Sabine is correct. ROI is important in any decision on what to fund. Bigger colliders are offering little in the way of guarantees on what will be found and/or how that could lead to applied benefits.
In 2020, China graduated 1.38 million engineers. India graduated 1.2 million. In the same year, the US graduated 198,000 engineers + software developers. Moreover, 20% of US degrees are in business. After adding law, you can see how we've abandoned STEM for the black arts of management. Scientific literacy is necessary, and as a (now retired) scientist, I think this is a mistake.
My understanding is that not all those engineers graduated in China are real engineers. Chinese universities get more government money for engineering graduates, so universities will misclassify degrees. Having said that, they are still graduating hundreds of thousands of actual engineering graduates each year, so you point stands.
More engeneurs does not mean better research. First, of all engeneurs are not scientists and second there are not more jobs just because you give everybody a degree. Recently I even saw a school for "facility management" In the past for cleaning the yard you did not need a degree.
@@maritaschweizer1117 A fair point, but having spent 14y doing post-graduate work in 2 different disciplines, I'm not suggesting that engineers are research scientists. But in my experience, they are scientifically literate, which is a plus for society. As for "facility management" degrees, we're equally guilty e.g. "business" degrees in the hospitality industry, which often amounts to training desk clerks for hotels.
@@HarryNicNicholas do you ever wonder why sabine is a fringe physicist who almost nobody in her field agrees with? her explanation is that instead of scientific reasons it's because everybody else bases their work on 'beauty'. but have you ever asked yourself what would be the probability of getting funding based on 'beauty' instead of hard physics? it is zero. NO one has ever got funding based on 'beauty'.
Sabine is one of my favorite minds of today. Along with Sean Carroll, I find these two worthy of their criticisms and their support of theories. Sabine has a great sense of humor, and that is something to be said about a top mind, as it shows invention and understanding and a window into truth. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
I think ultimately we will get more from Wolfram's type of approach but yeah Sabine is essentially antiestablishment, which is the only way science will advance given the bog it's in now.
@@m4inlineit is easy to spend other people money. Most academic scientists do not think a second how hard it is to earn the money in the first step. I really love to research but I founded an own company that can finance my hobby.
Despite being rather polite, the tension during this conversation was palpable. I really wish Gavin could concede at least one of Sabine's points regarding how a bigger collider is not a good investment, YET. There is really no disagreement fundamentally, it is a matter of what is the best of money right now. All physicists like bigger colliders, more energy is always more fun. It would be great to spend some of that money and brain power trying to understand wavefunction collapse, consciousness, quantum computing, etc. Go back to a collider when we have room temperature superconductors at least.
You do have to understand that by Gavin admitting some of Sabine’s points, he’s discrediting the entire particle physics community’s decades old claim: particle physics is the hope. Many, if not all, particle physicists were drawn to the field because they thought that it would lead to the ultimate theory. If they admit that the collider is somewhat futile, then their decades old belief is somewhat disproven, making their career choice a grave mistake. And one needs immense courage to admit one’s mistake, so generally, people justify their mistakes as a worthwhile investment. I’m not suggesting that the entire particle physics community is evil or Gavin has evil intentions, but that this is a very human thing. I personally am leaned towards Sabine, when it comes to allocations of resources, but I also understand why Gavin has to be a bit stiff. I could go on as to points, where Gavin shows a typical pattern of a person who is sticking on to a concept to avoid admitting his or her mistake, but that would be unnecessary and long, so I digress.
I felt the tension. Sabine seemed to be avoiding looking at Gavin. They didn't want to talk about money, but really that's what underlies all physics, as we know.
They smash things and it breaks apart. Under that premise. They will aways find something falls off, until the theorized speed of light is achieved. So they will always want a new collider. Because the speed of light can allegedly only be achieved by light. Any minor increase in the particles speed will be sought after. Like chasing the land speed record. No one has concluded that the current record holder won't be broken. So someone will build something and will want crazy money to do so.
As a non-physicist who's interested in it, there are three areas in the fundamentals which need more research: - the measurement problem in quantum mechanics: how can we experimentally probe it? - quantization of gravity (and will this give insight into the dark matter hypothesis) - what on earth is up with neutrino masses?
An important argument that is missing in my poiny of view is the following. It is about the scale at which we extend the energy range of our experiments. We may extende de range by a factor of 2 or 3 or maybe 10 (hugely expensive). That may sound like a lot. However, energy scale we are probing is not at all close to the natural scale for particle physics, which is the Planck scale (10^28eV(. This is about 20 orders of magnitude higher than the scale we currently probe physics on. So in that respect this is a puny extension of the search range. The fact that we have discovered all kinds of particles in this extremely low energy range (compared to the planck scale) is because all the particles we have seen so far are fundamentally massless particles. The only reason they have mass is because of their interaction with the Higgs field. But there is no guarantee or even indication that we should find further particles in this range. And extending our search to the full range would require building an accelerator as large as the galaxy. So this is a fundamentally hopeless pursuit.
Me too. When the Super-Conducting Super-Collider got cancelled, I had a pretty pissy attitude about it. Today, I think it was the right call. If you can't tell me coherently what you expect to get out of it that is worth $8 billion, you shouldn't get one. Those fat paychecks and ski trips in Europe don't pay for themselves, of course they want another particle collider. The LHC is a total bust, that's why the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson was fabricated. The Standard Model should've been proven a couple of colliders ago, if anything it's been disproven even though these particle physicists cling to it. At this point, particle physics is a religion and the whole field needs to be de-funded, they haven't done anything worthwhile in 40 years.
I've been following Sabine on YT for some time so I knew about her stance on new colliders but since I'm no expert on the matter, I didn't want to form my opinion based on an opinion of a single person. So when I saw this video, I started watching it thinking maybe I'll hear some good counterargument as to why it's not such a bad idea as Sabine makes it. Instead, I'm now completely on Sabine's side only thanks to Gavin.
A good investment has a return on that investment. And a newer bigger collider has an unknown return on investment. I'm with Sabine on this one. I am convinced we can do better than the standard model.
@shootproof7080 😂Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. It's her informal uniform. She must have really liked it and bought several. So sensible!
I would agree with Sabine more. While Gavin might be right about theoretical discoveries, what is not theoretical is the money / the funding in real life, which is unfortunatelly limited. Sabine doesn't disagree with Gavin - she rather says that we have to prioritize where we put this limited money to at the moment, and she is right saying that. The bigger colliders are built with the intention to test specific theories which have already been made up and if these are wrong, we won't find anything. It is a limited / narrow path of discoveries in science, where Sabine proposes a broader, more general path in my opinion.
I for one am OK about considering fundamental particles some kind of "faeries". At the very least it may help to teach physics to kids and also entice their interest in science as the most powerful "magic" there actually is.
I have developed this excellent system. It is consistent, complete, and virtually self descriptive. One small problem, its unavoidable lack of mutual information prevents me from describing, making predictions, or otherwise applying it.
They all know the model is severely flawed. They don't allow themselves to say it. They never want the jig to be up. That's why you have heard about 95% of the universe is dark matter. That's how far off they are in their misunderstandings. They are 95% fraudulent. It's very embarrassing no one must say a word, after all these are the very best worshiped minds of the human race, the hero nerds, those who are to be held in the utmost esteem by the dumb rabble. If that level of embarrassment ever came forth, holding their heads in shame would be their new lifetime occupations. Thus the truth is covered up.
If the only way to go forward in physics is higher energies, physics is at its end. Science will not end, because physics is not everything (even if physicists like to think so). But as humans we can not afford to go to higher energies, the costs in Ressource (money and people) is much too high. Especially as the expected outcome for humankind is minuscule compared to the effort. I think there are other ways to go forward in physics except higher energies. Physics has simply to go for it.
Notice how we never get a single explanation or example of some great discovery at CERN ? They claimed "they found" the higgs boson but they never did. What they did do is declare success right before they ran out of money and right before they finished searching all the possible energy levels. In other words they found it in the very last place they had to officially look, right as they were running out of funding. When I watched the director make the announcement to the internal crew the obviousness of the fraud was 100% present. He issued a caution and warning, giving a heads up, asking for a permission of backing, noting they were going to go for it. Everyone was on notice. It was supremely pathetic.
"Plasma Wakefield Accelerators have the potential to be significantly more efficient than Circular Accelerators. They can achieve high acceleration gradients, accelerating particles over shorter distances. PWFA could generate tens of billions of electron volts per meter-about 1000 times more acceleration potential per length of accelerator-by using plasma wakefields."
We don't know about dark matter. We just have observation that we can not explain out from our current, confirmed, theories. Dark Matter is a just hypothesis that might expain the observations. But is no more than a hypothesis untill it actually turns up.
And it's likely to be primeval black holes anyhow, because we don't know about the reality of Hawking radiation either (it's a mere theoretical construct based on very partial physics and lots of assumptions). PS: it's not a hypothesis anyhow, WIMP dark matter is a hypothesis but dark matter is an observational fact.
I am a scientist. In my field, when a model doesn't explain the observed data we don't hold onto the model and invent and name new phenomena. We test new models that will explain the repeatable observation. Instead of spending LITERALLY billions trying to find evidence of something defined a priori as unobservable, maybe that money should be better distributed to test new theories that challenge old, inadequate theories. But WTF do I know?
For almost a hundred years physicists have been excusing their existence by pretending they solved The Cosmological Constant, even though they haven't. They sure have written a lot of peer-reviewed papers though. It only took 1 year of James Webb Telescope for astronomers to start rethinking their theories because they found galaxies that shouldn't exist. The difference is, they found something.
Pro’s and Cons of points of views in particles study in physics.. Gavin Salam For building a bigger collider: Energy off the scale: on the Higg’s boson in depth. Gavin,Has a more like Star in a jar concept compressing the Sun into a container box..examining the additional new partial interaction under higher energies applied .. Sabine Hossenfelder I would be more inclined in study the results from this Collider data and experiments to understand the anomalies, we do not understand, before you go forward building a bigger collider. Invest more money in the Lab experiments first.. Overall this was a get couple clips on the adventure of understanding of particle physics to everyone interested. Thank you all who participated. 😎🗝✝️🙏🏼🇺🇸
Gavin is skirting around the cost and resource issues, whereas Sabine understands the physics and economics go hand in hand, specially when talking about a project that will cost every bit of $50 bill euros if not more. The scale of the future collider will be an order of magnitude bigger than the LHC in every aspect, so it's not just a case of 'more of the same' mentality Gavin is promoting. If this is his best effort in convincing the science community as to why a bigger collider is necessary, good luck convincing the bean counters!
Agreed. If you're going to put $50 billion Euros into a project, you damn well better get $50 billion Euros worth of scientific knowledge and advancement out of it. What did we get out of LHC? The "discovery" of the Higgs Boson that was probably faked (hell of a coincidence that it happened right around budget- appropriation time and media was asking pointed questions like "Was this worth it?" and "What are we getting out of this?"). The people in charge of the LHC should be in jail.
I value this so much. Sometimes I wake up and wonder, was it a theoretical particle, physicist, OR a theoretical, particle physicist? OR a particular theory 😂
@@flying-seagull I think the point is we don’t know, the math and model is a representation of thing happening rather than physical object. So we are not finding smaller and smaller grains of sand.
The problem in all of this is the "incorrect human paradigm" that places any context to the problem. This incorrect human paradigm was solidified over the top of Albert Einsteins internal psychological awareness of what we call relativity. I won't assert that Einstein had it 100% perfectly correct in his mind, but he was most definitely on the correct path of thought, and I believe he could clearly understand the problem. Unfortunately there are certain assumptions that could not be avoided at the time and those assumptions still persist to this day. As well as that I feel the deeper underlying "context" of relativity that Einstein had in his mind was lost in the geometry and math created by Minkowski and other surrounding "more authoritative" paradigms of the day. The paradigm was lost and even Albert struggled to find the original context in what was created of his mental awareness. > It requires a close investigation of the paradigm of what "Space-time" is, and make no mistake there are a number of similar but incompatible paradigms. The geometry and the math for each may appear similar and even appear quite functional up to a point at the extremes, but they are very different. Changing this paradigm may not inherently break the human geometry or math that we use to describe it but the underlying "Context" may change somewhat. For example: Why do we persist with a theory that suggests traveling backward in time is somehow common place when no evidence or even the slightest hint of this possibility has ever existed? This is just one of many clues as to where the human paradigm has lead itself astray on the true nature of relativity. It's not easy to see and conceptualize what Albert had in his mind and it takes a lot of effort to find that paradigm. We are subjective creatures so it is difficult to put our own subjective realities to the side and look from an alternative paradigm, but with some education, training and understanding it can be done. > My notes as I watched the video: Thanks for the great discussion.
Hmm I see Sabine's point, but truly we don't know what we will find at higher energies. Are we making use of what has been discovered by the LHC? Or are we simply accumulating data points to flesh out our model? What will a future collider be able to grant us in practical terms?
Sabine explained in her book 'Lost in Math' in 2018, that math predicts no new ground breaking discoveries til you build a collider with a diameter of the galaxy.
If China pay for the bigger boat I am fine. But they are not as stupid to publish everything. I invest myself a lot in research but keep it within the company.
Since dark matter is defined as matter that does not interfere with ordinary matter, other than via gravity, what would be the point of using ordinary matter collisions to study dark matter?
I believe, the idea is that ordinary matter is converted direct to energy, and that energy could create dark matter. Imagine you had a collision where the particles literally vanished, with seemingly no production of resultant matter. This would hint towards the creation of some particle which does not interact with ordinary matter - i.e. dark matter. Particle physicists suggest these may have a minimum mass, and those masses (when converted to energy) are just not within the bounds that the LHC can provide. Of course, to Sabine's point here, there is no guarantee that a bigger LHC will be able to be within these bounds either. A bigger LHC is just a shot in the dark, and a hope to be within the required bounds.
@@Sancarn this hope is a postulate that the mass of these hypothetical dark matter particles is heavy (they might as well be very light), and/or that all the conditions required to create these phantom particles are met.
Also consider what happened with the SSC. When I was in school particle physics was quite popular because we were going to learn all these new things, and everyone would get a job with the SSC. Then congress not only cancelled it (when costs kept soaring, and what it could do kept shrinking) and of course went too far and reduced our participation in other efforts like the accelerators at CERN. We ended up with particle physicists teaching high school science or waiting tables - or a bit later and worst of all - working in quantitative finance. This business of attracting bright people in physics and math departments the world over to focus in a particular area based on a newer bigger collider is a real effect and acts over decades. This is yet another thing that must be properly and realistically considered when making a decision.
How about looking in ultra low energies? Most of the universe is more or less empty. Average density of the universe is virtually zero. (almost) Zero density => low energy. To find high energy dark matter out in the space will not happen. There simply is nothing there that can have any high energy. Though I, as an engineer, wolud like a new, fat, collider mostly from an engineering point of view 🙂
I just finished......... (Is it particle physics or a fairytale? PART 2), and not once did I here a suggestion toward continuing an investigating how particles themselves might be made of finitely smaller discrete structural (pieces). I've ask this question since 1965 and feel that the concept (of the real structure of matter) be made of just one discrete form times multiples makeup all of what we understand everything to be. I don't see anything as being complex..........only simple.... answers questions.
So what keeps bosons apart in a Higgs field? Are they just forced out of a wave of something else, surviving on their own only for an instant? Maybe more Sabine stories and fewer dead bosons on the prairie?
At 21:35 Sabine says, "we have a lot of those niggly bits". Amazing. This was the attitude just before theories like quantum, special and general relativity revolutionized everything. So, perhaps we are at a similar point now. Just when we think that we have things figured out, a whole new understanding is born. Of course, the real driver behind that revolution early in the 20th century was driven primarily by theory, not experiment. People were thinking that string theory might be that new understanding, but it has turned out to be a dead end. It really was a dreamed-up creation, not really driven by anything fundamental.
1:48 “Searching Generically” how does that work when the data reduction process is mostly only looking for rather specific particle candidates that have been mostly “preselected for” ‽ I guess that there is always “luck”! AND supersymmetry search was a massive failure, but if we only had the next bigger multi-billion euro toy we can enjoy more employment. 2:32 Bigger collider “guarantees a new discovery”, BUT possibly the discovery of “ruling out any new discoveries” at those energy levels!! Money well spent ‽
CERN Data Centre used to process on average one petabyte (one million gigabytes) of data per day during LHC Run 2. They use signaling process where 99.9% of data is discarded as noise . Same with Hubble and Planck telescope is where not clear how you decide what is background noise comes form Earth Water is very good microwave absorber and emitter and what is form outer space. It is same example with old captains story of mega-wave high as 30 meters, such event where all small waves positively interfere to get mega-wave is very rare but if you think in small area of 10km^2 are billions of waves and that very rare event in 50 years period over stormy day it can happen, thus "old Captains" are not liars it can happen. But same thing can happen to particles physics to get perfect energy spike of expected Higgs particle or another "expected" particles just can happen because it is billion of collision per second over long time period.
If you had a dim flashlight in a large dark field, no pun intended, it seems logical that a brighter flaslight would be better. Practicality or precedence are separate issues that seem more situational or time dependant imho
The question isn't "would a brighter flashlight be better?" but "how much does it cost and what can we expect to see with it?" If you could spend a billion dollars on a flashlight that would be marginally brighter and let you see another 1 foot, maybe that's a good idea, or maybe you should go back to the drawing board and maybe it will turn out you could build a sonar system for a million dollars that will give way more information. With a billion dollars you could build 1000 such projects and maybe make much more progress than sinking all your resources into a single apparatus that you have no strong priors to think will actually find anything.
I'm shocked that particles as perturbations in quantum fields in space wasn't discussed. And if the quantum vacuum of empty space is expanding exponentially, perhaps it should be considered that that is what the universe and all its particles are structured to do.
11:5 honestly, I don’t understand what we would get for 80billion dollars worth of collider, and how that can possibly compete with the many other things that money can bring us. What is the return on investment?
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on. The rhyme
Yes, about the "New Physics." Clearly it is not predictable on the grounds of the Standard Model, otherwise it wouldn't be "New Physics." To discover it we need a new accelerator the parameters of which would reach far beyond the instruments of today. As the instrument is being constructed which will take decades, we should focus on new accelerator technology, extracting data from cosmic rays, and clever use of existing instruments, if only to give us the glimpse of what may be expected beyond our present day reach.
Attracting some more people to the field is not a remotely relevant argument for a 40 billion dollar project, especially when it seems like said field needs to reorient itself and may be effectively outdated.
As a tax payer I say *no collider*. * That's enough.* We are deep into national debts, there's inflation, we're getting poorer. You don't get to take our money for your little hobby that 99% of physicists don't care about. I'd rather we give half the money to the rest of underfunded research.
I think fundamental physics research is in danger, and that's part of Sabine's worry. We're in a position where politically, science is down graded, to the extent that a lot of people are anti-science. We also have some severe social and environmental problems brewing. This restrains the reasources available, and there's a danger that we'll see the failed predictions of particle physics (super-symmertry, no sign of dark matter, etc) being used against research funding, especially when asking for billions of dollars in funding. The prestige of finding the Higgs particle us wearing off.
Think Beyond Einstein: " Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source". There lots of new findings waiting for...
Now Ive seen all that money going to wars, Id say make 10 such colliders with an obligation to investigate non-mainstream models and theories and making the research transparent and as open source as possible, so that it benefits not only particle physics hegemony but interested citizens as well.
If all we have is a Hammer, then everything starts to look like different forms of nails ? The smaller the "nail" is, the bigger the HAMMER will be needed, and the more $ we need to throw at the "nail" ?
This. 100% this. I agree with Sabine that more fundamental research can be done in quantum theory and quantum information theory, not to mention cosmology. It breaks my heart that Roger Penrose has been encountering such difficult getting the experiments done that he needs done to test Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
So the argument boils down to how much effort, time, and resources should be expended on chasing every little question someone comes up with, no matter how practical it may seem, or do we invest more into questions that we know have immense meaning to our understanding of the universe? To those who want to explore their own tiny little question they came up with, I say "Do it on your own dime" and let the adults drive physics forward by exploring the big practical questions.
Well done including a philosopher to point at the woo :) For a moment there, I thought physicists had taken a break from calculating and had started thinking! To such as us, it is painfully clear that physicists have been ignoring their rather obvious paradigm problem. Data-fitting is pursued with vigour, and "understanding" has been delegated to the philosophy which established the problematic paradigm in the first place. Consider the progress made by those physicists who's reading lists extended Eastward … Then, imagine what they could have accomplished if they had the necessary Eastern philosophical basics to understand what they were reading! Here's a hint which should sort most of this out, Bjørn … Just swap the fiction of "time" for the fact of the Moment, and invert Atomism. Escaping the gargantuan woo-mountain physicsts have built on Aristotle's mistakes is far more liberating than was escaping the far less problematic Crystal Sphere woo of Geocentricsm :)
@@FunFindsYT I would expect a discovery like anti gravity to be specific, which would advance humanity tremendously. However, they must first describe how it could work before trying to look for another particle that does nothing for all of humanity. I'm not in favor giving some scientist a Nobel while the rest of humanity gains nothing from it that makes their life better.
Sabine, there is also the question, are we discovering, or are we creating? Are we making things with our giant, toy collider that don't exist in nature, so they don't exist for anything over ten nanoseconds?
Proposal for funds to go in space exploration of fundamental physics, possibly, New Physics. For example, the Equivalence Principle was inadequately tested by the STEP satellite measurements. Correct experimental measurements should involve a "free fall" between planets, as proposed in "Section 23.2.4 Interplanetary testing of falling speeds: Effect of shape, direction and contraction factor" on page 165, version v20, in the draft book entitled "Novel quantitative push gravity/field theory poised for verification" (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3596184). Also, lunar and terrestrial experiments to measure the universal acceleration as proposed in Section "12 On PG measurements and verification" page 30 in the same work.
How did we come up with particle physics in the first place? The particles represent both space-restriced entities (Fermions) and force-FIELDS (bosons). And yet they are treated exactly the same, using the same quantum formula. Looking in all experiments of particle physics, I have not seen any real evidence for the existence of bosons. It is always a field. So why did we start with particles in the first place? Because the people involved believed in force-particles. And projected that believe into the experiments. The particle idea is also where all quantum magic comes from. And if there is "magic", there may be something wrong with the whole idea. Photons were first seen as "bullets" that shoot away "electrons-balls" from an atom. Only later we realized that the electrons are not even at one single place or time. We also did not know about how electron-shells have certain resonance frequencies. The "quantum-jumps" can easily be replaced with thresholds that initially have random values. It was Planck's first hypothesis lost in history, because he assumed zero starting values. And because he believed in light particles, like most people. With well designed experiments we can see that with a single "photon", the "quantum-jumps" can appear at "random" places at the same time. Or no place at all. That is because the light-energy transfers to all places, following the conservation of energy and momentum. When reaching enough energy, the "quantum jump" can take place. But that simply means that an energy threshold has been reached. (youtube videos by Eric Reiter have full details on these experiments) Getting rid of force-particles, also removes of layers of very complex mathematics, which were invented to compensate for this mistake. The thresholds also gives us insight in how place-restricted entities (fermions) work. They have somehow similar rules. Are they entities independent of the force-fields? Or are they made up of the same fields on some way? They could just be the connection between 2 different force-fields. Whatever this is, it is scientific progress. It can be tested with well designed experiments. And it is far simpler. With Occam's razor, we get rid of all quantum magic.
The word "physics" says it all. It assumes a physical material reality. Where cause and effect can only be explained by particles hitting particles. And the hit itself needs to consist out of particles that hit particles and so on. However you using the word "magic" for real life observations in QM isn't any better.
@daanschone1548 there is magic in all QM. The "particles" are not physical. The collapse of the wavefunctiion magically causes their existence. To compensate for most cases they also added virtual particles. In practice there is no particle that gives a force. It is always a field. The particles are just there for visualisation. And it confuses people into thinking that forces are like bullets flying around.
@@zyxzevn but what do you mean by magic? I interpret it as something that is fantasy. And yes indeed, the particles not really being something physical is what I mean.
@@daanschone1548 I use "magic" for the things that are invisible but are meant to explain something. More magic, more likely the theory is wrong. Generally this magic is often very ill-defined. In this definition, the virtual photons are high level magic. The photons themselves are weird magic, as no photon can exist unless it is detected. The photon also has no defined size. The interpretations of QM have their own magic, like multiple worlds or super determinism. Even the "collapse" of the wave function should be considered magic. In the end it is just a word with no clear physical meaning. To determine whether this "magic" exists, there should be repeatable experiments. And Eric Reiter showed that the photon does not exist in various experiments. It is just energy spreading equally. And that this pattern is already visible in all experiments as "noise". Instead of "magic" the alternative is an hidden energy state. Which is something we can also detect in super conductors.
@@zyxzevn realize that according to your definition the entire field of particle physics is magic. For example nucleair power is magic. Nobody can see a nucleus, nobody can see radiation. We don't really know how an atom "looks". We only have models, mostly made of a mixture of math and indirect measurement.
Question: if something is to be built with public money, then why does a group of scientists decide what's important to me? How come that I don't have a say?
You can't ask people. They're dumb as bricks. They don't even know how their fridge work, nor do they even want to know. You're going to ask the people what to do with advanced physics? HAHAHA If you had scientists expose and explain their wishes, this'll only turn into "who's the most charismatic and best liar wins" aka politics. Influencers like Sabine or others have to steer public opinion in a direction , and makes things popular or unpopular and politicians will follow. If the idea of spending 100 billion of OUR money into another useless collider is unpopular enough, politicians will say no. As they should.
Is dark matter an unidentified cohesive force not yet detected and more a boundary between dimensions?? That may not be seen from our dimension but some how like corridors inter -dimensional barriers…peering downward or upward in ripples of energy only appears when resonance is exact?
17:19 "Whatever we find our current account will still be a good description for a lot of things that we have found..." No sir, not necessarily true. What if we find something new that is at odds with our current understanding? Are we going to try to make that new discovery fit into our mold of thought?
Sadly both scientists are right; Salam indirectly hints at part of the problem; just have the public cough up MORE money! And all the scientific experiments can be tried! However, this would eventually prove to be very expensive. Sabine is realistic; While the world may seem a rich place,, ONLY so much money will ever be donated to science in practicality, therefore experimentation must conform to the budgetary restraints....She mentions the best answer I think, why not try some other things in physics, then go back to the colliders when scientific knowledge expands, and tech brings down costs of experimenting.
@vincentrusso4332 Gee, I thought they were going around in circles. It could have been shorter in my view. I felt like they answered the same question many times.
No, they predicted to find micromized extra dimensions to verify string theory, they didn't find it in the LHC. They predicted to find susy-particles to verify supersymmetry and eventually DM, they didn't find it in the LHC.
Einstein said long time ago that " mankind and the universe are in a race ; mankind is trying to build bigger, better, faster and more foolproof machines ; the universe is trying to build bigger, better and faster fools. So far, the universe is winning". Can the human species know everything about nature and the universe ? If yes, then what does the human species intend to do with the knowledge ? Reinvent the universe ? or better still replace NATURE ? Is the ultimate human right the right not to be human, but something bigger than NATURE ? Science without philosophy leads to bad outcomes.😅
Dark matter is also Ball lightning or evaporating Axion knots compressed by the same Axion vacuum pressure. (Or Casimir pressure. ) see Q.FFF THEORY. 5:48
A bigger collider will be a good investment for the companies paid to build it. It will be a good investment for the scientists who will get lots of science jobs. What would the rest of us, the people expected to pay for it, get out of it?
"... we have known about dark matter for, maybe, 90 years ... and people have looked, and looked ..." - 'known about' and looking without finding means it is really just a belief.
That's correct. That's why the cosmological constant was mostly a curiosity outside of the steady state crowd which needed it to create a steady state model. Steady state doesn't agree with basically any observation that has been made on the universe, so the cosmological constant is kind of useless until you get to the precision cosmology stage, which really didn't happen until the 1990s. :-)
Nah, Sabina is great, I like her views on science. But she is more of a influencer at this point. Curie made some really breakthrough discoveries on the other hand.
Wait a second, a ring around the planet, or a few times around, is bound to be the practical or impractical limit to the velocity available to crack atoms open. Provided that’s where they are. But aren’t there higher energy levels being exerted now, and doing that already? Haven’t you got detectors or measurable events or processes that can be witnesses at a distance? You have to contain the collision within the detector, rather than seeing what already happened a billion years distant?
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Sabine is correct. ROI is important in any decision on what to fund. Bigger colliders are offering little in the way of guarantees on what will be found and/or how that could lead to applied benefits.
In 2020, China graduated 1.38 million engineers. India graduated 1.2 million. In the same year, the US graduated 198,000 engineers + software developers. Moreover, 20% of US degrees are in business. After adding law, you can see how we've abandoned STEM for the black arts of management. Scientific literacy is necessary, and as a (now retired) scientist, I think this is a mistake.
My understanding is that not all those engineers graduated in China are real engineers. Chinese universities get more government money for engineering graduates, so universities will misclassify degrees. Having said that, they are still graduating hundreds of thousands of actual engineering graduates each year, so you point stands.
More engeneurs does not mean better research. First, of all engeneurs are not scientists and second there are not more jobs just because you give everybody a degree. Recently I even saw a school for "facility management" In the past for cleaning the yard you did not need a degree.
@@maritaschweizer1117 A fair point, but having spent 14y doing post-graduate work in 2 different disciplines, I'm not suggesting that engineers are research scientists. But in my experience, they are scientifically literate, which is a plus for society. As for "facility management" degrees, we're equally guilty e.g. "business" degrees in the hospitality industry, which often amounts to training desk clerks for hotels.
It would be more accurate to depict the numbers as percentages of the population. America doesn't have 1.5 billion people.
@Skank_and_Gutterboy Even is you calculate the figures per capita, than the USA has still only half as much engenieurs.
Sabine : How large should be your particle collider??
Particle physicists : YES.
Theory: Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism.
...said no physicist ever, but it never stopped sabine claiming so.
@@babstra55 well they are still asking for money for bigger ones😂
@@babstra55 lol, sabine steal you girlfriend?
@@HarryNicNicholas do you ever wonder why sabine is a fringe physicist who almost nobody in her field agrees with? her explanation is that instead of scientific reasons it's because everybody else bases their work on 'beauty'. but have you ever asked yourself what would be the probability of getting funding based on 'beauty' instead of hard physics? it is zero. NO one has ever got funding based on 'beauty'.
Sabine is one of my favorite minds of today. Along with Sean Carroll, I find these two worthy of their criticisms and their support of theories. Sabine has a great sense of humor, and that is something to be said about a top mind, as it shows invention and understanding and a window into truth. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love
"Einstein again? Yes that guy.?"
I think ultimately we will get more from Wolfram's type of approach but yeah Sabine is essentially antiestablishment, which is the only way science will advance given the bog it's in now.
It’s always easier to criticise an idea or theory than to think of a new one and share it with others.
Indeed. Only grouse with Sean is his unabashed support for the many worlds interpretation with all the consequent contortions required
@@m4inlineit is easy to spend other people money. Most academic scientists do not think a second how hard it is to earn the money in the first step. I really love to research but I founded an own company that can finance my hobby.
Despite being rather polite, the tension during this conversation was palpable. I really wish Gavin could concede at least one of Sabine's points regarding how a bigger collider is not a good investment, YET. There is really no disagreement fundamentally, it is a matter of what is the best of money right now. All physicists like bigger colliders, more energy is always more fun. It would be great to spend some of that money and brain power trying to understand wavefunction collapse, consciousness, quantum computing, etc. Go back to a collider when we have room temperature superconductors at least.
You do have to understand that by Gavin admitting some of Sabine’s points, he’s discrediting the entire particle physics community’s decades old claim: particle physics is the hope. Many, if not all, particle physicists were drawn to the field because they thought that it would lead to the ultimate theory. If they admit that the collider is somewhat futile, then their decades old belief is somewhat disproven, making their career choice a grave mistake. And one needs immense courage to admit one’s mistake, so generally, people justify their mistakes as a worthwhile investment.
I’m not suggesting that the entire particle physics community is evil or Gavin has evil intentions, but that this is a very human thing. I personally am leaned towards Sabine, when it comes to allocations of resources, but I also understand why Gavin has to be a bit stiff. I could go on as to points, where Gavin shows a typical pattern of a person who is sticking on to a concept to avoid admitting his or her mistake, but that would be unnecessary and long, so I digress.
I felt the tension. Sabine seemed to be avoiding looking at Gavin. They didn't want to talk about money, but really that's what underlies all physics, as we know.
They smash things and it breaks apart. Under that premise. They will aways find something falls off, until the theorized speed of light is achieved. So they will always want a new collider. Because the speed of light can allegedly only be achieved by light. Any minor increase in the particles speed will be sought after. Like chasing the land speed record. No one has concluded that the current record holder won't be broken. So someone will build something and will want crazy money to do so.
Yeah Gavin was listening with his mouth lol.
As a non-physicist who's interested in it, there are three areas in the fundamentals which need more research:
- the measurement problem in quantum mechanics: how can we experimentally probe it?
- quantization of gravity (and will this give insight into the dark matter hypothesis)
- what on earth is up with neutrino masses?
An important argument that is missing in my poiny of view is the following.
It is about the scale at which we extend the energy range of our experiments. We may extende de range by a factor of 2 or 3 or maybe 10 (hugely expensive). That may sound like a lot. However, energy scale we are probing is not at all close to the natural scale for particle physics, which is the Planck scale (10^28eV(. This is about 20 orders of magnitude higher than the scale we currently probe physics on. So in that respect this is a puny extension of the search range. The fact that we have discovered all kinds of particles in this extremely low energy range (compared to the planck scale) is because all the particles we have seen so far are fundamentally massless particles. The only reason they have mass is because of their interaction with the Higgs field. But there is no guarantee or even indication that we should find further particles in this range. And extending our search to the full range would require building an accelerator as large as the galaxy. So this is a fundamentally hopeless pursuit.
... using this specific method.
There, finished the sentence for you.
Gavin actually conviced me that a new particle collider is NOT a good investment
If China pay for it I'm fine.
Me too. When the Super-Conducting Super-Collider got cancelled, I had a pretty pissy attitude about it. Today, I think it was the right call. If you can't tell me coherently what you expect to get out of it that is worth $8 billion, you shouldn't get one. Those fat paychecks and ski trips in Europe don't pay for themselves, of course they want another particle collider. The LHC is a total bust, that's why the "discovery" of the Higgs Boson was fabricated. The Standard Model should've been proven a couple of colliders ago, if anything it's been disproven even though these particle physicists cling to it. At this point, particle physics is a religion and the whole field needs to be de-funded, they haven't done anything worthwhile in 40 years.
I've been following Sabine on YT for some time so I knew about her stance on new colliders but since I'm no expert on the matter, I didn't want to form my opinion based on an opinion of a single person. So when I saw this video, I started watching it thinking maybe I'll hear some good counterargument as to why it's not such a bad idea as Sabine makes it. Instead, I'm now completely on Sabine's side only thanks to Gavin.
A good investment has a return on that investment. And a newer bigger collider has an unknown return on investment. I'm with Sabine on this one. I am convinced we can do better than the standard model.
Demonology.
The question is though how you value the return of investment.
I just have a high school education. But always try and learn a bit. I always notice when sabine talks she silences a room.
It's her powerful shirt.
@shootproof7080
😂Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. It's her informal uniform. She must have really liked it and bought several. So sensible!
It’s not a good thing to hang your hat on for a woman to have one shirt. She’s a mature particle physicist, not an Incel.
I don’t know if you are talking about this video or not but the room was silent for all speakers.
@@TheEduInitiative yes.
I would agree with Sabine more. While Gavin might be right about theoretical discoveries, what is not theoretical is the money / the funding in real life, which is unfortunatelly limited. Sabine doesn't disagree with Gavin - she rather says that we have to prioritize where we put this limited money to at the moment, and she is right saying that. The bigger colliders are built with the intention to test specific theories which have already been made up and if these are wrong, we won't find anything. It is a limited / narrow path of discoveries in science, where Sabine proposes a broader, more general path in my opinion.
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
Diminishing returns vs theories of wave-particles or wave-resonances theories.
I wish political discussions were as cultivated as this one.
That requires both sides are educated and honest; in the maga world, lying and being stupid is a requirement.
I for one am OK about considering fundamental particles some kind of "faeries". At the very least it may help to teach physics to kids and also entice their interest in science as the most powerful "magic" there actually is.
I have developed this excellent system. It is consistent, complete, and virtually self descriptive. One small problem, its unavoidable lack of mutual information prevents me from describing, making predictions, or otherwise applying it.
i watch sabine almost every day
So the possibility is that there is a flaw to the model rather than trying to find the particles.
They all know the model is severely flawed. They don't allow themselves to say it. They never want the jig to be up. That's why you have heard about 95% of the universe is dark matter. That's how far off they are in their misunderstandings. They are 95% fraudulent. It's very embarrassing no one must say a word, after all these are the very best worshiped minds of the human race, the hero nerds, those who are to be held in the utmost esteem by the dumb rabble. If that level of embarrassment ever came forth, holding their heads in shame would be their new lifetime occupations. Thus the truth is covered up.
If the only way to go forward in physics is higher energies, physics is at its end. Science will not end, because physics is not everything (even if physicists like to think so).
But as humans we can not afford to go to higher energies, the costs in Ressource (money and people) is much too high. Especially as the expected outcome for humankind is minuscule compared to the effort.
I think there are other ways to go forward in physics except higher energies. Physics has simply to go for it.
Notice how we never get a single explanation or example of some great discovery at CERN ? They claimed "they found" the higgs boson but they never did. What they did do is declare success right before they ran out of money and right before they finished searching all the possible energy levels. In other words they found it in the very last place they had to officially look, right as they were running out of funding. When I watched the director make the announcement to the internal crew the obviousness of the fraud was 100% present. He issued a caution and warning, giving a heads up, asking for a permission of backing, noting they were going to go for it. Everyone was on notice. It was supremely pathetic.
How about develop a testable theory? That is the fundamental problem now, there has been just about zero successful work on this, despite huge effort.
If you want to pay for it, you go for it.
"Plasma Wakefield Accelerators have the potential to be significantly more efficient than Circular Accelerators. They can achieve high acceleration gradients, accelerating particles over shorter distances. PWFA could generate tens of billions of electron volts per meter-about 1000 times more acceleration potential per length of accelerator-by using plasma wakefields."
@@thelvadam5269 I think the quote was the replay from Chat GPT or Bing Copilot.
We don't know about dark matter. We just have observation that we can not explain out from our current, confirmed, theories. Dark Matter is a just hypothesis that might expain the observations. But is no more than a hypothesis untill it actually turns up.
And it's likely to be primeval black holes anyhow, because we don't know about the reality of Hawking radiation either (it's a mere theoretical construct based on very partial physics and lots of assumptions).
PS: it's not a hypothesis anyhow, WIMP dark matter is a hypothesis but dark matter is an observational fact.
I am a scientist. In my field, when a model doesn't explain the observed data we don't hold onto the model and invent and name new phenomena. We test new models that will explain the repeatable observation. Instead of spending LITERALLY billions trying to find evidence of something defined a priori as unobservable, maybe that money should be better distributed to test new theories that challenge old, inadequate theories. But WTF do I know?
@@DESOUSAB Aye. That's what science actually is meant to be.
As Bjørn Ekeberg pointed out, dark matter is not even really a hypothesis, it's just a convenient name for a huge gap in the model.
@@LuisAldamiz Black holes as dark matter? Didn't they ruled this option out?
Sabine is all about efficiency and fast progress. I like her train of thought and her solid logic!
For almost a hundred years physicists have been excusing their existence by pretending they solved The Cosmological Constant, even though they haven't. They sure have written a lot of peer-reviewed papers though.
It only took 1 year of James Webb Telescope for astronomers to start rethinking their theories because they found galaxies that shouldn't exist. The difference is, they found something.
Pro’s and Cons of points of views in particles study in physics..
Gavin Salam
For building a bigger collider:
Energy off the scale: on the Higg’s boson in depth.
Gavin,Has a more like Star in a jar concept compressing the Sun into a container box..examining the additional new partial interaction under higher energies applied ..
Sabine Hossenfelder
I would be more inclined in study the results from this Collider data and experiments to understand the anomalies, we do not understand, before you go forward building a bigger collider. Invest more money in the Lab experiments first..
Overall this was a get couple clips on the adventure of understanding of particle physics to everyone interested.
Thank you all who participated. 😎🗝✝️🙏🏼🇺🇸
Love that pink shirt a lot
In research, there are really only two questions:
1. What do you want?
2. How much money do you have?
Jamie Lannister knows a lot about physics these days
Losing one had focused his mind
Gavin is skirting around the cost and resource issues, whereas Sabine understands the physics and economics go hand in hand, specially when talking about a project that will cost every bit of $50 bill euros if not more. The scale of the future collider will be an order of magnitude bigger than the LHC in every aspect, so it's not just a case of 'more of the same' mentality Gavin is promoting. If this is his best effort in convincing the science community as to why a bigger collider is necessary, good luck convincing the bean counters!
Agreed. If you're going to put $50 billion Euros into a project, you damn well better get $50 billion Euros worth of scientific knowledge and advancement out of it. What did we get out of LHC? The "discovery" of the Higgs Boson that was probably faked (hell of a coincidence that it happened right around budget- appropriation time and media was asking pointed questions like "Was this worth it?" and "What are we getting out of this?"). The people in charge of the LHC should be in jail.
I value this so much. Sometimes I wake up and wonder, was it a theoretical particle, physicist, OR a theoretical, particle physicist? OR a particular theory 😂
I still don't understand what particles are.
@@flying-seagull I think the point is we don’t know, the math and model is a representation of thing happening rather than physical object. So we are not finding smaller and smaller grains of sand.
The problem in all of this is the "incorrect human paradigm" that places any context to the problem. This incorrect human paradigm was solidified over the top of Albert Einsteins internal psychological awareness of what we call relativity. I won't assert that Einstein had it 100% perfectly correct in his mind, but he was most definitely on the correct path of thought, and I believe he could clearly understand the problem. Unfortunately there are certain assumptions that could not be avoided at the time and those assumptions still persist to this day. As well as that I feel the deeper underlying "context" of relativity that Einstein had in his mind was lost in the geometry and math created by Minkowski and other surrounding "more authoritative" paradigms of the day. The paradigm was lost and even Albert struggled to find the original context in what was created of his mental awareness.
>
It requires a close investigation of the paradigm of what "Space-time" is, and make no mistake there are a number of similar but incompatible paradigms. The geometry and the math for each may appear similar and even appear quite functional up to a point at the extremes, but they are very different. Changing this paradigm may not inherently break the human geometry or math that we use to describe it but the underlying "Context" may change somewhat.
For example: Why do we persist with a theory that suggests traveling backward in time is somehow common place when no evidence or even the slightest hint of this possibility has ever existed? This is just one of many clues as to where the human paradigm has lead itself astray on the true nature of relativity.
It's not easy to see and conceptualize what Albert had in his mind and it takes a lot of effort to find that paradigm. We are subjective creatures so it is difficult to put our own subjective realities to the side and look from an alternative paradigm, but with some education, training and understanding it can be done.
>
My notes as I watched the video:
Thanks for the great discussion.
Interesting take.
Hmm I see Sabine's point, but truly we don't know what we will find at higher energies. Are we making use of what has been discovered by the LHC? Or are we simply accumulating data points to flesh out our model? What will a future collider be able to grant us in practical terms?
Sabine explained in her book 'Lost in Math' in 2018, that math predicts no new ground breaking discoveries til you build a collider with a diameter of the galaxy.
Physics is going to need a bigger boat.
Thank you
If China pay for the bigger boat I am fine. But they are not as stupid to publish everything. I invest myself a lot in research but keep it within the company.
Since dark matter is defined as matter that does not interfere with ordinary matter, other than via gravity, what would be the point of using ordinary matter collisions to study dark matter?
I believe, the idea is that ordinary matter is converted direct to energy, and that energy could create dark matter. Imagine you had a collision where the particles literally vanished, with seemingly no production of resultant matter. This would hint towards the creation of some particle which does not interact with ordinary matter - i.e. dark matter.
Particle physicists suggest these may have a minimum mass, and those masses (when converted to energy) are just not within the bounds that the LHC can provide. Of course, to Sabine's point here, there is no guarantee that a bigger LHC will be able to be within these bounds either. A bigger LHC is just a shot in the dark, and a hope to be within the required bounds.
@@Sancarnno, particles disapear all the time and this is never a hint for dark matter.
@@Sancarn this hope is a postulate that the mass of these hypothetical dark matter particles is heavy (they might as well be very light), and/or that all the conditions required to create these phantom particles are met.
@@SerGio-xs9ss indeed, as I said, there is no guarantee and it is only a hypothesis (as far as I know), but this isnt my field 🤷
They are so civilized, I love it!
Also consider what happened with the SSC. When I was in school particle physics was quite popular because we were going to learn all these new things, and everyone would get a job with the SSC. Then congress not only cancelled it (when costs kept soaring, and what it could do kept shrinking) and of course went too far and reduced our participation in other efforts like the accelerators at CERN. We ended up with particle physicists teaching high school science or waiting tables - or a bit later and worst of all - working in quantitative finance. This business of attracting bright people in physics and math departments the world over to focus in a particular area based on a newer bigger collider is a real effect and acts over decades. This is yet another thing that must be properly and realistically considered when making a decision.
Maybe that's an outsider's scifi channel look at high energy physics, but that is not what happened. :-)
How about looking in ultra low energies? Most of the universe is more or less empty. Average density of the universe is virtually zero. (almost) Zero density => low energy. To find high energy dark matter out in the space will not happen. There simply is nothing there that can have any high energy. Though I, as an engineer, wolud like a new, fat, collider mostly from an engineering point of view 🙂
I just finished......... (Is it particle physics or a fairytale? PART 2), and not once did I here a suggestion toward continuing an investigating how particles themselves might be made of finitely smaller discrete structural (pieces). I've ask this question since 1965 and feel that the concept (of the real structure of matter) be made of just one discrete form times multiples makeup all of what we understand everything to be. I don't see anything as being complex..........only simple.... answers questions.
What is important is subjective, but it is our joint subjectivity which is in play here, just as it us our joint resouces which are to be allocated.
Sabine Hossenfelder is marvelous, her ideas and communication style is pure gold.
So what keeps bosons apart in a Higgs field? Are they just forced out of a wave of something else, surviving on their own only for an instant? Maybe more Sabine stories and fewer dead bosons on the prairie?
Maybe a flaw is in our approach is the idea that we have the mental ability to grasp and interpret the evidence in front of us is trying to tell us.
At 21:35 Sabine says, "we have a lot of those niggly bits". Amazing. This was the attitude just before theories like quantum, special and general relativity revolutionized everything. So, perhaps we are at a similar point now. Just when we think that we have things figured out, a whole new understanding is born.
Of course, the real driver behind that revolution early in the 20th century was driven primarily by theory, not experiment. People were thinking that string theory might be that new understanding, but it has turned out to be a dead end. It really was a dreamed-up creation, not really driven by anything fundamental.
This is a debate about the economics of research. At some point building a bigger collider isn't going to be deemed just too expensive.
1:48 “Searching Generically” how does that work when the data reduction process is mostly only looking for rather specific particle candidates that have been mostly “preselected for” ‽ I guess that there is always “luck”! AND supersymmetry search was a massive failure, but if we only had the next bigger multi-billion euro toy we can enjoy more employment.
2:32 Bigger collider “guarantees a new discovery”, BUT possibly the discovery of “ruling out any new discoveries” at those energy levels!! Money well spent ‽
CERN Data Centre used to process on average one petabyte (one million gigabytes) of data per day during LHC Run 2. They use signaling process where 99.9% of data is discarded as noise . Same with Hubble and Planck telescope is where not clear how you decide what is background noise comes form Earth Water is very good microwave absorber and emitter and what is form outer space.
It is same example with old captains story of mega-wave high as 30 meters, such event where all small waves positively interfere to get mega-wave is very rare but if you think in small area of 10km^2 are billions of waves and that very rare event in 50 years period over stormy day it can happen, thus "old Captains" are not liars it can happen. But same thing can happen to particles physics to get perfect energy spike of expected Higgs particle or another "expected" particles just can happen because it is billion of collision per second over long time period.
If you had a dim flashlight in a large dark field, no pun intended, it seems logical that a brighter flaslight would be better. Practicality or precedence are separate issues that seem more situational or time dependant imho
The question isn't "would a brighter flashlight be better?" but "how much does it cost and what can we expect to see with it?" If you could spend a billion dollars on a flashlight that would be marginally brighter and let you see another 1 foot, maybe that's a good idea, or maybe you should go back to the drawing board and maybe it will turn out you could build a sonar system for a million dollars that will give way more information. With a billion dollars you could build 1000 such projects and maybe make much more progress than sinking all your resources into a single apparatus that you have no strong priors to think will actually find anything.
I'm shocked that particles as perturbations in quantum fields in space wasn't discussed. And if the quantum vacuum of empty space is expanding exponentially, perhaps it should be considered that that is what the universe and all its particles are structured to do.
11:5 honestly, I don’t understand what we would get for 80billion dollars worth of collider, and how that can possibly compete with the many other things that money can bring us. What is the return on investment?
I think collaborating globally than locally will bring about groundbreaking discoveries in science
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
The rhyme
Yes, about the "New Physics." Clearly it is not predictable on the grounds of the Standard Model, otherwise it wouldn't be "New Physics." To discover it we need a new accelerator the parameters of which would reach far beyond the instruments of today. As the instrument is being constructed which will take decades, we should focus on new accelerator technology, extracting data from cosmic rays, and clever use of existing instruments, if only to give us the glimpse of what may be expected beyond our present day reach.
Attracting some more people to the field is not a remotely relevant argument for a 40 billion dollar project, especially when it seems like said field needs to reorient itself and may be effectively outdated.
comment - deftly moderated ... moving between different opinions/interests Thx
As a tax payer I say *no collider*.
* That's enough.*
We are deep into national debts, there's inflation, we're getting poorer. You don't get to take our money for your little hobby that 99% of physicists don't care about. I'd rather we give half the money to the rest of underfunded research.
I think fundamental physics research is in danger, and that's part of Sabine's worry.
We're in a position where politically, science is down graded, to the extent that a lot of people are anti-science.
We also have some severe social and environmental problems brewing.
This restrains the reasources available, and there's a danger that we'll see the failed predictions of particle physics (super-symmertry, no sign of dark matter, etc) being used against research funding, especially when asking for billions of dollars in funding. The prestige of finding the Higgs particle us wearing off.
Think Beyond Einstein: " Energy can be created only when the applied force is the inherent property of the source". There lots of new findings waiting for...
The variable speed of light eliminates the need for dark matter.
Now Ive seen all that money going to wars, Id say make 10 such colliders with an obligation to investigate non-mainstream models and theories and making the research transparent and as open source as possible, so that it benefits not only particle physics hegemony but interested citizens as well.
If all we have is a Hammer, then everything starts to look like different forms of nails ?
The smaller the "nail" is, the bigger the HAMMER will be needed, and the more $ we need to throw at the "nail" ?
This. 100% this.
I agree with Sabine that more fundamental research can be done in quantum theory and quantum information theory, not to mention cosmology. It breaks my heart that Roger Penrose has been encountering such difficult getting the experiments done that he needs done to test Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
6:18 maybe you can make a more powerful collider that isn’t a bigger or even a new different collider
How big do you want the next collider to be?
“As big as possible.”
Well, that’s a blank check.
Anyone else get the vibe that Gavin Salam speaks like a snakeoil salesman trying to rope us into buying his next multitrillion euro collider?
Oh really? Cosmic Collider est. cost is 3/4 billion.
Almost as bad as string theorists lol.
I'd be curious to see what would happen if particle physicists would explore the Structured Atomic Model.
7:17 i think you could argue that the majority of human discovery has been more by accident than design.
Half of it was discovered in a vacuum tube.
So the argument boils down to how much effort, time, and resources should be expended on chasing every little question someone comes up with, no matter how practical it may seem, or do we invest more into questions that we know have immense meaning to our understanding of the universe?
To those who want to explore their own tiny little question they came up with, I say "Do it on your own dime" and let the adults drive physics forward by exploring the big practical questions.
Well done including a philosopher to point at the woo :)
For a moment there, I thought physicists had taken a break from calculating and had started thinking!
To such as us, it is painfully clear that physicists have been ignoring their rather obvious paradigm problem.
Data-fitting is pursued with vigour, and "understanding" has been delegated to the philosophy which established the problematic paradigm in the first place.
Consider the progress made by those physicists who's reading lists extended Eastward …
Then, imagine what they could have accomplished if they had the necessary Eastern philosophical basics to understand what they were reading!
Here's a hint which should sort most of this out, Bjørn … Just swap the fiction of "time" for the fact of the Moment, and invert Atomism.
Escaping the gargantuan woo-mountain physicsts have built on Aristotle's mistakes is far more liberating than was escaping the far less problematic Crystal Sphere woo of Geocentricsm :)
Assuming they have discovered all the particles imaginable, how specifically would that improve the living standard of humanity?
Particle physics is very important in our understanding of the world, which can advance us in fields like medicine and technology
@@FunFindsYT I would expect a discovery like anti gravity to be specific, which would advance humanity tremendously. However, they must first describe how it could work before trying to look for another particle that does nothing for all of humanity.
I'm not in favor giving some scientist a Nobel while the rest of humanity gains nothing from it that makes their life better.
Buddha to physicists: "I keep pointing to the Moon, you keep staring at my finger "
Sabine, there is also the question, are we discovering, or are we creating? Are we making things with our giant, toy collider that don't exist in nature, so they don't exist for anything over ten nanoseconds?
Great video ❤️
Somehow I have a feeling mass isn't understood by all of the experts used to teach. Better luck next time.
16:00 "trickle down" physics
Proposal for funds to go in space exploration of fundamental physics, possibly, New Physics. For example, the Equivalence Principle was inadequately tested by the STEP satellite measurements. Correct experimental measurements should involve a "free fall" between planets, as proposed in "Section 23.2.4 Interplanetary testing of falling speeds: Effect of shape, direction and contraction factor" on page 165, version v20, in the draft book entitled "Novel quantitative push gravity/field theory poised for verification" (doi:10.5281/zenodo.3596184). Also, lunar and terrestrial experiments to measure the universal acceleration as proposed in Section "12 On PG measurements and verification" page 30 in the same work.
How did we come up with particle physics in the first place? The particles represent both space-restriced entities (Fermions) and force-FIELDS (bosons). And yet they are treated exactly the same, using the same quantum formula.
Looking in all experiments of particle physics, I have not seen any real evidence for the existence of bosons. It is always a field. So why did we start with particles in the first place? Because the people involved believed in force-particles. And projected that believe into the experiments. The particle idea is also where all quantum magic comes from. And if there is "magic", there may be something wrong with the whole idea.
Photons were first seen as "bullets" that shoot away "electrons-balls" from an atom. Only later we realized that the electrons are not even at one single place or time. We also did not know about how electron-shells have certain resonance frequencies.
The "quantum-jumps" can easily be replaced with thresholds that initially have random values. It was Planck's first hypothesis lost in history, because he assumed zero starting values. And because he believed in light particles, like most people.
With well designed experiments we can see that with a single "photon", the "quantum-jumps" can appear at "random" places at the same time. Or no place at all. That is because the light-energy transfers to all places, following the conservation of energy and momentum. When reaching enough energy, the "quantum jump" can take place. But that simply means that an energy threshold has been reached. (youtube videos by Eric Reiter have full details on these experiments)
Getting rid of force-particles, also removes of layers of very complex mathematics, which were invented to compensate for this mistake.
The thresholds also gives us insight in how place-restricted entities (fermions) work. They have somehow similar rules. Are they entities independent of the force-fields? Or are they made up of the same fields on some way? They could just be the connection between 2 different force-fields.
Whatever this is, it is scientific progress. It can be tested with well designed experiments. And it is far simpler. With Occam's razor, we get rid of all quantum magic.
The word "physics" says it all. It assumes a physical material reality. Where cause and effect can only be explained by particles hitting particles. And the hit itself needs to consist out of particles that hit particles and so on.
However you using the word "magic" for real life observations in QM isn't any better.
@daanschone1548 there is magic in all QM. The "particles" are not physical. The collapse of the wavefunctiion magically causes their existence. To compensate for most cases they also added virtual particles.
In practice there is no particle that gives a force. It is always a field.
The particles are just there for visualisation. And it confuses people into thinking that forces are like bullets flying around.
@@zyxzevn but what do you mean by magic? I interpret it as something that is fantasy. And yes indeed, the particles not really being something physical is what I mean.
@@daanschone1548 I use "magic" for the things that are invisible but are meant to explain something. More magic, more likely the theory is wrong. Generally this magic is often very ill-defined.
In this definition, the virtual photons are high level magic. The photons themselves are weird magic, as no photon can exist unless it is detected. The photon also has no defined size. The interpretations of QM have their own magic, like multiple worlds or super determinism.
Even the "collapse" of the wave function should be considered magic. In the end it is just a word with no clear physical meaning.
To determine whether this "magic" exists, there should be repeatable experiments. And Eric Reiter showed that the photon does not exist in various experiments. It is just energy spreading equally. And that this pattern is already visible in all experiments as "noise".
Instead of "magic" the alternative is an hidden energy state. Which is something we can also detect in super conductors.
@@zyxzevn realize that according to your definition the entire field of particle physics is magic. For example nucleair power is magic. Nobody can see a nucleus, nobody can see radiation. We don't really know how an atom "looks". We only have models, mostly made of a mixture of math and indirect measurement.
Any chance you could just loop the thing around in a coil a few thousand times inside your lab? Do you really have to span counties and countries?
That "looping" is hoe accelerators work
I think it's because of synchrotron radiation. The smaller the circle the greater the parasitic radiation and vise versa.
Whats up with the music in background on almost every video ?
A dramatic lack of imagination and creativity
Who says size is not important?
India?
Question: if something is to be built with public money, then why does a group of scientists decide what's important to me? How come that I don't have a say?
You can't ask people. They're dumb as bricks. They don't even know how their fridge work, nor do they even want to know. You're going to ask the people what to do with advanced physics? HAHAHA
If you had scientists expose and explain their wishes, this'll only turn into "who's the most charismatic and best liar wins" aka politics.
Influencers like Sabine or others have to steer public opinion in a direction , and makes things popular or unpopular and politicians will follow.
If the idea of spending 100 billion of OUR money into another useless collider is unpopular enough, politicians will say no. As they should.
Is dark matter an unidentified cohesive force not yet detected and more a boundary between dimensions?? That may not be seen from our dimension but some how like corridors inter -dimensional barriers…peering downward or upward in ripples of energy only appears when resonance is exact?
The problem with quantum mechanics is quantum mechanics
I was saying this,no trace of dark energy, or dark matter,what it is to fill in for unexplainable answers,they can't explain it
everyone has that one comfy shirt they wear all the time
I just hope she changes her underwear more often
Ave Sabine!
We have to look for Sasquatch, it is science. I guarantee a discovery. We might be able to show he isn't where we looked.
17:19 "Whatever we find our current account will still be a good description for a lot of things that we have found..."
No sir, not necessarily true. What if we find something new that is at odds with our current understanding? Are we going to try to make that new discovery fit into our mold of thought?
"For a lot of things". Not everything.
Sabine needs a bigger role in governmental science to help us stop wasting money
She'll waste it on so called environmental issues.
Sadly both scientists are right; Salam indirectly hints at part of the problem; just have the public cough up MORE money! And all the scientific experiments can be tried! However, this would eventually prove to be very expensive.
Sabine is realistic; While the world may seem a rich place,, ONLY so much money will ever be donated to science in practicality, therefore experimentation must conform to the budgetary restraints....She mentions the best answer I think, why not try some other things in physics, then go back to the colliders when scientific knowledge expands, and tech brings down costs of experimenting.
Could've done with a few more hours of that discussion...
@vincentrusso4332 Gee, I thought they were going around in circles. It could have been shorter in my view. I felt like they answered the same question many times.
The collider was built to find one particle. They found the Higgs boson. Done.
No, they predicted to find micromized extra dimensions to verify string theory, they didn't find it in the LHC. They predicted to find susy-particles to verify supersymmetry and eventually DM, they didn't find it in the LHC.
Einstein said long time ago
that " mankind and the universe are in a race ;
mankind is trying to build
bigger, better, faster and more foolproof machines ;
the universe is trying to build bigger, better and faster fools.
So far, the universe is winning".
Can the human species know everything about nature and the universe ?
If yes, then what does the human species intend to do with the knowledge ?
Reinvent the universe ?
or better still replace NATURE ?
Is the ultimate human right
the right not to be human, but something bigger than NATURE ?
Science without philosophy leads to bad outcomes.😅
WHAT’s too much to spend on a collider?..
Dark matter is also Ball lightning or evaporating Axion knots compressed by the same Axion vacuum pressure. (Or Casimir pressure. ) see Q.FFF THEORY. 5:48
A bigger collider will be a good investment for the companies paid to build it. It will be a good investment for the scientists who will get lots of science jobs. What would the rest of us, the people expected to pay for it, get out of it?
"... we have known about dark matter for, maybe, 90 years ... and people have looked, and looked ..." - 'known about' and looking without finding means it is really just a belief.
That's correct. That's why the cosmological constant was mostly a curiosity outside of the steady state crowd which needed it to create a steady state model. Steady state doesn't agree with basically any observation that has been made on the universe, so the cosmological constant is kind of useless until you get to the precision cosmology stage, which really didn't happen until the 1990s. :-)
Sabina mam is second Marie Curie of this planetary environment.
Nah, Sabina is great, I like her views on science. But she is more of a influencer at this point. Curie made some really breakthrough discoveries on the other hand.
True,there are no particles.suggest you check out Plato's cave allegory
i'd really like to discuss this :|
need closed line
Wait a second, a ring around the planet, or a few times around, is bound to be the practical or impractical limit to the velocity available to crack atoms open. Provided that’s where they are. But aren’t there higher energy levels being exerted now, and doing that already?
Haven’t you got detectors or measurable events or processes that can be witnesses at a distance? You have to contain the collision within the detector, rather than seeing what already happened a billion years distant?