How to travel faster than light? We don't know. But maybe You will be the one figuring it out These are exactly the kind of things that make Sabine, and PBS Space Time, so special. Encouraging humanity at the individual level. Thanks, Sabine, for being the best, understanding, explaining, and encouraging!
Sabine is on a different planet to PBS Space Time. She’s a brilliant thinker who publishes scientific papers and provokes thought whereas that Australian dude summarises the papers that people like Sabine write. No worries if you’re into PBS although they both do very different things.
I sense a hint of sarcasm in Sabine's "encouragement" that one of us might invent faster-than-light travel. If she seriously thinks there's a chance during her lifetime to solve it, I assume she would spend some time working on it.
@@FaxanaduJohn Matt O'Dowd is a tenure track Professor at City University of New York. He's an astrophysicist specialising in extra-galactic phenomenon. Sabine is a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Study. Both are exceptionally gifted physicists. Both are popular science educators. Yet neither is better than the other. They just work in different areas of the field. Suggesting otherwise isn't just wrong. Its revealing of your blindspots in the field.
Oh, Sabine is far superior to the PBS Spacetime channel. I like Matt, but he presents others' ideas. Since physics is IMO a hot mess right now, I really appreciate that Sabine makes her expert opinions known. REFRESHING!
Even if Sabine is talking about a subject I'm very familiar with, her presentation is always very engaging. Fortunately, she often covers topics I don't know well, so I can learn new stuff.
It was year 2006 when I embraced enthusiastically the string theory, which I had learned few years earlier. It seemed so plausible, and coherent with the incompleteness principle of Logic. One bit at time, it begun to fall apart, to the point that I now consider the theory as a mere mathematical exercise. I believe the string theory be lacking on the fact that these extra curled dimensions could be interacting between them, and should be somewhat hybridised. New indicators - like the G - 2, are pointing to the fact that there is a void in our understanding of the sub-atomic world; my hunch is we have badly misunderstood the nature of Space, and we lack a full comprehension of the consequences of the equivalence of Space and Time. You hint at this problem toward the end of the video, when you report of the common question, "Where the Space expands into", and the answer is much more complex and articulate of the concise explanation you tell in the video. I hope a new era for our Science will soon open, after almost a century of intellectual stagnation. Thank you for your video; I appreciated the warp drive rocket (Is it what Asimov kept calling "Sakharov Drive" in his SF stories?). Regards,
"New indicators - like the G - 2, are pointing to the fact that there is a void in our understanding of the sub-atomic world; my hunch is we have badly misunderstood the nature of Space, and we lack a full comprehension of the consequences of the equivalence of Space and Time." I've thought similarly, that the question "what is space" has been generally ignored and accepted as a "simple necessity" of being able to have a model. Space has been taken for granted, same as causality (explored via QM), and same as time (explored via GR) I think at least we can say for Space that there is *some* effective formal discretization; or more generally, at least that it (or something) "exists". And there's a lot of it, whatever it is Boring thought: If you have a thing and another thing, and they "exist simultaneously", this creates another (one other) thing. The real rules of the universe probably have some notion of that somewhere, but this is too generic, there's nothing to go from there. But what about the set of rules available from these bases? What if the two things exist into another two or three things, rather than one? Or if there's some attribute to attach and parameterize on? What if the ability to "exist" is hampered by some relations between what already exists? I could go on - it's hard to make sense of all the different kinds of systems that can be thought of, but at the least we can find ways to enumerate these and check out how they work in the abstract. Some very smart mathematicians have worked out ways to generically represent relationships and actions/operations between things (eg lambda calc), and if we take these processes into infinity (which intuitively seems necessary to reproduce the Space we see), we can apparently use all this to get some really neat and *very* relevant properties (eg reproduction of effective Riemannian manifolds). Maybe after a while this basic concept could form a GuT? These ideas are the main topic of the Wolfram Physics project where they've got a bunch of stuff on youtube to watch; I suggest their introductory series starting at ruclips.net/video/BV3a0PzNNqE/видео.html A quicker intro is Jon Gorard's interview by Eigenbros at ruclips.net/video/AKDD1AfDJBM/видео.html Additionally: wolframphysics.org/technical-documents/ They've got a construction matching GR and something very similar to QM, but are still a ways away from finding something like the SM. Very promising and I think the most effective approach so far to considering the question "what is space" (Note: I'm a hobbyist and probably misrepresented some of their ideas - I'm replying earnestly with only my own take on these subjects)
@@overreactengine The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY manifest as F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Here's the proof. This also explains why objects (including WHAT IS THE FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS clearly and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE. ON THE CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, SENSIBLE, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND UNIVERSAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly PROVEN TO BE F=MA ON BALANCE: Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have explained the cosmological redshift AND the supergiant stars. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! By Frank DiMeglio
@@overreactengine The cosmological redshift, the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AND the fact that the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution are all CLEARLY consistent with (and proven by) F=ma AND E=mc2. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Therefore, it is proven that THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to what is the Sun. INDEED, E=mc2 AND F=ma are CLEARLY consistent with the cosmological redshift !!!! MAGNIFICENT. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. This CLEARLY explains F=ma AND E=mc2. (This CLEARLY AND necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. IT IS CLEARLY PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio
Wow. Just watched a few videos from the channel. Sabine has the ability to explain very complicated issues in an easy-to-understand way. And she does not leave things out like other youtubers often do. The channel is a gem.
You are the clearest, easiest-to-understand, and most attention retaining physicist in the teaching dimension. If you had been my physics teacher I would be a physicist. Thank you profoundly for your videos!
Hi Sabine, Long time follower of your blog and welcome to yt. So far pbs spacetime was my favourite physics/science channel because of depth, topics and general quality. I am happy they have some decent "competition" now :).
Sabine, I hope you fully grasp the value of your work. Your interest in physics is infectious. You have a unique way of connecting with people and you have greatly expanded my own interest in mathematics and the natural sciences.
Imo that isn't her true value at all. Lots of good science popularizers out there. What's unique about her is her independence of thought. Willingness to question, even slaughter sacred cows in her own field.
Helicity is dual to chirality. Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions, symmetry is dual to anti-symmetry. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual. The Einstein Rosen bridge is actually a Torus = wormholes. The Higgs field is actually a duality field -- broken symmetry or anti-symmetry. Helicity is an equivalent or dual description of chirality -- duality. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality, the Jedi worship duality.
So strange, I was just pondering if these extra dimensions would allow for some kind of fast travel. You read my mind Sabine! Great video. Hope to see more soon!
@@StarStrider99 why do u selfish beings want to use everything. Extra dimensions are so beautiful and so interesting. You should strive to understand them and explore them, don't be a scummy engineer and try to find applications of everything.
7:56 Probably what I'd want with the extra dimensions is an extra place to store stuff without having to go too far in any given dimension. Imagine the organizational possibilities!
I'm no expert, but I suspect the muon's dipole moment discrepancy is due to theorists neglecting an implication of the muon's instability. In other words, an unstable particle is in a superposition of an undecayed state and decayed states, and I'm guessing there are some extra (Feynman diagram) interactions between the superposition state and other virtual particles that the theorists didn't account for. An electron is stable so it wouldn't have these extra interactions.
@@brothermine2292 You sound like an expert to me; Not the paid kind whom are Parrots but an actual thinker ; Note: I realize many whom get paid to do this are very very good thinkers ○ I am only complementing the acuity of the work here ~ The Ultimatus of your thesis is that nothing can be pinned with absolute precision as there are no absolutes nor will there ever be so superposition as you use it is the correct reading
@@brothermine2292 I am also not an expert. (Going to be one in a few years I hope :D). But haven't the theoretical physicists doing the theoretical calculation claimed that they have included all of the interactions possible (according to the standard model) to their calculation? If there were any flaws, it should've been pointed out by some of other theoretical physicists from this huge physics community around the world, right? I am sure they'll (or are) also doing some review to their old calculation. But, to be exited about this result, despite of these possibilities (which I am pretty sure can be handled by the physics community), is ok, I think.
@@brothermine2292 Well, the exciting part of the muon g-2 experiment is, that it comes closer and closer to proofing, that something is there, that "has been neglected". Which is rare and exciting enough, given the incredible precision of predictions that field has reached. That is what makes the experiment exciting, and why it is termed "new physics". I find it intellectually a bit dishonest to just pull out one possible explanation for that phenomenon and pretend that would discredit the whole scientific process. If your idea is right, there would be a mathematical way to prove it, but you would have to do the mathematical work on it, and that would be a lot of work. And then it would still be an amazing discovery to find out, that more Feynman interactions are possible than so far have been thought of, and call into question what those "neglected" interactions are, and why they don't show up in a lot of other experiments
@@brothermine2292 well if you look at the papers calculating the hadronic vacuum ploarization contribution, you will see, that there is a lot of room for error. Simply because one has a hard time comouting hadronic processes. Thus one actually has to take measured data for the theory value (you measure x and the theory says that the value of y is related to x). If you look at the history of the theory value, you can see, that it performs jumps from time to time. So yeah, the theory value is not as precise as one would hope, but not because one neglected the decayed state.
Looking forward to a future video about the muons "breaking physics", Sabine. There is hype around everywhere but you are always calm an reasonable about this things.
Than you for this entertaining session Sabine yet again. From my point of view, you can introduce any kind of dimension to your math if it serves to representing better and solving your problem. In the end. the components you add or choose should be vital or at least meaningful, and that is that. This whole dimension number of Universe is totally needless and I believe this is what Sabine try to conveys us. Especially her ending comment was right on the spot, "traveling through hyperspace with the help of hyperdrives are scientifically extremely implausible". Hyperspace FTL and hyperdrives are just Star Wars buzzwords, that is all.
Thanks - Nice ending. I like the concept of Jumping to Light Speed (as in Star Wars), which seems to take a distant 3rd+ spot in your realm of possibilities
6:00 excellent geometric explanation of how the observed inverse square law for gravity would still be consistent with more dimensions! I never understood it in that manner before.
I disagree with the statement "it just expands". Space with its properites is described theoretically by geometry and mathematics.If the scientifically measured space expands or curves it always expands or curves into a "new" space, which is possible to be described by the theory of geometry.
@@helmutkremser7682 I have to disagree. In differential geometry, on which GR is based, there is no need to have a geometric object like a manifold be embedded into some higher dimensional space, it can perfectly be described intrinsically. Of course, you can in principle embed the manifold to lie in a higher dimensional space and have an equivalent geometric description, but there is no reason to do so. Differential geometry and GR work perfectly fine with an intrinsic description of the spacetime manifold.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, gravitational energy is dual. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton. Helicity is dual to chirality. Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality. Bosons are dual to Fermions, symmetry is dual to anti-symmetry. Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual. The Einstein Rosen bridge is actually a Torus = wormholes. The Higgs field is actually a duality field -- broken symmetry or anti-symmetry. Helicity is an equivalent or dual description of chirality -- duality. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality, the Jedi worship duality. Energy is duality, duality is energy.
@Greg Jacques Yes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Forces are dual, attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of forces). A falling apple converts potential energy into kinetic energy -- this process conserves duality. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Curvature or gravitation is dual. Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Points are dual to lines (vectors) -- the principle of duality in projective duality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@Greg Jacques No is dual to yes. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork. Reality is predicted into existence and this is a syntropic process! Perceptions (which are expectations, predictions) or measurements are converted into conceptions, you create new concepts from perceptions -- syntropic. Concepts are dual to percepts -- Immanuel Kant.. Physics and mathematics contain loads of concepts such as force & energy and these concepts enable the accurate prediction of the dynamics of moving objects such as apples. Syntropy is the correct word to us here, hence there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy, entropy is dual. Duality (energy) creates reality! Syntropy is dual to entropy.
@Greg Jacques You are not providing me with any evidence to support your beliefs & opinions, I am not seeing any intellectual argument to support your personal dogmas. I can create new laws of physics, why should I listen to you? Everything in physics is made from energy or duality! It means that there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics (syntropy). You can think of syntropy as a mirror image or reflection of entropy. Your mind creates syntropy from entropy or average information in the form of expectations or predictions. "The mind/brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Syntropy = entangled entropy or correlated, associated entropy, mutual information. The word mutual implies at least two or dual. Thinking or having rational, analytical thoughts is therefore a syntropic process -- teleological. Uncertainty is converted into certainty -- Heisenberg. Unpredictability is converted into predictability. Randomness (Darwinian evolution, entropy) is dual to order (patterns, syntropy). There is a dual process to that of natural selection or Darwinian evolution. The concept of God is therefore dual. The observed (God) is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Good news is dual to bad news. The bad news is that physics is currently dominated by teleophobia. Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia. Teleophobia in physics means that your will never hear about syntropy! Syntropy is not allowed because it interferes with the current dogmatic beliefs and opinions of those who control physics -- an intellectual crime against humanity. "I have awoken from my dogmatic slumbers" -- Immanuel Kant. The sleeper needs to wake up.
Some time ago I requested a video to explain higher dimensions, I know these videos probably have nothing to do with my request but I appreciate it, thanks Sabine!
The arc length of a function is: s = ∫ sqrt(1 + f'(x)²) dx --> a single segment is: ds = sqrt(1 + f'(x)²) dx And especially the segment on a circle or on a spheresurface, is: ds = 1/sqrt(1 - x²/R²) dx If the radius of the sphere grows with lightspeed R=C*t, you'll get: ds = 1/sqrt(1 - x²/C²t²) dx = 1/sqrt(1 - V²/C²) dx So, the earth surface is not the only sphere we live on. ^^
Who says, that dimensions only come in integers? A dimension of 3.0019548... would we experience as 3 dimensional, and we wouldn't recognize the small deviation.
Great video! I hope to see more videos harking back to the more technically deep explanations of theoretical physics. We need more bangers like "Hawking radiation is not produced at the black hole horizon" and "Get your protons right!". PS That line at the end had me burst out laughing.
It’s very interesting to me... that line where thoughts and physical items meet. (Periodic table) Every thing in our reality exist. Think of something you would like to build. The gathering of substances with the hands 🙌🏼 bring ideas together to create. Now take away the hands and ponder in your mind the movement of ideas. Form a sphere in your mind and then move it from left to right or right to left. Now take that sphere in your mind and place it over your house. Now move that sphere over a house that is the farthest from your house that you can perceive. There is obviously some sort of information exchange going on in our minds. On what scale do these images actually exist. I just happen to be watching the remembrance of Prince Philip. Digital copies of light is pretty amazing, not to mention the audio. Many blessings to you and your love ones... the word. And! Hahahaha Magnetic engines are the future... until we can figure out teleportation.
Please don't. Just make a single 20-minute video, so people don't end up watching the parts out of order, and don't have to search for part 2 after watching part 1.
7:15 Surprise. Extra dimensions small, < 1 µm. For me, in this context, 1 µm is big. It is about the size of a bacterium which contains lots or macromolecules, and compared to atoms and subatomic particles it is enormous. I thought we are talking about something in the range of subatomic particles or less.
Next time you're in a room laid out in a grid pattern -- restaurant tables or a boldly tiled floor for example -- look in a 45-degree direction and imagine that's an orthogonal dimension you can move in, and picture in your mind how the objects move away from you as you move in that dimension. It's an interesting way to waste a few spare minutes if you've got them.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 If you ride in a glass elevator, you don't move north-south or east-west, yet the things around you recede away from you. Picture something like that. As you "move" in the imaginary 4th dimension, the trees will recede away from you even though you're not moving north-south, east-west, or up-down, analogous to going up in a glass elevator. Or they can come closer while you don't move in the normal 3 dimensions, analogous to going down in a glass elevator. But what does the trees' apparent movement look like? That's up to your imagination and how you think distance and angles and stuff describes what you see. I picture them coming toward and away left or right in a sort-of curve; but that can't be right. Working how they seem to move is the exercise.
@@frenstcht it's easier to imagine the shadow of a higher dimensional object than to put myself into one. How does a circle imagine itself a sphere? Rotation? My computer handles nth dimension matrices without complaint. But I cannot.
A slower than light warp drive is an astonishing idea that I have never seen in a science fiction story. I have been reading at least 1 book a day (more than one some days) since I first discovered a cache of science fiction books in my grandmother's basement when I was 8 years old. I am now almost 70, so it's a fair statement I have a good idea of what ideas have been out there. Warp drives are always used for faster than light travel in science fiction.
Haha. Do Sabine & colleagues still offer that "Talk To A Scientist" service, where you can buy 20min of their time to ask any physics question? Though, it says "Document or video content review is considered on a case-by-case basis but this may affect pricing." :D Also, cf. John Baez's Crackpot Index: "10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen." :^)
These recent videos of hers are just nice, informative, polished, etc (as always)... But I have to go on record and I say I had no problems with the older ones. In fact I kinda sorta miss how they were ever so slightly, I don't know, awkward... I always took it as she just didn't care, it was the physics that mattered.
@Ali Erkan I know what you mean. She's been less snarky too, which I really miss. I like her best when she's ass kickin' the "pop physics" crowd (my interpretation of the so-called experts who allow the media to misrepresent theories as proven discoveries.) I was kinda hoping she'd snark on Stephen Hawking. He was the epitome of a pop phizzycist. He may have been brilliant but he played fast and loose with the facts when it suited him. Uh... I'm done. 😬
@@KG-jx8zt I don't know if you follow the Closer To Truth channel. She recently was a guest there and her self restraint as she was asked to entertain pop-physics questions were priceless :)
Hi Sabine. I'm Argentine physic and your fan. I'm solidist but I teach Special Relativity and Astrophysics. I agree with the majority of your postures about the excessively speculative look of fundamental physics, after all, I'm an experimentalist. In relation to the dimension extra, necessary to curve the space in Relativity, there is the posture that it is only a theoretical representation of the distortions that cause the properties of light and the motion of matter in the dynamic of things. Is Anatoly Logunov's relativistic theory of gravitation. In this picture, the gravitation is a physic field, like the electromagnetic. It is to say, Einstein confounded the theoretical representation with reality. It is something that happens many times in this field.
One way to help with understanding concepts like curved space and expansion of the universe is to NOT try to visualize something that we usually really can't actually do with our 3-D minds but to think about it as how the points of space are connected. E.g., worm holes don't involve all that bending and folding, only that the the points in space involved are, somehow, connected in a way that results in the worm hole. Also, an expanding universe doesn't need to expand anywhere, essentially, all the distances between points are getting scaled. At least, this helps me, maybe it works for others.
Maybe it “expands” in terms of the thermodynamical system of itself. With entanglement and time dilation, the progression of events may seem to cause an appearance of a spatial expansion. I don’t know, but we have to realize that everything is connected into one system. We have to understand dynamics of systems if we want to understand the universe and the macro phenomena
Hi Sabine, I left this comment on another video but I think it's important, so: If you have the inclination -I'd love for you to tackle "Dissident Science" There's a group with some presence here on RUclips that suggest that 'mainstream scientists' are seriously lost and that problems in the Standard Model and the "Crisis" in cosmology show it. They have problems with Plate Tectonics, Heliocentrism, Relativity and so on. Thanks for all you do!
Thanks for being a voice of sanity Sabine! Without you and Peter Woit and a few others, physics is in danger of becoming the fantasy world of failed string believers.
Sabine, will you make some video about the muon g-2 experiment? Or 4,2 sigma isn't enough. Even if isn't, I think that enlightening us about would be great
why wouldn't such a video not be so called enlightening to 'us' speak for yourself when you refer to a limited understanding of theoretical physics and mathematics Soy boy. really???
@@marcosolo6491 damn, I don't no why they published this results without 5 sigma, would it be for others to make tests to? Do you have any article that I can read about? Thanks for the information
I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/ I have a video coming up next week about data anomalies in participle physics. (Incl the B-meson anomaly and the muon g-2).
Best Birthday gift EVER!! Thanks, Sabine!! Could polaritons be used to create the necessary negative energy through the relaxation of the charge state?
Interesting, I had this dream a couple of months ago that became the nugget for a short story, and revisiting your channel tonight for a recent couple of videos gave me the resolution to it that it was lacking. So thank you, I realize it had no conscious intention on your part, but thanks anyway!
Too vague. Do you mean the rates of B meson decay into electrons and muons, which theoretically should be equal, but the LHC found more electrons and fewer muons?
I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/ I have a video coming up next Saturday about data anomalies in particle physics in general.
String theorists have found the ATM strategy: Given assumption A (radii extra dimensions) Theory T and contradicting measurement M, they say: the assumption is wrong, give me money! (for a bigger and larger experiment)
As an effect of general relativity, the expansion of the universe is different from the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. To understand the metric expansion of the universe, it is helpful to discuss briefly what a metric is, and how metric expansion works. It may seem obvious that distance is measured by a straight line, but in many cases it is not.In expanding space, proper distances are dynamical quantities which change with time. An easy way to correct for this is to use co moving coordinates which remove this feature and allow for a characterization of different locations in the universe without having to characterize the physics associated with metric expansion. In co moving coordinates, the distances between all objects are fixed and the instantaneous dynamics of matter and light are determined by the normal physics of gravity and electromagnetic radiation. Any time-evolution however must be accounted for by taking into account the Hubble law expansion in the appropriate equations in addition to any other effects that may be operating (gravity, dark energy, or curvature, for example). Cosmological simulations that run through significant fractions of the universe's history therefore must include such effects in order to make applicable predictions for observational cosmology. In principle, the expansion of the universe could be measured by taking a standard ruler and measuring the distance between two cosmologically distant points, waiting a certain time, and then measuring the distance again, but in practice, standard rulers are not easy to find on cosmological scales and the timescales over which a measurable expansion would be visible are too great to be observable even by multiple generations of humans. The expansion of space is measured indirectly. The theory of relativity predicts phenomena associated with the expansion, notably the redshift-versus-distance relationship known as Hubble's Law; functional forms for cosmological distance measurements that differ from what would be expected if space were not expanding; and an observable change in the matter and energy density of the universe seen at different look back times. In zero or one dimension or lower dimensions outlook, the universe do not expand and therefore no time dimension and 3D of space. We don't know, when dimensions higher up infinitely we have complex infinite patterns and just expand and become smaller and that's interesting. Correct me.
Could you make a video expanding on the topic of how spacetime can curve without a higher embedding dimension? Is there any way to visualize this? It is very confusing and non intuitive.
Math is just logical symbolism. It is not the universe, it is a language used to describe the universe with a rigorous form of consistency. You can even devise a mathematical system with no relation to reality, as long as you keep all the gymnastics coherent. The idiocy comes when you call the math itself the nature of the universe. We measure things & that is what we can model with math, but we are measuring surface level phenomenon often & must realize not to equate what we can measure with the inner workings of what gives rise to what we measure. It’s like measuring the dimensions of a wave on the ocean and describing the overall shape of the wave, while not understanding anything about the chemical nature of the water and salt molecules. They do this goofy stuff when they say shut up and measure, then devise themselves infinite universes and nonsensical probability functions. No, fundamental reality is not described by imaginary numbers like i and j and such, if imaginary numbers are useful in describing reality, then that means we aren’t measuring fundamental reality, but we are measuring a system which results from the interaction of a more fundamental reality. They also do this mathematical nonsense with calling hydrocarbons “hydrophobic”, and seeking a state of higher disorder, when the neutral molecules have no property of being repelled by polar water molecules, the polarity of the water molecules is just a stronger attractive force than the neutrality of oils, so the oils get pushed out of the way, but they are inert in the whole situation. They can describe stuff, but they are so use to memorizing things that they don’t understand what they are describing, & thus go down these mental gymnastic rabbit holes.
Hello Sabine and thank you for the thoughtful content. It think the String Theorists were looking at a 20-sided die and added 6 more for good measure. Have you considered collaborating with Isaac Arthur? He is a RUclips futurist who covers the potential of humanity using only known science. O'Neill Cylinders, Matrioshka Brains, and The Fermi Paradox are all covered.
Thanks for your excellent videos, Sabine. I hope you’re going to move on to discuss the cosmology promoted by Nobel laureate Kip Thorne in his 2014 book The Science of Interstellar. He shows that Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated in five dimensions, so a theoretical observer elevated to a fifth-dimensional vantage point would see the many potential 4D worldlines (or “world tubes” as he prefers to call them) bending and stretching in the warped geometries of the tesseract. This aligns with my own thinking about imagining the dimensions: yes, physically we are forever embedded in the third dimension, and our window into the extra dimensions is always confined to our maximum resolution of one-3D-Planck-frame after-another, giving us the impression that these additional orthogonal space-like dimensions are curled up on themselves. Since you also like to make music, as a fellow composer here’s one of my own songs about our unique situation - “The Anthropic Viewpoint”. ruclips.net/video/du86lNCvOdA/видео.html
I think the trick for FTL is locality principle. What is determining for a particle it's speed? The environment where it is. If lot of mass (energy) moving in a certain direction time start flow differently. It is every day effect called frame dragging. I watching the material stream coming out from black holes. They are particles traveling near the speed of light. Those particles must manipulate space time and they should create frame dragging effect. The particles inside this jets could seem from outside exceeding the light speed. Because local spacetime has been dragged. When such a particle leaving that jet it will lose that dragging effect. It needs to lose that "extra speed" by radiating energy. And it must be a huge amount as there are gamma radiation coming from those jets. I think FTL is possible, if you can manipulate the locality of space time. And this is exactly what warpdrive should do. There are lot to learn about space and time...
Dein Englisch ist so gut, dass ich bei -25% Abspielgeschwindigkeit alles verstehen kann. Insbesondere wenn man das mit dem vielen "Gebrabbel" vergleicht, das man auf RUclips sonst so hören kann. Ist das Oxford-Englisch?
Danke, das freut mich. Es ist so viel Mühe. Also, wenn ich nicht weiß, wie ein Wort ausgesprochen wird, höre ich mir das im Oxford-Dictionary an. Dh, vermutlich ja. Man müsste wohl jemand aus Oxford fragen... Gelegentlich hört man aber immer noch 6 Jahre Nordamerika durch.
@@SabineHossenfelder : aber ich nicht! Mit Oxford-Englisch meinte ich natürlich die Hoch-Sprache an sich. Mir gefällt besonders Deine mittelschwere Skepsis bezüglich dem offiziellen Physik-Business. Den Dr. Don Lincoln vom Fermilab find ich auch gut.
@@SabineHossenfelder I hear some British English in "there" and "fast" etc. but in general I hear more North American English. It is a good neutral mix for explaining physics without the gobbledegook.
@@EnginAtik Sabine's accent stands out for me in one way: the sound /ɪ/ is clipped and approaches a neutral schwa [ə]. New Zealand English merges these two sounds with no loss of comprehension.
an insightful video as always! will there be a video on the muon g-2 result and ensuing media coverage of the “strong evidence for a new fundamental force of nature”? interested to hear your take on things!
The proof of the pudding: 4/ mb 3.5, RegionSOUTH OF ALASKA, Date time2021-04-17 08:42:43.4 UTC, Location54.32 N ; 159.57 W, Depth20 km. 3/ ML 3.4,RegionTARAPACA, CHILE, Date time2021-04-17 09:00:24.0 UTC, Location20.85 S ; 69.03 W, Depth107 km. 2/ ML 3.2, Region SOUTH OF ALASKA, Date time2021-04-17 12:16:51.8 UTC, Location55.98 N ; 154.37 W, Depth 28 km. 1/ ML 2.6, RegionTARAPACA, CHILE, Date time2021-04-17 12:25:10.0 UTC, Location18.85 S ; 69.70 W, Depth 99 km. By the way, if you entangle 2 particles, that's the way they stay, unless they're collided -- one up, one down -- since they're spinning at the same rate. Spin isn't degenerate. DOH! Quantum fizzistists know how to create a mystery where none exists...they must have been reading Agatha Christie.
Motion is forces changing dimensions. Frequency is energy following the path of least resistance, yet still in resistance. It's diameter depends on amount of force, and type. Energy corkscrews through space at frequencies determined by resistance. Defracted and refracted by resistance. It's absorbed by attraction or repelled by counter force. In all exchanges heat is lost and created. Resistance always has heat involved. The heat may always be present but not condensed. Energy breaking into a new dimensional product: heat. Energy transference.
Dr H is immensely cool. She can explain this jazz, and she can also do that excellent "Hurricanes are ENORMOUS" that definitely should have become a meme.
In an ideal universe, I am now a high school graduate and have been accepted by whatever university Dr. Hossenfelder teaches at, where I will major in Physics. She will be my thesis advisor. 😎💙💛
Interestingly, the guy who came up with 26 dimensions, Claud [sic] Lovelace, never finished grad school, so he only had a bachelor's degree. He also had a hammock hanging from the ceiling of his office.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Let's just appreciate how the first episode's thumbnail says "How it started" and the second episode's says "How it's going"
Brrrrr, I don't wanna watch the third thumbnail.
Yeah it was a nice touch
So it's truly a meme now.
Waiting for how it ends. Then the one no one will see .. how it ended.
Let's not forget the matching blue and red sweaters. Nice touch.
How to travel faster than light? We don't know. But maybe You will be the one figuring it out
These are exactly the kind of things that make Sabine, and PBS Space Time, so special. Encouraging humanity at the individual level.
Thanks, Sabine, for being the best, understanding, explaining, and encouraging!
Sabine is on a different planet to PBS Space Time. She’s a brilliant thinker who publishes scientific papers and provokes thought whereas that Australian dude summarises the papers that people like Sabine write. No worries if you’re into PBS although they both do very different things.
I sense a hint of sarcasm in Sabine's "encouragement" that one of us might invent faster-than-light travel. If she seriously thinks there's a chance during her lifetime to solve it, I assume she would spend some time working on it.
@@FaxanaduJohn Matt O'Dowd is a tenure track Professor at City University of New York. He's an astrophysicist specialising in extra-galactic phenomenon. Sabine is a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Study.
Both are exceptionally gifted physicists.
Both are popular science educators.
Yet neither is better than the other. They just work in different areas of the field. Suggesting otherwise isn't just wrong. Its revealing of your blindspots in the field.
Unfortunately if you work out the numbers only 0.003% of the population. The rest are too busy sharing cat videos.
Oh, Sabine is far superior to the PBS Spacetime channel. I like Matt, but he presents others' ideas. Since physics is IMO a hot mess right now, I really appreciate that Sabine makes her expert opinions known. REFRESHING!
Even if Sabine is talking about a subject I'm very familiar with, her presentation is always very engaging. Fortunately, she often covers topics I don't know well, so I can learn new stuff.
It was year 2006 when I embraced enthusiastically the string theory, which I had learned few years earlier. It seemed so plausible, and coherent with the incompleteness principle of Logic. One bit at time, it begun to fall apart, to the point that I now consider the theory as a mere mathematical exercise. I believe the string theory be lacking on the fact that these extra curled dimensions could be interacting between them, and should be somewhat hybridised.
New indicators - like the G - 2, are pointing to the fact that there is a void in our understanding of the sub-atomic world; my hunch is we have badly misunderstood the nature of Space, and we lack a full comprehension of the consequences of the equivalence of Space and Time.
You hint at this problem toward the end of the video, when you report of the common question, "Where the Space expands into", and the answer is much more complex and articulate of the concise explanation you tell in the video.
I hope a new era for our Science will soon open, after almost a century of intellectual stagnation.
Thank you for your video; I appreciated the warp drive rocket (Is it what Asimov kept calling "Sakharov Drive" in his SF stories?).
Regards,
"New indicators - like the G - 2, are pointing to the fact that there is a void in our understanding of the sub-atomic world; my hunch is we have badly misunderstood the nature of Space, and we lack a full comprehension of the consequences of the equivalence of Space and Time."
I've thought similarly, that the question "what is space" has been generally ignored and accepted as a "simple necessity" of being able to have a model. Space has been taken for granted, same as causality (explored via QM), and same as time (explored via GR)
I think at least we can say for Space that there is *some* effective formal discretization; or more generally, at least that it (or something) "exists". And there's a lot of it, whatever it is
Boring thought: If you have a thing and another thing, and they "exist simultaneously", this creates another (one other) thing.
The real rules of the universe probably have some notion of that somewhere, but this is too generic, there's nothing to go from there. But what about the set of rules available from these bases? What if the two things exist into another two or three things, rather than one? Or if there's some attribute to attach and parameterize on? What if the ability to "exist" is hampered by some relations between what already exists?
I could go on - it's hard to make sense of all the different kinds of systems that can be thought of, but at the least we can find ways to enumerate these and check out how they work in the abstract.
Some very smart mathematicians have worked out ways to generically represent relationships and actions/operations between things (eg lambda calc), and if we take these processes into infinity (which intuitively seems necessary to reproduce the Space we see), we can apparently use all this to get some really neat and *very* relevant properties (eg reproduction of effective Riemannian manifolds). Maybe after a while this basic concept could form a GuT?
These ideas are the main topic of the Wolfram Physics project where they've got a bunch of stuff on youtube to watch; I suggest their introductory series starting at ruclips.net/video/BV3a0PzNNqE/видео.html
A quicker intro is Jon Gorard's interview by Eigenbros at ruclips.net/video/AKDD1AfDJBM/видео.html
Additionally: wolframphysics.org/technical-documents/
They've got a construction matching GR and something very similar to QM, but are still a ways away from finding something like the SM. Very promising and I think the most effective approach so far to considering the question "what is space"
(Note: I'm a hobbyist and probably misrepresented some of their ideas - I'm replying earnestly with only my own take on these subjects)
With that second sentence you lost any credibility.
Space is the correlation of our internal and external senses, regardless of how specifically we can or cannot measure/experience things externally.
@@overreactengine The ultimate unification and understanding of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY manifest as F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Here's the proof. This also explains why objects (including WHAT IS THE FALLING MAN) fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=MC2 IS clearly and necessarily F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE.
ON THE CLEAR, EXTENSIVE, SENSIBLE, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, AND UNIVERSAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly PROVEN TO BE F=MA ON BALANCE:
Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!! Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy ON BALANCE, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma IN BALANCE. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, it makes perfect sense that THE PLANETS (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) will move away very, very, very slightly in relation to what is THE SUN !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, as this balances gravity AND inertia; AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. GREAT. I have explained the cosmological redshift AND the supergiant stars. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma IN BALANCE !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
@@overreactengine The cosmological redshift, the fact that the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AND the fact that the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution are all CLEARLY consistent with (and proven by) F=ma AND E=mc2.
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Therefore, it is proven that THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to what is the Sun. INDEED, E=mc2 AND F=ma are CLEARLY consistent with the cosmological redshift !!!! MAGNIFICENT.
Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. This CLEARLY explains F=ma AND E=mc2. (This CLEARLY AND necessarily represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE.) ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. IT IS CLEARLY PROVEN.
By Frank DiMeglio
Wow. Just watched a few videos from the channel. Sabine has the ability to explain very complicated issues in an easy-to-understand way. And she does not leave things out like other youtubers often do. The channel is a gem.
You are the clearest, easiest-to-understand, and most attention retaining physicist in the teaching dimension. If you had been my physics teacher I would be a physicist. Thank you profoundly for your videos!
Hi Sabine,
Long time follower of your blog and welcome to yt. So far pbs spacetime was my favourite physics/science channel because of depth, topics and general quality. I am happy they have some decent "competition" now :).
My Saturday is never complete without one of your videos. Thank you so much for creating them, they're great both in content and in form.
Sabine, I hope you fully grasp the value of your work. Your interest in physics is infectious. You have a unique way of connecting with people and you have greatly expanded my own interest in mathematics and the natural sciences.
Imo that isn't her true value at all. Lots of good science popularizers out there. What's unique about her is her independence of thought. Willingness to question, even slaughter sacred cows in her own field.
Helicity is dual to chirality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions, symmetry is dual to anti-symmetry.
Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual.
The Einstein Rosen bridge is actually a Torus = wormholes.
The Higgs field is actually a duality field -- broken symmetry or anti-symmetry.
Helicity is an equivalent or dual description of chirality -- duality.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein.
Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force" = duality, the Jedi worship duality.
So strange, I was just pondering if these extra dimensions would allow for some kind of fast travel. You read my mind Sabine! Great video. Hope to see more soon!
Im good if they just carry my soul to eternal serenity . I like earth 🌎 😍
I do wonder though, supposing higher dimensions do exist, could we make some other use of them?
@@StarStrider99its just the cords connected to God's joy stick lol
@@StarStrider99 Maybe we could toss our trash in them
@@StarStrider99 why do u selfish beings want to use everything. Extra dimensions are so beautiful and so interesting. You should strive to understand them and explore them, don't be a scummy engineer and try to find applications of everything.
7:56 Probably what I'd want with the extra dimensions is an extra place to store stuff without having to go too far in any given dimension. Imagine the organizational possibilities!
A more profitable use would be to use those extra dimensions to get into bank vaults and empty them out.
Totally. I could always use more storage space.
Sabina's wardrobe have 42 dimensions
And she looks great in all of them.
It's an answer.
Having a three-dimensional wardrobe makes it so much simpler to get undressed for bed..
Looking forward to your take on the much hyped muon g-2 experiment and "new physics".
I'm no expert, but I suspect the muon's dipole moment discrepancy is due to theorists neglecting an implication of the muon's instability. In other words, an unstable particle is in a superposition of an undecayed state and decayed states, and I'm guessing there are some extra (Feynman diagram) interactions between the superposition state and other virtual particles that the theorists didn't account for. An electron is stable so it wouldn't have these extra interactions.
@@brothermine2292
You sound like an expert to me;
Not the paid kind whom are Parrots but an actual thinker ;
Note: I realize many whom get paid to do this are very very good thinkers ○ I am only complementing the acuity of the work here ~ The Ultimatus of your thesis is that nothing can be pinned with absolute precision as there are no absolutes nor will there ever be so superposition as you use it is the correct reading
@@brothermine2292 I am also not an expert. (Going to be one in a few years I hope :D). But haven't the theoretical physicists doing the theoretical calculation claimed that they have included all of the interactions possible (according to the standard model) to their calculation? If there were any flaws, it should've been pointed out by some of other theoretical physicists from this huge physics community around the world, right? I am sure they'll (or are) also doing some review to their old calculation. But, to be exited about this result, despite of these possibilities (which I am pretty sure can be handled by the physics community), is ok, I think.
@@brothermine2292 Well, the exciting part of the muon g-2 experiment is, that it comes closer and closer to proofing, that something is there, that "has been neglected". Which is rare and exciting enough, given the incredible precision of predictions that field has reached. That is what makes the experiment exciting, and why it is termed "new physics".
I find it intellectually a bit dishonest to just pull out one possible explanation for that phenomenon and pretend that would discredit the whole scientific process. If your idea is right, there would be a mathematical way to prove it, but you would have to do the mathematical work on it, and that would be a lot of work. And then it would still be an amazing discovery to find out, that more Feynman interactions are possible than so far have been thought of, and call into question what those "neglected" interactions are, and why they don't show up in a lot of other experiments
@@brothermine2292 well if you look at the papers calculating the hadronic vacuum ploarization contribution, you will see, that there is a lot of room for error.
Simply because one has a hard time comouting hadronic processes.
Thus one actually has to take measured data for the theory value (you measure x and the theory says that the value of y is related to x).
If you look at the history of the theory value, you can see, that it performs jumps from time to time.
So yeah, the theory value is not as precise as one would hope, but not because one neglected the decayed state.
Looking forward to a future video about the muons "breaking physics", Sabine. There is hype around everywhere but you are always calm an reasonable about this things.
Now my Saturday is complete. Thank you for making great contents.
Than you for this entertaining session Sabine yet again.
From my point of view, you can introduce any kind of dimension to your math if it serves to representing better and solving your problem. In the end. the components you add or choose should be vital or at least meaningful, and that is that. This whole dimension number of Universe is totally needless and I believe this is what Sabine try to conveys us. Especially her ending comment was right on the spot, "traveling through hyperspace with the help of hyperdrives are scientifically extremely implausible". Hyperspace FTL and hyperdrives are just Star Wars buzzwords, that is all.
Thanks Sabine for another great video. I'm very much enjoying your take on higher dimensions!
Message to the universe: Thankyou for creating Sabine!
Thanks - Nice ending. I like the concept of Jumping to Light Speed (as in Star Wars), which seems to take a distant 3rd+ spot in your realm of possibilities
I love your videos Sabine, we are lucky to have you explain this stuff which you make understandable.
That was the most positive video you've ever made, you didn't made fun of string theorists a single time, I'm so proud of you!
6:00 excellent geometric explanation of how the observed inverse square law for gravity would still be consistent with more dimensions! I never understood it in that manner before.
Isn't it the standard one?
I even stay and watch the commercial ending because Sabine just makes everything so cool.
I'm no astronaut and nor do I understand space on a scientific level, but I just absolutely love watching these videos😊👍
“It just expands” the answer to the question that has always troubled me
What if the concepts of heaven and hell where how people from the past described higher and lower dimensions?
I disagree with the statement "it just expands". Space with its properites is described theoretically by geometry and mathematics.If the scientifically measured space expands or curves it always expands or curves into a "new" space, which is possible to be described by the theory of geometry.
The right answer may be - it does not expand, but it seems so
@@chillallthekildren But they could not know about them
@@helmutkremser7682 I have to disagree. In differential geometry, on which GR is based, there is no need to have a geometric object like a manifold be embedded into some higher dimensional space, it can perfectly be described intrinsically. Of course, you can in principle embed the manifold to lie in a higher dimensional space and have an equivalent geometric description, but there is no reason to do so. Differential geometry and GR work perfectly fine with an intrinsic description of the spacetime manifold.
There's my favorite - and most precise - living physicist. Danke schön, Sabine! :)
-and mathematician
"it would be pointless" feels like very clever wordplay given the explanation of Newton's theory of gravitation
Another one I missed...
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, gravitational energy is dual.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Helicity is dual to chirality.
Spin statistics theorem:- Symmetric wave functions (Bosons, waves) are dual to anti-symmetric wave functions (Fermions, particles) -- wave/particle or quantum duality.
Bosons are dual to Fermions, symmetry is dual to anti-symmetry.
Particles are dual to anti-particles, spin up is dual to spin down -- Dirac equation.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Maxwell's equations, electro-magnetic energy is dual.
The Einstein Rosen bridge is actually a Torus = wormholes.
The Higgs field is actually a duality field -- broken symmetry or anti-symmetry.
Helicity is an equivalent or dual description of chirality -- duality.
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein.
Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
"The Force" = duality, the Jedi worship duality.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
@Greg Jacques Yes. Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Forces are dual, attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull.
Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of forces).
A falling apple converts potential energy into kinetic energy -- this process conserves duality.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual.
Positive curvature is dual to negative curvature -- Gauss, Riemann geometry.
Curvature or gravitation is dual.
Gravitation is dual to acceleration -- Einstein.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein, special relativity.
Space is dual to time -- Einstein.
Points are dual to lines (vectors) -- the principle of duality in projective duality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@Greg Jacques No is dual to yes.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.
Reality is predicted into existence and this is a syntropic process!
Perceptions (which are expectations, predictions) or measurements are converted into conceptions, you create new concepts from perceptions -- syntropic.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- Immanuel Kant..
Physics and mathematics contain loads of concepts such as force & energy and these concepts enable the accurate prediction of the dynamics of moving objects such as apples.
Syntropy is the correct word to us here, hence there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy, entropy is dual.
Duality (energy) creates reality!
Syntropy is dual to entropy.
@Greg Jacques You are not providing me with any evidence to support your beliefs & opinions, I am not seeing any intellectual argument to support your personal dogmas.
I can create new laws of physics, why should I listen to you?
Everything in physics is made from energy or duality! It means that there is a dual process to that of increasing entropy or the 2nd law of thermodynamics (syntropy).
You can think of syntropy as a mirror image or reflection of entropy.
Your mind creates syntropy from entropy or average information in the form of expectations or predictions.
"The mind/brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist.
Syntropy = entangled entropy or correlated, associated entropy, mutual information.
The word mutual implies at least two or dual.
Thinking or having rational, analytical thoughts is therefore a syntropic process -- teleological.
Uncertainty is converted into certainty -- Heisenberg.
Unpredictability is converted into predictability.
Randomness (Darwinian evolution, entropy) is dual to order (patterns, syntropy).
There is a dual process to that of natural selection or Darwinian evolution.
The concept of God is therefore dual.
The observed (God) is dual to the observer -- David Bohm.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Good news is dual to bad news.
The bad news is that physics is currently dominated by teleophobia.
Teleophilia is dual to teleophobia.
Teleophobia in physics means that your will never hear about syntropy! Syntropy is not allowed because it interferes with the current dogmatic beliefs and opinions of those who control physics -- an intellectual crime against humanity.
"I have awoken from my dogmatic slumbers" -- Immanuel Kant.
The sleeper needs to wake up.
Some time ago I requested a video to explain higher dimensions, I know these videos probably have nothing to do with my request but I appreciate it, thanks Sabine!
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
The arc length of a function is: s = ∫ sqrt(1 + f'(x)²) dx --> a single segment is: ds = sqrt(1 + f'(x)²) dx
And especially the segment on a circle or on a spheresurface, is: ds = 1/sqrt(1 - x²/R²) dx
If the radius of the sphere grows with lightspeed R=C*t, you'll get: ds = 1/sqrt(1 - x²/C²t²) dx = 1/sqrt(1 - V²/C²) dx
So, the earth surface is not the only sphere we live on. ^^
Who says, that dimensions only come in integers? A dimension of 3.0019548... would we experience as 3 dimensional, and we wouldn't recognize the small deviation.
5:26 This is the part when we say " Yes ... that guy again "
Still waiting for a definition of higher dimension from Eva
My brain adds in that phrase every time I read or hear the name now.
Both of them are half of physics basically.
@Trevor Chase that's halarious
@Trevor Chase According to Einstein the universe is not expanding.
Always a highlight of the day to see you have uploaded!
Great video! I hope to see more videos harking back to the more technically deep explanations of theoretical physics. We need more bangers like "Hawking radiation is not produced at the black hole horizon" and "Get your protons right!". PS That line at the end had me burst out laughing.
It’s very interesting to me... that line where thoughts and physical items meet. (Periodic table) Every thing in our reality exist. Think of something you would like to build. The gathering of substances with the hands 🙌🏼 bring ideas together to create. Now take away the hands and ponder in your mind the movement of ideas. Form a sphere in your mind and then move it from left to right or right to left. Now take that sphere in your mind and place it over your house. Now move that sphere over a house that is the farthest from your house that you can perceive.
There is obviously some sort of information exchange going on in our minds. On what scale do these images actually exist. I just happen to be watching the remembrance of Prince Philip. Digital copies of light is pretty amazing, not to mention the audio.
Many blessings to you and your love ones... the word.
And! Hahahaha
Magnetic engines are the future... until we can figure out teleportation.
I was wating 🤗🤗
I know you are busy 😉
Thanks for the content 🙏
Please do more of these two part formats. History and current research. Its really interesting.
Please don't. Just make a single 20-minute video, so people don't end up watching the parts out of order, and don't have to search for part 2 after watching part 1.
7:15 Surprise. Extra dimensions small, < 1 µm. For me, in this context, 1 µm is big. It is about the size of a bacterium which contains lots or macromolecules, and compared to atoms and subatomic particles it is enormous. I thought we are talking about something in the range of subatomic particles or less.
thats just an upper bound tho. higher energy experiments could still further shrink that estimate
Wow. It never occurred to me that I could be the one figuring out ftl travel. Thx Sabine. I always knew I was special. 😊
Great series and great episode! Your delivery and production has also gotten so much better it's amazing! Great content as always!
The first time I am able to understand how higher dimensions idea works...great explanation
My favorite string theory term is "p-brane."
🤣
A p-brane is so small that it cannot be seen. :-)
Love the video from Sabine! Also love Audible, btw.
Next time you're in a room laid out in a grid pattern -- restaurant tables or a boldly tiled floor for example -- look in a 45-degree direction and imagine that's an orthogonal dimension you can move in, and picture in your mind how the objects move away from you as you move in that dimension. It's an interesting way to waste a few spare minutes if you've got them.
Ok, I am in an orchard. The trees are 10 meters apart in a north south grid. The 45 degree line runs off between trees to the horizon.
Now what?
Hahahaha I was thinking along these lines... look for my comment.... just thoughts.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 If you ride in a glass elevator, you don't move north-south or east-west, yet the things around you recede away from you. Picture something like that. As you "move" in the imaginary 4th dimension, the trees will recede away from you even though you're not moving north-south, east-west, or up-down, analogous to going up in a glass elevator.
Or they can come closer while you don't move in the normal 3 dimensions, analogous to going down in a glass elevator.
But what does the trees' apparent movement look like? That's up to your imagination and how you think distance and angles and stuff describes what you see. I picture them coming toward and away left or right in a sort-of curve; but that can't be right. Working how they seem to move is the exercise.
@@frenstcht it's easier to imagine the shadow of a higher dimensional object than to put myself into one. How does a circle imagine itself a sphere? Rotation?
My computer handles nth dimension matrices without complaint. But I cannot.
@@jamesdriscoll_tmp1515 oh, man! I cannot deal with those 4D shadow thingies. Have a great day!
A slower than light warp drive is an astonishing idea that I have never seen in a science fiction story. I have been reading at least 1 book a day (more than one some days) since I first discovered a cache of science fiction books in my grandmother's basement when I was 8 years old. I am now almost 70, so it's a fair statement I have a good idea of what ideas have been out there. Warp drives are always used for faster than light travel in science fiction.
Hi there Alcubierre warp drive, great idea all the best.
Thanks for the book tip, and as usual another fun episode.
"Maybe you are the one to figure it out. But please, don't send them to me."
And if you do, I'll make a song! 😁😁
Haha. Do Sabine & colleagues still offer that "Talk To A Scientist" service, where you can buy 20min of their time to ask any physics question? Though, it says "Document or video content review is considered on a case-by-case basis but this may affect pricing." :D
Also, cf. John Baez's Crackpot Index:
"10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen."
:^)
THANK YOU Sabine, for your science without the gobbledygook (sp?). I am a huge fan. So good to hear some reason for a change.
These recent videos of hers are just nice, informative, polished, etc (as always)... But I have to go on record and I say I had no problems with the older ones. In fact I kinda sorta miss how they were ever so slightly, I don't know, awkward... I always took it as she just didn't care, it was the physics that mattered.
@Ali Erkan I know what you mean. She's been less snarky too, which I really miss. I like her best when she's ass kickin' the "pop physics" crowd (my interpretation of the so-called experts who allow the media to misrepresent theories as proven discoveries.) I was kinda hoping she'd snark on Stephen Hawking. He was the epitome of a pop phizzycist. He may have been brilliant but he played fast and loose with the facts when it suited him. Uh... I'm done. 😬
@@KG-jx8zt I don't know if you follow the Closer To Truth channel. She recently was a guest there and her self restraint as she was asked to entertain pop-physics questions were priceless :)
@@alisaiterkan Thanks, I'll check it out.
This is the most I have ever understand about this topic! Love the channel
Your videos always feel short, excellent work.
Wow, and I got most of it. Fav episode so far... Except for that Corona virus video edition of "end of the world"
Commenting for algorithm and to say thank you for a great Saturday wakeup!
You are such a breath of fresh air. Science without the Bravo Sierra.
Love Your Presentation; Love Your Work, Sweetie!!!
Hi Sabine. I'm Argentine physic and your fan. I'm solidist but I teach Special Relativity and Astrophysics. I agree with the majority of your postures about the excessively speculative look of fundamental physics, after all, I'm an experimentalist. In relation to the dimension extra, necessary to curve the space in Relativity, there is the posture that it is only a theoretical representation of the distortions that cause the properties of light and the motion of matter in the dynamic of things. Is Anatoly Logunov's relativistic theory of gravitation. In this picture, the gravitation is a physic field, like the electromagnetic. It is to say, Einstein confounded the theoretical representation with reality. It is something that happens many times in this field.
I would like to curl up in another dimension with Sabine...
She definitely has spooky powers at a distance,
One way to help with understanding concepts like curved space and expansion of the universe is to NOT try to visualize something that we usually really can't actually do with our 3-D minds but to think about it as how the points of space are connected. E.g., worm holes don't involve all that bending and folding, only that the the points in space involved are, somehow, connected in a way that results in the worm hole. Also, an expanding universe doesn't need to expand anywhere, essentially, all the distances between points are getting scaled. At least, this helps me, maybe it works for others.
I need an extra dimension of space to put all my stuff. And an extra dimension of time to complete all my responsibilities...
That's soo intp of you
Such a dimension already exists, but you cannot reach it. It is where all the odd socks go.
@@simongross3122 Electromagnetism.
@@michaeljones7465 Only if you wear fluoro socks
“The universe is not expanding into anything, it just expands “ haha
@@MorgTheVoid ok
Maybe it “expands” in terms of the thermodynamical system of itself. With entanglement and time dilation, the progression of events may seem to cause an appearance of a spatial expansion.
I don’t know, but we have to realize that everything is connected into one system. We have to understand dynamics of systems if we want to understand the universe and the macro phenomena
Or maybe everything inside is just getting smaller and smaller
That's does not feel like a Sabina answer! Common, there has to be a better explaination.
@@MorgTheVoid but we know mathematically that the universe is flat
Hi Sabine, I left this comment on another video but I think it's important, so:
If you have the inclination -I'd love for you to tackle "Dissident Science" There's a group with some presence here on RUclips that suggest that 'mainstream scientists' are seriously lost and that problems in the Standard Model and the "Crisis" in cosmology show it. They have problems with Plate Tectonics, Heliocentrism, Relativity and so on. Thanks for all you do!
Thanks for being a voice of sanity Sabine! Without you and Peter Woit and a few others, physics is in danger of becoming the fantasy world of failed string believers.
I absolutely love your videos. And I'm obsessed with String Theory and extra dimensions. Thank you for wonderful humour and matter-of-fact content.
Damn you're so good.... Explained very good!!!!!!
Thank you for mentioning Lawrence Krauss!
Sabine, will you make some video about the muon g-2 experiment? Or 4,2 sigma isn't enough. Even if isn't, I think that enlightening us about would be great
why wouldn't such a video not be so called enlightening to 'us' speak for yourself when you refer to a limited understanding of theoretical physics and mathematics Soy boy. really???
@@WA-ir3fw sorry man, my English is pretty bad, I only wanna see a video about this
@@marcosolo6491 damn, I don't no why they published this results without 5 sigma, would it be for others to make tests to?
Do you have any article that I can read about? Thanks for the information
I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/
I have a video coming up next week about data anomalies in participle physics. (Incl the B-meson anomaly and the muon g-2).
@@SabineHossenfelder thanks, Sabine
Amazing topic for your next video, I'm eager to see it.
Huge fan of your work from Brazil
Best Birthday gift EVER!! Thanks, Sabine!!
Could polaritons be used to create the necessary negative energy through the relaxation of the charge state?
5:29 both the gods on one frame!? Too much for a mortal like me to see.
Interesting, I had this dream a couple of months ago that became the nugget for a short story, and revisiting your channel tonight for a recent couple of videos gave me the resolution to it that it was lacking. So thank you, I realize it had no conscious intention on your part, but thanks anyway!
Could you make a video about the alleged new discovery at the collider which was in the media the last days?
Too vague. Do you mean the rates of B meson decay into electrons and muons, which theoretically should be equal, but the LHC found more electrons and fewer muons?
Dr. Becky has.
She wrote a piece for SA on it...
dr becky, physics girl, pbs space time and i think fermi labs have all made videos
I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/
I have a video coming up next Saturday about data anomalies in particle physics in general.
Thankyou Sabine, wonderful exposition. Are there extra dimensions? Most likely yes. Where are they? Somewhere.
I was really hoping that you was going to say the infinite improbability drive for number one! 😉
I didn't find out until recently that the Heart of Gold was pretty much based on an actual concept in physics.
In this case I didn't have the audacity of hope. I found it infinitely improbable that she would do that
String theorists have found the ATM strategy: Given assumption A (radii extra dimensions) Theory T and contradicting measurement M, they say: the assumption is wrong, give me money! (for a bigger and larger experiment)
Miguel Alcubierre: "Hold my beer"
Inverse Square Law: "What Miguel said"
As an effect of general relativity, the expansion of the universe is different from the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. To understand the metric expansion of the universe, it is helpful to discuss briefly what a metric is, and how metric expansion works. It may seem obvious that distance is measured by a straight line, but in many cases it is not.In expanding space, proper distances are dynamical quantities which change with time. An easy way to correct for this is to use co moving coordinates which remove this feature and allow for a characterization of different locations in the universe without having to characterize the physics associated with metric expansion. In co moving coordinates, the distances between all objects are fixed and the instantaneous dynamics of matter and light are determined by the normal physics of gravity and electromagnetic radiation. Any time-evolution however must be accounted for by taking into account the Hubble law expansion in the appropriate equations in addition to any other effects that may be operating (gravity, dark energy, or curvature, for example). Cosmological simulations that run through significant fractions of the universe's history therefore must include such effects in order to make applicable predictions for observational cosmology. In principle, the expansion of the universe could be measured by taking a standard ruler and measuring the distance between two cosmologically distant points, waiting a certain time, and then measuring the distance again, but in practice, standard rulers are not easy to find on cosmological scales and the timescales over which a measurable expansion would be visible are too great to be observable even by multiple generations of humans. The expansion of space is measured indirectly. The theory of relativity predicts phenomena associated with the expansion, notably the redshift-versus-distance relationship known as Hubble's Law; functional forms for cosmological distance measurements that differ from what would be expected if space were not expanding; and an observable change in the matter and energy density of the universe seen at different look back times. In zero or one dimension or lower dimensions outlook, the universe do not expand and therefore no time dimension and 3D of space. We don't know, when dimensions higher up infinitely we have complex infinite patterns and just expand and become smaller and that's interesting. Correct me.
Sabine, I hope you'll shed some light on the recent Muon G-2 Experiment results. Thanks
Could you make a video expanding on the topic of how spacetime can curve without a higher embedding dimension? Is there any way to visualize this? It is very confusing and non intuitive.
@@amitzev3158 Bubble wrap upon bubble wrap.
I wrote about this here: www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-standard-model-of-physics-now-broken/
@@amitzev3158 Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to think of something.
@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks Sabine. The article helped clarify important points.
Best explanation of string theory
I love how String theorists are kinda basically what I will call "mathematical gymnasts".
math is the universe itself. we don't create math we discover it.
sudoku , chess, poetry are mental gymnastics
Physics is not applied mathematics. It is a natural science in which mathematics
is applied.
- Robert Heinlein
Don't feel so smug. Who knows, our next paradigm might include concepts and ideas from them.
Math is just logical symbolism. It is not the universe, it is a language used to describe the universe with a rigorous form of consistency. You can even devise a mathematical system with no relation to reality, as long as you keep all the gymnastics coherent.
The idiocy comes when you call the math itself the nature of the universe.
We measure things & that is what we can model with math, but we are measuring surface level phenomenon often & must realize not to equate what we can measure with the inner workings of what gives rise to what we measure.
It’s like measuring the dimensions of a wave on the ocean and describing the overall shape of the wave, while not understanding anything about the chemical nature of the water and salt molecules. They do this goofy stuff when they say shut up and measure, then devise themselves infinite universes and nonsensical probability functions. No, fundamental reality is not described by imaginary numbers like i and j and such, if imaginary numbers are useful in describing reality, then that means we aren’t measuring fundamental reality, but we are measuring a system which results from the interaction of a more fundamental reality.
They also do this mathematical nonsense with calling hydrocarbons “hydrophobic”, and seeking a state of higher disorder, when the neutral molecules have no property of being repelled by polar water molecules, the polarity of the water molecules is just a stronger attractive force than the neutrality of oils, so the oils get pushed out of the way, but they are inert in the whole situation.
They can describe stuff, but they are so use to memorizing things that they don’t understand what they are describing, & thus go down these mental gymnastic rabbit holes.
String Theory is dangerously close to being a religion in my opinion. Lots of belief in something with very little to not evidence.
You are awesome Sabina , the greatest professor in the world 🙃
Thank you Sabine, very informative.
That ending was so sweet
Interesting video Sabine but it sure sounded like a bunch of gobbledygook to my brain! Oh, and I mean that in a good way! 😂😂👍👍🤔🤔
I like seeing your "be that change" smile.
Hello Sabine and thank you for the thoughtful content.
It think the String Theorists were looking at a 20-sided die and added 6 more for good measure.
Have you considered collaborating with Isaac Arthur? He is a RUclips futurist who covers the potential of humanity using only known science. O'Neill Cylinders, Matrioshka Brains, and The Fermi Paradox are all covered.
Thanks for your excellent videos, Sabine. I hope you’re going to move on to discuss the cosmology promoted by Nobel laureate Kip Thorne in his 2014 book The Science of Interstellar. He shows that Everett’s Universal Wavefunction is calculated in five dimensions, so a theoretical observer elevated to a fifth-dimensional vantage point would see the many potential 4D worldlines (or “world tubes” as he prefers to call them) bending and stretching in the warped geometries of the tesseract. This aligns with my own thinking about imagining the dimensions: yes, physically we are forever embedded in the third dimension, and our window into the extra dimensions is always confined to our maximum resolution of one-3D-Planck-frame after-another, giving us the impression that these additional orthogonal space-like dimensions are curled up on themselves.
Since you also like to make music, as a fellow composer here’s one of my own songs about our unique situation - “The Anthropic Viewpoint”. ruclips.net/video/du86lNCvOdA/видео.html
Sabine must have an infinite wardrobe.
It has a recurrence time of some months ;)
I think the trick for FTL is locality principle. What is determining for a particle it's speed? The environment where it is. If lot of mass (energy) moving in a certain direction time start flow differently. It is every day effect called frame dragging. I watching the material stream coming out from black holes. They are particles traveling near the speed of light. Those particles must manipulate space time and they should create frame dragging effect. The particles inside this jets could seem from outside exceeding the light speed. Because local spacetime has been dragged. When such a particle leaving that jet it will lose that dragging effect. It needs to lose that "extra speed" by radiating energy. And it must be a huge amount as there are gamma radiation coming from those jets.
I think FTL is possible, if you can manipulate the locality of space time. And this is exactly what warpdrive should do.
There are lot to learn about space and time...
Dein Englisch ist so gut, dass ich bei -25% Abspielgeschwindigkeit alles verstehen kann. Insbesondere wenn man das mit dem vielen "Gebrabbel" vergleicht, das man auf RUclips sonst so hören kann. Ist das Oxford-Englisch?
Danke, das freut mich. Es ist so viel Mühe. Also, wenn ich nicht weiß, wie ein Wort ausgesprochen wird, höre ich mir das im Oxford-Dictionary an. Dh, vermutlich ja. Man müsste wohl jemand aus Oxford fragen... Gelegentlich hört man aber immer noch 6 Jahre Nordamerika durch.
@@SabineHossenfelder : aber ich nicht! Mit Oxford-Englisch meinte ich natürlich die Hoch-Sprache an sich. Mir gefällt besonders Deine mittelschwere Skepsis bezüglich dem offiziellen Physik-Business. Den Dr. Don Lincoln vom Fermilab find ich auch gut.
@@SabineHossenfelder I hear some British English in "there" and "fast" etc. but in general I hear more North American English. It is a good neutral mix for explaining physics without the gobbledegook.
@@EnginAtik Sabine's accent stands out for me in one way: the sound /ɪ/ is clipped and approaches a neutral schwa [ə]. New Zealand English merges these two sounds with no loss of comprehension.
Great Video. I am just reading about fractal dimension.
wow physics sounds like a mess
Tis so entangled it is truly a mess.
Only when you push the envelope into what we don't know (yet.)
an insightful video as always! will there be a video on the muon g-2 result and ensuing media coverage of the “strong evidence for a new fundamental force of nature”? interested to hear your take on things!
The proof of the pudding:
4/ mb 3.5, RegionSOUTH OF ALASKA, Date time2021-04-17 08:42:43.4 UTC,
Location54.32 N ; 159.57 W, Depth20 km.
3/ ML 3.4,RegionTARAPACA, CHILE, Date time2021-04-17 09:00:24.0 UTC,
Location20.85 S ; 69.03 W, Depth107 km.
2/ ML 3.2, Region SOUTH OF ALASKA, Date time2021-04-17 12:16:51.8 UTC,
Location55.98 N ; 154.37 W, Depth 28 km.
1/ ML 2.6, RegionTARAPACA, CHILE, Date time2021-04-17 12:25:10.0 UTC,
Location18.85 S ; 69.70 W, Depth 99 km.
By the way, if you entangle 2 particles, that's the way they stay,
unless they're collided -- one up, one down -- since they're spinning
at the same rate. Spin isn't degenerate. DOH! Quantum fizzistists know
how to create a mystery where none exists...they must have been reading
Agatha Christie.
Motion is forces changing dimensions. Frequency is energy following the path of least resistance, yet still in resistance. It's diameter depends on amount of force, and type. Energy corkscrews through space at frequencies determined by resistance. Defracted and refracted by resistance. It's absorbed by attraction or repelled by counter force. In all exchanges heat is lost and created. Resistance always has heat involved. The heat may always be present but not condensed. Energy breaking into a new dimensional product: heat. Energy transference.
Nice concise explanation.
Dr H is immensely cool. She can explain this jazz, and she can also do that excellent "Hurricanes are ENORMOUS" that definitely should have become a meme.
In an ideal universe, I am now a high school graduate and have been accepted by whatever university Dr. Hossenfelder teaches at, where I will major in Physics. She will be my thesis advisor.
😎💙💛
I like that Dr. Hossenfelder didn't focus on the plausibility of string theory, and basically just diminishes it's relevance. At least to us humans.
You are extremely good at explaining that stuff.
Thnx!
Interestingly, the guy who came up with 26 dimensions, Claud [sic] Lovelace, never finished grad school, so he only had a bachelor's degree. He also had a hammock hanging from the ceiling of his office.
it shouldn't take long for someone in the comment section to solve all these problems, they have all the answers for everything else.