Hossenfelder is great and tremendously considerate with her interviewer, who apparently knows little about the subjects he proposed and did not care to prepare. Or is it yet another case of a white male feeling he has to demonstrate that he knows at least as much as his female interlocutor? What a pleasure to listen to Hossenfelder, what a tooth pull to have to listen to this man.
It is difficult to discuss with people that so far out. For number of reasons. Practically that is a problem because there is a gap between us commoners and Sabine here. There is also another - people on far out side of intelligence will, with experience, learn that the majority of commoners are just incapable of understanding things completely. This experience, even if realized by the far out individual will make them talk like to a kid who ask the same q. over and over again. The interviewer here is in the bad position of being between us commoners and Sabine. It takes some balls to do that.
I find it better that an interviewer is a curious layman and not an expert; this is a topic of general public interest and asking for multiple clarifications helped Sabine make the answers more accessible.
@@mladenstific2459 What is the Sun ON BALANCE, AND how is the Sun's CORONA understood (ON BALANCE)? HOW CAN (AND DOES) WHAT IS THE SUN EXIST IN BOTH TIME AND SPACE?: What is the Sun is fully consistent WITH what is E=MC2 in accordance WITH what are SPACE AND TIME. Indeed, what is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Indeed, consider what is outer “space” ON BALANCE; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! INDEED, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!!! GREAT. I have explained the coronal heating ON BALANCE !!!! The Sun's corona is one, TWO, AND three dimensional gravitational/electromagnetic SPACE (ON/IN BALANCE) consistent WITH what is E=MC2 !!!! Therefore, c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!!! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! Therefore, ON BALANCE, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Accordingly, stellar clustering ALSO proves, ON BALANCE, that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!!! c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! I have mathematically (AND CLEARLY) proven and explained what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE !!!! Perfect. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE !!!!! INDEED, consider why and how that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE !!!!! GREAT. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! By Frank Martin DiMeglio The answer is that the corona is one, two, AND three dimensional SPACE ON/IN BALANCE. It is fully consistent WITH what is E=MC2. It is pure ENERGY on balance with what is the Sun. It is a balanced SPACE, without which (again, ON BALANCE) what is the Sun could not exist or be manifest. Great. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE !! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE); AS GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! GREAT. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
Having followed Sabine for some time made me enjoy this unscripted demonstration of the depth of her studies. Great presentation! Bravo, bravo, bravo to this great scientist and the range of topics today!
I love a scientist who points out that empiricism is about proving a working theory until a better theory comes along, and thats all its designed to do. She's precise and honest and it's so refreshing.
Very enjoyable hearing clear explanations from Sabine. (George Hammond needs to prepare, or some smarter and more educated should take over. It was blushing embarrassing that Sabine repeatedly needed to save him from drowning when he tried to throw himself into an ocean he clearly couldn’t comprehend.)
Wow, this has truly helped me ...sort of get closer to an understanding, in the most basic sense .... what I completely don't understand ....great interview questions , thank you.... I Love Sabine.
I admire Ms Hossenfelder's clarity and have watched many of her videos. I agree with others about questioning the reasoning behind using a humanities chair to perform interview!
@@gk-qf9hv WHY THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ESTABLISHES GRAVITY AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY: TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio
58:40 Minor correction: Film was recorded 24 frames per second not 32 - it was then screened at twice the frames rate, every image displayed twice. So unless you were using a Super 8 that was shooting at 16 frames per second (screened at 32) - film used "24 frames per second".
I am very impressed with Dr. Hammonds pursuit of the size question. It is a very natural question. But the size at which we "see" depends on the energy and not the "size" of the probe particle. This is a subtle question. Sabine is an excellent communicator but I thought she could have done better on this question. In this instance she should have pointed out that for this type of question we need to think of the wave nature of particles. High frequency (high energy) particles have very shorth wavelengths. If the wavelength of your probe is very small (very high energy) then you can "see" the target clearly.
I was much less impressed by the interviewer's waffling on the subject: he was evidently alluding to the need - in microscopy for example - to use shorter and shorter wavelengths of light, or of de Broglie wavelengths of electrons to image smaller and smaller objects. True, Sabine could have wasted some of her time in stating more clearly what he was trying to express but, to give her credit, her answer was more directed to physics in general.
In contrast to others, I find the questioning to be delightful because it's very much like what people might ask most in a large sample of people. Sabine has become one of my physics and UA-cam favorites.
I guess people like Sean Carroll and Brian Greene were unavailable, so this interview had to be conducted by someone who seemed to know only enough modern physics to be dangerous. At times his bumbling, misinformed questions made me cringe. I didn't think I could persist to the end. However, if you stick with it, you might glean some gems from Hossenfelder. Her book has been on my wishlist for a while now; I look forward to reading it.
On the other hand, things were kept at a relatively basic level for people not well-versed in physics to follow. Hossenfelder did a pretty good job at giving straight answers to those questions.
Zenbum Presumably you're being facetious about Carroll and Greene. If either of them had conducted the interview, it would have become less an interview than either a debate or a conference among (more-or-less) colleagues. In practice the interviewer's occasional misconceptions were never dangerous because Hossenfelder was there to correct them immediately, and he seemed to me to take the corrections in good stride. Moreover, I found the corrections illuminating, His job was not to know the answers but to ask the questions, which is what he mostly did. (I say "mostly" because I take some exception to his dubious remarks at the conclusion.). As for Carroll and Greene compared to Hossenfelder, however: All three physicists have impeccable credentials and sidelines as facile science popularizers, but Hossenfelder here seems to me less doctrinaire and dogmatic about her own particular field of research, which I find, having endured Greene’s obviously biased predictions about string theory and Carroll’s hamfisted and arrogant defense of “the many worlds interpretation”, refreshing. At least Carroll is less bloody-minded than David Deutsch.
They could easily have found a happy medium between this interviewer and a rival physicist. There are plenty of scientifically educated laypeople (me, for example!), not to mention people with real scientific training who are not scientists. The vagueness and fumbling of this guy's questions are rather embarrassing.
Thanks for putting this together but ouch you gotta feel for the interviewer who was probably trying his best but the nervous line of questioning and uncomfortable run on sentences made it a bit difficult for audiences.. Perhaps understandable given he was interviewing a genius level theoretical physicist, any novice level scientist might crack under such pressures, or in some cases... Implode
Yeah, at a certain point in physics you can only express ideas in mathematical terms. And, while Hammond knows more than I do, apparently he's a retired attorney so not up to Sabine's level scientifically.
@@oliverave1234 She was still gentle to him. To make an interview with her on science you need balls like elephants or be stupid. Attorneys need some brains too - it is not all corruption and empty statements. The guy did well. It is a nice change from her normal monologues.
I never understood your: if a particle can be in two places at once, where ( to which particle ) does the gravity go? Gravity, as I see it, does not go anywhere, the space time is curved and in theory it should be possible to create an interference between the two parts if the time where they are is different.
Sabine is nice to watch. No BS, not too much anyway. Comparing with the rest of ccc produce that is a huge difference. I liked the way the interviewer coped with what I call an intelligence further away. I also find it interesting that we have no clue what dark matter is but we build theories how it behaves among other things that it behaves like a superfluid.
@@ukaszk.8305 Can you find a video (or an instance of any other medium) that is 100% interesting and without chitchat not contributing to you deepening of understanding etc? Videos are good in catching of our attention and this one did the job well but it does not mean that I find all of it equally interesting even if we discard the chitchat. Still the proportion of good stuff to not so good stuff is ok die me. I understand this does not directly answer your q. but that is the best I can do.
In one of her videos Sabine stated, " We would need technology as big as the Milky Way." I don't recall exactly what that was in reference to, but apparently I don't have to worry about it in my time.
Platos cave was an amazing prediction on particle physics and quantum mechanics. Reality is like shadows on a wall. If you found out what made the shadows and told people, they'd think you were nuts. That's pretty spot on, imo. 😂
Can we ever get away from aesthetic considerations? When he was dying in Paris Oscar Wilde famously said: "either this wallpaper goes or I do". We are all about aesthetics - I have known people to become close to physically/mentally sick in a house the decor of which they did not like, and I have come close to that situation myself. Can we ever hope to escape our basic subjectivity? Maybe we can never see/understand anything but our own relationship to the universe and that imperfectly. If we can never fully understand ourselves, our brains, our minds, - and thinking we can only adds to the problem - how much less the universe?
Keep in mind that -1 has no meaning without +1. Plus One can stand on it's own! When one gets into theoretical math, one should remind oneself, every so often, that the the Universe is not obliged to come along with you!
Your comment does not make sense either from a physics or math background. The only special element in Z under addition is 0. If you are looking towards multiplicative groups that include negative numbers, then (-1) is one of the generators because (-1)*(-1)=+1, but +1 is a useless element as a generator because we can never get (-1) out of it. In physics there is no difference between -1 and +1 because of relativity. They have to be treated exactly the same or the world falls apart. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 It does...they just didn't speak in hieroglyphs of latex, this shows a poor understanding of base mathematics and a strong adherence to the idea of "teaching to the test, not the subject". You're not a real physicist or mathematician.
The host should at least know the basics of the topic of discussion... He's clearly lost and not competent enough to host these kind of podcasts, I'm sorry.
What is the measurement of my disappointment? The brain reads psychological pain the same as physical pain, ergo it is as real as death. Riddle me that...
What physics really needs is new, fresh ideas. Problem is, so many are involved and each person has their own ideas leading to a glut of information that can only be pared down to the standard model. I fear we are near the end of physics. Biology is where the most progress will be made in the near and far future. The rest is rote memorization of the basics.
What was the point of a humanities professor with background in Russian literature and law interview a theoretical physicist on such a specific strictly scientific subject matter? He knows as much about science as she does about Russian literature.
Commonwealth club should be a bit embarrassed by this interviewer. You can do better. We expect better. Maybe next time you can get a random grad student from one of the local universities? I feel sorry for Dr. Hossenfelder for having to make sense of this.
When the interviewer appears compelled to talk MORE than the person being interviewed, red flags go up for me. More power to him; I could NEVER have done better or as well. That said, a better informed interviewer could certainly have been found.
@@EmdrGreg WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, THEORETICAL, AND TRUE PROOF OF THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS F=MA AS E=MC2: That SPACE is THEORETICALLY, ultimately, truly, and FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL is proven by the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations (regarding his general theory of gravitation). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are thus NECESSARILY LINKED and BALANCED, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! 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. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. CLEARLY, I have mathematically, sensibly, and THEORETICALLY unified physics/physical experience; as E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to constitute what is F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
After this interview, I'd wish you would also invite Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille and give him a chance to speak. Maybe he could say something about the issues with Kirchhoff's law and its implication on the Planck constant. This has huge impacts on the way we perceive and describe our world.
What I dislike of Sabine arguments are that her own definitions of "lost in beauty" that I share in her case breaks in all areas were ideological and political beliefs enters. I am fine if the problem was minor, but in her case enters many things, including "cultural marxist ideology vast array of pseudo academy crap"
What I would encourage scientists to do is to do math correctly. I was able to determine they were not using mathematics correctly when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was attempting to explain Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground. So I believed that I understood Einstein's Special Theory. Then I read Einstein's book and was surprised to learn that he used equations that showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Since that time I have been what scientists call a crackpot, someone who disagrees with Einstein.
Indeed a good theory is a good piece of mathematics when physics is a function or fluid. Big ridell is find the meaning of real physics . A spring inside as quark and field of ocean of unknown.
...and leads to a seemingly infinite number of rabbit-holes in discussions like these: rabbit holes dug by those who simply don't understand physics or science, and have little or no knowledge of how they work.
No! Sabine, has solid credibility as a research theoretical physicist who consistently diligently produces accurate well organized explanations, while Eric Weinstein tends to show his self aggrandizing facade by babbling questionable jargon at uninformed interviewers. Nor would an alternate choice of Lawrence Krauss offer much of an improvement. Sabine’s content is enhanced when she presents concepts alone, assumably composed by herself.
@@DrWhom Failure? No, she stays in the safe-zone and isnt "bad" at it at the same time. Im "deeper" in physics than she is but I am not tool of the crowd, if she makes a valid point I acknowledge it (unlike some people that disregard everything someone says because of one disagreement.) Eric is cordial for a reason. They're operating is opposite ends of the field. Theory and Applied touch but Theory by definition is meant for what is outside of known knowns until it can be validated...then its in the realm of applied and theory moves one step further away. -Physicist
Ok, that happened, and Lady Hossenfelder made a music video about this, called "Theories of Everything", you can look here on UA-cam. I can recommend it
It's just a simple fact... No way to show the i-reflection Mirror Test without patience and pictures, then 99% letting students work out what, how and why when is always NOW mathematically speaking. But language is Mathemagical labelling and very misleading.
if i have 1 apple, and you take-away 2 apples how many apples do i have ? -1 apples, does not equate to a real situation in the world. sure, i can "owe" you an apple, but, there still is no physical equivalent. its a concept. i think mathematicians, and even a few physicists, forget this sometimes.
If you have 1 doller in the bank and manage to take out 2, you have -1 there, right? The temperature can go below 0, etc. Seems like negative numbers are pretty useful! Even "imaginary" numbers are very useful, too. They are not positive, not negative and not zero. (The name is quite misleading, showing just that they came as a big surprise some centuries ago)
@@l.h.308 sure, but there is no real-world equivalent of -1 dollars. the point is math can say things that do not always show themselves as real-world events... i think Sabine would agree. She has said similar things in the past.
Have you tried Starfleet? I made the Star Trek movies and TV series. While I was a prolific kid, I chose the Star Trek actors and actresses. They're real scientists and were very good in mathematics, modern computing, and the astronomical and space sciences. Relics of the space-race Cold War.
@@ejaygerald7877 You're evidently a clever guy not to google that name. Enter that name into the google search, and your computer will be hijacked by bots. Stay safe and keep making those great movies!
Sabine is confused about a model and reality. Her claims that Gravity *is* the result of “curverture” is dubious. The Spin 2 force field is, arguable, more valid a description of Gravity than the “space-time” *model*. Its highly unlikely that a standard calculation in QFT results in the same Einstein Field Equations by accident.
Just like the interviewer expected to know and understand the subject matter of the interview, the interviewee is expected to understand the audience in front of whom the interview is being conducted. Unfortunately it was lacking on both sides. To be fair though I did enjoy the interview.
I forgot to remember but a friend of ours reminded me when the other dude was checking the spelling and punctuation. The idea comes most tangibly to the glazzies that shine so brightly roy from Woody and John Turturro Anyway, enjoy and thank you so much for all of these tautologies you are distributing. You know how to mobius strip the conversation and hang the bit out to dry that needs a good airing. If you get bored generating beautiful pictures with the two ball three gift confabulator generator, watch a few David Blaine lessons. His latest is the complete collection frozen eclectic electric nutty ness ness. You have a nice day my friend. I will because of you . Thanks again.
Super fluid.. imagine a river (space ) flowing, there are Eddie’s caused by galaxies there are rivers that. Come together.. spread out .. whirling into motion all the forces. Movement’s in time and space moments of creation.. of being this and that … always the duality coming going.. hot cold particle wave.. male female.. question answer.. am I , God becomes I am God.. then you need to divine what that might mean..
Usual twaddle. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics holds that particles can be in the same places at the same time. Sabine is hopelessly confused. It's the usual conflation of a quantum state P(X) that represents then *probability* of a particle being in a location, and the classical state X which represents the actual location. The quantum state, P(X) is simple not the same as the classical state, yet there is this persistent language that refers to both as if they are. A superposition of quantum states is a superposition of possible classical states. QM specifically holds as an axiom that any measurement of an observable, must result in a single eigenvalue, thus a measurement of two simultaneous eigenvalues would contradict QM.
Lost in maths or the foundations of physics has nothing to do with fine tuning. Theory of QM is the best achievements of physics, sorry if you fail, like many physicists, to grasp it.
Sabine's whole face lights up when she smiles. Of course I don't agree with much of what she says, or of mainstream physics. The quantum mystical tail is wagging the classical mechanical dog. For example, the photon is said to have a zero rest mass; but the photon never sits still, and the moving photon has been discovered to have mass. That's why it has a finite speed. Physicists, among others, never seem to appreciate that everything tends to the Golden Mean. That's where the beauty comes in. Covid, for example, if it was on 21, has to mutate to the next stable level, 34, once HIV has been inserted by "gain-of-function" geneticists.
@@DrWhom The method of absolute doubt employed in behalf of absolute certainty, the famous Cartesian method, turns out to be nonsense. The assumption of the universal applicability of doubt is either valid or invalid. If valid, everything is disproved, including the doubter, which is ludicrous; if invalid, nothing is proved, save the impossibility of complete scepticism, even as a pose
I can see Sabine has healthy dose of arrogance I'm so glad God exists and humans who stray from that kind of nature, attitude and behavior are utterly wrong
But we all have but A LIFE to love and to be faithful to our Lord God, and Creator. . If while delighting myself (IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN AS ADAM AND EVE WERE) watching a podcast's video (WITH ALL KINDS OF INFORMATiON ) on my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) , the darn bloody thing fell ( WITH THE GRAVITY OF SIN IN A FALLEN WORLD) I'd rather call and make friends with my tablet's maker and repairman(GOD) who could : 1-Show me , either my sending me the owner's manual ( The Tablets of the Law in the Old Testament and The Gospels) that I am to follow OR by coming to my house (GOD CREATOR HIMSELF COMING DOWN TO EARTH, GETTING INCARNATED) and getting involved in the actual fixing of my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) with all the effort, the sweating , frustrations, time spent and tiredness He'd go through (CREATOR GOD , REPAIRMAN LIVING, DYING ON A CROSS AND RESURRECTING) showing me by example and so that I could SEE myself how it's done (HOW TO FIX MY TABLET) and maybe as we chat and drink some wine and eat some olive bread , He will teach me about The Truth in life as well (SINCE AFTER ALL CREATOR GOD , REPAIRMAN IS ALSO A RABBI, TEACHER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND MY FRIEND BY NOW). OR 2- I could try learning how to fix my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD , MY REALITY) my way (AS A SCIENTIST) who if I get too proud (AS A SCIENTISM FAITHER) might hubristically deny the existence of my tablet's Creator, and Maker (GOD) and even question His instructions, hoping I am smart and lucky enough to fix it (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) and perhaps won a Nobel Prize, become famous and rich, get tenure and funds , have a social media channel and sell a bunch of books (while all along make mom and the wife very proud), but forgetting that GOD AND CREATOR took ONLY 6 days to make this world but He could had worked at it for gazillions and zillions of years and then scientism faithers would had been really screwed. Lol. Nothing sweeter, smarter and wiser than to personally know CREATOR GOD, REPAIRER AND RESTORER OF OUR LIVES , AND ABOVE ALL TO HAVE AN EVERLASTING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM , WHO IS ALL TRUTH AND ALL LOVE, AND WHO IS PREPARING FOR US ANOTHER MUCH BETTER WORLD AND REALITY CALLED '''HEAVEN'''...Shema!!!.
Mr. Hammond talks too much, running to waffle. He should firstly do his homework on the subject, then learn to rein his thoughts in, keep his questions short and precise, and let the invited speaker actually speak. Just got to the end of the video, and the interviewer's words seem to sum up what he got from the session: "Thank you very much Sabine for joining us from Frankfurt Germany, umm, it was a great pleasure 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 ..." Yep, he said that, instead of saying it was a great pleasure 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪 - he's tacitly admitting to the fact that he did most of the talking. Come on, CWCC, surely you can do better than this in choosing interviewers?
Hossenfelder is great and tremendously considerate with her interviewer, who apparently knows little about the subjects he proposed and did not care to prepare. Or is it yet another case of a white male feeling he has to demonstrate that he knows at least as much as his female interlocutor? What a pleasure to listen to Hossenfelder, what a tooth pull to have to listen to this man.
The interviewer is very good in keeping her from getting to really consequential matters.
It is difficult to discuss with people that so far out. For number of reasons. Practically that is a problem because there is a gap between us commoners and Sabine here. There is also another - people on far out side of intelligence will, with experience, learn that the majority of commoners are just incapable of understanding things completely. This experience, even if realized by the far out individual will make them talk like to a kid who ask the same q. over and over again.
The interviewer here is in the bad position of being between us commoners and Sabine. It takes some balls to do that.
Also unfortunately a case of verbal diarhoea, hope he recovers.
@@myallhanckel8405 He was in way over his head.
omg haaaaaaa.
Water? Really? Respect set to zero.
This interview really showed what a kind person you are. It was entertaining and educational and you really made the most of it. I am in awe!
Guest deserved a better interviewer. She was so diplomatic and considerate throughout.
I find it better that an interviewer is a curious layman and not an expert; this is a topic of general public interest and asking for multiple clarifications helped Sabine make the answers more accessible.
@@mladenstific2459 What is the Sun ON BALANCE, AND how is the Sun's CORONA understood (ON BALANCE)?
HOW CAN (AND DOES) WHAT IS THE SUN EXIST IN BOTH TIME AND SPACE?:
What is the Sun is fully consistent WITH what is E=MC2 in accordance WITH what are SPACE AND TIME. Indeed, what is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Indeed, consider what is outer “space” ON BALANCE; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! INDEED, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!!! GREAT. I have explained the coronal heating ON BALANCE !!!! The Sun's corona is one, TWO, AND three dimensional gravitational/electromagnetic SPACE (ON/IN BALANCE) consistent WITH what is E=MC2 !!!! Therefore, c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!!! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! Therefore, ON BALANCE, a given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Accordingly, stellar clustering ALSO proves, ON BALANCE, that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!!!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE !!!! c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!! I have mathematically (AND CLEARLY) proven and explained what is the fourth dimension ON BALANCE !!!! Perfect. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE !!!!! INDEED, consider why and how that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE !!!!! GREAT. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!!!
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
The answer is that the corona is one, two, AND three dimensional SPACE ON/IN BALANCE. It is fully consistent WITH what is E=MC2. It is pure ENERGY on balance with what is the Sun. It is a balanced SPACE, without which (again, ON BALANCE) what is the Sun could not exist or be manifest. Great. INDEED, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE !! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. “Mass”/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE); AS GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE !!! GREAT.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
She has done many technical talks on yt. This was a good interview for the layman.
Having followed Sabine for some time made me enjoy this unscripted demonstration of the depth of her studies. Great presentation! Bravo, bravo, bravo to this great scientist and the range of topics today!
He did the best he could. She was gracious and patient. All in all, this video was worth the watch.
I love a scientist who points out that empiricism is about proving a working theory until a better theory comes along, and thats all its designed to do. She's precise and honest and it's so refreshing.
Very enjoyable hearing clear explanations from Sabine.
(George Hammond needs to prepare, or some smarter and more educated should take over. It was blushing embarrassing that Sabine repeatedly needed to save him from drowning when he tried to throw himself into an ocean he clearly couldn’t comprehend.)
Wow, this has truly helped me ...sort of get closer to an understanding, in the most basic sense .... what I completely don't understand ....great interview questions , thank you.... I Love Sabine.
Glad it was helpful!
I admire Ms Hossenfelder's clarity and have watched many of her videos. I agree with others about questioning the reasoning behind using a humanities chair to perform interview!
A polite answer to your question is at 32:38 😊
@@gk-qf9hv WHY THE THEORETICAL, CLEAR, AND BALANCED MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ESTABLISHES GRAVITY AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY:
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. E=MC2 IS F=ma.) TIME DILATION ultimately proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) The sky is blue, AND THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Again, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. The ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites.
GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE. E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE !!! "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense.
By Frank DiMeglio
I think that's Dr. Hossenfelder.
I always loved her videos. She encounters very interesting topics.
I enjoyed this video.
58:40 Minor correction:
Film was recorded 24 frames per second not 32 - it was then screened at twice the frames rate, every image displayed twice.
So unless you were using a Super 8 that was shooting at 16 frames per second (screened at 32) - film used "24 frames per second".
Is this between two ferns?
oh, you beat me to it. i was just going to post this myself, but thought i'd look first. yeah, pretty funny. 🙂
Why did the interviewer think that people wanted to listen to him more than Sabine.. what a waste of an hour. I gave up watching .
But he is asking pretty good questions... I like him for that
I am very impressed with Dr. Hammonds pursuit of the size question. It is a very natural question. But the size at which we "see" depends on the energy and not the "size" of the probe particle. This is a subtle question. Sabine is an excellent communicator but I thought she could have done better on this question. In this instance she should have pointed out that for this type of question we need to think of the wave nature of particles. High frequency (high energy) particles have very shorth wavelengths. If the wavelength of your probe is very small (very high energy) then you can "see" the target clearly.
I was much less impressed by the interviewer's waffling on the subject: he was evidently alluding to the need - in microscopy for example - to use shorter and shorter wavelengths of light, or of de Broglie wavelengths of electrons to image smaller and smaller objects. True, Sabine could have wasted some of her time in stating more clearly what he was trying to express but, to give her credit, her answer was more directed to physics in general.
It was informative even with a skittish method of questioning. The interview has convinced me to purchased Sabine's book.
In contrast to others, I find the questioning to be delightful because it's very much like what people might ask most in a large sample of people. Sabine has become one of my physics and UA-cam favorites.
well then she succeeded in getting money out of her pocket into yours. and a year later, you are none the wiser and somewhat the poorer
I guess people like Sean Carroll and Brian Greene were unavailable, so this interview had to be conducted by someone who seemed to know only enough modern physics to be dangerous. At times his bumbling, misinformed questions made me cringe. I didn't think I could persist to the end. However, if you stick with it, you might glean some gems from Hossenfelder. Her book has been on my wishlist for a while now; I look forward to reading it.
On the other hand, things were kept at a relatively basic level for people not well-versed in physics to follow. Hossenfelder did a pretty good job at giving straight answers to those questions.
Zenbum Presumably you're being facetious about Carroll and Greene. If either of them had conducted the interview, it would have become less an interview than either a debate or a conference among (more-or-less) colleagues. In practice the interviewer's occasional misconceptions were never dangerous because Hossenfelder was there to correct them immediately, and he seemed to me to take the corrections in good stride. Moreover, I found the corrections illuminating, His job was not to know the answers but to ask the questions, which is what he mostly did. (I say "mostly" because I take some exception to his dubious remarks at the conclusion.). As for Carroll and Greene compared to Hossenfelder, however: All three physicists have impeccable credentials and sidelines as facile science popularizers, but Hossenfelder here seems to me less doctrinaire and dogmatic about her own particular field of research, which I find, having endured Greene’s obviously biased predictions about string theory and Carroll’s hamfisted and arrogant defense of “the many worlds interpretation”, refreshing. At least Carroll is less bloody-minded than David Deutsch.
Her book is very good IMO, I really enjoyed it and she makes some very convincing arguments.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Bloody-minded isn't bad. Sabine herself is quite bloody-minded, though as you say undogmatic.
They could easily have found a happy medium between this interviewer and a rival physicist. There are plenty of scientifically educated laypeople (me, for example!), not to mention people with real scientific training who are not scientists. The vagueness and fumbling of this guy's questions are rather embarrassing.
Thanks for putting this together but ouch you gotta feel for the interviewer who was probably trying his best but the nervous line of questioning and uncomfortable run on sentences made it a bit difficult for audiences..
Perhaps understandable given he was interviewing a genius level theoretical physicist, any novice level scientist might crack under such pressures, or in some cases... Implode
Yeah, at a certain point in physics you can only express ideas in mathematical terms. And, while Hammond knows more than I do, apparently he's a retired attorney so not up to Sabine's level scientifically.
@@oliverave1234 She was still gentle to him. To make an interview with her on science you need balls like elephants or be stupid. Attorneys need some brains too - it is not all corruption and empty statements. The guy did well. It is a nice change from her normal monologues.
Bro’s obsessed with water lmao. But I love listening to Sabine Hossenfelder, she’s so eloquent and smart.
I never understood your: if a particle can be in two places at once, where ( to which particle ) does the gravity go? Gravity, as I see it, does not go anywhere, the space time is curved and in theory it should be possible to create an interference between the two parts if the time where they are is different.
Sabine is nice to watch. No BS, not too much anyway. Comparing with the rest of ccc produce that is a huge difference.
I liked the way the interviewer coped with what I call an intelligence further away.
I also find it interesting that we have no clue what dark matter is but we build theories how it behaves among other things that it behaves like a superfluid.
What is the residual BS you seem to suggest she conveys?
@@ukaszk.8305 Can you find a video (or an instance of any other medium) that is 100% interesting and without chitchat not contributing to you deepening of understanding etc? Videos are good in catching of our attention and this one did the job well but it does not mean that I find all of it equally interesting even if we discard the chitchat. Still the proportion of good stuff to not so good stuff is ok die me.
I understand this does not directly answer your q. but that is the best I can do.
18:14 - Please, what does FUTZBA mean? Thanks.
The word is chutzpah
I feel sorry for Dr Hossenfelder. This "interview" was painful to witness.
One of my physics professors said that gravity itself is not not proven, but is strongly indicated.
Steven Wright has a 1:1 map of the US.
Why didn't give anybody attention to you for that? ;-)
In one of her videos Sabine stated, " We would need technology as big as the Milky Way." I don't recall exactly what that was in reference to, but apparently I don't have to worry about it in my time.
Platos cave was an amazing prediction on particle physics and quantum mechanics. Reality is like shadows on a wall. If you found out what made the shadows and told people, they'd think you were nuts. That's pretty spot on, imo. 😂
If there was no chance of learning more, something new, woodchipper please.
One expects that the interviewer be as savant as the interviewee....so that he knows what the fundamental questions are ..
Great lady, brave, honest and incredible smart!
Can we ever get away from aesthetic considerations? When he was dying in Paris Oscar Wilde famously said: "either this wallpaper goes or I do". We are all about aesthetics - I have known people to become close to physically/mentally sick in a house the decor of which they did not like, and I have come close to that situation myself. Can we ever hope to escape our basic subjectivity? Maybe we can never see/understand anything but our own relationship to the universe and that imperfectly. If we can never fully understand ourselves, our brains, our minds, - and thinking we can only adds to the problem - how much less the universe?
Wish you would give your openion on recent UAP report..
Keep in mind that -1 has no meaning without +1. Plus One can stand on it's own! When one gets into theoretical math, one should remind oneself, every so often, that the the Universe is not obliged to come along with you!
Your comment does not make sense either from a physics or math background. The only special element in Z under addition is 0. If you are looking towards multiplicative groups that include negative numbers, then (-1) is one of the generators because (-1)*(-1)=+1, but +1 is a useless element as a generator because we can never get (-1) out of it. In physics there is no difference between -1 and +1 because of relativity. They have to be treated exactly the same or the world falls apart. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337
It does...they just didn't speak in hieroglyphs of latex, this shows a poor understanding of base mathematics and a strong adherence to the idea of "teaching to the test, not the subject".
You're not a real physicist or mathematician.
@@Nah_Bohdi I am a physics PhD, kid. I never claim to be a mathematician. How is your cosmetology degree coming? Anytime now, right? ;-)
Love this channel
The host should at least know the basics of the topic of discussion... He's clearly lost and not competent enough to host these kind of podcasts, I'm sorry.
but then so is she
I can't believe I haven't watched this yet Sabine is so understanding.
Fermilab in Batavia has upped the confidence level to 4.6 sigma. It is ALMOST a thing.
When You Can Measure Something ! Only Then Do You Know Something !
What is the measurement of my disappointment?
The brain reads psychological pain the same as physical pain, ergo it is as real as death.
Riddle me that...
What physics really needs is new, fresh ideas. Problem is, so many are involved and each person has their own ideas leading to a glut of information that can only be pared down to the standard model. I fear we are near the end of physics. Biology is where the most progress will be made in the near and far future. The rest is rote memorization of the basics.
No, that's been said many times before, always wrong. It's like trying to break the 2nd law of td
What was the point of a humanities professor with background in Russian literature and law interview a theoretical physicist on such a specific strictly scientific subject matter? He knows as much about science as she does about Russian literature.
Probably less.
I love Sabine. The dude, not so much. Good intentions, meh interview.
The book is awesome.
Commonwealth club should be a bit embarrassed by this interviewer. You can do better. We expect better. Maybe next time you can get a random grad student from one of the local universities? I feel sorry for Dr. Hossenfelder for having to make sense of this.
When the interviewer appears compelled to talk MORE than the person being interviewed, red flags go up for me. More power to him; I could NEVER have done better or as well. That said, a better informed interviewer could certainly have been found.
They should be more embarrassed for having featured Maria Bartiromo (per the pic at the beginning).
@@EmdrGreg WHY AND HOW THE CLEAR, THEORETICAL, AND TRUE PROOF OF THE ULTIMATE UNIFICATION REGARDING PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS F=MA AS E=MC2: That SPACE is THEORETICALLY, ultimately, truly, and FUNDAMENTALLY QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL is proven by the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains the term c4 from Einstein's field equations (regarding his general theory of gravitation). Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. The MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE AND the FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are thus NECESSARILY LINKED and BALANCED, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Great !!! 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. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. CLEARLY, I have mathematically, sensibly, and THEORETICALLY unified physics/physical experience; as E=mc2 is CLEARLY proven to constitute what is F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, as E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. GREAT !!! Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Very carefully consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is the EARTH/ground. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! By Frank DiMeglio
@@frankdimeglio8216 ... and this relates to interviewing skills... how?
@@EmdrGreg that mostly because she drones nonsense in bad teutonic English
After this interview, I'd wish you would also invite Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille and give him a chance to speak. Maybe he could say something about the issues with Kirchhoff's law and its implication on the Planck constant. This has huge impacts on the way we perceive and describe our world.
What I dislike of Sabine arguments are that her own definitions of "lost in beauty" that I share in her case breaks in all areas were ideological and political beliefs enters. I am fine if the problem was minor, but in her case enters many things, including "cultural marxist ideology vast array of pseudo academy crap"
🤔
Science will NEVER end. There will always be problems to solve.
The science was settled in the current year.
Why do you choose to be evil?
@@Nah_Bohdi What "science" was settled??
What I would encourage scientists to do is to do math correctly. I was able to determine they were not using mathematics correctly when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was attempting to explain Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said Einstein had proven that a moving clock is slower than a clock that is not moving. For the moving clock I imagined a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground had to time the flight of the airplane, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane than the observer on the ground. So I believed that I understood Einstein's Special Theory. Then I read Einstein's book and was surprised to learn that he used equations that showed that the pilot and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Since that time I have been what scientists call a crackpot, someone who disagrees with Einstein.
Ordered book today, have a feeling I will greatly enjoy it. Also recommend J Baggot's book "Farewell to Reality" to those interested in this topic.
Hard to watch him..
Indeed a good theory is a good piece of mathematics when physics is a function or fluid.
Big ridell is find the meaning of real physics . A spring inside as quark and field of ocean of unknown.
Dark matter is an endless rabbit hole of Physics.
...and leads to a seemingly infinite number of rabbit-holes in discussions like these: rabbit holes dug by those who simply don't understand physics or science, and have little or no knowledge of how they work.
I think she saiad leptons at one point but the captions said electrons
we should entertain the surprising to not miss serendipitous discoveries.
Damn the beauty! Full truth and complex mathematics ahead!
😂
Don,t be sad , there is even more that we don,t know , great 💜🙏
Gravity seems to be particularly strong where you are...
... "42" ...
This guy is all time bad. She gets bonus points for this. He has asked the same basic question 5 times.
I left at the point of 'a particle can do weird things like being in two places at the same time', people are so stupid, we are ruled by idiots
Have nature a goal?
Sabine: Have you ever talked to Eric Weinstein? I think the two of you would have an interesting conversation on Math and Geometry.
Yes, Eric would wipe the floor with her and you would still not have one grain of dust worth of physics in the room. :-)
No! Sabine, has solid credibility as a research theoretical physicist who consistently diligently produces accurate well organized explanations, while Eric Weinstein tends to show his self aggrandizing facade by babbling questionable jargon at uninformed interviewers. Nor would an alternate choice of Lawrence Krauss offer much of an improvement. Sabine’s content is enhanced when she presents concepts alone, assumably composed by herself.
@@chrislubs1341 what? sabine is an academic failure who peddles her half-understandings to the unsuspecting dupes on the internet
@@DrWhom Failure? No, she stays in the safe-zone and isnt "bad" at it at the same time. Im "deeper" in physics than she is but I am not tool of the crowd, if she makes a valid point I acknowledge it (unlike some people that disregard everything someone says because of one disagreement.)
Eric is cordial for a reason. They're operating is opposite ends of the field.
Theory and Applied touch but Theory by definition is meant for what is outside of known knowns until it can be validated...then its in the realm of applied and theory moves one step further away.
-Physicist
Ok, that happened, and Lady Hossenfelder made a music video about this, called "Theories of Everything", you can look here on UA-cam. I can recommend it
We look to the sea , and know what is a drop off water ☝️💜
Great guest, terrible interview.
Lauriston?
You don't want from. They want god up my but for servience.
As the spin state becomes enforced fermionic the pauli pressure exponentially detonates within the singularity.
We need Lt. Barkley to ask Sabine questions.
I get it now! Sabine is what a really dumb person thinks a really smart person is like.
Lt. Barkley became the smartest man alive.
His intelligence is irrefutable.
The idea of the ether has made a comeback (from ancient times) with the discovery of dark energy.
They are not even remotely the same thing.
O fiziciana genială!!
It's just a simple fact...
No way to show the i-reflection Mirror Test without patience and pictures, then 99% letting students work out what, how and why when is always NOW mathematically speaking.
But language is Mathemagical labelling and very misleading.
There's always going to be smaller and smaller particles.
I get the title now. Are you fucking serious. Like getting lost reading a road map!
if i have 1 apple, and you take-away 2 apples
how many apples do i have ?
-1 apples, does not equate to a real situation in the world.
sure, i can "owe" you an apple, but, there still is no physical equivalent. its a concept.
i think mathematicians, and even a few physicists, forget this sometimes.
If you have 1 doller in the bank and manage to take out 2, you have -1 there, right? The temperature can go below 0, etc. Seems like negative numbers are pretty useful!
Even "imaginary" numbers are very useful, too. They are not positive, not negative and not zero. (The name is quite misleading, showing just that they came as a big surprise some centuries ago)
@@l.h.308 sure, but there is no real-world equivalent of -1 dollars.
the point is math can say things that do not always show themselves as real-world events... i think Sabine would agree. She has said similar things in the past.
@@911review -1 degree on the thermometer seems very real to me. I can feel the cold...
@@911review _but there is no real-world equivalent of -1 dollars_ ... Sure there is - it means you *_owe_* one dollar.
The interviewer seems entrenched in supporting dogma by ameliorating understanding.
i can see you didn’t pass your 10th grade vocab test. better luck next time?
Great. Super fluid dark matter. I've got some dinning out to do on that.
hmmm
Hammond! Learn to interview better. Ask a question, don't ramble a question.
As a faN OF SABINE, WHAT AN INCREDIBLE POOR PERFORMANCE.
Sabine having a hard time following the frequencies emanating from the beard.
Have you tried Starfleet? I made the Star Trek movies and TV series. While I was a prolific kid, I chose the Star Trek actors and actresses. They're real scientists and were very good in mathematics, modern computing, and the astronomical and space sciences. Relics of the space-race Cold War.
Your other name is George Santos, right? Am I right???
@@robbannstrom I don't know that name. And I won't google it.
@@ejaygerald7877 You're evidently a clever guy not to google that name. Enter that name into the google search, and your computer will be hijacked by bots. Stay safe and keep making those great movies!
Gravity is not a particle.
Mass is the source of space.
Sabine is confused about a model and reality. Her claims that Gravity *is* the result of “curverture” is dubious. The Spin 2 force field is, arguable, more valid a description of Gravity than the “space-time” *model*. Its highly unlikely that a standard calculation in QFT results in the same Einstein Field Equations by accident.
Heavy quarks decay much more rapidly as they become heavier. This introduces more energy in uncertainty in the standard model...
Light quarks don't decay at all. Not sure what your point is. ;-)
Just like the interviewer expected to know and understand the subject matter of the interview, the interviewee is expected to understand the audience in front of whom the interview is being conducted. Unfortunately it was lacking on both sides. To be fair though I did enjoy the interview.
31:19 Sabine: If you've ever read anything about quantum mechanics you've seen psi, man: mumbles...
All he said was yes....He wasn't mumbling
You think she scored a point there? As an actual quantum physicists I found her remark childish and inappropriate.
Minunată carte!!!
I forgot to remember but a friend of ours reminded me when the other dude was checking the spelling and punctuation.
The idea comes most tangibly to the glazzies that shine so brightly roy from Woody and John Turturro
Anyway, enjoy and thank you so much for all of these tautologies you are distributing. You know how to mobius strip
the conversation and hang the bit out to dry that needs a good airing. If you get bored generating beautiful pictures
with the two ball three gift confabulator generator, watch a few David Blaine lessons. His latest is the complete collection
frozen eclectic electric nutty ness ness. You have a nice day my friend. I will because of you . Thanks again.
Super fluid.. imagine a river (space ) flowing, there are Eddie’s caused by galaxies there are rivers that. Come together.. spread out .. whirling into motion all the forces. Movement’s in time and space moments of creation.. of being this and that … always the duality coming going.. hot cold particle wave.. male female.. question answer.. am I , God becomes I am God.. then you need to divine what that might mean..
I know what "dark matter is."
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Einstein
"If you can't explain it simply, then it is not true. Rick Bergles
Sweet , 💜 love sabine she disurve a statuut for shore
Usual twaddle. Nothing in Quantum Mechanics holds that particles can be in the same places at the same time. Sabine is hopelessly confused. It's the usual conflation of a quantum state P(X) that represents then *probability* of a particle being in a location, and the classical state X which represents the actual location. The quantum state, P(X) is simple not the same as the classical state, yet there is this persistent language that refers to both as if they are. A superposition of quantum states is a superposition of possible classical states. QM specifically holds as an axiom that any measurement of an observable, must result in a single eigenvalue, thus a measurement of two simultaneous eigenvalues would contradict QM.
Put her in a room with you to discuss those points, and you would be putty in her hand.
Superposition is a silly mistake, there is no dark matter.
I tend to agree
Yikes
🇺🇳42:45
Even Trump could conduct this interview better than this guy
If you want to dispute that two plus two is four, like the guest does, you are indeed lost in math.
Lost in maths or the foundations of physics has nothing to do with fine tuning. Theory of QM is the best achievements of physics, sorry if you fail, like many physicists, to grasp it.
Yep ok - continue to keep your head in the sand. There are glaring problems you choose to ignore. That’s on you.
Sabine's whole face lights up when she smiles.
Of course I don't agree with much of what she says, or of mainstream physics. The quantum mystical tail is wagging the classical mechanical dog. For example, the photon is said to have a zero rest mass; but the photon never sits still, and the moving photon has been discovered to have mass. That's why it has a finite speed.
Physicists, among others, never seem to appreciate that everything tends to the Golden Mean. That's where the beauty comes in. Covid, for example, if it was on 21, has to mutate to the next stable level, 34, once HIV has been inserted by "gain-of-function" geneticists.
you spout nothing but nonsense
@@DrWhom The method of absolute doubt employed in behalf of absolute certainty, the famous Cartesian method, turns out to be nonsense. The assumption of the universal applicability of doubt is either valid or invalid. If valid, everything is disproved, including the doubter, which is ludicrous; if invalid, nothing is proved, save the impossibility of complete scepticism, even as a pose
Are you referring to the golden ratio/Fibonacci sequence? Everything does not tend to either of those, that has been debunked.
I can see Sabine has healthy dose of arrogance
I'm so glad God exists and humans who stray from that kind of nature, attitude and behavior are utterly wrong
Animals know more about the universe then humans
homo sapiens are animals ,
then or than? try to learn English first
Humans are animals.
But we all have but A LIFE to love and to be faithful to our Lord God, and Creator.
. If while delighting myself (IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN AS ADAM AND EVE WERE) watching a podcast's video (WITH ALL KINDS OF INFORMATiON ) on my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) , the darn bloody thing fell ( WITH THE GRAVITY OF SIN IN A FALLEN WORLD) I'd rather call and make friends with my tablet's maker and repairman(GOD) who could :
1-Show me , either my sending me the owner's manual ( The Tablets of the Law in the Old Testament and The Gospels) that I am to follow OR by coming to my house (GOD CREATOR HIMSELF COMING DOWN TO EARTH, GETTING INCARNATED) and getting involved in the actual fixing of my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) with all the effort, the sweating , frustrations, time spent and tiredness He'd go through (CREATOR GOD , REPAIRMAN LIVING, DYING ON A CROSS AND RESURRECTING) showing me by example and so that I could SEE myself how it's done (HOW TO FIX MY TABLET) and maybe as we chat and drink some wine and eat some olive bread , He will teach me about The Truth in life as well (SINCE AFTER ALL CREATOR GOD , REPAIRMAN IS ALSO A RABBI, TEACHER, PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND MY FRIEND BY NOW).
OR
2- I could try learning how to fix my tablet (THE CREATED WORLD , MY REALITY) my way (AS A SCIENTIST) who if I get too proud (AS A SCIENTISM FAITHER) might hubristically deny the existence of my tablet's Creator, and Maker (GOD) and even question His instructions, hoping I am smart and lucky enough to fix it (THE CREATED WORLD, MY REALITY) and perhaps won a Nobel Prize, become famous and rich, get tenure and funds , have a social media channel and sell a bunch of books (while all along make mom and the wife very proud), but forgetting that GOD AND CREATOR took ONLY 6 days to make this world but He could had worked at it for gazillions and zillions of years and then scientism faithers would had been really screwed. Lol.
Nothing sweeter, smarter and wiser than to personally know CREATOR GOD, REPAIRER AND RESTORER OF OUR LIVES , AND ABOVE ALL TO HAVE AN EVERLASTING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM , WHO IS ALL TRUTH AND ALL LOVE, AND WHO IS PREPARING FOR US ANOTHER MUCH BETTER WORLD AND REALITY CALLED '''HEAVEN'''...Shema!!!.
Good luck with your sky-fairy coming round any time soon to fix ̲𝙖̲𝙣̲𝙮̲𝙩̲𝙝̲𝙞̲𝙣̲𝙜
Mr. Hammond talks too much, running to waffle. He should firstly do his homework on the subject, then learn to rein his thoughts in, keep his questions short and precise, and let the invited speaker actually speak.
Just got to the end of the video, and the interviewer's words seem to sum up what he got from the session: "Thank you very much Sabine for joining us from Frankfurt Germany, umm, it was a great pleasure 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 ..." Yep, he said that, instead of saying it was a great pleasure 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪 - he's tacitly admitting to the fact that he did most of the talking. Come on, CWCC, surely you can do better than this in choosing interviewers?