's comforting to believe in, maybe.
hm....well, I'm only a mathematician and I didn't do well in physics. But I wanna share my conclusion from this video (I liked it and I think I understand what Sabine's getting at): unsupported physics is just math for a different universe and that universe, however real it might somehow be "somewhere out there", can find that universe's physics to be pretty on its own (or we can goggle at it if we really want to, but we should be honest to ourselves and each other and just call it "artistically minded mathematicians"). We should focus our physics-appreciation on our own universe's physics, no else where. That doesn't mean physics CANT be pretty (the stuff we have is quite good, no?), but Sabine's point (I'm guessing, though I'd love to hear other's thoughts) is you shouldn't look for beauty as a sign of realness because "you can never guess what's real, and anything that's real and thus sharable, will always be more beautiful then anything in our imagination". After-all, how much "bigger", "grand" and "beautiful" (not that I would know all that well) would it be if it takes a multitude to fully appreciate it?
This is the best lecture by Sabine Hossenfelder that I have seen. In my opinion it is brilliant. She has convinced me that mathematical beauty may be entirely irrelevant to physics. But the mathematics used in physics, in addition to being potentially beautiful, also is potentially simple. Occam's Razor only speaks when we have two candidate theories that both could work. In that case we are urged to use the simpler of the two. But not every theoretical problem can be solved with very simple mathematics. In that case we try to increase the complexity of the math until it is able to make correct predictions. But this simplicity, part of which is demanded by Occam, may not turn out to be integral to physics either. So it is possible that the next phase of mathematical physics will have to be more complex than we have anticipated. It might even have to be more complex than anything we can formulate with today's mathematical tools.
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio
In Wolfram's New kind of science, it's only the ugly, messy automata that can be Turing complete. The others are just pretty, plain patterns or vast fields of sameness. Maybe it's important for a universe to have awkward and unbalanced physics in order to develop intelligence within it.
Wenn man die Physik in ihrem philosophischen Gehalt anschaut, sind die erwähnten erfolgreichen 'unschönen' Theorien wie Quantenmechanik, Renormierung, Störungstheorie, elliptische Bahnen usw. keinesfalls 'unschön'. Man kann, ohne auch nur das Wort Quantenphysik in den Mund zu nehmen, auf rein philosophischem Wege erkennen, dass es in der Quantenphysik Wahrscheinlichkeitsaussagen geben muss, Unbestimmtheiten, dass es nur Wege der Annäherung geben kann und keine Exaktheit, dass iterative Prozesse notwendig sind (weil die gesamte Schöpfungsgeschichte als ein großer Prozess des Ineinander-Hineinverwandelns verstanden werden kann - von der Fusion in Sternen bis hin zur Sexualität). Man muss Schönheit nur ein klein wenig anders begreifen. Zusammengeflickte Theorien (evtl. zählt dazu die Vereinigung von elektromagnetischer und schwacher Wechselwirkung) sind eher phänomenologisch beschreibend (was ja auch ohne Zweifel seinen Wert hat), aber in der Tiefe weniger erkenntnisreich. Mit der speziellen RT hatte Einstein formelmäßig nichts Neues geschaffen, wohl aber einen ganz anderen Blick auf die RaumZeit-Verhältnisse - einen philosophischen Quantensprung. Wenn man eine Theorie von Allem z.B. anstrebt, muss man sich erst mal klar werden, wie man dann die Resultate überhaupt verstehen will. Es müssen ja im Grunde alle Begriffe erklärt werden, Raum, Zeit, Masse incl., d.h. man verliert die Sprache. Anordnungsbegriffe, Verlaufsformen (Verben) sowie alle anschaulichen Begriffe sind dann tabu, weil es sonst Zirkelschlüsse gäbe. Vermutlich muss man auch eine Art Dreisprung denken lernen (so ähnlich, wie man bei Bachs Fugen versuchen kann, sämtliche Stimmen gleichzeitig zu hören), weil Raum, Zeit und Masse quasi in einem Atem aus der Taufe gehoben werden müssen. Ich fände es lohnend, sich auf diesem oder ähnlichem Wege an die Fundamente der Physik heranzutasten.
I am sure that ultimately the way in which the universe works is indeed beautiful and simple. We just have no way of knowing whether we have sufficient information about the universe for a comprehensive overview that would uncover that beauty. What we find beautiful depends on the information we have in the first place, after all. Forcing a conclusion guided by a conception of elegance derived from incomplete information is like sewing together 2 loose cuts of fabric without realising that they're supposed to make a dress. I think the main problem with physics today is that there appears to be a consensus, perhaps even stubborn insistence, among physicists that the entire science is, in its foundations, by and large close to solved, and that the only remaining work for physicists consists in the "tying up of loose ends". It is this stance in particular that guides physicists to making arguments from mathematical beauty, because once you think you have 90% of the puzzle solved, you can envision the intended picture and mathematically extrapolate where the remaining pieces have to go. The only problem is that the puzzle might not be anywhere near 90% complete: you might just be missing 90% of the pieces.
Johannes Kepler was the first to understand that planets orbit the Sun in an ellipse. But it took many years for him to let go of the notion that orbits were more aesthetically satisfying circles.
there are objects in space that don't absorb or reflect any light naturally, just a condition of forming in a huge cosmos with so much random places everywhere you visit
It is very difficult to get out of group-think. Once someone postulates an idea, your originality is gone. Very hard to hold onto your own independent ideas. The solution to this is to think that they are wrong, and see if you can come up with a contradiction or a contra positive.
Maybe I'm inconsistent with my scientific approach but the only new particle which I have hope for that it exists is the axion (expecting its existence goes too far for me, I have to admit that). Also I understand the reasoning why the higgs mass is considered too small, I think it is quite unexpected, but just because it is "surprising" you do not have to propose a gut or something similar to it. To me, we are asking the wrong questions when looking at "small" or "big" numbers. We have to resolve the cosmological constant problem etc.!
Hello Sabine, I havent delved too deep into your work so I don't know If you have addressed this before but what do you make of the SAM (structured atom model) version of the elements?
Physicists have made so many progresses based on Symmetry. I wouldn't give it up easily and build everything entirely based on a new paradigm. I'd try to build on the existing Symmetries but add or change parts like they did, e.g., with the Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.
This push for symmetry and beauty in physics reminds me of the social scientists’ strange habit of thinking that there are always three of something. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
The interesting question for me is, "how honest are scientists to each other while observing the results of the LHC experiments, do they keep secret of what they have discovered from their individual view and understanding from others, and pretend to agree with all others opinion"? we know how differently our individual view and understanding is from an observed object.
At min 05:30 it says that the real problem is bad methodology and group think. It sounds logical, but, is it? Has this conclusion been scrutinized, and agreed upon, by the general scientific community? Maybe, maybe not.
I am just a layperson but if you replace the word beauty with something like pattern then it does make sense to some extent for physicists to look for that.
Sabine, You're super. Thank you for highlighting some of the main problems facing physics today: obsession w/beauty, grant chasing, funds pouring into theories that can't be tested...
The page "Physics of the COSMOS (Book Series)" has given the following writing the thumbs up on its page. FULLY UNDERSTANDING E=MC2 AND F=MA: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is PROVEN by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time dilation ALSO proves that GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. THINK about it. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. PERFECT. It is proven. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black. By Frank DiMeglio
I like the thought that the universe keeps becoming more complicated the more we scrutinize it. This will keep us interested with problems to solve. Imagine how boring things would be if we had a simple equation that described everything perfectly all the time.
I am not a license Engineer but I have a bachelor degree in science of electrical engineering. When I was in college I ask my physic professor how he define time and he gave me an answer. I ask you the same question Ms. Hossenfelder how do you define time? I want to know if your answer is the same as my professor.
The Ugly Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics says that objects lighter than the Planck mass are governed by the Schroedinger equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, while heavier objects form a Hamiltonian system with a bit of classical Brownian motion and a Fuerth Uncertainty Principle on the same scale. These are asymptotes, it's just a rule of thumb and cannot deal with Bell's inequalities, but we get an opening for introducing a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics so we have something to investigate. If we have an electron in a potential well, the well itself is in classical Brownian motion as a dimple in a heavy object, and can decohere the wave function. The entities in our computer simulations tend to lie at either asymptote so we can use modelling which is as different as the difference between waves and Brownian motion. Not at all pretty ! I think underlying this is tachyonic Brownian motion, but TBM will be much more difficult to model while leaving us not much wiser about what is going on. It's one for the future once we have plenty of experience of modelling the Schroedinger equation (with the mass term), the Dirac equation and quantum field theory all interacting with a bit of randomness. Our computer simulations can be written in Excel VBA and we can put one in every home. Then anyone who disagrees with what is said here can modify the simulation according to their own ideas.
It is a purely mathematical theorem (and beautiful as such!) relating every continuous symmetry to a conserved quantity. So, logically, it has to apply everywhere in physics where there is a continuous symmetry: Noether's Theorem is more of a general statement than a choice in the patchwork of physics theory.
Aesthetics doesn't even enter the picture except for supersymmetrists. It is demanded by conservation of energy and ockham's razor that the 5 forces and their fields arise from one single cause. All forces, after all, arise from kinetic energy. One source, one force, one field.
Maybe, but most likely not. There is no reason to believe that the notion of "field" is not an emergent property itself, i.e. what underlies reality does not have to be a field, it could be merely something that creates an approximation of fields. We know that exact symmetry is, also most likely, not a property of nature. Symmetry is fragile. It seems to have a tendency to break. It might be possible to prove mathematically that any non-trivial physical situation (i.e. something that allows for a minimal amount of self-interaction) that starts with a perfect symmetry automatically degenerates into an effective one without.
The problem may be related to our education system as it applies to science and physics and the academic and research environments. As each science develops over time, the educational programs and curricula become increasingly occupied by what is really the history of scientific achievement, as written by the achievers. And only those that can tolerate an undergraduate and then a graduate program actually have a non-trivial chance of studying unsolved problems. It occurs to me as a response to the video that an education in physics could be a lot different. Instead of memorizing the facts of the history of scientific achievement and the solutions to problems that prove those achievements, students could be taught to start with the right basics and actually develop the theories themselves, or re-develop might be a better term before all the wonder is spoiled by the telling of the answers that their predecessors extolled. Students developing scientific theories even knowing others already found the answer would be a lot more instructive than how we do it now.
"Beauty is not the starting point but the end result of a discovery" Understanding makes beautiful what seemed only an ugly slight of the hand in the start. Complex numbers were discovered by assuming a solution to x^2 = -1 and just using it like a real number, which it definitely wasn't.
I would love to hear her opinion on Copernicus. Because he didn't actually make any prediction, he just made the theory simpler and more beautiful. The previous Ptolemaic system with its epicycles worked just fine and predicted planetary motion accurately. That's because a system of a couple of epicycles is basically a Fourier series, which can model any kind of motion. Indeed, the Copernican model was experimentally equivalent to the Ptolemaic model. To me it seems that a scientist working with the Ptolemaic model is very much in the 'shut up and calculate' camp she seems to be advocating. But surely, Copernicus brought more understanding to how things actually work, essentially by beautifying the theory.
What do you think of this talk? Leave a comment below.
To watch Sabine Hossenfelder debate the crisis of particle physics with Jim Baggott and John Ellis, visit iai.tv/video/the-mystery-of-reality?UA-cam&
She’s bold to make a stand. I appreciate a good leader who debates in a public forum.
@Edysin Simon As long as universities and other institutions join in the mob mentality of the left, nobody will stick their heads out. The leftist radicalization will deprive the highest truth from our society the same way it did to the Chinese and Soviets, and we will be forced to recruit creative outsiders from free nations. Not that anyone would want to emigrate to psychocity.
@@memyselfandi8544 What's the Left got to do with physics? It seems like researchers are running into issues of their own making.
I'm pretty excited about the Jsmes Webb Telescope, that's all I got to say about it :D
Physics is science for accountants.
Dr. Hassenfelder is a delight. She speaks directly & clearly, articulating her thoughts in a manner that can be digested by the average adult, w/o oversimplification. A+
"Hassen" means hating in German; hossen is a kind of dancing. I prefer the o in her name ;-)
Scott: I agree.
@@jacobvandijk6525 Sabine is dancing in the fields!
@@RadicalCaveman Haha, I hope for her she does. In the corn-fields or in the quantum-fields? Well, I guess basically they are the same ;-)
She is lying about physics.
She is not a genius.
Here are the facts.
THE ULTIMATE AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE FACT THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA:
Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Great !!! "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
Consider the man who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; as E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. The linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE SUN is A POINT in the night sky. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Therefore, the linked AND BALANCED opposite of what is THE EARTH is ALSO A POINT in the night sky. Great. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the Earth AND the Sun are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!!!!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA.
The EARTH and the SUN thus constitute and comprise what are the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. (The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.) INDEED, BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. Now, very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great.
NOW, OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE (AS WATER). GREAT. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as this unifies AND balances gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This clearly explains BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY !!!) ACCORDINGLY, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, the BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma.
Our EXPERIENCE is NECESSARILY that of what is the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE, AS we are BALANCED between what are THE SUN AND c (A POINT); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. SO, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent WITH/as F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mc2 IS F=ma. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY does make perfect sense. THINK about what is QUANTUM GRAVITY.
"Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution !!! Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravitational force/ENERGY is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Magnificent !!!
E=mc2 IS F=ma. Is a two dimensional surface or SPACE visible or invisible ? The answer is that it is BOTH. So, the electron AND photon are structureless. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to E=mc2 AS F=ma. A PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) is a balanced MIDDLE DISTANCE form in relation to the Sun AND c (A POINT). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=MA. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. E=MC2 IS F=MA. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
The BALANCE of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) It is a very great truth that THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. Beautiful. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma.
By Frank DiMeglio
Very clear and informative. Thanks! It reminds me of a famous quote from Richard Feynman, '“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are or how many letters you have after your name. If your theory doesn’t agree with the results of the experiments, it’s wrong.”
Why im asking how can something darker or black be beautiful
What about if the "beautiful" theory cannot even be tested ??
Also Bertrand Russell: "Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts"
and Carl Sagan: "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition"
I've noted before that I'm an architect not a physicist. However, the conventional attribution of beauty in architecture seems to suffer from the same issue as in physics in that it is construed classically in terms of simple one-point or two-point perspective, Platonic solids, symmetry, progressive proportionality or angular proportionality among others. These are the findings of classical times and art and architecture since have found a much wider and more sophisticated range of systems or arrangements of systems that are pleasing: multiple vanishing points, parallax, syncopation, balanced asymmetry, seriality, left or right ascendency. The issue here is that they work and are consequently, a posteriori, pleasing. They do not ascribe to an a priori condition that they must be beautiful. Thank you again for a stimulating talk.
I really enjoyed this talk. it reminds me of my graduate school experiences. I entered a Physics grad school program in 1980 and noticed the same thing. Tragically the mathematicians led all of the theoretical fields and they did not communicate well with the experimentalists. The result was that many of my brightest friends wasted their time on pointless failed theories instead of asking the experimentalists what was missing. I hope that the younger Physicist out there learn from what she is saying.
I've got to say that as one who would dearly love beauty to be an effective method in science, Dr. Hossenfelder makes a compelling case for dialing back our confidence in it.
Already quite many years ago I was in the audience of a conference where someone was talking about the (non-)results of looking for supersymmetric particles wrt to dark matter. I had the audacity to ask when they would realise that this is going nowhere and would simply stop looking. Of course, the answer was that they still have a few ideas about what masses they should be looking for.
She must be like a rock in the shoe for many physicists. I think she is refreshing :)
Same. It's been interesting to find out how much of what I assumed and believed about physics is bogus.
The gaggle of professional students turned generously employed research physicists at CERN and other publicly underwritten institutions are horrified someone like her would expose the racket.
I do not agree. I find her argues "light" at best!
@@gkopeliadis I think Hossenfelder can make blunt statements that might be oversimplified, but her scientific work that I've seen looks pretty rigorous, although I confess to a severe lack of knowledge to be able to evaluate it.
Now, the problem with these kinds of videos is that they only propagate one valid viewpoint. Basically, what she is saying, and apparantly what many lay people are happily willing to believe, is that the greater part of all (theoretical) physicists went astray some time within the last 100 years. Obviously, this is a bold claim. So much so that I can understand those who find it to be bordering on arrogance. You see, I believe that she is smart enough to gauge the effect of her words in advance which implies that the wording and message of her statement are calculatedly provoking and scandalous. While this is THE way to go if you want yourself to be popular with the public it is not at all the way to open up a targeted discussion among scientific community. There are other people in science that are incredibly smart too and do not share her opinion. Go and check out their content as well before you settle for a viewpoint.
Also, I personally dislike her influencing strategy in rhetoric. By this I mean, for example, the way she glosses over "some advances we (barely) managed to achieve (by the way, who is that "WE" she is talking about) within the last century" right in the beginning, deliberately belittling their meaning and relevance just to set the scene for a rant and to assume a pseudo-balanced stance that would make her less vulnerable to critiques like mine.
"Beauty being the endpoint" is exactly the thought I was having as you were evolving your discussion professor. No reason that the fundamental nature of reality shouldn't be elegant and simple. However, as you say, looks like the physicists have it the wrong way around in not first looking for problems of inconsistency to solve. Guess we have to wait for another Einstein to come along, and appears that we are far from the next lower level of description. At least Astronomy is making a lot of progress, by doing actual observations. And what seems more exciting to me is seeing the explosion in Biology, since the 'Human Genome Project' - which has brought us all the wonders of the inner universe and workings of the cell, CRISPR tech, and the latest vaccines.
Though pseudoscientific, here is some food for thought:
If even calculus has no chance of precisely describing the trajectory of even a double pendulum, then how could it help in formulating a theory on the whole universe?
The whole theory dilemma resides on the fact that calculus is an abstract data compression, and were it dropped, we'd have to take in account possibly uncoountably many irreducible/incompressible information.
And at that point, it would be time for theoretical computer science to decide wether that is possible at all.
@@Wabbelpaddel I only got as far as adding up infinite numbers of little rectangles (well, maybe a little further), which I thought was valid and
p r e t t y cool. So I'm a little 'pseudo-confused' with your point. Lol. However, if I'm generally familiar with your conjectures then consider this: If Unpredictability is inherently baked in; then emergence, complexity, and possibility are infinitely probable. That is the super cool thing I take from my amateur studies of intracellular molecular biology, abiogenesis, and chemical (as distinct from, and preceding, Darwinian) evolution. Inner Biology really destroys the classical conjectures of reductionism and clockwork nature in physics, which is why I think the next great physicist will probably have a multi-disciplinary background. On current explorations in physics, to mention a favorite movie quote: "It just seems too heartless." Once again, by looking inside the evolved 'planet' of a cell, and it's bio-informational and structural/functional Systems - with feedback loops between Information and Material Structure which defy 'the chicken and the egg' - a self-codifying and self-constructing computer - software and hardware indistinguishable - this tells one that the Universe will always be the first Inventor, the primary Instructor, and the One source of novel new Wonders of which we can barely yet Imagine.
"No reason that the fundamental nature of reality shouldn't be elegant and simple." True.
No reason that the fundamental nature of reality SHOULD be elegant and simple. Also true.
I agree with her - there is no reason physical theories shouldn't be ugly from the standpoint of human beings. Who are we to dicatate how the universe behaves? It does what it does.
While I agree with what she is arguing, she does a horrible job of arguing it. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the history of science knows she is lying though her teeth. The best example would be that *every* conservation law has been discovered by an "argument from beauty." When(if) we discover something more fundamental than our current models, it will be, as a mathematical fact, more "beautiful;" that is just a mathematic property of emergent behavior and every law of physics has to follow it until we reach truly fundamental laws of physics.
I very much agree with her that theoretical physicist are getting too attached to their models and a disproportionate amount of funding is going to trying to prove these grand theories instead of focusing in on where our current best models disagree.
@@amirabudubai2279 And on what basis do you believe the fundamentals must be beautiful?
@@SoundsSilver As I said, the truly fundamental laws don't have to. Everything else will follow patterns as a result of what math is. You can take any set of nonconflicting axioms(laws) and build a system of math on top of it.
@@amirabudubai2279 That wasn’t particularly clear given the last sentence of your first paragraph.
What a beautiful explanation! Seriously, you are a breath of fresh air on the topic of misplaced beliefs in physics.
We need a Hossenfelder Award for Explaining Hard Stuff
She's not a genius.
She is political. She is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics. Here are the facts. Here is the proof.
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
Beauty is not an objective quality of the admired, beauty is a subjective prejudice of the admirers. Being aware of one's own prejudice is difficult; consequently many physicists have a very hard time recognizing their misconception.
The same can be said on religious dogmas.
First you believe what fits best to your narrative and then you try to convince and prove the truth to yourself and everybody.
It takes a Sabine to say" The Emperor has no clothes on"
Excellent presentation. A search for beauty may be wrong but what other choice have we? We need more observations!
“Bad methodology and group think.”
Pretty much describes our sociopolitical situation as well.
In politics, it is not only group think, but also symbols instead of actions (yes to believe that this is enough is also group think). Things like, science and economics have to compromise on a topic (covid, climate, fisheries, etc.), are ludicrous.
@@AvatarOfBhaal - The whole point of democracy, political freedoms and human rights is, at least largely, to avoid groupthink, which is characteristic of dictatorships and oligarchic forms of government. Feedback is important even if it challenges authority (or should I say rather: especially when it challenges authority?)
I think part of the problem is also that in school and university when fiddling with math and theory you learn that when your formulas are getting too complex, they're probably wrong - to a degree where you inherently think something must be wrong just because it is complex. That is a reflex only of limited usefulness.
Spot on
The drive to simplify complexity is a natural drive of self-preservation, if something is too complex it is becoming more difficult to control. A theory too complex will be less popular as being less accessible.
However one need to keep in mind that the "simple" sometimes hides complexity.
Once you have the root square of -1 admitted, the 3rd degree polynomial equations become almost "trivial" ... one only can look and weep when reading old texts on the subject. However this "simplicity" comes at a price: the road of transition from real analysis to the complex one is NOT trivial.
Also, the complexity is sometimes the sign that the wrong side was chose to get around the forest, but nevertheless it may still lead to a valid conclusion. Very frequently the "elegant" solution becomes only obvious once somebody slogged the hard way through ...
I see a lecture by Sabine Hossenfelder, I click. Easy as that.
Ah, an argument based on beauty. A fellow physics enthusiast, I see.
She's a clown and a political worm.
@@frankdimeglio8216 Let me guess, a physicist who believes in god and an esoteric "ordering" in physical processes?
@@Wabbelpaddel Mathematics Professionals (with 7,488 likes) has now given the following writing the thumbs up on their page:
The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO:
The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.
Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams.
OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water).
F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 I see, thank you.
Good read so far, very interesting. I'll get in depth into the article and re-evaluate my standpoint.
As for the meta-theory of physics and computability:
I believe in an algebraic and category-theoretical approach which can be transformed to the analytic case (general relativity) yet supports a quantized description of fundamental forces via homological group complexes.
There is a link between type theory, computability theory and this algebraic approach which may deliver a powerful approach for existential statements.
Also, like Landau symbols, we need classifications of complexities and severity of computability, on which I am working by linking group theory with modal logic and category theory.
Which in turn could lead to traces of the P-NP problem and maybe finally deliver an answer as to when and how an analytic solution can be interchanged with discrete solutions.
The issue with this approach?
It is extremely complex.
I love Dr. Hossenfelder. Definitely my favorite lecturer. Her science without the gobblegook is fantastic
Her books the same😊
It may be that when some of these questions are answered the answers will then appear beautiful but only from the future looking backwards.
@Dan Campbell To be fair ,I've heard Sabine say she doesn't have a problem with Wolfram, Lisi, or even Eric Weinstein pursuing their respective theories. She just has a problem with these theories being institutionalized and wasting inordinate amounts of money and brain power.
@Dan Campbell I don't think the argument is that beautiful theories shouldn't be funded either, only that beauty alone is not evidence that a theory is worth pursuing or funding.
@Dan Campbell Totally agreed. She's definitely harsh and dismissive. I think we're on the same page.
Ah, the beauty of slightly outcentered ellipses! Ah, the beauty of the irrationality of Pi!
The ghosts of thousands of ancient mathematicians and philosophers rise up against this modern reevaluation of beauty.
Ghosts are ugly, also dead.
@Dan Campbell - Did she even mention Wolfram at all. In her channel she did (briefly), search for "Do we need a Theory of Everything?" and had no qualms because Wolfram's team is working on very humble budgets and rather private kind of endeavor. She's fine with that, she's clearly more concerned about wasting too much money/resources on testing speculations that have no basis other than "popularity" (in academic circles), for example she's against wasting EU's resources in a larger particle accelerator just to further test the (very clearly weakened) Superstring Theory's always elusive "predictions".
I would say that the logic applying here is: (1) get a sound theory that actually makes sense regardless of "beauty", (2) make predictions that can be tested without going sci-fi, (3) get positive results from such predictions, (4) get funding for further experimentation then and only then.
I'm not Physicist......by a looong shot but I've always been attracted to that subject and those who have lighted our path....My goal is not to understand in detail ....but in general advance my vision guided by those who do understand it, and try to follow as much as I can grasp with my limited means....
Thank you for your wonderful lectures. A suggestion : Why do you often find a way to talk about the cost of experimentation, without including the associated benefits? I am thinking of the repercussions in cultural terms (teams made up of scientists from all backgrounds), medical (MRI, PET ...), technological (electronics, WEB ...), ...
There’s very little benefit in terms of useful discoveries that translate to commercial technology from smashing protons together at higher and higher energies...... but there’s always the argument government sending stimulates the economy and generates secondary and so on, economic spending.... I’d argue paying the folks COVID-19 unemployment like what is being done, benifits a lot more people and “culture” than ten thousand absurdly paid scientists and construction workers building a $20 billion dollar collider that discovered essentially nothing outside of confirming something that had to exist.
There is already a serious campaign by the same people proved wrong by the large Hadron collider debacle, to build a bigger and more powerful successor at again, even more absurd cost. It’s fine by me if that’s what these folks want to do, but at least let’s be honest like Ms Sabine H.
Certainly does seem that some rebuilding of the foundation is in order. We'll have to go back a bit - in order to go forward again. We can do it; afterall - I am going thru time @ the speed of sound.
One's sense of beauty should be guided by what functions in reality. The thing that works best is most beautiful. That is the function an assessment of beauty approximates in the first place. It's a coarse assessment of fitness.
Just bought your book, doctor. Thanks for the great videos!
Thanks to Dr. Sabine for her clearness and courage
Fantastic talk. Thank you.
Ms. Hossenfelder, I do my calculations (mostly geometric) with the possible motions permitted by the vertices of our human body (ankles, knees, hips, etc.). To create a motion rhythm I start with the axiom of bilateral equality. I always find beauty when I finally correctly accommodate the body motions. Beauty never escapes the symmetry in geometry. So for me, beauty always works.
Always a pleasure to hear what you have to say, doc. Please, don't stop!
Excellent talk.
Another wonderful talk. It reinforces the idea that reality is not pretty. In that, not much has changed since Aristotle and the eternal issue of Saving the Phenomena. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, nature does not respond to how we want it to behave; rather our ideas of reality needs to correspond to what is experienced.
Math can be beautiful, because math is an art and a science. Physics is an experimental science. It does not require beauty, or elegance, only results.
You are Wrong. We also have theoretical physics which requires more creativity then maths, but people only see it as a maths problem
@@jaysalbhatt2501 Physics at its most fundamental is, and always will be an experimental science. There is no theoretical and experimental physics; they are the same thing. It doesn't matter how pretty or creative your theory is. If it doesn't fit the data, its bunk.
As someone who has a degree in both math and physics, and is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in physics, hearing you say theoretical physics requires more creativity than maths makes me think you lack experience in either.
@@CheeseAndCrackers404 I'm talking about thought process here. You don't just completely bunk something just cause it doesn't meet with experiments. The way that we slowly improve imperfect theories lets us tackle huge, tough problems. And when we do have to update our understanding, it certainly doesn’t mean we have to throw out the old ones. [information] that is somewhat wrong can be enormously useful for changing the thought process in a certain field.
Thank you for this perspective on physics. The slide at 24:00 sums up the video. Current theoretical physics seems to be another unchallenged bureaucracy wasting money and resources.
Only a minor sum of money is spent on theoretical physics. Vastly more money is spent on failed military projects, or failed experiments like the superconducting supercollider.
A very nicely and well argued discussion. I tend to agree with Sabine. Reality IS what Reality shows. We just need to put our best and most inquisitive people on the job. Spending money on Physics and Mathematics always produces useful and profitable understandings. Now I am a firm believer in God. The work is to discover and use these discoveries for the benefit of all people and all living creatures. Humans are the temporary stewards and servants of this Universe and any preconceptions about God or beauty or whatever need to be left at the doorstep before we ponder Reality. Do the mathematical and theoretical work to find out the parameters and workings of our Universe. Then go out of the work environment and ponder and meditate and consider the nature of God if you wish. I don’t think God will be offended. This is the Age of the Scientific Method and we require the truth about everything, no matter how ugly we or it may be.
I’m an atheist but I agree with your formulation
What I like is her open minded thinking in both directions, theist and atheist. She makes clear in her book 'Existential Physics'
The problem is the "cool kids" aren't the ones thinking outside the box. See Wojciech Zureck's derivation of PROBABILITY and the Born rule from 2 assumptions: 1. Unitarity, 2. Repeatability. This resolves one of her primary issues with Quantum measurement Quantum darwinism resolves another. A new approach to the gravity QM issue has been proposed, by taking a very close look at complex analysis and the details of the mathematics of the Feynman diagram and realizing that the sum of two objects that are NOT analytical can be analytical...and that a PHYSICAL (but off shell) term has been omitted from our calculations all these years this lets you smuggle gravity into the standard model without giving up renormalization or unitarity. See the papers and talks on "fakons" (by Damiano Anselmi) which are different than the old idea of ghost particles. This idea just extends the Feynman rules in a way that's NOT BEAUTIFUL...so Sabine should love it. Also it creates a small time windo of indeterminacy that's pretty consistent with QM Darwinism.
Great. Always and everywhere. And the proposal should be a general law. Thank you.
Thanks for the topic. I hope people listen. Some people just can't be convinced the world is not flat.
Great talk.
She Blinded Me With Science!
With all due respect it isn't just a question of "pretty". The direction of physics since, say, the 18th century has been toward explanations that include and codify seemingly disparate phenomena into a more unified explanation. Take Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism...before its acceptance static electric charges, moving electric charges, magnetic fields in coils, in ferromagnetic materials , etc was just a zoo of disparate phenomena. Maxwell brought it all under the umbrella of his equations that not only "explained" electric/magnetic phenomena but also brought light and optics into the fold as wave solutions to his equations. Maxwell did not explain everything (most notably the frequency distribution of black-body radiation) but it was an enormous improvement. Non-relativistic quantum mechanics and then the quantization of the electromagnetic field pushed understanding even further, general relativity unified space and time. The desire to unify the known forces derives from what physics understands as "understanding"...based on centuries of real progress...physics being able to effect solid advances incrementally without knowing everything completely and perfectly. In fact even Maxwell's classical equations are not "pretty" enough for some because they do not predict the magnetic monopole that "ought" to be there to make his equations nice and symmetric. This pushing to ever greater unification and generalization has paid off tremendously for about 250 years...so far so good and not to be abandoned without a fight.
Essentially I think Sabine is right. Beauty emerged from solved questions about nature, but was not the origin of a solution/theory. The realm of beauty is the one of mathematics and thus ideas. The question why math works so well to describe physics is also an interesting one in my view and might be a reason why physicists (especially theoretical ones) love beauty as a fruitful way to start looking at solutions. Also, the realm of physics is getting so far from our human experience (senses), either small or large scales) that we have less and less chance to get reliable real experiments (and thus data) in the years to come. Leonard Susskind even said so in a recent interview. We are thus left with metaphysical arguments or philosophies or belief systems which are by definition human-centric and not necessarily representative of how nature works.
The problem with that is they're veering back towards how people were using myths and religion to describe and understand the world.
@@CAThompson partly yes, but they do it unconsciously or not openly. To put in question 100 years of successful development in technology is hard, despite the fact that science is stuck since about the 1950s. When I was doing physics in the 80s people were so excited about strings and supersymetry.. still nothing except beautiful ideas and maths. So as I said, we are driven to philosophy and I think it is not a bad thing, anyway we are stuck with experiments and for a long time.
@@tixch2000 Maybe physicists need to do the equivalent of stepping out of the lab and taking a break, to see if fresh insights and ideas may come. I imagine it would be quite hard to make breakthroughs working on decades-old problems. Not to say no progress is
being made at all. I'm no scientist; I'm following Dr. Hossenfelder because one of the first videos I watched of hers was a critique of particle physics' lack of progress and I've become more interested in physics since.
@@tixch2000 I've been interested in aspects of physics such as Chaos Theory, String Theory, astrophysics etc. for years and it's been disconcerting to find that what I thought I knew wasn't quite so. The good news is we're aware of this now. It's interesting to step into a space where stale ideas are being challenged to make way for fresh discoveries.
@@CAThompson agree. Physics needs fresh air...
The Periodic Table was messy at first, and now it is orderly and very useful, so I have the same hope for physics, which is more tattered at the edges then the center (which is understandable).
My father was a math natural, was an engineer before he realized his destiny was as a physician..... he told me essentially the same thing she is saying 40 years ago.
This was wonderful. As a geneticist - while there are numerous beautiful biological systems and mechanisms, but most of biology is really messy. Totally agree on the approach of solving real problems - perhaps the best hypothesis will be beautiful - perhaps messy.
As an outsider I like Sabine for her clarity in describing difficult concepts that I can grasp, she admits to being a contrarian which I also like because she question’s the path physics seems to be taking.
You like contrarianism because you think that it saves you from having to get an education that would require you to read tens of thousands of pages of textbooks. That's called intellectual laziness, kid.
@@schmetterling4477 At 70 its rather nice to be referred to as a kid, I’m a retired blacksmith who loved his craft, as an amateur astronomer I love nothing better than to read many articles in the world of physics albeit in the popular format, however I was always taught to question everything as nothing is written in stone, things can change as we probe ever deeper.
This addresses my belief (from an amateur) that nothing really changed in particle physics ince the '70s. I expected the periodic table to be completed in some form, and that happened, but there was nothing for use, just ever shorter half lives and fewer actual particles.
Things look like they have specific limits and beyond that none of the old rules apply. Black holes and gravity come to mind.
Refreshingly objective, thanks.
David Deutsch discovered what needed to change in the foundations of physics was the prevailing mode of explanations that theoretical physics has followed since Newton. In order to unify the theory of computation with the whole of physics, and so create a constructor theory that generalizes the former to be the theory of which physical transformations are possible and which aren't (instead of merely having a theory of which functions are computable and which aren't), what was needed was to relinquish the prevailing conception (a principle) that the laws of physics are expressed in terms that posit an initial state and the laws of motions that determine it's dynamical evolution. He's done this and introduced a new mode of explanations, and constructor theory already has produced results in the theory of information and thermodynamics
Beautiful! Oh, wait... LOL Anyway, I agree with Sabine...
It seems to me that maybe there indeed is an ultimate beautiful theory of everything. Who knows? But, if there is, it does not necessarily follow that following 'beauty' is the best way to get there. It may be that the best way to discover it is to follow the inconsistencies, no matter how ugly the results may seem at the time.
An analogy might be the difference between travelling to stars directly (the beautiful way, long scenic route) or taking a wormhole (I know, not proven, but go with it) which may get you to where you want to be quicker. Just my thoughts...
How do you solve a mystery of any sort? Follow the clues, no matter where they may lead. Don't make up clues that seem to fit what your presuppositions are...
Thank you very informative to say the least.
Very interesting summation of the situation physics finds itself.
Also congratulation on your presentation style.
I have followed you since the Perimeter Institute days through your own UA-cam channel and your style is clear and concise.
I look forward to future presentations.
Why didn't Dr. Hossenfelder mention String Theory? Is that not the classic example of a beautiful solution chasing a problem?
String theory is not a very scientific idea and she's not a fan.
This video is a good summary of many of her views but she can't cover everything in a short video. She discusses string theory at more length in her book, "Lost in Math". Which I just finished yesterday - yeah, I'm behind in my physics reading. As M. le Viscount mentions below, she doesn't seem to be a fan.
Makes me thing there is a lot of not yet answered questions. Along with that recent news of the decay discrepancy from the LHC.
I would have to listen to this three times to get a better feel for it.
After a second viewing I'm obliged to admit this is absolutely brilliant. Honest and convincingly delivered. But then again, I'm smashed. But not enough to think I won't be watching again.
Wonderful! As always…
This is the most courageous and by far the most informative physics video I have ever watched. Great thanks to Mrs. Sabine Hossenfelder.
Should I refer to you as “Mr.” van der Hoog? Why refer to “Mrs.”Hossenfelder when the marital status is irrelevant and is why Ms has replaced Miss and Mrs. As more enlightened people understand, women are not mere secondary byproducts of the patriarchy. Social norms don’t evolve any more quickly than does understanding in many fields of human endeavor.
@@janetbratter1 That's why I refer to and address her as Dr Hossenfelder when discussing physics - the distinction I'm dealing with is: formidable scientist.
@@janetbratter1 what do you think about the actual content of his comment - assuming they're male etc.. ? :)
@@CAThompson WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@CAThompson Hossenfelder is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics. She is political.
On min 09:30 Ms. Hossenfelder is actually saying that the search for beauty can get to be like almost metaphysical. I think that the search for beauty is really our best tool for our sapiens logical reasoning. We just need to find the symmetry, where beauty is hiding.
She talked about an abstract mathematical term of beauty, not in the sense of normal life. She explains it better in her book.
Not trying to be controversial, but I wonder if trying to get the cosmos to fit into our pre-conceived theoretical and hypothetical maths equations and incomplete models (that don't always seem to fully fit and work conclusively... without some further additional tweaks, manipulation and modifications)
Is this the best scientific approach and pathway? After all the cosmos is an ongoing construct and manifestation of the all the interactive/reactive/recycling processes going on within it. So perhaps rather than trap ourselves, would it not be also now equally valid to step back and outside these confines and just recheck, review and see if there might be other physical science processes and solutions that might better match and fit observations and data?
As although the notions and additions of dark energy and matter and black holes only seems to show and imply that we might have missed or miss-understood or overlooked relevant data and research or haven't fully grasped the nature or potential of some or all of the physical, electromagnetic and elemental forces at play?
So perhaps an interesting question or questions would and might be...If there was no general or super relativity theories, black holes, dark energy and matter (and unresolved gravity) ...What else might equally or better explain what we see and what is happening?
That said... I am sure the scientific community are already investigating other alternative explanations but it seems the mainstream media does not fully present this...except to occasionally bang on about a crisis in science....where in reality is never a crisis! As science is only a rational/logical and proof driven process and pursuit that tries to establish and confirm truth and understanding from both facts and our man made fiction.
how about the difference between the predicted cosmological constant (10*128) and the observed value (very close to zero).
Recently I was involved in a discussion with an engineer who maintained that the first law of thermodynamics requires that the universe was created. I responded that there is no evidence of a point in time at which the energy of the universe did not exist. In fact, given that time and space are not orthogonal - the concept of "before the universe" is inherently meaningless. I was therefore very interested to hear you pose the question "How did the universe begin?".
Was I incorrect in my suggestion? I'm a mathematical geophysicist - so this sort of discussion is not one I can really claim expertise in.
I wonder if the search for beauty, symmetry and simplicity might partly be a subconscious inheritance of the monotheistic cultures. Think, for instance, of the mediaeval idea that everything in the heavens could not be anything other than perfect.
It's also present in ancient Greek thinking so it's unlikely
Why “unlikely”? It’s not as if Martin is denying the ultimate origins of the concept which obviously transcend both medieval and Greek architecture (and long before as well).
@@janetbratter1 it's unlikely that is comes from monotheistic cultures, as it also appeared in a polytheistic culture
Maybe it's likely an inherent human instinct that will ultimately doom us to fail the task.
First of all, it's time to conquer the complexity of the brain to commence transhumanism.
After that may come any possible solution.
@@pedrolmlkzk : You are right. However: the keyword for me here is subconscious. I believe that a subconscious desire for symmetry can lead scientists to favor a symmetrical looking theory over a more messy looking one and that this has consequences in choosing the direction of research, deciding on funding etcetera. Fortunately, we have the scientific method to help us overcome such prejudice and ultimately arrive at the best theory.
As a layperson, I see Dr. Hossenfelder keep on pursuing - with many reasons, in my humble opinion - her effort at raising discussion amongst her colleagues on fundamental, epistemological issues. As a reader of 'Lost in Math', I already knew the author's objections to the current scientific methodology. Nonetheless, as much as I appreciate her - along with other smartest people like Jim Baggot, Lee Smolin and many others with similar ideas - I can't help but wonder how can it be that so many other brilliant physicists and Ph.D. students around the world are still enthusiastically devoted to, for example, the umpteenth development of some esoteric supersymmetric string theory. No news, of course: I'm well aware of that sort of spell for which generations of physicists thoroughly avoided arguing about the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of QM. Just a human, all too human business? Or, can any deeper reason for such different approaches to the problem exist, other than some kind of 'narrow-mindedness'?
For the same reasons people follow religions, I guess - it's what they've been taught, they've been convinced of it and it's comforting to believe in, maybe.
hm....well, I'm only a mathematician and I didn't do well in physics. But I wanna share my conclusion from this video (I liked it and I think I understand what Sabine's getting at):
unsupported physics is just math for a different universe and that universe, however real it might somehow be "somewhere out there", can find that universe's physics to be pretty on its own (or we can goggle at it if we really want to, but we should be honest to ourselves and each other and just call it "artistically minded mathematicians").
We should focus our physics-appreciation on our own universe's physics, no else where.
That doesn't mean physics CANT be pretty (the stuff we have is quite good, no?), but Sabine's point (I'm guessing, though I'd love to hear other's thoughts) is you shouldn't look for beauty as a sign of realness because "you can never guess what's real, and anything that's real and thus sharable, will always be more beautiful then anything in our imagination". After-all, how much "bigger", "grand" and "beautiful" (not that I would know all that well) would it be if it takes a multitude to fully appreciate it?
She is my hero
This is the best lecture by Sabine Hossenfelder that I have seen. In my opinion it is brilliant.
She has convinced me that mathematical beauty may be entirely irrelevant to physics.
But the mathematics used in physics, in addition to being potentially beautiful, also is potentially simple.
Occam's Razor only speaks when we have two candidate theories that both could work.
In that case we are urged to use the simpler of the two.
But not every theoretical problem can be solved with very simple mathematics.
In that case we try to increase the complexity of the math until it is able to make correct predictions.
But this simplicity, part of which is demanded by Occam, may not turn out to be integral to physics either.
So it is possible that the next phase of mathematical physics will have to be more complex than we have anticipated.
It might even have to be more complex than anything we can formulate with today's mathematical tools.
Ah. Beauty has led many men astray.
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY:
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.)
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!!
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!!
The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand.
By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 how is E=mc2 derived from F=ma? You said it over and over but you didn’t say how.
@@JRichardson711 He’s a crackpot
In Wolfram's New kind of science, it's only the ugly, messy automata that can be Turing complete. The others are just pretty, plain patterns or vast fields of sameness.
Maybe it's important for a universe to have awkward and unbalanced physics in order to develop intelligence within it.
Wenn man die Physik in ihrem philosophischen Gehalt anschaut, sind die erwähnten erfolgreichen 'unschönen' Theorien wie Quantenmechanik, Renormierung, Störungstheorie, elliptische Bahnen usw. keinesfalls 'unschön'. Man kann, ohne auch nur das Wort Quantenphysik in den Mund zu nehmen, auf rein philosophischem Wege erkennen, dass es in der Quantenphysik Wahrscheinlichkeitsaussagen geben muss, Unbestimmtheiten, dass es nur Wege der Annäherung geben kann und keine Exaktheit, dass iterative Prozesse notwendig sind (weil die gesamte Schöpfungsgeschichte als ein großer Prozess des Ineinander-Hineinverwandelns verstanden werden kann - von der Fusion in Sternen bis hin zur Sexualität). Man muss Schönheit nur ein klein wenig anders begreifen. Zusammengeflickte Theorien (evtl. zählt dazu die Vereinigung von elektromagnetischer und schwacher Wechselwirkung) sind eher phänomenologisch beschreibend (was ja auch ohne Zweifel seinen Wert hat), aber in der Tiefe weniger erkenntnisreich. Mit der speziellen RT hatte Einstein formelmäßig nichts Neues geschaffen, wohl aber einen ganz anderen Blick auf die RaumZeit-Verhältnisse - einen philosophischen Quantensprung.
Wenn man eine Theorie von Allem z.B. anstrebt, muss man sich erst mal klar werden, wie man dann die Resultate überhaupt verstehen will. Es müssen ja im Grunde alle Begriffe erklärt werden, Raum, Zeit, Masse incl., d.h. man verliert die Sprache. Anordnungsbegriffe, Verlaufsformen (Verben) sowie alle anschaulichen Begriffe sind dann tabu, weil es sonst Zirkelschlüsse gäbe. Vermutlich muss man auch eine Art Dreisprung denken lernen (so ähnlich, wie man bei Bachs Fugen versuchen kann, sämtliche Stimmen gleichzeitig zu hören), weil Raum, Zeit und Masse quasi in einem Atem aus der Taufe gehoben werden müssen. Ich fände es lohnend, sich auf diesem oder ähnlichem Wege an die Fundamente der Physik heranzutasten.
22:33 someone drew Douglas Adams infront of a chalkboard writing the answer 42 ^^
I am sure that ultimately the way in which the universe works is indeed beautiful and simple. We just have no way of knowing whether we have sufficient information about the universe for a comprehensive overview that would uncover that beauty.
What we find beautiful depends on the information we have in the first place, after all.
Forcing a conclusion guided by a conception of elegance derived from incomplete information is like sewing together 2 loose cuts of fabric without realising that they're supposed to make a dress.
I think the main problem with physics today is that there appears to be a consensus, perhaps even stubborn insistence, among physicists that the entire science is, in its foundations, by and large close to solved, and that the only remaining work for physicists consists in the "tying up of loose ends".
It is this stance in particular that guides physicists to making arguments from mathematical beauty, because once you think you have 90% of the puzzle solved, you can envision the intended picture and mathematically extrapolate where the remaining pieces have to go. The only problem is that the puzzle might not be anywhere near 90% complete: you might just be missing 90% of the pieces.
Johannes Kepler was the first to understand that planets orbit the Sun in an ellipse. But it took many years for him to let go of the notion that orbits were more aesthetically satisfying circles.
there are objects in space that don't absorb or reflect any light naturally, just a condition of forming in a huge cosmos with so much random places everywhere you visit
It is very difficult to get out of group-think. Once someone postulates an idea, your originality is gone. Very hard to hold onto your own independent ideas. The solution to this is to think that they are wrong, and see if you can come up with a contradiction or a contra positive.
Maybe I'm inconsistent with my scientific approach but the only new particle which I have hope for that it exists is the axion (expecting its existence goes too far for me, I have to admit that).
Also I understand the reasoning why the higgs mass is considered too small, I think it is quite unexpected, but just because it is "surprising" you do not have to propose a gut or something similar to it. To me, we are asking the wrong questions when looking at "small" or "big" numbers. We have to resolve the cosmological constant problem etc.!
Hi iai, need to know the opinion of people in Sabine Face Book, she deserve more credit about the talks, all the best.
Hello Sabine, I havent delved too deep into your work so I don't know If you have addressed this before but what do you make of the SAM (structured atom model) version of the elements?
Physicists have made so many progresses based on Symmetry. I wouldn't give it up easily and build everything entirely based on a new paradigm. I'd try to build on the existing Symmetries but add or change parts like they did, e.g., with the Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.
This push for symmetry and beauty in physics reminds me of the social scientists’ strange habit of thinking that there are always three of something. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
The interesting question for me is, "how honest are scientists to each other while observing the results of the LHC experiments, do they keep secret of what they have discovered from their individual view and understanding from others, and pretend to agree with all others opinion"?
we know how differently our individual view and understanding is from an observed object.
At min 05:30 it says that the real problem is bad methodology and group think. It sounds logical, but, is it? Has this conclusion been scrutinized, and agreed upon, by the general scientific community? Maybe, maybe not.
Yes. You mind the data that represent and predict reality/observation, let artists mind beauty!
I am just a layperson but if you replace the word beauty with something like pattern then it does make sense to some extent for physicists to look for that.
That's more or less a digest of Dr. Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Maths" :) A good read.
Sabine, You're super. Thank you for highlighting some of the main problems facing physics today: obsession w/beauty, grant chasing, funds pouring into theories that can't be tested...
The page "Physics of the COSMOS (Book Series)" has given the following writing the thumbs up on its page.
FULLY UNDERSTANDING E=MC2 AND F=MA:
E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is PROVEN by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time dilation ALSO proves that GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. THINK about it.
ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY GRAVITY.
ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. PERFECT. It is proven. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great.
Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black.
By Frank DiMeglio
Big fan of Sabine.
Excellent video !
I like the thought that the universe keeps becoming more complicated the more we scrutinize it.
This will keep us interested with problems to solve.
Imagine how boring things would be if we had a simple equation that described everything perfectly all the time.
I am not a license Engineer but I have a bachelor degree in science of electrical engineering. When I was in college I ask my physic professor how he define time and he gave me an answer. I ask you the same question Ms. Hossenfelder how do you define time? I want to know if your answer is the same as my professor.
I think the increasing difficulty is a major part of the problem. Much like Moore's Law; a slowdown was inevitable.
What about Kepler’s 1st law, did I miss something? It’s a great and important video and all but that was weird.
19:00 it turned out to be beautiful mathematical art
The Ugly Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics says that objects lighter than the Planck mass are governed by the Schroedinger equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, while heavier objects form a Hamiltonian system with a bit of classical Brownian motion and a Fuerth Uncertainty Principle on the same scale. These are asymptotes, it's just a rule of thumb and cannot deal with Bell's inequalities, but we get an opening for introducing a random number generator into a computer simulation of quantum mechanics so we have something to investigate. If we have an electron in a potential well, the well itself is in classical Brownian motion as a dimple in a heavy object, and can decohere the wave function. The entities in our computer simulations tend to lie at either asymptote so we can use modelling which is as different as the difference between waves and Brownian motion. Not at all pretty !
I think underlying this is tachyonic Brownian motion, but TBM will be much more difficult to model while leaving us not much wiser about what is going on. It's one for the future once we have plenty of experience of modelling the Schroedinger equation (with the mass term), the Dirac equation and quantum field theory all interacting with a bit of randomness. Our computer simulations can be written in Excel VBA and we can put one in every home. Then anyone who disagrees with what is said here can modify the simulation according to their own ideas.
Physics may not pretty but, I still like it. Nice presentation.
Would you consider Noether's Theorem beautiful? That's a use of symmetry that has a use, or adds to our understanding.
It is a purely mathematical theorem (and beautiful as such!) relating every continuous symmetry to a conserved quantity. So, logically, it has to apply everywhere in physics where there is a continuous symmetry: Noether's Theorem is more of a general statement than a choice in the patchwork of physics theory.
I agree. It is...beautiful.
Shouldn’t the requirements for symmetry, that does confer beauty, be the mathematical standard?
Aesthetics doesn't even enter the picture except for supersymmetrists. It is demanded by conservation of energy and ockham's razor that the 5 forces and their fields arise from one single cause. All forces, after all, arise from kinetic energy. One source, one force, one field.
Maybe, but most likely not. There is no reason to believe that the notion of "field" is not an emergent property itself, i.e. what underlies reality does not have to be a field, it could be merely something that creates an approximation of fields. We know that exact symmetry is, also most likely, not a property of nature. Symmetry is fragile. It seems to have a tendency to break. It might be possible to prove mathematically that any non-trivial physical situation (i.e. something that allows for a minimal amount of self-interaction) that starts with a perfect symmetry automatically degenerates into an effective one without.
The problem may be related to our education system as it applies to science and physics and the academic and research environments. As each science develops over time, the educational programs and curricula become increasingly occupied by what is really the history of scientific achievement, as written by the achievers. And only those that can tolerate an undergraduate and then a graduate program actually have a non-trivial chance of studying unsolved problems. It occurs to me as a response to the video that an education in physics could be a lot different. Instead of memorizing the facts of the history of scientific achievement and the solutions to problems that prove those achievements, students could be taught to start with the right basics and actually develop the theories themselves, or re-develop might be a better term before all the wonder is spoiled by the telling of the answers that their predecessors extolled. Students developing scientific theories even knowing others already found the answer would be a lot more instructive than how we do it now.
"Beauty is not the starting point but the end result of a discovery"
Understanding makes beautiful what seemed only an ugly slight of the hand in the start.
Complex numbers were discovered by assuming a solution to x^2 = -1 and just using it like a real number, which it definitely wasn't.
I would love to hear her opinion on Copernicus. Because he didn't actually make any prediction, he just made the theory simpler and more beautiful. The previous Ptolemaic system with its epicycles worked just fine and predicted planetary motion accurately. That's because a system of a couple of epicycles is basically a Fourier series, which can model any kind of motion. Indeed, the Copernican model was experimentally equivalent to the Ptolemaic model. To me it seems that a scientist working with the Ptolemaic model is very much in the 'shut up and calculate' camp she seems to be advocating. But surely, Copernicus brought more understanding to how things actually work, essentially by beautifying the theory.