I am an astrophysicist. When I was in graduate school in the early '90s it became apparent to me that the theorists were doing exactly what this video says. They were using mathematics to "explain" some idea they had with absolutely no interest or ability for this idea to be tested in the real universe. In many cases their ideas inconsistent with observations (after all astronomy is primarily an observational science) and they didn't care. They often didn't bother to claim the observations were erroneous. They just didn't care. Then in the late '90s I was a postdoc and discovered that all of the funding in US astrophysics was controlled by 5 personalities. These people declared what would get funding and be researched and what would not. I say personalities because that's what was going on; it was a cult of personalities. Everyone kowtowed to these 5 individuals. Postdocs would write papers extolling the ideas of these people, even the untestable ideas. They and their postdocs and students were awarded all of the telescope time the asked for and got the lions share of funding. It was disgusting and exactly the opposite of what science needs to be to be successful. Years ago I gave it up, and now I am a teacher and science popularizer, but as far as I can tell from the outside, nothing has changed. Thanks Sabine for giving this situation a public forum.
I'm no astrophysicist but that's the vibe I always got about dark matter. Oh look here's this weakly interacting particle that can't be detected and we can't observe in any way shape or form, and it magically explains anomalies we see with galaxy rotations and lensing. Yeah we should totally throw out any notion that some of our ideas about gravity or the universe might be incorrect, instead it's a magic invisible particle that nobody can test for. Then you got previously respected people like Halton Arp being called a quack because he had the audacity to make a hypothesis about red shift that wasn't entirely in lockstep with the establishment
"...and discovered that all of the funding in US astrophysics was controlled by 5 personalities. " True now of every subfield of science as well. And many of these cliques of controllers have the politics of middle schoolers. Peer review is broken because all papers are reviewed by the same group of insiders in each narrow field and they can usually tell from the subject matter who wrote the paper. Half of the papers out there are using falsified data. People get famous primarily for political reasons, and I don't mean by that national politics but rather the petty politics of offices and salespeople and scratching my back if you will scratch mine. People control the funding use that to leverage large numbers of 2nd and 3rd authors on papers they did almost nothing on, and then they use their prolific volume to justify further control. And lower prestige researchers put up with it because they don't have a choice if they want their careers to advance and having the famous person listed as an author increases their own visibility. The whole of the academy is falling apart.
@@moonasha My thoughts exactly about "dark matter" and "dark energy" too! I tend to believe that academics don't really care to improve physics but they're more scared about it because it would require harder work and because surely there will be failures, they'd risk of loosing their funding. So instead, they decide to play it safe, suggest something that can't be proven wrong but is supposed to make a theory better, without making any of this specific/countable!
*Revelation 3:20* Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless. Revelation 22:12-14 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
It's not about drama, it's about whether we're going to get off the Earth and colonize the galactic local group or whether we're just another failed branch of evolution. 99.999% of people are hopeless if not more. You're on a technological marvel hijacked by dumdums right now, actually.
This *is* youtuber drama. YT is an incubator for drama. It's happening in video games and welding and finance and political news too. YT would be a very different website with very different users and uploaders if it was handled the way theses and dissertations are. But the point of YT is to make ad revenue, not to inform anyone. Ten people making videos arguing about each other is ten times the clicks.
@@iyziejane Quotes sound interesting when you suffix them with big brands. Happens all the time. String 'theory' (more correctly 'hypothesis') were in its early form in the 1970's onwards, so it is likely Feynman knew about the general postulations of ST. It is true that a lot of nonsense got added since Feynman, particularly in the 1990+ era.
Thanks for this interesting perspective! I am a condensed matter physicist. I am disturbed by phrases such as 'foundations of physics' and 'physics is dead'. The problems of string theory and loop quantum gravity do not extend to other areas of physics. These other areas are deep and continue to make genuine advances. They can also be described as 'foundational' in their own right.
Seriously? Have you even got a grant of your own or your professor just pays you the salary for doing what he thinks is right physics? What about Majorana fermions paper in Science? Nobody can or wants to reproduce it or explain it. Why had it been published in Science at all. Never asked that question yourself.
@ This precisely proves my point - people make statements that are not true, based on a biased view of how academic physics operates. I have received multiple grants on my own. There is an entire field out there that is not represented by one paper on Majorana fermions.
@@ganesan1729 It is SO crazy how people project an entire character onto you based on a sentence or two. I don't know about anybody else but I don't put THAT much thought into my comments, you can't really judge someone based on offhand comments. The world is so crazy right now, nobody knows how to think even most of the educated.
Prof here. I work in a fairly applied area of plasma physics and even we've seen a significant slowdown in progress. This discussion is something that affects both the applied and fundamental areas. From our end its the need for "risk management" and "predefined impact" in grant funding. In short, we basically need to already know the outcomes of our grants in order to have any chance of getting any funding... So we apply for incremental projects that don't really provide real insight. If you buck this trend you get no money, lose respect, and fall out of the system within a few funding cycles. The same goes for working with industry, there needs to be defined (and contractually obligated) outputs. If you don't deliver, its professional suicide. So you have to always play it safe, it leaves no room for real progress. We've been infected with the "consultant rot", the economic prediction models, the fields of legal jargon and waste. We need to be able to propose real projects with real applications and real progress - but I don't see a path to that world from where we are now.
We need a new sea-change. Something like the Enlightenment, where science stopped being a fad for the amusement of rich (if often sincerely interested) aristocrats, and became a thing as and of itself. This led to huge progress, but has now been reduced the a fad for rich capitalists who only want results they can sell. What's needed is to get back to basic research for it's own sake, which will yield no immediate financial reward, but must surely feed the science and tech of the future.
Project funding in the humanities in Germany (at least until 5 years ago when I left the system): "You don't know the outcome before starting the research project? That's HIGH RISK research! We probably shouldn't fund that." 😂
If you need to know the outcome of a research project before starting or securing funding for it, that sounds like "reaffirm" not research. Science is supposed to be done to bring us closer to truth. With this trend you described, we will be closer to our fertile imagination in stark opposition to the truth. This is depressing.
Bureaucracy never produces innovation. The pioneers in every field have always been independent eccentrics doing things on their own dime. In the 19th century, these were hereditary aristocrats, who had inherited their wealth, but didn't care about it that much - they had higher ideals for which they were willing to lose money. Part of the problem today is that the experiments are so complex that they require millions of dollars. The other part of the problem is that the only people who have enough money to fund such things themselves are soulless merchants who care about nothing except money (like Soros, Bezos, Gates, et al.)
As an applied physicist, something that constantly irks me is when people say "physics" and what they mean is one this one sub-discipline of fundamental theoretical physics. Plenty of physics is working perfectly fine and not at all dying: optics, plasma physics, materials physics, nano-physics, biomedical physics, geophysics to name but a few - all alive and kicking thanks - don't lump us all in with these guys.
This comment should be pinned! 👍❤️ What's even more frustrating is that the achievements of the useful branches of physics are largely ignored, while most videos (including those on this channel) are guilty of focusing on just the "theoretical" side.
Very correct. That the other "aspects" of hypothetical physics are even considered physics (scientific method being provable and observable evidence) always bothered me because we have the blueprint for actual physics and the "softer" applications do not fit the blueprint. I always figured that if we just stuck to actual physics we would already have both superior propulsion devices and energy.
I know a kid who uses applied physics on biology and evolution. Evolution theory is nonsense, but physics applied to biochemistry is a very fertile area for advancement.
@@sliglusamelius8578 precisely the correct point to make. The advancements of science are universal and not limited to one field, they cross boundaries all the time
Sabine, as an archmage myself, though in a different school of magic, I just want to say that I understand your frustrations completely. Thank you for being one of the few voices in the arcane wilderness, daring to challenge those who've built their entire legacies on illusions and hollow incantations. I truly admire your courage and your dedication to unveiling the deeper truths of the arcane. I hope you continue to enlighten those of us who seek wisdom beyond the surface. Don’t let the magical establishment bring you down.
I get so sick of the overused comparisons in physics videos. So I laughed out loud when you said, "Just for comparison, that's much smaller than a giraffe"
But what is it compared to an Olympic sized swimming pool, or an elephant, or a London bus? Clearly there's a whole set of weights and measures omitted from modern Physics. What is the speed of light in Blue Whales? What are they trying to hide from us??
After my PhD in Theoretical Physics, I ended up in aerospace engineering because I needed the money. I've always regretted my failure to stay in academia, but watching you makes me think that maybe it was for the best.
For sure. But getting a PhD in Theoretical Physics was not of no use. Afterall, you got analytical and mathematical skills that are quite useful in nowadays world. Google Luck.
You did the right thing. I ended up with a masters in EE, and actually made a nice living writing code for the US gov'mint for decades. I learned a crazy amount of math and physics in college, but ended up doing something that was useful. No regrets.
@@DrDeuteronTo each their own. I initially planned on doing engineering, but found physics far more rewarding. Not all of research is High energy physics brainrot.
Great stuff Sabine. Very, very few combine both the knowledge to call out BS at this level, and also the nerve to do it - because it would be professional and personal suicide to do so. You've broken free of the system, and we all respect and love you for doing so. 🙂
You have summed up what a lot of people have been thinking but worry they will look stupid by saying it. Essentially modern physics is more about the finger that points to the moon rather than the moon at all. Theoretical maths is not reality.
Let's be honest, physics was developed mostly due USSR and US could do small battles of reputation, so Fanboi Holy Wars of Richard Feynman against Lev Landau would happen.
THIS is why I follow you, Sabine. Your frank bringing forth of the issue of theories of physics not being scientific prima facie, regardless of the amount of math behind them, is so refreshing to hear from a physicist. Thank you for being a real one.
After I got my Ph.D. in astrophysics, I decided against working in academia because I valued my intellectual integrity, not to mention the soul- and joy-destroying cycle of "publish or perish". I became so much happier and I now occupy my mind with things I love and not things people expect me to be working on. Keep it up Sabine... you are an encouragement to like-minded physicists.
@@Beegeezy144 I was in academia and retired early because of all the BS it's all become. Not only are you correct, not only is this exactly what happens, I have heard professors in charge of research activities say openly in meetings that that's what happens. 🙄
@@5678plm Interesting, today's my lucky day. I majored in physics, and after a failed attempt at establishing a fab lab I'm interested in working (and hopefully avoid formally studying for another degree) in industrial finance. Any recommendations?
Sabine, as a scientist myself, though in a different field, I just want to say that I understand your frustrations completely. Thank you for being one of very few voices in the wilderness willing to say that the majority who’ve staked their entire careers and livelihoods on an empty promise are, in fact, wrong. I admire you for all you do and hope that you can continue to educate those of us willing to listen. Don’t let them get you down.
“Lots of technical terms, but don’t worry. It’s not as difficult as it sounds.” “Areas of space become quantised”. “The square of the Planck length” “minimal area isn’t compatible with Lorenz invariance”. “If you quantise the angular momentum operator then the spectrum of eigenvalues is discrete and that doesn’t violate rotational invariance “ That’s just as difficult as it sounds. But I understood the bit about the giraffe.
From what I understood: Sabine: There is a problem with "minimal areas", the thing tinier than a giraffe! Carlo: There is an other thing which could be seen as an analogy to this problem and since there is no problem for other thing, there has to be no problem here too - because analogy! Sabine: Wrong! Am I smart now?
@@Kokuswolf she sees a problem in "minimal areas" and Lorentz invariance, because when you go real fast for example, length contracts and so should the "minimal areas" but they shouldnt be able to contract if they are "minimal" (paradox). at least that s her argument. but I am not sure Planklengths are a space volume only thing... I am just a physics student but i think plankvolumes are in space AND time. spacetime. so idk if she might be wrong here because spacetime as a whole gets transformed in lorentztransformation. If the time transformation counteracts the space contraction then the total "volume" should stay the same and be lorentz INVARIANT. but what do i know, didnt do the math on it right now and i didnt have Quantum Loop gravity at Uni (yet).
@@scipug3048 So something has to be contra(di)cting. Edit: Contracting (space)time, can't imagine what this means. Maybe here is the part of testability Sabine complains about. So there is this explanation, but what that means or if this testable/falsifiable is impossible, so it's like a loophole to pretend this is the solution? Don't know if can articulate that or if this makes sense. But her intention was all about the useless theories, because of their noexisting/testable reality for that.
@@Kokuswolf length contraction and (for time) timedialation are known effects of special relativity. If you go real fast in x direction then any delta x will become smaller the closer you get to the speed of light. And also delta t is influenced. Time moves differently in a system moving at for example 0.8*lightspeed. Lorentztransformation is something that converts one referance frame (for example stationary) to another (for example moving at 0.8 lightspeed). If something is lorentzinvariant it means it doesnt change when transformed. It stays invariant. The number of particles in a system for example is invariant under lorentz transformation. Or rest energy and many many more things. There wasnt a specific example of the falsifiability problem in the video as far as i remember. I dont doubt that its true however. New particle physics theories are always hard to test/verify.
The problem does not only exist in science: Anyone who has invested years of work in a false theory or a stupid worldview will have problems admitting their mistakes. And if a person's entire identity/personality is based on errors, that person can become very aggressive if the foundation is shaken. Take it easy!
Exactly, this is it.. The more time and effort people invested in something, the more fiercely they will defend that something. No one wants to admit they're being stupid, even less that they have been stupid for most of their lives..
Religion is one of the most popular world views like this !! Watching christian cable channels or the live feeds of millions circling the Kaaba every single day shows how much human thought is wasted that could be problem solving.
"mathematical fiction" YES! THANK YOU SO MUCH for saying that! Modern physics spend so much time forgetting that math can be used to REPRESENT something, but that does not MAKE IT whatever it represents. The map is NOT the terrain! Taking math literally also leads to weird stuff, like "goes back in time if going FTL", an idea which has absolutely no connection to reality, and exists only because too many people doesn't understand that just because your numbers turned negative in the math, does not instantly mean that they they still represent reality 1 to 1, you have to actually CHECK if crossing the zero line actually turns time backwards, or if it just becomes an artifact of math that isn't meant to represent FTL. It's like an old computer programme that has a too low limit on a variable, lets say one representing money in a game, and you're doing SOOO well and then suddenly your money resets to zero. Does that mean you suddenly did awful or that something was wrong with the math... Obvious case is obvious. Same with the silly "if you send data FTL back and forth, you get the data before it was sent". No, you get the data based on the actual speed it was travelling at compared to the distance travelled, just like anything else! Just because the formula used is limited to non-FTL speeds doesn't change anything. It just SHOULD have told everyone using it that, "eh, maybe we should like, you know, update this formula?".
I was a theoretical physicist 30 years ago, and gave up on it. Thank you for, again, pointing out how messed up the system is. I realize there has been a drought in exciting discoveries for along time, but that doesn't excuse making things up.
Hard to make a discovery of everybody says, were done and the funding dries up. I'm not saying we should make things up, but with today's economics I understand why nobody wants to just stop for a while. If the funding stops it might never start again. And the next generation of physics might take a lot of expensive stuff to discover or make usuable.
honestly, this has happened way before these guys, with the start of quantum mechanics and acceptance of theories like copenhagen interpretation where nonsense like observer and wave function collapse were totally ignored although they have no physical equivalent in reality. since then lots of nonsense was sprouted , especially when it comes to infinities and people using them to explain "unexplainable" stuff like the nature of reality or go around what we observe in reality which can never be proven or disproven. Lately physics has become much more like philosophy and less like physical reality . And what strikes me is that stuff that defies logic are still popping from time to time(see dark matter and dark energy) and no one bats an eye when it comes to established "broken"(ok, incomplete) science like Quantum Mechanics.
@@danielstan2301 as some point science is about things we can't really understand and can't directly observe in reality. Otherwise we should have stopped after the invention of the hammer and the wheel.
Me too. I was a theoretical physicist 30 years ago fed up with all , and gave up on it. Presently I am farmer, with potatoes ! I have very good potatoes, if you like you can order very good potatoes from me ! I sell lot of potatoes, people begging me to give them potatoes, because my potatoes are the best ! Only 1000 kg potatoes left now !
HI Sabine: I am a retired software engineer. During my 40+ years working for a number of companies, I'd experienced much of what you are talking about. Often times warnings by me would only get angry stares along with a litany of snide remarks. What would really get me was that after a number of times being correct you would think the next time my warnings would at least entertain the possibility of being right. But no, just rewind the tape and play it again. In all organizations there is a dichotomy between politics and technology. Too many times the politics wins out!
Same experience for me, but I'm trying to understand if this is a bias of mine in which I unknowingly only remember the times in which I'm right and get ignored and instead I just forget the other times
Sabine I left theoretical physics around 1979 because of this very virus that’s been damaging physics for over 40 years, keep working to keep physics alive it feels like it on respirators.
@@jamesbaker223 Never thought that being considerate of other people outside a norm set in the 1950's is considered having a 'mind virus'. Did Facebook give you that opinion?
I've actually been told to get out of science and not to draw scientific conclusions. There should be a special club for those.We follow the scientific method.
@@jamesbaker223 Holy shit dude fuck off. I'm tired of seeing the same stupid right-wing fearmongering culture war conspiracy bullshit everywhere I go. Nobody has a "mind virus". Nobody is "woke". None of it is real. It's a fantasy sold to you by right-wing politicians to foster division and scare you into voting for them. "If you don't vote for me, then the WOKE agenda will take over America and turn all the frogs gay!!" Utter. Fucking. Bollocks. It's always the unnamed "woke agenda" this, unnamed "woke mind virus" that. My brother in Christ, read up on actual federal fiscal policy and corporate lobbying and you'll see who's ruining the economy. Rant aside, your bullshit has nothing to do with this video and certainly nothing to do with science. Go cry culture politics elsewhere you fucking idiot.
I agree. Having only studied physics to undergraduate level, I don't profess to have a deep understanding. BUT! I have remained a student. I love video's like this (yours) because they resonate with something I have suspected for a long time... 1) Most people in research academia are hacks. Smart enough to learn existing theories but not smart enough to generate true ground breaking insight. Those that went so far as to achieve PhD did so on questionable hair splits - 99% don't really break new ground. 2) The problem with quantum physics is that it is a damn good approximation. Like using 22/7 to calculate Pi - good enough for 95% of calculations. But it is fundamentally flawed and can't be built on. 3) Quantum physics (damn good approximation) can't be further sliced into finer resolution. Like a grainy photograph, magnifying it further will not reveal more detail only better images of grain. But the usefulness of the images at lower resolution creates the illusion that there is more there. 4) Like exploring a cave network, quantum physics broke new ground early and then explored deeper into the cave system. At some point in the journey we took a wrong fork. The tunnels became narrower and harder to navigate, more torturous. Rather than turn back we pushed harder, found more narrower cracks to explore. Rather than admit a wrong turn, we are pushing harder looking for a break through. 5) There are fundamental and irreconcilable inconsistencies with quantum theory. Things don't add up. The field has been stalled for fifty years trying to explain these inconsistencies. 5) There are people who have spent 2/3 rds of their careers in these narrow tunnels. Would they admit most of their careers have been wasted? Or would they be emotionally predisposed to belittling those that suggested "wait a minute, I think we have this all wrong?" Worse. They encourage new comers to the field to travel with them to the narrow ends and say "I got this far, grab a pick and see if you can find a way through." 6) I have thought for along time that quantum theory should have been objectively assumed to be wrong and that physics should have applied new minds, and the latest technology and thinking to develop many radically different alternatives. Better, they should say to the young and bright "assume it's totally flawed - start again." 7) "Science" used to welcome radical new theories - a basic principle of science. BUT ego and incomes now prevent that ideal from being pursued. The truth is no longer within reach. We are trapped in claustrophobic denial.
The beauty of science is that you can have a useful career and make a meaningful contribution without ever being a genius or a star or even having an original idea. There's a scientific method, follow it and be skeptical about everything. Keep learning, keep questioning and you can be a fine scientist.
how much new ground do you think can be broken at this point by just a few individuals? funny how you talk about ego when most of the "anti science establishment" people seem to have big and hurt egos, tried to make it in academia, didn't and now rant because it gives them clicks. check sabine's views on her videos. when ever she does one of these her numbers shot up like crazy, she is very incentivized to make more of these populist pieces
"I don't know how it ever became accepted that inventing some math and insisting that its real counts as theoretical physics. It's insane, they're all crazy." The most accurate statement about the sad state of theoretical physics over the past couple of decades.
Reality is that which is observed, theory is a model that aids prediction in regard of observations. So, theory is not a description of reality, it is a tool to have an educated guess of what happens next. It has been said that an experimental physicist doubts their results as they know and understand all the issues with equipment and experimental techniques. The theoretician on the other hand believes wholeheartedly that their theory, and supporting maths no matter how complex, is the truth of the matter - even if it is not 100% aligned with observation (the observations are just not good enough... yet).
@@asmund3051 This is an interesting perspective especially the last part about the theorists faith in the infallibility of their theory. The thing is we know in advance that the assumptions of most theory are wrong because they are mostly done to simplify the math. Examples include homogenous, isotropic, having certain symmetries or perturbation theory. Most of those assumptions are blatantly false but physicists accept them since it is the only way to make the math solvable. So the experimental physicist will ultimately win because there seems to always be some domain in which the assumptions fail or the approximations break down because of the environmental conditions. Any true theory that captures how the world works cannot break down from any future experiments and would most likely be a very complicated math equation that we would take generations to understand properly
My PhD is in experimental physics not theoretical, so perhaps I'm biased, but for me, any theory which, by its very nature, cannot be physically tested, is philosophy not physics, and should be funded as such.
@@ThePowerLover During the scientific revolution, physics separated from natural philosophy, and became a separate discipline . Chemistry and Physics are classified as Natural Sciences and may be referred specifically to as Physical Sciences .
It is not only for you: Since Karl Popper, the very definition of a scientific theory requires it to be falsifiable, that is can be tested 😀! Playing with Math, how hard and/or hermetic this Math may be, is not enough.
This is exactly the point: these guys are making mathematics, not physics (maybe they should think about the difference between aristotele and galileo?). Nothing wrong in doing that, but it seems they are not admitting this obvious fact. BTW, maybe one day someone will find a prediction applicable to feasible experiments, or some (incredible close to impossible) technological advance will allow experiments in this.
Thanks Sabine for all your videos. I don't understand most of what you talk about but can see your frustration and hope things improve in Physics (and your toothache ) ♥
@@SabineHossenfelder I write this to You to bring You Eternal Hope from far away."The Rapture"- is A Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event in which Millions of Living True Christian Believers shall be "Transported" into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever.Also in addition to "The Rapture" another Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event called "The First Resurrection" will also take place,which will "Resurrect" All-Dead True Christian Believers and will also "Transport" them into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever! "The Rapture" collects All-Living True Christian Believers,while "The First Resurrection" collects All-Dead True Christian Believers.The Dead True Christian Believers shall rise first and then both:The Dead and The Living True Christian Believers shall Together be Transported into Heaven to be Together with The Christian God and to be Rewarded accordingly by The Christian God! This is not a joke.I have seen "The Signs" and these words are "True and Correct".Remember!Jesus Christ said:“You don’t have to wait for the End.I am right now,Resurrection and Life.The one who believes in me,even though he or she dies,will live.And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.Do you believe this?”
If only this was limited to physics... Academia as a whole has become widely corrupted with self-interest, prideful self-indulgence and outright greed. Science "journalism" isn't helping at all either, as they can take perfectly reasonable research and spin it into something sensationalized. Because of course, self-interest, prideful self-indulgence and outright greed is not limited to scientists.
I don't know why people study science today. When I studied eveything looked fine at the beginning. Then the business rules suddenly changed and we were trapped. Some of us made it into finance, insurance or IT. Many got raped as science whores.
@@JamesKowal What? you want me to write a scholarly article on the subject? Post it in a youtube comment for the world? What you call vague generalities I call a broad problem. And your own sensationalized response kinda demonstrates my point. Blind cynicism destroying the world? really? Don't have a clue? really? Maybe I'm just old fashioned and want my science to follow the scientific method. And if expecting scientists to do the same makes my cynical... so be it.
I stumbled upon your video today. As a former lawyer/current professor, it seems the problem you described in thia video has become the norm throughout the whole academia. I became so sick and tired of the nonsense pushed as mainstream theories in my field, and it seemed that I must have fallen into a parallel universe at a certain point because no one else seemed to care. Your video gave me a huge sense of relief now that i know i am not alone feeling this way. Thank you so much.
Wonderful! Thank you for getting angry, showing it, and using names. I'm an English teacher who holds on by a thread (not a string) to understand sometimes because I don't have a background in physics, but I watch you every day now to keep my brain stimulated. We need this kind of passion for calling out BS in every field.
I'm a landscaper who can barely work out the area of a rectangular patch of grass. I never have the remotest idea what Sabine is talking about, but I find her manner and delivery absolutely riveting.
Some fields would utterly collapse if all of the BS were removed. Economics, for example, needs a complete overhaul, to be replaced by people actually willing to do actual research on real-world systems instead of playing around with abstract and overly-simplified models all day.
@@cras666 At least sociology does try to do real-world study of social phenomenon. They did have the replication crisis, but the field is mature enough to find some ways to deal with the crisis. Ironically, one fix is similar to how actual experimental physics deals with study integrity - triple blind... Pre-registry helps, too. Economics? Doing studies? It happens, but it's frowned upon, especially by the Chicago School...
Physics isn't dying. People and institutions manipulating things for power, influence, and profit, and not the further truth of Physics are coming to their end. Physics doesn't need them to grow, and growth is always painful. Keep being the change you want to see Dr. Hossenfelder. People like you teaching physics concepts and current related events have changed a lot about my own life and perception of reality, and I'm not unique so I'm confident there's a lot more. I would have never even had the opportunity to be exposed to so much knowledge without people like you. Keep on keeping on, there's a lot of gratitude aimed your way.
Its only been in the last 3 years where a handful of physicists who have public facing podcasts have started saying anything forcefully about this. I would argue with you about simply asserting that positive change is happening but that would be pointless since you offered no qualifiers such as extent or time. Yeah....some small positive change has happened. ^.^
@@Dadecorban I would have had to say that positive change was happening for you to argue with it. Growth is different than that. If you prune a bad limb on a fruit tree (the fruit tree being what we're calling "physics" here), two or three more limbs will sprout from the injury. The result of more limbs being able to grow increases the potential amount of fruit that tree will bear. That's a lot more complex a situation than reducing it to positive or negative impact. It's also true you can prune a limb and cause too much new growth that creates limbs too heavy for the trunk, and the tree falls apart and dies. That said, the influence of these kinds of people have had major impacts on my personal life in ways I would call a positive impact, but ain't nobody tryna' hear all about that on some TH-cam comments ya' know.
nah i think the language insha’allah important here. what’s meant by physics is the people doing it. its not some natural phenomenon that is dying obviously. it won’t die completely, there are always people doing good work but it’s not got much to give like most of academia.
Oh my God, I absolutely love your frankness, meticulousness, and sense of humor. Thank you so much for sharing this topic! ❤ I’m a chemist, and in the fields of research concerning environmental sustainability, the same thing often happens... Until people stop prioritizing money and personal gain over ethics, results will continue to focus on quantity rather than quality.
Im really happy people like this exist, that won't let science die, and help those who stepped away from the money chasing scheme to actually pursue the truth.
@@israelsadovnik funny you make that connection, i have begun saying just as the printing press translated the bible so it could be criticized i believe the internet has lain asunder academia so we can see their flaws. but the priests of academia don't wish to be criticized.
@@asahmosskmf4639 so many fake papers come out in every profession, only positive results get published, peer review is a joke, 70% of papers are never peer reviewed but still reported on the media, blatant mistakes get published (see that harvard women's studies paper that published hitler's book omg) its not gana get better until it gets torn down.
What if the Plank length is not a real unit that can be used to to measure distance but a property of spacetime like the speed of light no matter how fast you go its still the same.
I enjoyed very much this video and I agree with your harsh criticism of contemporary theoretical physics. An yet I think that certain points about the way how science proceeds should be taken into account. So I asked ChatGPT4 how should we proceed in the attempts to formulate a unified theory of particles and interactions, including gravity. The answer was a detailed overview of the contemporary lines of research in fundamental theoretical physics, and concluded with: "In short, developing a unified theory of particles and interactions, including gravity, involves exploring multiple theoretical frameworks, seeking testable predictions, and ultimately finding a model..." Then I asked: Yes, it is necessary to explore multiple theoretical frameworks. One of such approaches is string theory, but today many people consider it is as dead theory and say that the research in string theory was waste of time and money. How can they be so hostile toward string theory. A future successful theory will certainly employ certain results and techniques of string theory. GPT4's reply was according to me so inspiring that I am posting it here: "The backlash against string theory often stems from both practical and philosophical frustrations, despite its contributions to theoretical physics. String theory has been a dominant force in theoretical physics for several decades, attracting extensive funding and research. However, it has yet to make direct, testable predictions, leading some to question its utility and place within physics. Let's look at the reasons behind this hostility, as well as the continuing relevance and potential contributions of string theory to future theories: 1. Lack of Experimental Evidence A core frustration is that string theory has not produced experimental evidence that can be observed with current or foreseeable technology. Many scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics or general relativity, gained acceptance because they made accurate, testable predictions that were eventually observed. However, string theory operates at energy scales far beyond current experimental capabilities (often requiring energies close to the Planck scale). Critics argue that without empirical evidence, string theory cannot be verified or falsified, making it speculative rather than empirical science. 2. Challenges in Making Testable Predictions String theory’s inherent complexity makes it difficult to yield specific predictions that differentiate it from other approaches. With multiple versions of string theory and vast mathematical landscapes, such as the "string landscape" with potentially 10^500 possible vacua, identifying concrete, unique predictions is a monumental challenge. Critics argue that a scientific theory should ideally have a clear predictive structure and that without it, it risks becoming unfalsifiable, thus stepping outside the realm of traditional science. 3. Dominance in Theoretical Physics String theory became so influential in theoretical physics that it often eclipsed other lines of research. Because it drew so much attention and funding, alternative approaches to unification and quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity or emergent gravity theories, received comparatively less focus. Many physicists argue that this overemphasis hindered a broader exploration of other potentially fruitful theories, leading to a perceived stagnation in theoretical physics. 4. Misalignment with Experimental Physics String theory has a reputation for being mathematically elegant but disconnected from experimental physics. This divergence has led some physicists to view string theorists as more concerned with mathematical beauty than with scientific testability. The sheer mathematical sophistication required for string theory can make it feel esoteric or detached from real-world physics, further reinforcing the view that it is more a branch of mathematics than empirical science. Despite these criticisms, string theory remains a rich source of ideas and techniques that could play a crucial role in future advances. Here are some reasons why string theory continues to hold value: Contributions of String Theory to Future Physics Deep Mathematical Insights: String theory has led to profound mathematical discoveries, including insights into geometry, topology, and number theory. Techniques developed in string theory, like mirror symmetry and dualities, have influenced multiple fields, including pure mathematics. These mathematical insights could become essential tools in understanding quantum gravity or other physical theories. Unification of Forces and Particles: String theory remains one of the only frameworks that can incorporate all known forces, including gravity, within a single framework. This is a remarkable feat, as it implies a route to a unified description of particles and interactions. The idea of vibrating strings and higher-dimensional objects (branes) as fundamental entities offers a unification mechanism that future theories may adopt or adapt. Holographic Principle and Quantum Gravity: One of the most widely recognized achievements of string theory is the AdS/CFT correspondence, or holographic principle, which suggests a relationship between gravity in a bulk space and a conformal field theory on its boundary. This principle has been applied to fields as varied as black hole physics, condensed matter, and even quantum information. Future quantum gravity theories may well incorporate or expand on these ideas, making string theory a valuable precursor. Tool for Understanding Quantum Gravity: Many frameworks derived from string theory offer essential insights into the nature of space-time at quantum scales. String theory’s approach to quantizing gravity, dealing with quantum singularities, and eliminating certain infinities could provide necessary tools or techniques for a future theory of quantum gravity, even if string theory itself is not the final answer. Broader Paradigm Shift: The challenges of string theory have underscored the need for a possible paradigm shift in physics. While the theory has faced criticism, it has forced physicists to confront deep questions about what a "theory of everything" should look like, how to handle untestable theories, and whether mathematics alone can guide us to truth. This philosophical reflection is crucial as physicists continue to pursue unification. Moving Forward: Taking the Best from String Theory Many physicists agree that even if string theory is incomplete or ultimately supplanted by a more comprehensive theory, its methodologies, insights, and mathematical tools will likely remain valuable. Future approaches to quantum gravity or a unified theory may indeed employ techniques from string theory, such as dualities, extra-dimensional approaches, or even the holographic principle. In essence, while the criticisms of string theory highlight real limitations, the field has provided a scaffold on which many theoretical innovations have been built. The journey toward a complete theory of fundamental physics will likely integrate the insights of string theory, while also incorporating insights from other approaches, reflecting a more diverse and balanced exploration of the physics of the universe."
i thought this was the worst saturday ever, but then i saw Sabine in a space sweater saying "im fucking sick of hearing" the same things regurgitated. worked like a pill
Sabine is in the quite unique position of being extremely knowledgeable about theoretical physics AND not being in the academic environment anymore, but rather hosting a highly popular, well-made YT channel on theoretical physics (snd other areas). This allows her to be critical on issues no other physicist could ever contemplate criticizing lest they'd lose respect and admiration by his/her peers. I know this has ultimately very few chances of changing the order of things (I'm a retired researcher and I know the academic world very well). Still, it is reassuring to hear somebody stating how absurd and sterile research in theoretical physics has become over the last few decades.
@Simon-xi8tb let's just say for the sake of argument that her ideas are bonkers... it doesn't change the fact that Academia is very broken at the moment. Has been for a while. Far too focused on short term gains and profits over seeking knowledge.
Loved this video for reasons I might list later. But what I kept thinking of was a scene in the movie Zoolander, where the bad guy (played by Will Ferrell) is in a battle with the male model Zoolander (Ben Stiller) in front of a large crowd. Zoolander has modeled a variety of facial expression mood "Looks," the most recent of which is called "Blue Steel," which is pretty much identical to all his previous Looks. The bad guy is shouting his frustration about Zoolander's trademark special expressions: "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LOOK!" I heard the same note of "are you blind?!" desperation in Sabine's voice.
I work in a different field of science, but I find your viewpoint very relevant: a couple of years back I managed to get several of my colleagues from different countries to work with me on a project with no pay, just new obligations for them really. One of them told me he was happy to do it because it was a rare opportunity for doing real science and not some project crap with no relevance he is now used to be working on. This is how far the system got us.
Vielen Dank für Dein Video, Sabine. When I started my PhD in optics, I was young, very motivated, but also quite naive. I thought I could look for new things, it was very exciting. I realized very soon, though, that research is nowadays just a market where papers are sold against money (funds). People in academia usually have a huge ego, and real scientific discussion is hindered. It was a very disappointing experience. If you also take into account that the quality of the teaching has greatly decreased over time (because it makes no money), you will get a terrible mix (paid by taxpayers, as you say). I left almost nine years ago. My colleagues who are still there keep publishing the same stuff, mostly under different names. I couldn't bear that, I am glad I moved away from this sickening world.
Thank you Sabine! I view areas of research like this as academic fraud. Our taxes could be going to much more important areas of research than writing maths fanfic.
The issue with that is that, honestly, this stuff is not very expensive at all. A bunch of theorists in an office doing equations doesn't cost very much money at all, compared to something like the large hadron collider, or certainly something like the Artemis Moon Landing (the money we're spending on that we could fund tons and tons of robotic probes and get way more 'science' done). And of course the government wastes far more money on nonsense and military b.s. that does nothing but make the world more dangerous.
It's not even the money. Human minds--including students and post-docs--are getting sucked into this crap at a time when we need those young minds working on real problems.
I agree to the point - but like to add that “tax money” go to maintain the value of the currency (your local legal tender), and not towards anything a government pays for. Caveat for €, since only the “strongest” EU governments have this, eh… liberty…? Sorry, but “tax money” is just for accounting and political bickering about budget balances. Actually, it’s more about balancing payments - the monetary stuff big players do, not us mere mortals… 😅
A GLORIOUS and insightful rant! 👍👏👏👏 My introduction to astronomy professor in '91 said, _"String Theory looks good on paper. But that's about it."_ And indeed, nothing has changed.
This is not enough. The entire complexity of things and understanding of the world is revealed at the boundaries of approximate understanding. And as soon as we find something that breaks "near zero" into different extremes, we reveal this understanding. The point is not that the theory is “simply irrefutable”, no, this is something that should become a stigma. Now this is the border when focus is called magic. If society matures to the level where this becomes obvious to it, then the goals and ways of building relationships will change. And the main thing is not to go to extremes. A charlatan is not a murderer, but the one who believes charlatans, the one who turns a blind eye to charlatanism, is worse than a charlatan. There is no need to indulge stupidity, we need to identify it and teach how to avoid it. Sabina does what every one of the 8 billion should do. And she does it very carefully, only because there are very few people like her. If there were a lot. That "irrefutable theory" would be an obvious public censure. Now it's more like Marty and Biff: Are you chicken? Holding a steel bat “You don’t understand mathematics like I do, how can I authoritatively instill this in society.” The Biff should fall into the manure.
I was having the same thought. There are people who are passionate about the strength of basic sciences (even if we're not qualified to be in that swim lane). We feel that you represent us!
@sarahkramer8954 The problem is that it's not enough to understand and be passionate about basics. ST folks know and understand basics much better than 1.5 million subscribers.. Oh, this is just a hypothesis)
@@ncrean66 - not disagreeing. For reference, I have a doctoral degree in a different discipline. My father had a PhD in physics back from the 1950's, which was quite rare at the time. Have another sister with a PhD in material sciences. My point is in relation to Dr. Hossenfelder's point that we need some degree of policing of the grant system for funded studies and publications. My field is in medicine, where this is rampant, and yet great research still happens (and yes, I am published).
This sort of commentary is part of the reason why I love your content so much. You have the knowledge, experience, and balance to be able to look at these papers that come out and give criticism on the branches as a whole. There are many things in physics that are theoretical in the sense that it is only mathematical and not something that can be actually applied to reality, and when these things propagate it leads to the general public having an understanding of physics that isn’t consistent with what is actual reality.
As others have pointed out, the issue is that the mathematics of physics got so hard there was an influx of mathematicians who started thinking that if something was mathematically sound it must reflect reality (of course they don’t always get the mathematically sound bit right). Perhaps Paul Dirac can be blamed for mathematically predicting antimatter by accident and being right! If Dirac could do it, then why can’t they? One big difference is Dirac doubted his result and was reluctant to discuss it until Carl Anderson showed the existence of the positron in his cloud chamber experiments in 1932. So we had a theoretical physicist being humble about a prediction until an experimental result demonstrated the existence of one particle that was consistent with the theory. Today we have theoreticians boldly claiming their mathematical proofs say something about reality and telling the experimentalists to hurry up and spend billions to show the world that they are right. I’m so grateful that my undergraduate fantasy of becoming a theoretical physicist didn’t materialize and that a Ph.D. opportunity in engineering landed on my lap instead.
Um, this is not the issue. The mathematicians do totally different stuff and actually don't like what the physicists do. They think it's too hand-wavy and inexact, and somewhat unscientific. I'm part of that world so this is an informed comment.
It kind of feels like progress has stalled experimentally so they are instead just working on paper and assuming what works on paper must be true. But I can prove on paper that a lot of things are possible that don't reflect the real world. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists.
@@cheshirecat111 Boh, let's say then it is a hand-wavy description of what the f... is going on in those chambers - private or public - of all the edwardwittens and the bunch. There is a thing called mathematical physics and it seems it is more and more about "pure" mathematics while the "hand-wavy" real thing known as physics is just an annoying nuisance and frustrating road block for these genius wanna be einsteins on their way to the predetermined promised land of the unified field theory they self-righteously seem to hold keys to. Theory is sound and valid. Flaws are elsevhere!
Thank you for having courage to bringing this up Sabine. It's becoming increasingly frustrating to hear or read not needed, not useful and repeated in different context information. Thank you. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you for your rant....it's very much needed. I'm a retired, blue-collar physicist. By that I mean, I was an experimentalist working in, for that realm, high energy ion-molecule collisions; a field far from the so-called "frontier" of quantum gravity. Nonetheless, I've watched our beloved field fall into the irrelevancy that you point out. It started with fusion, and now has moved into high energy and quantum theory. I blame the money....stop funding this increasingly silly research and maybe we can get back to reality. The good news is that this period of stagnation may find someone who can break through to a new paradigm. Probably after I die.
Sabine, you can be quite frustrated with that deplorable situation. Many others share your thoughts. Please tell those physicists that they must urgently take a step back and re-examine the foundations and stop inventing new questionable ones. Bad concepts right at the start prevent physics to make great progress. Scientific research is stuck in stagnation since several decades and one way to circumvent today all these wrong paths leading to dead ends is to question the validity of our current theories and give a true chance to alternative theories which already exist. Some of them are capable to subvert completely the current paradigm. Suffice to dig into the already published papers.
I am on my journey to become one day an astrophysicist, and I always hear about these new 'theories' and 'models' that are really just extensions (trying to fix the trouble of the theory) of the same old topics. I always asked myself why it was necessary to make big mathematical riddles that couldn't be measured as observables, but I never questioned enough this since everyone seems to follow the same direction, and that's almost the only way to get into the field of academia. I have to thank you for showing this concern and raising your voice to remind us that physics is not about how math makes our reality but the other way around, how our universe can be modeled and measured with our mathematical tools. We lose ourselves in the nature of mathematics and forget that physics is not about it. I wish one day we retake the correct path and stop wasting our time with frivolous questions.
It seems ironic to post this here, but the problem with Physics is the problem we have now with everything: Everything must be monetized. The goal is to make money, not science, and this extends to every other area. Computer Science is dominated by the creation of toys for people to play with on phones. Finance is a quagmire of invented technical terms and convoluted systems meant to be mind-boggling to the average person in order to allow specialists to dominate a field that should be much simpler. The legal system got there first by using a dead language for their technical terms and establishing procedures based on tradition rather than the actual written law. "Stare Decisis" anyone? Funding comes from people who do not understand a technical field, so it is not necessary to be right in order to win. All one has to do is to impress the right people. Many of us have had the experience of being in a room with someone that was full of crap but had funding behind them and so ended up in charge. I've literally heard the owners of a company react to a presentation by saying that they couldn't understand most of what the presenter was saying but they could tell he was a genius. When you use a system of rewards and penalties to guide an endeavor, you don't get what you intended, you get what you get. For example, simply making something illegal does not usually get rid of that thing. Instead it spawns a system of workarounds. If you want a better building you need better bricks. If you want better systems, it seems we need better people.
But Sabine said that nothing is wrong with capitalism 😮😂. She's a good physicists and popularizer of science, but her take on socio-economic and political matters runs counter to what she criticizes in the management and internal politics of science.
"Everything must be monetized," if it's true, all companies and other private entities who have a plan or somewhat vision far into the future about using the research into practical applications will be chasing those researches. But instead, most of these researches are incentivized by governments that treat that research itself-any kind of research as an investment for a better society, regardless of how impractical those researches are. It goes back to the main difference between the two opposite economic systems that makes one of them always fail: there is zero accountability for the unintended consequences of the decision-makers. How can string theory impress owners of a company that wants to monetize the research? How can anyone who wants to get a profit be impressed with some mumbo jumbo of words that explain nothing about how it will make money for them? You are contradicting yourself only to go back to make the cycle of 'doing science for the sake of science'. It seems that instead of actually criticizing the primary reason why these useless researches were done, you are instead even more on board with doing science for the sake of doing science, because science is inherently cool, awesome, impressive, and makes you look like a genius to your friends, owners of companies, policymakers, and the rest of society. You are doing it not to make it useful for other people tomorrow, next year, or in any future. You just do it because it is science, and you still want to get paid because you are doing science, not because you contribute something that other people voluntarily consider as concretely valuable. You are the kind of people that drives this useless research alive and well. It would've been much better if you actually got paid voluntarily by people who were impressed, entertained, or interested in your work, even if your work had no possible practical application. That would be a million times more accountable than getting paid by taxpayers.
The life sciences use that same dead language why so that it is international. The system of rewards and penalties turns out to be far the most successful in bringing about advances in every other area of life. We need better people, like you for instance?
Everything you wrote tells me that there will always be a need for great salesmen! Sales is a basic skill for the human race. It is how you obtain resources from others. Whether those resources are labor, or money, or something else of value.
@@dorinpopa6962the desire of humans to improve their situation is not limited to capitalism. Capitalism simply requires agreement between the two parties. All other forms permit a third party to impose their will on other parties. But the desire to improve one’s particular situation knows no governmental bounds.
In fifth grade I was taught the scientific method: "observe, hypothesize, experiment, replicate, falsify/theorize". When I got older, and got over the visceral hatred of science books the public school system instilled me with, I began to realize that all I ever heard about were "citations" never replications. And then I dug into the politics/economics of the matter and concluded that we've fallen for essentially the same trap as the medieval church a thousand years ago. We don't value knowledge because it's true anymore, but insofar as it serves a certain ideological dogma, promotes a given political agenda (and this is true for all sides btw) or is economically lucrative.
It's not quite that dire. Certainly in some fields, and certainly in some labs, but it's not the rule. Plenty of science still occurs because scientists are curious and want answers. With some exceptions, medical research is full of people genuinely trying to solve problems and create real impact. There are ecologists that are very passionate about their fields. Even within physics, there's real stuff going on in materials science, for example. There is still plenty of science which is not touched by this sort of rot. Yet.
The reason you failed to find what you learned in school applied as such is because what you learned in school is wrong, and science has never worked this way, except maybe in very broad strokes. It makes sense that in school we learn very simplified versions of how things work. That being said, you say you never heard about replications. Maybe because you're not really on "the inside". Labs CONSTANTLY replicate or attempt to replicate novel results. Do you remember when LK99 was announced by some lab to be a room temperature superconductor? What did labs all over the world try to do immediately? Replicate it. And they failed. That's one example. There are some fields that experience a replicability crisis, but not so much in physics. Of course in theoretical physics you will rarely hear about replications. That's just because theoretical physics deals with theory, not experiment. The only kind of replication relevant to it is replication of calculations. That happens, it's often part of the peer review process, or sometimes after that. But you don't see it on the paper, that would be weird.
It's difficult to unlearn a thing that was cemented in your mind growing up. I'm pretty sure I'm at an age where an astronomy book I read in highschool is nearly flat out wrong today. Hubble and James Webb telescopes have demolished older assumptions on many things I was taught. But I am open to new and provable rectifications, unfortunately not everyone who sets precedents are.
@@definitelynotofficial7350 LK99 seems to be an exception, unfortunately. There are probably a couple hundred (large) companies that have an instant use for a room temperature semiconductor, even one that's only mostly functional. In a lot of fields though? A replication study won't get published and so you won't get tenure or funding. Until universities stop obsessing over number of research citations to determine which professors get hired/promoted, it's going to continue.
This is why I support your YT and substack channels. Your rant is so to the point and absolutely justified. BTW, I left the academic circus (on another field) for similar reasons, a long time ago. Found world-class scientists in industry, moving things differently now, but towards the right direction.
One of the reasons I watch your channel is the fact that you don't mess around. I love the way that you point out the obvious things that most others have forgotten or lost sight of, this goes back years to when I started watching your channel. Keep up the good work, or is that keep up the fight 🤔
I like how in reaction to public outburst to a provocative video, she does another one with an even more provacative title and most importantly wearing THIS sweater. Love it
Coming from a total layman with only a casual interest in physics: It seems to me the fundamental problem for physics that might never go away again is that the process of physics used to be: experiment -> explain results with maths. But that was back when you could change the entire field of physics with an apparatus that fits on a tabletop. Now you need to build the worlds largest machines to do experiments, so you cant just fiddle around and see what happens. The theoretical stuff has to come first, because its cheaper. Obviously there are some exceptions, like Einsteins thought experiments, but most breakthroughs in physics began with an experiment that yeilded unexpected results.
I never studied math or science in college, but after watching your videos , I wish that I would have. Congratulations on your channel which recently has doubled in subscribers and has you streaking towards 2 million. It will happen sooner than you think. It is because you are great at what you do. There are always roadblocks and hurdles to steer clear of in every profession. I hope science prevails as it seems like some leaders have lost their direction. Love your content
That is literally my MO as well. I see some clickbaity 'breakthrough in high temperature superconductivity' and I don't even read the thing and just wait for Sabine's evaluation and basically take that as gospel. I'm fully aware that this makes me a very lazy critical thinker, but she's been right so far on all the stuff that has later been debunked so I'm sticking with it.
Yeah, still waiting (checking ... 46 years) for plasma physics actually to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction. Billions spent, no progress yet. But we need further study... 🙄
@@gregm6652 The difference is we know fusion works, it's right above your head at your noon. We just haven't developed the technology yet to get it to work on earth (sustainably). The physics isn't the problem.
You're the only one I see that brings up the things I often think about. "Truths" that are simply mathematical theories and computer simulations... that's not reality and testable.
@@SabineHossenfelder If it doesn't go away in a little while consider talking to your doctor about gabapentin. It's something that might interact with certain medications but should be otherwise quite mild, with some side effects. No pain killers work on me due to genetic reasons and gabapentin is the only thing that helps. It doesn't turn off the pain it just makes it easier for you brain to shift your focus away from it somewhat. It's also somewhat dependence inducing so you would have to go off of it slowly after the pain is gone. Hope this helps!
@breakingbadest9772 Definitely not! For acute non-neuropathic pain this is far too big of an intervention. Especially for something like this where source control (extraction or other dental procedure) is on the cards.
The New Way Is there a better way of doing physics that retains the best of current physics while going far beyond it? Physics is currently based on the claim - and claim it most certainly is - that physics deals with something real (let’s call that real thing “matter”, though there is no ontological definition of matter) and it can be somehow analyzed by an unreal, manmade abstraction, namely mathematics. But what happens if you accept a different assertion, one that makes mathematics not an abstraction but a concrete reality, an ontology? As soon as you make mathematics real, you cast doubt on the reality of matter. But do we need to make a definitive choice? Why not operate both systems - one based on mathematics as real, and one based on matter as real - and then try to find a way to synthesize these different views? Kant, with his transcendental idealism, sought to reconcile empiricism and rationalism. Ontics seeks to reconcile the empiricism of materialism and the rationalism of mathematics. Ontics, via ontological mathematics, gives mind a reality that is entirely absent in materialism. So, with science on the one hand and ontological mathematics on the other hand, body and soul, matter and mind can start to be brought together into a single system. Isn’t explaining mind science’s biggest challenge? Ontological mathematics provides that exact capacity! Isn’t it time for the ultimate paradigm shift? Isn’t it time for an intellectual revolution, for a true age of reason?! *** book : www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/ontics-the-revolutionary-new-physics-1
I love how you just tell it how it is. I'm studying EE, and I can't pretend to understand what you're talking about, but I appreciate your pragmatic approach. Subbed.
Business schools repeat stuff they know is wrong because it's what business wants their employees to practice. It boils down to 2 words "money corrupts."
No one wants competition in business. You pay for the diploma, you gain the real knowledge on your own. I remember listening to a mindblowing lecture from some highly regarded university, where they claimed, I kid you not, that the average Chinese person saves up 70% of their paycheck. This was a Macroeconomics class. Think about that for a moment, of what it would mean to make economic decisions using that piece of information. The data was technically correct, but they didn't mention that a small minority of people saved up 10.000% of everyone else's paychecks (so to speak). Mathematically correct but factually WRONG numbers can bury an economy. These people are shameless.
They also repeat stuff because some economist got famous and won a prize for a theory that is at odds with reality and really only survives because you can write down the solution after making some unrealistic assumptions, but you can write down the solution and it explains *some* aspects of reality.
It helps to see the curtains get pulled back Dr H! For the rest of us non-physics folks, we cant tell what is, or is not plausible when we hear physicists talk. I was a BIG fan of String Theory till I heard you and some very few others talk about why it cant work, for instance. Is the field heading towards, or at the wall of going as far as we can go, and scientists in physics are now just spinning in circles at the edge?
Just a quick reminder. Physics is not JUST high energy physics. There are many other fields that are producing good and testable results, but I feel a lot of comments under Sabines videos miss that point.
It's that way not only in physics. Psychologic research (for example) has similar issues.. People repeat the same old theories and test them in "yet another setting" to publish papers that, in essence, preach to the choir. And when some researcher dares to test these theories under strict modern statistical guidelines some of these "effects" disappear and can't be reproduced. That colleague did not get to publish his finding, as reviewers reprimanded him to "not criticize the experts of the field" and rejected the paper. It's a kind of survivor's bias at this point: only people who do not care about this problem remain and flourish, while the rest drops out or gets desk-rejected out of existence. "Publish or perish" silently kills research right now and i dearly hope this will change.
This why we shoudl seriously champion academia to use social media more. Imagine your average instagram comment section but with actual academics, all collectively shit talking someone for a theory. 90% of the rot this world endures through, is either thorugh old people, or through the fact that we restrict criticism on certain things.
"it sounds superficially plausible IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS". That, folks, is the common sense that physicists need to be exposed to. Thank you, Sabine.
there's a story i once heard from a former economist about his professors nonsensical equations that had little to do with the real world. the professor replied "yes, but aren't they beautiful equations?". i'm sad to see that physics has also become a religion with numbers...
Your videos about nuclear power are spot on for the most part. Abouit the "Small modular Reactor": the technology isn't new and isn't holding back development/deployment of these for generating electricty. Nor does it raise their cost. The regulations ARE extensive, but are well understood by folks in the industry. The main hold-up and cause of nuclear power's excessive cost is the APPLICATION of these codes, regulations, and laws. Raising public opposition to sitinig a reactor is relatively easy. The delays this opposition cause is very expensive for a utility to respond to or overcome. The threat of opposition/delays in licensing significantly increase the business risk of utilizing a reactor as the heat source for a generation station. Certainly, the public should have a voice in siting a nuclear plant, but the balance of power has been so lopsided for the intervener for so long aas to choke the life out of this industry. We have no other non-carbon reliable source for generation other than large hydro, also being attacked, and nuclear. For reference, I have operated reactors and worked in the nuclear and conventionally powered generation business as an engineer/manager for over thitry years.
We have the same problem in my profession. At some point, the same tired, old arguments become so detached from reality that they inspire a rant or a shutdown. I’m sympathetic to your response. Been there, done that.
You are absolutely right. Physics used to be about explanations of observations. And when new observation invalidated the explanations, new explanations were developed to factor in the new observations. Once particle physics got under way the game flipped around: theories were developed abstractly and then observations sought to validate the theories. The Hicks Boson was an observation that came along after the theory to validate it, so this entirely abstract new discipline, strangely still called physics, worked in this single instance. I remember being surprised and impressed. But many more of these abstract theories have been developed and no doubt some will never achieve validating observations.
In a friendly way, I would like you to note that: You or your autocorrect changed Higgs to Hicks 🤭, second it’s not true that historically, observations preceded the explanation, Einstein special and general relativity theories were both thought experiments, which were later proved by real life experiments. 🤔Is that why Einstein never got a Nobel for them? He was awarded the prize in 1921 (given in’22) for a much less popular contribution about the photoelectric effect, which was based on observations?
Cause we already observed everything we realistically could observe without some really excessive and costly preparations. And to prepare, we need at the very least to reasonably guess, what we could even be looking for and how exactly can we observe it it. There is nothing broken about it, we just have no other choice. Tho I agree that it got somewhat out of hand, ocassionally descending into pure fantasizing
This is a great point that people need to be made aware of urgently. We should organize a Go Fund Me to encourage gravity to keep working until we can replace it with a different fundamental force.
This is what academic integrity looks like! I have watched your videos sporadically, but this is the first time I'm commenting to let you know just how awesome you are and how much I admire you, both in terms of knowledge and courage! Fantastic work!
@andreasslateffPersonalChannel Unfortunately, this remains one of the few unsolved issues of capitalism: shielding education and health care from free market principles, as they are not businesses per se, but more like critical tools to keep a society functional. In fact, besides national defense, education and health-care I don't want the state to get involved in anything...OK, some regulatory roles, too, and policy making.
I love your channel. And I have to admit that any conversation about this subject in physics raises my ire as well. Back in 1999 when I was in Berlin at a conference (my first peer reviewed paper for an international conference). Several of my colleagues spoke and read German so we went to a local used book store to pick up something. I found a book on string theory published in English on a table with a couple of dozen other books in English. I read it during our trip and on the flights home. I thought it was kind of far-fetched. I've never been a fan of the mathematics driving theory. But, not to be a block-head, I thought, well, it might be interesting to see how this develops over the next few decades. It hasn't been very interesting. Unfortunately, I've misplaced the book so I can't prove it, but I'm fairly sure it accurately sums up the state of the theory today. Please keep up the good work!
Don’t understand 75% of what you say, but I hear your passion loud and clear. The net of what I understand you saying is that though I have attempted to keep up with modern physics-being generally interested in what is real and not real-there’s little for me to keep up with as the waters of physics just keep circling the drain. Thanks. I thought my confused not understanding was just me.
It was all correct as far as my PhD in theoretical physics can tell me. Maybe someday someone will be able to explain it. Right now, Dr Hossenfelder is your best bet. Just keep watching her videos.
Basically people made up stuff that sounds plausible but they can't proof and might as well be nonsense. They claim future research will prove them right. The problem is, after 40 years of doing that, when do they think this magical future and/or evidence will arrive?
Your professional no-nonsense opinion is so refreshing! Keep it going, Sabine! As a PhD in Electrical Engineering, whose work focused on practical side of EM simulations, I could never stand empty derivations for the sake of math exercise.
Physics is not my area of study, but there are times I wonder... isn't creating a theory that cannot be proved or disproved the holy grail of the publishing racket? Maybe the next introduction of a theoretical physicist should be replaced with 'professional writer'. They don't have to be right or wrong in todays sad system - they just need to keep royalties flowing, and maybe glean a grant or two as a result.
I had a math professor once, a very talented Geometer, when I was undergrad. He did work in multiple fields, including string theory. He was always very quick to emphasize that string theory is math, not physics. He said, 'Could be physics someday, but not anytime soon. It is very much only theoretical math.'
Thanks Sabine for a great video. For context, I’m an astrophysicist and an observer. I think the onus is on theoreticians like Carlos to help us understand their wonderfully complicated (or “elegant”) theories, and to collaborate with us to craft meaningful tests. We, as observers, design, build and operate huge facilities to extremely high tolerances and requirements, and our success relies on everyone doing their part, including theoreticians. There’s a class of theoretician who thinks it’s au fait to regard observations and experiments as “details” and observers as less than, while it’s precisely their job and role to present their science as a series of predictions and tests. This sort of practice and behaviour is unethical, and I’m afraid that it’s rampant in modern astrophysics.
As a non-academic taxpayer my share is paying for multi-billion dollar projects that all seem to be buried deep underground or under Antarctic ice. I have wondered how many animal species could be saved and how many square kilometres of ocean floor could be mapped for the expense of one expedition to Mars or one mega super collider in Switzerland. I am all for scientific discovery but don't know why it all has to be so theoretical.
Very good video (once again)! Thanks for that. As long as physics is populated by mathematicians and not physicists, I don't think much will change. It is very significant that Edward Witten received the Fields Medal and not the Nobel Prize in Physics. From Newton's death to Einstein's birth was 1879 - 1727 = 152 years. Calculated from Einstein's death, we can hope that there will be a new physics in the year 2100 (approximately). Too late for me, anyway.
Well, a bit much to expect a full paradigm shift every other decade or so. And let's not forget that "physics is dead" is what supposedly his teachers told Max Planck - and he, at the time, was content sweeping out the dirt in the corners - only to stumble onto a door that people hadn't opened yet.
New Physics were around 100 years ago, they just ridiculed it when it proved all of them wrong. Nikola Tesla is where this all started in modern times mate.
The quiz you see me creating at the end of the video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1728056350220x145464480941998080
😊
PS.: 10/10, the fear to disappoint Sabine motivated me, I estimate.
Sabine, can Quiz With It get Google Slides integration? Would be great for teachers
Cool shirt👍
Paradolia isn't falsifiable
"Angular momentum chicken chicken chicken. Chicken chicken angular momentum, chicken chicken chicken." -C.Rovelli
I am an astrophysicist. When I was in graduate school in the early '90s it became apparent to me that the theorists were doing exactly what this video says. They were using mathematics to "explain" some idea they had with absolutely no interest or ability for this idea to be tested in the real universe. In many cases their ideas inconsistent with observations (after all astronomy is primarily an observational science) and they didn't care. They often didn't bother to claim the observations were erroneous. They just didn't care.
Then in the late '90s I was a postdoc and discovered that all of the funding in US astrophysics was controlled by 5 personalities. These people declared what would get funding and be researched and what would not. I say personalities because that's what was going on; it was a cult of personalities. Everyone kowtowed to these 5 individuals. Postdocs would write papers extolling the ideas of these people, even the untestable ideas. They and their postdocs and students were awarded all of the telescope time the asked for and got the lions share of funding. It was disgusting and exactly the opposite of what science needs to be to be successful.
Years ago I gave it up, and now I am a teacher and science popularizer, but as far as I can tell from the outside, nothing has changed.
Thanks Sabine for giving this situation a public forum.
I'm no astrophysicist but that's the vibe I always got about dark matter. Oh look here's this weakly interacting particle that can't be detected and we can't observe in any way shape or form, and it magically explains anomalies we see with galaxy rotations and lensing. Yeah we should totally throw out any notion that some of our ideas about gravity or the universe might be incorrect, instead it's a magic invisible particle that nobody can test for. Then you got previously respected people like Halton Arp being called a quack because he had the audacity to make a hypothesis about red shift that wasn't entirely in lockstep with the establishment
"...and discovered that all of the funding in US astrophysics was controlled by 5 personalities. "
True now of every subfield of science as well. And many of these cliques of controllers have the politics of middle schoolers. Peer review is broken because all papers are reviewed by the same group of insiders in each narrow field and they can usually tell from the subject matter who wrote the paper. Half of the papers out there are using falsified data. People get famous primarily for political reasons, and I don't mean by that national politics but rather the petty politics of offices and salespeople and scratching my back if you will scratch mine. People control the funding use that to leverage large numbers of 2nd and 3rd authors on papers they did almost nothing on, and then they use their prolific volume to justify further control. And lower prestige researchers put up with it because they don't have a choice if they want their careers to advance and having the famous person listed as an author increases their own visibility. The whole of the academy is falling apart.
Corruption will kill our societies.
@@ich3601 Unlikely, corruption is a feature of said societies, not a bug.
@@moonasha My thoughts exactly about "dark matter" and "dark energy" too! I tend to believe that academics don't really care to improve physics but they're more scared about it because it would require harder work and because surely there will be failures, they'd risk of loosing their funding. So instead, they decide to play it safe, suggest something that can't be proven wrong but is supposed to make a theory better, without making any of this specific/countable!
damn, physics drama is even better than youtuber drama, we need this on drama alert
*Revelation 3:20*
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
HEY THERE 🤗 JESUS IS CALLING YOU TODAY. Turn away from your sins, confess, forsake them and live the victorious life. God bless.
Revelation 22:12-14
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Physics.... the new Reality TV
It's not about drama, it's about whether we're going to get off the Earth and colonize the galactic local group or whether we're just another failed branch of evolution. 99.999% of people are hopeless if not more. You're on a technological marvel hijacked by dumdums right now, actually.
"The String Theory situation is insane"
This *is* youtuber drama. YT is an incubator for drama. It's happening in video games and welding and finance and political news too.
YT would be a very different website with very different users and uploaders if it was handled the way theses and dissertations are. But the point of YT is to make ad revenue, not to inform anyone. Ten people making videos arguing about each other is ten times the clicks.
I like Feynman's comment: "String Theory doesn't make predictions. It makes excuses.'
This is a very profound statement, and I think it applies in many areas of physics, not just string theory.
Is that a real quote? He died in 1988, seems too early to dismiss the string theory program. I guess it's a joke.
Strong theory is communism, confirmed
@@iyziejane No joke, Feynman ridiculed string theory from day one.
@@iyziejane Quotes sound interesting when you suffix them with big brands. Happens all the time. String 'theory' (more correctly 'hypothesis') were in its early form in the 1970's onwards, so it is likely Feynman knew about the general postulations of ST. It is true that a lot of nonsense got added since Feynman, particularly in the 1990+ era.
Thanks for this interesting perspective! I am a condensed matter physicist. I am disturbed by phrases such as 'foundations of physics' and 'physics is dead'. The problems of string theory and loop quantum gravity do not extend to other areas of physics. These other areas are deep and continue to make genuine advances. They can also be described as 'foundational' in their own right.
Seriously? Have you even got a grant of your own or your professor just pays you the salary for doing what he thinks is right physics? What about Majorana fermions paper in Science? Nobody can or wants to reproduce it or explain it. Why had it been published in Science at all. Never asked that question yourself.
@ This precisely proves my point - people make statements that are not true, based on a biased view of how academic physics operates. I have received multiple grants on my own. There is an entire field out there that is not represented by one paper on Majorana fermions.
@@ganesan1729 It is SO crazy how people project an entire character onto you based on a sentence or two. I don't know about anybody else but I don't put THAT much thought into my comments, you can't really judge someone based on offhand comments. The world is so crazy right now, nobody knows how to think even most of the educated.
Prof here. I work in a fairly applied area of plasma physics and even we've seen a significant slowdown in progress. This discussion is something that affects both the applied and fundamental areas.
From our end its the need for "risk management" and "predefined impact" in grant funding. In short, we basically need to already know the outcomes of our grants in order to have any chance of getting any funding... So we apply for incremental projects that don't really provide real insight. If you buck this trend you get no money, lose respect, and fall out of the system within a few funding cycles.
The same goes for working with industry, there needs to be defined (and contractually obligated) outputs. If you don't deliver, its professional suicide. So you have to always play it safe, it leaves no room for real progress.
We've been infected with the "consultant rot", the economic prediction models, the fields of legal jargon and waste. We need to be able to propose real projects with real applications and real progress - but I don't see a path to that world from where we are now.
We need a new sea-change. Something like the Enlightenment, where science stopped being a fad for the amusement of rich (if often sincerely interested) aristocrats, and became a thing as and of itself. This led to huge progress, but has now been reduced the a fad for rich capitalists who only want results they can sell. What's needed is to get back to basic research for it's own sake, which will yield no immediate financial reward, but must surely feed the science and tech of the future.
Project funding in the humanities in Germany (at least until 5 years ago when I left the system): "You don't know the outcome before starting the research project? That's HIGH RISK research! We probably shouldn't fund that." 😂
If you need to know the outcome of a research project before starting or securing funding for it, that sounds like "reaffirm" not research. Science is supposed to be done to bring us closer to truth. With this trend you described, we will be closer to our fertile imagination in stark opposition to the truth. This is depressing.
Bureaucracy never produces innovation. The pioneers in every field have always been independent eccentrics doing things on their own dime. In the 19th century, these were hereditary aristocrats, who had inherited their wealth, but didn't care about it that much - they had higher ideals for which they were willing to lose money.
Part of the problem today is that the experiments are so complex that they require millions of dollars. The other part of the problem is that the only people who have enough money to fund such things themselves are soulless merchants who care about nothing except money (like Soros, Bezos, Gates, et al.)
@@DrSusanneKurz Determinism by proxy. Similar to Munchausen's by proxy, but more bureaucratic...
As an applied physicist, something that constantly irks me is when people say "physics" and what they mean is one this one sub-discipline of fundamental theoretical physics. Plenty of physics is working perfectly fine and not at all dying: optics, plasma physics, materials physics, nano-physics, biomedical physics, geophysics to name but a few - all alive and kicking thanks - don't lump us all in with these guys.
This comment should be pinned! 👍❤️
What's even more frustrating is that the achievements of the useful branches of physics are largely ignored, while most videos (including those on this channel) are guilty of focusing on just the "theoretical" side.
I call them the Church of Questionable Mechanics to spare the real Physicists.
Very correct. That the other "aspects" of hypothetical physics are even considered physics (scientific method being provable and observable evidence) always bothered me because we have the blueprint for actual physics and the "softer" applications do not fit the blueprint. I always figured that if we just stuck to actual physics we would already have both superior propulsion devices and energy.
I know a kid who uses applied physics on biology and evolution. Evolution theory is nonsense, but physics applied to biochemistry is a very fertile area for advancement.
@@sliglusamelius8578 precisely the correct point to make. The advancements of science are universal and not limited to one field, they cross boundaries all the time
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Yes indeed. Thank you for your support!
@@SabineHossenfelder you should consider a career change to Wall Street quant... you can work in Frankfurt, London, or New York
"don't ever mess with a man's livelihood" -risky business 😀
@@alijhi is it hard to do that with only a background in physics?
Cognitive dissadence.
Sabine, as an archmage myself, though in a different school of magic, I just want to say that I understand your frustrations completely. Thank you for being one of the few voices in the arcane wilderness, daring to challenge those who've built their entire legacies on illusions and hollow incantations. I truly admire your courage and your dedication to unveiling the deeper truths of the arcane. I hope you continue to enlighten those of us who seek wisdom beyond the surface. Don’t let the magical establishment bring you down.
I get so sick of the overused comparisons in physics videos. So I laughed out loud when you said, "Just for comparison, that's much smaller than a giraffe"
But what is it compared to an Olympic sized swimming pool, or an elephant, or a London bus? Clearly there's a whole set of weights and measures omitted from modern Physics. What is the speed of light in Blue Whales? What are they trying to hide from us??
Just for comparison, that's much smaller than yo mamma
There goes loop Giraffe theory ! :(
😂😂 me too
Much smaller than the big elephant in the room I suppose too 😊
After my PhD in Theoretical Physics, I ended up in aerospace engineering because I needed the money. I've always regretted my failure to stay in academia, but watching you makes me think that maybe it was for the best.
aerospace is way more fun than physics.
For sure. But getting a PhD in Theoretical Physics was not of no use. Afterall, you got analytical and mathematical skills that are quite useful in nowadays world. Google Luck.
You did the right thing. I ended up with a masters in EE, and actually made a nice living writing code for the US gov'mint for decades. I learned a crazy amount of math and physics in college, but ended up doing something that was useful. No regrets.
@Micas099 what was your bachelor's in? Also do you think I can get a master in ee with a computer science bachelors?
@@DrDeuteronTo each their own. I initially planned on doing engineering, but found physics far more rewarding. Not all of research is High energy physics brainrot.
Great stuff Sabine. Very, very few combine both the knowledge to call out BS at this level, and also the nerve to do it - because it would be professional and personal suicide to do so. You've broken free of the system, and we all respect and love you for doing so. 🙂
Thank you for your support and the kind words, really appreciate it ❤
You have summed up what a lot of people have been thinking but worry they will look stupid by saying it. Essentially modern physics is more about the finger that points to the moon rather than the moon at all. Theoretical maths is not reality.
Let's be honest, physics was developed mostly due USSR and US could do small battles of reputation, so Fanboi Holy Wars of Richard Feynman against Lev Landau would happen.
@@LaplacianDalembertian What? That does not make sense at all. Physics was there before the USSR originated, even before the USA was founded.
@@indivestor I think you've gone overboard to say all theoretical math is not reality.
THIS is why I follow you, Sabine. Your frank bringing forth of the issue of theories of physics not being scientific prima facie, regardless of the amount of math behind them, is so refreshing to hear from a physicist. Thank you for being a real one.
After I got my Ph.D. in astrophysics, I decided against working in academia because I valued my intellectual integrity, not to mention the soul- and joy-destroying cycle of "publish or perish". I became so much happier and I now occupy my mind with things I love and not things people expect me to be working on. Keep it up Sabine... you are an encouragement to like-minded physicists.
It's basically a circle jerk. Everyone's just citing each other like crazy.
@@Beegeezy144
I was in academia and retired early because of all the BS it's all become.
Not only are you correct, not only is this exactly what happens, I have heard professors in charge of research activities say openly in meetings that that's what happens. 🙄
@@5678plm Interesting, today's my lucky day. I majored in physics, and after a failed attempt at establishing a fab lab I'm interested in working (and hopefully avoid formally studying for another degree) in industrial finance. Any recommendations?
@@Beegeezy144 Echo chamber...
@@Beegeezy144 So its like Linkdin then
Sabine, as a scientist myself, though in a different field, I just want to say that I understand your frustrations completely. Thank you for being one of very few voices in the wilderness willing to say that the majority who’ve staked their entire careers and livelihoods on an empty promise are, in fact, wrong. I admire you for all you do and hope that you can continue to educate those of us willing to listen. Don’t let them get you down.
Amen
Neither you or this moron is a scientist stop gassing lol
She failed simple physics god dam
@@faybooth1502Classical ad-hominem. Who cares if she failed something? I want the arguments of why she is wrong.
@@vidal9747 99 percent of science is disagreeing with her do shut up god dam god they are theorys not proven facts lol
“Lots of technical terms, but don’t worry. It’s not as difficult as it sounds.”
“Areas of space become quantised”. “The square of the Planck length” “minimal area isn’t compatible with Lorenz invariance”. “If you quantise the angular momentum operator then the spectrum of eigenvalues is discrete and that doesn’t violate rotational invariance “
That’s just as difficult as it sounds. But I understood the bit about the giraffe.
From what I understood:
Sabine: There is a problem with "minimal areas", the thing tinier than a giraffe!
Carlo: There is an other thing which could be seen as an analogy to this problem and since there is no problem for other thing, there has to be no problem here too - because analogy!
Sabine: Wrong!
Am I smart now?
Sounds like a wild goose chase to me
@@Kokuswolf she sees a problem in "minimal areas" and Lorentz invariance, because when you go real fast for example, length contracts and so should the "minimal areas" but they shouldnt be able to contract if they are "minimal" (paradox). at least that s her argument. but I am not sure Planklengths are a space volume only thing... I am just a physics student but i think plankvolumes are in space AND time. spacetime. so idk if she might be wrong here because spacetime as a whole gets transformed in lorentztransformation. If the time transformation counteracts the space contraction then the total "volume" should stay the same and be lorentz INVARIANT. but what do i know, didnt do the math on it right now and i didnt have Quantum Loop gravity at Uni (yet).
@@scipug3048 So something has to be contra(di)cting.
Edit: Contracting (space)time, can't imagine what this means. Maybe here is the part of testability Sabine complains about. So there is this explanation, but what that means or if this testable/falsifiable is impossible, so it's like a loophole to pretend this is the solution? Don't know if can articulate that or if this makes sense. But her intention was all about the useless theories, because of their noexisting/testable reality for that.
@@Kokuswolf length contraction and (for time) timedialation are known effects of special relativity. If you go real fast in x direction then any delta x will become smaller the closer you get to the speed of light. And also delta t is influenced. Time moves differently in a system moving at for example 0.8*lightspeed. Lorentztransformation is something that converts one referance frame (for example stationary) to another (for example moving at 0.8 lightspeed). If something is lorentzinvariant it means it doesnt change when transformed. It stays invariant.
The number of particles in a system for example is invariant under lorentz transformation. Or rest energy and many many more things.
There wasnt a specific example of the falsifiability problem in the video as far as i remember. I dont doubt that its true however. New particle physics theories are always hard to test/verify.
I love this woman because she never is constantly over positive but actually keeps it real on her topics and points out bs
Your passion is inspiring! Please please never lose it!
This is not inspiring , What are you talking about
@@noodlerancidHe's talking about how it inspires him. Nothing to argue about here.
@@noodlerancid You don't find someone speaking truth to power inspiring? You're not in middle-management, by any chance, are you?
They all should do a trial by ordeal to find out whose theory is true.
"That I'm fucking sick of hearing". This is why we love Sabine. No fence sitting and getting people telt.
Sabine has always had a way of being straight up about everything and I respect that so much lol
Sabine is feeling string weary!
Aye, had away and shite with your string nonsense, as my Dad used to say. He would have loved Sabine 😊
I would take Sabine over any theoretical physicist that she disagrees with. (Yes, you can end a sentence with a preposition)
We???????????
The problem does not only exist in science: Anyone who has invested years of work in a false theory or a stupid worldview will have problems admitting their mistakes. And if a person's entire identity/personality is based on errors, that person can become very aggressive if the foundation is shaken. Take it easy!
I totally agree with you. It's difficult to know if these people are genuinely deluded or if they really know that they are flogging a dead horse
It's called Einstein Syndrome. They change the observation to fit their preconceived models.
Exactly, this is it.. The more time and effort people invested in something, the more fiercely they will defend that something. No one wants to admit they're being stupid, even less that they have been stupid for most of their lives..
Religion is one of the most popular world views like this !! Watching christian cable channels or the live feeds of millions circling the Kaaba every single day shows how much human thought is wasted that could be problem solving.
Singularity, God. Explain the difference Empirically. If you cannot, and I know you can't, refrain from the comparison.
"mathematical fiction"
YES! THANK YOU SO MUCH for saying that!
Modern physics spend so much time forgetting that math can be used to REPRESENT something, but that does not MAKE IT whatever it represents.
The map is NOT the terrain!
Taking math literally also leads to weird stuff, like "goes back in time if going FTL", an idea which has absolutely no connection to reality, and exists only because too many people doesn't understand that just because your numbers turned negative in the math, does not instantly mean that they they still represent reality 1 to 1, you have to actually CHECK if crossing the zero line actually turns time backwards, or if it just becomes an artifact of math that isn't meant to represent FTL.
It's like an old computer programme that has a too low limit on a variable, lets say one representing money in a game, and you're doing SOOO well and then suddenly your money resets to zero.
Does that mean you suddenly did awful or that something was wrong with the math... Obvious case is obvious.
Same with the silly "if you send data FTL back and forth, you get the data before it was sent".
No, you get the data based on the actual speed it was travelling at compared to the distance travelled, just like anything else!
Just because the formula used is limited to non-FTL speeds doesn't change anything. It just SHOULD have told everyone using it that, "eh, maybe we should like, you know, update this formula?".
Exactly! This rollover to negative can cause Ghandi to nuke you in the game Civilization if you become too lovable.
I was a theoretical physicist 30 years ago, and gave up on it. Thank you for, again, pointing out how messed up the system is. I realize there has been a drought in exciting discoveries for along time, but that doesn't excuse making things up.
Hard to make a discovery of everybody says, were done and the funding dries up. I'm not saying we should make things up, but with today's economics I understand why nobody wants to just stop for a while. If the funding stops it might never start again. And the next generation of physics might take a lot of expensive stuff to discover or make usuable.
honestly, this has happened way before these guys, with the start of quantum mechanics and acceptance of theories like copenhagen interpretation where nonsense like observer and wave function collapse were totally ignored although they have no physical equivalent in reality. since then lots of nonsense was sprouted , especially when it comes to infinities and people using them to explain "unexplainable" stuff like the nature of reality or go around what we observe in reality which can never be proven or disproven. Lately physics has become much more like philosophy and less like physical reality . And what strikes me is that stuff that defies logic are still popping from time to time(see dark matter and dark energy) and no one bats an eye when it comes to established "broken"(ok, incomplete) science like Quantum Mechanics.
@@danielstan2301 as some point science is about things we can't really understand and can't directly observe in reality. Otherwise we should have stopped after the invention of the hammer and the wheel.
Me too. I was a theoretical physicist 30 years ago fed up with all , and gave up on it. Presently I am farmer, with potatoes ! I have very good potatoes, if you like you can order very good potatoes from me ! I sell lot of potatoes, people begging me to give them potatoes, because my potatoes are the best ! Only 1000 kg potatoes left now !
Are you sure that you studied theoretical physics later gave up on it then became a farmer @@Boccaccio-ii1fl
HI Sabine: I am a retired software engineer. During my 40+ years working for a number of companies, I'd experienced much of what you are talking about. Often times warnings by me would only get angry stares along with a litany of snide remarks. What would really get me was that after a number of times being correct you would think the next time my warnings would at least entertain the possibility of being right. But no, just rewind the tape and play it again. In all organizations there is a dichotomy between politics and technology. Too many times the politics wins out!
Psychology.
Same experience for me, but I'm trying to understand if this is a bias of mine in which I unknowingly only remember the times in which I'm right and get ignored and instead I just forget the other times
@@MB-xe8bb the downfall of all human endeavor. the humans.
@@rvrmarco Relatable.
Sabine I left theoretical physics around 1979 because of this very virus that’s been damaging physics for over 40 years, keep working to keep physics alive it feels like it on respirators.
It is clear that the Trisolorian plans for earth are advancing fast.
@@jamesbaker223 Never thought that being considerate of other people outside a norm set in the 1950's is considered having a 'mind virus'. Did Facebook give you that opinion?
@@DrBreadstick no the interview with the Russian KGB agent did that. th-cam.com/video/yErKTVdETpw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=D8eZb9DbXlcKmeiB
I've actually been told to get out of science and not to draw scientific conclusions. There should be a special club for those.We follow the scientific method.
@@jamesbaker223 Holy shit dude fuck off. I'm tired of seeing the same stupid right-wing fearmongering culture war conspiracy bullshit everywhere I go.
Nobody has a "mind virus". Nobody is "woke". None of it is real.
It's a fantasy sold to you by right-wing politicians to foster division and scare you into voting for them.
"If you don't vote for me, then the WOKE agenda will take over America and turn all the frogs gay!!"
Utter. Fucking. Bollocks.
It's always the unnamed "woke agenda" this, unnamed "woke mind virus" that.
My brother in Christ, read up on actual federal fiscal policy and corporate lobbying and you'll see who's ruining the economy.
Rant aside, your bullshit has nothing to do with this video and certainly nothing to do with science.
Go cry culture politics elsewhere you fucking idiot.
I agree. Having only studied physics to undergraduate level, I don't profess to have a deep understanding. BUT! I have remained a student. I love video's like this (yours) because they resonate with something I have suspected for a long time...
1) Most people in research academia are hacks. Smart enough to learn existing theories but not smart enough to generate true ground breaking insight. Those that went so far as to achieve PhD did so on questionable hair splits - 99% don't really break new ground.
2) The problem with quantum physics is that it is a damn good approximation. Like using 22/7 to calculate Pi - good enough for 95% of calculations. But it is fundamentally flawed and can't be built on.
3) Quantum physics (damn good approximation) can't be further sliced into finer resolution. Like a grainy photograph, magnifying it further will not reveal more detail only better images of grain. But the usefulness of the images at lower resolution creates the illusion that there is more there.
4) Like exploring a cave network, quantum physics broke new ground early and then explored deeper into the cave system. At some point in the journey we took a wrong fork. The tunnels became narrower and harder to navigate, more torturous. Rather than turn back we pushed harder, found more narrower cracks to explore. Rather than admit a wrong turn, we are pushing harder looking for a break through.
5) There are fundamental and irreconcilable inconsistencies with quantum theory. Things don't add up. The field has been stalled for fifty years trying to explain these inconsistencies.
5) There are people who have spent 2/3 rds of their careers in these narrow tunnels. Would they admit most of their careers have been wasted? Or would they be emotionally predisposed to belittling those that suggested "wait a minute, I think we have this all wrong?" Worse. They encourage new comers to the field to travel with them to the narrow ends and say "I got this far, grab a pick and see if you can find a way through."
6) I have thought for along time that quantum theory should have been objectively assumed to be wrong and that physics should have applied new minds, and the latest technology and thinking to develop many radically different alternatives. Better, they should say to the young and bright "assume it's totally flawed - start again."
7) "Science" used to welcome radical new theories - a basic principle of science. BUT ego and incomes now prevent that ideal from being pursued.
The truth is no longer within reach.
We are trapped in claustrophobic denial.
The beauty of science is that you can have a useful career and make a meaningful contribution without ever being a genius or a star or even having an original idea. There's a scientific method, follow it and be skeptical about everything. Keep learning, keep questioning and you can be a fine scientist.
how much new ground do you think can be broken at this point by just a few individuals?
funny how you talk about ego when most of the "anti science establishment" people seem to have big and hurt egos, tried to make it in academia, didn't and now rant because it gives them clicks. check sabine's views on her videos. when ever she does one of these her numbers shot up like crazy, she is very incentivized to make more of these populist pieces
"NIENTE!"... authentic accent... with the correct temperament and the right hand gestures... mamma mia, gut gemacht, bravo Sabina...👌
I felt it too
As an Italian, I've appreciated that a lot.
Also, Carlo Rovelli is Italian, so this "niente" has a lot of weight.
"I don't know how it ever became accepted that inventing some math and insisting that its real counts as theoretical physics. It's insane, they're all crazy." The most accurate statement about the sad state of theoretical physics over the past couple of decades.
Reality is that which is observed, theory is a model that aids prediction in regard of observations. So, theory is not a description of reality, it is a tool to have an educated guess of what happens next. It has been said that an experimental physicist doubts their results as they know and understand all the issues with equipment and experimental techniques. The theoretician on the other hand believes wholeheartedly that their theory, and supporting maths no matter how complex, is the truth of the matter - even if it is not 100% aligned with observation (the observations are just not good enough... yet).
@@asmund3051 This is an interesting perspective especially the last part about the theorists faith in the infallibility of their theory. The thing is we know in advance that the assumptions of most theory are wrong because they are mostly done to simplify the math. Examples include homogenous, isotropic, having certain symmetries or perturbation theory. Most of those assumptions are blatantly false but physicists accept them since it is the only way to make the math solvable. So the experimental physicist will ultimately win because there seems to always be some domain in which the assumptions fail or the approximations break down because of the environmental conditions. Any true theory that captures how the world works cannot break down from any future experiments and would most likely be a very complicated math equation that we would take generations to understand properly
The chapter titles "rant", "incomprehensible quantum stuff" and "more rant" are brilliant. 🙂
Understood nothing watched anyways
Sabine is as witty as she is wise. 😂
@@ikosaheadrom-same!
I think this rant won me to her channel for life!
@@ikosaheadromyeah but we now know it’s much smaller than a giraffe
THANK YOU, Sabine! I always hated that Silly String theory.
My PhD is in experimental physics not theoretical, so perhaps I'm biased, but for me, any theory which, by its very nature, cannot be physically tested, is philosophy not physics, and should be funded as such.
Physics is part of natural philosophy, and it does seem that you haven't looked into the problem of epistemology...
@@ThePowerLover
During the scientific revolution, physics separated from natural philosophy, and became a separate discipline .
Chemistry and Physics are classified as Natural Sciences and may be referred specifically to as Physical Sciences .
Also , when discussing philosophy and epistemology , you are referring to abstract concepts , NOT EMPIRICAL SCIENCE .
It is not only for you: Since Karl Popper, the very definition of a scientific theory requires it to be falsifiable, that is can be tested 😀!
Playing with Math, how hard and/or hermetic this Math may be, is not enough.
This is exactly the point: these guys are making mathematics, not physics (maybe they should think about the difference between aristotele and galileo?). Nothing wrong in doing that, but it seems they are not admitting this obvious fact. BTW, maybe one day someone will find a prediction applicable to feasible experiments, or some (incredible close to impossible) technological advance will allow experiments in this.
Never change Sabine, The world needs you.
Thanks Sabine for all your videos. I don't understand most of what you talk about but can see your frustration and hope things improve in Physics (and your toothache ) ♥
“Many physicists these days sound like the Delphic oracle - with equations.” /John Twelve Hawks /
This rant was really refreshing, Frau Hossenfelder. My impression of Physics exactly.
First thing I saw when I woke up. Best thing I’ll see all day. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your support, much appreciated!
@@SabineHossenfelder I write this to You to bring You Eternal Hope from far away."The Rapture"- is A Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event in which Millions of Living True Christian Believers shall be "Transported" into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever.Also in addition to "The Rapture" another Truly Real Future Biblical Christian Worldwide Event called "The First Resurrection" will also take place,which will "Resurrect" All-Dead True Christian Believers and will also "Transport" them into Heaven to meet The Creator Of The World/The Maker Of The World/The Lord Himself and they shall be with him Forever and ever!
"The Rapture" collects All-Living True Christian Believers,while "The First Resurrection" collects All-Dead True Christian Believers.The Dead True Christian Believers shall rise first and then both:The Dead and The Living True Christian Believers shall Together be Transported into Heaven to be Together with The Christian God and to be Rewarded accordingly by The Christian God!
This is not a joke.I have seen "The Signs" and these words are "True and Correct".Remember!Jesus Christ said:“You don’t have to wait for the End.I am right now,Resurrection and Life.The one who believes in me,even though he or she dies,will live.And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all.Do you believe this?”
@@SabineHossenfelder But aren't you friends with Eric? What do you think of his theory? Is it really just nonsense like some claim?
If only this was limited to physics...
Academia as a whole has become widely corrupted with self-interest, prideful self-indulgence and outright greed. Science "journalism" isn't helping at all either, as they can take perfectly reasonable research and spin it into something sensationalized. Because of course, self-interest, prideful self-indulgence and outright greed is not limited to scientists.
Yes its EXACTLY like german politics. 100% wrong decisions since 20 years...
I don't know why people study science today. When I studied eveything looked fine at the beginning. Then the business rules suddenly changed and we were trapped. Some of us made it into finance, insurance or IT. Many got raped as science whores.
Can you blame people for turning to the grift when 99% of research positions pay squat?
@@JamesKowal What? you want me to write a scholarly article on the subject? Post it in a youtube comment for the world?
What you call vague generalities I call a broad problem.
And your own sensationalized response kinda demonstrates my point. Blind cynicism destroying the world? really? Don't have a clue? really?
Maybe I'm just old fashioned and want my science to follow the scientific method. And if expecting scientists to do the same makes my cynical... so be it.
@@garythecyclingnerd6219 To be blunt, yes.
Integrity shouldn't be for sale
Today my teacher cussed and ranted for ten minutes straight. I didn’t understand most of it, but I loved every minute. Five Stars
After his angry ramblings he probably said to vote kamala. 😂
The teacher referred to is certainly Sabine.
Me too. Was great though. 😸
I stumbled upon your video today. As a former lawyer/current professor, it seems the problem you described in thia video has become the norm throughout the whole academia. I became so sick and tired of the nonsense pushed as mainstream theories in my field, and it seemed that I must have fallen into a parallel universe at a certain point because no one else seemed to care. Your video gave me a huge sense of relief now that i know i am not alone feeling this way. Thank you so much.
Wonderful! Thank you for getting angry, showing it, and using names. I'm an English teacher who holds on by a thread (not a string) to understand sometimes because I don't have a background in physics, but I watch you every day now to keep my brain stimulated. We need this kind of passion for calling out BS in every field.
I'm a landscaper who can barely work out the area of a rectangular patch of grass. I never have the remotest idea what Sabine is talking about, but I find her manner and delivery absolutely riveting.
Some fields would utterly collapse if all of the BS were removed. Economics, for example, needs a complete overhaul, to be replaced by people actually willing to do actual research on real-world systems instead of playing around with abstract and overly-simplified models all day.
As if you just explained that theoretical physics is just a branch of sociology. 😂
@@oasntet And, of course, political science.
@@cras666 At least sociology does try to do real-world study of social phenomenon. They did have the replication crisis, but the field is mature enough to find some ways to deal with the crisis. Ironically, one fix is similar to how actual experimental physics deals with study integrity - triple blind... Pre-registry helps, too.
Economics? Doing studies? It happens, but it's frowned upon, especially by the Chicago School...
That's refreshing and we all felt it
Yes. Please more of refreshment!
We all?????????????????
@@noodlerancid Well, probably a lot of us. Obviously not you,
@@urtyp6596 All good things in moderation :)
Sometime too much "refreshment" can contribute to heart disease ;)
Physics isn't dying. People and institutions manipulating things for power, influence, and profit, and not the further truth of Physics are coming to their end. Physics doesn't need them to grow, and growth is always painful. Keep being the change you want to see Dr. Hossenfelder. People like you teaching physics concepts and current related events have changed a lot about my own life and perception of reality, and I'm not unique so I'm confident there's a lot more. I would have never even had the opportunity to be exposed to so much knowledge without people like you. Keep on keeping on, there's a lot of gratitude aimed your way.
Follow the money!
Well said, Nick!
Its only been in the last 3 years where a handful of physicists who have public facing podcasts have started saying anything forcefully about this. I would argue with you about simply asserting that positive change is happening but that would be pointless since you offered no qualifiers such as extent or time. Yeah....some small positive change has happened. ^.^
@@Dadecorban I would have had to say that positive change was happening for you to argue with it. Growth is different than that. If you prune a bad limb on a fruit tree (the fruit tree being what we're calling "physics" here), two or three more limbs will sprout from the injury. The result of more limbs being able to grow increases the potential amount of fruit that tree will bear. That's a lot more complex a situation than reducing it to positive or negative impact. It's also true you can prune a limb and cause too much new growth that creates limbs too heavy for the trunk, and the tree falls apart and dies.
That said, the influence of these kinds of people have had major impacts on my personal life in ways I would call a positive impact, but ain't nobody tryna' hear all about that on some TH-cam comments ya' know.
nah i think the language insha’allah important here. what’s meant by physics is the people doing it. its not some natural phenomenon that is dying obviously. it won’t die completely, there are always people doing good work but it’s not got much to give like most of academia.
Oh my God, I absolutely love your frankness, meticulousness, and sense of humor. Thank you so much for sharing this topic! ❤ I’m a chemist, and in the fields of research concerning environmental sustainability, the same thing often happens... Until people stop prioritizing money and personal gain over ethics, results will continue to focus on quantity rather than quality.
Thanks a lot for your persistence
Wow - really generous, so good of you.
Wow, 200!
Hey 👋, I'm persistent at doing nothing! Where's my 200?!!! 😳
Im really happy people like this exist, that won't let science die, and help those who stepped away from the money chasing scheme to actually pursue the truth.
wow she can buy heaps of pain pills with that
Don’t apologize for videos like this. This discourse is needed in the scientific community
“Many physicists these days sound like the Delphic oracle - with equations.” /John Twelve Hawks /
It really is isn’t it.
@@israelsadovnik funny you make that connection, i have begun saying just as the printing press translated the bible so it could be criticized i believe the internet has lain asunder academia so we can see their flaws. but the priests of academia don't wish to be criticized.
@Nik-h4q why ?
@@asahmosskmf4639 so many fake papers come out in every profession, only positive results get published, peer review is a joke, 70% of papers are never peer reviewed but still reported on the media, blatant mistakes get published (see that harvard women's studies paper that published hitler's book omg)
its not gana get better until it gets torn down.
"That's smaller than a giraffe", the deadpan delivery of Sabine is priceless.
This one had me laughing out loud, at full volume… World-class comedy :)
Sadly, that’s the only part I understood!
There ya go 💯🇬🇧❤️ 3:49
What if the Plank length is not a real unit that can be used to to measure distance but a property of spacetime like the speed of light no matter how fast you go its still the same.
And accurate 😂😂
I enjoyed very much this video and I agree with your harsh criticism of contemporary theoretical physics. An yet I think that certain points about the way how science proceeds should be taken into account. So I asked ChatGPT4 how should we proceed in the attempts to formulate a unified theory of particles and interactions, including gravity. The answer was a detailed overview of the contemporary lines of research in fundamental theoretical physics, and concluded with:
"In short, developing a unified theory of particles and interactions, including gravity, involves exploring multiple theoretical frameworks, seeking testable predictions, and ultimately finding a model..."
Then I asked:
Yes, it is necessary to explore multiple theoretical frameworks. One of such approaches is string theory, but today many people consider it is as dead theory and say that the research in string theory was waste of time and money. How can they be so hostile toward string theory. A future successful theory will certainly employ certain results and techniques of string theory.
GPT4's reply was according to me so inspiring that I am posting it here:
"The backlash against string theory often stems from both practical and philosophical frustrations, despite its contributions to theoretical physics. String theory has been a dominant force in theoretical physics for several decades, attracting extensive funding and research. However, it has yet to make direct, testable predictions, leading some to question its utility and place within physics. Let's look at the reasons behind this hostility, as well as the continuing relevance and potential contributions of string theory to future theories:
1. Lack of Experimental Evidence
A core frustration is that string theory has not produced experimental evidence that can be observed with current or foreseeable technology. Many scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics or general relativity, gained acceptance because they made accurate, testable predictions that were eventually observed. However, string theory operates at energy scales far beyond current experimental capabilities (often requiring energies close to the Planck scale). Critics argue that without empirical evidence, string theory cannot be verified or falsified, making it speculative rather than empirical science.
2. Challenges in Making Testable Predictions
String theory’s inherent complexity makes it difficult to yield specific predictions that differentiate it from other approaches. With multiple versions of string theory and vast mathematical landscapes, such as the "string landscape" with potentially
10^500 possible vacua, identifying concrete, unique predictions is a monumental challenge. Critics argue that a scientific theory should ideally have a clear predictive structure and that without it, it risks becoming unfalsifiable, thus stepping outside the realm of traditional science.
3. Dominance in Theoretical Physics
String theory became so influential in theoretical physics that it often eclipsed other lines of research. Because it drew so much attention and funding, alternative approaches to unification and quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity or emergent gravity theories, received comparatively less focus. Many physicists argue that this overemphasis hindered a broader exploration of other potentially fruitful theories, leading to a perceived stagnation in theoretical physics.
4. Misalignment with Experimental Physics
String theory has a reputation for being mathematically elegant but disconnected from experimental physics. This divergence has led some physicists to view string theorists as more concerned with mathematical beauty than with scientific testability. The sheer mathematical sophistication required for string theory can make it feel esoteric or detached from real-world physics, further reinforcing the view that it is more a branch of mathematics than empirical science.
Despite these criticisms, string theory remains a rich source of ideas and techniques that could play a crucial role in future advances. Here are some reasons why string theory continues to hold value:
Contributions of String Theory to Future Physics
Deep Mathematical Insights:
String theory has led to profound mathematical discoveries, including insights into geometry, topology, and number theory. Techniques developed in string theory, like mirror symmetry and dualities, have influenced multiple fields, including pure mathematics. These mathematical insights could become essential tools in understanding quantum gravity or other physical theories.
Unification of Forces and Particles:
String theory remains one of the only frameworks that can incorporate all known forces, including gravity, within a single framework. This is a remarkable feat, as it implies a route to a unified description of particles and interactions. The idea of vibrating strings and higher-dimensional objects (branes) as fundamental entities offers a unification mechanism that future theories may adopt or adapt.
Holographic Principle and Quantum Gravity:
One of the most widely recognized achievements of string theory is the AdS/CFT correspondence, or holographic principle, which suggests a relationship between gravity in a bulk space and a conformal field theory on its boundary. This principle has been applied to fields as varied as black hole physics, condensed matter, and even quantum information. Future quantum gravity theories may well incorporate or expand on these ideas, making string theory a valuable precursor.
Tool for Understanding Quantum Gravity:
Many frameworks derived from string theory offer essential insights into the nature of space-time at quantum scales. String theory’s approach to quantizing gravity, dealing with quantum singularities, and eliminating certain infinities could provide necessary tools or techniques for a future theory of quantum gravity, even if string theory itself is not the final answer.
Broader Paradigm Shift:
The challenges of string theory have underscored the need for a possible paradigm shift in physics. While the theory has faced criticism, it has forced physicists to confront deep questions about what a "theory of everything" should look like, how to handle untestable theories, and whether mathematics alone can guide us to truth. This philosophical reflection is crucial as physicists continue to pursue unification.
Moving Forward: Taking the Best from String Theory
Many physicists agree that even if string theory is incomplete or ultimately supplanted by a more comprehensive theory, its methodologies, insights, and mathematical tools will likely remain valuable. Future approaches to quantum gravity or a unified theory may indeed employ techniques from string theory, such as dualities, extra-dimensional approaches, or even the holographic principle.
In essence, while the criticisms of string theory highlight real limitations, the field has provided a scaffold on which many theoretical innovations have been built. The journey toward a complete theory of fundamental physics will likely integrate the insights of string theory, while also incorporating insights from other approaches, reflecting a more diverse and balanced exploration of the physics of the universe."
i thought this was the worst saturday ever, but then i saw Sabine in a space sweater saying "im fucking sick of hearing" the same things regurgitated. worked like a pill
Keep doing what you're doing Sabine - we need voices like yours to keep science moving forward, rather than spinning it's wheels.
Sabine is in the quite unique position of being extremely knowledgeable about theoretical physics AND not being in the academic environment anymore, but rather hosting a highly popular, well-made YT channel on theoretical physics (snd other areas). This allows her to be critical on issues no other physicist could ever contemplate criticizing lest they'd lose respect and admiration by his/her peers. I know this has ultimately very few chances of changing the order of things (I'm a retired researcher and I know the academic world very well). Still, it is reassuring to hear somebody stating how absurd and sterile research in theoretical physics has become over the last few decades.
This is how we know academia is really broken
@@BartdeBoisblanc This is how we know that her ideas are bonkers.
@@Simon-xi8tb I know quite a few physicists that find her a breath of fresh air.
@Simon-xi8tb let's just say for the sake of argument that her ideas are bonkers... it doesn't change the fact that Academia is very broken at the moment. Has been for a while. Far too focused on short term gains and profits over seeking knowledge.
@@Tigatron1448 With that I can agree. Many things are broken these days, especially where there is politics and people. And academia is no exception.
I love how you speak your mind. I am glad you have the platform to do this. Keep on Trucking.
Loved this video for reasons I might list later. But what I kept thinking of was a scene in the movie Zoolander, where the bad guy (played by Will Ferrell) is in a battle with the male model Zoolander (Ben Stiller) in front of a large crowd.
Zoolander has modeled a variety of facial expression mood "Looks," the most recent of which is called "Blue Steel," which is pretty much identical to all his previous Looks.
The bad guy is shouting his frustration about Zoolander's trademark special expressions:
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! THEY'RE ALL THE SAME LOOK!"
I heard the same note of "are you blind?!" desperation in Sabine's voice.
Daniel Dennet liked to say that "if it isn't worth doing, it isn't worth doing well." Thanks for your honesty, Sabine.
Love that quote
Isn't that the other way? "If something isn't worth doing well, it isn't worth doing at all"
@@OldSkullSoldier This has an entirely different meaning.
I work in a different field of science, but I find your viewpoint very relevant: a couple of years back I managed to get several of my colleagues from different countries to work with me on a project with no pay, just new obligations for them really. One of them told me he was happy to do it because it was a rare opportunity for doing real science and not some project crap with no relevance he is now used to be working on. This is how far the system got us.
Vielen Dank für Dein Video, Sabine. When I started my PhD in optics, I was young, very motivated, but also quite naive. I thought I could look for new things, it was very exciting. I realized very soon, though, that research is nowadays just a market where papers are sold against money (funds). People in academia usually have a huge ego, and real scientific discussion is hindered. It was a very disappointing experience. If you also take into account that the quality of the teaching has greatly decreased over time (because it makes no money), you will get a terrible mix (paid by taxpayers, as you say). I left almost nine years ago. My colleagues who are still there keep publishing the same stuff, mostly under different names. I couldn't bear that, I am glad I moved away from this sickening world.
Thank you Sabine! I view areas of research like this as academic fraud. Our taxes could be going to much more important areas of research than writing maths fanfic.
I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to this pov
bro, they don't even do computations. All they need is a box of chalk and piece of slate.
The issue with that is that, honestly, this stuff is not very expensive at all. A bunch of theorists in an office doing equations doesn't cost very much money at all, compared to something like the large hadron collider, or certainly something like the Artemis Moon Landing (the money we're spending on that we could fund tons and tons of robotic probes and get way more 'science' done). And of course the government wastes far more money on nonsense and military b.s. that does nothing but make the world more dangerous.
It's not even the money. Human minds--including students and post-docs--are getting sucked into this crap at a time when we need those young minds working on real problems.
I agree to the point - but like to add that “tax money” go to maintain the value of the currency (your local legal tender), and not towards anything a government pays for.
Caveat for €, since only the “strongest” EU governments have this, eh… liberty…?
Sorry, but “tax money” is just for accounting and political bickering about budget balances. Actually, it’s more about balancing payments - the monetary stuff big players do, not us mere mortals… 😅
A GLORIOUS and insightful rant! 👍👏👏👏
My introduction to astronomy professor in '91 said, _"String Theory looks good on paper. But that's about it."_ And indeed, nothing has changed.
I narrowly missed getting into it as a grad student. I was a little sad.
But now I am so glad. 🙂
This is not enough. The entire complexity of things and understanding of the world is revealed at the boundaries of approximate understanding. And as soon as we find something that breaks "near zero" into different extremes, we reveal this understanding.
The point is not that the theory is “simply irrefutable”, no, this is something that should become a stigma. Now this is the border when focus is called magic.
If society matures to the level where this becomes obvious to it, then the goals and ways of building relationships will change.
And the main thing is not to go to extremes. A charlatan is not a murderer, but the one who believes charlatans, the one who turns a blind eye to charlatanism, is worse than a charlatan. There is no need to indulge stupidity, we need to identify it and teach how to avoid it.
Sabina does what every one of the 8 billion should do. And she does it very carefully, only because there are very few people like her.
If there were a lot. That "irrefutable theory" would be an obvious public censure.
Now it's more like Marty and Biff: Are you chicken? Holding a steel bat “You don’t understand mathematics like I do, how can I authoritatively instill this in society.” The Biff should fall into the manure.
"Both communism and capitalism look good on paper. But that's about it" - Me, 2024 lmfaoooo
1.5 million subscribers, 50.000 likes on this video alone. People are understanding and listening Sabine. Thank you for your voice.
Unfortunately, the correctness of a theory is not decided by the majority of TH-cam users and the number of subscribers.
Ditto.
I was having the same thought. There are people who are passionate about the strength of basic sciences (even if we're not qualified to be in that swim lane). We feel that you represent us!
@sarahkramer8954 The problem is that it's not enough to understand and be passionate about basics. ST folks know and understand basics much better than 1.5 million subscribers.. Oh, this is just a hypothesis)
@@ncrean66 - not disagreeing. For reference, I have a doctoral degree in a different discipline. My father had a PhD in physics back from the 1950's, which was quite rare at the time. Have another sister with a PhD in material sciences. My point is in relation to Dr. Hossenfelder's point that we need some degree of policing of the grant system for funded studies and publications. My field is in medicine, where this is rampant, and yet great research still happens (and yes, I am published).
This sort of commentary is part of the reason why I love your content so much. You have the knowledge, experience, and balance to be able to look at these papers that come out and give criticism on the branches as a whole. There are many things in physics that are theoretical in the sense that it is only mathematical and not something that can be actually applied to reality, and when these things propagate it leads to the general public having an understanding of physics that isn’t consistent with what is actual reality.
As others have pointed out, the issue is that the mathematics of physics got so hard there was an influx of mathematicians who started thinking that if something was mathematically sound it must reflect reality (of course they don’t always get the mathematically sound bit right).
Perhaps Paul Dirac can be blamed for mathematically predicting antimatter by accident and being right! If Dirac could do it, then why can’t they? One big difference is Dirac doubted his result and was reluctant to discuss it until Carl Anderson showed the existence of the positron in his cloud chamber experiments in 1932.
So we had a theoretical physicist being humble about a prediction until an experimental result demonstrated the existence of one particle that was consistent with the theory. Today we have theoreticians boldly claiming their mathematical proofs say something about reality and telling the experimentalists to hurry up and spend billions to show the world that they are right.
I’m so grateful that my undergraduate fantasy of becoming a theoretical physicist didn’t materialize and that a Ph.D. opportunity in engineering landed on my lap instead.
cannot agree more!
The problem of reification: mistaking your model (no matter how complex) for reality.
Um, this is not the issue. The mathematicians do totally different stuff and actually don't like what the physicists do. They think it's too hand-wavy and inexact, and somewhat unscientific. I'm part of that world so this is an informed comment.
It kind of feels like progress has stalled experimentally so they are instead just working on paper and assuming what works on paper must be true. But I can prove on paper that a lot of things are possible that don't reflect the real world. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it exists.
@@cheshirecat111 Boh, let's say then it is a hand-wavy description of what the f... is going on in those chambers - private or public - of all the edwardwittens and the bunch. There is a thing called mathematical physics and it seems it is more and more about "pure" mathematics while the "hand-wavy" real thing known as physics is just an annoying nuisance and frustrating road block for these genius wanna be einsteins on their way to the predetermined promised land of the unified field theory they self-righteously seem to hold keys to. Theory is sound and valid. Flaws are elsevhere!
Thank you for having courage to bringing this up Sabine. It's becoming increasingly frustrating to hear or read not needed, not useful and repeated in different context information. Thank you. Please keep up the good work.
Thank you for your rant....it's very much needed. I'm a retired, blue-collar physicist. By that I mean, I was an experimentalist working in, for that realm, high energy ion-molecule collisions; a field far from the so-called "frontier" of quantum gravity. Nonetheless, I've watched our beloved field fall into the irrelevancy that you point out. It started with fusion, and now has moved into high energy and quantum theory. I blame the money....stop funding this increasingly silly research and maybe we can get back to reality. The good news is that this period of stagnation may find someone who can break through to a new paradigm. Probably after I die.
Sabine, you can be quite frustrated with that deplorable situation. Many others share your thoughts. Please tell those physicists that they must urgently take a step back and re-examine the foundations and stop inventing new questionable ones. Bad concepts right at the start prevent physics to make great progress. Scientific research is stuck in stagnation since several decades and one way to circumvent today all these wrong paths leading to dead ends is to question the validity of our current theories and give a true chance to alternative theories which already exist. Some of them are capable to subvert completely the current paradigm. Suffice to dig into the already published papers.
I am on my journey to become one day an astrophysicist, and I always hear about these new 'theories' and 'models' that are really just extensions (trying to fix the trouble of the theory) of the same old topics. I always asked myself why it was necessary to make big mathematical riddles that couldn't be measured as observables, but I never questioned enough this since everyone seems to follow the same direction, and that's almost the only way to get into the field of academia.
I have to thank you for showing this concern and raising your voice to remind us that physics is not about how math makes our reality but the other way around, how our universe can be modeled and measured with our mathematical tools. We lose ourselves in the nature of mathematics and forget that physics is not about it. I wish one day we retake the correct path and stop wasting our time with frivolous questions.
It seems ironic to post this here, but the problem with Physics is the problem we have now with everything: Everything must be monetized. The goal is to make money, not science, and this extends to every other area. Computer Science is dominated by the creation of toys for people to play with on phones. Finance is a quagmire of invented technical terms and convoluted systems meant to be mind-boggling to the average person in order to allow specialists to dominate a field that should be much simpler. The legal system got there first by using a dead language for their technical terms and establishing procedures based on tradition rather than the actual written law. "Stare Decisis" anyone?
Funding comes from people who do not understand a technical field, so it is not necessary to be right in order to win. All one has to do is to impress the right people. Many of us have had the experience of being in a room with someone that was full of crap but had funding behind them and so ended up in charge. I've literally heard the owners of a company react to a presentation by saying that they couldn't understand most of what the presenter was saying but they could tell he was a genius.
When you use a system of rewards and penalties to guide an endeavor, you don't get what you intended, you get what you get. For example, simply making something illegal does not usually get rid of that thing. Instead it spawns a system of workarounds.
If you want a better building you need better bricks. If you want better systems, it seems we need better people.
But Sabine said that nothing is wrong with capitalism 😮😂. She's a good physicists and popularizer of science, but her take on socio-economic and political matters runs counter to what she criticizes in the management and internal politics of science.
"Everything must be monetized," if it's true, all companies and other private entities who have a plan or somewhat vision far into the future about using the research into practical applications will be chasing those researches. But instead, most of these researches are incentivized by governments that treat that research itself-any kind of research as an investment for a better society, regardless of how impractical those researches are. It goes back to the main difference between the two opposite economic systems that makes one of them always fail: there is zero accountability for the unintended consequences of the decision-makers.
How can string theory impress owners of a company that wants to monetize the research? How can anyone who wants to get a profit be impressed with some mumbo jumbo of words that explain nothing about how it will make money for them? You are contradicting yourself only to go back to make the cycle of 'doing science for the sake of science'. It seems that instead of actually criticizing the primary reason why these useless researches were done, you are instead even more on board with doing science for the sake of doing science, because science is inherently cool, awesome, impressive, and makes you look like a genius to your friends, owners of companies, policymakers, and the rest of society. You are doing it not to make it useful for other people tomorrow, next year, or in any future. You just do it because it is science, and you still want to get paid because you are doing science, not because you contribute something that other people voluntarily consider as concretely valuable. You are the kind of people that drives this useless research alive and well.
It would've been much better if you actually got paid voluntarily by people who were impressed, entertained, or interested in your work, even if your work had no possible practical application. That would be a million times more accountable than getting paid by taxpayers.
The life sciences use that same dead language why so that it is international. The system of rewards and penalties turns out to be far the most successful in bringing about advances in every other area of life. We need better people, like you for instance?
Everything you wrote tells me that there will always be a need for great salesmen! Sales is a basic skill for the human race. It is how you obtain resources from others. Whether those resources are labor, or money, or something else of value.
@@dorinpopa6962the desire of humans to improve their situation is not limited to capitalism. Capitalism simply requires agreement between the two parties. All other forms permit a third party to impose their will on other parties. But the desire to improve one’s particular situation knows no governmental bounds.
In fifth grade I was taught the scientific method: "observe, hypothesize, experiment, replicate, falsify/theorize". When I got older, and got over the visceral hatred of science books the public school system instilled me with, I began to realize that all I ever heard about were "citations" never replications. And then I dug into the politics/economics of the matter and concluded that we've fallen for essentially the same trap as the medieval church a thousand years ago. We don't value knowledge because it's true anymore, but insofar as it serves a certain ideological dogma, promotes a given political agenda (and this is true for all sides btw) or is economically lucrative.
It's not quite that dire. Certainly in some fields, and certainly in some labs, but it's not the rule. Plenty of science still occurs because scientists are curious and want answers. With some exceptions, medical research is full of people genuinely trying to solve problems and create real impact. There are ecologists that are very passionate about their fields. Even within physics, there's real stuff going on in materials science, for example. There is still plenty of science which is not touched by this sort of rot. Yet.
The reason you failed to find what you learned in school applied as such is because what you learned in school is wrong, and science has never worked this way, except maybe in very broad strokes. It makes sense that in school we learn very simplified versions of how things work.
That being said, you say you never heard about replications. Maybe because you're not really on "the inside". Labs CONSTANTLY replicate or attempt to replicate novel results. Do you remember when LK99 was announced by some lab to be a room temperature superconductor? What did labs all over the world try to do immediately? Replicate it. And they failed. That's one example. There are some fields that experience a replicability crisis, but not so much in physics.
Of course in theoretical physics you will rarely hear about replications. That's just because theoretical physics deals with theory, not experiment. The only kind of replication relevant to it is replication of calculations. That happens, it's often part of the peer review process, or sometimes after that. But you don't see it on the paper, that would be weird.
It's difficult to unlearn a thing that was cemented in your mind growing up. I'm pretty sure I'm at an age where an astronomy book I read in highschool is nearly flat out wrong today. Hubble and James Webb telescopes have demolished older assumptions on many things I was taught. But I am open to new and provable rectifications, unfortunately not everyone who sets precedents are.
@@definitelynotofficial7350 LK99 seems to be an exception, unfortunately. There are probably a couple hundred (large) companies that have an instant use for a room temperature semiconductor, even one that's only mostly functional. In a lot of fields though? A replication study won't get published and so you won't get tenure or funding. Until universities stop obsessing over number of research citations to determine which professors get hired/promoted, it's going to continue.
Bro get ready for the new witch hunts then, not euphemism real misogyny
This is why I support your YT and substack channels. Your rant is so to the point and absolutely justified. BTW, I left the academic circus (on another field) for similar reasons, a long time ago. Found world-class scientists in industry, moving things differently now, but towards the right direction.
Sabine, you are a breath of fresh air.
We need more people like you in the Sciences.
Thank you kindly for being the voice of reason.
One of the reasons I watch your channel is the fact that you don't mess around. I love the way that you point out the obvious things that most others have forgotten or lost sight of, this goes back years to when I started watching your channel. Keep up the good work, or is that keep up the fight 🤔
I like how in reaction to public outburst to a provocative video, she does another one with an even more provacative title and most importantly wearing THIS sweater. Love it
THIS. All the upvotes.
That sweater... "It's full of stars!"
Coming from a total layman with only a casual interest in physics:
It seems to me the fundamental problem for physics that might never go away again is that the process of physics used to be: experiment -> explain results with maths. But that was back when you could change the entire field of physics with an apparatus that fits on a tabletop.
Now you need to build the worlds largest machines to do experiments, so you cant just fiddle around and see what happens. The theoretical stuff has to come first, because its cheaper.
Obviously there are some exceptions, like Einsteins thought experiments, but most breakthroughs in physics began with an experiment that yeilded unexpected results.
I never studied math or science in college, but after watching your videos , I wish that I would have. Congratulations on your channel which recently has doubled in subscribers and has you streaking towards 2 million. It will happen sooner than you think. It is because you are great at what you do. There are always roadblocks and hurdles to steer clear of in every profession. I hope science prevails as it seems like some leaders have lost their direction. Love your content
Sorry for your frustration, Sabine. We appreciate you! Loved "smaller than a giraffe"! Thanks for being the voice of reason.
Whenever I see a questionable science headline I no longer click. I just say to myself "If there's anything to this Sabine will cover it."
Same
That is literally my MO as well. I see some clickbaity 'breakthrough in high temperature superconductivity' and I don't even read the thing and just wait for Sabine's evaluation and basically take that as gospel. I'm fully aware that this makes me a very lazy critical thinker, but she's been right so far on all the stuff that has later been debunked so I'm sticking with it.
Yeah, still waiting (checking ... 46 years) for plasma physics actually to create a self-sustaining fusion reaction. Billions spent, no progress yet. But we need further study... 🙄
You may still want to get information from multiple sources, before deciding which is correct.
@@gregm6652 The difference is we know fusion works, it's right above your head at your noon. We just haven't developed the technology yet to get it to work on earth (sustainably). The physics isn't the problem.
I love your rants Sabine. I'm still hopeful that someday we will have something new and interesting in physics to talk about.
You're the only one I see that brings up the things I often think about. "Truths" that are simply mathematical theories and computer simulations... that's not reality and testable.
Thanks Sabine! I hope your toothache improves. Also the physics community!
Thank you so much for your support! Toothache went away, but unfortunately now it's come back.
@@SabineHossenfelder If it doesn't go away in a little while consider talking to your doctor about gabapentin. It's something that might interact with certain medications but should be otherwise quite mild, with some side effects. No pain killers work on me due to genetic reasons and gabapentin is the only thing that helps. It doesn't turn off the pain it just makes it easier for you brain to shift your focus away from it somewhat. It's also somewhat dependence inducing so you would have to go off of it slowly after the pain is gone. Hope this helps!
@@SabineHossenfelder Physics will eventually come back as well, trust me!
@breakingbadest9772 Definitely not! For acute non-neuropathic pain this is far too big of an intervention. Especially for something like this where source control (extraction or other dental procedure) is on the cards.
"toothache improves"
"Physics is too hard for physicists"
David Hilbert
The New Way Is there a better way of doing physics that retains the best of current physics while going far beyond it? Physics is currently based on the claim - and claim it most certainly is - that physics deals with something real (let’s call that real thing “matter”, though there is no ontological definition of matter) and it can be somehow analyzed by an unreal, manmade abstraction, namely mathematics. But what happens if you accept a different assertion, one that makes mathematics not an abstraction but a concrete reality, an ontology? As soon as you make mathematics real, you cast doubt on the reality of matter. But do we need to make a definitive choice? Why not operate both systems - one based on mathematics as real, and one based on matter as real - and then try to find a way to synthesize these different views? Kant, with his transcendental idealism, sought to reconcile empiricism and rationalism. Ontics seeks to reconcile the empiricism of materialism and the rationalism of mathematics. Ontics, via ontological mathematics, gives mind a reality that is entirely absent in materialism. So, with science on the one hand and ontological mathematics on the other hand, body and soul, matter and mind can start to be brought together into a single system. Isn’t explaining mind science’s biggest challenge? Ontological mathematics provides that exact capacity! Isn’t it time for the ultimate paradigm shift? Isn’t it time for an intellectual revolution, for a true age of reason?!
***
book :
www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/ontics-the-revolutionary-new-physics-1
@@noveloutline bot
Ah but Flat Earthers have a much better understanding of physics than the physicists. As do various other trolls easily found in chats.
@@omermimran3674 Was he implying it is easy enough for mathematicians?
@@imac1957 LMAO
2:23 was refreshing to hear. I for one wouldn’t mind more of this type of emotional expression. Thanks for your videos sabine
I love how you just tell it how it is. I'm studying EE, and I can't pretend to understand what you're talking about, but I appreciate your pragmatic approach. Subbed.
Business schools repeat stuff they know is wrong because it's what business wants their employees to practice. It boils down to 2 words "money corrupts."
No one wants competition in business. You pay for the diploma, you gain the real knowledge on your own. I remember listening to a mindblowing lecture from some highly regarded university, where they claimed, I kid you not, that the average Chinese person saves up 70% of their paycheck. This was a Macroeconomics class. Think about that for a moment, of what it would mean to make economic decisions using that piece of information. The data was technically correct, but they didn't mention that a small minority of people saved up 10.000% of everyone else's paychecks (so to speak). Mathematically correct but factually WRONG numbers can bury an economy. These people are shameless.
They also repeat stuff because some economist got famous and won a prize for a theory that is at odds with reality and really only survives because you can write down the solution after making some unrealistic assumptions, but you can write down the solution and it explains *some* aspects of reality.
It helps to see the curtains get pulled back Dr H! For the rest of us non-physics folks, we cant tell what is, or is not plausible when we hear physicists talk. I was a BIG fan of String Theory till I heard you and some very few others talk about why it cant work, for instance.
Is the field heading towards, or at the wall of going as far as we can go, and scientists in physics are now just spinning in circles at the edge?
Just a quick reminder. Physics is not JUST high energy physics. There are many other fields that are producing good and testable results, but I feel a lot of comments under Sabines videos miss that point.
This is way, way above my pay-grade, but I watch Sabine regularly, and she talks alot of common sense.
It's that way not only in physics. Psychologic research (for example) has similar issues.. People repeat the same old theories and test them in "yet another setting" to publish papers that, in essence, preach to the choir. And when some researcher dares to test these theories under strict modern statistical guidelines some of these "effects" disappear and can't be reproduced. That colleague did not get to publish his finding, as reviewers reprimanded him to "not criticize the experts of the field" and rejected the paper. It's a kind of survivor's bias at this point: only people who do not care about this problem remain and flourish, while the rest drops out or gets desk-rejected out of existence. "Publish or perish" silently kills research right now and i dearly hope this will change.
Also they won't often even publish a paper if it's trying to just replicate results.
This why we shoudl seriously champion academia to use social media more.
Imagine your average instagram comment section but with actual academics, all collectively shit talking someone for a theory.
90% of the rot this world endures through, is either thorugh old people, or through the fact that we restrict criticism on certain things.
I used to think I was smart until I watched this!!!!!! There's a lot of science out there that is "settled"... Thanks, Sabine.
"it sounds superficially plausible IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT QUANTUM PHYSICS". That, folks, is the common sense that physicists need to be exposed to. Thank you, Sabine.
the complexity of their papers is just "the emperor has no clothes" the story
I don't know whether to laugh or cry about this video, but the title is no clickbait.
there's a story i once heard from a former economist about his professors nonsensical equations that had little to do with the real world. the professor replied "yes, but aren't they beautiful equations?". i'm sad to see that physics has also become a religion with numbers...
Your videos about nuclear power are spot on for the most part. Abouit the "Small modular Reactor": the technology isn't new and isn't holding back development/deployment of these for generating electricty. Nor does it raise their cost. The regulations ARE extensive, but are well understood by folks in the industry. The main hold-up and cause of nuclear power's excessive cost is the APPLICATION of these codes, regulations, and laws. Raising public opposition to sitinig a reactor is relatively easy. The delays this opposition cause is very expensive for a utility to respond to or overcome. The threat of opposition/delays in licensing significantly increase the business risk of utilizing a reactor as the heat source for a generation station. Certainly, the public should have a voice in siting a nuclear plant, but the balance of power has been so lopsided for the intervener for so long aas to choke the life out of this industry. We have no other non-carbon reliable source for generation other than large hydro, also being attacked, and nuclear. For reference, I have operated reactors and worked in the nuclear and conventionally powered generation business as an engineer/manager for over thitry years.
We have the same problem in my profession. At some point, the same tired, old arguments become so detached from reality that they inspire a rant or a shutdown. I’m sympathetic to your response. Been there, done that.
Philosopher eh?
@@foodsafari-rj3uq business is the same
@@foodsafari-rj3uq No, health care! :0
@@HighCountryStudio lmao
Oh no, we do not want you better. We want a whole series of videos like this. Such a beautiful rant.
You are absolutely right. Physics used to be about explanations of observations. And when new observation invalidated the explanations, new explanations were developed to factor in the new observations.
Once particle physics got under way the game flipped around: theories were developed abstractly and then observations sought to validate the theories. The Hicks Boson was an observation that came along after the theory to validate it, so this entirely abstract new discipline, strangely still called physics, worked in this single instance. I remember being surprised and impressed. But many more of these abstract theories have been developed and no doubt some will never achieve validating observations.
In a friendly way, I would like you to note that: You or your autocorrect changed Higgs to Hicks 🤭, second it’s not true that historically, observations preceded the explanation, Einstein special and general relativity theories were both thought experiments, which were later proved by real life experiments. 🤔Is that why Einstein never got a Nobel for them? He was awarded the prize in 1921 (given in’22) for a much less popular contribution about the photoelectric effect, which was based on observations?
Cause we already observed everything we realistically could observe without some really excessive and costly preparations. And to prepare, we need at the very least to reasonably guess, what we could even be looking for and how exactly can we observe it it.
There is nothing broken about it, we just have no other choice. Tho I agree that it got somewhat out of hand, ocassionally descending into pure fantasizing
It is scary that physics is dying. When it die - gravity and other laws would stop working, so we all fly away to space...
but how
@@nordeenhasan6030 satire
This is a great point that people need to be made aware of urgently. We should organize a Go Fund Me to encourage gravity to keep working until we can replace it with a different fundamental force.
😂😢🤔😶🌫️🥳🥳🥳🥸🤓🤡🤡🤡
@@mlthornton1 I was thinking about same thing. Good that there more people with bright minds!
This is what academic integrity looks like! I have watched your videos sporadically, but this is the first time I'm commenting to let you know just how awesome you are and how much I admire you, both in terms of knowledge and courage! Fantastic work!
Fully agreed! Perfect words, exactly what I would have said, too!
The sad story is: Academia has lost academic integrity while running after money!
@andreasslateffPersonalChannel Unfortunately, this remains one of the few unsolved issues of capitalism: shielding education and health care from free market principles, as they are not businesses per se, but more like critical tools to keep a society functional. In fact, besides national defense, education and health-care I don't want the state to get involved in anything...OK, some regulatory roles, too, and policy making.
Sabine, your candor is refreshing if not downright hilarious. I love watching your videos. Please don't stop fighting the good fight.
I think the confrontational approach is healthy. Keep up the good work. Glad you're angry. Stand your ground. It's healthy.
I love your channel. And I have to admit that any conversation about this subject in physics raises my ire as well. Back in 1999 when I was in Berlin at a conference (my first peer reviewed paper for an international conference). Several of my colleagues spoke and read German so we went to a local used book store to pick up something. I found a book on string theory published in English on a table with a couple of dozen other books in English. I read it during our trip and on the flights home. I thought it was kind of far-fetched. I've never been a fan of the mathematics driving theory. But, not to be a block-head, I thought, well, it might be interesting to see how this develops over the next few decades. It hasn't been very interesting. Unfortunately, I've misplaced the book so I can't prove it, but I'm fairly sure it accurately sums up the state of the theory today. Please keep up the good work!
Don’t understand 75% of what you say, but I hear your passion loud and clear. The net of what I understand you saying is that though I have attempted to keep up with modern physics-being generally interested in what is real and not real-there’s little for me to keep up with as the waters of physics just keep circling the drain. Thanks. I thought my confused not understanding was just me.
It was all correct as far as my PhD in theoretical physics can tell me.
Maybe someday someone will be able to explain it.
Right now, Dr Hossenfelder is your best bet. Just keep watching her videos.
I can confirm the giraffe part 😂
Basically people made up stuff that sounds plausible but they can't proof and might as well be nonsense. They claim future research will prove them right. The problem is, after 40 years of doing that, when do they think this magical future and/or evidence will arrive?
Your professional no-nonsense opinion is so refreshing! Keep it going, Sabine!
As a PhD in Electrical Engineering, whose work focused on practical side of EM simulations, I could never stand empty derivations for the sake of math exercise.
Nothing pisses people off more than exposing the truth they want to hide, then its deny, deflect and accuse. The politicians motto. Well done Sabine.
Physics is not my area of study, but there are times I wonder... isn't creating a theory that cannot be proved or disproved the holy grail of the publishing racket? Maybe the next introduction of a theoretical physicist should be replaced with 'professional writer'.
They don't have to be right or wrong in todays sad system - they just need to keep royalties flowing, and maybe glean a grant or two as a result.
I don't hear a rant. I hear cold, hard truth being spoken. You deserve a Nobel prize just for that.
I had a math professor once, a very talented Geometer, when I was undergrad. He did work in multiple fields, including string theory. He was always very quick to emphasize that string theory is math, not physics. He said, 'Could be physics someday, but not anytime soon. It is very much only theoretical math.'
Then it was a fraud. If I make Math about a new planet and never look for it, it's fraudulent
I think string theory is hilarious. Mainly because it makes me think of undies. I'm not a physicist though.
@@TheTH-camUser69 G-string theory.
Thanks Sabine for a great video. For context, I’m an astrophysicist and an observer. I think the onus is on theoreticians like Carlos to help us understand their wonderfully complicated (or “elegant”) theories, and to collaborate with us to craft meaningful tests. We, as observers, design, build and operate huge facilities to extremely high tolerances and requirements, and our success relies on everyone doing their part, including theoreticians. There’s a class of theoretician who thinks it’s au fait to regard observations and experiments as “details” and observers as less than, while it’s precisely their job and role to present their science as a series of predictions and tests. This sort of practice and behaviour is unethical, and I’m afraid that it’s rampant in modern astrophysics.
As a non-academic taxpayer my share is paying for multi-billion dollar projects that all seem to be buried deep underground or under Antarctic ice.
I have wondered how many animal species could be saved and how many square kilometres of ocean floor could be mapped for the expense of one expedition to Mars or one mega super collider in Switzerland.
I am all for scientific discovery but don't know why it all has to be so theoretical.
You didn't build the facility, labourers did that for you. Humility goes a long way.
Very good video (once again)! Thanks for that.
As long as physics is populated by mathematicians and not physicists, I don't think much will change. It is very significant that Edward Witten received the Fields Medal and not the Nobel Prize in Physics.
From Newton's death to Einstein's birth was 1879 - 1727 = 152 years. Calculated from Einstein's death, we can hope that there will be a new physics in the year 2100 (approximately). Too late for me, anyway.
Well, a bit much to expect a full paradigm shift every other decade or so. And let's not forget that "physics is dead" is what supposedly his teachers told Max Planck - and he, at the time, was content sweeping out the dirt in the corners - only to stumble onto a door that people hadn't opened yet.
New Physics were around 100 years ago, they just ridiculed it when it proved all of them wrong. Nikola Tesla is where this all started in modern times mate.