I just can't believe that this kind of content that you both create it's free and available to everyone! Thank you very much for your hard and awesome work!!
Sabine is our shepherd, we lack nothing. She make us lie far from bad Science. She refreshes our souls, she guides us along the right paths. 😊 Well played, Joe! You completely represent us.
Nobody is my shepherd ... as best I can I do my own research, my own analyses, and come to my own conclusions. (And sometimes my results concur with those of others, oh wow!)
I knew I was going to enjoy this. Sabine is a great content creator and author and I really enjoy her work... Just as much as I enjoy Joe's work just in different ways. Perfect combination that I just could not miss. Thanks Joe!
Cool to see how two of the best science communicators around, have so many things in common while approaching things from very different backgrounds. That gives me hope for humanities future
I'm a huge fan of Sabine Hossenfelder and always enjoy hearing her insights. She's taught me to ponder the fundamental questions of physics in a more informed way. Moreover, she also brings deeply creative and original views on the human dimensions of our world. Such a beautiful mind!
Joe and Sabine . What a coup. Mop Dr. Sabine is an amazing woman. She is so smart. She is the #1 scientist whom I would like to meet and maybe play some music with. Both Joe and Sabine are engaging , and so much fun to watch .
Sabine is my favorite celebrity scientist. She actually understands the philosophy of science. Most scientists are very poor philosophers, and it gets them in a LOT of trouble. Especially once they start to talk outside the science and into the gobbeldygook.
Maybe not scientist, but definitely a science communicator. The best teacher is not the person who is doing cutting edge research, but instead the person who struggled through it and understands what is commonly misunderstood.
@@EarthCreature. *shakes head* huh? how'd you get that from... nevermind. Is it possible she was just trying to highlight facts and you're virtue signaling? I consider myself a trans-ally. and sometimes we have to ask ourselves if science communicators are asking tough questions with the express purpose of advancing our understanding of a topic. I know its a very touchy topic for all sides right now but we have to avoid going all cancel culture or we risk becoming the problem rather than fixing one.
She was showcasing debunked and old research and didn't really engage properly with the science available today, while also falling for some right-wing and TERF political talking points that intentionally twist the narrative. That video made doubt her as a scientist - if you completely fail to properly assess your data, it casts a bad shape on all of your work in the academic field. And she made some jokes in it that were extremely distasteful.
@sertaki I wondered. When she stepped out of her field of expertise. I trust her with maths, physics, space stuff but stepping into the complicated world of politics, gender & identity which maths isn't good for.
@@thoughtfuloutsider I wonder how much of that was simply her failing to do proper research and how much was her using the platform to showcase her own political beliefs. Taking the nature of some of the jokes into account that she made in her video on transgender issues ... I fear it may be a deliberate choice. I would much rather have to doubt her academic process than find out that one of the top science communicators is a bigot, honestly. But seeing how she has not reviewed her video in any shape or form in reaction to being called out on the mistakes she made (and the falsehoods she pushed) , it leaves two options: 1. She is aware of the mistakes but does not want to admit to them (which would mean she is not a good scientist, rather choosing to keep wrong information out in the open than to admit to an error) 2. She is intentionally spreading misinformation because she is transphobic. Judging by the sheer size of her fanbase and how extremely bigoted the comment section under that video was, there is no way she is unaware of the criticism that was quickly levied against her by people like Rebecca Watson. She would have without doubt gotten thousands of emails by her fanbase alerting her to it. And I have not yet even looked at her newer video titled "Why is everyone suddenly neurodivergent?" ... I fear it's equally lacking in proper research and may be perpetuating talking points that pathologize neurodivergent people in outdated ways. I would not be surprised if there was a call for donations to "charities" like "Autism Speaks" in the video description. And it's extremely disappointing that I expect this now, since before her telling descent into anti-trans rhethoric, I would not have doubted her integrity. I very much hope I am wrong regarding her take on neurodivergency.
Hi Joe. Sabine and yourself are far and beyond my favourite two RU-vid CC's. This was a lovely chill discussion. Thank you both for doing this and hope to maybe see some collaborations in the future???
"It is just an engineering problem." Very well. I'm starting the math. Joe, I've been subscribed to Sabine far longer than you. I understand (perhaps) half of what she says, but she has a wicked sense of humour. You made my day. Thank you.
Hi Joe - Yes Sabine is a great scientist and a great communicator as well. (I can't help referring to Richard Feynman when it comes to talking about communicators). But your stuff about "How Electricity Actually Works" was also pretty much top notch. So thnx Joe and Sabine for your great work 🤗
I love this introduction about 'gobbeldygook'. For even the simplest scientific papers, scientists try to sound 'scientific' by using their own jargon rather than describing stuff in words that non-scientists (like me) can understand. How refreshing it would be to read a medical paper about 'bruising' instead of 'ecchymosis'!
Thank you for the interview Joe. Sabrine is a very funny and interesting scientist. I try to watch all her videos, and I recommend everyone else to do it to.
I would absolutly watch videos about medicine from sabine!! And other topics she's interested in!! Without QUESTION!! PLEASE!! Do this! I can't wait for you to release the first one! :D
I love the way Sabine condenses a topic and delivers a balanced summary. She is never one-sided. She did the best job of communicating the trans issues (and non-issues about it) that I've seen. She strikes the right balance between being able to get a message across and having technical and objective content.
@@alexwoodhead6471 But you shouldn't trust her on medicine(or any topic except here niche in physics). That's the entire point. It's ridiculous to think that she can get complex subjects "right" by doing a few days of research. That kind of blind trust, just because, well you trust her, is exactly the problem with misinformation.
@@EarthCreature. what? I have no clue if she is anti-trans. She is a brilliant mathematician and physicist. She speaks truth to physicist who are lost in their own ideas and won’t except the truth of their failures (string theory, multiverse, etc..). Don’t presume to know why someone is a fan of someone or something. Even if she agrees or disagrees with beliefs I have or don’t, it doesn’t take away from her brilliant mind.
Getting things wrong is part of the process of doing science. It's why we have a process of doing science. Trying to cover up and deny mistakes is wrong.
Would love to see you two do a second round to talk about how you both use humor and gags in your approaches to science communication - maybe get a little meta about the role of humor in general in discussing serious/complex issues? (Plus I'd love to hear Sabine talk about how her music vids fit into the rest of her amazing work - they're pretty awesome)
I discovered she did music videos at 16:06 in THIS video! Wow! I checked it out in another tab. Music aside, the two of you are both great science communicators. I love watching both of you. Good interview.
I'm so envious of Joe getting to have this conversation. I enjoy Sabine's take on pretty much everything, especially when she plays devil's advocate across from other physicists.
Very nice talk. One thing to remember with the 'how long until X?' Technological inventions/progress isn't always linear(or a proper curve). The Romans had a steam engine device ~50 BCE. A cool toy but it seemed useless because they had slave labor to do the heavy lifting. AI/Machine learning will accelerate the progress of many industries, but without hindsight, you can't tell if ur going down the right path.
Great to see you two discussing these topics together (2 of my fave YT creators) and some really good questions from Joe. Thanks to you both! Not as many views as it should have, probably down to the YT algorithm - I'm subscribed to both Joe's and Sabine's other channels but I was shown this video for the first time just yesterday. Hope my view, the thumbs up and this comment helps this video to reach others.
My grandson who is the youngest 20yrs old has this same syndrome. He is on a spectrum of very very smart.He is second year of college. His grades are very high. He is majored Political Science. He just got back from Iceland. He doing well on his own. His emotions are not regular but he is a lot better. We are proud 👏 of him.
Making occ mistakes and mis speaking makes you human! Thus i can listen to you because you dont think u know everything! Brian Cox spoke about ths as a scientist when you find you are wrong its good, you learned something. You both dont seem to do this because you think you are right but because you want to shaore what you have found. I love that and we learn together
As a polymath, I have a theory of everything that only other polymaths can possibly understand. It involves becoming more like a human by mastering human sound through overtone singing, becoming familiar with all movement, understand the way the mind works, and becoming a polymath.
I actually have read some of Sabines books and followed her channel for a long time and I'm not in academia at all and just an enthusiast. I rely on Sabines input into some of the big questions hype because she is such a good skeptic, but I would bet the reason why so many people reach out to her for everything or questions about the theory of everything is most people don't know how specialized physics is. Just like in the trades there are people who specialize in just drywall, or just HVAC and even in the trade of HVAC there are commercial or refrigeration or geothermal etc. I must admit, when I think about physics and astrophysics and quantum mechanics I can get a bit science fiction phantasy and loose tract of what's been proven and what's the current base of understanding. The whole reason why I am such a fan and into this to begin with even though I'm just a tradesmen is because I grew up in the 80s just outside the Fermilab national accelerator in Batavia Illinois and my dad worked there for close to 30 years in facilities. I spent much time in and around that facility so I have always been quite familiar with theoretical physics and I was lucky enough to have listened to many talks given in the auditorium by Leo Lederman, on a side note, I have some interesting experiences with Leon and his wife..
That was actually a fun to watch chat there! But the most entertaining part was the awkwardness haha! More than anything this chat made me feel like Joe is super awkward but curious and dark yet kind in real life just about as much or more than in the videos. Thats nice. It feels reassuring to know that the science communicators of today have their integrity in the right place!
really nice conversation, slow paced but I think in other conversations on other podcasts there is not enough time for a participant to actually sort their thoughts out while speaking and have a tiny moment to reflect on his own words before the other party jumps in. For me it feels like a relaxed conversation .. but as a content creator it maybe actually be stressful to keep the talk artificially "dynamic" with a person who listens until the other person is fully done speaking or waits for an actual question to be asked. :D.
_This_ maths is a good representation of physics - if it wasn't we'd have invented/discovered a different one that was. Math-Anthropic Principle ; just put my Nobel prize in the mail.
You should do an episode with Anton Petrov if possible. Him and Sabine are my go-to scientists on RU-vid. And he mentioned you in a recent video (about the LK-99 maybe?) so he definitely watches your channel. I've watched his videos daily for a while, but I'd love to see him actually talk about himself and to see you two have a conversation.
Bound hydrogen is what I'm waiting to hear about. Hydrogen films are one, where hydrogen is bound to a film at rather high density (comparable to liquid hydrogen), with the hydrogen released real-time with a laser (no, doesn't catch fire). Toyota or someone has working versions, but unsure of the progress on industrializing and distributing, but the idea is reusable cartridges that can be recharged to be placed into the next vehicle "filling up". There was also a bound hydrogen in the form of a disc or puck. Same sort of release process. Either are hoped to release enough volume to run a fuel cell or even an internal combustion engine.
Mathematics would be like an observer effect phenomena where numbers can represent points of attention based on an observation where the phenomena takes on a form given a formula for translation where it can be duplicated by other observers. (Order from chaos.)
[40:02] SH: _“Logical qubits are … perfect. [Researchers would] quote the number of logical qubits [needed for an application as] something like 150… I had to explain … the number of physical qubits that [needed] is more like a million… In the maths [you use] the logical qubits… but ... in the real world ... the physical qubits ... have errors. This is why the number of physical qubits is so much larger than that of logical qubits.”_ The distinction between logical and physical qubits developed only after a painful early period in which every researcher I talked to sincerely believed that even smaller qubit counts - I recall numbers like “15” and even “8” bandied about - would break all encryptions. Folks were genuinely shocked when it didn’t work out that way. The then-new topic of quantum error correction got quite lively, and the qubit count goalposts began moving. At first, a handful of qubits became a few dozen… then a few hundred… then thousands… and now millions. If the qubits needed had been stock prices, anyone heavily invested then would be a billionaire now. What I find surprising is how seldom folks question _why_ the maths went so wrong since Peter Shor first shocked the world with his clever (but cryptic, wow - the explanations came later) algorithm. Blaming the disparity entirely on “bad hardware” or thermal issues alone seems disingenuous. What role, if any, did the maths also play? One possible issue is that an overly confident application of David Deutsch’s extreme version of Everett’s many-worlds quantum interpretation played a deleterious role. If your model tells you with confidence that the computational capacity of an infinity of worlds is there for the taking, it’s easy to get too optimistic about the generosity of the quantum world. Funding incentives and national security concerns might have easily contributed to that excessive optimism. (a PDF copy of this 2023-06-09 comment is available at sarxiv dot org slash apa)
There is a simple answer to the "unreasonable effectiveness of maths": the universe is simply logical, it has physical properties which follows some consistent process and relations. All the parts that "seems" chaotic is just because our brains cannot yet keep up or we simply don't know YET. A large part of mathematics is axiomatic. Even the naive branches of mathematics (non-axiomatic) is based on consistency of relations. A 1 remains a 1. Sure you can have infinite abstractions (it means 'on' or 'true' for boolean algebra but it is still 1 and not 2). This consistency of relations makes it possible to 'mirrror' or model reality.
Science can not answer why questions. Only how and what. Why is about purpose and meaning and the scientific method has no use in providing these answers to people. Most materialist don’t even believe there is a why to existence.
