New Idea Solves Three Physics Mysteries at Once: Post Quantum Gravity
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 มี.ค. 2024
- 💰Special Offer!💰 Use our link joinnautilus.com/SABINE to get 15% off your membership!
For the first time in 4 decades, physicists have found a new approach to solving a problem which is almost a century old: How to combine quantum physics with gravity. I told you about this new approach, called “Postquantum Gravity” from Johnathan Oppenheim briefly before Christmas. He and his collaborators are now saying that their idea also explains dark matter and dark energy.
Paper here: arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459
My essay about Oppenheim's idea on Nautilus is here: nautil.us/what-physicists-hav...
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/...
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #physics - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1710219597890x278179138655485950
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💯
“If you don’t want to miss my public embarrassment, stay tuned.” Lol.
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
"Quantum remains non-quantum and particles remain quantum" is a very upsetting sentence to process.
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?
I love how you use self-deprecating humour to soften your magnificent German bluntness. Also much respect for being willing to put your assessment in public..
One of the best personal attributes of a scientist is being humble enough to admit that you may be wrong. Staying open to more accurate understanding leads to the comprehension of reality. Sabine is demonstrating this really well. She has an opinion but is open to being wrong then accepting the more accurate understanding.
Not a quality of politicians .
This channel is the best evidence that the Internet can be used to spread knowledge AND critical thinking, even in complex topics, and without being elitist. Thank you very much for you content, Frau Hossenfelder. p.s.: and keep up the weird humor, it is right up my alley ;)
🫡🫡
@@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. ;-)
This channel has quickly grown to be my favourite Science channel on TH-cam. Concise, authoritarive without falling into elitism, fun, accessible. Please keep going Sabine!
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.
Next episode is in a super position between "Sabine is right again, everyone is saddened" and "Oppenheim is the next Einstein".
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.
Someone called your humour “wierd” however as a Brit I recognise deadpan, self effacing humour as a natural form. Well done Sabine, as a non physicist you have enlightened me to the point where I almost understand what you are talking about, it’s absolutely fascinating!
Looking forward to the Oppenheim movie towards the end of the century.
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
Your admission that you might be incorrect is one of the reasons I love you so much, Sabine. You are truly one of the most excellent presenters I have ever encountered, and I am 72 years old so I have seen a few.
This is one of the few situations in which I disagree with you. It seems to me that adding a small amount of randomness is exactly what is needed to stabilize the equations of general relativity. I am really excited to see how this new effort works out and am looking forward very much to the next video on this topic. I understand your objection about needing to find a non-linear component to be added; I suspect this will arise when the combined effects of quantum mechanics and gravity in a higher order are added together.
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.]
I really appreciate the fact that Sabine can admit to perhaps being wrong. Her factual and no nonsense approach to any topic is a breath of fresh air! Keep up the great work Sabine & I will keep watching! 👍👍
“and now I’m just sounding like an old grumpy woman who thinks she’s seen it all.”
Now I’m relating Sabine to my mother, and this is definitely getting somewhere with me.
Love your videos Sabine!
She's winning points
Ahhh yes. Post Modern Quantum Rock. My favorite genre of science. 😅
Move over Taylor Swift. 😂
Give it a break... 😜
Ah, an Artist!!!
I wonder what they taste like.
Music to my ears
Sabine's self-critisism is the level I could not hope to reach in my life
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.
It is about 50 years since I did GR. This critique makes high level sense. There is a saying by German mathematician Kurt Mahler that one cannot get "gehaktes Rindfleisch" ( ie minced meat) from a meatgrinder unless one has put some meat in the grinder. Thus paying homage to this proposition in all its isomorphic forms, if you have a basically non-linear theory you will need a non-linear grinder. However, there are exceptions at a sort of fundamental level (I suspect I am channeling Stephen Wolfram) and that is the interesting thing. I'm too old and lacking in talent to do it but Oppenheim looks like he has had a red hot go. Who knows there may be some bat squeak of insight that fires up someone to bring it all together.
In 2018, a research paper already considered that gravity and quantum mechanics can be put on the same level using randomness. This has been obtained using a stochastic gravity model and Nelson's stochastic mechanics. See, Randomness in modified general relativity theory: The stochastic f(R) gravity model. The emergence of the cosmological constant has also been considered.
During the main sympusium at Fermilab's celebration Fermi, a major astrophysicist put up his list of the top 20 bloopers in physics. Each idea originated with scientists who won Nobel honors.
The point wan't to pop a few egos, but to encourage the young students to take risks and propose new theories.
Maybe this latest idea is not correct, but it just might stimulate a new idea that will point us in the correct direction.
May creativity prevail!
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?
I'm loving the AI generated speedometer at 3:25 where the values go from 410 to 740, then to 80, then to 7100 and then back down to 10.
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!
"If you are near a planet or a sun, as most of you probably are..." trumped the physics for me, lol.
I just discovered this channel, but I'm subscribed now. Such a good, easy to understand explanation, and I'm looking forward to the follow ups on this subject.
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.
This was my first video of yours I’ve watched; and as soon as you said ‘stay tuned’ I pressed subscribe. Your honesty with your opinions and your openness to being challenged on your ideas; may I say I wholly respect you for this 😊 now to go channel diving!
Would you be able to make another video about the nonlinearity of the equations?
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.
Clearly someone who thinks outside the box "His group was responsible for smuggling a siege catapult into the medieval city of Quebec during the Summit of Americas, 2001. It was used to lob teddy bears." (Wikipedia)
Sabine's observation that this new theory is linear whereas only a non linear equation seems to fit the observed "dark matter" distribution cannot be easily remedied. I'll bet the String Bros will be all over this.
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
From an old grumpy man: you are not that old, naither that grumpy. You have still a long way to reach that condition, Sabine! I do appreciate your amusng and often informative videos. Best wishes, Richard K.
The humor is top notch. The content is highly informative and entertaining, the best way to learn! This is one of my favorite channels, thank you!!
I really, really like your honesty. It's kind of rare on the internet these days to see people who have a (strong) opinion but are willing to be wrong about it. People like correcting others and appearing superior more than simply seeing this as a constructive argument. As if it were natural for everyone to only open their mouths when the universe has their back. So I find it refreshing to hear a belief that acknowledges that you could be wrong. Even as a joke.
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!
@@CharveL88as it is a good driver of progress in sustainability, such would not be a bad thing per se.
I love the way Sabine can explain really complex concepts in a way someone with moderate general science knowledge can understand - Not dumbed down too much but just understandable - Love Sabine's work - subscribed!
I appreciate the courage to offer an opinion, mixed with the humor and scientific honesty that says "...but I could be wrong. Let's find out." That last part is so important and so missing from many debates.
i cant express how important this channel is. obviously its important to keep up to date with recent developments in science but it is also really useful to get a feeling of how other people feel about the developments as physics is such a massive topic with so much going on all the time. i know by following this channel that im not going to miss any big developments in physics, but it also allows me to have a feel for what's going on and how influential different discoveries are to different areas which i think is almost as important as understanding the discoveries themselves. thank you as always
Exactly!
Also, hasn't MOND been recently mortally wounded by the wide binaries?
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.
Brilliantly done as usual. I’d love to get half as much out of these papers as you do. Thank you for bridging the huge gap in my understanding.
Really enjoyed this and weirdly fitting for my studies currently. Currently studying Einsteins Field Equations in prep for my Masters applications. I also think you’re right, that it’s unlikely that things may work. We are seeing small hints and clues that a grand unified theory may someday be possible, but there’s also so much left for that idea. Will have to read the paper!
Thank you for your reluctant candor. It's refreshing to hear honest reservations without condemnation or ridicule.
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.")
SH makes me downloading papers, and actually printing and reading them.
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.
5:46 "an old grumpy woman who thinks she has seen it all before." When she said that I felt it kind of heartbreaking xD we love you Sabine :) Let's hope this theory works (Although I would rather a quantum gravity theory, lol but I know science is not about preferences rather results)
Excellent! Thank you for keeping us up to date on this new theory. I hope it works. Physics really needs some progress on this front.
I awake looking forward to Sabine’s videos. I am
Hopeful we are close to unveiling the mysteries of gravity.
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.
Really curious to see if this passes peer review, but this *feels* closer to the truth than string or loop theory.
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.
i love your videos sabine! indeed I love them so much I wish they were longer and more in depth
@5:46 we like grumpy. Please keep up the great work, Dr. Hossenfelder!
Now that we have had an Oppenheimer and an Oppenheim, maybe it is time to wait for an Oppenheimest. 🙂
god´s last name...
The series progression would seem to indicate that the Oppenheimest has already been.
This is the kind of physics discussion i like ❤
The problem, from my perspective, lies in the human perception of locality. Penrose begins to confront it in his Conformal Cyclicality ideas but it is not sufficiently granular. Is there a local component to gravity that permits a quantum interpretation? What do the Planck limits actually mean? Is there a quantum regime and a form of locality that exists apart from the Planck regime. Until we find a way to confront these questions the problems of GR vs QM will never be answered. Thank you once again for your excellent explanations and valuable insights.
I'm more excited about this theory than I have been in a long time, for any other unification theories.
questions:
1. Is the theory testable with experimental data? I am concerned about the last sentence in the abstract. How would deviations of experimental measurements predicted by this theory be distinguishable from the expected normally distributed errors of measurement from law of least squares say when Kepler fitted elliptical orbits to Tycho Brahe's data?
2. What does the theory say about the orbit of Mercury for which there is a relativistic calculation by Einstein himself?
Sabine, how much time to you spend on "learning" about new ideas and trends compared to "pondering" about them? I just find it so interesting you're so up to date. Thank you for your work and contribution, I think I'll buy one of your books for once my queue clears up.
She has a team that helps her.
Her books are very different, but both are great, absolutly worth to read.
What I like most about your videos is that you always consider that you might have missed something and it might turn entirely differently. I think this is an philosophy that - if more people would live by - could make our world a much better and more tolerant one!
Very interesting. Thanks for your early thoughts about it.
Could you say that when objects have smaller acceleration they have less interactions with space time due to simply traversing less of it, which causes it’s gravity to be less deterministic/more fluctuating?
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...
Still going to review it. Though I'm not in the mond camp.
Awesome video as always, Sabine. Correct or not, your ideas and opinions are always well reasoned in my perspective, and add value to any debate. Thank you for your ongoing efforts!
I think just like how speed of light is constant, which causes the phenomenon of time dilation, there also has to be another (undiscovered) constant which changes effects of gravity under “small acceleration”, as the constant has to be respected (meaning that constant is linked to gravity and acceleration).
Can some let me know if this concept holds merit?
Thx for bringing the humour with the science :)
I didn't know you'd named your daughters "Gravity" and "Quantum Physics". Your commitment to the field is impressive.
That would be illegal here in Germany, so I assume no.
@@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"
I love your channel. You're my favorite physics communicator. Thank you!!
I just adore you Sabine. My favorite science videos on TH-cam.
Thank you for the video.
You assume correctly, Dr. Sabine, here for your opinion. Physics is lovely and so are your videos. Your rejection of Oppenheim´s and Russo´s approach is related to the combination with dark matter, I assume, not to their whole idea of "post quantum gravity"?
I love this, another one of those 'recently informed by Sabine' times that it sure would be swell to get some informed input from a very competent theoretical physician.
Thanks for immediately volunteering yet again Sabine, you and your team do amazing work and I'm learning So Much from you. :)
Fantastic and humorous ending. Appreciated.
Its awesome to listen to you
One of my favorite 'old grumpy women'.
Sabine, I love your videos. The first half of this one felt like a youtube commercial for MOND, though. Davon abgesehen, keep up the good work.
Das Augenzwinkern bei den mehreren 100k Zuschauern war schon filmreif. Ich kichere immer noch etwas grenzdebil vor mich hin. Lieben Dank für diesen und jeden anderen Content von dir, Sabine! Much appreciated. ❤
I have no idea why Jonathan Oppenheim keeps publishing his papers with such unbelievably small size font! This is very annoying and someone should let him know.
So that as usual no one will read the fine print. 😅
I think you just did.
Please stop harassing Sabine for the minor mistakes in her videos. Can't you see that she is in the accelerated Andy Worhol Factory stage of her content creation here?
😂 Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Forget it, he's rolling.
@@MikeLevin it was the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbour.
Love your snark about being publicly embarrassed if you're wrong. Very endearing!!!
Thank you, Sabine. Your videos are very interesting. 😀
That wouls be amazing, does this also explain Brownian motion?
What does brownian motion have to do with it? Didn't Einstein solve that?
It may be something to look into. I find Brownian motion most compelling. Especially if taken in a generative transforming sense.
@@aresaurelianYeah, I assume you could determine the magnitude of the random gravity and see if it agrees with the random gravity needed for mond to work
@@hoegoebaboe But we are not adding anything to MOND. And we are not adding any new gravity, just trying to find a model that can predict what we see in measured data.
Whenever someone tries to explain away dark matter as MOND I always bring up the bullet cluster. The argument there for dark matter as a particle is pretty strong imo
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.
I don't think you will be embarrassed. The fact that you are open to admitting when you may be wrong is really what physics needs. We don't have to be 100% right and we can learn when we are wrong. Liked and continuing to be a subscriber!
this is the kind of video i subscribed for, right in the heart of modern physics, your expertise
“If you don’t want to miss my public embarrassment, stay tuned.” Convert this to Latin and make it a tattoo upon graduation from Science School.
si vos dont verecundiam meam desidero, versatus esto.
…according to Google translate anyway
youre the best 😂
Great sense of humor. Thanks Sabine
great take on the subject! interesting
Closer, not quite.
It’s time for Oppenheim to become Oppenheimer!
You mean... the boom? Big bada boom?🤯
I like you, Sabine. I like how honest and smart you are. Please keep doing what you are doing.
Great exposition, and thought-provoking position, too. Thank you!
Your pitch on Nautilus lost me at 'Economics', though!😂
Very interesting but 😏. Thanks for sharing and your crit.
You covered the DM idea but not DE. How would that work, or not?
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.
With a name like ‘Oppenheim’ you’re already half-way believable these days
5:00 Precisely.Thank you Sabine. Still sound like exciting research though.
Such strength, and courage, you sweet, beautiful soul. Human beings project their own fears and weakness onto others, sadly. You represent grace ❤ More power in you than you realize ❤️
What a babe ❤
your not old and your not grumpy, your not even English like me as we have a right to be grumpy
No shit. Why do we women so often discount ourselves.
3:26 "If you're near a planet or a Sun, like most of you probably are." 🤔😂
I so enjoy Sabine's videos and in spite of not necessarily understanding everything, I always feel a little bit more intelligent afterwards.
I love the way she pronounces Einstein.
Seeing more and more into the latest theories of physics will ultimately reach somewhere.
Ever wonderd why people give a like?
because, maybe, we like the content..........🤔😒
@@jameslee5191no no that’s not it. You obviously don’t know what liking something does for your own profile as opposed to the creator
I’m still tryna figure that out but what I do know is it’s not just because I like the content . I don’t like how liking jt meses up my likes even tho I like it
Because they have no choice
@@sir_Edguhhyou have my attention…..!
Please, I’d like to know all about this…. I’m just a goofy musician with a TH-cam channel…. I LOVE Science related channels and music related channels.
When I click LIKE, how does that affect MY Channel ????
Oh, please come listen to my somewhat weird and half complete songs…😊😺🎹🎛🎚🎸…. It’s synthesizers and drum machines, and I say half-complete because I’m no t a good singer or lyrics writer, but I have great fun making music(weird)……
Gravity is clearly gay
I agree with you that J Oppenheim's recent work is extremely interesting. I am studying his recent papers now. When working on Machian GR theories 40+ yrs ago I found an alternative QFT way to derive gravitational lensing (and indirectly a numerical asymptote to GR) which gives a pretty good estimate of the baryonic mass of the observable universe. Not published unfortunately - life took different turn. If you Sabine (or someone else for that matter) is seriously interested please reply to this comment.
Very interesting. Great video.
If quantum's just playing around with some "randomness" (because, who really understands that stuff anyway?), and it's not getting along with gravity, why not throw a bit of randomness into gravity's mix too? Brilliance at its finest!
Here is an allegedly irrelevant commentary: I have a feeling that you are right!
And I love your humorous, open minded, in depth short and precise videos. I also love the fact that you actually get right to the point without much "further ado"!
Sabine, you are wonderful. Don't ever change. We love you just the way you are!
I came because of that PBS episode thanking Sabine for her corrections xD
Don't tell PBS space but I almost entirely switched to you 😂
Amazing that after all these years, Oppenheimer is still alive
So is Barbie, which is even more amazing!
Wonderful explanatation. 👍🌷
Sabina is a precious asset to humanity, I don't understand much of the Physics, but I love her humanity and humour
"I'm just an old grumpy woman who thinks she's seen it all before..." I don't often post... but that was too much. Thank you for being humble and honest and putting a smile on my face. -- from a grumpy old man.