Why Is “Naturalness” a Problem in Physics? (Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Is beauty a reliable guide to truth in science? No, says physicist, author, and science communicator Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder. In this clip, she discusses how the concept of “naturalness” is related to beauty and why it’s misleading
For the full interview see • Podcast Episode 16: Ho...
Sabine's website: sabinehossenfe...
RUclips Channel, Science without the gobbledygook: / sabinehossenfelder
Dr. Hossenfelder’s book Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray:
www.amazon.com...
Dr. Hossenfelder's book Existential Physics:
www.amazon.com...
This episode is sponsored by Templeton Religion Trust as part of a grant on the aesthetic dimensions of science (TRT0296). To learn more about them, visit www.templetonreligiontrust.org
To learn more about the Beauty at Work project, visit www.beautyatwo...
#beauty #beautyatwork #science #physics #cosmology #naturalness
Support us on Patreon:
/ beautyatworkpodcast
Thanks Sabine. Clear, succinct and sincere, always getting to the point in the shortest way posible. You make science transparent and accesible. I'm greatful that I found you.
This lady is a beautiful soul and a razor-sharp mind. Her books belong to the best stuff, I read in my lifetime.
Imagine two colours that exist one side of the tennis net, and two colours that don’t exist the other side. Each colour could be part of two systems. Each colour could be its original self as a colour that exists or doesn’t exist, at the same time could also be a colour that originated from the other side of the net as a colour that did or didn’t exist that has already crossed the net to become a colour that does or doesn’t exist. So there are two colours that exist on one side of the net, and two colours that don’t exist on the other, all four existing simultaneously each being part of two systems. The empty spaces might think their the colours and think the colours are the empty spaces they are filling up. We are just observing one system.
When two colours switch spaces with each other, the way we can see the two colours as well as the spaces they fill up all move, is if the two colours move vertically across the net, and the two spaces they fill moving diagonally across the net. So a blue a red colour next to each other move across the net to the other side, and the two spaces they fill move diagonally across to meet up with the opposite colours. But shouldn’t we now be seeing two colours that don’t exist. If the colours and spaces they meet up with after they cross over the net change into each other (the empty space becoming the colour hence the colour becoming the empty space), could they avoid becoming two colours that don’t exist. In other words the side of the net for colours that don’t exist become the side for colours that do exist. Now if we look at the two colours from above the court with the top of our head pointing away from the net, we might see red on the left and blue on the right. Now if we look at the two colours from underneath the net with the top of our head pointing the same direction we see blue on the original left and red on the original right. Is this because we are now seeing the empty spaces as the colours. The empty space and colour we see are both part of two systems each originating from both sides of the net, as well as the two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net. The backbone of this system is you can’t have a colour filling a space up that is the same colour.
So if we look at the two colours from underneath the court with our head pointing away from the net, we see what would happen if they cross over the net and we were facing them from the side of the net they came from. Now by looking at the two colours before they cross over the net from underneath the court, could we be actually causing them to cross over the net to the other side. So when we look at the two colours from underneath the court, if that causes them to cross over the net to the other side, we are not actually looking from underneath the court, but looking at the other side of the court from above with our head pointing away from the net. Now if we look at the two colours from above on their original side, could the reason we can’t see the empty spaces be because we are looking at the two colours that don’t exist the other side of the net that are there right now. After all, the colours that don’t exist the other side of the court is a kind of future if the four colours that exist and don’t exist are all separated by time.
If you have say 10 different things you still have 10 of the same thing. The reason is because they are all in the same category of being a different thing. All numbers are just really a digit one a certain way up the number line. If we want a truly different thing we have to look at the gaps or boundaries in between numbers.
All logic is based on numbers, but could we create a new kind of logic based on gaps or boundaries in between numbers.
Imagine if 20 people were each individual zero dimensional points that mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point. Every one would agree with what number they are looking at because every one would be one single zero dimensional point.
If a number of zero dimensional points were not in any particular space or not separated by any space, they would all be separated by time, each being a separate zero dimensional universe.
Now imagine 20 scattered individual points
We could be part of one zero dimensional point where one second seems like one second. A physical system like a hurricane or falling line of dominos could be an intelligent being and be another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. The two zero dimensional points we are part of and the physical system are part of can be two zero dimensional universes separated by time, but both still existing simultaneously. If we are a zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, and another intelligence is part of another zero dimensional point separated by time, where one week feels like one second, it makes sense for both points to be separated by time but still both exist simultaneously.
this reminds me of something a professor said in class that he wanted models to be simple but not simplistic, which i guess shows a human aesthetic bias
['m not sure which profesor this was...but if my guess is right i think he was known for a proof that required tens of thousands of cases to be proved...which doesn't sound elegant at all 🙂]
Scientists who do not have their own opinion and they only reads the papers of others and repeat the old, disputed and conflicting theories, and waiting for one of their students to figure it out later, is fake and dangerous to the young people.
❤
That’s not a true identity
First to say first