New Idea Solves Three Physics Mysteries at Once: Post Quantum Gravity 

Second question: though C is right, I liked th answers B and D much more😅

is entropy a constant or derivative principle? 3:06

If wormholes were real wouldn't the gravity at One end the other. And the wormhole would be unstable and close before much light could get through and in what direction. But the paths of gravitational bodies would be altered. So we would see areas of gravity linked stronger then would be otherwise

I feel dumb now, thanks 😭

I'm sorry but if your model includes accelerating expansion pass the speed of light then it is flawed and we need to totally rethink the whole model and the actual age of the universe objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear💯

Subscribe!

like in the video about optical storage

Spoken like a true scientist. Respect!

I expect proper youtube apology, with lots of crying and nose dripping 😅

Savage! hahahahaha

Would it make sense to say "Space-time remains non-quantum and particles remain quantum"

@@ParadoxProblems shit just *is*, yo.

Yep. Physics can't be solved through semantics.

Captions at 2:22 suggest that she meant to say "gravity remains non-quantum".

Wait... I figured this was just a script typo... wild say, "gravity remains non-quantum" right?

It's become the same (my favorite channel) for me! She presents herself and the information very well and is always careful to provide appropriate credit and background information. I am a newby to physics, and yet I am able to understand the concepts and information that she provides!

I'm just here for the "Einstein" pronunciations

​@@kevincsummershow else would you pronounce it

too concise and trying to increase numbers by quantity. Only showing a paper and saying you don't believe it because of an exponent is hardly a good science video. I hope she goes back to more profound content.

She is pushing outright scientific charlatanry. This is not a theory, it is quack stuff.

Not a quality of politicians .

🫡🫡

​@@GRQFTThe correct term is now "elitist exclusion-monger."

It is also evidence that the Germans do have humor. It is just very effective. Like everything they do.

@@erikziak1249 Current state of German Auto Mfg would like to have a word. ;)

@@CharveL88 MfG, Erik. ;-)

Move over Taylor Swift. 😂

Give it a break... 😜

Ah, an Artist!!!

I wonder what they taste like.

Music to my ears

the sequel we'll be waiting for!

The one who create anti matter bomb 💀

I have become random, the destroyer of physical constants

they will need to complete the trilogy with Oppenheimest

Oppenheim 2

Admitting you could be wrong is one of the biggest differences between science and religion.

i feel like its usually implied that it could be wrong when people are talking about theories

@@kellymoses8566 true, religion was made for the same reason as science. to explain what we dont yet understand. but science is willing to take new knowledge into account rather than dismiss anything that wasnt common knowledge 5000 years ago

Dude, learn the difference tween love and admiration/respect. 🤦‍♂

@@kellymoses8566 most science is but theory, not fact. Religious doctrines are founded on manuscripts/bible which is sufficient for their needs. [No, I'm not religious, just knowledgeable.]

Yet, you just did. 😊

"self-criticism" - FTFY!

that is quite good self-criticism in fact

I enjoy even more the acceptance and embracing of the self-criticism condition

Most often, self-criticism in YT videos is simply another form of self-adulation and virtue signalling, i.e. "Look how modest I am!", although in Sabine's case I'd like to think it's genuine.

I learn more from my mistakes the my successes.

Researchers propose hypotheses. Once there is at least 3σ evidence to validate a hypothesis and it is accepted and has withstood the test of time the it can be called a theory.

Why would you propose new stuff tho? That certainly won't get you a job later, unless things work out great. It's very easy for a person with a job say in a meeting that young people have to take risks. For what? As a young academic you have to publish first and a lot, then you get a position and then you invent stuff. Trying it any other way nowadays isn't very feasible in the current academic environment. 50 years ago you could get a doctorate, have 1 article and be invited to teach somewhere. If you created something new and it didn't pan out, that wasn't an issue that would ruin your career, because there were many positions and not many candidates for them. Now what academic circles want is to push people to industries, and restrict tenure as much as possible, making as few positions as possible available and use austerity when giving money for science if the institution is public; so that it can slowly fail and be sold and be very profitable.

Creativity sounds like a vital part of science that can complement the maths and rigorous approach. Einstein had valued imagination and used it in his thought experiments. I believe that if we bother trying to visually model a hypothesis about what's really happening at the places we're stumped such as quantum scales, and then we mathematically test the visuals (such as with animated mechanics) for accuracy and to see what to tweak them accordingly, that scientists can make a breakthrough quicker. I'm gathering a few physicists and mathematicians for a team up with people with visual skills in animation and illustration and concepts to test the approach of visual hypothesis. You're all invited!

@@localverse Hi! If you like visual hypothesis, do you have any thoughts on Lorentz's aether theory? It is a natural mechanical interpretation of the Lorentz transform and makes the same theoretical predictions as SR. I mention it because I think physical, mechanical visualisation, as opposed to any arbitrary visualisation is key to understanding the workings of the universe from first principles. I also think that an aether would make a natural base for a visual/mechanical/intuitive explanation of quantum mechanics and field theories. What do you think of the idea?

It is for us viewers to do the decoherence and decide Who i the real Particle.

Collapse the wave function NOW!

​@@sedefcankocak9523 Or not... 😂

@@sedefcankocak9523 Wavefunction never collapses. Get over it.

Nonlinear velocities, you see

I for once welcome our AI underpeasants.

The roulette wheel of gravity

Those are our Künstliche Intelligenz unter Bauern😂 ​@@petrkinkal1509

It's because of Quantum!

Interesting suggestion! I will keep that in mind.

Tall order. I look forward to seeing how you explain this without tensor calculus. But then, you are very good at explaining these things.

Maybe do a collab with one of the math-tubers?

​@@SabineHossenfelderlooking forward to it.

There would have to be nonlinearity involved for a particle to remain stable.

I upvoted your comment, but I could be wrong about that.

Sabina is using an old technique called "covering all your bases." E.g. "This may work but I could be wrong." It's also called "hedging your bets."

@@tarmaque No problem. I will take the responsibility and take care of your upvote. I treat it as if it were mine, even when it becomes clear that it is of false nature.

Unlike Catastrophic Climate Change™ which has successfully transitioned from science to orthodoxy, as will be shortly be evidenced by your reply to me. Admonish away!

it's called being a proper scientist

Exactly!

This is what good astrophysicists, cosmologists, et al should do. Dr. David Kipping (Professor David Kipping, Astrophysics, Columbia U.) made a video about another astrophysicist (Dr. Avi Loeb) who publicly said any astrophysicist, planetary scientist, et al who does not believe in extraterrestrial life is *arrogant.* People are use to this in politics, etc. But this is not done in astrophysics. Dr. Loeb lost cachet saying this.

@@douglaswilkinson5700 But your Avi Loeb condemnation is ok though because you don't agree with his personal opinion without addressing the calculations and considerations he made coming to that intentionally melodramatic conclusion? Make it make sense.

quarrel of monks Franciscanos, Beneditinos sempre brigando.

​@@CharveL88I didn't disagree or condemn Dr. Loeb. I simply gave a verifiable example of one astrophysicist publically calling a fellow astrophysicist "arrogant" and his response (i.e. emotion like Dr. Loeb's has no place in a scientific discussion. And I don't think that Dr. Kipping liked being publicly called "arrogant.")

She's winning points

just in case another civilization is running their own SETI and picking up our internet transmission?

You've been missing out. I suggest you start binging her content. She's amazing.

String bros will be all over anything that will keep the grants coming.

It's not a theory but a hypothesis. There is a lot more work and time required before it is accepted as a theory.

​@@douglaswilkinson5700there's three definitions of theory: laypeople's, scientists', and mathematics. I've seen lay folks, scientists, & mathematicians mix up all three. 🤦🏽‍♂️

If it's DOA, doesn't matter how you classify it.

@@Apocalymon FWIW I am a math dude

Yes, there's that, too...

Sooo what you are saying is, We have no idea? @@SabineHossenfelder

Stupid question: What are wide binaries?

@@andrewyork3869your mum's bum

​@@andrewyork3869binary stars that are far apart from each other.

I worry that when we actually understand quantum physics and gravity we'll make bigger bombs rather than improved lives.

usually that is one of the first applications

@@richs5422 sorry, you inspired a long reply. I do not think military use would be the immediate and primary use of such knowledge. Though that depends on who is the guardian of the info/tech. Remember, at the dawn of the Atomic age, we were literally forced into a world war and were trying to save lives with the then tactics of warfare. Regrettably, use of a wmd was determined to be needed rather than a demo because there would not have been any nuclear material remaining after a demo. The time-honored strategy of “A bullet is most useful unspent in the chamber” is Decision making 101. Historians generally agree the Allied’s body count without at least the first bomb would have been unimaginable given the skill and commitment of the Japanese to their Emperor-misguided Samurai are still Samurai (one of two that stopped the Mongols). Tactics have changed, more or less. For example, within the last couple of decades, most world governments show an inclination towards cyber/clandestine tactics. Also, the US rebuilt Europe and Japan. By comparison, Russia is an outlier with Cuba in the 60s, Crimea, and Ukraine. There should be another Operation Paperclip. For certain, the genie (invention or knowledge) will get out of the bottle at some point in time, and once observed, Engineers can reverse engineer it. Thus, it is important to consider who should be the guardian of such info. Of note, China will invade Taiwan. That is certain. China said so. Russia will likely attack if provoked on its historical territorial perspective-that goes wayyyyy back before the Vikings. The Middle East has a uniform goal for the genocide of Jews, as well as UAE and Sadi Arabia joined BRICS. We had the Abraham Accords, which was a Nobel Peace Prize worthy achievement an departure from past policies, but we have strayed from that path. As such, the Only options are either no discovery leading to zero improvement for humanity-and we could use some improving! Or bad actors (see above) get the info and force another world war, Or not bad actors discover the info. My vote is US. I can’t say I know or agree with everything my country has done or is doing ( our borders and Middle East need attention). are but I do know We value liberty, free and fair commerce, rule of law (we are still working on it) and want everyone to succeed that tries to improve lives and make the world safer. The US, has no current vengeance list or conquer agenda, which is demonstrated though our expensive diplomatic efforts, like How much we spend on UN and NATO etc. I hope the above is comprehensible having written it on my phone. Feel free to leave a blistering response.

Outstanding! Wish more folks did that!

They are still eye-watering expensive, but "paper tablets" like reMarkable are exceptional for reading scientific/technical papers. Not hard on the eyes like a backlit tablet, and supports every single feature a pen-and-paper solution does (except tearing the paper because you've used the eraser too much).

​@@andersjjensenExpensive? Just paste the title of the article you're looking for in the arXiv, of course the version you find there's almost always the one before peer review, but if there were major changes often a new version is put up there as well. Most of the papers are 99.5% towards their final version even before peer and editor review.

And because it has its own gravity

Why would objects with smaller acceleration traverse less spacetime? They may be closer to their previous inertial reference frames, but intuitively I don't see why such "configuration space distance/velocity" should have a physical effect...

god´s last name...

The series progression would seem to indicate that the Oppenheimest has already been.

si vos dont verecundiam meam desidero, versatus esto.

…according to Google translate anyway

@annoyingcommentator1582 > username checks out

​@annoyingcommentator1582Ich glaube, dass eine Liste akzeptabler Namen gibt.

Dear scientists, PHDs and professors please understand that we have a limited time and resources to give you guys, we are here to satisfy our curiosity and discover the things that you are struggling to understand. Therefore I suggest you to save your "non-deterministic", "random", "uncertain", "entropic", "wiggly", "spooky" .. shortcomes in your bathroom closet and face the reality of possibility of being fake clowns.

Lara and Gloria, it´s on her old blog "backreaction"

LGBT(Q)iA+?@@ShonMardani

Is it even right to call it a "theory" in a scientific sense? These days all the conundrums in physics have me thinking we just have really good hypotheses.

Peer review is only as good as the judgment, concentration, and attention spans of the peers chosen to review it. Having been a peer reviewer of articles in my own field (in humanities) and being an editor of a minor journal, it is amazing what you can miss on a bad day and how bizarre the comments of reviewers can be. Sometimes a bad paper is recognizable as bad. Sometimes a weird hypothesis is allowed through as an interesting idea for conversation. And sometimes a reviewer is just being weird and cranky and nitpicks all the little things without noticing the gaping hole in the argument! So, peer review is more helpful than just accepting papers blindly, but it us not a perfect system. Sabine has already given us a quick peer review (with a substantive critique about the nature of the equations).

​@@HydroverseSpot-on!

​@@joshuaharper372Peer-review in quantum mechanics, astrophysics, cosmology is different than in the humanities. It is based on independently verifiable 3σ or better confidence in the evidence PLUS advanced mathematics -- differential geometry and tensor calculus. Sabina spotted two missing variables in the equation. Quite different than in the humanities.

Dear scientists, PHDs and professors please understand that we have a limited time and resources to give you guys, we are here to satisfy our curiosity and discover the things that you are struggling to understand. Therefore I suggest you to save your "non-deterministic", "random", "uncertain", "entropic", "wiggly", "spooky" .. shortcomes in your bathroom closet and face the reality of possibility of being fake clowns.

So that as usual no one will read the fine print. 😅

I think you just did.

😂 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Forget it, he's rolling.

​@@MikeLevin it was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbour.

MOND and dark matter are both nonsense. There are several papers which demonstrate that General Relativity explains the motion of galaxies just fine. The problem is that most astrophysicists have been using Newtonian mechanics to calculate galactic velocity curves because the math is easier, and they have falsely assumed that relativistic effects don't matter. In reality, relativistic effects do matter, particularly gravitational field self-interaction. No experiment has ever demonstrated the existence of dark matter, there are many galaxies whose behavior contradicts the theory of dark matter, and there is no explanation for what dark matter is or why it supposedly behaves the way it does. The truth is much more boring: relativity is correct, and physicists were too lazy to do their math correctly.

please eleborate more.

By definition, there can be no strong scientific argument for non-observable, non-interactive matter. What are you going to do, have an experiment that does nothing and call it a victory? It's just hand-waving to try to explain why cosmic-level math doesn't work. It's much more likely that the math is just wrong.

You mean... the boom? Big bada boom?🤯

Well, they get the CC as an integrational constant but that's what it is anyway. They also say that the constant is related to the acceleration scale in their model but I haven't been able to follow this argument (which is why I didn't say anything about it). I am generally wary of arguments of this sort because if you have only two constants it's quite simple to come up with reasons for why they should be related and I've seen dozens of arguments of this sort that never led anywhere. None of this is to say that it doesn't work. I'm just saying, I don't really buy it.

So is Barbie, which is even more amazing!

No shit. Why do we women so often discount ourselves.

Man, all this jargon from scientists... It's as over-complex as politics The universe exists because it doesn't. You can keep trying to figure it out, it's on the tip of your tongue hahaha... With that, you should know everything.