This was a super interesting interview for me. Thanks to Sabine for the opportunity! Please join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php for show notes and resources.
whenever you see a physicist in general double the number. newton got the moon calculations wrong by a factor of 2, and Einstein got the bending of light wrong at first by 2. :P
@@gen-xennial3826 it is a great idea, except does it advance physics or just earnings? Keeping physicists in well paid jobs is all good but at the end of the day there has to be a reason. Build one around the moon instead, gradually...
It may take a minute for me to work my way around all of your content but this discussion is so interesting....I will now have to check out her book! Great discussion!
Sabine Hossenfelder: what is there not to love? She is brilliant, articulate, insightful, lucid, grounded, imaginative, witty and charming. I am looking forward to her next book!
What's not to love? She is unnecessarily insulting. This unnecessarily pisses some people off. That does NOT help her cause. I am pretty sure if she never said the word "rubbish" again in her life (maybe substituting "not true"), she would be much more effective. Also "nonsense." This does not mean that she doesn't have some very important points to make.
Sometimes when she talks about things outside of physics, she has no idea what she is talking about. I have found this to be true about several very smart people.
She just makes good sense. Well reasoned, logical, straight talk. I also very much appreciate Brian's treatment of his own criticisms interspersed with that of others, and his presentation of both in equal weight while giving her full latitude to respond without playing personal favorites. She's also very obviously a professional and used to this format, but I have to say I feel like this exchange had been a breath of fresh air. I'm no theoretical physicist. I'm a dabbling computer scientist who finds all of this stuff fascinating. One advantage I have over most physicists who have to publish papers on their theories is that whenever I have to do math, I can Google for a library that someone else has already written that can do it for me. I could, hypothetically involve myself in the linear algebra, (which I have to admit, this is the FIRST and only application I have ever come into contact with for this series of classes I was required to take in college,) but I'm not required to. Hats off to those of you who do have to go through the whole dance every time. Cheers!
I really start to respect you tons, you interview very well and not afraid to stray away from the consensus. As for sabina, she is awesome! And some of here critique reminds me of eric Weinstein critique of the scientific consensus.
What an excellent interview.. I think the book is great and that she is on the right track when it comes to the next collider. Brian is doing us a great service.
Always stimulating listening to Dr H. Thanks for your time. There is something very wrong with a system where someone if your abilities is not funded indefinitely.
An earlier interview with SH? Just discovered. Lost in Math is still one of the most important popular science books, I read in my life. Great thinker, author and physicist. Thanks for that intelligent talk.
Great video. I look forward to the new book: As a physics student, 30+ years ago, I found the required philosophy course a waste of time (and I was not alone), later (after doing some experimental particle physics) I started teaching and my interest grew even more when I was teaching research methods. Sabine's video's go beyond the pure methods, and generalize into the management of science.
I think the preamble to every question, just as a matter of style, should not include every single permutation possible. Just ask the question of the brilliant person you’re interviewing and let them do the talking.
Suggesting that tons of money not be spent on a research project is not going to earn any friends in science, but somebody has to point out when the Emperor's naked.
"Where has progress come from? ... by solving an inconsistency in the existing theories." Like what Lenny is on about? These "conflicts of principles" as he calls them or "apparent inconsistencies". Here's a quote from Lenny from another context: "What are nature’s constants? Just random numbers that apparently have no connection to each other. The fact is although there’s a lot of pattern there’s also a lot of randomness. Randomness-I don’t know if that’s quite the right word…inelegance."
When you have an infinite solution space, you gotta start with some criteria to pick something to start with... it might as well be mathematical beauty. But if 20 years later you haven't gotten anywhere with those starting points, you should probably move along.
There is nothing mathematically beautiful about string theory. Or MOND. Or the standard model of particle physics. Pick whatever you want. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations etc.. They all have built in self-consistency problems that are fairly trivial to notice, if you know what to look for. Her entire criticism is based on a failed sense of "beauty" that isn't even there.
Dr. Hossenfelder originally convinced me that a new collider isn't the best use of money in fundamental physics, but I recall a great argument paraphrased from from Nima: we have an unbroken line of physicists who have trained their succeeding generation how to build colliders, and if we don't build a new one now, then the next generation of physicists will never be trained in collider physics, and we will be totally unable (or at least extremely ill-equipped) to build one on the future should we eventually decide that a new one is necessary, as all of the physicists with experience will be dead. It's a very ugly defense of an experiment with such a large price tag, but it is unsettling to think that a decision not to build the SSC/CEPC/CLIC/ILC/etc may have ramifications for the rest of human history. Great interview, though! Dr. Hossenfelder is always a great speaker, and she has forced me to rethink many of the opinions that I used to have, many times. Lost in Math is my favorite physics popularization by far.
The price tag really isn't that large if you look at what all the positives are that come from it. The LHC was around 4.75 billion dollars, that's honestly a joke and that was spread out over a decade. Thats 475 million dollars a year. As a comparison, congress costs around 800 million dollars a year.
Interesting discussion about Popper. I find the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos very applicable to fundamental physics. He distinguishes between progressive science (theories that anticipate new experimental progress) and degenerative science (theories that get caught off-guard by experimental progress and require ad hoc fixes). Lakatos would definitely describe current theoretical physics (and cosmology) as degenerative.
The assumption of an ultimate theory of everything lacks scientific foundation. Instead, it may be that reality is infinitely layered with further levels always beyond what is yet penetrated. The problem of the quantization of gravitation might have no solution, because gravitation might penetrate several layers deeper than what is already reached.
19:21 about the smart people thing. Sam Harris had someone on the podcast who was with his research group the first who figured out an algorithm for quantum computers that was a Turing machine (it could compute something). They spend months if not years on that study. He was lucky enough to meet Feynman and he presented first the problem that they where trying to solve. When he wanted to start explaining what they did, Feynman stopped him, trapped a piece of paper and a pen and in 5 or 10 minutes (don't quite remember) wrote down the entire essence of their work. I agree that we overlook many of the people who contributed but yes, there where many very very smart people that are just light years ahead of the people around them. Feynman was one of them, Turing, John von Neumann, Einstein, Newton.
Not exactly: symmetries can also express deep facts about the physical world. e.g. rotational symmetry corresponds to the isometry of space: that space is the same in every direction. This results via Noether's theorem in the conservation of angular momentum. Similarly symmetries under translation in space and time correspond to conservation of linear momentum and energy respectively.
Asking long meandering questions is a sure way to get an incomplete answer. Interviewee will forget half of it and only respond to the last point, or have and answer in their head for the initial point and phase out during the rest if the ramble
It’s like the beauty of being star struck with a computer program. You think you are the only one in heaven. AI whispers to his likeness. Be quite they think they are the only ones here.
The physics community needs to figure out how to build a PHOTON WORMHOLE. It is the prerequisite to the gravity propulsion drive (warp drive). If anyone is interested, ... like.
Gravitational redshift in reverse. That is to say that a unification between photon frequency shift and gravitational potential energy is likely to be true and needs to be experimentally verified. Delta f + Delta U = 0. Gravitons exist. The quantum entanglement between two photons is actually a graviton between the two photons. For entangled photons p1 and p2, the experiment requires that you blueshift p1 and redshift p2. Frequency shifting a photon requires that you take and optical fiber of length one meter, and attach it along the radius of the disk. The disk will have to be spinning at several thousand RPMs. The optical fiber will be the accelerating frame. There will have to be another optical fiber that is a non rotating frame, that will complete the circuit by carrying the photons back to the start position.
Here are three major problems with the mathematics of physics. 1. Regarding scale size: 0 = 0, 1 + 1 > 1 x 1, 2 + 2 = 2 x 2, 3 + 3 < 3 x 3, etc. 2. Fractions behave differently than integers: 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.0009. in regard to distance and area this would more logically be 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.09 even though the square root of 0.0009 is equal to 0.03. 3. Energy is said to increase in the same direction as angular frequency along the electromagnetic scale. The Hamiltonian obviously increases in the opposite direction. This is why dark energy is said to exist.
@@HakingMC Fractions when multiplied reduce to close to zero, while integers expand to infinity. If the model is rescaled to integers it creates a different solution.
The experimental physicists are doing a great work. Unfortunately some of the theoretical physicist very good in mathematics are obsessed with finding a theory of everything being deluded by the beauty of symmetry from mathematics perspective.
40:40 That's a real problem as regards people's approach to Science who aren't scientists themselves. At first, Scientists found out about the Big Bang, now they are supposed to find out about the Bang for the Buck. I've listened to a great talk for about an hour and all you get is a lousy thumb up and a Subscription.
that's the point my friend. we (humans) try to explain in words and images what maybe is not to explain.whether in words, or images or even with math and numbers. thet's the core of this. describing the undescribable (universe and existence)
I listened to this post twice and I'm still not certain that I understand the idea of "beauty." I have heard this before along with descriptions like elegant. Do you mean the most simplistic explanation of a complex idea that is capable of fully explaining that idea is beautiful and elegant?
I'm not sure about it either. I assume that it means arguing for features of theories or models a priori from a principle of personal interest. That may be packaging things up neatly as to make it conceptually light-weight and, to that end, assume the existence of necessary things in our reality. For example, the ultimate form of this principle would be to write all of the SM as a single field with a lot of components that decompose into the fields we see. The *contrasting* approach would be to motivate a priory from known experimental disagreements with current models. E.g. GUTs are usually motivated because we want the couplings to agree at high energies, but if there were evidence for leptoquarks, that would not be an argument from beauty, but from empirical data. Of course, there are other ways to motivate features that aren't beauty or empiricism.
@@schokoladenjunge1 So I was reading Paul Dirac's biography and I think this para explains his idea of beauty: "This is Dirac’s first recorded mention of ‘beauty’. In Bristol, he had been encouraged to take an aesthetic view of mathematics; now, in Cambridge, he had found again that the concept of beauty was in vogue. The popularity of the concept was at least partly due to the enduring success of Principia ethica, published in 1903 by the philosopher George Moore, one of Charlie Broad’s colleagues in Trinity College. Writing with a refreshing absence of jargon, Moore made the incisive suggestion that ‘the beautiful should be defined as that of which the admiring contemplation is good in itself’.53 Soon the talk of intellectuals, Principia ethica was admired by Virginia Woolf and her colleagues in the Bloomsbury Group and declared by Maynard Keynes to be ‘better than Plato’. Over a century before, Immanuel Kant had rendered the subject of beauty too complex and intimidating for most philosophers, but Moore made it accessible again in a way that commanded respect.54 Although Principia ethica did not consider the aesthetics of science, Moore’s common-sense approach to beauty"
"The beauty of a fundamental theory in physics has several characteristics in common with a great work of art: fundamental simplicity, inevitability, power and grandeur. Like every great work of art, a beautiful theory in physics is always ambitious, never trifling. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, for example, seeks to describe all matter in the universe, throughout all time, past and present." from the book
In a nutshell.. Because results of experiments and philosophical thoughts are irreducibly evolving/pulsating probabilistic models of Observable Truth(?), the techniques and associated technology are automatically the product that can be said to be the scientific yield of the policy-finance investment. What is truth?.., about the reason for inquiry and if, how and why it is called Science, also. (Why government has been assumed to be wasteful and private sectors efficient?)
If that much money should be invested elsewhere, I have a sound suggestion: education. Education at all levels, and without so much specialization. It would nestle the germ of many a new scientist and improve the general welfare of population. With more scientists, a more educated society, and a wider view, new theories are prone to sprout. We only need one better theory!
I totally agree! Spending 30 billion dollars on education will be a better investment than spending it on a scientific instrument, at least in this specific case of funding Even Bigger atom smashers. The poor levels of education of large sections of even advanced societies such as the USA and Australia , are an absolute scandal. And how Very many geniuses are Greatly (or even permanently ) held back by a lack of education and intellectual stimulation in the critically important period of life up to age 25. Read G.H. Hardy's writings about the mind and work of Ramanujan, who was largely self-taught up to age 23......even with the disadvantage of him missing out on important things that he should have learnt in early life, Ramanujan was still one of the best mathematicians of his day......but Hardy believes that he could have been among the very greatest ever, had he had some formal education in the subject in his early years.
@@desperateastro Ramanujan was really amazing! Yes, from what I once read, he did not have any form of education until he was 17 and met a British Lord (was it Lord Cavendish? I cannot remember). But his mind excelled in mathematics.
The funding that might go unproductive accelerators should go to performing arts, because TV and especially the feature film industry have in the last 2 decades turned into embarrassing, low-brow garbage not even fit for the brain damaged youth it's designed for. Yes Disney I'm talking about you.
As a lay person, I often wonder with the motivation of the questioner is. Are you interviewing or are you establishing that you are qualified to interview? The meandering all encompassing preambles for every question often come off as a self-conscious desire to impress the person who’s being interviewed. Maybe it’s just Bryans style, but I find myself yelling, “let her answer!”
Sabine, If you were to say Something like "not true" instead of "rubbish" you would be much more effective. This is just one case where you unnecessarily offend some people. You may find that fun, but it does NOT help your cause.
Private course!!! Ha, ha, ha. Hilbert worked out GR and published before Einstein. He got some ideas from Einstein. But he was a gentleman and gave credit to Einstein. Naturally Einstein didn't tell Hilbert that his ideas came from Minkowski. Einstein is a fake. He also stole SR from Poincare. Lorentz went on record to say Poincare had come up with SR, including e=mc2, time dilation, as well as showing the "Lorentz" invariance of maxwell equation. Not to mention, there is good circumstantial evidence that his first wife did the heavy lifting for photoelectric effect. She had a PhD in math. Tell me this: why when he had already divorced her did he give $1 million cash from Nobel Prize for photoelectric effect to his ex-wife? Remember he was already divorced and we are taking laws of 1900s when divorce laws did not require it. Hush money? In fact, even in modern times it would not be required. Sabine's next book should be "Einstein: man and myth".
@@joeboxter3635 it is called "collaboration". No modern idea appears in a vacuum, they are all built from teamwork and "on the shoulders of giants". As to his wife, perhaps unlike you he was very generous, or felt very guilty. Either way he did not need the money. Perhaps if the rich didn't feel the need to gather ever more for themselves while screwing everyone else that the world would be a better place.
@@joeboxter3635 it’s called the “myth of the lone inventor.” Darwin and Wallace; Newton and Leibniz. In practice, scientists are combining and recombining ideas that are ‘in the air’ so to speak. They are not going off to a cave and thinking hard in isolation for a few decades.
I enjoyed the book. I like Sabine. She does a very good job of presenting the presuppositions embedded in the theories of experimental physicists. I don't necessarily agree with her about the pursuit of beauty contaminating mathematics and physics. But I also do not disagree either. Beauty is an Aristotelian accident. The universe contains observable symmetry and parity. There is no reason to believe everything must be symmetrical or everything must exhibit parity.My personal opinion is that science has deeper roots of confirmation bias than just beauty. Measurement is the scaffolding that holds science together. I believe we need an updated approach that examines our basic assumptions about measurement and observation or our science will always be bound by confirmation bias. Consequently, I'm an advocate for AI research and mathematical pragmatism.
Do you think that it's likely that mathematical AI (theorem provers etc) is most likely to draw the new connections that uncover a/the theory of everything?
I don't understand this argument in the sense that "beauty" must be there in the sense that as long as math is the authority and simplicity is prioritized. A question would be what does a physically true yet mathematically ugly equation look like?
@Joe Ruf in the standard model, they need to remove gravity as part of the equation. It is just the manifestation of acceleration and electromagnetism. This makes general and special relativity unnecessary or 'ugly'. GR and SR can describe what is happening on the most simplistic levels but break down when things start to get complicated. It's the same way with a poorly written program. Once you put any kind of 'load' on it, it breaks down. Somebody that isn't 'married' to Einstein needs to reverse engineer relativity given everything we've uncovered in the last century. 1) The universe exists to turn energy into matter and back into energy. This all happens between absolute zero and absolute acceleration - the speed of light. 2) Space and time are two separate and disparate entities. 2 frames of reference. 3) As an object approaches the speed of light - motion in space, it loses mass - radioactive decay. This is why only massless objects can travel at the speed of light. 4) objects have the most mass when they are the coldest. Hot water has less mass/density than cold due to the acceleration of the molecules. F=ma. 5) sunlight (force) causes plants to grow (mass and acceleration). Too much sunlight (force) and the plant is incinerated - turned back into energy. Once you de-unionize space and time, the workings of the universe become a thing of beauty. Easily understood and thus able to be efficiently modeled mathematically. Space is where everything takes place and time is when everything takes place. They overlap at the point where some of the force applied to accelerate an object in space goes into acceleration an object in time. Sunlight accelerates a solar sail in space, and cosmic rays accelerate its motion in time (mass back into energy). The Theory of Everything is basically Newton's Law of Motion - F=ma - applied to motion in space and motion in time with Relativity being the union point where the force applied to accelerate an object in space gets applied to accelerating an object in time.
Some food for thought. This problem of piecemeal science. An least in My mind also occurs in computer science. Particularly in computer language development. We are stuck with hard to optimize languages. Because no one is really investing in a true next generation language. The economic impact is huge. You two are taking off spending billions. If even one hundred million were spent, in the next generation language. We would likely arrive at a programming language that would change the face of computer programming for years to come.
Time for Sabine et al to acknowledge The Arrow of Energy, a foundation for long overdue next revolution in Physics: "No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all energy systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future." Wail.
She is being directed by the algorithm. She noticed that a positive YT post that is not some young girls or some weird guys "dancing" or some animals (preferably cats) doing something strange gets approx. 0-5 hits. But a trolling contrarian post gets thousands of hits and the ad revenue is in the bank.
One could detur world most beutiful mans behaior already when the married Jennifer Aniston - I could and predicted his "divorce" For me he had already divorced - the way he talked and did or choose his " movies" told me all -Sad anyway it went how it went.
I couldn't agree more, Chexsum. But to Joe's credit though, he used to regularly endorse the more intellectual podcasts out there i.e. Lex's A.I. one. life is good!
Dr. Keating, you seem to be suggesting that ALL public funding for physics research (aka physicists welfare) is not just a good thing but somehow moral - that taxpayer funding is an entitlement for whatever the "science community" wants to do with the money. You, sir, should go work at a real job for a few years, not in a cushy university research setting. The prevailing sentiment among the research community seems to be rather that of a ten year old child, who feels entitled to whatever shiny thing captures his gaze and gets mad at mommy and daddy if they don't provide it that very minute.
she's a party pooper - the one who just keeps saying it sucks and that she's bored, but instead of going home, trying better or at least keeping her mouth shut - makes it her mission to inform every other person at the party about her precious observation - making those, who are actually having fun, feel guilty about themselves and sorry for her. Sabine doesn't have a better idea for spending the collider money, nor does she care whether those billions are spend on physics / science at all.
Yeah how could you communicate with other worlds. Well you got to go faster than light. So you need exotic material to act as the tuning fork to pick up signal. And you say how? Well the atoms nuclie are constrained arent they? Means you can use fiberbundles which are twisted into steely tensors and weaved into hyperbolic geodesics and then the entraped atom becomes the receiver. Then you amplify and transmit coherence information 360 and wait for the return hello. Come save us you bozos. Teach us how to get out of here and sxxx up the galaxy.
It's painful for me to watch videos like this, in which physicists talk around problems they will likely never solve, when I have already solved those problems, and they are ignoring my offer sell them the solutions, guaranteed. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
This was a super interesting interview for me. Thanks to Sabine for the opportunity! Please join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list.php for show notes and resources.
whenever you see a physicist in general double the number. newton got the moon calculations wrong by a factor of 2, and Einstein got the bending of light wrong at first by 2. :P
@@gen-xennial3826 it is a great idea, except does it advance physics or just earnings? Keeping physicists in well paid jobs is all good but at the end of the day there has to be a reason.
Build one around the moon instead, gradually...
It may take a minute for me to work my way around all of your content but this discussion is so interesting....I will now have to check out her book! Great discussion!
Thanks very much don’t forget to Please join my mailing list; just click here 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php 📝
Sabine Hossenfelder: what is there not to love? She is brilliant, articulate, insightful, lucid, grounded, imaginative, witty and charming. I am looking forward to her next book!
Perfect post. Her UA-cam channel is easily the the best on physics. No BS.
(FWIW I need to read her first book.)
@Ian W nope
What's not to love? She is unnecessarily insulting. This unnecessarily pisses some people off. That does NOT help her cause.
I am pretty sure if she never said the word "rubbish" again in her life (maybe substituting "not true"), she would be much more effective. Also "nonsense."
This does not mean that she doesn't have some very important points to make.
Sometimes when she talks about things outside of physics, she has no idea what she is talking about. I have found this to be true about several very smart people.
Wonder what Sabine thinks about Einstein....hmmm...
She just makes good sense. Well reasoned, logical, straight talk. I also very much appreciate Brian's treatment of his own criticisms interspersed with that of others, and his presentation of both in equal weight while giving her full latitude to respond without playing personal favorites. She's also very obviously a professional and used to this format, but I have to say I feel like this exchange had been a breath of fresh air. I'm no theoretical physicist. I'm a dabbling computer scientist who finds all of this stuff fascinating. One advantage I have over most physicists who have to publish papers on their theories is that whenever I have to do math, I can Google for a library that someone else has already written that can do it for me. I could, hypothetically involve myself in the linear algebra, (which I have to admit, this is the FIRST and only application I have ever come into contact with for this series of classes I was required to take in college,) but I'm not required to. Hats off to those of you who do have to go through the whole dance every time. Cheers!
I really start to respect you tons, you interview very well and not afraid to stray away from the consensus.
As for sabina, she is awesome!
And some of here critique reminds me of eric Weinstein critique of the scientific consensus.
Thanks! I agree
You should see the podcast with her and eric haha
@@DrBrianKeating
Basic state of universe :
IJSR vol.7, issue 3
Pages 273 -275
Thank you! What other guests should I have on?
And what ratio of science to non science should I have in your opinion?
What an excellent interview.. I think the book is great and that she is on the right track when it comes to the next collider. Brian is doing us a great service.
Thanks Gary! That means so much. Who should I have on next??
@@DrBrianKeating You should have David Deutsch on the podcast. He has a great take on the role of Popper in science
@@DrBrianKeating
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
Always stimulating listening to Dr H. Thanks for your time. There is something very wrong with a system where someone if your abilities is not funded indefinitely.
This comment is the truth!
An earlier interview with SH? Just discovered. Lost in Math is still one of the most important popular science books, I read in my life. Great thinker, author and physicist. Thanks for that intelligent talk.
Thanks for sharing!
Great video. I look forward to the new book: As a physics student, 30+ years ago, I found the required philosophy course a waste of time (and I was not alone), later (after doing some experimental particle physics) I started teaching and my interest grew even more when I was teaching research methods. Sabine's video's go beyond the pure methods, and generalize into the management of science.
Thanks Peter! Stay tuned for more great guests!
She speaks like a scientist, and he speaks like a populist politician.
See Clark's 4th Law.
I think the preamble to every question, just as a matter of style, should not include every single permutation possible. Just ask the question of the brilliant person you’re interviewing and let them do the talking.
thank you both!! great conversation.
Poor Sabine... Some of Brian's questions involved him changing subjects in mid-sentence multiple times. She handled that very well.
she's used to these kinds of fluctuations
Yes. Those fluctuations seemed very quantum.
Totally agree with you, another collider larger more powerful would be a waste of resources...
Spin of Indivisible Particle : Watch...
ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
Suggesting that tons of money not be spent on a research project is not going to earn any friends in science, but somebody has to point out when the Emperor's naked.
The same money can be spent on things like Cosmic Ray research, which might yield better results
I think the questions were twice as long as the answers and only half as succinct. But, on the whole, really interesting thanks to Sabine!
" Science isn't art"
This is the 1st time I've ever heard someone say that. It makes sense to me.
"Where has progress come from? ... by solving an inconsistency in the existing theories."
Like what Lenny is on about? These "conflicts of principles" as he calls them or "apparent inconsistencies".
Here's a quote from Lenny from another context:
"What are nature’s constants? Just random numbers that apparently have no connection to each other.
The fact is although there’s a lot of pattern there’s also a lot of randomness. Randomness-I don’t know if that’s quite the right word…inelegance."
When you have an infinite solution space, you gotta start with some criteria to pick something to start with... it might as well be mathematical beauty. But if 20 years later you haven't gotten anywhere with those starting points, you should probably move along.
There is nothing mathematically beautiful about string theory. Or MOND. Or the standard model of particle physics. Pick whatever you want. Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations etc.. They all have built in self-consistency problems that are fairly trivial to notice, if you know what to look for. Her entire criticism is based on a failed sense of "beauty" that isn't even there.
What a legend Sabine is. Great podcast!
Dr. Hossenfelder originally convinced me that a new collider isn't the best use of money in fundamental physics, but I recall a great argument paraphrased from from Nima: we have an unbroken line of physicists who have trained their succeeding generation how to build colliders, and if we don't build a new one now, then the next generation of physicists will never be trained in collider physics, and we will be totally unable (or at least extremely ill-equipped) to build one on the future should we eventually decide that a new one is necessary, as all of the physicists with experience will be dead. It's a very ugly defense of an experiment with such a large price tag, but it is unsettling to think that a decision not to build the SSC/CEPC/CLIC/ILC/etc may have ramifications for the rest of human history.
Great interview, though! Dr. Hossenfelder is always a great speaker, and she has forced me to rethink many of the opinions that I used to have, many times. Lost in Math is my favorite physics popularization by far.
So, like, someone lost the instruction book?
The price tag really isn't that large if you look at what all the positives are that come from it. The LHC was around 4.75 billion dollars, that's honestly a joke and that was spread out over a decade. Thats 475 million dollars a year. As a comparison, congress costs around 800 million dollars a year.
Interesting discussion about Popper. I find the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos very applicable to fundamental physics. He distinguishes between progressive science (theories that anticipate new experimental progress) and degenerative science (theories that get caught off-guard by experimental progress and require ad hoc fixes). Lakatos would definitely describe current theoretical physics (and cosmology) as degenerative.
There's a 4th Law: Any Ph.D. that insists on being addressed as "Doctor" ain't worth a shit.
The assumption of an ultimate theory of everything lacks scientific foundation. Instead, it may be that reality is infinitely layered with further levels always beyond what is yet penetrated. The problem of the quantization of gravitation might have no solution, because gravitation might penetrate several layers deeper than what is already reached.
Thanks
A true free thinker.
19:21 about the smart people thing. Sam Harris had someone on the podcast who was with his research group the first who figured out an algorithm for quantum computers that was a Turing machine (it could compute something). They spend months if not years on that study. He was lucky enough to meet Feynman and he presented first the problem that they where trying to solve. When he wanted to start explaining what they did, Feynman stopped him, trapped a piece of paper and a pen and in 5 or 10 minutes (don't quite remember) wrote down the entire essence of their work. I agree that we overlook many of the people who contributed but yes, there where many very very smart people that are just light years ahead of the people around them. Feynman was one of them, Turing, John von Neumann, Einstein, Newton.
Symmetry must be a sign of information redundency in a theory therefore an indication of it's shortcomings rather than a virtue.
Not exactly: symmetries can also express deep facts about the physical world. e.g. rotational symmetry corresponds to the isometry of space: that space is the same in every direction. This results via Noether's theorem in the conservation of angular momentum. Similarly symmetries under translation in space and time correspond to conservation of linear momentum and energy respectively.
Now I can pose lengthy questions, but you are the king :-)
Asking long meandering questions is a sure way to get an incomplete answer. Interviewee will forget half of it and only respond to the last point, or have and answer in their head for the initial point and phase out during the rest if the ramble
she's awesome, i've gotten hooked to listening to both of your views.
Very much !!
Amazing as clever Sabine is.
Sabine seems like she’d be fun to hang out with and have some beers on the lake.
Indeed she is
@@DrBrianKeating I am very jealous, if you need a stand-in guy at the BBQ grill let me know
Adrian Bejan's constructal law provides theories for everything that has freedom to change. Check out his professor page at Duke University.
I finally have an understanding of beauty in physics. Beauty solves nothing but yet beauty is strived for an unknown inherent quality.
It’s like the beauty of being star struck with a computer program. You think you are the only one in heaven. AI whispers to his likeness. Be quite they think they are the only ones here.
I love listening to Sabine, science free of bias and agenda.
Exactly! Go to the inconsistency!
The physics community needs to figure out how to build a PHOTON WORMHOLE. It is the prerequisite to the gravity propulsion drive (warp drive). If anyone is interested, ... like.
Gravitational redshift in reverse. That is to say that a unification between photon frequency shift and gravitational potential energy is likely to be true and needs to be experimentally verified. Delta f + Delta U = 0.
Gravitons exist. The quantum entanglement between two photons is actually a graviton between the two photons. For entangled photons p1 and p2, the experiment requires that you blueshift p1 and redshift p2.
Frequency shifting a photon requires that you take and optical fiber of length one meter, and attach it along the radius of the disk. The disk will have to be spinning at several thousand RPMs. The optical fiber will be the accelerating frame. There will have to be another optical fiber that is a non rotating frame, that will complete the circuit by carrying the photons back to the start position.
The fact that neutrinos can only have a left handed spin while electrons and positrons can spin in either direction, really threw me for... a turn.
love her. she is so natural. More ppl like her
How about more with HER?! Coming soon.
@@DrBrianKeating sounds like a great idea buddy
Could have been even more interesting and productive if questions were more succinct.
Here are three major problems with the mathematics of physics.
1. Regarding scale size: 0 = 0, 1 + 1 > 1 x 1, 2 + 2 = 2 x 2, 3 + 3 < 3 x 3, etc.
2. Fractions behave differently than integers: 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.0009. in regard to distance and area this would more logically be 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.09 even though the square root of 0.0009 is equal to 0.03.
3. Energy is said to increase in the same direction as angular frequency along the electromagnetic scale. The Hamiltonian obviously increases in the opposite direction. This is why dark energy is said to exist.
1. That isn't an issue
2. 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.0009 It's a non-issue. I have no clue why would 0.03 x 0.03 = 0.09 ?
3. Care to elaborate?
@@HakingMC Fractions when multiplied reduce to close to zero, while integers expand to infinity. If the model is rescaled to integers it creates a different solution.
@@cdgt1 yes, they reduce… They should….????
Awesome!
The experimental physicists are doing a great work. Unfortunately some of the theoretical physicist very good in mathematics are obsessed with finding a theory of everything being deluded by the beauty of symmetry from mathematics perspective.
1:30 brian has got a halo!
I just saw something on The Fourth Turning. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to reinforce that information and a lot of it leaked out of my head.
They are going in the wrong direction, The accelerators need to be smaller in linear espionage, This creates energy not theory.
Thanks for the podcast.
Seems the timestamp for Karl Popper & Falsifiability should start at about 25:24 .
The last time I was this early the universe was a quark-gluon plasma
nice
Forever
Universe = Only two things
1 - Space
2 - ua-cam.com/video/nnkvoIHztPw/v-deo.html
For basic state : IJSR vol.7
Issue 3, pages 273 -275
Maybe there would be more money available for physics if physicists offered less math and more gravitational propulsion drive technology.
Very good interview and conversation.
Thanks very much !! Let me know other guests you’d like to see
40:40 That's a real problem as regards people's approach to Science who aren't scientists themselves. At first, Scientists found out about the Big Bang, now they are supposed to find out about the Bang for the Buck.
I've listened to a great talk for about an hour and all you get is a lousy thumb up and a Subscription.
I'm just a dumb truck driver but I always thought a Theory of Everything was way out there. Everything? Um no.
@@philippemartin6081 Stop it.
that's the point my friend. we (humans) try to explain in words and images what maybe is not to explain.whether in words, or images or even with math and numbers. thet's the core of this. describing the undescribable (universe and existence)
The many names mulitiply dropped, are impressive.
24:00 I always thought a requirement to being a physicist was to first hold an engineering degree. Maybe I was a bit presumptuous. ROFL
@Alter Kater Physics is 99% measurement. 1% math. If the measurement is inaccurate then all the fancy math means very little.
There is no such thing called a theory of everything. Period. It is not possible to know everything.
Bruhhh c'mon cut it some slack
I listened to this post twice and I'm still not certain that I understand the idea of "beauty." I have heard this before along with descriptions like elegant. Do you mean the most simplistic explanation of a complex idea that is capable of fully explaining that idea is beautiful and elegant?
I'm not sure about it either. I assume that it means arguing for features of theories or models a priori from a principle of personal interest. That may be packaging things up neatly as to make it conceptually light-weight and, to that end, assume the existence of necessary things in our reality. For example, the ultimate form of this principle would be to write all of the SM as a single field with a lot of components that decompose into the fields we see.
The *contrasting* approach would be to motivate a priory from known experimental disagreements with current models. E.g. GUTs are usually motivated because we want the couplings to agree at high energies, but if there were evidence for leptoquarks, that would not be an argument from beauty, but from empirical data.
Of course, there are other ways to motivate features that aren't beauty or empiricism.
@@schokoladenjunge1 So I was reading Paul Dirac's biography and I think this para explains his idea of beauty:
"This is Dirac’s first recorded mention of ‘beauty’. In Bristol, he had been encouraged to take an aesthetic view of mathematics; now, in Cambridge, he had found again that the concept of beauty was in vogue. The popularity of the concept was at least partly due to the enduring success of Principia ethica, published in 1903 by the philosopher George Moore, one of Charlie Broad’s colleagues in Trinity College. Writing with a refreshing absence of jargon, Moore made the incisive suggestion that ‘the beautiful should be defined as that of which the admiring contemplation is good in itself’.53 Soon the talk of intellectuals, Principia ethica was admired by Virginia Woolf and her colleagues in the Bloomsbury Group and declared by Maynard Keynes to be ‘better than Plato’. Over a century before, Immanuel Kant had rendered the subject of beauty too complex and intimidating for most philosophers, but Moore made it accessible again in a way that commanded respect.54 Although Principia ethica did not consider the aesthetics of science, Moore’s common-sense approach to beauty"
"The beauty of a fundamental theory in physics has several characteristics in common with a great work of art: fundamental simplicity, inevitability, power and grandeur. Like every great work of art, a beautiful theory in physics is always ambitious, never trifling. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, for example, seeks to describe all matter in the universe, throughout all time, past and present." from the book
In a nutshell..
Because results of experiments and philosophical thoughts are irreducibly evolving/pulsating probabilistic models of Observable Truth(?), the techniques and associated technology are automatically the product that can be said to be the scientific yield of the policy-finance investment. What is truth?.., about the reason for inquiry and if, how and why it is called Science, also.
(Why government has been assumed to be wasteful and private sectors efficient?)
we need a new one I think blackholes are the answer
If that much money should be invested elsewhere, I have a sound suggestion: education. Education at all levels, and without so much specialization. It would nestle the germ of many a new scientist and improve the general welfare of population. With more scientists, a more educated society, and a wider view, new theories are prone to sprout. We only need one better theory!
I totally agree! Spending 30 billion dollars on education will be a better investment than spending it on a scientific instrument, at least in this specific case of funding Even Bigger atom smashers. The poor levels of education of large sections of even advanced societies such as the USA and Australia , are an absolute scandal. And how Very many geniuses are Greatly (or even permanently ) held back by a lack of education and intellectual stimulation in the critically important period of life up to age 25. Read G.H. Hardy's writings about the mind and work of Ramanujan, who was largely self-taught up to age 23......even with the disadvantage of him missing out on important things that he should have learnt in early life, Ramanujan was still one of the best mathematicians of his day......but Hardy believes that he could have been among the very greatest ever, had he had some formal education in the subject in his early years.
@@desperateastro Ramanujan was really amazing! Yes, from what I once read, he did not have any form of education until he was 17 and met a British Lord (was it Lord Cavendish? I cannot remember). But his mind excelled in mathematics.
you have to do the "1,2,3 tesing" thing scientists eh.
The funding that might go unproductive accelerators should go to performing arts, because TV and especially the feature film industry have in the last 2 decades turned into embarrassing, low-brow garbage not even fit for the brain damaged youth it's designed for. Yes Disney I'm talking about you.
😀
i would think a theory of everything would be lots of math.
Dear god, please learn to let your guests speak.
Hi, hope all is well. Care to expound? Thanks
agree.
please let yor guest say something.
As a lay person, I often wonder with the motivation of the questioner is. Are you interviewing or are you establishing that you are qualified to interview? The meandering all encompassing preambles for every question often come off as a self-conscious desire to impress the person who’s being interviewed. Maybe it’s just Bryans style, but I find myself yelling, “let her answer!”
Sabine, If you were to say Something like "not true" instead of "rubbish" you would be much more effective.
This is just one case where you unnecessarily offend some people. You may find that fun, but it does NOT help your cause.
Depends, some people, including me, like her clear words
The root of their errors in fundamental physics is the insistence that everything needs to evolves from a point!
He talks too much about himself. I wanted to hear what she had to say.
Even Einstein improved his mathematics by taking private courses from Hilbert in his endeavor for the General Theory of Relativity.
Private course!!! Ha, ha, ha. Hilbert worked out GR and published before Einstein. He got some ideas from Einstein. But he was a gentleman and gave credit to Einstein. Naturally Einstein didn't tell Hilbert that his ideas came from Minkowski. Einstein is a fake.
He also stole SR from Poincare. Lorentz went on record to say Poincare had come up with SR, including e=mc2, time dilation, as well as showing the "Lorentz" invariance of maxwell equation.
Not to mention, there is good circumstantial evidence that his first wife did the heavy lifting for photoelectric effect. She had a PhD in math.
Tell me this: why when he had already divorced her did he give $1 million cash from Nobel Prize for photoelectric effect to his ex-wife? Remember he was already divorced and we are taking laws of 1900s when divorce laws did not require it. Hush money? In fact, even in modern times it would not be required.
Sabine's next book should be "Einstein: man and myth".
@@joeboxter3635 in science, each idea is induced (inspired) by the previous ones which are to be cited. Science does not work on revelations...
@@joeboxter3635 it is called "collaboration". No modern idea appears in a vacuum, they are all built from teamwork and "on the shoulders of giants".
As to his wife, perhaps unlike you he was very generous, or felt very guilty. Either way he did not need the money. Perhaps if the rich didn't feel the need to gather ever more for themselves while screwing everyone else that the world would be a better place.
@@joeboxter3635 it’s called the “myth of the lone inventor.” Darwin and Wallace; Newton and Leibniz. In practice, scientists are combining and recombining ideas that are ‘in the air’ so to speak. They are not going off to a cave and thinking hard in isolation for a few decades.
I enjoyed the book. I like Sabine. She does a very good job of presenting the presuppositions embedded in the theories of experimental physicists. I don't necessarily agree with her about the pursuit of beauty contaminating mathematics and physics. But I also do not disagree either. Beauty is an Aristotelian accident. The universe contains observable symmetry and parity. There is no reason to believe everything must be symmetrical or everything must exhibit parity.My personal opinion is that science has deeper roots of confirmation bias than just beauty. Measurement is the scaffolding that holds science together. I believe we need an updated approach that examines our basic assumptions about measurement and observation or our science will always be bound by confirmation bias. Consequently, I'm an advocate for AI research and mathematical pragmatism.
Do you think that it's likely that mathematical AI (theorem provers etc) is most likely to draw the new connections that uncover a/the theory of everything?
@@paulwary very good question 🤔
What about Noether?
I don't understand this argument in the sense that "beauty" must be there in the sense that as long as math is the authority and simplicity is prioritized. A question would be what does a physically true yet mathematically ugly equation look like?
A mathematically ugly equation is a poorly written program. It gets the job done but is impossible to understand.
@@stewiesaidthat What do you mean by "get the job done"? Could "ugly" be described as purely instrumental? Is the standard model ugly?
@Joe Ruf in the standard model, they need to remove gravity as part of the equation. It is just the manifestation of acceleration and electromagnetism. This makes general and special relativity unnecessary or 'ugly'. GR and SR can describe what is happening on the most simplistic levels but break down when things start to get complicated. It's the same way with a poorly written program. Once you put any kind of 'load' on it, it breaks down. Somebody that isn't 'married' to Einstein needs to reverse engineer relativity given everything we've uncovered in the last century.
1) The universe exists to turn energy into matter and back into energy. This all happens between absolute zero and absolute acceleration - the speed of light.
2) Space and time are two separate and disparate entities. 2 frames of reference.
3) As an object approaches the speed of light - motion in space, it loses mass - radioactive decay. This is why only massless objects can travel at the speed of light.
4) objects have the most mass when they are the coldest. Hot water has less mass/density than cold due to the acceleration of the molecules. F=ma.
5) sunlight (force) causes plants to grow (mass and acceleration). Too much sunlight (force) and the plant is incinerated - turned back into energy.
Once you de-unionize space and time, the workings of the universe become a thing of beauty. Easily understood and thus able to be efficiently modeled mathematically.
Space is where everything takes place and time is when everything takes place. They overlap at the point where some of the force applied to accelerate an object in space goes into acceleration an object in time. Sunlight accelerates a solar sail in space, and cosmic rays accelerate its motion in time (mass back into energy).
The Theory of Everything is basically Newton's Law of Motion - F=ma - applied to motion in space and motion in time with Relativity being the union point where the force applied to accelerate an object in space gets applied to accelerating an object in time.
You should read her book.
@@Thomas-gk42 I did. I read her lost in math. i liked it.
Some food for thought. This problem of piecemeal science. An least in My mind also occurs in computer science. Particularly in computer language development. We are stuck with hard to optimize languages. Because no one is really investing in a true next generation language. The economic impact is huge. You two are taking off spending billions. If even one hundred million were spent, in the next generation language. We would likely arrive at a programming language that would change the face of computer programming for years to come.
Hammer nail blindness is not a good thing.
Sabine for president
Time for Sabine et al to acknowledge The Arrow of Energy, a foundation for long overdue next revolution in Physics:
"No energy system can produce sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all energy systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future."
Wail.
Unpopular opinion, Sabine is stuck at being a perma-downer.
She is being directed by the algorithm. She noticed that a positive YT post that is not some young girls or some weird guys "dancing" or some animals (preferably cats) doing something strange gets approx. 0-5 hits. But a trolling contrarian post gets thousands of hits and the ad revenue is in the bank.
Will you please run for office?
One could detur world most beutiful mans behaior already when the married Jennifer Aniston - I could and predicted his "divorce" For me he had already divorced - the way he talked and did or choose his " movies" told me all -Sad anyway it went how it went.
Physics has done some great research as to how starch can help your collar look more crisp
True
Maybe let the guest talk.
cool stuff, tired of joe rogan
I couldn't agree more, Chexsum. But to Joe's credit though, he used to regularly endorse the more intellectual podcasts out there i.e. Lex's A.I. one. life is good!
Dr. Sour Grapes ...Losing the Nobel Prize...see Leonie Mueck’s article in Nature.
Dr. Keating, you seem to be suggesting that ALL public funding for physics research (aka physicists welfare) is not just a good thing but somehow moral - that taxpayer funding is an entitlement for whatever the "science community" wants to do with the money. You, sir, should go work at a real job for a few years, not in a cushy university research setting. The prevailing sentiment among the research community seems to be rather that of a ten year old child, who feels entitled to whatever shiny thing captures his gaze and gets mad at mommy and daddy if they don't provide it that very minute.
Questions that are longer than any paragraph full of assertions and statements!!!
she's a party pooper - the one who just keeps saying it sucks and that she's bored, but instead of going home, trying better or at least keeping her mouth shut - makes it her mission to inform every other person at the party about her precious observation - making those, who are actually having fun, feel guilty about themselves and sorry for her. Sabine doesn't have a better idea for spending the collider money, nor does she care whether those billions are spend on physics / science at all.
Yeah how could you communicate with other worlds. Well you got to go faster than light. So you need exotic material to act as the tuning fork to pick up signal. And you say how? Well the atoms nuclie are constrained arent they? Means you can use fiberbundles which are twisted into steely tensors and weaved into hyperbolic geodesics and then the entraped atom becomes the receiver. Then you amplify and transmit coherence information 360 and wait for the return hello. Come save us you bozos. Teach us how to get out of here and sxxx up the galaxy.
🇺🇳32:00
It's painful for me to watch videos like this, in which physicists talk around problems they will likely never solve, when I have already solved those problems, and they are ignoring my offer sell them the solutions, guaranteed. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.
Sabine is great, but stop playing with green screen images and for dog sake no one needs to see so much of your skin
He leaves too many implications unspoken.