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
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 RU-vid, 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.
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... 🙏🏻 🙏🏻
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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!
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sabine is my favorite physicist on RU-vid 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!
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.
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?
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.
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?”
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.”
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.
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.
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/list
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.
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.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
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.
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.
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.
Your interviewees are always interesting and, frankly, awesome. Tha k you for your channel and podcasts ❤ Sabine is amazing, I am in love with her mind...😊
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
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.
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 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?
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.
Black holes were once "just a scientific idea" without physical evidence, but they were based on what we know about the way gravity operates. Multiverses are just speculation but they are logical extensions of what we know, and if they exist. ways to detect them may be discovered in the future.
But evidence *was* found for black holes, and no evidence is possible for multiverses. They're just speculations, and always will be. Scientific ideas without physical evidence are one kind of thing. Ideas, even scientific ideas, without possibility of scientific *evidence* are another.
@@farmergiles1065 Evidence for black holes was not discovered for hundreds of years after they were speculated to exist. Just because evidence of the multiverse hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean it never can be. Speculation and calculations told scientists where to look for evidence, of black holes, and the same is true of other universes. The word "multiverse" has several meanings-- and we know that most of our universe is outside our horizon of direct observation.
@@MrDominex I did not say that the reason there can never be evidence of multiverses was that none has been found yet. I'm taking Sabine's reason on trust. As I understand it, it is akin to why it is impossible for a singularity to exist in a black hole, that allowing singularities cuts off the passage of any information flow between our "side" and the other "side" (if "side" isn't too unscientific a word to get the idea. Suffice it to say that no matter, no energy, no signal, not anything, can pass through a singularity. And the same is so for multiverses, as they are currently proposed. There is no possibility of finding evidence of multiverses without some sort of travel or communication from one to the other. You might be able to disprove that multiverses exist, perhaps even in the same way that physicists are gathering indications that black holes do not have singularities inside them.
The literal interpretation of the Bible is only a problem if you are a. processing it within your current temporal context. It should be read in context with the beliefs/ philosophy of 6000 b.c -100 ad writers. Reading the book as a whole, it is a remarkably integrated "worldview," pasted together through history, poetry, songs, etc. and b. You're expecting it to be logical, scientific and entirely accurate. It was never meant to be any of those things. Our "genre" are not equivalent to their "genre." For example, in a Hellenistic culture biography and history didn't need to be accurate, linear, witnessed, or original. The story that doesn't make sense is a "type." It's meant to be understood as both a literal story and as a " type," of event; through repetition, imagery, parallelism, reversals or polemics
It's also flawed to think a literal interpretation doesn't itself have an interpretation of what the literal meaning is. "We all know what the words mean, now we need to figure out the metaphorical meaning" is how it's often framed, but I think every part of that premise is wrong. For Christians, the logic is: the God of the universe through His person of Christ affirmed the importance of the Old Testament, so there must be something true and useful about it. From that comes various ideas such as inerrancy, literal fundamentalism, etc. But for us, all of those questions are secondary to Christ.
@@innocentsmith6091 I agree. I think it's best to take the text at face value, rather than trying to inject alterior or mystical meaning into it. For example, it is difficult to derive meaning from the Prophets without knowing the historical context of their writings. Personally, I'm not too concerned about inerrancy, infallibility, etc because I'm not trying to "prove" to myself that the text is valid. I have faith and that's good enough for me.
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
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?
"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).
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.
I'm commenting from another simulated universe where, in an interview with Brian Keating, Sabine Hossenfelder mounts a passionate defense of the multiverse.
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.
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
Check the Taoist models...which, for example, predicted extinction as a result of our iron age industry 800 BC. In this case the 5 Element system was used. Qi is a universal principle which is hard to dismantle of one understands it.
Can't resist: In the Rgveda (rig-veda) Hymn of Creation (naasadiiya-suukta: X 129), the first verse begins like this: नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं naasadaasiinno sadaasiittadaaniim (pada-paaTha, word reading without sandhis, euphonic combination of words: na; asat; aasiit; na; u; sat; aasiit; tadaaniim); my own word-for-word translation: not non-existent (a-sat) was, nor existent (sat) was then ("before" the Big Bang?). The second hemistich of the 4th verse: सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा॥ sato bandhumasati niravindanhR^idi pratIShyA kavayo manIShA || (slightly different transliteration, w/o sandhi: sataH; bandhum; asati; nir; avindan; hRdi; pratiiSyaa; kavayaH; maniiSaa): Griffith's translation (1896): Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 🤨 --- Greetings from Finland, East of Sweden
13:35 - Agreed. Christianity has a tenant said by Jesus himself, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Religious belief is critical to the functioning of a society, as it's part of who we are, unifies our sense of place in the universe, and is the only thing that can tell us how to _be._ Science only tells us how stuff works, and separating the two (see prior quote) is something we're going to have to keep at the fore.
the great thing about not paying attention is you can enjoy some things more than once, i've lost count of the number of times i've read "a canticle for leibowitz" and still can't remember what the story is about, anyway, i always enjoy a good hossenfeld. i will however never forget the time i also tried to bite the cap off a tube of superglue and stuck my teeth together. great talk.
@@HarryNicNicholas Except in your username I guess. :) It's just considerate towards the people who have to read your texts. Like you actually tried to make it easy on the eyes
