Physicists need to learn from their mistakes | Sabine Hossenfelder
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Sabine Hossenfelder explains why physicists have mistakes to learn from.
For more from Sabine Hossenfelder, watch iai.tv/video/p...
In this interview, Sabine Hossenfelder details why the foundations of physics has not made any progress, why physicists need to learn from their mistakes, why they're practicing poor science and investigates the inconsistencies in some of our preassumed theories of physics.
#SabineHossenfelder #physics #science
Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicists who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and is known for being critical of physicists' commitment to 'beauty' in their theories.
Visit IAI.tv for our full library of debates, talks, articles and podcasts from international thought leaders and world-class academics.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...
What do you think of this interview? Leave a comment below.
For more from Sabine Hossenfelder, visit iai.tv/video/physics-doesnt-have-to-be-pretty-sabine-hossenfelder?RUclips&
Sweet kid. I only hope her organization skills of creation in instruments and filtering are as good as her sticking to what's accepted as physics which in some parts she's realized some of the old boys are off.
She is wonderful. I am in awe of her intellect and her dedication to share, with us, the results of her prodigious effort.
14:02 “I think that I should do something to spread the knowledge” and boy are we fortunate that is so!
I deeply appreciate Sabine's candor and straightforwardness, as well as her dedication to genuinely advancing scientific understanding. It's often the case that science communicators will use their knowledge and the opacity of their jargon to put forward ideas without addressing their shortcomings or acknowledging their assumptions, and it's led to a gamut of charlatans who posit ridiculous claims using the same obfuscatory language. It's deeply refreshing to hear from someone who is genuinely passionate about the topic and about spreading understanding.
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is an amazing person. Her views are brave. More thinkers like her are needed. Hopefully she is getting the required encouragement to continue.
Agreed!
Though I don't think she needs the encouragement.... she seems to have more than enough self-motivation.
She started demeaning the exploration of ideas. That's amazing to you?
@@ga35am peer review is an essential part of science. If you can't take being scrutinized, stay out of science. You are wrong. Learn from it.
@@ga35am " modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Many passengers would rather have stayed home" Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot.
@@justinrahn4720 hahahaha. Why dafuq are you invoking peer review? I didn't say anything against that. Am I wrong? For what? Are you crazy? If you insist that peer review have something to do with the video or my comment, I have to say that what Dr. Hossenfelder said is against peer review, obviously. I mean, she laughed saying theories are wrong without giving any valid reason. What an opinion in favor of peer review, huh? Hahahaha.
I love this woman, she needs a larger audience
Let’s substitute the word “woman” with the word “person”.
@@melgross let's not.
@@the_hanged_clown let’s. If it were a man, would you really have said that you love that man? Would that have made you feel squeamish? Do you think that Sabine would prefer to be referred as “that woman”? Or don’t you care?
@@melgross no I'd have said I love this dude. don't put words my mouth you don't fuqin know me. let's not. quite frankly I doubt she'd care even half as much as you do.
@@the_hanged_clown Well said. Enough of these virtue signalling speech police.🤪
Sabine is awsome!! I admire her more and more.
@Joe Duke You want me to respond that? Sorry but no!
she's always interesting
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is consistent WITH F=ma AND E=mc2, as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. So, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy; as this balances AND unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. In other words, GRAVITATIONAL force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is proven. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
She is knowingly and deceitfully lying about physics.
@@frankdimeglio8216 meth kids... not even once
Honest, humble and unbiased. Dr. Sabine is a real scientist.
WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY:
Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is consistent WITH F=ma AND E=mc2, as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. So, inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy; as this balances AND unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. In other words, GRAVITATIONAL force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy IS gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. It is proven. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY.
By Frank DiMeglio
She is knowingly lying about physics.
She's knowingly lying.
@@frankdimeglio8216 you're here again, spouting your copy-pasted comments from one video to another relating to Sabine, do you want attention that badly?
I love the way she's willing to discuss the dark matters of physics.
don't exclude "white matter".....;P
@@s.muller8688
So, white matter lives too?
Thank the heavens for you Sabine and other scientists and staff that make these regular contributions of sciences to us the semi scientific literate public.
Immanuel Kant answered some of these questions many years ago:-
Space & time are both noumenal objects or objects of the mind "A priori" -- Immanuel Kant, The critique of pure reason. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Synthetic a priori knowledge == space/time -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- Time duality.
The future is dual to the past, we remember the past and predict the future -- Time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- Time duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Absolute space is dual to relative space -- space duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out (x,y,z) -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I hope that one day, in the not too distant future, we will be treated to a discussion between Sabine and Sean Carroll.
That would be something!
That’s like combining matter and antimatter
i wrote the same in both the channels of the two..I still hope and I am glad someone else shares my hopes
Fabulous thought
Yes, that would be very interesting. Please somebody, set it up :)
Sean Carroll has a podcast - perhaps he could get her on this podcast.
I commend Dr. Hossenfelder for her critical outlook that seeks to learn from the mistakes of physics, of which there have been many.
Immanuel Kant answered some of these questions many years ago:-
Space & time are both noumenal objects or objects of the mind "A priori" -- Immanuel Kant, The critique of pure reason. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Synthetic a priori knowledge == space/time -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- Time duality.
The future is dual to the past, we remember the past and predict the future -- Time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- Time duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Absolute space is dual to relative space -- space duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out (x,y,z) -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
what is a mistake?
This interviewer is great, short and to the point!
Thank you Sabine! We need physicists like you!
Thanks for the frankness, now l don’t feel so alone.
Doctor H reminds us that peer review is an essential part of the scientific method.
I enjoy watching her cut lofty theories down.
...nowadays. science is much older than the concept of peer reviews.
@@fast1nakus im not sure what you mean.
I am sure you know the Scientific Method involves a hypothesis (or a question followed by a hypothesis) having to be tested objectively with methods and results recorded meticulously and then must be subject to repitition.
This repetition is a key part of the Scientific Method and represents both the original experimenter's continued research (a good exparement raises new questions, suggests new experiments) and the replies, if you will, from other experimenters.
Part of what makes science objective is that anyone anywhere should be able to repeat a given measurement.
I do not mean to be rude, but I suppose I disagree completely.
@@justinrahn4720 I do know that.
What I meant is that scientific methods were developed in 17ish centurie. Also peer reviews were "invented" by one particular guy and have multiple problems nowadays.
Doesn't mean people didn't do science before 17th century, it was just a different kind of science.
Also also, I bet my pinky that in XXish years, when we have quantum computing and stuff, the process of science will change in the way we can't even imagine right now. Just look at the world 1k years ago.
Even nowadays, the fields of science have become so incredibly narrow and deep, they are small bubble universe's where outsiders have nothing to say.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just trying to provide alternative view with some nuances
@@fast1nakusinteresting. You make a fair point.
Science may change in the future, i suppose. I think if we made a big break in Quantum computing the main change will be that a lot of computers will sift very quickly through data that humans have accumulated and begin making interesting findings pretty quickly involving connections we may not have thought to put together.
On that day, I think scientists would still argue about the results and about the conditions of the experiment and the way the machine was put together...
When I think of early scientists I don't suppose they were secluded becuse they wanted to be. I think they would have liked to teach widely their findings and engage in debate as we do, were it not for the threat of persecution.
I think science is better with peer review, and i really doubt its going anywhere. Your notions of futurism intrigue me. How do you envision our future with quantum computing? I have my fingers crossed for fusion-energy to take off
Sabine is spot on. I was in a colloquium in Austin in the mid 1990s. The speaker had expounded some aspect of Quantum Gravity. Then Steven Weinberg asked him: "What makes you think there is a theory of Quantum Gravity?" I don't remember the speaker's response, but I do remember Weinberg's elaboration. Weinberg pointed out that every theory is an "effective theory" with a range of validity or usefulness for the problem at hand. We are trying to work with an underlying reality, but it is the "effective theory" that we work with, and there is no reason to expect that we can always reconcile the effective theories with each other. We may just have to choose what works in a given regime.
This is a useful comment. Weinberg was a wise physicist in this regard.
Superb as always. Thank you so much for making it understandable to ordinary folk like me.
I love her so much
She gets straight to the point and is very clear on current situation with quantum mechanics or physics world. ✋🏻🙏🏻😍
I love listening to Sabine, she's totally awesome and really engaging. She has an uncanny knack of simplifying very complex topics in a way that doesn't assume the audience are idiots.
7:29
"Bell always presented his result in combination with the EPR argument, which
shows that the mere assumption of locality, combined with the perfect correlation
when the directions of measurement (or questions) are the same, implies the existence
of the supposedly “impossible” hidden variables. So for Bell, his result, combined
with the EPR result was not a “no hidden variables theorem”, but a nonlocality
theorem, the result on the impossibility of hidden variables being only one step in a
two-step argument.
"Viewing Bell’s argument as a refutation of hidden variables theories
is doubly mistaken: first because, combined with
EPR, Bell proves nonlocality; and second because the de Broglie-Bohm theory,
which Bell explained and defended all his life, proves that a hidden variables theory
is actually possible."
Bricmont, Jean. Making Sense of Quantum Mechanics , p. 258
Exactly!
So now let's hope there is progress towards an experimental test of Sabine Hossenfelder's theory. My expectation is that it would be thoroughly refuted - though it would obviously be very interesting if it were not …
Almost all her criticism of the thoughts underlying modern physics is overdue and therefore most welcome, but as soon as she comes up with supposed remedies I almost despair of physics ever returning to s sensible foundation.
you are right, where I thinks it's easier than Bell-like pull-ups: As long as the mathematical apparatus of random variables is not falsified nor proven in-applicable, we formally have a hidden determinism and an observable space meeting all properties of non-determinism. Within this there is systematically no way to exclude determinism from a finite set of observations. Theory of Quantum-Mechanics is run by those assumptions.
Integrity and honesty from the Queen of Physics!
Let's hope it stays that way.
I wonder is there many who follow Sabine's every move a student of the physics of the Queen!? 👑🤔😀
@@James_BAlert Well, watch 2 videos of Sabine on RUclips and RUclips makes sure you get addicted to her (every time you log in).
Dr. H is wonderfuk person, sharing her lucid thoughts with passion for clarity if communication, not with any care for personal agrandizement. She has humor filled with insight from her fast experience and serious consideration both the facts as well as the context and possible errors in the papers she reviews. She is an evangelist for trust in good reasoning, demonstrated, tested science theories, and responsible, accountable people along the way. God bless Dr. Hossenfelder. 3/2022
One of my favorite physicist. 💜
I appreciate the ideas you present. I don’t always agree, but,,,,,,i listen.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Apples fall to ground because they are conserving duality.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Immanuel Kant answered some of these questions many years ago:-
Space & time are both noumenal objects or objects of the mind "A priori" -- Immanuel Kant, The critique of pure reason. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Synthetic a priori knowledge == space/time -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- Time duality.
The future is dual to the past, we remember the past and predict the future -- Time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- Time duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Absolute space is dual to relative space -- space duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out (x,y,z) -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Thanks! Dr. Hossenfelder is always passionate, interesting, & well worth listening to. tavi.
Neuroscientists and philosophers of mind; We don't know what consciousness is.
Some physicists; consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function.
@Dharma Defender Consciousness certainly appears fundamental to a conscious living entity engaging in introspection. There can be no real objection to saying that without consciousness we could not exist as we do; that consciousness is fundamental to being a self-aware entity. But you can't make a leap to then saying that consciousness is fundamental to all of physics. Because it is meaningless unless you explicate exactly what you mean when you talk about consciousness in this sense.
The only consciousness we know is what is feels like to be aware of ourselves.
If you try to say that material objects that show no sign of consciousness somehow have selves and are aware of those selves then you are making claims that you can show no evidence for.
All you are doing is projecting the human sense of being self-aware into everything else. And there is no evidence to support that yet. All the evidence we have supports there only being awareness in living beings with sufficiently developed nervous systems.
It might be that there is an aspect to the universe without which consciousness could not arise in biological entities. But that doesn't mean that everything in the universe is conscious and self-aware.
I say this as someone who has practised meditation for years and who has experience of the total dissolution of the self. And what I know is that while the experience itself is beyond all description, and indescribably wonderful, it is indisputable that all attempts to understand it come after the experience. And that inevitably means using the understanding of the world that is available to us at the time we live. For me that means the world of science. And I know that we still don't understand enough about consciousness to explain what is happening.
And Sankhya and Vedanta philosophy are just models developed by people in India who had the same experiences as we can have today, not surprising since we basically have the same kinds of brains, but their understanding of the world was based on a faulty understanding of nature.
There are people who try to maintain that somehow these people then had a greater understanding of the world that science gives us today, and that somehow that has been lost. But that is a claim made without any evidence.
None of these philosophies were science. Not in the sense we understand it today. They were philosophical / logical systems that tried to understand the world, based on premises that they just assume to be true. Dividing the world into purusha and prakriti and then analysing prakriti as gunas, and then saying the mind and senses and organs arose of this is just the construction of a mental model. But the model gives no real understanding of the world. It just makes claims about the nature of reality that aren't in any way testable, and in the end they are just names. It is just word-games. Saying that the five gross building blocks of matter are space/ether, earth, air, fire, and water doesn't give real knowledge about reality. It is just a pseudo-knowledge.
If the yogis were right that whatever it is that allows us to become self-aware is a fundamental part of the nature of reality then they just guessed right. They didn't show it to be true in any scientific sense.
Appealing to Sankhya and Vedanta is just saying that these people who didn't really understand the world still guessed that consciousness somehow pre-exists the world as we know it.
@Dharma Defender There is philosophy of science separate to the methods of science.
The accusation of plagiarism of Indians is nonsense and backwards.
The reality is that ancient Indians came up with many differing philosophies which in the end were just speculation, and now modern devotees of these philosophies who believe they share a special understanding of the world because they have read some of these philosophies try to back-engineer these philosophies by claiming that modern scientific concepts were known to these ancient philosophers.
Some even go to ridiculous lengths of saying that ancient Indians designed and built aircraft because the scriptures describe the gods flying about in vehicles like chariots and temples.
You make a stupid claim that they understood the world infinitely better. How do you know that? To make that claim you'd have to first know what they knew, and to fully understand what they knew. And if you can do that then you can demonstrate your superior knowledge by showing the scientists where they're wrong.
If you don't share this 'supraempirical knowledge' then you are obviously taking nonsense.
Let me simplify this for you. If I claim that Sabine has a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, the obvious question to me would be how well do I understand quantum mechanics. And if I say that I don't understand it at all then obviously I can not be a judge of how well Sabine understands it. So only a peer of Sabine, with an equally good understanding of quantum mechanics could vouch for her.
Any of you who claim that these ancients had superior knowledge but can't produce this knowledge are just wind-bags. You just make noise and don't realise how obviously vain your claims are. You're just some twit in the comments of a RUclips video.
@Dharma Defender You're making was is known as the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.
Chemistry isn't alchemy because it arose from alchemists trying to transmute substances into other substances.
Every comment you make is just a further demonstration of how confused your thinking is.
@Dharma DefenderYou make facile statements, like "Science is a school of philosophy and theology, which has grown up a bit."
You mistake a semantic misdirection for a logical argument.
The same boring nonsense all you Vedantic fanbois come out with, none of it original.
@Dharma Defender If only you understood what genetic fallacy meant you might save yourself these embarrassing claims.
But I suppose not understanding saves you from any feelings of embarrassment.
"Tell us something about your last calculation" … I love this question. And I love Sabine's response …
Immanuel Kant answered some of these questions many years ago:-
Space & time are both noumenal objects or objects of the mind "A priori" -- Immanuel Kant, The critique of pure reason. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Synthetic a priori knowledge == space/time -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- Time duality.
The future is dual to the past, we remember the past and predict the future -- Time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- Time duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Absolute space is dual to relative space -- space duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out (x,y,z) -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 ok bud.
Go learn some real physics before trying to philosophise about it
@@DrSmileyFace18 Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Perhaps learning from one's mistakes is part of that equation, but I think it's something else. The two physics geniuses of a century ago - Einstein and Bohr - almost intuitively grasped the underlying nature of a certain reality. I believe that's what is needed today. Gravity, spacetime, dimensions are some of the areas where a new, intuitive but correct grasp would assist.
I think also that physicists forget that Newton had to invent new mathematics to explain his theories - calculus if I remember. Today's physicists should consider that new explanations may be outside the range of current mathematics, requiring the invention or discovery of new mathematics.
The problem with intuition is it is sometimes wrong and all the ways to tell that intuition is wrong begin with doubting it.
@@myothersoul1953 ... For the majority of us, I'm sure intuition is vastly unreliable and often dangerous. I'm not advocating intuition as a wholesale replacement for testing and calculation.
There are some who believe that quaternion numbers might offer the missing mathematics to develop a theory of everything but it's still a very experimental field of mathematics.
@@ronanstephens1597 ...I'm glad that at least some are considering new math as an avenue to knowledge. And thanks. I've never before heard of quaternion numbers. I'll have to look into it, although I'm pretty sure, with my below par grasp of math, I'll only understand its most generalized premise.
A problem with Einstein and Bohr's intuitive grasp of the underlying nature of reality is that they totally disagreed about what it is.
A beautiful mind
I hope Sabine will make a video explaining how modified gravity could explain the existence of galaxies with and without the dark matter effect. And also how gravitational lensing can occur in the space just outside of a pair of recently-collided galaxies. As I understand it, this evidence has pushed the needle towards the belief that the effect is really caused by matter, and not by gravity working differently
She has plenty of blog articles on these topics. Even one about the bullet cluster.
Calculations (regards dark mass..) goes wrong because we have no idea of the, probablby great, amount off black holes that distorts our predictions of mass.
looking forward to that counter example! :)
I love this thank you for agreeing to do interviews!!!
Bell's theorem is not usually connected to the question of whether or not quantum mechanics is deterministic. It is usually characterised as a theory of whether quantum mechanics is local. The amazing thing proven by Bell is that quantum mechanics appears to contain non-local correlations.
Bell's theorem can be derived in both deterministic theories and theories which admit random collapse. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, contains deterministic evolution in time. This was actually Bell's favourite interpretation of quantum theory, so it would be strange if Bell himself thought he had proven indeterminism!
Dr. Hossenfelder's latest work on superdeterminism seems to replace the time-dependent Schrodinger equation with a sort of random hidden variable model that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics on average. This, it is hoped, will turn out to be the tip of the iceberg for some much deeper theory that will explain the fact that those variables will be uniformly distributed.
I think she should take a leaf out of her own book and just reconsider what the laws of quantum mechanics say about reality when taken literally. She is adding unnecessary mathematical structure to quantum mechanics which change the fundamental nature of the theory, without a clear motivation and with a very limited explanation of the relationship between rational probability assignments and theoretical structure. She is certainly not addressing the issue of locality (which was the main point of Bell).
Physicists need to learn from their mistakes.
What is the order here? From fundamental to emergent:
1 super determinism
2 block time universe
3 Laplace’s demon.
123?
132?
213?
231?
312?
321?
It’s a very important point to question the underlying assumptions supporting any theory or result. Bells inequality has been a long standing argument against hidden variable theories and questioning fundamental assumptions of this result is very important. Does our mathematical framework for describing our natural world encapsulate nature or is there something missing. Alternatively is the scope of mathematics a superset of what is needed to describe our reality?
Outstanding discussion. I struggled with Bells theorem. I probably got more from this than I could comprehend prior. Thank you
Great interview - you should have her back for an update on the toy model article and her new book "Existential Physics"
I love Sabina. A true scientific mind
If gravity is caused by time dilation, and we are wrong about the speed of light being constant, then anomalies in space might be partially explained by slowing of light over eons. The passage of time slowing could partially manifest as gravitational lensing.
Gravity is not caused by time dilation, it's the other way around. Space-time distorts in the presence of mass. If you're nearby this mass you are in a stronger gravitational potential and experience gravitational time dilation relative to an observer further away.
There is evidence to suggest the speed of light has varied in the past but, like other things, it remains an interesting hypothesis.
Some corners of Science have lapsed into Religion.
The very notion that group of trained Scientists voted on the nature of reality is truly disgusting.
Science is about discovering how stuff works, not a popularity contest!
Things haven't been right since the Copenhagen fiasco...
This and some do payed Science or only looking for a good paid job. Some even bend results to keep going with their wrong ideas. Just like a cult would do.' Evidence, who need evidence !' String theory springs to mind...
@@hansjorgkunde3772 yep. Interestingly maths is consolidating I feel entirely around finitism and constructibility, the exact inverse of these "potentially infinite" expanses of quasi-unifying theories.
I am a physicist too , and I find frau Hossenfelders views on the foundations of physics to be most interesting.
The problems that she's discussing have been becoming increasingly self evident even to the layman for decades, but her honestly and her candor are astonishing.
We're still waiting to see a proton decay and when they turned the LHC and there were still non of predicted supersymmetric particles showing up there the penny started to drop and even worse when they then had to move the goalposts to get slightly wobbly discovery of the Higgs accepted, I realized they were in serious trouble.
But having noted all that the real and confirmed achievements of both theoretical experimental physics still remain quite astonishing.
I still remember reading abut the discovery of the Charmed Quark back in the 1980's and thinking this will probably be last major discovery of it's kind that I'll live to see and I may well have been right ?
My question to Sabine: if the Bell Inequality is not the full answer and hidden variables are still on the table (disproven by many experiments by now), how come quantum computers work?
Only local hidden variable have been falsified by experiments. Nonlocal hidden variable theories like Bohm's pilot wave theory has survived every test.
Excellent work Sabine
Zitterbewegung: Suppose we had a good theory of snooker, but when we do very careful experiments, we find that the balls exhibit a wave-like behavior. Something makes the balls wobble when they are moving. We are unable to disassemble the balls, but we can try out various ideas based on the theory that the balls contain some internal structure.
I don't understand how the free will theorem is supposed to demonstrate that Bell's theorem doesn't rule out hidden variable approaches.
If Bell's theorem was just a thought experiment, then it would make sense. It is true that we make the assumption that we can actually carry out the experiment in a certain way. If the free will theorem is correct, then this means that some particles will also exhibit behaviour that is not dependant on previous times. So it follows that we included the thing we were trying to prove as an assumption of the thought experiment...
However, we have actually conducted the experiment for Bells theorem. Because we were able to conduct it in the first place, this means that the assumptions we made were sound.
Bell theorem is based on 3 assumptions on a quantum level, the free will theorem, there is a reality (hidden variables) and it is local (no faster than light signals). The experiments violates the theorem, which is what was expected, so at least one of the assumptions has to be wrong. Bell thought that the locality assumption was wrong. Sabine thinks it is the free will theorem that is wrong.
@@yziib3578 Well said! However I think the condition of 'no free will' is better said as the idea that there is 'no superdeterminism.'
To understand gravity you must first answer the questions: what is the physical cause of electromagnetic acceleration? What is the physical cause of inertia? What is the physical origin of dimensions and clock rates and how do they change?
@dave randell Those questions are easily answered with quantum field theory. A crank theory like that is not required.
What is space? Since quantum fields (electromagnetic, nuclear, etc) allow motion, aren't they space? Motion doesn't occur in space, rather it is space. Therefore, we are not in space, but of space.
ANY belief, including determinism, can stand in the way. The question is whether you are willing to explore ideas that do not suit your belief. Yes, humanism and anthropomorphism does not belong in physics, but neither does the assumption that the whole cannot rise above the sum of its parts, as determinism forcefully asserts. But when you are only talking about lifeless, non-thinking objects, then determinism should not be in question. Action and reaction should not have any other expectation than to follow physical laws whether we know what those laws are or not.
1) The logically necessary scientific presumption of the freedom of the experimenter is not inconsistent because science does not and cannot claim the universe is fully deterministic -- it must claim the universe is fully rationally/logically understandable. There is a significant difference between these definitions.
2) The above distinction qualifies as the obvious third option besides inconsistency or superdeterminism, and was, in fact, the original historical foundation of scientific methods from which emerged inconsistency vs superdeterminism as clear metaphysical (not scientific) misinterpretations of what all possible empirical methods must presume.
3) Even within the context of the false dichotomy of inconsistency vs superdeterminism, there are many logical categories of causation, actions, and events, that do not fall into a linear progression -- i.e. the presumption of a fully determined universe (Hinduism, monism et al, superstitious traditions that failed to develop scientific methods for precisely the reason that that they are non-dualistic/superdeterministic, rejecting the subject-object distinction at the heart of western science). That is, it is perfectly reasonable (like in Aristotle and Spinoza, for example) to regard the universe as a variety of supervening realms of causation, each caused (but not fully determined) by the next foundational level. A modern analogy could be something like the electrons and illuminated pixels of a computer screen lacking the contextual and meaningful information imposed upon it and structured by the observing human brain. On the empirical level, the pixels' light "cause" the experience of reading, but in themselves lack any such information whatsoever. It is the brain that structures the consciousness in relation to presumptive laws of nature, and so on. Thus, one realm causes another realm to generate information with its own subsistent rules not found in the former. This picture is a fully understandable system that is not fully determined.
Why do so many people ignore Plasma Cosmology as an answer to the Dark Matter problem?
Never heard of plasma cosmology personally
What is the "dark matter problem" ? Are you referring to the inability of physicists/cosmologists to explain the behavior of galaxies without inventing a non-existent form of matter?
@@k0lpA In Japan, the hand can cut wood. But it can't cut plasma. Or maybe it can. This is the theory of plasma according to us in high school.
Dr. H is a breath of fresh intellect. I'm so tired of Krauss and Tyson introducing made up hypotheses with no evidence. They make wildly arrogant pronouncements and ask us to believe because they're the smartest person in the room. They wouldn't be if Dr. Hossenfelder were in the room. Their tactics are more akin to religion than science. Believe what I say with no evidence and give me money.
Thank you Dr. H !
Gravity is not a force, so it is not possible to unify it with other forces.
I guess you know something no other physicist knows.
@@MarcusAsaro It is often considered "not a force" in physics.
.
However I don't see how this means that the gravitational field and the other fields cannot be unified.
@@MarcusAsaro Here's why it is not a force, or a strange type of force: When it acts on you, you feel nothing.
Free fall is letting gravity act upon the body. In free fall, you feel no force of gravity.
Also, in Relativity, gravity is equivalent to acceleration. Acceleration is force divided by mass, not force.
So idk no expert here, but I think it is a unique type of thing, but it can be unified when we discover the best possible theories. Maybe it's all about the shape of things.
I appreciate Sabine’s outspoken criticism although I think that she does not go far enough and actually anchors some assumptions in her position which should be challenged.
Regarding free will, physicists should pay more attention to philosophers regarding such basic assumptions. In particular, Schopenhauer might point out that while an experimentalist could select one experimental condition over another they would not be free to choose which condition they would choose. Free will is an illusion.
Regarding hidden variables, questions aimed at interpreting QM experiments take too much for granted. In observing the detection of a photon or an electron we are in fact witnessing a detection event in a system (the detector) which has inherent quantum properties itself. Planck’s Second Theory, sometimes called Loading Theory, suggests that atoms in the detector material could be partially pre-loaded with energy such that not all such atoms would be in an identical state prior to the arrival of an exciting charge or impulse.
As such, there could be a simple physical variable in the detector itself which could account for why the detection event takes place at one location and not another within a distribution which is described by the diffraction characteristics of a double slit system. Under such a model, the location of detection events would be entirely deterministic.
I agree with a lot of her critique but she is wildly off in regards to Bells Theorem. Quantum Physicists would laugh at some of the crucial points she glossed over with regards to free will. Sabine has definitely taught me a lot though!
We are free to even conclude that we're NOT free, and that assumption in itself is an example that there is occurrence in the billiards of physics. So, there's no room for absolutes like determinism.
Please post videos with subtitles madam
I think plasma physics and new findings that the universe is connected by plasma and dust is all we need to explain why dark matter is not needed
Nice! Now do the math and write a paper on that with observable data and experimentations or you will never be taken seriously
@@physicsboi1744 it’s already done. Look at Donald Scott’s work.
That’s the problem with dark matter. Billions of dollars and they can’t find the empirical evidence. The plasma physics has been understood since Birkeland and Alfien.
@@drscott1 pls send a link thx :D
Fascinating, concur 👍
In the past breakthroughs were motivated by discrepancies between current theory and experimental results or observations. In the absence of such a 'crisis' how is fundamental physics to advance? The idea of unification is one attempt to answer this question. However no progress is likely in these deeper areas of physics until experiments, or astrophysical observations contradict currently accepted theories. The effects of 'Dark Energy' might be one such clue to a need to revise current models, or it might not.
One thing which is apparent to a keen observer of science is that anomalies ARE accumulating in a number of areas despite the recent funding bias towards confirmatory experiments, or experiments interpreted with confirmation bias such as LIGO and Higgs, for example. Anomalies are just ignored or glossed over repeatedly. One can only hope that a Kuhnian crisis comes sooner rather than later but 21st Century science is a huge beast with enormous momentum and it will take something really outstanding to change its course.
There are some big discrepancies, e.g.,
dark matter astronomy vs dark matter physics
two different expansion rates of the universe
The problem is (and has been for ages) that when experiments refute a theory the theory isn't discarded but made more elaborate.
That's how things are done in politics, not science, but when you are working with experimental equipment that has cost ten billion dollars of tax payers' money, you are essentially a politician anyway.
It used to be said, that an economist is somebody who can tell you tomorrow why what he predicted yesterday didn't happen today. Pretty much the same now goes for particle physicists.
Meanwhile, there have been enormous advances in fields that get comparatively little attention or funding, like dentistry, and in expensive fields where the funding is private and must yield results, like microchip manufacturing.
Now watch for a politician to come up with a more elaborate theory about 'essential' funding. Here's a challenge: Don't mention climate or the virus.
@@peterjansen7929 Right. There are still modern equivalents of Ptolemeic epicycles in cosmology where ad hoc theories are being invented as quickly as new observations are made. You compare it to politics I would use the analogy of religious dogma.
@@neilcreamer8207 That's a good point, though political dogma is largely indistinguishable from the religious variety in any case.
The one difference I find is that established religions are more frugal of new additions to explain why old dogma didn't work. For the most part, they confine themselves to the two positions taken in the dispute between Albertus Magnus and "Saint" Thomas Aquinas: Albertus Magnus held that if scripture and logic are in conflict scripture has to take precedence. Aquinas flatly asserted that conflicts between scripture and logic are impossible.
But then I recall a political activist telling me in the mid-1970s that his party neither had to be right nor do right, as it had a majority!
At least, particle physicists still have to come up with excuses, presumably because they can't vote themselves their grants but have to persuade others to keep paying.
they are biassed. yeah, big problem.
but not a problem if the end goal is not definitive answers, but making a paycheck.
Good Luck on that 2nd area of research. That whole thing has bugged me from the day I learned it in school. People tell you to just shut up and do the math. I would love if there were something that could give a deeper understanding to why Quantum Mechanics does what it does.
We're getting closer. But it Is very very hard to understand without good notions of time.
11:13 "Better"? With the caveat that she's the real expert and I'm just an instruments engineer, I disagree with Dr. Hossenfelder that superdeterminism would be better. If fully deterministic causality can be separated into components, then the components should not themselves have a fully deterministic cause. To me, therefore, the non-deterministic aspects of quantum theory indicate progress toward a more fundamental level. Superdeterminism may be true at the level Dr. Hossenfelder and her post-doc are describing, and I'm glad that someone is pursuing the idea intelligently. If confirmed, however, to me superdeterminism would a disappointing setback.
They've already cut down the "quantum leap" as an actual phenomenon. Seems that many people haven't got the memo yet.
Sabine is fantastic, ofc on a higher level than all of us here.
On my level, on this theme I would suggest the following advancements in physics:
Get the Special Relativity straightened out and connected to the real physical world (and to the quantum world), and when it is communicated to students etc. Physical Relativity, instead of fairy tales with Minkowskian models and "real" length contraction and such.
Let's use the standard twin example, one on the earth and one flying away (accelerating and getting relative kinetic energy) in a rocket.
- Time dilation is the only real fundamental physical effect, the rocket twin is physically different and younger when he (or she) returns, his atoms have had a slower rate of change during the trip.
- Length contraction is a temporary observational effect (like one person seeing a rainbow from a certain angle, and another person does not), in combination with a mathematical fairy tale. One can build a fine mathematical model with the earth in the center of the solar system as well, it works but doesn't describe reality. Both twins measure the rocket to be exactly the same length when it returns, and nothing physical has happened with it during the trip from any point of view. If someone had proposed that the rocket, as a whole, changes in size (shrinking) when close to speed of light I would have viewed it as interesting, as an effect of extreme time dilation (changes in quark energies etc). But that is not the length contraction argument, it instead says that the rocket only changes in size in the direction it moves, from the perspective of the twin on earth.
- Relativistic mass, absolutely non-existing. An object does not gain mass with relative velocity compared with another object. The kinetic energy is instead balanced with the internal atomic energy, which is reduced (kinetic quark and electron energy, binding energies of different types) so that the object (rocket) has exactly the same total energy (and mass) during the trip.
The reduced kinetic quark and electron energy is the time dilation, the only real effect on a quantum level.
And MInkowskians who argue that all (or nearly all) time dilation happens when the rocket turns around to the earth, because the space-time diagram says so... Get real and physical, the dilation is happening during the whole trip, the more kinetic energy the rocket has/gets (relative to the earth), the more time dilates, the more its atoms change their rate of change.
Imo, established scientists like Sabine, should propose an experiment which clears this once and for all. Put atomic clocks in the Artemis rockets (the new moon project 2024), and make measurements (comparisons with earth atomic clocks) when the rocket is just moving in space without any force acting on it (in the middle of the trip to the moon).
And no, it is not travelling through space-time which causes time dilation, it is like putting the cart in front of the horse. Time dilation is a physical effect on a quantum level (adding energy to a material object slows down time, boiling water also creates time dilation compared with cold water), which has a mirroring effect, it seems like it is caused by travelling through space-time.
Argue with me :)
Is that Richard Geres smarter younger sister ?
Very interesting talk about a subject that seems muddled with so much speculation. Thank you for sharing !
Can you give an example of a possible experiment to test super determinism?
Immanuel Kant answered some of these questions many years ago:-
Space & time are both noumenal objects or objects of the mind "A priori" -- Immanuel Kant, The critique of pure reason. Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Synthetic a priori knowledge == space/time -- Immanuel Kant.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- Time duality.
The future is dual to the past, we remember the past and predict the future -- Time duality.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- Time duality.
Length, distance or space is defined by two dual points -- space duality.
Absolute space is dual to relative space -- space duality.
Up is dual to down, left is dual to right, in is dual to out (x,y,z) -- space duality.
Space duality is dual to time duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
It cannot be fully tested, I think, but they did an experiment with two quasars in opposite directions, and using their fluctuations to choose what type of measurement to do.
.
This tests for causal (light speed limited) super determinism originating more recently than some billions of years. (I think, no expert here)
People need to give up on the idea that there is a gravitational force. There is only the movement in a straight line (from the object's point of view) through time and space. Where that is curved we perceive a force, or one object being attracted to another, but our perception is only an interpretation (wrongly) of what's happening. An item 'falling' to Earth is simply moving through space and time in a straight line over a curved 'surface' produced by the mass of the Earth until its electrons meet the Earth's electrons and the strong nuclear force, obeying Pauli's exclusion principle, stops things passing through each other. This is why there can't be unification. You can't find a rule for grouping an apple with a load of oranges.
I have been thinking about mass for a while in conjunction with vacuum fluctuations. I hope you may know the Casimir effect. If we consider the Casimir effect, notice that if there is a force it must be capable of doing work. Thus there is energy in the vacuum.?
Now if we think of that force and the energy we notice that it is a consequence of decreasing the fluctuations in a region of space. Thus anything that occupies space has the same effect. Since E equals MC squared, we could identify this effect as associated with the mass of the object that is occupying the space.
Have I discovered that the rest mass of an object is due to the space of the object that now has a reduced region of vacuum fluctuations.
Bell's theorem is not related to the question of free will. She has a narrow definition of free will if she thinks otherwise.
It not only physicists.
Philosophers are in a worst shape, as they refuse to learn the language of mathematics and, in general, the layered abstraction methods.
They (we, must include myself) ended up with a serious limitation, i.e. we can reason about something only if it can be communicated. For me it is a giant red flag, a revisitation of the neopositivism.
the problem is the "mistakes" are incredibly fundamental, they'll need to throw away almost a 100 years of 'research' in order to begin truly moving forward again...
I don't see this as a problem. It's usually what happens when a paradigm shift occurs and changes our perspective on a previously useful approximation.
@@lucofparis4819 to be fair Luc the problem is not for you to handle but the ones that do the research. We will see if the have to attitude to make that happen. Not sure if you are a part of that group though. Assuming your not.
@@davethomas2089 Whether the problem concerns me or not is irrelevant in determining whether there is a problem to begin with: again, there's nothing out of the ordinary about a century old paradigm that physicists have a hard time replacing, probably due to incorrect assumptions.
It's nothing new or unexpected in the scientific endeavour. Now, whether or not the duration of this theoretical bottleneck indicates some kind of underperformance on the physicists part is up for debate.
@@lucofparis4819 thats where i was going also. 👍
The biggest mistake of fundamental physics in the last century is preferring the particle model of matter over the wave model. Even Richard Feynman said wavefunctions are just mathematical abstractions for calculating probabilities and "Wherever the electron is, it's a point particle." This is exactly the attitude the Catholic church took toward the heliocentric model of the universe in the late 1500s (after Copernicus but before Kepler and Galileo): that it was a useful mathematical abstraction for predicting astronomical events, but not an actual picture of the cosmos. Maybe the whole idea of "particles" is outdated. Maybe matter is just a collection of spin waves in the vacuum, i.e. quantum-mechanical wavefunctions are literal descriptions of matter. I'm not sure how waves could be quantized, so maybe quantization is a property of interactions between the waves rather than of the waves themselves.
Please post videos with English subtitles madam.
It’s not her video....
every relativity video I watch says gravity is not a force it is the curvature of spacetime. I am now puzzled.
If there was a grand unified force, if there was just matter and energy in different states, it would be weird that gravity was not included.
If you're going to dream of something bueatiful you need to dream as big as possible. It's better to be a poet than just to be reasonably wrong.
Perhaps it's not so much a "free will" condition as a "no superdeterminism" condition. 9:30 ish
I don't think effort spent on philosophical interpretations of QM is constructive. Theories of free will, determinism, consciousness, are not going to create deeper understanding. That debate has been going on for 100 years with no conclusions.
I would like to repeat the experiment of Aspect, Dalibard and Roger with one of the detectors made of antimatter to see if it makes a difference, and predict the suppression of Bell's over-correlation just for the sake of making it interesting. Since the experiment is apparently impossible to do, I would like to tackle the question by computer simulation first of all. I am assuming that it will be a time-marching problem and that the simulation will need to make use of a random number generator. I have my own ideas on how to proceed (tachyonic Brownian motion) but if they turn out to be wrong, then I am in the market for other ideas. Dr Hossenfelder talks about superdeterminism but also about randomness and I am a bit confused. Does a computer simulation need a RNG?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion
Does Bell's theorem account for the *measurement apparatus* having it's own randomness?
What does this video relate to the potential problems with quantum entanglement? I'd love to see a Sabine Hossenfelder video on this subject. :-)
I wonder if she will be able to scientifically test some kind of superdeteminism theorem as an explanation of thus far unexplained mysterious quantum phenomena (like doube slit experiment results or quantum entaglement or uncertainty principle). And what if such a test result shows her idea is not right? Will that be interpreted then as a result of the deterministic Universe determining the result of the experiment contrary to the theory?
Bravo!
If I could, I would put 1000 likes!
Big bang loaded mass with motion. So v don't need gravity or force to explain the phenomena.
What physists miss is spin of mass that loads passengers with angular momentum. So free fall. G on earth is π^2 numerically & Time period of pendulum is 2√L where L is in meters.
Magnetism is no force cuz it has to be loaded with motion to transform motion into pulses which we recover when a motor functions.
A magnet is a sink. Motion is the unified energy.
❤ sabine !
The structure of each physical calculus like any scientific theories is combinding premisses, rules and conclutions!
In the sense of regress ad infinitum all "space" & "time" are just premisses! ... so there is epistemologically no proof possible ...
Been here before, wasn't everybody looking for the eq. that would describe the trajectory of a cannon ball then someone learnt from their mistakes and said why shouldn't there be two equations.
What is so hard to get about the randomness of QM?
Randomness is the perfect substrate for emergence.
Yes, randomness is a beautiful thing. I think it is a fundamental part of the universe. Perhaps it even is necessary for existence.
Eeehhh.... No. Repeatability is (stochastic models like Markov Chains). QM is Very non-reversable. Big problem.
@@R1ckr011 this
Its like saying we dont know and we cant know, because God just rolls dice. It stops all further questions and any further thinking about experiments. Its religion.
Big ideas about small things, the smaller the bigger. It's not really they seek, it is simplicity. It is coming soon. It's not really mathematical simplicity, it's physical simplicity but the mathematics will follow.
The whole beauty thing is kind of ridiculous. It's certainly nice when things work out in an elegant fashion, but the universe is under absolutely no obligations to make us swoon over it. I also have to question human judgment on simplicity as well -- how the hell do we know how close to simplicity or foundations we are? For all we know, there could be any amount of complexity on the other side of what we judge "simple." She's absolutely right.
You talk about newtonian paradigm...in France the majority of academics physicists are stucked in Descartes paradigm...nowadays scientists are like religious people, trapped in their beliefs. Investigate, questionning seems the « apanage » of journalists only. Thanks for your intervention Sabine. Real searchers still exists, happy to hear it.
You exalt journalists, as if they do not have an ideological horse in the race. No one is pure.
But aren't there 'loop-hole free' validations of Bell's theorem. I remember one where the measurement choices were generated randomly by the 'noise' in radiation from quasars billions of light years distant, and from almost opposite directions in the sky!! Are we to ignore chaos, nonlinear dynamics and so much more just so we can suggest the measurement "choices" for these experiments were predetermined about 7 billion years ago (the time the quasar signals were sent). Her general point seems spot on, but superdeterminism???.....hey... don't troll me. You always knew I had no choice but to post this comment.
I thought Bell disproved hidden variables?
It does not.
it only disproves local hidden variables.
.
in fact, quantum mechanics is fundamentally nonlocal.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Quantum mechanics is both local and deterministic if you reject the free will assumption
@@trucid2 Yes, although I would say it differently. 'QM need not be nonlocal if one accepts superdeterminism.'
.
Superdeterminism may be a large pill, however.
.
Isn't it a lot like invoking a trickster god? Not that trickster gods don't exist! Nosirree, not saying that. Do not tempt the coyote my friend, except thou bringest treats.
I really enjoy Sabine's video on science and I love her maverick attitude, but this video totally explains why she made her video about Free Will on her YT channel. It was supposed to be about science, but was nothing but bad philosophy. Now I can see what drove her to such an unscientific position. She is human after all.
You don't have free will, but don't worry. - RUclips
Nah, she is right about free will.
@@Jackissimus Dude, she literally says that the particle interactions control what you do and say. So an accumulation of particle interactions not only understands and speaks your language, but somehow magically knows the right answer on your math test. It demonstrates something amiss in the human mind that this makes sense to anyone, let alone an intelligent person like Sabine.
@@caricue Dude, my freaking car understands and speaks my language. Granted it's not perfect, but it understands me better than the average chimpanzee. And our brains are not that different, just bigger.
You have so much potential Sabine. If you could just admit to yourself, that you are just as guilty of the same offenses, as those you criticize. You refuse to see what is right in front of you. We don't need to do more experiments. We already have all the data we need to answer the questions, you are just asking wrong questions. And I do mean you Sabine are asking the wrong questions.
The questions you need to ask are:
1) What would it mean, if there was a single particle of matter that was fundamental and elementary and was a factor of mass, in the mass of all other matter, from the universe as a whole, to the tiniest particles we know of?
2) If there was such an Elementary Particle of Matter, a quantum unit of mass, If we divided the exact quantum mass, into the values we have measured for the Elements of the Periodic Table, would we expect to see a perfect , whole number, integer agreement? Or would we expect a fractional remainder?
3)If the data we have is accurate and precise enough and our factor is right and "perfectly precise", what would a graph of the remainders look like? Would it be random or would it take on a bell curve of agreement, with fractions tending toward either one or zero and fewer examples of middle fractions?
4) The experiment is self-evident if you know anything about mathematics. The data is impeccable (the masses of the elements and isotopes of the periodic table, excluding any calculated atomic masses, only measured mass are relevant). The experiment using an excel spreadsheet or the like, would take you about 30 minutes if you know your stuff. And you could find a flaw in a complete row of The Periodic Table. If you do the experiment and don't see the bell curve, let me know and I will show you which row of data to remove to make the bell curve, show. The question is, which row of The Periodic Table is in error?
Do yourself a favor and listen to your own advise.
I wish I could sit down and talk about quantum gravity with her! I bet we could both learn something new eventually.
@ Alexander Ealley : She has done a few vids about quantum gravity. Like about strings theory, loop gravity, branes, Mond, etc.
@@tahititoutou3802 thank you my friend. I find those videos fascinating as well. I would like to expand on some of those theories with her. Aside from her astounding knowledge on the various subject matters; She seems to be very logical in that she is open-minded, intuitive and has a decent grasp on reality. That’s the kind of scientist who will unravel truths of the universe that were previously known as mysteries. I feel I’m capable of being associated with that, at least mentally and morally, which is why I mentioned why I’d love to be able to sit down with her and others that share those qualities. So that we (humanity as a whole) can find more answers together.
Senses need to be philosophiesed along with Intuition, specially their conditioning in Solar Space system.
What an amazing lady.
Unpredicatability is not the same as randomness. Events occur just how they occur and even a fundamental unpredictability of the future does not imply the future could be otherwise than how it will actually become. The same applies of course to the past. Could it really have gone different than how it actually happened? Would it really have been possible that one of your father's other sperms had won that game that spawned YOU?