Enjoy this remastered version of my conversation with Sabine - commercial free. If you like it Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 and leave a comment
seriously. you may have seen my comment before.... and its still the same. your content and guests are fantastic. but your show is shit. YOU dont need to be on screen when Sabine is talking. the fact that you over-produced this is what makes me think you have seen my comments before. Anyway.... the fact that you cut away to irrelevant B-roll AS SHE WAS TALKING shows your disrespect for your guests. Your shaky-cam, focusing on yourself, and general "not paying attention as your guest speaks so you can show different camera angles".... and again.... YOUR face is not needed as your guest speaks. jeeezus... if u didnt get my previous comments, i hope you get this one.
especially those moments when you are clearly not interested in what in what is being said, and it SHOWS on your face.... and yet.... you leave your face on screen CLEARLY SHOWING your disinterest. Cmon now..... we all tune in for your guests, NOT you.... and you know this because that is why you have guests
Pure physicist. This woman deserves great respect. She separates science from philosophy, physics from mathematics so clearly... She does not allow any speculative hypothesis or theory. She gives short and concise answers to questions. When we can seek answers with new theories that are simpler and more understandable than the available data and observations to solve big problems in physics, why should we trust explanations that go beyond more complex and difficult physics, she says... My respects to you Sabine Hossenfelder... 🙏🏻 🙏🏻
Absolutely. For me, an enthusiastic layman, she really helps me separate serious science news from the bull, and in a pleasantly entertaining way. I love getting excited over science, but some people just seem to make a living from the fact that most people can't tell the unrecognized genius from the quacksalver selling their 'everyone else got it wrong' book for 20 years. I admire people like Brian, who still have the patience to address people like Mr. Lerner with respect and on a factual basis, but sometimes I think we should just use the word 'bullshit' more regularly.
Great. Wonderful. Nobody has created a testable ToE yet. But, just like UNnecessary things like music or art or dance or culture, the pursuit of a ToE in physics and of string theory is a source of wonder and joy for everybody, both participating in it (scientists) and those consuming it as audience members. Now, isn't this the dumb "scientist" who thought she knew more than hundreds of climate scientists about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and denied or went contrarian to what their massive profound work had to say about it?
Sabine is quite amazing. She has an ability to stand back and see the flaws in theories in a rational way backed by her own work in the field and the value of the scientific method. Listening to her is like turning on a tap but instead of water flowing out it is common sense.
Yeah really. The amount of nonsense floating around is incredible. When physicists are part of the problem it's really dangerous. Most people don't look into these things and think that being a hard science, it's incontrovertible. I was listening to Dermot O'Reilly on UA-cam, getting lists of books worth reading, and he did a video on natural philosophy or something. He starts out by saying that evolution is true because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. But evidence proves nothing, it's the absence of disconfirmatory evidence that lends a degree of certainty to a hypothesis. And how can he equate a wildly speculative soft science with his expertise of physics? I found out that evolution and big bang are nonsense by accident, I was reading for something else. Nassim Taleb said that Chemistry is the only true science (as measured by their theories being accurate). Even physics is half wrong. I was reading Dyson's article Why is Maxwell's Theory so Hard to Understand the other day. Now I see what Taleb was going on about. Best to read the article. I first discovered espistemology and the philosophy of science when reading about financial speculation. Taleb isn't an easy read because he digresses a lot. I tracked down as many authors who talked about the same thing and found they were the worst thinkers I'd ever seen. Completely taken over by their political and other biases. Being a big brain actually makes one a worse thinker, in most cases. Knowing a lot just makes it easier to select evidence according to the results you want. Taleb himself was the biggest proponent of masking at the beginning of the Covid hysteria. He claimed that if everybody wore masks then transmission would be reduced by 99%. I work in a factory but figured out pretty quick that probably wasn't true. I looked him up recently and he's more militant then ever. Now he claims that the pandemic would have been over really quickly if it weren't for antivaxxers and mask wearing would have stopped it even earlier. One of my heroes shot down again. I work at a company that mandeated and 97% went along. Now they are all chronically sick. I know of 2 people that died of Covid and 2 dozen people that died from the gene therapy. 2 women within 3 doors of my apartment died from it and everybody acts like it was random. I'm in Toronto and there are so many people that died or are severely disabled that there is less traffic, fewer people art Costco, less of a rush at Christmas time. Yet only the people who can see what's going on even notice. I'm 58 and never imagined anything like this was possible. At it's root is the inability of people to think critically. Everybody thinks they're a critical thinker while they spout their nonsense. Very strange. Also, electromagnetism, thermodynamics and so many physics branches have enormous errors and it looks like they will never be corrected. I'm trying to find out how to design and build my own interconnect and cables for my stereo. I never imagined I'd enter such a rabbit hole when digging into this. Basically, Maxwell created 20 equations with 20 variables using Quarternian algebra. Then Lorentz came along and adopted vector and tensor algebra, throwing out the higher symmetries in the process (most of Tesla's machines cannot be understood at all without the higher symmetries). Heaviside and the rest come along and filter it a bit to simplify the equations and now we pretend it's perfect because it's physics. But it's not perfect. Maxwell believed potential was the thing and changing potential caused fields. Later, they didn't believe in potential and threw it out and said there is only force fields. It's a lasting mystery why smart engineers get lost when taking a course in electricity. Now I think I know why. They've very slyly said that charge is the cause and charge is the effect. But no one can see what they're doing to call them out on it. I could quote all sorts of famous physicists but suffice to say it's well known electromagnetism is a mess. I read different books on it and can't figure out what's going on. I suspect the biggest problem is no one can figure out cause and effect. Look at skin effect. If you try to find out what causes it you'll first find that it is caused by eddy currents inside the conductor creating heat that is higher in the center of the wire, therefore current flow migrates to the surface where it's cooler. Higher frequency is more sensitive to this. Another theory by Eric Bogatin is that it is caused by self inductance of the conductor pushing current away from itself, so it winds up as far away as possible, on the surface of the wire. Then I read another theory this week that it's caused by the high conductivity of conductors. High conductivity leads to super high permittivity, which a measure of the ease with which electric and magnetic fields can form within a space or material. Super high permittivity means the fields have no choice but to stay on the edge of the wire and can penetrate just a little. If a conductor had zero resistance then the current could only flow on the infinitismally thin layer on the surface. So in this model, the current only flows because there are fields to move them inside the conductor but they can't penetrate well. Other books never mention this and you wouldn't even know if the fields are in the wire or not. So here's my point, how advanced are our hard sciences today when we can't even figure out what causes skin effect?
@@Nat-oj2uc Unfortunately, that's the most important thing in life. I'm 58 and the older I get the faster I learn. The key is filtering out the nonsense. Most everything we're taught and that circulates in the world is nonsense. 99.9999%. Even in physics it's amazing how little they know while pretending they know exactly what's going on. I'm trying to learn how to build my own interconnects for my stereo. There are no books on this. I've been scanning all sorts of textbooks. The latest are on Solid State Physics. Turns out they really have no idea what's going on. They're just best guesses. It's like pre-engineering. And I never went to university. I wasn't smart enough. So I'm not judging on the basis that I'm smarter. It's that these ideas they have are just models or best guesses. They know that to make a model that satisfies relativity and electromagnetism they have to resort to the Durac equation. But to do so would be so complicated mathematically and the answers would be so complicated that they can't visualize their meaning. So it's not that they're stupid. It's that reality is complicated and math is complicated to express even simple things. Just look at the catastrophe with Covid. That's science for you. It's more about politics and popularity. Yet 97% can't see it because they've bought into science is nearly perfect nonsense. It's depressing if you think things are really good and then find out they aren't. The key is to accept things as they are. On the other side is peace. Now you see things as they are and can deal with reality. I have obtained a fairly rarified level of knowledge in a couple of subjects. What I notice is that I can't communicate with anyone about them. Everybody lives in a mindset where they are the worlds leading expert or someone they listen to is that expert. but it's all nonsense. The truth lies hidden because people reject it. I don't know how I would have coped if I'd learned this when I was young. To alienate everyone when you are young would be really difficult to take. As you get older you realize most everyone is dodgy so it's a relief to not be around idiots.
Wow, the look on Brian's face when you were shooting down the multiverse theory is priceless. Like he was just standing by helpless while you were kicking his dog over and over again.
I personally feel that - Imagination - is critical to the Discipline of Science. Without Imagination, there is no curiosity. Without curiosity there is no exploration, no theorizing, no research. But is imagination and inspiration. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sabine, replies, "Well, we don't actually have any evidence that life exists elsewhere." Yet, then she admits that she really hasn't looked into the topic....
yes, she is a solid physicist - but she isn't the thinking out of the box type. In the years relativity theory was on the rise she would be one of the skeptics thinking that is a bunch of nonsense
@@gorojo1 this is what I hate is that you don't understand how scientific theory works. For something to be a theory and science there must be a ridiculous amount of evidence to support it. This evidence must be observable testable and repeatable
Rejecting a religion vs rejecting the existence of gods vs rejecting any notion of divinity vs saying there is no clear evidence for any of this one way or another. These are four different things that don't nearly exhaust the range of possible stances.
I love this woman. She skips the double-talk, and tells us the way she really thinks it is - which is probably pretty close to the best way to think about it. Scientific illiteracy, it seems to me, is due in large part to scientists' unwillingness to try to couch things in everyday language, and engage the public. IMHO, there aren't enough like her.
Why is it the job of a scientist to explain their work to the public? That’s the job of a teacher. And the job of the public to learn (from a teacher).
@@beatsntoons Because it is insufficient. Scientific illiteracy is growing by leaps and bounds. OK, all researchers don't need to explain all the time, but we really need public events where there can be a real dialog, and explaining in everyday terms, as much as is possible - or referring them to sources where they can take the next step, without an advanced physics degree. Xtianity has ministries and revivals. Science really could use public outreach. While Tyson is really wrong about the Global Warming and Jab scams, he's really right, as was Sagan, about popularizing science.
@@Rocksite1 It's still not the job of scientists to explain this. Is it your task to explain your day-job to everyone else? When you go to work every day, should you come home at night and give lectures on what you do and how? Let scientists do science. Let science educators educate. And the public has to be a willing participant as well.
@@beatsntoons With a few exceptions, as already noted, educators do a piss-poor job of educating the public. Free online classes help, but it is hard to self-motivate through those. Again, the glaring lack of scientific literacy these days is becoming a real problem; and also, FWIW, adversely affects US competitiveness. I'd hope for funding for e.g. science fairs, where the scientifically literate would answer questions for kids, and others for adults. There could be online events. Also, reasonably well-informed members of the public might highlight weak points in the theory that need better substantiation.
I have been listening to Sabine for several months on yt. I really like her presentation, her pleasant attitude, the science and her humor. When she said on one of her videos that I should visit your channel I did. I am very happy I did.
10:35 Sabine's point about social engagement is very poignant, although podcasts such as her own, Brian's, Lawrence's, and Neil's are a great bridge towards that engagement. 15:30 Don't pretend it's science, beautiful. Always a great interview with Sabine Hossenfelder, thank you very much Brian.
You don't come at Sabina with some nonsense, you will be exposed immediately. But you can survive Sabine if you answer her questions about your theory and if arguments and evidence is sufficient, you are free to continue. Sabine The judge of the science.
If you don't know the song lyrics, title of "More Than This" may suggest "There is more than this" as Sabine explains her reasoning for her title choice but chorus lyrics are in fact perfect expression of pure physicalism :) "More than this You know there's nothing More than this Tell me one thing More than this Ooh, there's nothing"
"As free as the wind ..." Freedom vs. physicalism... the wind has always been associated with freedom and spirit. Maybe this is related to its utterly nonlinear behaviour, which prevents us from having perfect weather forecasts, and will always do.
@@notanemoprog The comfortable thing with superdeterminism is that whatever it happens, you can always say "It was determined!" No tests to perform, no falsifiability, just faith.
She and Eric are my fav atm. Not scared to challenge and ask the right questions and take a different approach. I’ve been watching her videos for quite some time now and I love her semi-not serious but serious delivery. Her small skit style is awesome too! Thanks for this one! Great interview as always!
Eric Weinstein? He's certainly good at self-aggrandizement, but a serious scientist he is not. Mostly a pundit posing as a skeptical ex-scientist, and a failed one at that. Sabine doesn't hold him or his vague theory of everything in very high regard for good reason.
Eric is a charlatan. That’s why Sabine doesn’t really associate with any of these folks anymore. She knows they’re all clout chasers, not truth seekers.
Can we all agree that we don't want the physics community to come up with better theories to explain better data. We want the physics community to figure out how to build a warp drive.
One answer to the Fermi Paradox suggests that we are alone simply because we developed into sentient beings earlier than most. The the author of this theory supports his claim with impressive statistical data. So impressive that he won me over. Should contradictory data be found I might well change my mind.
I have long maintained that the biggest downside of being an atheist is the lack of potluck dinners. I'm glad I'm in good company with Sabine Hossenfelder.
I would love to see what an atheist potluck looks like. Everybody would bring a bag of potato chips-already opened, of course. ... Sorry, man. Just kidding. I couldn't help myself. I imagine Sabine would bring something delicious. I am not an atheist, but I enjoy Sabine's insights and Brian's.
@@mattmilford8106 Plus ...if your honest... a big downside is an overshadowing sense of nihilistic meaningless and hopelessness amidst all the splendour and wonder of the creation you find yourself in.
Eric Weinstein has to be one of the most self absorbed people ever. To say you have the theory to everything without peer review and without actually explaining it at all is ridiculous
Elijah Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php if you haven’t
Sabine is my favorite physicist on UA-cam but the delay of this interview is giving me a headache! I wish Sabine was given a better format ... more appropriate for a person of her stature!
20:50 I know we're meant to be waaay beyond this now, but it genuinely astounds me that anyone beyond an excitable 12 year old takes the "Simulation Hypothesis" seriously *at all* It's just another version of, "You could just be a brain in a jar on a shelf in a lab." And it's not even a good version of that. What am I missing?
My view is that in our hubris we assume that we _can_ formulate human-understandable equations that completely describe the laws of nature. What if such a formulation requires a much higher level of understanding than _we_ can attain?
I really like Sabine. I just discovered her but she seems very intuitive and diligent. I actually lean towards electric/plasma universe theory . I’m not sure where she stands on that but she does ask the right questions about physics.
I would really like to see less latency in these conversations. You deal with it quite well but its so bad that even with good management it gets awkward quite frequently. If you really care about high quality audio and video on both sides just record each side locally and stitch them together in post but have the actual conversation though some other service like discord or skype where you get below 1 second latency even across the globe.
When I speak of the observer as a program, I don't hint at a simulation universe. In fact, it has got nothing to do with the simulation theory which is not a workable hypothesis.
I only recently discovered Sabine, and science isn’t my strong suit. That said, she has my attention. Her “I’m not impressed by your theories” (if that’s as far as they’re ever gonna go), is just the pinch of salt needed to give the scientific endeavor the practical flavor it has a tendency to lose. (Sort of like the way mechanics will tell engineers that something may work fine on paper but it’s not doing so in the maintenance shop!)
I’m late to this interview but I cannot stress how important our foundational advancement is in regard to one concept: “What is going on with imaginary numbers?”
It's important to note that there are infinite universes in which Sabine believes in both the multiverse and simulation-theory, that happen to, ironically, exist within a simulation themselves. A simulation within a simulated multiverse to be exact.
Everything is not made of particles. Fields is closer to the apt description. Observed interactions are given the name 'particles'. Let's not keep misunderstanding QM through incoherent conceptualizations.
She likes to talk about things she hasn't spent time working on, whether its physics or something else. She magically acquired expertise in everything. According to her, anything that she is not particularly interested in isn't worth working on. I've never seen a high level scientist be so stubborn and dogmatic before. She is a high level UA-cam troll.
Ah, I already loved Sabine but when she said her original title for the book was from a Roxy Music song (More Than This)… now I only love her even more!
What do you say to the argument that based on a statistical analysis of complex molecules and systems, they're simply isn't enough time in the accepted big bang model for such complex entities and systems to have evolved without the involvement and direction of a superior intelligence and control. Not not saying God necessarily, but surely something superior to what we can understand. In other words, based on a purely objective analysis of the reality we see, the complex systems and molecules - such as DNA and RNA - and then looking at the time that they have had to evolve, the faith required to accept that chaos could have resulted in such sublimely coordinated systems is a faith that is even stronger than what most religious people would profess.
Why such huge audio delay between you two ? Weirdly, in video there is no delay in audio, but there seems to be delay between you, causing awkward delays and mismatching replies/reactions.
How can we know if people 100 years ago really believed when saying they don’t believe in God could put them and their families in danger or at least ostracize them?
I hope that, at some point in the future, we look back on our discomfort with "the square root of negative one" the same way we view Pythagoras' treatment of the square root of two.
Physics as it is doesn’t tell us whether our existence continues after death, or not. The personal dispositions of our physicists, are just that. Despite the immense amount of funding, this important question itself is never seriously addressed in academia. There exist covert military programs which have looked further into this matter, collating information across many disciplines, and have come to a much more definitive conclusion about the ‘quantum fluid dynamic’ that is the human “soul”, and how it can be manipulated or “transferred through the use of magnetic patterns, inducing a current of superfluidity from one vessel, into another.”
Brian is a little more complicated than that, to me. I get this initial impression, as you mentioned. But, when you listen to him further, a very sympathetic character is revealed. He has a lot to say. He's very thoughtful about what he says.
It's not right though, everything is not "made" of particles, its this basic error that is the source of all the problems when you get to the higher level issues in physics. You have fields, standing waves, resonance patterns, creations of particles out of nothing, anti-particles. These things do not suggest anything like the atomism of democritus of atoms or particles in the void, moved by external forces. For one thing we realise there is no true void anymore in the first place, and force is done in QED with these strange exchanges of virtual particles, which lends itself to informational accounts, and so is not an external force in the old manner. Thirdly, the supposed atoms/particles themselves, what are they? The Protons, electrons, photons, the Quarks or the gluons, Are Bosons more fundamental or the other? If not you have two or more "fundamental" particles that are different, yet the fundamental atom was supposed to be not not constituted of anything and so completely indiscriminate in its quality. So the concept of atomism has been falsified by 20th century science yet for some reason this is still being ignored in the mainstream, and not just ignored, the exact opposite of this is being claimed to be true. Very bizarre
Kepler's idea wasn't "wrong" because ALL reference points are equally valid. The fact that he based his reference point on the Earth verses the Sun doesn't make his ideas wrong, it is true that everything revolves around the Earth exactly as he described, well except for the procession of Mercury due to relativistic effects, it's just a matter of reference points, again, all of which are equally valid.
The multiverse is quite similar to the idea of the thousands of radio signals that are received by your radio antenna. But the radio can selectively tune one of them out for us because it was created by humans for that purpose. The Schrödinger's equation was created by nature, so we are stuck seeing this one slice of reality and can't see waves that are right here with us, but go right through our reality. It makes the most sense to explain the universe. The whole thing has to be quantum through and through, and we only see the thinnest slice of it. Your graphic of the multiverse represents it incorrectly as though the other worlds are somewhere else. They are right beside us and in us, it's just that reality is not what it appears to be, as usual.
My Quantum Mechanics part II teacher in grad school said that the fact that p and q don't commute has to do with tunneling. I don't recall the argument. Maybe it's in my notebook somewhere. I'll post it if I ever find it.
I am not religious but I am an open-minded agnostic. but if anything convinces me that there could be life after death, it's NDE's. I've been looking up brilliant accounts, many of which are truly inexplicable....and often experienced by once hardened atheists. One case describes a blind woman (blind from birth) who floated out of her body and became fully-sighted just before she was resuscitated, another bed-ridden person said that her spirit drifted out of a closed window and soared above the hospital, where she saw a random trainer on the roof. But upon hearing this patients weird account, a sceptical nurse then ascended to the highest part of the hospital and actually found the random trainer by peeking out of a rarely used window. The trainer was impossible to see from standard viewpoints and the patient had never even been to the hospital prior to her admission. These strange experiences hint at something ''else'', and they are worth investigating by the scientific community. But I think scientists fear being judged by their peers, or castigated and devalued if they dabble in such ''spooky' areas.
I would love to see Dr. Hugh Ross on your show. He has quite a unique perspective on astrophysics and the fine tuned universe. Are you open enough to have him on?
Speaking of God, knowing the future, one would drop dead of boredom surely and I find that comforting, we'll discover the future together with our creator. Knowing it would be indistinguishable from being stuck in the past while powerless to change anything
You know sometimes it's just fun to go back and watch your previous interviews. Although the information changes, the questions mostly remain the same, and I guess they will , until we find the answers. So here's to another Journey Into The Impossible.
Great video and I love Sabine. The only thing that annoyed me is the way you start talking about UAP's then immediately start talking about "aliens" then in the next minute switch back to UAP's etc. You seem to think the two subjects are interchangeable and just lump them together. But they are two completely different subjects. The question "Do you think intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?" has absolutely nothing to do with UAP incidents on Earth and vice versa. You are insinuating and speculating that UAP sightings indicate "aliens" are here. They do not.
The biggest problem between faith and science is that people think they should be in conflict. Get by that and you might come back to faith because science is part of faith.
Just what every complex and nuanced conversation needs, a firebrand who doesn't listen and assumes they are 100% correct and it's just that simple. Sure that will help clarify things!
Logical mental visualization philosophy can be very enlightening. Especially concerning the Multiverse potential. Mental visualization of actual phenomenon using simple logic may even be more powerful than mathematical modeling in solving some physical mysteries that mathematics can't touch. I suspect it is the only way we will find a way to traverse the stars or galaxies because physicist's current models of physics won't ever get us there because our models are too limiting. The great leap many of us would like to make will require a radical new way of modeling everything. Something academic and career physicist can't afford to pursue or entertain. Wild ideas require wild experimentation. We can figure out the math behind it when an experiment finds something useful. Infinite repeatable scales is an interesting philosophical type of multiverse. If our Universe is inside a sub--atomic particle of another Universe at a much greater repeating scale of manifestation then at some scale our consciousness is inside another conscious being. Perhaps even in an alternate version of ourselves in some of the larger scale multiverses. Our consciousness may be connected or quantum entangled despite being separated by these vastly different scales of being. Matter of fact visualizing infinite consciously connected scales of layered being introduces some amazing new potentials. Perhaps our consciousness is in multiple universes at the same time but we seldom if ever notice this without conscious experimentation on this potential. Perhaps visualizing and discovering new potentials has the ability to relocate the centering of your consciousness in another universe in the multiverse where these new potentials are becoming. Perhaps we are multidimensional and existing in many multi-universe already but few of us ever pay attention closely enough to notice and experiment with this new potential. It's all very logical and I've seen possible evidence in my own life that it may indeed be so. Conscious jumping may be a thing. Growing your consciousness by learning of new potentials may shift you to the multiverse who's time for discovering and exercising this new potential has come.
Really enjoy Sabrina and yourself and what both of you stated is the most fundamental statement regarding " science " and " no beliefs " ....this was our standard throughout school ( elementary throughout highschool) and has slowly been corrupted with belief and quenching of the etheric discovery that has for lack of word downloaded discovery into the pupils of history that themselves held astonish as to the downloaded information....Tesla Einstein ect DNA dudes ect ect
Panspermia and finding life: it might be fruitful to look at star systems that where near the sun back in time, as they might have received life from earth. It would narrow down the search quite a bit compared to randomly looking for star-systems everywhere that might have life.
Astrologist? If you weren't joking, please elaborate on your motivation and how you make your astrological predilections jive with your science-based beliefs. THAT would be a fascinating podcast. Humans live beautifully irrational lives punctuated by fleeting moments of rational thought.
I only focus on one aspect of physics, one I have studied since high school, when I detected an error in modern physics. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So consider a clock in a flying airplane and a clock on the ground. Einstein's Special Theory says the clock in the airplane will be slower than the one on the ground. So I thought I understood Einstein's Theory. I could see that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he used show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Since that time I have not had a high opinion of scientists. I have attempted to discuss this with scientists for decades. They will not discuss it. Eventually, I decided that scientists are running a scam and are completely aware it is a scam. Watch how many scientists and science worshippers answer this post.
As if I wasn't already sure I love Sabine Hossenfelder, she said her original title idea was a quote from a Peter Gabriel song! Yes there is so much more than this, (our current understanding of the universe). There is something out there, and in there.
A really Interesting question in the video. Why we are using real numbers to describe or measure relative word? Do we thereby introduce infinities because of that?
Before talking about the meaning of complex numbers (root of -1) we must clarify the particle physical meaning of negative numbers themselves. There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about assigning negative and positive directions to the 3 axes of the Cartesian coordinates. Applying the Cartesian coordinates to the center of the earth what physical meanig can one associate to calling north, east and midday axes (axises, axii?) as positve and the corresponding other 3 as negative, in addition to the inconsistency in equating "+" as positive and "-" as negative without any physical meaning. Increasing diseases or violence are not "positive" nor their decreases "negative". Charges assigned to protons and electrons in atoms too lack any physical meaning other than that the formulae work in practice. That Newton's formula works for calculations of falling objects doesn't prove his explanation was correct. The same applies to spooky charges and the cartesian negative and positve axial directions too. So long as we continue accepting such "word jugglery" in our most fundamental concepts, thinking of unifying all knowledge is the absurdest thing one could imagine ~ that would certainly remain a pipe dream until we change these absurd fundamentals. There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about negative and positive "directions" in space nor in the "charges" of particles ~ both are mere word jugglery.
This becomes debate on species of fiction. Genres. It is heuristic, all of "it". Art and Music and Architecture bridge to tactile evidence but in human scale. We cannot see what we cannot get an angle on. A bead on the prey tell?sic
Dr Keating seems to have a limited understanding of what a hypothisis and theory(old school law) actualy means. A hypothesis is simply an idea regarding reality that might fit testing. A theory is a model that fits the facts that are known until it doesn't. Taken that way Kepler's model worked for the facts as was know at the time. Religion, multiverses, astrology at best are hypotheses and unproven or at worse failed hypotheses.
Space transforms into a quantity of time, and time transforms into a quantity of space in the spacetime interval, which is invariant. The invariant is related to the area of spacetime between two events. So there is a kind of conservation of spacetime in which one can, possibly with great difficulty--have as much of the time as one wants, at the expense of space or as much of the space as one wants at the expense of time. But the fundamental is spacetime. However, in energy conservation we seem to focus on energy as fundamental. So one can have as much pure energy as one wants at the expense of matter, or as much matter as one wants at the expense of energy. But there is always the same amount of energy. So energy is taken as the fundamental. Perhaps we could refer to energy-matter as the fundamental. Anyway, that's how I'm looking at Einstein's statement that time and space will recede into the background.
I have had a lifelong interest in maverick scientific observations and topics. One old school author I hold in great admiration is the late Frank Edwards, formerly of the long defunct Mutual Broadcasting Network. In his classic book, STRANGE WORLD, he made mention of a bizarre discovery, wherein a communications satellite, which was retrieved from orbit and subsequently placed on a weight scale had lost almost fifty percent of it's original mass! Yet, this odd effect is not mentioned in contemporaneous scientific circles or anywhere in physics textbooks! I have to wonder just why and whether unsettling observations would be widely acknowledged or simply suppressed from scrutiny. How can science advance when new data are swept under the rug and kept away from prying eyes?
RE: Science and religion have the same roots. A modern day Buddhist, Daisaku Ikeda, once said that someday science will catch up with Buddhism! Indeed, Buddhism presents some of the most mind boggling concepts yet claims to be rooted in common sense. Moreover, Shakyamuni (Gautama) Buddha speaks of the "other major world systems". How did humans living 3000 years ago know about other world systems and the 10 directions of the universe when the telescope hadn't been invented yet? Thank you, Dr. Keating and Dr. Hossenfelder for this compelling dialogue. I've signed up for your mailing list, as a result.
Buddhism is part of Hinduism and it's way older than 3000 years. Some Hindu texts mention the accurate speed of light. I read about this in the book Concepts of Physics by HC Verma, a famous introductory physics book in India, where he cites the scripture.
I don't believe in unicorns because none of my sensory experiences lead me to believe in them, and I don't see any evidence of their existence. The same reasoning applies to God. However, I'll keep an open mind and be willing to weigh any evidence that supports the belief.
The Aetherius Society has 600+ audio recordings (some over one hour long) of ETs talking about God. It’s very interesting evidence, which warrants bring weighed up. I’ve looked into it myself:
Respectfully, Metaphysics, deals with concepts that are not testable, or verifiable. So, it can't be tested by scientific methods, and is not real science. Sabine says that she is agnostic/atheistic - so either waiting for proof, with hope, whilst continuing to explore the endless beauty of the possible, or exploring, literally without God. Some call it the numinous. I think she fully understands what metaphysics means.
@@christopherhall7560 You're right, metaphysics is not an empirical study, albeit it must take into account and explain the empirical facts. It's a science of logic for which logic is the final arbiter. In metaphysics the test is whether an idea makes sense. Folks who don't study it will end up endorsing views that fail in logic, as do most scientists. This is my complaint. If they took the same approach to science they'd never get away with it. .
I'm commenting from another simulated universe where, in an interview with Brian Keating, Sabine Hossenfelder mounts a passionate defense of the multiverse.
I hate the multiverse theory. I'm not having it. Just no - If it's ever proved I'll be curled up in the corner pretending the world is flat and wearing my tin foil hat.
"God is the possibility of possibilities." (Nicholas of Cusa). Friedman wrote about "the time that has passed since the creation of the world"; at the same time, Lemaitre emphasized quite emphatically that "creation" does not necessarily have to be understood in a theological sense. Modern physics operates only with "possibilities" (for example, in the case of a probabilistic description of phenomena) stubbornly ignoring "possibility". P.S. "Chance is God the inventor." (Pushkin).
First time listening to any of your work, was drawn to it because I follow Sabine. Constructive comment intended here but you come across as not listening to what your guest is saying, the uncomfortable pauses , chuckles or in some cases , your ‘follow up’ statement that doesn’t relate to what the guest just said. A good interviewer is prepared with questions but also holds a two way conversation and doesn’t just use the time the guest is speaking to prepare themselves for their next question.
Enjoy this remastered version of my conversation with Sabine - commercial free. If you like it Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 and leave a comment
LOL. got the picture from her!
seriously. you may have seen my comment before.... and its still the same. your content and guests are fantastic. but your show is shit. YOU dont need to be on screen when Sabine is talking. the fact that you over-produced this is what makes me think you have seen my comments before. Anyway.... the fact that you cut away to irrelevant B-roll AS SHE WAS TALKING shows your disrespect for your guests. Your shaky-cam, focusing on yourself, and general "not paying attention as your guest speaks so you can show different camera angles".... and again.... YOUR face is not needed as your guest speaks. jeeezus... if u didnt get my previous comments, i hope you get this one.
especially those moments when you are clearly not interested in what in what is being said, and it SHOWS on your face.... and yet.... you leave your face on screen CLEARLY SHOWING your disinterest. Cmon now..... we all tune in for your guests, NOT you.... and you know this because that is why you have guests
Will Existential Physics be available on audible in Australia?
@@cwcarson yes, I've already ordered one :)
Pure physicist. This woman deserves great respect. She separates science from philosophy, physics from mathematics so clearly... She does not allow any speculative hypothesis or theory. She gives short and concise answers to questions. When we can seek answers with new theories that are simpler and more understandable than the available data and observations to solve big problems in physics, why should we trust explanations that go beyond more complex and difficult physics, she says...
My respects to you Sabine Hossenfelder... 🙏🏻 🙏🏻
I love Sabines attitude, sober mindset and effortless honesty. She's truly a joy to listen to.
"effortless honesty", I couldn't have said it better
Absolutely. For me, an enthusiastic layman, she really helps me separate serious science news from the bull, and in a pleasantly entertaining way. I love getting excited over science, but some people just seem to make a living from the fact that most people can't tell the unrecognized genius from the quacksalver selling their 'everyone else got it wrong' book for 20 years.
I admire people like Brian, who still have the patience to address people like Mr. Lerner with respect and on a factual basis, but sometimes I think we should just use the word 'bullshit' more regularly.
Great. Wonderful. Nobody has created a testable ToE yet. But, just like UNnecessary things like music or art or dance or culture, the pursuit of a ToE in physics and of string theory is a source of wonder and joy for everybody, both participating in it (scientists) and those consuming it as audience members.
Now, isn't this the dumb "scientist" who thought she knew more than hundreds of climate scientists about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and denied or went contrarian to what their massive profound work had to say about it?
Lots o
she hates Eric Weinstein, hates him
Sabine is quite amazing. She has an ability to stand back and see the flaws in theories in a rational way backed by her own work in the field and the value of the scientific method. Listening to her is like turning on a tap but instead of water flowing out it is common sense.
Couldn't agree more!
Yeah really. The amount of nonsense floating around is incredible. When physicists are part of the problem it's really dangerous. Most people don't look into these things and think that being a hard science, it's incontrovertible. I was listening to Dermot O'Reilly on UA-cam, getting lists of books worth reading, and he did a video on natural philosophy or something. He starts out by saying that evolution is true because there's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. But evidence proves nothing, it's the absence of disconfirmatory evidence that lends a degree of certainty to a hypothesis. And how can he equate a wildly speculative soft science with his expertise of physics? I found out that evolution and big bang are nonsense by accident, I was reading for something else. Nassim Taleb said that Chemistry is the only true science (as measured by their theories being accurate). Even physics is half wrong. I was reading Dyson's article Why is Maxwell's Theory so Hard to Understand the other day. Now I see what Taleb was going on about. Best to read the article.
I first discovered espistemology and the philosophy of science when reading about financial speculation. Taleb isn't an easy read because he digresses a lot. I tracked down as many authors who talked about the same thing and found they were the worst thinkers I'd ever seen. Completely taken over by their political and other biases. Being a big brain actually makes one a worse thinker, in most cases. Knowing a lot just makes it easier to select evidence according to the results you want. Taleb himself was the biggest proponent of masking at the beginning of the Covid hysteria. He claimed that if everybody wore masks then transmission would be reduced by 99%. I work in a factory but figured out pretty quick that probably wasn't true. I looked him up recently and he's more militant then ever. Now he claims that the pandemic would have been over really quickly if it weren't for antivaxxers and mask wearing would have stopped it even earlier. One of my heroes shot down again. I work at a company that mandeated and 97% went along. Now they are all chronically sick. I know of 2 people that died of Covid and 2 dozen people that died from the gene therapy. 2 women within 3 doors of my apartment died from it and everybody acts like it was random. I'm in Toronto and there are so many people that died or are severely disabled that there is less traffic, fewer people art Costco, less of a rush at Christmas time. Yet only the people who can see what's going on even notice. I'm 58 and never imagined anything like this was possible. At it's root is the inability of people to think critically. Everybody thinks they're a critical thinker while they spout their nonsense. Very strange.
Also, electromagnetism, thermodynamics and so many physics branches have enormous errors and it looks like they will never be corrected. I'm trying to find out how to design and build my own interconnect and cables for my stereo. I never imagined I'd enter such a rabbit hole when digging into this. Basically, Maxwell created 20 equations with 20 variables using Quarternian algebra. Then Lorentz came along and adopted vector and tensor algebra, throwing out the higher symmetries in the process (most of Tesla's machines cannot be understood at all without the higher symmetries). Heaviside and the rest come along and filter it a bit to simplify the equations and now we pretend it's perfect because it's physics. But it's not perfect. Maxwell believed potential was the thing and changing potential caused fields. Later, they didn't believe in potential and threw it out and said there is only force fields. It's a lasting mystery why smart engineers get lost when taking a course in electricity. Now I think I know why. They've very slyly said that charge is the cause and charge is the effect. But no one can see what they're doing to call them out on it. I could quote all sorts of famous physicists but suffice to say it's well known electromagnetism is a mess. I read different books on it and can't figure out what's going on. I suspect the biggest problem is no one can figure out cause and effect.
Look at skin effect. If you try to find out what causes it you'll first find that it is caused by eddy currents inside the conductor creating heat that is higher in the center of the wire, therefore current flow migrates to the surface where it's cooler. Higher frequency is more sensitive to this. Another theory by Eric Bogatin is that it is caused by self inductance of the conductor pushing current away from itself, so it winds up as far away as possible, on the surface of the wire. Then I read another theory this week that it's caused by the high conductivity of conductors. High conductivity leads to super high permittivity, which a measure of the ease with which electric and magnetic fields can form within a space or material. Super high permittivity means the fields have no choice but to stay on the edge of the wire and can penetrate just a little. If a conductor had zero resistance then the current could only flow on the infinitismally thin layer on the surface. So in this model, the current only flows because there are fields to move them inside the conductor but they can't penetrate well. Other books never mention this and you wouldn't even know if the fields are in the wire or not.
So here's my point, how advanced are our hard sciences today when we can't even figure out what causes skin effect?
SHe's the woman you always wanted to meet.
What has she done though? She's only able to criticise
@@Nat-oj2uc Unfortunately, that's the most important thing in life. I'm 58 and the older I get the faster I learn. The key is filtering out the nonsense. Most everything we're taught and that circulates in the world is nonsense. 99.9999%. Even in physics it's amazing how little they know while pretending they know exactly what's going on. I'm trying to learn how to build my own interconnects for my stereo. There are no books on this. I've been scanning all sorts of textbooks. The latest are on Solid State Physics. Turns out they really have no idea what's going on. They're just best guesses. It's like pre-engineering.
And I never went to university. I wasn't smart enough. So I'm not judging on the basis that I'm smarter. It's that these ideas they have are just models or best guesses. They know that to make a model that satisfies relativity and electromagnetism they have to resort to the Durac equation. But to do so would be so complicated mathematically and the answers would be so complicated that they can't visualize their meaning. So it's not that they're stupid. It's that reality is complicated and math is complicated to express even simple things.
Just look at the catastrophe with Covid. That's science for you. It's more about politics and popularity. Yet 97% can't see it because they've bought into science is nearly perfect nonsense.
It's depressing if you think things are really good and then find out they aren't. The key is to accept things as they are. On the other side is peace. Now you see things as they are and can deal with reality. I have obtained a fairly rarified level of knowledge in a couple of subjects. What I notice is that I can't communicate with anyone about them. Everybody lives in a mindset where they are the worlds leading expert or someone they listen to is that expert. but it's all nonsense. The truth lies hidden because people reject it. I don't know how I would have coped if I'd learned this when I was young. To alienate everyone when you are young would be really difficult to take. As you get older you realize most everyone is dodgy so it's a relief to not be around idiots.
Wow, the look on Brian's face when you were shooting down the multiverse theory is priceless. Like he was just standing by helpless while you were kicking his dog over and over again.
I personally feel that - Imagination - is critical to the Discipline of Science. Without Imagination, there is no curiosity. Without curiosity there is no exploration, no theorizing, no research. But is imagination and inspiration.
Therefore, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sabine, replies, "Well, we don't actually have any evidence that life exists elsewhere." Yet, then she admits that she really hasn't looked into the topic....
Interesting indeed.
yes, she is a solid physicist - but she isn't the thinking out of the box type. In the years relativity theory was on the rise she would be one of the skeptics thinking that is a bunch of nonsense
@@The_guy_on_the_internet For me, listening to her is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard -- I don't.
Adore Sabine. She is the much needed heretic in our Church of Theoretical Frameworks.
I like her too. She says most people can understand physics but it's usually depends on the teacher. That's so true
What do you mean by theoretical frameworks? Do you understand how scientific theory works?
Nope. But I saw something about it in a cartoon once.
@@gorojo1 this is what I hate is that you don't understand how scientific theory works. For something to be a theory and science there must be a ridiculous amount of evidence to support it. This evidence must be observable testable and repeatable
@@DCxSkateboarding Thanks for enlightening me. Living in a cave my whole life, I was never aware of how the scientific method worked. Now I know!
Rejecting a religion vs rejecting the existence of gods vs rejecting any notion of divinity vs saying there is no clear evidence for any of this one way or another. These are four different things that don't nearly exhaust the range of possible stances.
I love this woman. She skips the double-talk, and tells us the way she really thinks it is - which is probably pretty close to the best way to think about it. Scientific illiteracy, it seems to me, is due in large part to scientists' unwillingness to try to couch things in everyday language, and engage the public. IMHO, there aren't enough like her.
Why is it the job of a scientist to explain their work to the public? That’s the job of a teacher. And the job of the public to learn (from a teacher).
@@beatsntoons Because it is insufficient. Scientific illiteracy is growing by leaps and bounds. OK, all researchers don't need to explain all the time, but we really need public events where there can be a real dialog, and explaining in everyday terms, as much as is possible - or referring them to sources where they can take the next step, without an advanced physics degree. Xtianity has ministries and revivals. Science really could use public outreach. While Tyson is really wrong about the Global Warming and Jab scams, he's really right, as was Sagan, about popularizing science.
@@Rocksite1 It's still not the job of scientists to explain this. Is it your task to explain your day-job to everyone else? When you go to work every day, should you come home at night and give lectures on what you do and how?
Let scientists do science. Let science educators educate. And the public has to be a willing participant as well.
@@beatsntoons With a few exceptions, as already noted, educators do a piss-poor job of educating the public. Free online classes help, but it is hard to self-motivate through those. Again, the glaring lack of scientific literacy these days is becoming a real problem; and also, FWIW, adversely affects US competitiveness. I'd hope for funding for e.g. science fairs, where the scientifically literate would answer questions for kids, and others for adults. There could be online events. Also, reasonably well-informed members of the public might highlight weak points in the theory that need better substantiation.
I have been listening to Sabine for several months on yt. I really like her presentation, her pleasant attitude, the science and her humor. When she said on one of her videos that I should visit your channel I did. I am very happy I did.
Wonderful! Thanks very much Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet. *_And stay tuned for more._*
Thanks for taking the time to correct the audio.
Makes a big difference! You've earned a sub.
Great
10:35 Sabine's point about social engagement is very poignant, although podcasts such as her own, Brian's, Lawrence's, and Neil's are a great bridge towards that engagement. 15:30 Don't pretend it's science, beautiful. Always a great interview with Sabine Hossenfelder, thank you very much Brian.
You don't come at Sabina with some nonsense, you will be exposed immediately. But you can survive Sabine if you answer her questions about your theory and if arguments and evidence is sufficient, you are free to continue. Sabine The judge of the science.
Why don't you build a shrine to Sabine in your closet?
I think this interviewer really prefers to interview himself. Now I’ll find another video.
If you don't know the song lyrics, title of "More Than This" may suggest "There is more than this" as Sabine explains her reasoning for her title choice but chorus lyrics are in fact perfect expression of pure physicalism :)
"More than this
You know there's nothing
More than this
Tell me one thing
More than this
Ooh, there's nothing"
thanks
"As free as the wind ..."
Freedom vs. physicalism... the wind has always been associated with freedom and spirit.
Maybe this is related to its utterly nonlinear behaviour, which prevents us from having perfect weather forecasts, and will always do.
@@andsalomoni Nice! I wonder what would Sabine say about whether the wind is "superdetermined" too
@@notanemoprog The comfortable thing with superdeterminism is that whatever it happens, you can always say "It was determined!"
No tests to perform, no falsifiability, just faith.
She and Eric are my fav atm. Not scared to challenge and ask the right questions and take a different approach.
I’ve been watching her videos for quite some time now and I love her semi-not serious but serious delivery. Her small skit style is awesome too!
Thanks for this one! Great interview as always!
Love that!
Eric Weinstein? He's certainly good at self-aggrandizement, but a serious scientist he is not. Mostly a pundit posing as a skeptical ex-scientist, and a failed one at that. Sabine doesn't hold him or his vague theory of everything in very high regard for good reason.
@SAMAC AG gross.
Eric is a charlatan. That’s why Sabine doesn’t really associate with any of these folks anymore. She knows they’re all clout chasers, not truth seekers.
You are probably a fan of chrischan too. Shake the sand outta your snizz.its unbecoming of a lady to he such a hater
Can we all agree that we don't want the physics community to come up with better theories to explain better data.
We want the physics community to figure out how to build a warp drive.
And teleportation devices (with effective fly screens).
One answer to the Fermi Paradox suggests that we are alone simply because we developed into sentient beings earlier than most. The the author of this theory supports his claim with impressive statistical data. So impressive that he won me over. Should contradictory data be found I might well change my mind.
I have long maintained that the biggest downside of being an atheist is the lack of potluck dinners. I'm glad I'm in good company with Sabine Hossenfelder.
I would love to see what an atheist potluck looks like. Everybody would bring a bag of potato chips-already opened, of course. ... Sorry, man. Just kidding. I couldn't help myself. I imagine Sabine would bring something delicious. I am not an atheist, but I enjoy Sabine's insights and Brian's.
@@mattmilford8106 Plus ...if your honest... a big downside is an overshadowing sense of nihilistic meaningless and hopelessness amidst all the splendour and wonder of the creation you find yourself in.
I'm not a physicist, I am an engineer, but my answer is a resounding NO. Belief in God is an irrational state of mind.
Eric Weinstein has to be one of the most self absorbed people ever. To say you have the theory to everything without peer review and without actually explaining it at all is ridiculous
He very badly wants to he the next Einstein. He's pretty delusional imo
Brilliant episode! Sabine is B A S E D.
Elijah Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php if you haven’t
@@DrBrianKeating My biggest takeaway would have to be, that I should do my PhD in high energy physics instead of particle physics LOL!
Sabine is my favorite physicist on UA-cam but the delay of this interview is giving me a headache! I wish Sabine was given a better format ... more appropriate for a person of her stature!
20:50 I know we're meant to be waaay beyond this now, but it genuinely astounds me that anyone beyond an excitable 12 year old takes the "Simulation Hypothesis" seriously *at all*
It's just another version of, "You could just be a brain in a jar on a shelf in a lab." And it's not even a good version of that. What am I missing?
The amount of information is way too vast on way too many scales for it to ever be possible.
My view is that in our hubris we assume that we _can_ formulate human-understandable equations that completely describe the laws of nature. What if such a formulation requires a much higher level of understanding than _we_ can attain?
I really like Sabine. I just discovered her but she seems very intuitive and diligent. I actually lean towards electric/plasma universe theory . I’m not sure where she stands on that but she does ask the right questions about physics.
Check out Professor Dave's take on the electric universe.
When you ask a question that contains three questions and a story don't expect an answer and you'll never be disappointed.
I never knew about the issues between physicists. These huge brains fight a lot. Its nice. Science is so beautiful
I would really like to see less latency in these conversations. You deal with it quite well but its so bad that even with good management it gets awkward quite frequently. If you really care about high quality audio and video on both sides just record each side locally and stitch them together in post but have the actual conversation though some other service like discord or skype where you get below 1 second latency even across the globe.
When I speak of the observer as a program, I don't hint at a simulation universe. In fact, it has got nothing to do with the simulation theory which is not a workable hypothesis.
I only recently discovered Sabine, and science isn’t my strong suit. That said, she has my attention. Her “I’m not impressed by your theories” (if that’s as far as they’re ever gonna go), is just the pinch of salt needed to give the scientific endeavor the practical flavor it has a tendency to lose. (Sort of like the way mechanics will tell engineers that something may work fine on paper but it’s not doing so in the maintenance shop!)
Life on Earth is all the evidence I need to convince me that life exists in the universe.
You mean we are not freaks of nature???
I’m late to this interview but I cannot stress how important our foundational advancement is in regard to one concept: “What is going on with imaginary numbers?”
She is so right about the simulation hypothesis.
That's what let me know that musk is not half as smart as half of the people think he is.
It's important to note that there are infinite universes in which Sabine believes in both the multiverse and simulation-theory, that happen to, ironically, exist within a simulation themselves. A simulation within a simulated multiverse to be exact.
Everything is not made of particles. Fields is closer to the apt description. Observed interactions are given the name 'particles'. Let's not keep misunderstanding QM through incoherent conceptualizations.
She likes to talk about things she hasn't spent time working on, whether its physics or something else. She magically acquired expertise in everything. According to her, anything that she is not particularly interested in isn't worth working on. I've never seen a high level scientist be so stubborn and dogmatic before. She is a high level UA-cam troll.
I'm such a fan of you both. Thank you for this collaboration.
My pleasure
Sabine, destroyer of dreams. 😊 ❤
In the Entertainment industry a multiverse is an excuse for bad writing and bad lore management in a franchise
And not much different in theoretical physics. 😊
Ah, I already loved Sabine but when she said her original title for the book was from a Roxy Music song (More Than This)… now I only love her even more!
A true iconoclast knows how to destroy a theory without shaming the imagination.
When you brought up Einstein, I almost expected Sabine to say “Yes, that guy again” 😂
What do you say to the argument that based on a statistical analysis of complex molecules and systems, they're simply isn't enough time in the accepted big bang model for such complex entities and systems to have evolved without the involvement and direction of a superior intelligence and control. Not not saying God necessarily, but surely something superior to what we can understand.
In other words, based on a purely objective analysis of the reality we see, the complex systems and molecules - such as DNA and RNA - and then looking at the time that they have had to evolve, the faith required to accept that chaos could have resulted in such sublimely coordinated systems is a faith that is even stronger than what most religious people would profess.
Nah
Terrence states that Carbon is bisexual. Terrence is made of carbon, so yes, this makes sense.
I love Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder! I just got her new book!
that's great!
Why such huge audio delay between you two ? Weirdly, in video there is no delay in audio, but there seems to be delay between you, causing awkward delays and mismatching replies/reactions.
I love Sabine. Brilliant mind. Cute. Spunky.
A great communicator for science.
How can we know if people 100 years ago really believed when saying they don’t believe in God could put them and their families in danger or at least ostracize them?
I hope that, at some point in the future, we look back on our discomfort with "the square root of negative one" the same way we view Pythagoras' treatment of the square root of two.
Physics as it is doesn’t tell us whether our existence continues after death, or not. The personal dispositions of our physicists, are just that. Despite the immense amount of funding, this important question itself is never seriously addressed in academia. There exist covert military programs which have looked further into this matter, collating information across many disciplines, and have come to a much more definitive conclusion about the ‘quantum fluid dynamic’ that is the human “soul”, and how it can be manipulated or “transferred through the use of magnetic patterns, inducing a current of superfluidity from one vessel, into another.”
Another interviewer who likes to hear himself talk.
Brian is a little more complicated than that, to me. I get this initial impression, as you mentioned. But, when you listen to him further, a very sympathetic character is revealed. He has a lot to say. He's very thoughtful about what he says.
He's not a journalist. He's a physicist. This show is more discussion, less interview.
It's not right though, everything is not "made" of particles, its this basic error that is the source of all the problems when you get to the higher level issues in physics. You have fields, standing waves, resonance patterns, creations of particles out of nothing, anti-particles. These things do not suggest anything like the atomism of democritus of atoms or particles in the void, moved by external forces. For one thing we realise there is no true void anymore in the first place, and force is done in QED with these strange exchanges of virtual particles, which lends itself to informational accounts, and so is not an external force in the old manner. Thirdly, the supposed atoms/particles themselves, what are they? The Protons, electrons, photons, the Quarks or the gluons, Are Bosons more fundamental or the other? If not you have two or more "fundamental" particles that are different, yet the fundamental atom was supposed to be not not constituted of anything and so completely indiscriminate in its quality. So the concept of atomism has been falsified by 20th century science yet for some reason this is still being ignored in the mainstream, and not just ignored, the exact opposite of this is being claimed to be true. Very bizarre
Great podcast..just heard it on Apple podcasts, Sabine rocks! Keep it coming Brian!
Thanks buddy
Yes I also heard on Apple podcasts.
Yes we should support Sabine pocast and any other way we can.
Kepler's idea wasn't "wrong" because ALL reference points are equally valid. The fact that he based his reference point on the Earth verses the Sun doesn't make his ideas wrong, it is true that everything revolves around the Earth exactly as he described, well except for the procession of Mercury due to relativistic effects, it's just a matter of reference points, again, all of which are equally valid.
this thumbnail looks like a revenge for 'Loosing the Nobel Prize' review
I've got a huge backlog of books to get through but I am going to buy Sabine Hossenfelder's and allow it to jump the queue!
-it's arriving tomorrow! UK edition has a different cover, sorry Sabine!
The multiverse is quite similar to the idea of the thousands of radio signals that are received by your radio antenna. But the radio can selectively tune one of them out for us because it was created by humans for that purpose. The Schrödinger's equation was created by nature, so we are stuck seeing this one slice of reality and can't see waves that are right here with us, but go right through our reality. It makes the most sense to explain the universe. The whole thing has to be quantum through and through, and we only see the thinnest slice of it. Your graphic of the multiverse represents it incorrectly as though the other worlds are somewhere else. They are right beside us and in us, it's just that reality is not what it appears to be, as usual.
My Quantum Mechanics part II teacher in grad school said that the fact that p and q don't commute has to do with tunneling. I don't recall the argument. Maybe it's in my notebook somewhere. I'll post it if I ever find it.
I am not religious but I am an open-minded agnostic. but if anything convinces me that there could be life after death, it's NDE's. I've been looking up brilliant accounts, many of which are truly inexplicable....and often experienced by once hardened atheists. One case describes a blind woman (blind from birth) who floated out of her body and became fully-sighted just before she was resuscitated, another bed-ridden person said that her spirit drifted out of a closed window and soared above the hospital, where she saw a random trainer on the roof. But upon hearing this patients weird account, a sceptical nurse then ascended to the highest part of the hospital and actually found the random trainer by peeking out of a rarely used window. The trainer was impossible to see from standard viewpoints and the patient had never even been to the hospital prior to her admission. These strange experiences hint at something ''else'', and they are worth investigating by the scientific community. But I think scientists fear being judged by their peers, or castigated and devalued if they dabble in such ''spooky' areas.
Biologists don't waste their time discussing whether religions are real, so what's wrong with physicists?
I would love to see Dr. Hugh Ross on your show. He has quite a unique perspective on astrophysics and the fine tuned universe. Are you open enough to have him on?
If the multiverse is falsifiable then it is a scientific question.
Speaking of God, knowing the future, one would drop dead of boredom surely and I find that comforting, we'll discover the future together with our creator. Knowing it would be indistinguishable from being stuck in the past while powerless to change anything
Falsafiability can not be a virtue. It's a requirement for science.
Agreed. It's a criterion, not a mere virtue.
Keating has mastered the art of the never ending question.
You know sometimes it's just fun to go back and watch your previous interviews. Although the information changes, the questions mostly remain the same, and I guess they will , until we find the answers. So here's to another Journey Into The Impossible.
Great video and I love Sabine. The only thing that annoyed me is the way you start talking about UAP's then immediately start talking about "aliens" then in the next minute switch back to UAP's etc. You seem to think the two subjects are interchangeable and just lump them together. But they are two completely different subjects.
The question "Do you think intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe?" has absolutely nothing to do with UAP incidents on Earth and vice versa. You are insinuating and speculating that UAP sightings indicate "aliens" are here. They do not.
The thumbnail made it look like we were getting 'evil' Sabine, but no just normal Sabine.
Of the many terrific stuff about Sabine I just totally dig her warmth.
The biggest problem between faith and science is that people think they should be in conflict. Get by that and you might come back to faith because science is part of faith.
I have been waiting for years for someone to tell the emperor has no clothes on.
If you remove the gobbledegook, you’re left with electrified space.
Just what every complex and nuanced conversation needs, a firebrand who doesn't listen and assumes they are 100% correct and it's just that simple. Sure that will help clarify things!
Sabine is like fine German engineering put to good work deflating overwrought metaphysics.
Logical mental visualization philosophy can be very enlightening. Especially concerning the Multiverse potential. Mental visualization of actual phenomenon using simple logic may even be more powerful than mathematical modeling in solving some physical mysteries that mathematics can't touch. I suspect it is the only way we will find a way to traverse the stars or galaxies because physicist's current models of physics won't ever get us there because our models are too limiting. The great leap many of us would like to make will require a radical new way of modeling everything. Something academic and career physicist can't afford to pursue or entertain. Wild ideas require wild experimentation. We can figure out the math behind it when an experiment finds something useful. Infinite repeatable scales is an interesting philosophical type of multiverse. If our Universe is inside a sub--atomic particle of another Universe at a much greater repeating scale of manifestation then at some scale our consciousness is inside another conscious being. Perhaps even in an alternate version of ourselves in some of the larger scale multiverses. Our consciousness may be connected or quantum entangled despite being separated by these vastly different scales of being. Matter of fact visualizing infinite consciously connected scales of layered being introduces some amazing new potentials. Perhaps our consciousness is in multiple universes at the same time but we seldom if ever notice this without conscious experimentation on this potential. Perhaps visualizing and discovering new potentials has the ability to relocate the centering of your consciousness in another universe in the multiverse where these new potentials are becoming. Perhaps we are multidimensional and existing in many multi-universe already but few of us ever pay attention closely enough to notice and experiment with this new potential. It's all very logical and I've seen possible evidence in my own life that it may indeed be so. Conscious jumping may be a thing. Growing your consciousness by learning of new potentials may shift you to the multiverse who's time for discovering and exercising this new potential has come.
Really enjoy Sabrina and yourself and what both of you stated is the most fundamental statement regarding " science " and " no beliefs " ....this was our standard throughout school ( elementary throughout highschool) and has slowly been corrupted with belief and quenching of the etheric discovery that has for lack of word downloaded discovery into the pupils of history that themselves held astonish as to the downloaded information....Tesla Einstein ect DNA dudes ect ect
Panspermia and finding life: it might be fruitful to look at star systems that where near the sun back in time, as they might have received life from earth. It would narrow down the search quite a bit compared to randomly looking for star-systems everywhere that might have life.
Astrologist? If you weren't joking, please elaborate on your motivation and how you make your astrological predilections jive with your science-based beliefs.
THAT would be a fascinating podcast. Humans live beautifully irrational lives punctuated by fleeting moments of rational thought.
Sabine is so great. I've learned so much from her it blows my mind. 😂
I only focus on one aspect of physics, one I have studied since high school, when I detected an error in modern physics. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So consider a clock in a flying airplane and a clock on the ground. Einstein's Special Theory says the clock in the airplane will be slower than the one on the ground. So I thought I understood Einstein's Theory. I could see that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he used show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Since that time I have not had a high opinion of scientists. I have attempted to discuss this with scientists for decades. They will not discuss it. Eventually, I decided that scientists are running a scam and are completely aware it is a scam. Watch how many scientists and science worshippers answer this post.
@@rbwinn3 If you talk about Time Dilation, that was already tested in Experiments with synced Atomic Clocks in a Plane and on the Ground.
As if I wasn't already sure I love Sabine Hossenfelder, she said her original title idea was a quote from a Peter Gabriel song! Yes there is so much more than this, (our current understanding of the universe). There is something out there, and in there.
I thought it was from a Roxy Music song, at least that's what I thought of. Could be either. You should ask her. Thanks for the interesting talk.
A really Interesting question in the video. Why we are using real numbers to describe or measure relative word? Do we thereby introduce infinities because of that?
I wish more physicists were purely logical and not just “replacing” religion.
She's talking about Matt over at PBS Spacetime. ;O)-
Before talking about the meaning of complex numbers (root of -1) we must clarify the particle physical meaning of negative numbers themselves.
There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about assigning negative and positive directions to the 3 axes of the Cartesian coordinates.
Applying the Cartesian coordinates to the center of the earth what physical meanig can one associate to calling north, east and midday axes (axises, axii?) as positve and the corresponding other 3 as negative, in addition to the inconsistency in equating "+" as positive and "-" as negative without any physical meaning. Increasing diseases or violence are not "positive" nor their decreases "negative".
Charges assigned to protons and electrons in atoms too lack any physical meaning other than that the formulae work in practice.
That Newton's formula works for calculations of falling objects doesn't prove his explanation was correct. The same applies to spooky charges and the cartesian negative and positve axial directions too.
So long as we continue accepting such "word jugglery" in our most fundamental concepts, thinking of unifying all knowledge is the absurdest thing one could imagine ~ that would certainly remain a pipe dream until we change these absurd fundamentals. There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about negative and positive "directions" in space nor in the "charges" of particles ~ both are mere word jugglery.
I like Sabine's sober skepticism.
This becomes debate on species of fiction. Genres. It is heuristic, all of "it". Art and Music and Architecture bridge to tactile evidence but in human scale. We cannot see what we cannot get an angle on. A bead on the prey tell?sic
Dr Keating seems to have a limited understanding of what a hypothisis and theory(old school law) actualy means. A hypothesis is simply an idea regarding reality that might fit testing. A theory is a model that fits the facts that are known until it doesn't. Taken that way Kepler's model worked for the facts as was know at the time. Religion, multiverses, astrology at best are hypotheses and unproven or at worse failed hypotheses.
Space transforms into a quantity of time, and time transforms into a quantity of space in the spacetime interval, which is invariant. The invariant is related to the area of spacetime between two events. So there is a kind of conservation of spacetime in which one can, possibly with great difficulty--have as much of the time as one wants, at the expense of space or as much of the space as one wants at the expense of time. But the fundamental is spacetime.
However, in energy conservation we seem to focus on energy as fundamental. So one can have as much pure energy as one wants at the expense of matter, or as much matter as one wants at the expense of energy. But there is always the same amount of energy. So energy is taken as the fundamental. Perhaps we could refer to energy-matter as the fundamental.
Anyway, that's how I'm looking at Einstein's statement that time and space will recede into the background.
Brian Keating is a "devout agnostic", but what is really needed in order to counterbalance religious superstition is "evangelical atheists".
I have had a lifelong interest in maverick scientific observations and topics. One old school author I hold in great admiration is the late Frank Edwards, formerly of the long defunct Mutual Broadcasting Network. In his classic book, STRANGE WORLD, he made mention of a bizarre discovery, wherein a communications satellite, which was retrieved from orbit and subsequently placed on a weight scale had lost almost fifty percent of it's original mass! Yet, this odd effect is not mentioned in contemporaneous scientific circles or anywhere in physics textbooks! I have to wonder just why and whether unsettling observations would be widely acknowledged or simply suppressed from scrutiny. How can science advance when new data are swept under the rug and kept away from prying eyes?
RE: Science and religion have the same roots. A modern day Buddhist, Daisaku Ikeda, once said that someday science will catch up with Buddhism! Indeed, Buddhism presents some of the most mind boggling concepts yet claims to be rooted in common sense. Moreover, Shakyamuni (Gautama) Buddha speaks of the "other major world systems". How did humans living 3000 years ago know about other world systems and the 10 directions of the universe when the telescope hadn't been invented yet?
Thank you, Dr. Keating and Dr. Hossenfelder for this compelling dialogue. I've signed up for your mailing list, as a result.
Buddhism is part of Hinduism and it's way older than 3000 years. Some Hindu texts mention the accurate speed of light. I read about this in the book Concepts of Physics by HC Verma, a famous introductory physics book in India, where he cites the scripture.
Btw, your name means cum in Hindi.
I don't believe in unicorns because none of my sensory experiences lead me to believe in them, and I don't see any evidence of their existence. The same reasoning applies to God. However, I'll keep an open mind and be willing to weigh any evidence that supports the belief.
The Aetherius Society has 600+ audio recordings (some over one hour long) of ETs talking about God. It’s very interesting evidence, which warrants bring weighed up.
I’ve looked into it myself:
Why do physicists who openly admit they don't understand metaphysics write books about it? It's an almost contemptuous approach to knowledge.
Respectfully, Metaphysics, deals with concepts that are not testable, or verifiable.
So, it can't be tested by scientific methods, and is not real science.
Sabine says that she is agnostic/atheistic - so either waiting for proof, with hope, whilst continuing to explore the endless beauty of the possible, or exploring, literally without God. Some call it the numinous. I think she fully understands what metaphysics means.
@@christopherhall7560 You're right, metaphysics is not an empirical study, albeit it must take into account and explain the empirical facts. It's a science of logic for which logic is the final arbiter. In metaphysics the test is whether an idea makes sense. Folks who don't study it will end up endorsing views that fail in logic, as do most scientists. This is my complaint. If they took the same approach to science they'd never get away with it. .
Supersymmetry. I got excited, relates to a particle that hasn't been discovered yet. Tell me I'm wrong.
Beleive what a large body of evidence supports. Live honorably.
I'm commenting from another simulated universe where, in an interview with Brian Keating, Sabine Hossenfelder mounts a passionate defense of the multiverse.
lol welcome
I hate the multiverse theory. I'm not having it. Just no - If it's ever proved I'll be curled up in the corner pretending the world is flat and wearing my tin foil hat.
It's just not science. You might as well have a Pantheon of The Gods theory.
"God is the possibility of possibilities." (Nicholas of Cusa). Friedman wrote about "the time that has passed since the creation of the world"; at the same time, Lemaitre emphasized quite emphatically that "creation" does not necessarily have to be understood in a theological sense. Modern physics operates only with "possibilities" (for example, in the case of a probabilistic description of phenomena) stubbornly ignoring "possibility". P.S. "Chance is God the inventor." (Pushkin).
First time listening to any of your work, was drawn to it because I follow Sabine. Constructive comment intended here but you come across as not listening to what your guest is saying, the uncomfortable pauses , chuckles or in some cases , your ‘follow up’ statement that doesn’t relate to what the guest just said. A good interviewer is prepared with questions but also holds a two way conversation and doesn’t just use the time the guest is speaking to prepare themselves for their next question.