Multiverse is a silly extrapolation of decision making where we can approximate what happens after wave function collapse. It's unobservably verifieable so shouldn't distract us too much. Mind you, unobservable theory about below the Planck length seems valid to me as somethings possible which may be relevant to looking into a fractal visual demonstration.
No. The multiverse religionists _think_ there is a universe where they do agree with Sabina --- that's a bit different to claiming _there _*_is_* a universe where they agree with her. In fact that's the whole point, this difference is the difference between objective and subjective (roughly similar to science versus religion). NB: I am not opposed to religious belief, just annoyed by stupid religious belief (a subjective annoyance to be sure, manifested in my objective behaviours).
If there are an infinite number of parallel universes, isn't it inevitable that there exists at least one universe in which parallel universes don't exist, and is it not possible that ours is one of them?
@@TheRealPaiMei The power of math to identify reality requires methods which dont identify reality. Eg, imaginary and irrational number, square root. These methods are not subjective, not emotion, imagination or invalid concepts. They are indirect methods needed to identify reality.
So now we know this is the oposite particle to: "It's only possible to understate how great this channel is." Probably first time an entanglement was observed on a YT coment section.
As a writer of science fiction, I observe that the concept of the multiverse is a powerful tool that one must use sparingly lest it become a cheap trick to save sagging ratings or a plot that's going nowhere.
Honestly I wish they'd use it more in time travel stories instead of the never-ending paradoxical nonsense about how we changed the timeline but somehow we're still ourselves and now we have to change it back. It'd be lazy, but at least it would make logical sense.
@@mikicerise6250 Like in Rick and Morty, I suppose :p I think it might be hard to come up with a good reason to time travel if multiverses are a thing. I mean, The Terminator basically ended up with a multiverse, but if you start off with that premise, then would you go back in time to save people from a different universe, knowing your universe will still be completely dead? I do find that an interesting question, but i think there won't be too many of such interesting questions or answers, so it quickly becomes just more nonsense to add to the paradoxical "solutions". All though I did like the idea of that time travel movie where some kids made a machine to make money in the past or future or some shit. It's a time travel movie so it's dumb so who cares. I do like dumb movies though :) Let's not mix up dumb with not fun :) The movie Decoherence dabbled in such what if questions. Not with time travel though, but it did an amazing job telling a story and giving a lot of solutions to a lot of questions about what we might do in their situation. I definitely recommend it. It might rid you of your desire for a time travel movie with multiverses though, because, why bother? If the character already knows it's a different universe it's Rick and Morty allover again but probably not nearly as fun, and if they don't know, good luck thinking up an original story anyone could care about.
Thank you for specifically pointing out that just because something exists mathematically does not mean it exists in reality. Too many people fail to grasp that concept.
Part of what makes this series so great is even my middle school science students can grasp most of the argument. They have all seen Marvel movies about the multiverse and find the concept interesting. It's great that they can understand that a concept science can still have value as a literary device. Hossenfelder does a wonderful job in explaining that just because science cannot address a topic does not mean the topic itself is without value.
No value or evidence now. Who knows what will happen in, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years. But it's an absolute fact that if we never research anything we don't currently know, we won't learn anything. And likewise, it's also a fact that if we only research things that work out, we'll never learn anything either.
I'd add a fourth category to Science, Religion, and Pseudoscience: Philosophy. Simplicity arguments referring to Occam's Razor, as well as those based on Popper (or Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, etc.), are all about the conditions of possibility of scientific research, that is, they pertain to Philosophy of Science. Therefore, those arguing for the multiverse hypothesis on the basis of the simplicity of axioms (vs those who oppose it on the basis of the simplicity of outcomes), are doing so from a Philosophical perspective, more than from a Scientific, Religious, or Pseudoscientific one.
I don't think that warrants a new category. It falls under the purpose of her "religion" category. Philosophy is merely considering the possibility. Once one starts "arguing for the multiverse hypothesis", it is a matter of personal belief, which is exactly what the "religion" category is for. Calling it "religion" may seem like a strange label, so perhaps you could use "philosophy" as a stand in for that category if it suits you better, but the category definitely includes what you're suggesting.
Why not make your list: Entertainment, Science, Politics, Capitalism, Communism, Religion, Pseudoscience, Engineering, Coding, Law Enforcement, Medicine, Mathematics? There exist many many many different categories of human activity. What is this narrow-minded closed-minded obsession with having to compare the human activity of science with the (utterly useless unimportant unnecessary garbage) activity of religion?
@@SgtSupaman I think philosophy suits it better, since it doesn't imply actual belief or any kind of ethical code. Of course this is more of a subjective perception and up for debate.
Mmm, this is one of those "technically true.. but" ideas. You have to have some kind of framework or everything becomes permissible. The frameworks for science weren't defined arbitrarily, but evolved out of 6000 years of trying different approaches. Popper's model is the most current model and it, not surprisingly, reflects the process by which the refinement of the process itself went through. In the end, testing a hypothesis works because it requires that the person making the claim "show their homework", so to speak. You can't just propose ANYTHING and have it accepted as valid, you have to propose a way to test it in such a way that if it fails, your hypothesis is either wrong, or incomplete. But science isn't like a game show, you don't lose and go home, you're free to refine the hypothesis and give it another try, as many times as you like. And Occam's Razor isn't a "law", it's a tool for choosing where to start. Start with the easiest possible model - but if that doesn't work, start making the model more complex, but only where absolutely needed. If you have two models and both work and have *identical* predictive properties, but one is more complex, go with the simpler one because nothing you have in front of you says the more complex one is better, AND it's... more complex. But if later you discover the simpler model is flawed, go to the more complex model and start over by seeing if it *isn't* flawed. The idea of testing is technically a philosophical concept, but the thing is, it works, kind of by definition. It's a tautology: "if it works, it works". If you want to see if something works, try it and see if it works. Is it a flawed approach? Yes. If it's possible that there are phenomena which are real, but untestable in any possible way, then it breaks down. But here's the thing... how will you know such a thing exists and is real?
@Evi1 M4chine Actually, Philosophy is neither scientific nor unscientific, it's prescientific, in the sense of encompassing, not of being less. An analogy: no matter what scientific research discovers, it'll be something that can be summed up in a set of equations. In that way math encompasses physics, which can be seen as a subset of math. When scientists employ concepts such as causality, falseability, reductionism etc., they're using conceptual "tools" developed by philosophical inquiry. Science, even theoretical science, is the application of those tools in the investigation of the world our senses perceive. And while scientific research goes on using the tools developed by philosophy, philosophy itself proceeds developing more such tools, which may or may not eventually be employed in scientific research and other areas.
Brilliant, love it. Most humans tend to confuse their internal thoughts/theories with external reality, and it's not only theists who have this problem. It seems to be a very common issue for most people, I've noticed.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Real woke? In other words, she treats trans people as equal human beings with respect and dignity. While you intentionally treat them with hate, ignorance, intolerance, and incivility. And why? Because you're a disgusting, uneducated, and uncivilized, asshole.
It is very satisfying, unfortunately though, she should rip into a mirror sometime. Everything she lambasts in everyone else's work, appears to be in her own too. I used to love her until I discovered she's just yet another popularist hypocrite.
@@tinkeringtim7999 Could you expand on that comment? I know that she lost her grant funding recently which certainly would lead to a change in attitude.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 she has equally arbitrary and unclear lines about what counts as "real" in maths, but speaks and acts as if she's doing different. She asks and answers a lot of philosophical questions while in her videos and books lambasting philosophers for being useless, believing she is guided by the maths and experiments, but when others do the same just with a different perspective she correctly calls it pseudo-science. Anyone who thinks maths directly connects to nature without philosophy in between is just unaware of what science was when it earned the prestige which it has been frittering away ever since it denounced philosophy and adopted Hilbert's fundamentalist neo-platonic cult philosophy as its new and unquestionable foundation.
Tabloid level science?... like that guy Leonard Susskind? Easy there Fonky Fonk, Sabine is a relative novice in the field of theoretic physics, who does her TH-cam channel as a side hustle because her science gig isn't paying the bills. Btw, this year's Nobel Prize winners experimentally pushed Bell's Theorum out of the shadows and into the daylight, and apparently the Universe may not be locally real. All Sabine has is a TH-cam channel. Btw, I didn't see Sabine's name listed on that Nobel Prize. _There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy_ .
At sme stage evry science is tabloid level... Even the argument presented against multiverse aren't convincing...big bang enthusiasts don't hve any real logical answers wen smebdy asks them about beginning of time and wat before big bang... The multiverse theory has it origins in ancient Indian science and is the only logical answer to the mysteries of the universe...ancient Indian Hindu scientific texts tells a lot about cyclical nature of time and universe...
@@donaldkasper8346 Sure, go to Stanford and have that discussion with Dr. Leonard Susskind. You might want learn to read at the 6th grade level first th-cam.com/video/WL38FGjV-u8/w-d-xo.html
Rational thinking is a myth, a fiction like Santa Clause or Bugs Bunny. And that revelation is a finding of the sciences! Stop living the fiction of the past like Sabine and her colleagues do.
@@ICANTOUCHTHESUN Claiming something without presenting any valid arguments to support it, whatever your claims maybe, is illogical. Also, "a finding of the science" is usually something highly regarded. At least for people who understand how science works and are not blinded by religious beliefs.
hmm, rational thinking has to do with arguments rather than facts, what we call science is the relation between the two which we humans enforce axiomatically (i.e. belief). If I live all my life in a cave and I see an elephant shadow on the cave wall, is it science to assume there is actually an elephant? If I am to understand correctly the shadow I must consider the elephant even if I have no interaction with it (apart from seeing the shadow). The elephant is the broader reality even if I could assume other simpler explanation for the shadow. Is it worth making the effort to understand the elephant for little to no practical benefit? @Sabine would say no. Others would argue science is about knowledge and not practical results. Math for instance is less than half practical and we still call it science. About the multiverse I have one observation to make: Our universe is very, very, very specific. It is so specific that the possibility for it to exist without anything else outside is about zero. The fact that we have this universe makes the universe itself to be the shadow on the cave wall example. This kind of compels us to rationalize the multiverse approach.
@@kensho123456 she never explains it. Clearly determinism emerges from the interaction between two entities but she insists that one of them must have consciousness. how come?
The great songwriting unintended geophysicist Neil Young wrote about Zuckerberg in his "Sugar Mountain" back in the 1960s on the observer's interpretation of time in a 4D universe at the end of his teenaged years, and another other unintended geophysicist Joni Mitchell wrote "The Circle Game" in response about her geometric interpretation on the gravity of times passage! Check out the "Live Rust" version of Sugar Mountain, as Neil adds some iron oxide chemistry into his interpretation of the biological aging process and energy transfer! Here we hear two singularities, composed of observing fermion ensembles older than the CMB, using younger bosons and their reflections off the older fermions, over about their 20 something years of observation, back in the flower power days of war and revolution, political turmoil and emerging jumbo jets, space travel and computer advances!
One of your BEST videos ever! My takeaways: 1. If it can't be empirically observed, it may not be wrong, but it's not science, it's faith-based. 2. Just because some math describes reality does not mean that all math describes reality. (Math is a sub-set of Reality, not the other way around)
Don't you have that last sentence backward? Assuming all of reality can be described using mathematical laws, but some math doesn't describe reality, this implies the math that describes reality is a subset of math... or to say it less precisely, reality is a subset of math.
@@brothermine2292 You can use maths to describe anything just like you can use words to describe anything, it doesn't mean that set of maths or words is true to reality.
@@Redsauce101 : You're agreeing with what I wrote, right? You didn't explicitly use a word such as "agree" though, so perhaps one of us is failing to communicate clearly.
Outstanding! As a professional theoretical physicist who has used his mathematics to occasionally show experiment to be wrong (via subsequent experiments agreeing with our calculations and not previous experiments), I tell students that the domain of mathematical validity is always limited. Mathematics is not the reality, but a phenomenally useful tool on certain occasions. The challenge is to know when and where. While I love existential problems, I subscribe to: "Don't worry, just calculate!". Utility trumps all.
The problem is to say that the Big Bang exists but say it only could happen once is statistically crazy when coupled to infinity. Like a fish in the sea debating if space is real
Mannigfaches Merci für das deliziöse wie erquickliche Brainfood und meinen durch Ihren brillianten Humor ausgelösten herrlichen Lachflash... You Made My Day!
I really love how SH gets right to the point, destroys and then leaves you a message with some love in case your beliefs were broken. Frontier science is bloody, but necessary.
The “belief” is just an illusion including Sabine’s opinion. As soon as she stops judgment, her entire universe will collapse and will be withdrawn back into singularity. Human intellect can not understand anything bigger than human’s brain, unfortunately it’s the sad truth.
The claim that MWI is observationally identical to other QM interpretations is incompatible with the claim that MWI is unique among QM interpretations in positing that unobservable shit is real. The methodology for testing it and reaching it as a conclusion is identical to Copenhagen, except that it arguably makes fewer assumptions. You could try to argue that interpretation isn't science, but the claim that the moon really consists of dust couldn't properly be described as religion, even though it's a claim about physical existence rather than just observations.
Great video. Nice to see you weren't too judgemental on people believing in the multiverse if they want to. It's interesting to consider complex ideas but it's really good how you point out they are not science or theories.
As Karl Pilkington once said concerning the study of gravity "It's not a problem so don't worry about it...we're not all floating about, so leave it". I feel the same way regarding the multiverse!
The great Karl Pilkington might have a different view on multiverses. His edict 'so leave it' for gravity might not necessarily transfer over to multiverses. Someone should consult the great man on this question.
Dr. Hossenfelder, I most enjoy your presentations when you're focused on core science and this is very core. But the two issues that most resonate with me are "the untestable 'science'" problem and "scientists who confuse the model with reality" problem. I run into both of these so often with otherwise well qualified and highly intelligent scientists who should know better. The latter case is even weirder because it works both ways: "extend a model outside its range of application and define it as reality" and "selectively limit a model to avoid hitting an unwanted outcome where the model and reality just don't line up". The one that drives me spare is "if you go faster than light, you go backwards in time." Well, no, because you can't go faster than light. This is a case where there are multiple models that say different things (which should be a huge clue that ALL the models are incomplete), but Einstein's equations (by way of Lorentzian math) say that any object with rest mass cannot go AT the speed of light, let alone faster. Moreover, if you go faster, you require imaginary numbers to represent time, length and mass/energy, which makes no sense. That's not how the real world works. The thing about Lorentz equations is that they work VERY well (it's why the GPS system works, for example), but clearly at the speed of light or past it, they break down. In fact, ALL similar equations break down when an object with rest mass hits or exceeds the speed of light. So making statements like "if you go faster than light you go back in time" are not science. They also ignore the entire question of "Is there an extant past and future?" (if not, there there is no 'past' to go back to), "Is the universe absolutely deterministic?" (if so, then the question is meaningless since you already ARE in the past, you're just describing the worldlines more completely - you didn't 'travel'), "Is there a second (or more) t-axis?" (which you'd need if you can consciously choose to 'move" back in time, since moving is a change in location over time and now you're treating TIME as location) and so on, all of which fall into the "untestable science" domain, for now. It's perfectly OK to say "we don't know" or " we don't know how to model that yet," but I often see scientists try to fix a problem with a model by layering even more model on top or by willfully ignoring other models that don't mesh with theirs (see: Einstein and quantum mechanics...). When done for the right reasons, this is actually good - it forces scientists to refine and test their models rigorously - but at its worse (Fred Hoyle's staunch refusal to accept the big bang mainly because a Jesuit priest figured it out - even though that priest was a world class physicist) it just slows everything down and confuses and misleads people (anti-vaxxers, anyone?).
Interesting choice to close with anti-vaxers. That term itself now has wildly different meaning depending on what case you are trying to make. Although the anit-vax movement is at least 100 years old, for most just a couple years ago "anti-vaxer" was fairly well confined to people like Jenny McCarthy making unfounded claims tying vaccines to autism. Now, people wishing do discuss completely rational risk decisions are dubbed "anti-vax". If the risk of negative outcome from a disease is very low, the risk of the vaccine must be even lower. That isn't anti-vax, it's basic risk management.
@@DragNetJoe Risk analysis is important but if anything that only greatly invalidates the stance of antivaxxers because the risk of comparing severe disease to possible vaccine side effects is so extremely unequal that no logical argument is really favorable towards everyone capable of getting vaccinated. The relative sample sizes of those vaccinated with vaccine side effects and those infected with severe symptoms in the case for covid influenza measles and polio to name a few is absurdly different in relative orders of magnitude. All these disease carry a significant risk of debilitating long term health effects even if one recovers and the fact that viruses evolve and not necessarily to lower virulence means that stopping transmission is the only effective way to stop the threat. Its ultimately a civilization scale threat and thus concepts like short term personal privacy and rights make as much sense as allowing someone to help out a foreign state in war even indirectly. It is in terms of impact severely detrimental effectively infringing on the rights of everyone ultimately which exposes the fallacy behind negative freedom. Antivaxxers and other "negative freedom" movements are an enemy of civilization as negative freedom the removal of all restrictions to what a person can do means in effect that there can be no rules or social norms and thus they are fundamentally anarchists. As such I'm curious what rational risk management strategy related to vaccines can be considered valid enough to not be classified with antivaxxers? I do know of several historical examples particularly the early Dengue vaccines which rushed ahead of the science and failed to account for warnings that severe disease is usually associated with poor cross compatibility of antibodies of one strain on the others meaning that such a vaccine that doesn't vaccinate for all 7 family strains is likely to do more harm than good but to my knowledge that is an outlier. Is this something related to the whole poorly named "monkey pox"? I admit that the decision to dilute the vaccine (technically actually the smallpox vaccine given the close evolutionary relation of the two viruses) was a questionable political move not really based on science but in principal there is good reason to be concerned with the virus spreading even with a small community subset of humans as that is a prerequisite for establishing new better adapted variants to humans. In particular the much more virulent west African strain was a branch offshoot of the more "mild" version which has jumped abroad globally so we know that this virus can and has in the past caused more severe viral strains. There was work which predicted and warned this virus would likely be able to jump out into the larger population as smallpox vaccination ceased. Moreover the vaccination against pox viruses should become all that more imperative in light of recent work in Alzheimer's showing a scarily strong association of the condition with reservoirs of latent (Nucleocytoplasmic Large DNA Viruses)NCLDV based viruses (mainly the pox and herpes simplex viruses ) which typically permanently set up shop within Neurons abusing the cells immunoprivileged essential status to remain within the host permanently lying in wait for an opportunity to reemerge. Autopsies have found that in all cases sampled for these viral DNA one or more of these viruses has been found in the associated brain region. Of course correlation is not causation but with the amyloid hypothesis having failed to produce results and the foundational papers under scrutiny for widespread data manipulation its time to look elsewhere. Notably there is some hints that amyloid plays a role in the immune system responses within the brain so it may very well be that reemergence of these viruses within nervous tissue or something similar is the root cause for this horrifying disease. If true exterminating these viruses may be the ultimate cure to the disease. NCLDV as their name suggests are not simple viruses once they enter a cell they set up a complex viral replication factory which is functionally analogous to the nucleolus with phylogenetic evidence finding strong evidence for a shared evolutionary origin between the Eukaryotic nucleolus and the conserved core nuclear genome with the NCLDV. (I.e. this family of viruses most likely shares a common ancestor with Eukaryotes, plus there is also some evidence building a case that the NCLDV may share strong links to the recently identified and sequenced archaeal viruses. As a consequence treating these viruses with antivirals is unlikely to be promising as from a biomolecular perspective Eukaryotes are functionally indistinguishable from NCLDV to the point where it may be better to say Eukaryotes potentially descend from a population of NCLDV clade viruses which adapted a way to replicate with their host. Point of this is vaccination is quite likely the only way we will ever beat these viruses as weapons that will work effectively against this viral family will also be highly effective at killing our cells. With "monkey pox" being a close relative and or possibly even the potential reservoir population from which the ancestor of small pox splintered off from just because the current virus is relatively "mild" doesn't mean we should expect it to remain that way as at least twice in adapting to spread among humans this virus has developed far higher virulence making it extremely deadly. Even a strain with a small fraction of the mortality rate of small pox would still be a horrifying disease we need to stop this monster and exterminate its reservoirs else in the long run the reemergence of a smallpox analog is highly probable. This is an existential battle.
@@Dragrath1 Sorry, not going to read that wall of text. The risk of severe negative outcomes to COVID19 to a healthy child (under 12) is virtually zero. A parent that choses to take that infinitesimal known risk of infection rather than take the significantly less known risk of the vaccine are behaving completely rationally. Not all vaccines are created equal, therefore being "anti-vax" in a specific case (COVID 19 and small children) is a completely different case than being something like anti-smallpox vaccine (which had a fatality rate around 30%).
@@DragNetJoe If you read my comment you would know that the claim you made has been falsified the risks of the vaccines are extremely minimal less than 1 in a million odds while the risk for long covid is about 1/5 odds. Yes the fatality risk is lower than smallpox but it is more deadly than influenza. Notably there is still a relatively high number of deaths among children compared to influenza or a typical cold.
@@Dragrath1 Tell that to someone whose lung fibrosis got activated as a result of vaccination, and their life got cut short for a few years... And no - I'm not anti-vaxxer - got all the way through booster. As to Dr H opinion on multiverse - it should be expressed in peer review publication and be part of scientific debate. This is not a matter of public opinion... And yes - the fate of multiverse/eternal inflation theory is still up in the air (or false vacuum? ;-) ).
Thank you Sabrine, for explaining difficult physics problems in ways your everyday average Joes with a high school education like myself can understand. I'm so glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks that (although fun to discuss) the multiverse has a nice home in science fiction, but not one just yet in physics! You rock Sabrine, keep the videos coming!
Another great episode exercising my brain cells. I'm multiverse agnostic. As our knowledge expands our notion of being in the center of things has been diminished so I don't find the notion of multiple universes untenable but as you mentioned if they are impossible to observe there is no way to know if they exist or not so not scientific.
@Evi1 M4chine _"research grant money being spent on them, leaving juust that one bit too little for research for that thing that ultimately caused your child to die from something totally preventable"_ That argument is based on research grant money being distributed/allocated on merit instead of need.. which is a broken/inefficient system to begin with. Markets are very good at distributing/allocating scarce resources based on need instead of merit, while commissions and other such processes/constructs/frameworks are usually being run by a "select" few who NATURALLY optimize locally for their own benefit. Markets are global optimizers IF every market participant has the same rights.. this is then also what differentiates free markets from unfree markets, where the former are as equal as possible the latter enforce rules that create a select view - which is what leads to the suboptimal local optimization instead of the gloabl optimization.
@@SabineHossenfelder Well if we take all the space between all the atoms and electrons and close the gap we could fit all of reality everything in the entire universe down as the size of a grain of rice. Ultimately everything is subjective so there is no truth but all we can do is try to come up with the most simplistic Solutions like you always say. Each universe's version has its own frequency and they all share the same so-called Mass or fundamental building block for creating everything we see. But it's hard for people to comprehend is how a change in the frequency can allow you to Only See what is part of your reality and I hypothesize that accelerating expansion of the universe could be caused by dark matter and I have a couple different reasons on what could be causing this dark matter to grow exponentially. On one hand I think that the dark matter does interact with regular matter and if we were to not slap the mainstream narrative then you could easily say that dark matter is all of the other Universe versions and the more time travel you have in a particular time the more differentiation you have and therefore you have more increase density of dark matter because dark matter is these other Universe versions bleeding through we could see it there we could so-called measure it but we just can't actually see it. Increasing the number of soul Time Travelers in a area of operation like on this planet will create a rise in the density of Dark Matter creating an illusion of accelerating expansion this is one of the theories but just know everything is a theory and it's all a waste of time...
@@SabineHossenfelder that's a good thing about philosophy it can easily destroy "science" if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound... like I always say in order to have objectivity you need to have an observer that exists from the very beginning of time and will exist all the way to the end of time and even if we have an observer that existed from the very beginning of time the end of time is not now and therefore there is no objectivity only subjectivity so yes if no one is around to hear the tree fall could it possibly make a sound??! And also called objects in our universe are also subjects because No Object existed from the beginning of time and will exist all the way to the end of time and if even if it does the end of time has not came yet so there is no objectivity! All this does is creates a hierarchy of bullshit people wanting to sound Superior when they are absolutely not! Therefore all science is pseudoscience! Plain and simple! I guess we need something to waste our time on though I enjoy our interactions here and I like your little winks you do...
@@SabineHossenfelder all I know is that the fact that 'science' has claimed that our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light just slaps itself in the face. You could say it's relative and all the other bullshit but ultimately it is all bullshit! The fact that scientists or so-called scientists would accept this as so-called science it's just mind-boggling how so many people could be so stupid... it's a lot easier than having to rethink our entire scientific method though because all of our instrumentation and all of our measurements would be considered completely inaccurate and unmeasurable which they are. Like I say one of the biggest problems is thinking that we can observe from our singular point in space and time even if we've napped our entire galaxy there's nothing but a singular point in space and time with physical ships mapping our entire galaxy it would still be nothing and therefore to think that we can map accurately our entire universe from our singular point in space and time using telescopes that cost billions of dollars it would ultimately lead to all of the measurements being wrong and that we can't map from our singular point in space and time if we were logical we would come to this conclusion but it's not about logic it's about getting funding and if there is no logic to anything then why would we fund the work... if we know the objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear due to this exponential growth of dark matter which is everywhere our measurement ability would be completely knocked so it's easier to say that we can measure the dark matter and our universe is accelerating and expansion past the speed of light which is totally insane instead of saying that the dark matter is exponentially growing creating an illusion of accelerating expansion pass the speed of light! I stand for a lot of things but without what I will not stand for is our universe accelerating faster than the speed of light it's just not true and if science was honest with itself it would know that there was no way to physically prove it from our singular point in space and time. we would need to map the entire universe with physical ships... Anyways i bit your head off enough for this abomination of a video... Lu ttyl
Meh. As the video points out its just a matter of "poetry". One of the topics that is easy to use as a media entertainment and has nothing to do with real universe. Similar to how the characters in all the entertainments are shown in a totally unrealistic ways, or being used as an instrument for anything (developing the plot or other characters) and doesnt really exist as an independent characters.
Yeah, why don't we work on trying to understand THIS universe instead of worrying about others which may not even exist. And I am aware that there is a segment of theorists who speculate whether this one is real, or an illusion or some hologram or simulation.
Question: You say, "We know that black holes evaporate, so they eventually reveal their inside," but isn't that something we believe due only to mathematics? I was under the impression that hawking radiation had never been observed. Love your work. Thank you.
Stuff falls into black holes, and they have a boundary towards space around them, and there is the gravity thingy, so it is at least fair to say there probably is an inside, and to reason about it. :-)
@@fullfungo We observed something else, and after some nice philosophical deductions we can now belive in Hawking Radiation. HR is now just a synonym of God. Going overrationalized in Physics has its own pitfalls. We have to think out of the box to find new physics.
I feel like this addresses many worlds theories unfairly by claiming it "Postulate[s] the existence of unobservable entities". It postulates that to observers, these many universes are all observable. It's not fair to say that this has no testable experimental significance to us if it is the true rationale behind Bell's theorem.
@Evi1 M4chine First of all, please get off your high horse. That second paragraph is unnecessary. You misunderstand my position as I do not believe that observers are ever in an 'absolute' universe. We are always experiencing many worlds at a time and the observations/measurements we take define the common characteristics of those worlds; limiting their differences. The consequences of all observers to be observing multiple worlds simultaneously can elegantly explain quantum mechanical weirdness without stripping particles of their discreet positions in their respective universes. But we as observers can never collect enough information to define ourselves to a single universe and must live in many worlds. She even admits that these theories can explain all the same observations in 14:36 but claims that it means nothing if the theory mechanisms parallel those of the Copenhagen interpretation albeit with different assumptions. She views it as more complicated so it is 'pseudoscience' now? This is wielding Occam's razor as a club in the exact way she criticized.
I love your channel and enjoy the overview of various inventions. In so many, like this one, for which finding the correct answer, have zero impact on anything...in our universe. You have the absolutely correct view of this. :)
Thank You for this presentation. I saw you being polite to Michio Kaku, along with Roger Penrose, so TY for discussing this tired issue. I was hugely happy to hear Roger talk about the failing of QM and the need for a "Gravitised Quantum Mechanics". Is there any chance you could explain what he meant by this or your thoughts regarding this? Thank You Sabine for all these vids, I really appreciate them.
@@kiyoaki1985 lol. me too. i think penrose is similarly speculative, but i like his originality. string theory might play some role in understanding quantum gravity in the future, but without confirmation of it experimentally (not for many years i might add) making crazy untestable claims is the goofiest thing you could do. you'd think that a physicist would have a stronger logical compass than that
@@user-jk1tw2qf1i I really don't get the appeal of speculative theories about multiverses and the fermi paradox and interstellar travel, it all just seems so infantile and uninteresting. I liked Kaku when I was 12 and didn't know better but kind of hate him now.
Whenever Sabine shot down a tenet of string theory, I'd hear "Michio Kaku" in my head. Luckly, I didn't make that a drinking game. I would have been unable to write these comments.
oje sabine, du zerstörst grad meinen traum. ich liebe diese multiversumsgeschichten, und hoffe doch sehr, dass sie nicht nur "geschichten" sind. immerhin sind ja einige der grossen in der physik davon überzeugt.
Sabine is perfectly comfortable with the concept. She's just enough of a scientist to know it's not science. Either Sean (however enamored he may be of the concept) is also enough of a scientist, or is not.
An instrumentalist vs a scientific realist is not a very interesting debate. Because instrumentalists (such as SH) aren't very interesting. All they really do is shut up and calculate (SH makes a lot of noise about it tho)
Appreciate your feedback It's a great pleasure hearing from you. Stay tuned for more videos,for participating our online investment Community⬆️reach out the number above
So is there a way to describe counterfactual computing such as covered in "Counterfactual Computation Is Really Weird" without a multiverse ontology? It seems that bit is not mere mathematical artifact but quite concrete effect. Positrons started out as mathematical artifacts but if you need the artifact for a central phenomenon its no longer really an artifact.
Sure. Off the top of my head 1) a flying spaghetti monster tells the photons where to go in a way that aligns with the experiment. 2) we always get really lucky. 3) the level of interaction in the system is just greater than what we're used to. Multi-verse is an explanation, but not the only one.
I agree also there are other things where Copenhagen appears difficult. Also the "math is not reality" sits uneasy with me as well. Sure the math is a model of reality but it feels alot like SH is handpicking what she likes from the model and discarding what she doesnt. I like almost all of SHs videos but this one, to me it feels slightly biased towards a viewpoint thats not the simplest which can explain all observations. That said iam a software developer and like math, science and statistics iam not a quantum mechanics guy so maybe iam missing something.
@@michael__ni That looks more like an emotional response than a logical one. Sabine isn't saying math isn't vital or that a theory doesn't need math to be accurate or useful. She's saying that math is insufficient to establish scientific rigor because it has to be based in reality. Math can be used to describe universes that are not our own to high degrees of specificity. And some universes that are not our own look very similar to our universe. So because the math works with what we currently understand does not mean that it is the right answer, since there are multiple interpretations that work out mathematically right now and that may always be the case. And so the question should go further "does this interpretation produce testable predictions?" That marks the difference between a mathematical thought exercise and a scientific statement about reality.
When I was younger and more into physics, I took a few university courses on quantum mechanics. One of them was called Quantum Mechanics Interpretations, a course supposedly about physics, however took place in the building that was used for philosophy and social studies and such. The course was probably one of the things that made me give up on physics altogether. The professor, an avid believer of the many worlds interpretation btw, was the single most boring lecturer I have ever had a class with. His tone never changed as he droned on and on about what seemed like completely unscientific ideas, some somewhat plausible and others completely absurd. If this is supposed to be the cutting edge of physics, I said to myself, what's the point? It all sounds a little harsh, and I don't mean to shit all over the work of very important and intelligent human beings. They deserve their funding and noble prizes, no doubt. But I think what Sabine is saying should be a wake up call both for scientists and for the public to stop treating science like the new religion. Science is only concerned with explaining observation, belief has nothing to do with it. Human beings will keep exploring the cosmos and discover many new things but we may never know the answers to the so called "fundamental questions" and that's alright. Science doesn't have to explain everything and we're frequently chasing our own tail with this race towards a magical "one theory to rule them all". It's just an unnecessary burden on science to force it to bend to our human need of finding meaning in everything. That's what we have belief for, and to each their own. Thank you for another great video from the realest science communicator on youtube.
I think the issue is people wanting to prove how smart they are by using their imagination to get ahead of science and pretend it makes them cutting edge. The further ahead their theory gets and more confusing it sounds, the smarter they must be because other people don’t understand what they’re talking about and you end up with followers saying how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are to prove they’re one of the smart ones who totally understood the gobbledygook. But if you don’t have evidence then you’ve got nothing and life doesn’t reward guesses. Thus said, I think this would be best defined as science as philosophy, not religion. Religion includes rituals and philosophies usually change to adapt to new knowledge while religion usually denies new knowledge if it conflicts with established beliefs. Scientific Philosophers love grabbing the latest research to build their imaginary theories on because it keeps them ahead of everyone else.
Why not make your list: Entertainment, Science, Politics, Capitalism, Communism, Religion, Pseudoscience, Engineering, Coding, Law Enforcement, Medicine, Mathematics? There exist many many many different categories of human activity. What is this narrow-minded closed-minded obsession with having to compare the human activity of science with the (utterly useless unimportant unnecessary garbage) activity of religion?
What does Sabine mean when she says at 10:00 that multiverses "show up in the mathematics" of some physicists' work? Do the multiverses fill in some missing part of a mathematical model?
10:30 I agree completely. Too many think that mathematics IS something. I say it describes something with an unknown degree of accuracy. Thank you,. Sabine
Great video. Some people would say the multiverse idea is currently the only way to explain why the physical constants happen to be in the narrow range that permits life (and observers). In the same way that, if we assumed Earth was the only planet, we'd want some sort of explanation as to why it happens to have conditions that allow life. But if we assume there are trillions of other planets then it's much less surprising that some of them would have the right conditions for life. I'm not claiming it's scientific though, since other planets can be observed and other universes can't. Still, in the absence of any scientific theory explaining why the values of the constants are what they are, from a philosophical standpoint it seems as good as explanation as any.
That still doesn't help explaining why something (obviously) is - it just throws a statistical cape over it. You can do that when you philosophize, but don't call it science.
"the only way to explain" ... balderdash. The existence of other "earths" doesn't explain a single thing about our Earth. "oh, there's a trillion of 'em, so there's bound to be one that has the particulars that ours has" doesn't explain a thing. yet another logical fallacy masquerading as science.
Hooray for Sabine, a delightful blend of high IQ, cynicism, sarcasm, hot pepper and humor. Perhaps she’s the science gadfly. She not only rips apart theories but bloods the noses of those that promote them.
The problem Sabine has is that she calls anything currently untestable as “not science”. People thought that proving gravity waves or determining whether a hidden variable theory could exist were impossible. Those weren’t testable for decades. Until they were. Things evolve, it’s not static.
@@brucehoward8767 Could’ve said the same thing about hidden variable theory. They literally thought it was intrinsically philosophical in nature for decades. Then someone came along and made it not. Same thing here. You can’t assume things will remain the same into the infinite future.
That's another great video, as always, but not because Sabine questions the multiverse(s). It is great because she condemns those physicists that, instead of using Mathematics as a Science translation tool, use Mathematics to "create" science.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 there is nothing “natural” about science. It’s purely a methodology that was invented by humans as a way to find out how things work, and why.
A counter example possibly though: Dirac's prediction (using only mathematics) of the positron. Sabine is formidable but I feel there is a slight tension here with here previously stated notion that you cannot really understand basic physics through analogies - the maths is essential. I hope I am not misrepresenting her but I come away from this feeling I need to really think this through. Her characterisation of the scope of science may be open to challenge.
In her other videos she contradicts herself tho. She says that the essential mathematical parts of our theories should be considered to exist. She can't make up her mind on this, and contradicts herself.
@@jcolvin2 Really? I don't remember any of her videos saying this. Do you have a link? Anyways, I just bought her book "Lost in Math" that I hope will bring more information about her thoughts on this topic
Great video, but it's important to point out that infinite, even infinite multiverses, does not necessarily mean every possible thing you can imagine definitely happens/exists. Infinities can have gaps. For example, the even numbers are infinite, but you'll never find three among them. Or, infinite random walks in three dimensions have only about a 1/3rd chance of returning to the point they started.
If we define a universe as the container for a set of truths (or measurements, observation, actualised possibilities, or whatever other synonym for “real thing” you want to use), then everything you can imagine *does* happen, if there are infinite realities. Your argument here is akin to saying “you won’t find an impossibility among these infinite possibilities”; which is false, because it’s completely possible for a reality to contain impossibilities, as illogical as that may seem to us.
Exactly. It's like the possibilities we see in this universe. We might think that it's possible that a flipped coin would fall on the other side, but that doesn't mean that it is. It might just be that you'd need an impossible history of everything for it to happen that way at that time and place. In a similar way I couldn't have a version of me that would marry Elon. First off, I wouldn't be able to identify with such a thing and you'd have a hard time showing the history of that universe before you can convince me that the person who did that is in any way comparable to me without me being able to say that I am then comparable to everyone on this planet as well and everyone here is also a version of me. It would require vastly different genetics and parents before it could be possible. At best you can show that things are technically in the set of possibilities because marriage is a thing and both Elon and I are human and humans marry, so I could marry Elon. Something you can also do with universes and black swans. This universe exists, swans exist, black feathers exist, so technically a multiverse is possible and so are black swans. You can't do that with gods for instance. You can't, for instance, show that a god, as a mind without a body, is a possibility that we can reasonably consider. But what we can and can't show to be possible has nothing to say about the actual possibility. After all, it's possible I am wearing yellow socks, until you know I don't. They're black by the way, mostly purple I'd guess from experience, which is not an existing colour but a combination of red and blue and zero yellow.
@@tahunuva4254 Nope. What is impossible simply won't happen. Your imagination has no bearing on that. That is an egocentric view that will always fail in actual reality, no matter how you define a universe. And it might just be the case that things we think possible, like an orange or a winged elephant, are in fact impossible in all possible physics of all universes. A lot of our imagination can't happen, like winged elephants or triangular wheels being more efficient in a different universe, but on the bright side, what _is_ possible is a lot more than you can possibly imagine, and that's just in _this_ universe. All people combined can't imagine as much as is happening at this very moment in this very universe and it's much weirder and more amazing than flying elephants. I mean, good luck making coffee from a flying elephant. But with the physics in this universe, perfect coffee every time.
@@stylis666 “Impossible” is a meaningless term given infinite possibilities, though. As soon as you define something as impossible (like your example efficient triangle wheels), you’ve already flirted with the idea of an efficient triangle wheel. And thus, it has a chance (however seemingly infinitesimal) of being a part of our paradigm. That’s not egocentric, that’s just how science escapes from the realm of dogma: by being open to possibility.
In the mind of every person you have ever met exists a different and distinct version of you and no two are identical. Every observation gave a different measurement to each observer.
Perhaps the important quuestion to be asked is, Why is the Universe so fine-tuned? The late Steven Weinberg didn't like a multiverse solution, because it made the universal constants arbritary. "But anthropic arguments provide not just a bound on ρV ; they give us some idea of the value to be expected: ρV should be not very different from the mean of the values suitable for life. This is what Vilenkin calls the “principle of mediocrity...for R = 1 Mpc, [ the co-moving radius of a sphere ] the probability of finding a vacuum energy as small as 2.3 ρM 0 is only 7.2%.” 'Living in the Multiverse' 2005. To the maybe 120 order magnitude discrepancy [ of the vacuum catastrophe ] can be added the 15 magnitude discrepancy of a Higgs mass at 125 GeV, if there is a Higgs, of course, which can be discarded in a photonic charge universe, along with the baggage of quarks, gluons amd hadronisation, inferred or theorised but never seen It's strange that atheist scientists dismiss G0d on a premise of "never seen" but accept Gell-Mann's hypothesis of a never seen zoo of quarks. lol. The fine-tuning implies a designer if a multiverse or Goldilocks contention is dismissed.
The first of your videos that I have watched. I love that you are opinionated! I'm no physicist, but sometimes some aspects of modern physics seem insane to me. It is refreshing to hear "there may actually not be anything to this".
This always seemed like such mathematical hand waving, but as a physics dropout (quantum was the end for me), I never felt my opinion worthy, But when they talk about multiple, infinite universes for every particle's slightest movement, specific copies of us as individuals - it's sounds nuts to me. If you like debunking, check out Sabine's friend Dr, Unzicker: www.youtube.com/@TheMachian
I don't want to go overboard on condemnation. I'm actually a scientist myself (biology, not physics), and I think that proposing and considering novel ideas is useful and important. As long as somebody knowledgeable can bring a critical eye to it, which is why I appreciated this video. And if nothing else, such ideas can make for some AWESOME science fiction stories! Also, some of the "crazy" ideas will turn out to be true, and you just never know in advance, which ones they will be. Everything we now take as established and solid, once sounded crazy to most people.
Sabine is great at pointing out how scientists are not immune from wanting the universe to "make sense" and have explanations that are emotionally satisfying. This is something that people ridicule religious people for. Maybe we're all the same.
I don’t know which scientists Sabine refers to as actually “believing” in the multiverse. The ones I have listened to, however convinced of the validity of the idea, always admit that it’s just hypothesis and there’s no way of testing. I don’t see problems, as Sabine seems to, in writing speculative papers, after all “If we knew what it is we were doing, it would not be called research. Would it?” (Albert Einstein) Unless of course people lose sight of the fact that is speculation and believe it’s reality.
@@pansepot1490 I think this may be a problem if you think in terms of financing such research instead of serious science. Then, there is the misinterpretation problem of our "show the paper" culture. Being published is not a guarantee of being right.
Given that Space-Time can stretch, may I request a session on what's possible with Space-Time? Could part of it roll back and forth like a rubber band that has been twisted and released? If a galaxy was situated in such a region would that obviate the need for dark matter to explain the rotational speeds?
I think if we stick to the generally accepted theories then science would stop making progress. So i think it worth thinking about new ideas. Who knows maybe at some point someone will find a way to test those theories and they will be upgraded form pseudoscience to real science.
Exactly. The genuine SCIENTIST does like Darwin and follows the evidence wherever it leads him, regardless of whether it demolishes his previously held hypotheses. The PSEUDO-scientist hangs onto his preconceived notions and rejects all the evidence (drawn from all over the world since anything began to be recorded) that proves them wrong as so much superstitious nonsense. Therefore some of our leading Atheists forfeit all credibility to be considered scientists - they are just using PARTS of science (scientia =knowledge) to push their own agenda.
This is a wonderful video. I've been saying almost all of these things for years, now I have strong evidence on my side too. The "unobservable even in principle" is even the same exact phrasing. Seriously, thank you!
She isn't saying anything new, she's just saying the unpopular. So many scientists and academics make their bread and butter on pseudo-science that the whole system is teetering on the verge of collapse because there is so much fraud.
From what I take from this is that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fully alligned with the Multiverse hypothesis it's just because at the point the wave function collapses and the measurement is made and the probability is gone it deals with our reality because any other probabilities don't exist and is there are other universes where something else has happened they can't be evidentially measured because there is no way of observing them, not that we know of currently. I think that's what you're saying and I'd never thought of it that way. You then seem to suggest that because we can't observe it it isn't scientific to try and see if there is any way of observing or measuring it? But isn't this what science does? It is about forming hypothesise, postulating (of even better actually creating) an experiment, and either confirming your hypothesis, adapting it and doing another experiment, or throwing it out of the window? I'm a little confused because if Einstein (and I know you hate to mention him) when he came up with new interpretations on how reality worked, sometimes which in the end he didn't like, his thought experiments, at the time there weren't ways to measure them (there were with some of his theories, but not all, and not at that time), then you're saying we should just not purpose these theories because they are pseudoscience? It is only science to propose what we can prove with an experiment? That does make sense, but it doesn't mean that we as humans shouldn't put theories out there as someone may come along to prove of disprove the theory with more advanced technology or equipment. It might not be science but isn't it theoretical physics, is that not what theoretical physics is all about? Maybe some things that people come up with is rubbish, sometimes it just can't be proven (and shouldn't be believed), but isn't it a worthwhile endeavour in itself, because of we don't do this we would just discard a lot of opportunities that may help us explain the universe? Lastly, doesn't the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics make an assumption about the collapse of the wave function? Of course it does, it fits with the results we see in our universe, but it doesn't explain what actually happens at that point as far as I know, it just says the other probabilities disappear (maybe it does, but if people cleverer then me are looking into possibile explanations as to why there are probabilities in the first place and what happens to the other possibilities, which is one thing even Einstein, yes him again, wanted to know, and doesn't fit well with our experience of everyday life, then I doubt it does). You are basically saying don't even hypothesise because you can't observe or make it currently, and other proposed theories have found nothing, which I find highly unscientific, so I'm torn here. Many may lap this up because you present your thoughts very well (even if at times you throw in the absurd to convince the viewers it's a good technique for that), and I don't disagree with what you say, I just like to question everything, accept what has been proven by experiment, accept refinements when problems in theories are found (under certain conditions), and more forward building on what went before. Those scientists who don't accept your position of just accept the assumptions made and move on, and would like answers, may be wasting their time, they may be wasting money doing so, in your opinion, but it doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
"It is only science to propose what we can prove with an experiment?" True. But... if multiverse exist, is it possible to have the impossible? Just because we can postulate a frammin' flibbertigibbets does not mean it has to exist
There's a difference between saying "Oh, this theory might be true. Let's test it." And "This theory is true. Let's prove it." Believing comes afterwards, not before. You can do thought experiments all you want. But if you start arguing your thought experiments are true with no real evidence to back it up, it's pseudoscience.
_"You then seem to suggest that because we can't observe it it isn't scientific to try and see if there is any way of observing or measuring it? But isn't this what science does? It is about forming hypothesise, postulating (of even better actually creating) an experiment, and either confirming your hypothesis, adapting it and doing another experiment, or throwing it out of the window?"_ That's what science does, yes. But a lot of those theories have no ways to confirm or deny the hypothesis therein which turns them into a scientifically unverifiable theory.. i.e. pseudoscience or religion.
It was stated in this video that even if something makes testable predictions, it still may not be a scientific hypothesis. In that case, what additional criteria must a hypothesis satisfy in order to be treated as scientific?
“We know that black holes evaporate...” is either the epistemologically weakest part of your talk, or a very sophisticated joke. I prefer to go with the “joke” hypothesis. On poetry, it is very hard to do it right. Bad physics is not poetry of any kind. But good physics has many of the pleasing qualities of good poetry. Reading Einstein, reading Shakespeare, both worth the time.
Dr Hossenfelder, I'd like to respectfully object to your characterization of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are multiple aspects of the FSM that one could technically observe in the current universe. For instance, while we haven't directly observed spaghettification, I don't think anyone would argue that it doesn't happen near black holes. Similarly, the pasta-like layers in a neutron star have been hypothesized as well. There are other references, but perhaps less testable.
Thank you for this video. A lot of new age types have tried to use multiverse theories as justification for their wacky ideas. I enjoyed the multiverse DC Comics created in the 60s and 70s, but retroactively ruined in the 80s, but even as a teenager, I knew the multiverse was as fictional as the super-powered beings that populated it.
She’s not saying the multiverse is fictional, she’s just saying it’s philosophical, not scientific. The exact same way the question of the size of the universe is. Science can’t tell us anything because we can’t observe outside our bubble. So any speculation on what’s past the observable universe will be unscientific. Philosophically, an infinite universe is the most popular answer since it makes the least assumptions. But there’s absolutely no proof of it. The multiverse is the same way (except for the Many Worlds one). The amount of variables at the moment of the Big Bang that allow for life to exist objectively means that either we’re very lucky, something (God/a computer) planned the universe, or an infinite amount of universe are created with all these variables and so the odds aren’t a problem anymore. Science can’t tell us which of these is correct. Philosophy prefers the multiverse, but only for the same reason it prefers the “infinite universe”. It makes the least assumptions.
Still i don't agree with putting the many worlds interpretation away like BS because it implies unmeasurable extra worlds. Kopenhagen also implies unmeasurable consequences: faster than light propagation of wave function collapse. And it does so with an extra collapse rule which many worlds doesn't have. That means many worlds is simpler and explaining the same phenomena than Kopenhagen. That's where Occam's razor should razor Kopenhagen away.
@@Jopie65 i find it weird how they consider it "fantasy" as if the other interpretations arent just as ridiculous,i blame marvel movies for the bandwagon hate on MWI.
I think he was using the term “multiverse” to refer to things outside the observable portion of our universe, as in treating the observable universe as one universe and what lies outside it a multiverse that we cannot observe due to the speed of light. So in that sense yes, Many Worlds is not the multiverse, but the multiverse in the sense he was using it is not the topic of this video nor what the general public usually mean by the term. Granted it has been a while since I read the book, so I may be getting this wrong!
Thank you for this typically clear-minded video, Sabine. I’ve always thought the many-worlds interpretation was absolutely crazy and completely useless and I can’t understand why anybody takes it seriously.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 well I assume it must be, but I don’t see what possible explanatory power it has. An entire new universe from nothing which is undetectable even in principle?
@@richardhunt809 the appeal is that it behaves in practice identical in results to the Copenhagen interpretation (which we haven't found a problem with yet) without the incoherence of that theory's view of the measurement problem.
People take it seriously because that's what the physics says (the Schroedinger equation + decoherence). It describes many worlds. The alternatives are all onticly incoherent or merely instrumentalist. Copenhagen can't say when a measurement happens. Qbism is just silent on the ontology. Objective collapse is increasingly ruled out by experiment. Bohm is manyworlds in denial (the pilot wave + decoherence is equivalent to Everett). Everett isn't actually an "interpretation" at all; it's just what the physics says. SH is an instrumentalist, but doesn't want to come out and say it.
@@jcolvin2 yeah pretty much this. I like SH but I'm not sure what problem she has with MWI's solution to the measurement problem. "Measurement is when your brain becomes entangled with the thing you're measuring" explains everything we see without any assumptions beyond the schrodinger equation afaik
You are absolutely spectacular, Sabine. Just discovered you recently. Now subscribed. Your *Sense of Humor* is just amazing. And love how to share your knowledge with very little Jargon. Love it! John -- #NZL
I agree with most of this video, but I think the notion that we invented mathematics is more contentious that she admits. If we discover it instead, it solves a lot of thorny philosophical issues and this leads naturally to Tegmark's mathematical universe in which all mathematical structures exist. That said, as Sabine explains here, I wouldn't really call this science but philosophy.
Similarly, she remarks that no one would say that an unobserved phenomenon does not exist. People definitely say that, but this too falls outside the realm of science.
@@oscargordon philosophical issues have a tendency to stop being philosophy, once a question is solved. For an example, check out the history section of the Wikipedia article on 'emission theory'. The question 'What is the nature of vision?' was sufficiently answered to where it could be studied scientifically.
@@wanderslostify I suppose in a way you could be correct in that technically everyone with a PhD is a philosopher. So your example of a thorny problem solved by people who’s day job is actually a “philosopher” instead of “a person who uses the scientific method to solve problems", is the emission theory of vision where people identified as philosophers thought we shoot particles out of our eyes to be able to see. It was Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham), identified as a mathematician, astronomer, and physicist that correctly identified how vision worked. "Ibn al-Haytham was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be supported by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence-an early pioneer in the scientific method five centuries before Renaissance scientists. On account of this, he is sometimes described as the world's "first true scientist". So sorry, your number one best example of how philosophers solved a thorny problem doesn't add up. Try again.
@@oscargordon Alhazen is the scientist that first came up with the scientific proof. Before he did that, he formed a logical and testable hypothesis based upon his evaluation of other people's reasoning. Only after this reasoning was done, he was able to construct an experiment that tested his hypothesis. If his reasoning was not sound, his experimental observations would have been useless. These days, science can build on itself with only very basic reasoning (still a philosophical exercise, though). When you get back to early principles, philosophy is needed to define the questions that scientific inquiry hopes to answer.
Always fascinating and interesting, and as an ignorant in the sciences and maths, I still find much that helps me find a very small grip to the subjects that educate and make me think. Thank you. Off topic but I am sometimes left with a question in my head about what science says and does with ‘random’. It it used or useful in science, and if so, how? I would be very interested in your thoughts on this. (Apologies if my question is pointless.)
Countries together form a continent, continents together form a planet, planets together form a solar system, many solar systems together form a galaxy and it keeps going on. Once we thought milky Way was all there is until it was proven wrong, I'm sure it's the same case with multiverse as well.
@Marcelo B you wonderful lunatic! You've lampooned the entire serious point of Sabine's commentary: to assert *_there is_* is precisely the anti-scientific point of view she was trying to de-promote. What is the case is that Many Worlders *_think there is_* a universe where Sabina supports MWI. "Thinking there is" is totally different to "there is" --- this was the entire point of the video.
Yes I think everything in this video is very well debunked even just in reading Carrol's book "something deeply hidden". It's almost like she hasn't heard of this stuff before even though it's her profession. She didn't address a single argument the multiverse theory stands on, just kept calling it silly.
What I've never understood about the Multiverse, is that just one single photon would spawn an infinite number of universes since the particle can travel in an infinite number of directions from its origin. So if just one single particle create an infinite number of universes based on travel path alone, and then you apply the same logic to all existing particles, it would in the end create so many infinities that the whole Multiverse idea just does not seem rational.
From that perspective, yes. But you're missing a part of that puzzle. One single photon can still not stop midway and travel backwards. If there are more than one particle, they're constrained by each other. Not everything is possible, so the irrational universes don't exist. Problem solved.
@@stylis666 My point is that if we think we've found all paths a particle could take from its origin, well, we havent. Because we could always find a new path in between two others.
Excellent video. I think one big realization that can come out of this discussion is that science cannot answer many important questions that humans may be interested in. I mean I would like to know whether multiverse exists, but science simply cannot answer that question for me. While science is extremely useful in advancing civilization think there needs to be a reasonable amount of humility in acknowleding its limits.
The invisible elephant and I are pretty happy together. Thanks for introducing us. Sometimes the right person for you is right in front of you all along. And an elephant.
So glad to hear someone who knows their trade calling out BS for what it is. I’ve always tried to keep an open mind about the whacky theories of the last 20 years or so, but a lot of things never seemed to sit right with me and I have always chalked it up to my ignorance.
Whacky "hypotheses": Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, Big Bang, General Relativity. Those are just a few of the most mainstream. Edit: oh, I forgot Flat Earth. That will be coming soon to the mainstream too together with one world unified religion.
Parallel Universe: "Deep inside of a parallel universe It's getting harder and harder to tell what came first I'm underwater where thoughts can breathe easily Far away you were made in a sea, just like me"
This video comes with a quiz that lets you check your knowledge! quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1689229798710x820116508313118700
th-cam.com/video/bux0SjaUCY0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pWHIx0QkY7ccg9Ok
Multiverse is a silly extrapolation of decision making where we can approximate what happens after wave function collapse. It's unobservably verifieable so shouldn't distract us too much. Mind you, unobservable theory about below the Planck length seems valid to me as somethings possible which may be relevant to looking into a fractal visual demonstration.
Michi kaku seems like a fraud now, which I think he is
Don't worry about multiverse enthusiasts not agreeing with your video, because there is a multiverse in which they do.
No. The multiverse religionists _think_ there is a universe where they do agree with Sabina --- that's a bit different to claiming _there _*_is_* a universe where they agree with her. In fact that's the whole point, this difference is the difference between objective and subjective (roughly similar to science versus religion).
NB: I am not opposed to religious belief, just annoyed by stupid religious belief (a subjective annoyance to be sure, manifested in my objective behaviours).
Im pretty sure it was meant to be a joke...
This joke is deeper that I thought at firt glance because it contains somehow a paradox.
I wish I had thought of this. Great comment!
If there are an infinite number of parallel universes, isn't it inevitable that there exists at least one universe in which parallel universes don't exist, and is it not possible that ours is one of them?
Sabine nailed it. Mathematics is a tool to simulate reality, but it can also be used to simulate fantasy.
Math IDENTIFIES the IDENTITY of reality. Its not mystical or subjective.
Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology-Ayn Rand
@@TeaParty1776 That’s wrong. Not every mathematical construct has ontological reality.
@@TheRealPaiMei The power of math to identify reality requires methods which dont identify reality. Eg, imaginary and irrational number, square root. These methods are not subjective, not emotion, imagination or invalid concepts. They are indirect methods needed to identify reality.
@@TheRealPaiMei do u c my prior reply?
I wonder if Sabine will ever discuss the complex topic - Ego. It often gets in the way of knowledge
It's impossible to overstate how great this channel is.
"It's just as good as Sean Carroll's."
In another universe, its possible.
@@TeaParty1776 and in others this channel doesn't even exist
Weren't you listening? Nothing is impossible 🤔
So now we know this is the oposite particle to:
"It's only possible to understate how great this channel is."
Probably first time an entanglement was observed on a YT coment section.
As a writer of science fiction, I observe that the concept of the multiverse is a powerful tool that one must use sparingly lest it become a cheap trick to save sagging ratings or a plot that's going nowhere.
This
Honestly I wish they'd use it more in time travel stories instead of the never-ending paradoxical nonsense about how we changed the timeline but somehow we're still ourselves and now we have to change it back. It'd be lazy, but at least it would make logical sense.
@@mikicerise6250 Like in Rick and Morty, I suppose :p I think it might be hard to come up with a good reason to time travel if multiverses are a thing.
I mean, The Terminator basically ended up with a multiverse, but if you start off with that premise, then would you go back in time to save people from a different universe, knowing your universe will still be completely dead? I do find that an interesting question, but i think there won't be too many of such interesting questions or answers, so it quickly becomes just more nonsense to add to the paradoxical "solutions". All though I did like the idea of that time travel movie where some kids made a machine to make money in the past or future or some shit. It's a time travel movie so it's dumb so who cares. I do like dumb movies though :) Let's not mix up dumb with not fun :)
The movie Decoherence dabbled in such what if questions. Not with time travel though, but it did an amazing job telling a story and giving a lot of solutions to a lot of questions about what we might do in their situation. I definitely recommend it. It might rid you of your desire for a time travel movie with multiverses though, because, why bother? If the character already knows it's a different universe it's Rick and Morty allover again but probably not nearly as fun, and if they don't know, good luck thinking up an original story anyone could care about.
The multiverse is most powerful in choose your own adventure tales.
DC and Marvel right here. XD
Thank you for specifically pointing out that just because something exists mathematically does not mean it exists in reality. Too many people fail to grasp that concept.
Exactly! Same thing applies to the big bang and cosmic inflation theories though...
@@michaelmueller260 Absolutely.
@AKrutikoff So?
@@kensho123456 At the moment, I'm thinking that he probably isn't, but I'd like to hear what AKrutikoff says to help me work towards a final decision
@@kensho123456 I shall see what AKrutikoff says
Part of what makes this series so great is even my middle school science students can grasp most of the argument. They have all seen Marvel movies about the multiverse and find the concept interesting. It's great that they can understand that a concept science can still have value as a literary device. Hossenfelder does a wonderful job in explaining that just because science cannot address a topic does not mean the topic itself is without value.
"The manifest universe is a mental construction"
But its value is only as a science fiction plot or escapist daydream. As she states, the theory of multiverses has no scientific value or evidence.
No value or evidence now.
Who knows what will happen in, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of years.
But it's an absolute fact that if we never research anything we don't currently know, we won't learn anything.
And likewise, it's also a fact that if we only research things that work out, we'll never learn anything either.
I'd add a fourth category to Science, Religion, and Pseudoscience: Philosophy. Simplicity arguments referring to Occam's Razor, as well as those based on Popper (or Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, etc.), are all about the conditions of possibility of scientific research, that is, they pertain to Philosophy of Science. Therefore, those arguing for the multiverse hypothesis on the basis of the simplicity of axioms (vs those who oppose it on the basis of the simplicity of outcomes), are doing so from a Philosophical perspective, more than from a Scientific, Religious, or Pseudoscientific one.
I don't think that warrants a new category. It falls under the purpose of her "religion" category. Philosophy is merely considering the possibility. Once one starts "arguing for the multiverse hypothesis", it is a matter of personal belief, which is exactly what the "religion" category is for. Calling it "religion" may seem like a strange label, so perhaps you could use "philosophy" as a stand in for that category if it suits you better, but the category definitely includes what you're suggesting.
Why not make your list: Entertainment, Science, Politics, Capitalism, Communism, Religion, Pseudoscience, Engineering, Coding, Law Enforcement, Medicine, Mathematics? There exist many many many different categories of human activity. What is this narrow-minded closed-minded obsession with having to compare the human activity of science with the (utterly useless unimportant unnecessary garbage) activity of religion?
@@SgtSupaman I think philosophy suits it better, since it doesn't imply actual belief or any kind of ethical code. Of course this is more of a subjective perception and up for debate.
Mmm, this is one of those "technically true.. but" ideas. You have to have some kind of framework or everything becomes permissible. The frameworks for science weren't defined arbitrarily, but evolved out of 6000 years of trying different approaches. Popper's model is the most current model and it, not surprisingly, reflects the process by which the refinement of the process itself went through. In the end, testing a hypothesis works because it requires that the person making the claim "show their homework", so to speak. You can't just propose ANYTHING and have it accepted as valid, you have to propose a way to test it in such a way that if it fails, your hypothesis is either wrong, or incomplete.
But science isn't like a game show, you don't lose and go home, you're free to refine the hypothesis and give it another try, as many times as you like.
And Occam's Razor isn't a "law", it's a tool for choosing where to start. Start with the easiest possible model - but if that doesn't work, start making the model more complex, but only where absolutely needed. If you have two models and both work and have *identical* predictive properties, but one is more complex, go with the simpler one because nothing you have in front of you says the more complex one is better, AND it's... more complex. But if later you discover the simpler model is flawed, go to the more complex model and start over by seeing if it *isn't* flawed.
The idea of testing is technically a philosophical concept, but the thing is, it works, kind of by definition. It's a tautology: "if it works, it works". If you want to see if something works, try it and see if it works. Is it a flawed approach? Yes. If it's possible that there are phenomena which are real, but untestable in any possible way, then it breaks down.
But here's the thing... how will you know such a thing exists and is real?
@Evi1 M4chine Actually, Philosophy is neither scientific nor unscientific, it's prescientific, in the sense of encompassing, not of being less.
An analogy: no matter what scientific research discovers, it'll be something that can be summed up in a set of equations. In that way math encompasses physics, which can be seen as a subset of math.
When scientists employ concepts such as causality, falseability, reductionism etc., they're using conceptual "tools" developed by philosophical inquiry. Science, even theoretical science, is the application of those tools in the investigation of the world our senses perceive. And while scientific research goes on using the tools developed by philosophy, philosophy itself proceeds developing more such tools, which may or may not eventually be employed in scientific research and other areas.
It's a shame that we live in the only Universe where the multiverse does not exist.
Very clever. Underrated comment. The more I read it the more my eyes cross and I disappear into a puff of logic . . .
@@ashroskell Agreed. Gotta be mighty drunken to think of such sentence.
In the parallel universe, you’re commenting on the right youtube video.
Universes were observed in the hotel
Underrated comment.
Brilliant, love it. Most humans tend to confuse their internal thoughts/theories with external reality, and it's not only theists who have this problem. It seems to be a very common issue for most people, I've noticed.
Such an impressive intellect, and even more impressive to be able to communicate these ideas with such clarity!
I love how rational Sabine is. Very satisfying ways of explaining what things are and what things are not, regularly.
She's rational until you get her talking about trans people. Then all of a sudden she gets real woke/irrational.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 Real woke? In other words, she treats trans people as equal human beings with respect and dignity. While you intentionally treat them with hate, ignorance, intolerance, and incivility. And why? Because you're a disgusting, uneducated, and uncivilized, asshole.
It is very satisfying, unfortunately though, she should rip into a mirror sometime. Everything she lambasts in everyone else's work, appears to be in her own too.
I used to love her until I discovered she's just yet another popularist hypocrite.
@@tinkeringtim7999 Could you expand on that comment? I know that she lost her grant funding recently which certainly would lead to a change in attitude.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 she has equally arbitrary and unclear lines about what counts as "real" in maths, but speaks and acts as if she's doing different.
She asks and answers a lot of philosophical questions while in her videos and books lambasting philosophers for being useless, believing she is guided by the maths and experiments, but when others do the same just with a different perspective she correctly calls it pseudo-science.
Anyone who thinks maths directly connects to nature without philosophy in between is just unaware of what science was when it earned the prestige which it has been frittering away ever since it denounced philosophy and adopted Hilbert's fundamentalist neo-platonic cult philosophy as its new and unquestionable foundation.
Thank you Sabine, for bringing all this tabloid-level "science" back down to earth.
Tabloid level science?... like that guy Leonard Susskind? Easy there Fonky Fonk, Sabine is a relative novice in the field of theoretic physics, who does her TH-cam channel as a side hustle because her science gig isn't paying the bills. Btw, this year's Nobel Prize winners experimentally pushed Bell's Theorum out of the shadows and into the daylight, and apparently the Universe may not be locally real. All Sabine has is a TH-cam channel. Btw, I didn't see Sabine's name listed on that Nobel Prize.
_There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy_ .
At sme stage evry science is tabloid level... Even the argument presented against multiverse aren't convincing...big bang enthusiasts don't hve any real logical answers wen smebdy asks them about beginning of time and wat before big bang... The multiverse theory has it origins in ancient Indian science and is the only logical answer to the mysteries of the universe...ancient Indian Hindu scientific texts tells a lot about cyclical nature of time and universe...
th-cam.com/video/1mJSkvqICY8/w-d-xo.html
It is not tabloid science, it is gibberish crap.
@@donaldkasper8346 Sure, go to Stanford and have that discussion with Dr. Leonard Susskind. You might want learn to read at the 6th grade level first
th-cam.com/video/WL38FGjV-u8/w-d-xo.html
Your videos are always a treat for rational thinking, thank you Sabine!!! ❤️
Rational thinking is a myth, a fiction like Santa Clause or Bugs Bunny. And that revelation is a finding of the sciences! Stop living the fiction of the past like Sabine and her colleagues do.
@@ICANTOUCHTHESUN Claiming something without presenting any valid arguments to support it, whatever your claims maybe, is illogical.
Also, "a finding of the science" is usually something highly regarded. At least for people who understand how science works and are not blinded by religious beliefs.
hmm, rational thinking has to do with arguments rather than facts, what we call science is the relation between the two which we humans enforce axiomatically (i.e. belief). If I live all my life in a cave and I see an elephant shadow on the cave wall, is it science to assume there is actually an elephant? If I am to understand correctly the shadow I must consider the elephant even if I have no interaction with it (apart from seeing the shadow). The elephant is the broader reality even if I could assume other simpler explanation for the shadow. Is it worth making the effort to understand the elephant for little to no practical benefit? @Sabine would say no. Others would argue science is about knowledge and not practical results. Math for instance is less than half practical and we still call it science.
About the multiverse I have one observation to make: Our universe is very, very, very specific. It is so specific that the possibility for it to exist without anything else outside is about zero. The fact that we have this universe makes the universe itself to be the shadow on the cave wall example. This kind of compels us to rationalize the multiverse approach.
but, Why is she constantly insisting that the measurer must have consciousness in order to have determinism of the measured?
@@kensho123456 she never explains it.
Clearly determinism emerges from the interaction between two entities but she insists that one of them must have consciousness. how come?
Zuckerberg candy... that's an excellent german joke 🤣 (Zucker=sugar in german)
Google Translate tells me that 'zucker berg' is a pile of sugar, which is not what I'd say to describe some of Facebook's business practices.
Haha very funny....
Ha! I can’t believe I didn’t notice that!
I guess he’s a “mountain of sugar,” actually!
@@Flavia1989 I'm reminded of the tune 'Big Rock Candy Mountain' when I think of 'zuckerberg'.
The great songwriting unintended geophysicist Neil Young wrote about Zuckerberg in his "Sugar Mountain" back in the 1960s on the observer's interpretation of time in a 4D universe at the end of his teenaged years, and another other unintended geophysicist Joni Mitchell wrote "The Circle Game" in response about her geometric interpretation on the gravity of times passage! Check out the "Live Rust" version of Sugar Mountain, as Neil adds some iron oxide chemistry into his interpretation of the biological aging process and energy transfer! Here we hear two singularities, composed of observing fermion ensembles older than the CMB, using younger bosons and their reflections off the older fermions, over about their 20 something years of observation, back in the flower power days of war and revolution, political turmoil and emerging jumbo jets, space travel and computer advances!
there is nothing more clear and straight forward than a doc sabine video.
One of your BEST videos ever!
My takeaways: 1. If it can't be empirically observed, it may not be wrong, but it's not science, it's faith-based.
2. Just because some math describes reality does not mean that all math describes reality. (Math is a sub-set of Reality, not the other way around)
Don't you have that last sentence backward? Assuming all of reality can be described using mathematical laws, but some math doesn't describe reality, this implies the math that describes reality is a subset of math... or to say it less precisely, reality is a subset of math.
@@brothermine2292 You can use maths to describe anything just like you can use words to describe anything, it doesn't mean that set of maths or words is true to reality.
@@Redsauce101 : You're agreeing with what I wrote, right? You didn't explicitly use a word such as "agree" though, so perhaps one of us is failing to communicate clearly.
Or is it?
@@brothermine2292 Disagree. Maths are a language and are merely a way to attempt to express an understanding of reality.
Sabine, I love your humour! You still bring the information to us but in such a brilliant way. Please carry on in your way!
Outstanding! As a professional theoretical physicist who has used his mathematics to occasionally show experiment to be wrong (via subsequent experiments agreeing with our calculations and not previous experiments), I tell students that the domain of mathematical validity is always limited. Mathematics is not the reality, but a phenomenally useful tool on certain occasions. The challenge is to know when and where. While I love existential problems, I subscribe to: "Don't worry, just calculate!". Utility trumps all.
The problem is to say that the Big Bang exists but say it only could happen once is statistically crazy when coupled to infinity.
Like a fish in the sea debating if space is real
Fascinating, as usual.
Kudos on your graphics. They really pop!
I feel sorry for any universe in which there is no Sabine Hossenfelder.
Fantastic video. In these days it is essential to have someone to call BS for what it is. Thank you for that. You do science a good service.
Mannigfaches Merci für das deliziöse wie erquickliche Brainfood und meinen durch Ihren brillianten Humor ausgelösten herrlichen Lachflash... You Made My Day!
I really love how SH gets right to the point, destroys and then leaves you a message with some love in case your beliefs were broken. Frontier science is bloody, but necessary.
And cracks some lovely jokes!
lol - you've been to a physics convention eh?
well said
The “belief” is just an illusion including Sabine’s opinion. As soon as she stops judgment, her entire universe will collapse and will be withdrawn back into singularity. Human intellect can not understand anything bigger than human’s brain, unfortunately it’s the sad truth.
The claim that MWI is observationally identical to other QM interpretations is incompatible with the claim that MWI is unique among QM interpretations in positing that unobservable shit is real. The methodology for testing it and reaching it as a conclusion is identical to Copenhagen, except that it arguably makes fewer assumptions.
You could try to argue that interpretation isn't science, but the claim that the moon really consists of dust couldn't properly be described as religion, even though it's a claim about physical existence rather than just observations.
I used to ignore the elephant in the room but thanks to Sabine I made a new friend.
Lol! Nice!
A marvelous demonstration of "how to call out Michio Kaku, without calling out Michio Kaku".
As always, very clear explanation of a relevant topic, even out of Physics. Great.
I never thought a explanation of the multiverse theory could be so funny! Absolutely brilliant.
Great video. Nice to see you weren't too judgemental on people believing in the multiverse if they want to. It's interesting to consider complex ideas but it's really good how you point out they are not science or theories.
As Karl Pilkington once said concerning the study of gravity "It's not a problem so don't worry about it...we're not all floating about, so leave it". I feel the same way regarding the multiverse!
The great Karl Pilkington might have a different view on multiverses. His edict 'so leave it' for gravity might not necessarily transfer over to multiverses. Someone should consult the great man on this question.
An attitude that ages like milk the moment someone stumbles on a practical application.
@@marcforrester7738 How does milk age the moment someone stumbles on a practical application?
Now that would be a video. Sabine in conversation with Karl Pilkington.
Dr. Hossenfelder, I most enjoy your presentations when you're focused on core science and this is very core. But the two issues that most resonate with me are "the untestable 'science'" problem and "scientists who confuse the model with reality" problem. I run into both of these so often with otherwise well qualified and highly intelligent scientists who should know better.
The latter case is even weirder because it works both ways: "extend a model outside its range of application and define it as reality" and "selectively limit a model to avoid hitting an unwanted outcome where the model and reality just don't line up". The one that drives me spare is "if you go faster than light, you go backwards in time." Well, no, because you can't go faster than light. This is a case where there are multiple models that say different things (which should be a huge clue that ALL the models are incomplete), but Einstein's equations (by way of Lorentzian math) say that any object with rest mass cannot go AT the speed of light, let alone faster. Moreover, if you go faster, you require imaginary numbers to represent time, length and mass/energy, which makes no sense. That's not how the real world works.
The thing about Lorentz equations is that they work VERY well (it's why the GPS system works, for example), but clearly at the speed of light or past it, they break down. In fact, ALL similar equations break down when an object with rest mass hits or exceeds the speed of light. So making statements like "if you go faster than light you go back in time" are not science. They also ignore the entire question of "Is there an extant past and future?" (if not, there there is no 'past' to go back to), "Is the universe absolutely deterministic?" (if so, then the question is meaningless since you already ARE in the past, you're just describing the worldlines more completely - you didn't 'travel'), "Is there a second (or more) t-axis?" (which you'd need if you can consciously choose to 'move" back in time, since moving is a change in location over time and now you're treating TIME as location) and so on, all of which fall into the "untestable science" domain, for now.
It's perfectly OK to say "we don't know" or " we don't know how to model that yet," but I often see scientists try to fix a problem with a model by layering even more model on top or by willfully ignoring other models that don't mesh with theirs (see: Einstein and quantum mechanics...). When done for the right reasons, this is actually good - it forces scientists to refine and test their models rigorously - but at its worse (Fred Hoyle's staunch refusal to accept the big bang mainly because a Jesuit priest figured it out - even though that priest was a world class physicist) it just slows everything down and confuses and misleads people (anti-vaxxers, anyone?).
Interesting choice to close with anti-vaxers. That term itself now has wildly different meaning depending on what case you are trying to make. Although the anit-vax movement is at least 100 years old, for most just a couple years ago "anti-vaxer" was fairly well confined to people like Jenny McCarthy making unfounded claims tying vaccines to autism. Now, people wishing do discuss completely rational risk decisions are dubbed "anti-vax". If the risk of negative outcome from a disease is very low, the risk of the vaccine must be even lower. That isn't anti-vax, it's basic risk management.
@@DragNetJoe Risk analysis is important but if anything that only greatly invalidates the stance of antivaxxers because the risk of comparing severe disease to possible vaccine side effects is so extremely unequal that no logical argument is really favorable towards everyone capable of getting vaccinated.
The relative sample sizes of those vaccinated with vaccine side effects and those infected with severe symptoms in the case for covid influenza measles and polio to name a few is absurdly different in relative orders of magnitude. All these disease carry a significant risk of debilitating long term health effects even if one recovers and the fact that viruses evolve and not necessarily to lower virulence means that stopping transmission is the only effective way to stop the threat.
Its ultimately a civilization scale threat and thus concepts like short term personal privacy and rights make as much sense as allowing someone to help out a foreign state in war even indirectly. It is in terms of impact severely detrimental effectively infringing on the rights of everyone ultimately which exposes the fallacy behind negative freedom.
Antivaxxers and other "negative freedom" movements are an enemy of civilization as negative freedom the removal of all restrictions to what a person can do means in effect that there can be no rules or social norms and thus they are fundamentally anarchists.
As such I'm curious what rational risk management strategy related to vaccines can be considered valid enough to not be classified with antivaxxers?
I do know of several historical examples particularly the early Dengue vaccines which rushed ahead of the science and failed to account for warnings that severe disease is usually associated with poor cross compatibility of antibodies of one strain on the others meaning that such a vaccine that doesn't vaccinate for all 7 family strains is likely to do more harm than good but to my knowledge that is an outlier.
Is this something related to the whole poorly named "monkey pox"? I admit that the decision to dilute the vaccine (technically actually the smallpox vaccine given the close evolutionary relation of the two viruses) was a questionable political move not really based on science but in principal there is good reason to be concerned with the virus spreading even with a small community subset of humans as that is a prerequisite for establishing new better adapted variants to humans. In particular the much more virulent west African strain was a branch offshoot of the more "mild" version which has jumped abroad globally so we know that this virus can and has in the past caused more severe viral strains. There was work which predicted and warned this virus would likely be able to jump out into the larger population as smallpox vaccination ceased.
Moreover the vaccination against pox viruses should become all that more imperative in light of recent work in Alzheimer's showing a scarily strong association of the condition with reservoirs of latent (Nucleocytoplasmic Large DNA Viruses)NCLDV based viruses (mainly the pox and herpes simplex viruses ) which typically permanently set up shop within Neurons abusing the cells immunoprivileged essential status to remain within the host permanently lying in wait for an opportunity to reemerge.
Autopsies have found that in all cases sampled for these viral DNA one or more of these viruses has been found in the associated brain region. Of course correlation is not causation but with the amyloid hypothesis having failed to produce results and the foundational papers under scrutiny for widespread data manipulation its time to look elsewhere. Notably there is some hints that amyloid plays a role in the immune system responses within the brain so it may very well be that reemergence of these viruses within nervous tissue or something similar is the root cause for this horrifying disease.
If true exterminating these viruses may be the ultimate cure to the disease. NCLDV as their name suggests are not simple viruses once they enter a cell they set up a complex viral replication factory which is functionally analogous to the nucleolus with phylogenetic evidence finding strong evidence for a shared evolutionary origin between the Eukaryotic nucleolus and the conserved core nuclear genome with the NCLDV. (I.e. this family of viruses most likely shares a common ancestor with Eukaryotes, plus there is also some evidence building a case that the NCLDV may share strong links to the recently identified and sequenced archaeal viruses. As a consequence treating these viruses with antivirals is unlikely to be promising as from a biomolecular perspective Eukaryotes are functionally indistinguishable from NCLDV to the point where it may be better to say Eukaryotes potentially descend from a population of NCLDV clade viruses which adapted a way to replicate with their host.
Point of this is vaccination is quite likely the only way we will ever beat these viruses as weapons that will work effectively against this viral family will also be highly effective at killing our cells.
With "monkey pox" being a close relative and or possibly even the potential reservoir population from which the ancestor of small pox splintered off from just because the current virus is relatively "mild" doesn't mean we should expect it to remain that way as at least twice in adapting to spread among humans this virus has developed far higher virulence making it extremely deadly. Even a strain with a small fraction of the mortality rate of small pox would still be a horrifying disease we need to stop this monster and exterminate its reservoirs else in the long run the reemergence of a smallpox analog is highly probable. This is an existential battle.
@@Dragrath1 Sorry, not going to read that wall of text. The risk of severe negative outcomes to COVID19 to a healthy child (under 12) is virtually zero. A parent that choses to take that infinitesimal known risk of infection rather than take the significantly less known risk of the vaccine are behaving completely rationally. Not all vaccines are created equal, therefore being "anti-vax" in a specific case (COVID 19 and small children) is a completely different case than being something like anti-smallpox vaccine (which had a fatality rate around 30%).
@@DragNetJoe If you read my comment you would know that the claim you made has been falsified the risks of the vaccines are extremely minimal less than 1 in a million odds while the risk for long covid is about 1/5 odds. Yes the fatality risk is lower than smallpox but it is more deadly than influenza. Notably there is still a relatively high number of deaths among children compared to influenza or a typical cold.
@@Dragrath1 Tell that to someone whose lung fibrosis got activated as a result of vaccination, and their life got cut short for a few years... And no - I'm not anti-vaxxer - got all the way through booster.
As to Dr H opinion on multiverse - it should be expressed in peer review publication and be part of scientific debate. This is not a matter of public opinion... And yes - the fate of multiverse/eternal inflation theory is still up in the air (or false vacuum? ;-) ).
Thank you Sabrine, for explaining difficult physics problems in ways your everyday average Joes with a high school education like myself can understand. I'm so glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks that (although fun to discuss) the multiverse has a nice home in science fiction, but not one just yet in physics! You rock Sabrine, keep the videos coming!
Sabrine 😂😂
Saline **
Another great episode exercising my brain cells. I'm multiverse agnostic. As our knowledge expands our notion of being in the center of things has been diminished so I don't find the notion of multiple universes untenable but as you mentioned if they are impossible to observe there is no way to know if they exist or not so not scientific.
She did point out @11:50 published papers of tests for multiverse hypotheses using the CMBR.
@@Achrononmaster for some of them, not all..
@Evi1 M4chine _"research grant money being spent on them, leaving juust that one bit too little for research for that thing that ultimately caused your child to die from something totally preventable"_
That argument is based on research grant money being distributed/allocated on merit instead of need.. which is a broken/inefficient system to begin with.
Markets are very good at distributing/allocating scarce resources based on need instead of merit, while commissions and other such processes/constructs/frameworks are usually being run by a "select" few who NATURALLY optimize locally for their own benefit.
Markets are global optimizers IF every market participant has the same rights.. this is then also what differentiates free markets from unfree markets, where the former are as equal as possible the latter enforce rules that create a select view - which is what leads to the suboptimal local optimization instead of the gloabl optimization.
The book was fantastic! THe audio book reader was also excellent and captured your tone and speaking style well.
I'm happy to hear! 😊
@@SabineHossenfelder Please talk about rotating wormholes, thanks.
@@SabineHossenfelder Well if we take all the space between all the atoms and electrons and close the gap we could fit all of reality everything in the entire universe down as the size of a grain of rice. Ultimately everything is subjective so there is no truth but all we can do is try to come up with the most simplistic Solutions like you always say. Each universe's version has its own frequency and they all share the same so-called Mass or fundamental building block for creating everything we see. But it's hard for people to comprehend is how a change in the frequency can allow you to Only See what is part of your reality and I hypothesize that accelerating expansion of the universe could be caused by dark matter and I have a couple different reasons on what could be causing this dark matter to grow exponentially. On one hand I think that the dark matter does interact with regular matter and if we were to not slap the mainstream narrative then you could easily say that dark matter is all of the other Universe versions and the more time travel you have in a particular time the more differentiation you have and therefore you have more increase density of dark matter because dark matter is these other Universe versions bleeding through we could see it there we could so-called measure it but we just can't actually see it. Increasing the number of soul Time Travelers in a area of operation like on this planet will create a rise in the density of Dark Matter creating an illusion of accelerating expansion this is one of the theories but just know everything is a theory and it's all a waste of time...
@@SabineHossenfelder that's a good thing about philosophy it can easily destroy "science" if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound... like I always say in order to have objectivity you need to have an observer that exists from the very beginning of time and will exist all the way to the end of time and even if we have an observer that existed from the very beginning of time the end of time is not now and therefore there is no objectivity only subjectivity so yes if no one is around to hear the tree fall could it possibly make a sound??! And also called objects in our universe are also subjects because No Object existed from the beginning of time and will exist all the way to the end of time and if even if it does the end of time has not came yet so there is no objectivity! All this does is creates a hierarchy of bullshit people wanting to sound Superior when they are absolutely not! Therefore all science is pseudoscience! Plain and simple! I guess we need something to waste our time on though I enjoy our interactions here and I like your little winks you do...
@@SabineHossenfelder all I know is that the fact that 'science' has claimed that our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light just slaps itself in the face. You could say it's relative and all the other bullshit but ultimately it is all bullshit! The fact that scientists or so-called scientists would accept this as so-called science it's just mind-boggling how so many people could be so stupid... it's a lot easier than having to rethink our entire scientific method though because all of our instrumentation and all of our measurements would be considered completely inaccurate and unmeasurable which they are. Like I say one of the biggest problems is thinking that we can observe from our singular point in space and time even if we've napped our entire galaxy there's nothing but a singular point in space and time with physical ships mapping our entire galaxy it would still be nothing and therefore to think that we can map accurately our entire universe from our singular point in space and time using telescopes that cost billions of dollars it would ultimately lead to all of the measurements being wrong and that we can't map from our singular point in space and time if we were logical we would come to this conclusion but it's not about logic it's about getting funding and if there is no logic to anything then why would we fund the work... if we know the objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear due to this exponential growth of dark matter which is everywhere our measurement ability would be completely knocked so it's easier to say that we can measure the dark matter and our universe is accelerating and expansion past the speed of light which is totally insane instead of saying that the dark matter is exponentially growing creating an illusion of accelerating expansion pass the speed of light! I stand for a lot of things but without what I will not stand for is our universe accelerating faster than the speed of light it's just not true and if science was honest with itself it would know that there was no way to physically prove it from our singular point in space and time. we would need to map the entire universe with physical ships... Anyways i bit your head off enough for this abomination of a video... Lu ttyl
Sabine, I'd really love it if you reviewed the sci-fi physics written about in The Three-Body Problem series, especially the third book.
That would be an amazing video. 👍
Lack of interest in our universe is the reason for the interest in other universes..
:)(:..
Meh. As the video points out its just a matter of "poetry". One of the topics that is easy to use as a media entertainment and has nothing to do with real universe. Similar to how the characters in all the entertainments are shown in a totally unrealistic ways, or being used as an instrument for anything (developing the plot or other characters) and doesnt really exist as an independent characters.
Yeah, why don't we work on trying to understand THIS universe instead of worrying about others which may not even exist.
And I am aware that there is a segment of theorists who speculate whether this one is real, or an illusion or some hologram or simulation.
Question: You say, "We know that black holes evaporate, so they eventually reveal their inside," but isn't that something we believe due only to mathematics? I was under the impression that hawking radiation had never been observed.
Love your work. Thank you.
Stuff falls into black holes, and they have a boundary towards space around them, and there is the gravity thingy, so it is at least fair to say there probably is an inside, and to reason about it. :-)
An analogue of Hawking radiation has been observed in sonic black holes.
Not a direct evidence, but it’s something, I guess.
@@fullfungo We observed something else, and after some nice philosophical deductions we can now belive in Hawking Radiation. HR is now just a synonym of God. Going overrationalized in Physics has its own pitfalls. We have to think out of the box to find new physics.
@@schawo2 what are these “philosophical deductions” you are referring to?
@@schawo2 I don't think that's how scientific theory works.
I feel like this addresses many worlds theories unfairly by claiming it "Postulate[s] the existence of unobservable entities". It postulates that to observers, these many universes are all observable. It's not fair to say that this has no testable experimental significance to us if it is the true rationale behind Bell's theorem.
@Evi1 M4chine First of all, please get off your high horse. That second paragraph is unnecessary.
You misunderstand my position as I do not believe that observers are ever in an 'absolute' universe. We are always experiencing many worlds at a time and the observations/measurements we take define the common characteristics of those worlds; limiting their differences. The consequences of all observers to be observing multiple worlds simultaneously can elegantly explain quantum mechanical weirdness without stripping particles of their discreet positions in their respective universes. But we as observers can never collect enough information to define ourselves to a single universe and must live in many worlds.
She even admits that these theories can explain all the same observations in 14:36 but claims that it means nothing if the theory mechanisms parallel those of the Copenhagen interpretation albeit with different assumptions. She views it as more complicated so it is 'pseudoscience' now? This is wielding Occam's razor as a club in the exact way she criticized.
I love your channel and enjoy the overview of various inventions. In so many, like this one, for which finding the correct answer, have zero impact on anything...in our universe.
You have the absolutely correct view of this. :)
I love you in every multiverse. Thank you!!! Great video! :)
Both the science and the humour are well done. Thanks!
Yeah, she’s a true star at it: clear, concise, convincing, quite witty!
Thank You for this presentation. I saw you being polite to Michio Kaku, along with Roger Penrose, so TY for discussing this tired issue.
I was hugely happy to hear Roger talk about the failing of QM and the need for a "Gravitised Quantum Mechanics". Is there any chance you could explain what he meant by this or your thoughts regarding this? Thank You Sabine for all these vids, I really appreciate them.
I second this post. My thesis is on this topic, so I would love to hear an opinion.
I tried to watch that video but just couldn't. Michio Kaku irritates me to no end with his speculative pandering.
@@kiyoaki1985 lol. me too. i think penrose is similarly speculative, but i like his originality. string theory might play some role in understanding quantum gravity in the future, but without confirmation of it experimentally (not for many years i might add) making crazy untestable claims is the goofiest thing you could do. you'd think that a physicist would have a stronger logical compass than that
@@user-jk1tw2qf1i I really don't get the appeal of speculative theories about multiverses and the fermi paradox and interstellar travel, it all just seems so infantile and uninteresting. I liked Kaku when I was 12 and didn't know better but kind of hate him now.
Whenever Sabine shot down a tenet of string theory, I'd hear "Michio Kaku" in my head. Luckly, I didn't make that a drinking game. I would have been unable to write these comments.
Honesty in science is the need of the hour, and I thank you!
I agree with everything in this video, You're not questioning the validity of the multiverse but rather questioning its scientific aplications.
"Shut up and calculate" approach, I guess.
Amazing ! Thank you for clarifying why it is not science. Keep up the good work ;)
oje sabine, du zerstörst grad meinen traum. ich liebe diese multiversumsgeschichten, und hoffe doch sehr, dass sie nicht nur "geschichten" sind. immerhin sind ja einige der grossen in der physik davon überzeugt.
They aren't real😂
Thank you so much far making this Sabine. This is one of the big theories in public perception and someone needed to call it out!
I would love to see a conversation/debate with Ms Hossenfelder and Sean Carroll who seems to be more comfortable with the multi-verse concept.
Yes it would be a thing alrighty. Big fan of Sean Carroll, has a fantastic channel.
Eagerly awaiting this to become a reality
I would definitely watch that.
Sabine is perfectly comfortable with the concept. She's just enough of a scientist to know it's not science. Either Sean (however enamored he may be of the concept) is also enough of a scientist, or is not.
An instrumentalist vs a scientific realist is not a very interesting debate. Because instrumentalists (such as SH) aren't very interesting. All they really do is shut up and calculate (SH makes a lot of noise about it tho)
Thanks
Appreciate your feedback
It's a great pleasure hearing from you.
Stay tuned for more videos,for participating our online investment Community⬆️reach out the number above
So is there a way to describe counterfactual computing such as covered in "Counterfactual Computation Is Really Weird" without a multiverse ontology? It seems that bit is not mere mathematical artifact but quite concrete effect. Positrons started out as mathematical artifacts but if you need the artifact for a central phenomenon its no longer really an artifact.
Sure. Off the top of my head 1) a flying spaghetti monster tells the photons where to go in a way that aligns with the experiment. 2) we always get really lucky. 3) the level of interaction in the system is just greater than what we're used to. Multi-verse is an explanation, but not the only one.
I agree also there are other things where Copenhagen appears difficult. Also the "math is not reality" sits uneasy with me as well. Sure the math is a model of reality but it feels alot like SH is handpicking what she likes from the model and discarding what she doesnt. I like almost all of SHs videos but this one, to me it feels slightly biased towards a viewpoint thats not the simplest which can explain all observations. That said iam a software developer and like math, science and statistics iam not a quantum mechanics guy so maybe iam missing something.
@@michael__ni That looks more like an emotional response than a logical one. Sabine isn't saying math isn't vital or that a theory doesn't need math to be accurate or useful. She's saying that math is insufficient to establish scientific rigor because it has to be based in reality. Math can be used to describe universes that are not our own to high degrees of specificity. And some universes that are not our own look very similar to our universe. So because the math works with what we currently understand does not mean that it is the right answer, since there are multiple interpretations that work out mathematically right now and that may always be the case. And so the question should go further "does this interpretation produce testable predictions?" That marks the difference between a mathematical thought exercise and a scientific statement about reality.
Just discovered this channel and can't stop watching your videos!
Somewhere out there, someone was surprised by an elephant while watching this video, and is now convinced of many worlds.
When I was younger and more into physics, I took a few university courses on quantum mechanics. One of them was called Quantum Mechanics Interpretations, a course supposedly about physics, however took place in the building that was used for philosophy and social studies and such. The course was probably one of the things that made me give up on physics altogether. The professor, an avid believer of the many worlds interpretation btw, was the single most boring lecturer I have ever had a class with. His tone never changed as he droned on and on about what seemed like completely unscientific ideas, some somewhat plausible and others completely absurd. If this is supposed to be the cutting edge of physics, I said to myself, what's the point?
It all sounds a little harsh, and I don't mean to shit all over the work of very important and intelligent human beings. They deserve their funding and noble prizes, no doubt. But I think what Sabine is saying should be a wake up call both for scientists and for the public to stop treating science like the new religion. Science is only concerned with explaining observation, belief has nothing to do with it. Human beings will keep exploring the cosmos and discover many new things but we may never know the answers to the so called "fundamental questions" and that's alright. Science doesn't have to explain everything and we're frequently chasing our own tail with this race towards a magical "one theory to rule them all". It's just an unnecessary burden on science to force it to bend to our human need of finding meaning in everything. That's what we have belief for, and to each their own.
Thank you for another great video from the realest science communicator on youtube.
I think the issue is people wanting to prove how smart they are by using their imagination to get ahead of science and pretend it makes them cutting edge. The further ahead their theory gets and more confusing it sounds, the smarter they must be because other people don’t understand what they’re talking about and you end up with followers saying how beautiful the emperor’s clothes are to prove they’re one of the smart ones who totally understood the gobbledygook. But if you don’t have evidence then you’ve got nothing and life doesn’t reward guesses.
Thus said, I think this would be best defined as science as philosophy, not religion. Religion includes rituals and philosophies usually change to adapt to new knowledge while religion usually denies new knowledge if it conflicts with established beliefs. Scientific Philosophers love grabbing the latest research to build their imaginary theories on because it keeps them ahead of everyone else.
Why not make your list: Entertainment, Science, Politics, Capitalism, Communism, Religion, Pseudoscience, Engineering, Coding, Law Enforcement, Medicine, Mathematics? There exist many many many different categories of human activity. What is this narrow-minded closed-minded obsession with having to compare the human activity of science with the (utterly useless unimportant unnecessary garbage) activity of religion?
Do calculations. Never think about anything. Based.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 Why do you hate God
@@Steiwerd lol
You know somethings wrong when Many Worlds is the least controversial one
What does Sabine mean when she says at 10:00 that multiverses "show up in the mathematics" of some physicists' work? Do the multiverses fill in some missing part of a mathematical model?
10:30 I agree completely. Too many think that mathematics IS something. I say it describes something with an unknown degree of accuracy. Thank you,. Sabine
For sure, "too many think that mathematics IS something" -> too many think that physical theory=mathematical model of physics IS something
Great video. Some people would say the multiverse idea is currently the only way to explain why the physical constants happen to be in the narrow range that permits life (and observers). In the same way that, if we assumed Earth was the only planet, we'd want some sort of explanation as to why it happens to have conditions that allow life. But if we assume there are trillions of other planets then it's much less surprising that some of them would have the right conditions for life.
I'm not claiming it's scientific though, since other planets can be observed and other universes can't. Still, in the absence of any scientific theory explaining why the values of the constants are what they are, from a philosophical standpoint it seems as good as explanation as any.
That still doesn't help explaining why something (obviously) is - it just throws a statistical cape over it. You can do that when you philosophize, but don't call it science.
"the only way to explain" ... balderdash. The existence of other "earths" doesn't explain a single thing about our Earth. "oh, there's a trillion of 'em, so there's bound to be one that has the particulars that ours has" doesn't explain a thing. yet another logical fallacy masquerading as science.
The 'narrow range that permits life' is a totally unproven conjecture.
@@davegold that too. :)
You have raised most important and relevant points. Thank you.
Hooray for Sabine, a delightful blend of high IQ, cynicism, sarcasm, hot pepper and humor. Perhaps she’s the science gadfly. She not only rips apart theories but bloods the noses of those that promote them.
I thought this was going to be a video about the multiverse being nothing more than an endless amount of simulated universes
The problem Sabine has is that she calls anything currently untestable as “not science”. People thought that proving gravity waves or determining whether a hidden variable theory could exist were impossible. Those weren’t testable for decades. Until they were. Things evolve, it’s not static.
@@storksforever2000 Good point but I don’t think that it is applicable in this case.
@@brucehoward8767 Could’ve said the same thing about hidden variable theory. They literally thought it was intrinsically philosophical in nature for decades. Then someone came along and made it not. Same thing here. You can’t assume things will remain the same into the infinite future.
Why is she constantly insisting that the measurer must have consciousness in order to have determinism of the measured?
That's another great video, as always, but not because Sabine questions the multiverse(s). It is great because she condemns those physicists that, instead of using Mathematics as a Science translation tool, use Mathematics to "create" science.
She doesn't even condemn them but just says what they're actually doing and, by doing so, they're not doing natural science.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 there is nothing “natural” about science. It’s purely a methodology that was invented by humans as a way to find out how things work, and why.
A counter example possibly though: Dirac's prediction (using only mathematics) of the positron.
Sabine is formidable but I feel there is a slight tension here with here previously stated notion that you cannot really understand basic physics through analogies - the maths is essential. I hope I am not misrepresenting her but I come away from this feeling I need to really think this through. Her characterisation of the scope of science may be open to challenge.
In her other videos she contradicts herself tho. She says that the essential mathematical parts of our theories should be considered to exist. She can't make up her mind on this, and contradicts herself.
@@jcolvin2 Really? I don't remember any of her videos saying this. Do you have a link?
Anyways, I just bought her book "Lost in Math" that I hope will bring more information about her thoughts on this topic
Thanks again Sabine, you keep me watching. Thanks for the comments about people extrapolating their math models!
I love watching your videos. Always eloquently explained!
The layered meaning of "Zuckerberg Candy" is with no doubt a comic peak in this script
Great, it is so important to state what science can and can't do and how it is supposed to work. Thank you Sabine.
Great video, but it's important to point out that infinite, even infinite multiverses, does not necessarily mean every possible thing you can imagine definitely happens/exists. Infinities can have gaps. For example, the even numbers are infinite, but you'll never find three among them. Or, infinite random walks in three dimensions have only about a 1/3rd chance of returning to the point they started.
If we define a universe as the container for a set of truths (or measurements, observation, actualised possibilities, or whatever other synonym for “real thing” you want to use), then everything you can imagine *does* happen, if there are infinite realities. Your argument here is akin to saying “you won’t find an impossibility among these infinite possibilities”; which is false, because it’s completely possible for a reality to contain impossibilities, as illogical as that may seem to us.
Exactly. It's like the possibilities we see in this universe. We might think that it's possible that a flipped coin would fall on the other side, but that doesn't mean that it is. It might just be that you'd need an impossible history of everything for it to happen that way at that time and place.
In a similar way I couldn't have a version of me that would marry Elon. First off, I wouldn't be able to identify with such a thing and you'd have a hard time showing the history of that universe before you can convince me that the person who did that is in any way comparable to me without me being able to say that I am then comparable to everyone on this planet as well and everyone here is also a version of me. It would require vastly different genetics and parents before it could be possible.
At best you can show that things are technically in the set of possibilities because marriage is a thing and both Elon and I are human and humans marry, so I could marry Elon. Something you can also do with universes and black swans. This universe exists, swans exist, black feathers exist, so technically a multiverse is possible and so are black swans. You can't do that with gods for instance. You can't, for instance, show that a god, as a mind without a body, is a possibility that we can reasonably consider.
But what we can and can't show to be possible has nothing to say about the actual possibility. After all, it's possible I am wearing yellow socks, until you know I don't. They're black by the way, mostly purple I'd guess from experience, which is not an existing colour but a combination of red and blue and zero yellow.
@@tahunuva4254 Nope. What is impossible simply won't happen. Your imagination has no bearing on that. That is an egocentric view that will always fail in actual reality, no matter how you define a universe. And it might just be the case that things we think possible, like an orange or a winged elephant, are in fact impossible in all possible physics of all universes.
A lot of our imagination can't happen, like winged elephants or triangular wheels being more efficient in a different universe, but on the bright side, what _is_ possible is a lot more than you can possibly imagine, and that's just in _this_ universe. All people combined can't imagine as much as is happening at this very moment in this very universe and it's much weirder and more amazing than flying elephants. I mean, good luck making coffee from a flying elephant. But with the physics in this universe, perfect coffee every time.
@@stylis666 “Impossible” is a meaningless term given infinite possibilities, though. As soon as you define something as impossible (like your example efficient triangle wheels), you’ve already flirted with the idea of an efficient triangle wheel. And thus, it has a chance (however seemingly infinitesimal) of being a part of our paradigm. That’s not egocentric, that’s just how science escapes from the realm of dogma: by being open to possibility.
In the mind of every person you have ever met exists a different and distinct version of you and no two are identical.
Every observation gave a different measurement to each observer.
Beautiful comment, almost poetry. Thank you for this, it has changed my perspective completely. Thank you.
Perhaps the important quuestion to be asked is, Why is the Universe so fine-tuned?
The late Steven Weinberg didn't like a multiverse solution, because it made the universal constants arbritary.
"But anthropic arguments provide not just a bound on ρV ; they give us some idea of the value to be expected: ρV should be not very different from the mean of the values suitable for life. This is what Vilenkin calls the “principle of mediocrity...for R = 1 Mpc, [ the co-moving radius of a sphere ] the probability of finding a vacuum energy as small as 2.3 ρM 0 is only 7.2%.” 'Living in the Multiverse' 2005.
To the maybe 120 order magnitude discrepancy [ of the vacuum catastrophe ] can be added the 15 magnitude discrepancy of a Higgs mass at 125 GeV, if there is a Higgs, of course, which can be discarded in a photonic charge universe, along with the baggage of quarks, gluons amd hadronisation, inferred or theorised but never seen
It's strange that atheist scientists dismiss G0d on a premise of "never seen" but accept Gell-Mann's hypothesis of a never seen zoo of quarks. lol. The fine-tuning implies a designer if a multiverse or Goldilocks contention is dismissed.
The first of your videos that I have watched. I love that you are opinionated! I'm no physicist, but sometimes some aspects of modern physics seem insane to me. It is refreshing to hear "there may actually not be anything to this".
This always seemed like such mathematical hand waving, but as a physics dropout (quantum was the end for me), I never felt my opinion worthy,
But when they talk about multiple, infinite universes for every particle's slightest movement, specific copies of us as individuals - it's sounds nuts to me.
If you like debunking, check out Sabine's friend Dr, Unzicker:
www.youtube.com/@TheMachian
That multiverse thing sounds like some scientists have no idea what to do.
I don't want to go overboard on condemnation. I'm actually a scientist myself (biology, not physics), and I think that proposing and considering novel ideas is useful and important. As long as somebody knowledgeable can bring a critical eye to it, which is why I appreciated this video. And if nothing else, such ideas can make for some AWESOME science fiction stories! Also, some of the "crazy" ideas will turn out to be true, and you just never know in advance, which ones they will be. Everything we now take as established and solid, once sounded crazy to most people.
Well, existence is still insane and complicated.
@sharonminsuk very little in modern physics is "established". It changes at least every generation, if not sooner.
Sabine is great at pointing out how scientists are not immune from wanting the universe to "make sense" and have explanations that are emotionally satisfying. This is something that people ridicule religious people for. Maybe we're all the same.
quite right we scientists gather easch week in celebration of the multiverse 🤣
I don’t know which scientists Sabine refers to as actually “believing” in the multiverse. The ones I have listened to, however convinced of the validity of the idea, always admit that it’s just hypothesis and there’s no way of testing.
I don’t see problems, as Sabine seems to, in writing speculative papers, after all “If we knew what it is we were doing, it would not be called research. Would it?” (Albert Einstein) Unless of course people lose sight of the fact that is speculation and believe it’s reality.
@@pansepot1490 She did point out @11:50 published papers of tests for multiverse hypotheses using the CMBR.
@@pansepot1490 I think this may be a problem if you think in terms of financing such research instead of serious science. Then, there is the misinterpretation problem of our "show the paper" culture. Being published is not a guarantee of being right.
@@alasdairwhyte6616 Not each week, pretty much every day is a mass prayer day for the average preacher/scientist.
Thank you for your criticism of multiverses Sabine. Great work.
Given that Space-Time can stretch, may I request a session on what's possible with Space-Time? Could part of it roll back and forth like a rubber band that has been twisted and released? If a galaxy was situated in such a region would that obviate the need for dark matter to explain the rotational speeds?
Space and time are relationships among things in the universe, not transcendentals. See Aristotle.
I think if we stick to the generally accepted theories then science would stop making progress. So i think it worth thinking about new ideas. Who knows maybe at some point someone will find a way to test those theories and they will be upgraded form pseudoscience to real science.
Exactly. The genuine SCIENTIST does like Darwin and follows the evidence wherever it leads him, regardless of whether it demolishes his previously held hypotheses. The PSEUDO-scientist hangs onto his preconceived notions and rejects all the evidence (drawn from all over the world since anything began to be recorded) that proves them wrong as so much superstitious nonsense. Therefore some of our leading Atheists forfeit all credibility to be considered scientists - they are just using PARTS of science (scientia =knowledge) to push their own agenda.
Thanks for this. as a curious layperson I thoroughly enjoyed both the content and the delivery.
This is a wonderful video. I've been saying almost all of these things for years, now I have strong evidence on my side too. The "unobservable even in principle" is even the same exact phrasing.
Seriously, thank you!
She isn't saying anything new, she's just saying the unpopular. So many scientists and academics make their bread and butter on pseudo-science that the whole system is teetering on the verge of collapse because there is so much fraud.
From what I take from this is that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fully alligned with the Multiverse hypothesis it's just because at the point the wave function collapses and the measurement is made and the probability is gone it deals with our reality because any other probabilities don't exist and is there are other universes where something else has happened they can't be evidentially measured because there is no way of observing them, not that we know of currently. I think that's what you're saying and I'd never thought of it that way.
You then seem to suggest that because we can't observe it it isn't scientific to try and see if there is any way of observing or measuring it? But isn't this what science does? It is about forming hypothesise, postulating (of even better actually creating) an experiment, and either confirming your hypothesis, adapting it and doing another experiment, or throwing it out of the window?
I'm a little confused because if Einstein (and I know you hate to mention him) when he came up with new interpretations on how reality worked, sometimes which in the end he didn't like, his thought experiments, at the time there weren't ways to measure them (there were with some of his theories, but not all, and not at that time), then you're saying we should just not purpose these theories because they are pseudoscience? It is only science to propose what we can prove with an experiment? That does make sense, but it doesn't mean that we as humans shouldn't put theories out there as someone may come along to prove of disprove the theory with more advanced technology or equipment.
It might not be science but isn't it theoretical physics, is that not what theoretical physics is all about? Maybe some things that people come up with is rubbish, sometimes it just can't be proven (and shouldn't be believed), but isn't it a worthwhile endeavour in itself, because of we don't do this we would just discard a lot of opportunities that may help us explain the universe?
Lastly, doesn't the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics make an assumption about the collapse of the wave function? Of course it does, it fits with the results we see in our universe, but it doesn't explain what actually happens at that point as far as I know, it just says the other probabilities disappear (maybe it does, but if people cleverer then me are looking into possibile explanations as to why there are probabilities in the first place and what happens to the other possibilities, which is one thing even Einstein, yes him again, wanted to know, and doesn't fit well with our experience of everyday life, then I doubt it does). You are basically saying don't even hypothesise because you can't observe or make it currently, and other proposed theories have found nothing, which I find highly unscientific, so I'm torn here.
Many may lap this up because you present your thoughts very well (even if at times you throw in the absurd to convince the viewers it's a good technique for that), and I don't disagree with what you say, I just like to question everything, accept what has been proven by experiment, accept refinements when problems in theories are found (under certain conditions), and more forward building on what went before. Those scientists who don't accept your position of just accept the assumptions made and move on, and would like answers, may be wasting their time, they may be wasting money doing so, in your opinion, but it doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
"It is only science to propose what we can prove with an experiment?"
True. But... if multiverse exist, is it possible to have the impossible? Just because we can postulate a frammin' flibbertigibbets does not mean it has to exist
There's a difference between saying "Oh, this theory might be true. Let's test it." And "This theory is true. Let's prove it." Believing comes afterwards, not before. You can do thought experiments all you want. But if you start arguing your thought experiments are true with no real evidence to back it up, it's pseudoscience.
_"You then seem to suggest that because we can't observe it it isn't scientific to try and see if there is any way of observing or measuring it? But isn't this what science does? It is about forming hypothesise, postulating (of even better actually creating) an experiment, and either confirming your hypothesis, adapting it and doing another experiment, or throwing it out of the window?"_
That's what science does, yes.
But a lot of those theories have no ways to confirm or deny the hypothesis therein which turns them into a scientifically unverifiable theory.. i.e. pseudoscience or religion.
It was stated in this video that even if something makes testable predictions, it still may not be a scientific hypothesis. In that case, what additional criteria must a hypothesis satisfy in order to be treated as scientific?
“We know that black holes evaporate...” is either the epistemologically weakest part of your talk, or a very sophisticated joke. I prefer to go with the “joke” hypothesis. On poetry, it is very hard to do it right. Bad physics is not poetry of any kind. But good physics has many of the pleasing qualities of good poetry. Reading Einstein, reading Shakespeare, both worth the time.
I Love the videos Sabine. Always a great interpretation of the Science.
Dr Hossenfelder, I'd like to respectfully object to your characterization of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There are multiple aspects of the FSM that one could technically observe in the current universe.
For instance, while we haven't directly observed spaghettification, I don't think anyone would argue that it doesn't happen near black holes.
Similarly, the pasta-like layers in a neutron star have been hypothesized as well.
There are other references, but perhaps less testable.
Thank you for this video. A lot of new age types have tried to use multiverse theories as justification for their wacky ideas. I enjoyed the multiverse DC Comics created in the 60s and 70s, but retroactively ruined in the 80s, but even as a teenager, I knew the multiverse was as fictional as the super-powered beings that populated it.
She’s not saying the multiverse is fictional, she’s just saying it’s philosophical, not scientific. The exact same way the question of the size of the universe is. Science can’t tell us anything because we can’t observe outside our bubble. So any speculation on what’s past the observable universe will be unscientific. Philosophically, an infinite universe is the most popular answer since it makes the least assumptions. But there’s absolutely no proof of it. The multiverse is the same way (except for the Many Worlds one). The amount of variables at the moment of the Big Bang that allow for life to exist objectively means that either we’re very lucky, something (God/a computer) planned the universe, or an infinite amount of universe are created with all these variables and so the odds aren’t a problem anymore. Science can’t tell us which of these is correct. Philosophy prefers the multiverse, but only for the same reason it prefers the “infinite universe”. It makes the least assumptions.
@@HW-sw5gb Sorry for the mis-implication of my statement. DC's multiverse is fictional.
@@macsnafu My bad as well, I get what you meant in your original comment now 🙏 You’re 100% correct.
I love Sabine's sense of humour
I dont as it is often quite condescending, which is not helping a rational discourse.
@@spacebread501 I don't feel like its condescending, its just very rational and make a point. I have yet to disagree with anything this woman said.
First your user name is really good. Second Sabine can really do a good burn on people or topics, hahah
One of my favourite books, Quarantine by Greg Egan is all about multiverses and collapsing waves. I recommend this "sci-fi apocalyptic" novel.
Awesome video, my BS detector often goes off with theories like these, and you put words to explain it all so well
Right, it’s just another bin name for “too hard”. It merely kicks the can down the road while trying not to kick anything.
Still i don't agree with putting the many worlds interpretation away like BS because it implies unmeasurable extra worlds.
Kopenhagen also implies unmeasurable consequences: faster than light propagation of wave function collapse. And it does so with an extra collapse rule which many worlds doesn't have.
That means many worlds is simpler and explaining the same phenomena than Kopenhagen. That's where Occam's razor should razor Kopenhagen away.
@@Jopie65 i find it weird how they consider it "fantasy" as if the other interpretations arent just as ridiculous,i blame marvel movies for the bandwagon hate on MWI.
Actually, Sean Carroll in his "Deeply Hidden" book, specifically states Many Worlds is NOT the multiverse.
I think he was using the term “multiverse” to refer to things outside the observable portion of our universe, as in treating the observable universe as one universe and what lies outside it a multiverse that we cannot observe due to the speed of light. So in that sense yes, Many Worlds is not the multiverse, but the multiverse in the sense he was using it is not the topic of this video nor what the general public usually mean by the term. Granted it has been a while since I read the book, so I may be getting this wrong!
多謝！
Thank you for this typically clear-minded video, Sabine. I’ve always thought the many-worlds interpretation was absolutely crazy and completely useless and I can’t understand why anybody takes it seriously.
It's actually well motivated.
@@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017 well I assume it must be, but I don’t see what possible explanatory power it has. An entire new universe from nothing which is undetectable even in principle?
@@richardhunt809 the appeal is that it behaves in practice identical in results to the Copenhagen interpretation (which we haven't found a problem with yet) without the incoherence of that theory's view of the measurement problem.
People take it seriously because that's what the physics says (the Schroedinger equation + decoherence). It describes many worlds. The alternatives are all onticly incoherent or merely instrumentalist. Copenhagen can't say when a measurement happens. Qbism is just silent on the ontology. Objective collapse is increasingly ruled out by experiment. Bohm is manyworlds in denial (the pilot wave + decoherence is equivalent to Everett). Everett isn't actually an "interpretation" at all; it's just what the physics says. SH is an instrumentalist, but doesn't want to come out and say it.
@@jcolvin2 yeah pretty much this. I like SH but I'm not sure what problem she has with MWI's solution to the measurement problem. "Measurement is when your brain becomes entangled with the thing you're measuring" explains everything we see without any assumptions beyond the schrodinger equation afaik
There are an infinite number of Brooklyn Bridges waiting to be sold. . .
You are absolutely spectacular, Sabine. Just discovered you recently.
Now subscribed. Your *Sense of Humor* is just amazing.
And love how to share your knowledge with very little Jargon.
Love it!
John -- #NZL
I agree with most of this video, but I think the notion that we invented mathematics is more contentious that she admits. If we discover it instead, it solves a lot of thorny philosophical issues and this leads naturally to Tegmark's mathematical universe in which all mathematical structures exist. That said, as Sabine explains here, I wouldn't really call this science but philosophy.
Similarly, she remarks that no one would say that an unobserved phenomenon does not exist. People definitely say that, but this too falls outside the realm of science.
"Thorny philosophical issues"???" Are there any philosophical issues, thorny or otherwise, that have ever been solved?
@@oscargordon philosophical issues have a tendency to stop being philosophy, once a question is solved. For an example, check out the history section of the Wikipedia article on 'emission theory'. The question 'What is the nature of vision?' was sufficiently answered to where it could be studied scientifically.
@@wanderslostify I suppose in a way you could be correct in that technically everyone with a PhD is a philosopher.
So your example of a thorny problem solved by people who’s day job is actually a “philosopher” instead of “a person who uses the scientific method to solve problems", is the emission theory of vision where people identified as philosophers thought we shoot particles out of our eyes to be able to see.
It was Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham), identified as a mathematician, astronomer, and physicist that correctly identified how vision worked.
"Ibn al-Haytham was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be supported by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence-an early pioneer in the scientific method five centuries before Renaissance scientists. On account of this, he is sometimes described as the world's "first true scientist".
So sorry, your number one best example of how philosophers solved a thorny problem doesn't add up.
Try again.
@@oscargordon Alhazen is the scientist that first came up with the scientific proof. Before he did that, he formed a logical and testable hypothesis based upon his evaluation of other people's reasoning. Only after this reasoning was done, he was able to construct an experiment that tested his hypothesis. If his reasoning was not sound, his experimental observations would have been useless. These days, science can build on itself with only very basic reasoning (still a philosophical exercise, though). When you get back to early principles, philosophy is needed to define the questions that scientific inquiry hopes to answer.
Always fascinating and interesting, and as an ignorant in the sciences and maths, I still find much that helps me find a very small grip to the subjects that educate and make me think. Thank you.
Off topic but I am sometimes left with a question in my head about what science says and does with ‘random’. It it used or useful in science, and if so, how? I would be very interested in your thoughts on this. (Apologies if my question is pointless.)
Countries together form a continent, continents together form a planet, planets together form a solar system, many solar systems together form a galaxy and it keeps going on.
Once we thought milky Way was all there is until it was proven wrong, I'm sure it's the same case with multiverse as well.
Problem is there were observational evidences but that is not the case of Multiverse even look at UFO's can't explain it even now 😂
There exists a universe where Sabine supports the multiverse interpretation 😀
Only on your fantasy TH-cam channel
🤣🤣 Good one! 😂
🤯
@Marcelo B you wonderful lunatic! You've lampooned the entire serious point of Sabine's commentary: to assert *_there is_* is precisely the anti-scientific point of view she was trying to de-promote. What is the case is that Many Worlders *_think there is_* a universe where Sabina supports MWI. "Thinking there is" is totally different to "there is" --- this was the entire point of the video.
@@Achrononmaster I'm pretty sure that the grinning smiley-face indicates Marcelo B. was joking.
Fantastic as always. Would love to see Sabine discuss the MWI on the Mindscape podcast one day.
Yes! Both have taught me much. Carroll is just mindboggingly clever and having someone challenge some of his proposals would be great.
Yes I think everything in this video is very well debunked even just in reading Carrol's book "something deeply hidden". It's almost like she hasn't heard of this stuff before even though it's her profession. She didn't address a single argument the multiverse theory stands on, just kept calling it silly.
Sabina, me and my family can speak to spirits and make appliances move. We use our experiments to show our kids the world is not only what we see.
What I've never understood about the Multiverse, is that just one single photon would spawn an infinite number of universes since the particle can travel in an infinite number of directions from its origin. So if just one single particle create an infinite number of universes based on travel path alone, and then you apply the same logic to all existing particles, it would in the end create so many infinities that the whole Multiverse idea just does not seem rational.
From that perspective, yes. But you're missing a part of that puzzle. One single photon can still not stop midway and travel backwards. If there are more than one particle, they're constrained by each other. Not everything is possible, so the irrational universes don't exist. Problem solved.
The double slit experiment shows us that something odd is going on with things. Wave or particle? Both places at the same time?
The multiverse ideas is not so much irrational as useless. Or rather, only useful as a psychological crutch.
@@stylis666 My point is that if we think we've found all paths a particle could take from its origin, well, we havent. Because we could always find a new path in between two others.
Excellent video. I think one big realization that can come out of this discussion is that science cannot answer many important questions that humans may be interested in. I mean I would like to know whether multiverse exists, but science simply cannot answer that question for me. While science is extremely useful in advancing civilization think there needs to be a reasonable amount of humility in acknowleding its limits.
The invisible elephant and I are pretty happy together. Thanks for introducing us. Sometimes the right person for you is right in front of you all along. And an elephant.
I don't know which one is worse, the Multiverse machinations or Michio's Kaku's "God equation" campaign.
So glad to hear someone who knows their trade calling out BS for what it is. I’ve always tried to keep an open mind about the whacky theories of the last 20 years or so, but a lot of things never seemed to sit right with me and I have always chalked it up to my ignorance.
You could still be right about that LoL
Whacky "hypotheses": Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation, Big Bang, General Relativity. Those are just a few of the most mainstream.
Edit: oh, I forgot Flat Earth. That will be coming soon to the mainstream too together with one world unified religion.
@@squarerootof2 Can you please expound on the notion that the world will have one "unified" religion?
@@jackkrell4238 That's what the WEF, the Vatican and your rulers want for the sheeple. It's no secret, they brag about it.
@Evi1 M4chine I hear ya man. I havent watched PBS spacetime for a long time now because of that reason.
Parallel Universe:
"Deep inside of a parallel universe
It's getting harder and harder to tell what came first
I'm underwater where thoughts can breathe easily
Far away you were made in a sea, just like me"
There are moments when people invent sensible nonsense. This is a very good example.