Want to learn more about the theory behind the multiverse? Check out our newest Big Idea video with multiverse specialist Laura Mersini-Houghton! ruclips.net/video/kr301XpHHGA/видео.html&ab_channel=TheInstituteofArtandIdeas
Warum es kein weiteres Universum als ein Paralleluniversum geben kann? Die Hypothese über ein Paralleluniversum basiert auf der falschen Annahme, dass unser Gedanke, Geist, Seele oder Selbstbewusstsein eine Trennung vom Universum unterliegt. Daher können weder ein Paralleluniversum noch ein Jenseits existieren, da wir ohne eine Verbindung zwischen beiden niemals auf diese Idee kommen könnten. Deshalb führt die Kontinuität zwangsläufig zu einem Einheituniversum. Daraus folgt, dass eine Grenze nur dann als solche definierbar ist, wenn sie diffus und offen für eine Verbindung ist. Außerdem ist der Begriff Universum nicht mit Begriffen wie Erde, Stern, Galaxien vergleichbar, da Universum alles übertrifft, was wir uns vorstellen können, und auch unser Bewusstsein umfasst. Daran sollten wir immer denken! Ich zitiere an dieser Stelle von Emanuel Kant: "Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt; der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir; beide darf ich nicht als in Dunkelheiten verhüllt oder in überschwänglich außer meinem Gesichtkreises suchen und bloß vermuten; ich sehe sie vor mir und verknüpfte sie unmittelbar mit dem Bewusstsein meiner Existenz!" Was heißt das eigentlich, wenn wir von einem Paralleluniversum sprechen? Um diese Frage zu beantworten, müssen wir einige Voraussetzungen festlegen: Parallel bedeutet, dass zwei Mengen keine Schnittstelle haben und keine Elemente voneinander besitzen. Oder anders ausgedrückt: Die Mengen A und B sind nicht parallel, wenn es mindestens ein Element gibt, das Teilmenge von A und B ist und somit eine Schnittmenge zwischen beiden Mengen gibt. Wenn wir jedes Universum als eine geschlossene Menge betrachten, dann sind zum Beispiel zwei Universen U und U' nur dann parallel, wenn kein Element von U oder U' existiert, das Teilmenge von beiden wäre. Es gilt: Wenn U:={ x |∀ x∈U ∧ x∉U' } ∧ U':={ x' |∀ x'∈U' ∧ x'∉U } ⇔ U ist echt parallel zu U'. Allein die Tatsache, dass wir uns vorstellen können, dass es ein Paralleluniversum gibt, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass es mindestens eine Schnittstelle zwischen unser Universum und dem gedachten Universum in unserem Bewusstsein gibt. Ansonsten hätten wir nie auf die Idee kommen können, dass es ein zweites Universum geben könnte. Die Idee eines Paralleluniversums ist zwar reizvoll, aber letztendlich nur eine Illusion. Dies würde nur dann der Fall sein, wenn man den kartesischen Dualismus annimmt, wonach Bewusstsein und Welt/Materie getrennt sind. Doch bevor man dies annehmen kann, müsste man erst beweisen, dass diese Annahme richtig ist, doch stattdessen führt es in jedem Fall zum Absurdum. Es ist eine unumstößliche Tatsache, dass wir in dieser Welt leben und unser Bewusstsein nicht ohne unseren Körper existieren kann. Es ist also unmöglich, einen Beweis für die Existenz eines vom Körper getrennten Geistes zu liefern! Es bleibt wie J.W. Von Goethe sagte: "Was wär ein Gott, der nur von außen stieße, Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen ließe. Ihm ziemt's die Welt im Innern zu bewegen. Natur in sich, sich in Natur zu hegen. So dass was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist, Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen Geist vermisst."
bit ruff id say machio is a real scientist has achieved alot and are u saying hes here to represent actors? i don't think that is what he is trying to do.
@@sergiomanzetti1021 well he is a link for alot people to the scientific world, he worked on quantum mechanics helped further that research and he is willing to push against the status quo all useful things.
Yeah, really impressive. I went to a lecture of his a few months back and he was so sharp you would think by listening to him that he is 30 or 40 years younger than he actually is.
Sir Roger came up with a way to tile a floor the size of the Universe, with a pattern that never repeats itself and has no gaps using only two tile shapes. That's pretty crazy if you think about it.
I wasn't expecting to watch a comedy sketch, but this was ridiculously funny. I can't get over the increasingly perplexed/disappointed/incredulous expressions on Sir Roger's and Sabine's faces
He is remarkable. It shows the potential in humanity that is so rarely realised. I love listening to him talk, he will always make you think about stuff in new and interesting ways…
Same here. I used to eat up pretty much everything he said when I was younger, then I went to university and learned to think more critically. Now I cringe whenever he speaks, half due to his wrongness and half due to embarrassment that I used to believe it.
Michio thought this was about string theory, Roger thought he'd been invited to talk about cosmology, and Sabine thought they were going to be talking about quantum mechanics... Penrose was clearly annoyed, Sabine tried to salvage it, and neither Michio nor the host seemed to understand that multiverse means different things to different scientists. This was really painful to watch.
Yep, agreed....the problem with modern science is that there is a tendency to compartmentalize, to break apart into divisions when Newton himself said we are only beginning to realize that how small we are "now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me". The problem is these scientists distance themselves from integrating spirituality and the so-called "supernatural" when far advanced civilisations of our past integrate metaphysics, spirituality and so on...I remember my grandpa told me what was taught to Adam was alchemy (the pure sciences at microlevel-lower) and astrology (incldg astronomy- the sciences of the higher levels and of higher dimensions, not withstanding the conflict modern science has about multiverses...disregarding the souls, God, consciousness etc...)
I don't see this. First of all, string theory and quantum mechanics are related. And Penrose was not talking about cosmology. The background knowledge for this is that Newtonian physics works and makes accurate predictions, and quantum physics works and makes accurate predictions, but they describe the universe very differently to the point that you'd think they're describing different universes. Some scientists have come up with a mathematical untestable theory called string theory which theoretically unites both spheres of physics, and in the process predicts the existence of multiverses. Where they mainly differ is in substance and presentation. Someone like Michio Kaku is a very enthusiastic popularizer of science, and tends to gloss over a lot of details to make the science accessible, where Sabine Hossenfelder is a critic of the muddled views that emerge from such enthusiastic simplification. Roger Penrose is talking about the multiverse in general, and is wondering why they are talking about string theory as if it's the only theory that predicts multiverses - since he doesn't think string theory is very coherent at all. They're not talking at cross purposes.
The thing is that all these scientists should not latch onto a favorite theory but keep everything, all options wide open. Pure math has made real predictions , as in the positron. Also not using math and only experiments have discovered most things. So all lines of pursuit should be followed up on. Scientists in all areas do this and latch onto their favorite. I don't like it.
31:20 I absolutely love and respect how Dr. Penrose doesn't mind saying "I'm confused" and using that as an argument against the gobbledygook that Kaku is putting forth.
I truely beleive he means it but.... if penrose says he doesn't understand and he is confused, that just ends up meaning whats been told is gobbledygook.
I love how Sabine and Roger so beautifully call out Michio and the other string theorists on their rubbish. Roger does it in such a classy British way. Sabine does it in an in-your-face German way. In both cases it's delightful to watch.
Ah cool, that's basically all I was really interested in: what side does Penrose end up between Sabine and Kaku. None of the details were ever going to be novel in this type of venue. Having to stomach listening to a floundering Kaku is more than I'm able to handle. Thanks for the summary of the relevant detail 🙂
You do understand that neither Sabine nor Roger have evidence that string theory is rubbish, nor that the multiverse doesn't exist. They're attacking these ideas based on philosophical approaches, not science. Science requires evidence, which they don't possess. They're skeptics, which science needs. But their opinion are still just opinions.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yes, exactly .Kaku pointed out correctly that science technology has a history of getting to the dance late, and that just because there is no direct evidence for a phenomenon, that doesn't negate an idea. Naysayers like Sabine supplement their income knocking ideas in their nascent stages, which are going to take more evidence to support. Einstein also doubted the concept of black holes, and he was wrong, partly because he, while brilliant, could not see past his own ideas. Science struggles to progress with regressive thinkers like Sabine, who harshly mocks these ideas yet has no alternative ideas of her own. And Penrose, is stuck in the past, and finding it difficult to even fathom anything other than his personal experiences.
great discussion, I really like how Roger And Sabine are so respectful when they are against an argument. I am not really familiar with Michio Kaku, but he seems to spread his argumentation a little all over the place without really making any real point.
Indeed, I feel that one could, after watching this video, make the same conclusion, even if one couldn't understand Physics or English. In other words, you could tell from their tone of voice alone who is a deep thinker and who is a shallow one.
The interaction was great! Sabine is awesome, she has minimal belief, is consistent and complete, and probably questions her very fingers existence daily while Roger is very clever with large picture reasoning and has what are at least plausible areas of investigation for a better universal model. Michio is a bit out there with his confidence in extending a universal mathematical model - it’s like our universe is a building we’ve been in forever : Michio saying if we could simply stand outside we would see buildings forever, while roger is convinced it’s the same building just at different points in time while Sabine is saying the whole thing is pointless because no one’s going outside anytime soon.
@@melvinpjotr9883 I tend not to like him either, but there's no point in being mean to him. At least he's qualified to be a science communicator (unlike some others).
@@deank179 Don't be silly they are all clueless! - You just saw yet another talk lamenting measurement problems meaning science doesn't know & has no way to know.
I remember when Michio was one of the science educators who inspired me to learn more about the universe. Now he sounds like he’s trying to sell me a book or something.
YES that's precisely my impression during this debate! I used to look up to him, but now it's just a bunch of unintelligible science speech hemmed up with "...sioadn ds ksjdasQuantum theory, take that spiderman" Hosselfelder makes him look like an AI generated version of himself. Shes cut and clear, and her words make sense together into a thought.
Michio Kaku is actually inspiring for young teenagers who don't yet know physics, he was for me. But he is very cringe once you know a couple things about quantum mechanics etc., it is uncomfortable listening to him recite his rehearsed analogies that sell books.
Same the first books I read that set me on my path, which didnt lead me to theoretical physics, but ultimately into engineering were "A Brief History of Time" and Kaku's book Hyperspace, but I agree its been hard to hear him on these kinds of debate/discussion stages lately.
> Kaku explores the history of unification theories of physics starting with Newton's law of universal > gravitation which unified our experience of gravity on Earth and the motions of the celestial bodies > to Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. Kaku dubs the > final Grand Unified Theory of relativity and quantum gravity The God Equation with an > 11-dimensional string theory as the only self-consistent theory that seems to fit the bill. This is a quote from Wikipedia about his 2021 book The God Equation. He is promoting his book in hardcore mode.
Michio is seemingly incapable of genuine scientific conversation without resorting to sales tactics. Sir Penrose and Sabine conducted themselves very professionally considering the absurdity of Michio.
Yeahhh I don't hold it against him, though. Perhaps time hasn't been as kind to him as it has for sir Penrose. Kaku has done a lot for driving interest in science, and he's probably just developed a strong habit of saying his usual lines over and over again.
@@myhandlehasbeenmishandled She and Pentrose seem to agree. Michio seemed out of his out of his depth in this discussion. I know Sabine did her diploma thesis about extradimensions.
Sir Roger is a true polymath, which is exceedingly rare in modern times. He's a profound physicist, an accomplished artist, and world-class philosopher. He's able to do the far-out mathematics and understand the edge-of-science extrapolations, and then come back and ask "but does all this make any sense?" That's what I love about him.
@@nellateea3238 Yeah, that's the thing. He's your classic elderly absent-minded genius. But if you can parse through that, or maybe watch some other science communicators explaining what he has actually done in his life, you'll see that he totally deserved being knighted by the Queen. Remember, he was Stephen Hawking's PhD advisor, so the guy is definitely no slouch.
And I come across it when my device is at 28% and we have a power outage. I bet Sabine could give me a solution, " Turns- off your device and watch tomorrow. "
Exactly! Kaku is relying on experiments that may mathematically indicate string theory to then suggest that the multiverse theory is correct. That's not a logical jump.
@@lawanbrown16 A productive conversation would require creating a list of possibilities, each mutually contrary to each other in some way, ranking from most likely to least likely relative to the available evidence. Speculation about only one possibility, other than making for fun imagination, is not productive because you then close yourself to the other possibilities which have not yet been discounted. Kaku spends an awful lot of time speculating about one and ONLY one possibility, which hasn't been proven. He has lost balance to his perspective, making him unscientific in his approach, even if he has the knowledge and degrees to support his argument from his perspective.
This debate was a bit of a confused disaster but kind of amazing to watch as a result. It's great to watch Sabine tackle Michio and put directly to him criticisms that everyone's been thinking for the past ten years.
So...this was a "Michio Kaku" is a fraud debate? I mean, Sabine is says she knows "serious string theorists" which suggests she thinks Michio isn't. Michio Kaku brings science to the masses and has a terrific education and work background. Why not just appreciate him for who he is? Why does this debate even matter? Michio can do whatever he wants. Sabine can do whatever she wants. However, Michio is just doing his usual simplified explanations while Roger disagrees, which is fine, and Sabine sounds a bit petty. If it's not jealously, then what is it with Sabine? Is Michio negatively impacting her in some way and she feels the need to put him in his place? And the host seems to be against the multiverse theory also which is odd for what I thought was a moderator. This whole interview was awkward and I can't understand its point. Oh well. Moving on.
@@mthedu Michio Kaku has permanently damaged science communication and the public's faith in science by pushing what seems to have been an unfounded theory for 10+ years. I'm sure he's a thousand times smarter than me, but his actions have negatively impacted science in general.
@@mthedu Science is made with money. And if funding is diverted to FRUITLESS endeavours, good science you could be making instead isn´t done. This is Sabine's main point of contention. It is about String Theory not showing any good evidence for more than 40 years and still funding going there as well as time that could be spent on other research, more scientific, in her view.
Take note: this is how civilized intellectuals argue and disagree. They make rational, logical arguments, and try to communicate their ideas to the best of their ability. It's not ad-hominem, it's not emotion-driven. Everyone is trying to get at the truth of things. It's ok to be in extreme disagreement, but each person on that stage is expected to at least make some plausible arguments for their opinion, not just make wild claims. We need this not just among scientists but among all mankind if we are to survive.
Kaku is not making “rational, logical arguments” or trying to “communicate” his ideas honestly in good faith. He’s shilling, playing shamelessly to the audience, deliberately using verbal sleight of hand. (He’s also butchering the English language in the process.) Kaku is the sort of person who gives science popularization a bad name. Continuing however: Kaku IS making wild (and logically scattered) claims. He is NOT proffering “plausible arguments”.
@@mentalslave8451 Sabine and Penrose both take a lot of shots at Michio, politely but often not subtly. Penrose dismisses Michio conflating a bunch of different multiverse ideas as one but also argues that they are not relevant to describing our universe. Sabine basically says Michio is a quack physicist and serious string theorists don't believe any of the things he says would prove string theory actually would.
If Sir Penrose was my grandfather I would visit him every day just to talk more about theories and scientific findings. For Sabine I can’t wait for her next books, I wish I could read her ideas about new findings, new understandings for a long time.
The only problem is people like him rarely reproduce and therefore the probability of a random person being a grandson of someone like him is very low 😂
My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995 Ed & Frances Walters succeeded in real shots of Stern spaceships with the gray occupants. - Billy Meier had made excellent recordings of star spaceships (beam ships) with extraterrestrial people. Johann Zdebor discoverer extraterrestrials on 01/17/95.
@@alexanderpeca7080Naah... Nobel prize is being steadily demoted to a mere propaganda tool, a title of Sir was recently awarded to a man of very questionable integrity, and I've seen during my life too many people with British accent rolling in mud, blind drunk, or worse. Sir Roger had it all way back in the days when it really meant something.
@@3dgar7eandroBro, may I assume you are an American? Am I right? In any case, trust me, there are other types of domination, other than guns blazing and bombs away.
If there is no evidence for something, then why do we even talk about it? To this day no evidence has been found for multiverses, string theory, supersymmetry, or additional dimensions. Just as important, reality behaves exactly as if those things are imaginary.
She never lets the narrative magic of fictions like ST or "cold fusion" distract her from actual facts and experimental data. And that's actually, sadly, pretty rare, isn't it?
As a layman, it seems like what Michio, and string theorists in general, have done, is, they develop a theory that then runs into a problem, and they theorize about what could solve this apparent problem, and then keep going. Its literally Theoretical Physicist Fan Fic
Yes, but writing fan fiction is fun! And in the case of String Theory, I think physicists getting attracted by the elegance of creating more general theories, even if the implications of those theories can't be tested or even specified... While String Theory definitely is fun, I agree with Sabine that _most_ of our efforts shouldn't be in dreaming up new and more beautiful theories, but we should be resolving inconsistencies in the theories we currently have.
That approach might be workable, if the original theory had some clear evidence to support its hypotheses, such that refining the theory to account for new data would make sense. But just dreaming up some theory that has no scientific basis and then changing it every time evidence appears that contradicts it, just seems like a bait and switch to make sure your books on the theory don't stop selling. Imagination clearly has a place even in science, if it leads you to something that actually relates to the reality that your theory is meant to explain. But imagination that only produces wild speculation shouldn't be conflated with science, as Sabine put it so well. And it can even damage the perceived integrity of science when this is the approach taken by someone who has scientific credentials and put the mark of their imprimatur on it.
Hilary Lawson is the STAR of the show. His amazing grasp of what has been said; and his insightful commentary and subsequent questions to the participants is truly impressive! This shows he not only fully understands the debate, but has the ability to ’think on his feet’.
@@eliteextremophile8895 You don't even know what they do on a day by day basis. Did you not listen to a word he said? String theory is more than marketing, I think you watch too much TV and never had advanced physics beyond you tube videos.
@@Physics072 I am rewatching this and it really does appear that Michio Kaku's ideas aren't very accurate/his ideas do not map to our current understanding of physics: Source: 24:15 26:28 38:17 40:14 52:10
It's embarrassing to see Penrose and Hossenfelder have to reply to Kaku directly. Flashbacks to teachers having to deal with freshman or sophomore year students who think they found some breakthrough idea and get high on their own supply. The number of jumps in conclusions, fallacies and other logical missteps are so blatant you can't but see the teacher get a depression inducing combination of decision paralysis on what to correct first as well as the struggle to not just make it for the door and go do something better with their time.
I don’t know if the multiverse exists and will probably never know, however I can’t criticize Kaku for his belief that it does. Whatever else can be said about him, he is a highly intelligent person, and in all fairness none of us that this time can say we understand more about 5% of the cosmos. I’ve heard conjectures of the multiverse that seek to explain inflation and dark energy. I don’t know if they are true but I can’t deny their plausibility. When confronted by the universe, humility is in order.
@@jackshultz2024 Kaku is certainly intelligent when it comes to math. When it comes to physics, I put my trust on Penrose and Sabine. It is easy to become enchanted by maths, and forgetting that the universe doesn't care.
She's fine. She's infinitely smarter than myself. But I did find some of her RUclips content from a while ago a little patronising of Penrose. Everyone's making fun of Michio for selling books, but she monetises as well. Nothing against her, I'm not terribly keen on the multiverse idea either, but I take her with the same grain of salt.
Most uneducated people do. She is the Christopher Hitchens of Science. Making baseless attacks gets you attention and that is how she has made a living this past decade...attacking the very foundation of science...theories...where 100% of scientific advances comes from. A theory is unproven until it is, that does not mean it is not science. She herself has done nothing to advance science and has when she actually worked in the field, worked on other peoples ideas. She has created none herself. She is however a decent popular scientist and has a great channel when she explains known topics but she has a habit of backhanding theories as if an unproven one has no value. Its as if she does not understand where new ideas even come from or how knowledge is advanced.
I think it's funny how Michio Kaku over dramatizes his discussions by adding too many catch phrases like, "and all of a sudden". Almost nothing in cosmology happens 'all of a sudden', and I'm pretty turned off by his approach to science communicating. Like Neil Tyson and his loud mouth and huge ego, I suspect that their lack of humility has scared plenty of common folk away from cosmology and science in general. Science to me has been life changing and humbling to the core of my being and has given me real spirituality that I could never get from philosophy or any religion. How we communicate science is as important as the science itself and there's no place in it for vanity or ego. I often wonder if Carl Sagan would cringe at the behavior of some of the people he mentored who seem to have forgotten how important humility is as a tool for communicating. Especially science.
@@LordOfFlies Just look at her face when she says it. And the context of that quote is that those "serious string theorists" would say Michio is wrong. So, 100% she was insulting Michio.
If that was her full intent and she really meant to phrase it that way I think it was needlessly rude. Everyone gets the point, Kaku is apparently sensational and poppy, that isn't really a crime worthy of actual derision though
Sabine is quite wrong: multiverses are not interesting at all, even in fiction. It means that everything is possible, and therefore nothing is of any value. The Marvel movies are an excellent example of this: the movies quickly became tiresome and formulaic, but once they introduced the multiverse, the train really came off the rails, introducing all sorts of absurdities and plot devices, taking the audience for fools.
Starting with Prof. Michio Kaku comment that quantum mechanics predicts particles can exist in two places, its clear he is not speaking about scientific prediction but only for popularizing things. Amazing to listen to clear statements of Sir Roger Penrose.
At that singular moment, I was amazed to realize I entered an alternate universe where I know about quantum superposition more than a PhD in theoretical physics.
Please be advised that Kaku spends most of his time writing pop-sci books, he quits doing research 20 years ago, meanwhile Sabine and Roger are still doing cutting-edge research.
@@marinoadventures8802How do you know that Kaku does it very well and correctly, do you know his daily routine?If you know his routine then how? Do you get your ass fucked by him?
While Kaku spoke about how close to confirmation String Theory already is, I could clearly see a quantum facepalm superpositioning over Sabines face. It didn't quite manifest in this part of the multiverse though, but certainly in many others.
To be entirely fair she's appealing to intuition as much as anyone. Her camps answer to many worlds is superdeterminism, which is equally speculative. Yet she makes no qualms about taking a stand on that, presumably because that's what her particular biases allow her. There's quite a few prolific thinkers who would do more good admitting when a topic is far beyond our current understanding, and that it's pointless to engage in inflamed debate about it. In all this madness that is the world, surely Hossenfelder could do better than to reintroduce provocation as a legitimate way of communicating science... It's done enough damage already.
@@lemiureelemiur3997 Except that she doesn't fanfare superdeterminism as a scientifically proven theory, but merely a conjecture that coincidentally solves a lot of the bullshit in quantum physics. Nice try, tho.
@@StevXtreme you're being facetious. You shouldn't be given that far more quantifiable experiments have been successful in sowing doubt about the premise of superdeterminism than Hossenfelder can muster to her defense. I. E she's the one behind the times on this question, given that her critics base their opinions on the latest real world experiments and she bases hers on what is comparatively speaking fairy tales. Local hidden variables were disproven in the 80's, which means Einstein was wrong...
I am amazed at how differently these thinkers appear in this discussion. Sabine and Roger appear serious, contemplative, and open to evidence based extensions of our understanding or this universe. Michio comes off as if selling a bridge. I'd have a beer with him, but I sure wouldn't buy a used car from him. Sabine, you demonstrate amazing patience in the face of a barrage glib, well rehearsed, clearly well-informed, and more than a little kooky presenter-speak.
This is such a great description of Michio Kaku. I've been feeling exact that about him for the better part of two decades. I enjoyed his books as a teenager; they got me interested in the science in the first place so I'll always be grateful. But early on in my research I came to see him as a salesperson for physics, just as you describe so well here.
Thank goodness. I'm not the only one who thinks Michio is the Deepak Chopra of string theory. And thank goodness for Sabine and Roger as fine examples of theoretical physicists.
Because he has worked on a unified theory his whole life & is excited that it is holding up so good so far & looking forward. The others are outside critics who review his unified theory & is not satisfied because he hasn't proven it definitively.
He always just gives rehearsed answers. Have you not heard him on other social media interviews? I would guess these "events" mean very little to him at all.
@@mthedu i noticed it too I have read some of his books and every interview he had he was just recycling and repeating same things from the books back theni didn't knew but now I realised
I like Sabine's point of view that just because mathematics describes part of nature doesn't make that mathematics as real as nature. It's goal is to predict the outcome of experiments not to be considered the ground of reality.
My experiment via modelling to validate a theory is to fire neutrinos into a hyper-viscous charge_fluid droplet to spin off perfectly opposite pairs of electron-positrons assuming the charge droplet is neutral whole creating the monopoles we observe. Then, once in hand to see if the energy lost by the neutrino equals the energy_of_annihilation of a pair. That's the experiment. The resources to model it needed beyond my reach. Fun stuff 🍺
Sabina's face every time Roger or the host slights Michio is fantastic. It is clear that people who have large confidence and have to campaign for their theories have dominated the public conversation around science, nothing wrong with that as that is Michios work, but just because they are the loudest about what they believe doesn't necessarily mean that they have the most careful and scientific attitude when addressing the public about the state of their field.
@@TV-xm4ps I feel like gatekeeping "science" is necessary and that is one reason I love Sabina, because she is strictly about science. I think it is a little different to gatekeep the label "scientist" as Michio, no matter how non-translational or even applicable to the real world his work may be, is most definitely a scientist, I mean look at the mans CV for god sake. I think scientists aren't and should not be thought of as infallible, and by saying he is not a scientist just because he has a seemingly absurd interpretation of reality is suggesting that scientists must be rational, which is not the case, science has to be rational.
@@nickgibson3451 science is gate kept by lack of access to information. If you are not part of an institution you cant get access to papers on sites like jstr. College has also been corrupted beyond belief, destroying the traditional path to science
It's refreshing to see so many comments that reflect what I was thinking as I watched this. Two honorable, admirable, accomplished physicists having a conversation with a used-car salesman.
"come up with a better theory!" That's not how things work, and that alone immediately disqualifies him from any serious discussion. "There was a murder. Who did it?" -"It was Bob! He didn't like the victim!" --"It can't have been Bob, he wasn't there." -"Yes it was. If it wasn't, then who was?" --"Don't know." -"Aha! Therefore, arrest Bob!"
I agree with Hossenfelder and Penrose as well but this is going to be a long up hill fight. So many physics have staked their reputations (and in the case of Kaku, their bank accounts) on these ideas.
In a way, Kaku hijacked the conversation away from the proposed topic (as was constantly pointed out by Penrose). Kaku seems to believe that his version of string theory will eventually be proven to be that holy grail of physics: the theory of everything. But let's break down just one of his arguments: Democritus' atomic theory. Democritus believed the atom was the smallest possible unit of matter, indivisible (hence, atomos). But what have we shown over the past 2K years? Atoms exist, but most of the mass is concentrated in the nucleus with a cloud of electrons. Then we discovered nuclear fission: the nucleus is not an indivisible unit of matter either. But wait, there's more! It turns out protons and neutrons aren't indivisible either - they consist of quarks. What started with Democritus and Leucippus evolved into the Standard Model: 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 4 bosons, and a Higgs. Democritus wasn't wrong, but he wasn't exactly right either. If we're honest, science does have assumptions that are untestable: natural processes are governed by laws that can be expressed mathematically and that these laws are consistent across space and time. This assumption is baked into the scientific method in terms of reproducibility. But mathematics isn't reality - it's a model of reality that is useful to describe our experience. But as I've often said, I can create any arithmetically valid equation you like - but it may not be measuring what you think it does.
I think you could still argue that an atom is indivisible because if you were to divide one, it would no longer act as the same atom. Eg, dividing a group of two neon atoms into two groups of one is a very different thing than fissioning a single neon atom.
@@nemdenemam9753 The idea behind an atom is that if you keep dividing a substance, you eventually reach a point where you cannot divide it any more. So if you have a kilo of iron and cut it, you now have two separate pieces of iron. This stops working when you get to atom, because if you divide the atom, it is no longer iron.
@@GalaxyPedlarJust to be on the same page, this was my understanding of the point you were making: division != separating it into smaller pieces but division = separating it into pieces where the pieces don't behave the same as the whole Is that an incorrect understanding of your first comment? If it isn't then I don't see how that's an answer to my objection. If you cut a ball in half it's not a ball anymore. If it is incorrect then can you give a definition of 'division' how you mean it?
@@nemdenemam9753 Democratos proposed that every substance has a smallest particle which cannot be subdivided. Some people say it can, because atoms can be decomposed into subatomic particles. My point is that Democratos is still right because subatomic particles cannot be described as a particle of the original substance.
Kaku: **Starts telling Penrose (who literally first theorised the concept of a singularity black hole) about singularities in black holes being similar to the birth of the universe.** Penrose: *Do not cite the deep magic to me, I was there when it was written.*
Kaku said they're similar in that they operate at the Planck energy and that's where our laws break down, nothing else - he was answering the question of testability. Penrose replied with a non-sequitur to get a final jab at him. You have to be totally biased to not see that.
@@trtnec no you're totally biased for not seeing the awful way he conducted himself the entire debate, completely derailing the topic etc. I'd say he absolutely deserved it, and Penrose had definitely given up on having any sort of intelligible conversation with him at that point.
I am not at al intelligent like most of you here who are watching this . Actually im just a master builder . Yet I find myself watching everything about Sir Roger Penrose and I just am blown away by his sheer GENIUS . I have no understanding of most of this , yet I find when he talks I like get it a bit . This man is a gift to humanity and unlike these ridiculous celebrities who the world admires . Children should be shown this marvelous man .
Sir Roger is one of the greatest minds of his generation! Love listening to him speak. Sabine is a legit scientist too. Kaku is a joke and doesn't belong one stage with Roger and Sabine.
Sabine doesn't even know about God and Jesus, she is a damned fool. What a shame. I don't know about Penrose, because I don't care my time is too valuable and I only clicked on a Sabine video because she was kind of cute and I was a man of culture., If they are so smart, why don't they know the Truth???
A fundamental fact from mathematics, that 4 dimensional space has an uncountable infinity of different possible 4-spaces from the work of Michael Freedman/ Simon Donaldson (not good for theoretical physics).
Kaku is very creative and imaginative, and he contributed to some of the boldest episodes ever made by the History Channel. Penrose is one of the greatest physicists in the world, simply brilliant. Sabine is possibly the most intelligent RUclipsr ever. A talented artist, she is deep, direct, and sharp. Sometimes I get the impression that she can translate whatever she wants into words, even the most complex abstractions. And, of course, she really knows Physics.
Kaku seems completely unable to get away from the same 4 lines of text he's been repeating for years now. Sabine and Roger achieved a very coherent conversation
Michio Kaku is more like a cheerleader for Team Multiverse than a scientist. Anything that raises questions about his pet theories is motivation for more research to raise more questions about the unresolved questions that he's raising.
I mean, I am a phycisist and I tend to align more with Sabine's skepticism and outright rejection of fringe physics theories BUT I find that there is value in and a necessity for strange theories that push our boundaries and fight back the criticism. That's a healthy scientific environment in my opinion, even though it is not very healthy for science communication to focus on fringe science almost exclusively.
I believe that it’s simply reflected on his solid contributions in real scientific publications (quite poor considering his career stage!). Of course, for this, we have to put aside his heavily sensationalist material to catch general public’s desire for fantasy - just to earn his fortune and inflate his own name. It’s hard to look at him as a serious scientist in any sort of way…just one more canned Hollywood source of misinformation haha
Interesting debat and great panel. Was expecting more compelling arguments from Kaku and not drifting into string theory. Penrose is right, there are fundamentals issues with quantum theory and the multiverse is just a quick fix. Loved how composed Sabine looked while Kaku delivered the hocus pocus arguments.
Sabine was beside herself. she should've gotten more time to speak. Michio unfortunately just sounded like a string theory cheerleader, he didn't consider their points of views, or even make a counter argument. It's a shame, because he's a great mind. Maybe someday he will be more open minded to theories other than his own. And we can actually make this new theory he tells everyone else to make, a reflection of hubris.
Very interesting and insightful discussion. It is great to get all these bright minds together, particularly Sir. Dr. Roger Penrose and learn from their reflections on Cosmology.
It’s unbelievable that such an interesting debate has been ruined by the utter chaos the host and surprisingly Kaku also caused by mixing up the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics with the ‘multiverse’ theory of the (inflationary) origin of the universe! Roger tried to point this out many times but unsuccessful so.
Well that's true but I do think both of those fall under a multiverse label. It wasn't clear to me which Kaku was arguing for. His frequencies argument sounds like a version of many worlds. But then he also references bubble universes. So who knows.
I think both Sabine and Roger were frustrated with this mess but Sabine prolly just decided it's not worth it to fight this clown. Let him embarrass himself, who's stupid enough to buy his BS won't understand the difference anyway.
Have we watched the same video? I am fully convinced Michio Kaku did a video conference to avoid the inevitable ensuing barfight level of hostilities between him and Sabine. Both were derogatory in different ways.
💰🗞️ OFF CAMERA ? Look out honey !! Gloves off !! Chairships , Golden Parachutes, huge employment packages, tenure, peer reviews, highly paid lecture series, lucrative speaking engagements (HERE) with 1st class travel, 5 star hotels and fawning audiences, university appointments. Attilla the Hun vs Kahn of the Mongol Hoard on steroids. More competitive and dirty than a job opening for Police Chief in Beverly Hills and Worldwide Wrestling💪
If you cannot work with necessity you will never have any comprehension as to the nature of truth and reality.. wave structure of matter spaceandmotion
I only recently discovered Sabine Hossenfelder, but I think she is brilliant... she explains things so well and introduces unnecessary uncertainty into things like the confidence with which Michio Kaku speaks: telling laymen to come up with "a better theory" (than string theory) for grand unification (which is not be even necessary, but just a "nice to have" ideal that appeals to the human mind) is to rather tell us to put up or shut up in nicer language with a bit of humor. This was really a rather convoluted discussion... it was never clear that the topic was a multiverse, but rather the legitimacy of string theory. Sabine has a whole video where she tears apart the modern state of particle physics, which is where string theory falls, and explains very well how it seems that particle physicists are trying to overcomplicate particle physics by making wild predictions above energies that we have been able to explore yet instead of simply applying Occam's razor and remaining with the simplest theory that fits the standard model. I find the idea of the multiverse quite fascinating and appealing, but it's just a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment for now, and may always be. Having Penrose there to propose another face to the argument was good, but I wish he had had the chance to speak more.
Hossenfelder and Penrose restore my faith in science. Not so much Kaku, I'd have to say he reminds me so much of Tyson, Krauss, etc. -- let's call it popular science.
As Penrose said, he's got no evidence on his theories. Kaku has just been watching too much Star Trek and just wants to sell books. He has nothing to contribute to Physics and I'm glad he was put in his place by Penrose.
I'd just add that i have a relative high certainty Tyson used the same populist-entertainment-science mechanics at least for the higher cause of saving fundings and spark interest, but for seeling books and general ego serving like Michio does. Maybe still with a negative impact to the integral foundation of science :/
That has been his job for the last 20 years. Why do people feel the need to suddenly attack those making science popular? Talk about being a mouth-breather...
@@thomasjones4570 There's a difference between making science popular and distort science in making it a esoterical belive-what-you-like sandbox (so you can capitalise on simple minded people who want to belive in fancy bullshit). Because people who are into sandboxing reality didn't fit into science - and vice versa.
@@thomasjones4570 That's right, he spent the last 20 years on making science popular. The question is how much it cost, and who financed this entertainment?
Yes. But what do we mean by this? Why should we prefer GR as a basis? It is not an ideal theory. It is just inconsistent in a different way from QM: locality of conservation laws is not less of an issue than wave function collapse and measurement. So, the idea sounds good, but is it really that sound? ))
@Crab Crab for the very reason Penrose mentioned: GR is a consistent theory, QM contradicts itself. Quantum decoherence is a beatuiful term that hides a big problem with QM, namely that observers are not quantum objects and are thus completely outside of the standard model.
@@benjaminhalbeisen9175 Strictly speaking we somewhat mix inconsistency with incompleteness hier. QM may be incomplete, but it is nevertheless consistent. GR is probably both, but it is self-limiting. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that "quantization of gravity" is something I can at least imagine (to a very limited degree, but still), whereas "gravitizing QM" is beyond my imagination. (But no doubt it sounds cool). I just want to understand what it means...)
Thank you Sabine Hossenfelder for staying on topic and succinctly stating your postion, that ontological realness of mathematical implications should not be automatically ascribed.
I think the point that was made that the math doesn't always correspond to reality ontologically, and even if it does correspond to experimental results on many fronts, like quantum theory, then the inherent contradictions such a theory presents as Penrose pointed out, is contrary to the law of noncontradiction in logic which is the basis for the mathematical rigor that the epistemology of philosophy demands and that science has adopted. How can science which is based on inductive reasoning ever prove the theory of everything for every possible claim of the theory if not every claim is testable? That seems to me to be one of the great shortcomings of the scientific method. And even if the mathematics of a theory claims much more than can actually be proven experimentally, you have Goedel's Incompleteness proof to contend with. So we all have to admit at some point, that we cannot know everything. Certain things will forever remain conjecture, if not a mystery. And that is the real issue of this debate, IMO. Occam's razor is no more provable than anything else that science assumes, such as physical laws and even so-called constants (e.g. the cosmological constant) being immutable. That being the case, we are back to Descartes dilemma, to find the one premise that is absolutely certain. Time to revisit Goedel's ontological proof of God.
It's astonishing to me just how articulate, coherent and methodical in his thoughts Sir Roger Penrose is at his advanced age. 'Genius' gets thrown around a lot, but he's truly deserving of this title, should be spoken of in the same breath as someone like Einstein or Feynman...
It is a little embarasing indeed, that Michio Kaku tries to defend the theories he proposes to be true and useful with illogical arguments that focus on aspects that go besides the questions that are given to him.
Yes, while I was saying to the screen several times, " *That* is your argument???", I can only assume that Sabine & Penrose were rolling their figurative eyes and telling themselves, "This guy is a clown, not a scientist." Michio's entire presentation boils down to this: "My theory will be proved someday, therefore (a) it's a good theory, and (b) you can't argue against it now."
Love to see Sir Roger and Sabine on the same stage. Both are genius heretics who aren't afraid to speak out. They follow the logic instead of the fashion.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 Sabine is far more reasonable than Penrose. She is a no-nonsense scientist. Penrose sometimes let's his imagination run too wild.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 idc if Sabine hasn't made any major contributions. We like her because she is a critic of nonsense scientists who extrapolate from the evidence more than is actually there.
she also is a well-studied, published, and cited scientist??? Anyone setting the bar at “nobel prize or bust” is simply delusional or ignorant as to the nature of how progress is made in science
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 Still don't see how her not having contributed much (or at all) to science somehow discredits her argument, despite it being sound. The way I see it, you are trying to make up for your lack of understanding of the finer points being discussed here by barring access to dialogue to only a few people that have a certain badge of honor, in that way at least you're less likely of hearing someone say something wrong. What about Michio Kaku? He seems to have published quite a lot and he's not incredibly coherent here. I understand the need for expertise in a discussion like this but your argument reeks of academic classism more than a genuine desire for intellectual consistency.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 May I propose a hypothesis? You only follow mainstream media/popular science and has never left youtube. I don't disagree that a nobel lends more credibility but that is not the basis of how we do science or conduct intellectual conversation. If that were that case, then how dare you continue to live in the same planet as Sir Penrose? You should not even be allowed to utter his name! See how stupid that sounds? Sabine is a scientist, Sir Penrose is a scientist. This is a panel of scientist. If it were designed as a panel of nobel laureates, sure. Also, outside of the nobel prize he receieved, he has no claim and does not even claim to have expertise on this topic. And as these two clearly showed, nobody is an expert on this. However, as scientist they are the closest experts to critic the idea. Would you prefer someone with a nobel prize in literature to be part of this panel just because they have a nobel prize? Have you actually tried checking the works of these people?
Michio wasn't really answering Penrose's or Sabine's arguments most of the time. He kind of just started ranting about different things every time they contradicted him and couldn't really ever explain his view properly
He gave some answers, particularly when they challenged him to produce verifiable experiments, but once they dismantled his arguments he didn't have much to say beyond repeating his usual schtick.
His challenge '"if you don't like it, come up with a better theory" fails the first law of claim presentation. He really ought to know better at his age.
Actually, I was of the impression that for someone this deep inside his own complicated philosophical reasons for sticking with an idea that doesn't seem to hold much water in any of the supposed universes it's proposing, he was quite disciplined in sticking to the stuff that was discussed at any given time (perhaps with the exception of the accelerator the size of Milky Way, Sabine must have really cut deep with that remark to have him return to his complaints about it later).
Abandoning the multiverse theory might be premature, as it remains a compelling and thought-provoking idea in the quest to understand the universe. While the theory is currently speculative and lacks direct experimental evidence, it offers valuable insights into the potential nature of reality. The multiverse theory could provide explanations for key puzzles in cosmology, such as the fine-tuning of the constants in our universe and the nature of dark matter and dark energy. By positing the existence of other universes with different physical laws, the theory helps us explore the possibility that the properties of our universe are not necessarily unique or fixed but could be part of a broader cosmic landscape. Furthermore, abandoning the multiverse prematurely would ignore its potential to spark new avenues of research. It challenges our assumptions about reality and offers a framework for exploring phenomena that might seem incomprehensible within our current understanding of physics. Just as Einstein’s theories were once met with skepticism but ultimately transformed our understanding of space and time, the multiverse theory has the potential to reshape our view of the cosmos. Additionally, the multiverse provides an interesting intersection between quantum mechanics and cosmology, offering a way to bridge these two fields in a search for a unified understanding of the universe. While it's true that we lack empirical evidence for the multiverse, the theory remains a fertile ground for theoretical exploration and could lead to discoveries that we cannot yet predict. Rather than abandoning it, we should continue exploring its implications, as it may hold the key to understanding some of the deepest mysteries of existence.
Interesting debate but we went quickly from the multiverse theory as a possibility, which was supposed to be the topic of the discussion, to the validity of String theory. Michio defending it the best he could on the one hand, and Sir Penrose and Sabine literally "roasting" it every time they could. Not complaining because, again, it was an interesting discussion in the end, however, even Sir Penrose took notice of this a couple of times. I think the moderator should have led the discussion a bit better. Thank you for this and hopefully next time we can have a longer debate on these great matters.
I think the issue was that the moderator is clearly way out of his depth. And so is the crowd really. The guests were attempting to have the discussion and remain intelligible to the general public but it meant that Hossenfelder and Penrose couldn't actually demonstrate the absolute BS that Kaku was coming out with.
Not sure that master is the right term for it. I tried reading one of his books years ago and didn't get very far with it, and not because the subject matter was too difficult. His style was really off putting, like in this video.
I like the sceptical attitude and criticism coming from the Nobel laureate and the rather down to earth Sabine in contrast to Michio Kakus Science Fiction! We are back to Socrates " we know that we do not know"! Michio mixes all kind of things that have no real connection to each other, he"s just a good story teller, and that's what people prefer to dry physical facts. For me he is not a serious researcher, sorry!
@@Cara.314 People love Musk because he's a troll, and if the Trump presidency has taught us anything, it's that a certain (large) segment of the US population loves trolls.
Sabine Hossenfelder has completely won me over. She has a way of placing logical boundaries on proven theories ( at least for now) and asking how we can go beyond this without making wild assumptions that if they are untestable or, by contrast, verifiable in any classical way, they are most likely a waste of time at the present.
Can’t listen to someone so unpleasant when speaking. When she will express joy about her job, I will listen. Moody people, whatever their intelligence = Next. Immediately. Next. Einstein was happy when speaking about his field.😊
All three academics are well worth following. Sabine is such a clear concise thinker. Roger is a mathematician of great renounce. I love listening to Michio. I don’t agree with I’m, but he is well worth the time spent listening. I am an avid follower of Sabine. Her news channel is fun, and informative. Thanks to all.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to learn more about the theory behind the multiverse? Check out our newest Big Idea video with multiverse specialist Laura Mersini-Houghton! ruclips.net/video/kr301XpHHGA/видео.html&ab_channel=TheInstituteofArtandIdeas
Warum es kein weiteres Universum als ein Paralleluniversum geben kann? Die Hypothese über ein Paralleluniversum basiert auf der falschen Annahme, dass unser Gedanke, Geist, Seele oder Selbstbewusstsein eine Trennung vom Universum unterliegt. Daher können weder ein Paralleluniversum noch ein Jenseits existieren, da wir ohne eine Verbindung zwischen beiden niemals auf diese Idee kommen könnten. Deshalb führt die Kontinuität zwangsläufig zu einem Einheituniversum.
Daraus folgt, dass eine Grenze nur dann als solche definierbar ist, wenn sie diffus und offen für eine Verbindung ist. Außerdem ist der Begriff Universum nicht mit Begriffen wie Erde, Stern, Galaxien vergleichbar, da Universum alles übertrifft, was wir uns vorstellen können, und auch unser Bewusstsein umfasst. Daran sollten wir immer denken!
Ich zitiere an dieser Stelle von Emanuel Kant:
"Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt; der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir; beide darf ich nicht als in Dunkelheiten verhüllt oder in überschwänglich außer meinem Gesichtkreises suchen und bloß vermuten; ich sehe sie vor mir und verknüpfte sie unmittelbar mit dem Bewusstsein meiner Existenz!"
Was heißt das eigentlich, wenn wir von einem Paralleluniversum sprechen? Um diese Frage zu beantworten, müssen wir einige Voraussetzungen festlegen:
Parallel bedeutet, dass zwei Mengen keine Schnittstelle haben und keine Elemente voneinander besitzen. Oder anders ausgedrückt:
Die Mengen A und B sind nicht parallel, wenn es mindestens ein Element gibt, das Teilmenge von A und B ist und somit eine Schnittmenge zwischen beiden Mengen gibt. Wenn wir jedes Universum als eine geschlossene Menge betrachten, dann sind zum Beispiel zwei Universen U und U' nur dann parallel, wenn kein Element von U oder U' existiert, das Teilmenge von beiden wäre. Es gilt:
Wenn U:={ x |∀ x∈U ∧ x∉U' } ∧ U':={ x' |∀ x'∈U' ∧ x'∉U } ⇔ U ist echt parallel zu U'.
Allein die Tatsache, dass wir uns vorstellen können, dass es ein Paralleluniversum gibt, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass es mindestens eine Schnittstelle zwischen unser Universum und dem gedachten Universum in unserem Bewusstsein gibt. Ansonsten hätten wir nie auf die Idee kommen können, dass es ein zweites Universum geben könnte.
Die Idee eines Paralleluniversums ist zwar reizvoll, aber letztendlich nur eine Illusion. Dies würde nur dann der Fall sein, wenn man den kartesischen Dualismus annimmt, wonach Bewusstsein und Welt/Materie getrennt sind. Doch bevor man dies annehmen kann, müsste man erst beweisen, dass diese Annahme richtig ist, doch stattdessen führt es in jedem Fall zum Absurdum. Es ist eine unumstößliche Tatsache, dass wir in dieser Welt leben und unser Bewusstsein nicht ohne unseren Körper existieren kann. Es ist also unmöglich, einen Beweis für die Existenz eines vom Körper getrennten Geistes zu liefern!
Es bleibt wie J.W. Von Goethe sagte:
"Was wär ein Gott, der nur von außen stieße,
Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen ließe.
Ihm ziemt's die Welt im Innern zu bewegen.
Natur in sich, sich in Natur zu hegen.
So dass was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist,
Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen Geist vermisst."
The next step for the scientific community is psychedelics.
Why bring Michio Kaku to a serious discussion? Was it just for fun or something?
Michio Kaku is stupid compared to Roger Penrose. Embarrassing to listen to !
Pron
Sabine Hossenfelder is as usual the anchor of reason, Roger Pennrose the symbol of intelligence, and Michio Kaku, the representative of Hollywood.
This is exactly what it is!
Nailed it. I got wayyyyyy too much pleasure out of Sabine calling michio out for making claims that are completely unfounded/non-scientific
bit ruff id say machio is a real scientist has achieved alot and are u saying hes here to represent actors? i don't think that is what he is trying to do.
@@jasonmckay8793 "is a real scientist has achieved alot" ? What would that be?
@@sergiomanzetti1021 well he is a link for alot people to the scientific world, he worked on quantum mechanics helped further that research and he is willing to push against the status quo all useful things.
That Sir Roger Penrose is still doing serious scientific research at his age is astounding. Long may he last!
Yeah, really impressive. I went to a lecture of his a few months back and he was so sharp you would think by listening to him that he is 30 or 40 years younger than he actually is.
Of course, why would he quit doing something he loves.
@@holliswilliams8426 Great genetics with constant brain stimulus will do that for you.
If I were him, I would hope the universe would repeat.
Sir Roger came up with a way to tile a floor the size of the Universe, with a pattern that never repeats itself and has no gaps using only two tile shapes. That's pretty crazy if you think about it.
Props to Hossenfelder and Penrose for their clarity and rationality, and Kaku for selling books.
Michio looks like Karl Pilkington next to these other two 😄
@@DeadeyeDaily Karl Pilkington would blow all three out of the water 😀
@@cookymonstr7918 😂😂 how does string theory work, Michio? "There's a button for that, in'nit."
Gregory spot on my man!
He's just returned from the cheesey dialogue universe.
I wasn't expecting to watch a comedy sketch, but this was ridiculously funny. I can't get over the increasingly perplexed/disappointed/incredulous expressions on Sir Roger's and Sabine's faces
You mean the expression on Sabine's face when she says '..serious string theorists' ?
@@extraterrestrial46 she herself is not one
Sabine is a joke youtuber
@@cwpv2477She's a charlatan who peddles anti-science misinformation
Roger Penrose has a sharper mind at the age of 91 than I have had at any point in my life.
Lol
Give yourself some more credit... I'm assuming you're not yet 91 😀
Bet 😅😂
Of course he has. He is Roger Penrose. And you are a nobody. There's no comparison.
He is remarkable. It shows the potential in humanity that is so rarely realised. I love listening to him talk, he will always make you think about stuff in new and interesting ways…
Was a fan of Kaku in my youth. Now see him as a Steven Seagal of cosmology.
Same here. I used to eat up pretty much everything he said when I was younger, then I went to university and learned to think more critically. Now I cringe whenever he speaks, half due to his wrongness and half due to embarrassment that I used to believe it.
That's a really excellent and apt characterisation.
Ah ah!
oh my god how accurate. Neil Tyson seems like an absolute clown to me now. Star Talk is an abomination. Sabine is all!!!!
😆😆😆😆steven segal...😆😆 segal is more entertaining.
Michio thought this was about string theory, Roger thought he'd been invited to talk about cosmology, and Sabine thought they were going to be talking about quantum mechanics...
Penrose was clearly annoyed, Sabine tried to salvage it, and neither Michio nor the host seemed to understand that multiverse means different things to different scientists.
This was really painful to watch.
Yep, agreed....the problem with modern science is that there is a tendency to compartmentalize, to break apart into divisions when Newton himself said we are only beginning to realize that how small we are "now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me". The problem is these scientists distance themselves from integrating spirituality and the so-called "supernatural" when far advanced civilisations of our past integrate metaphysics, spirituality and so on...I remember my grandpa told me what was taught to Adam was alchemy (the pure sciences at microlevel-lower) and astrology (incldg astronomy- the sciences of the higher levels and of higher dimensions, not withstanding the conflict modern science has about multiverses...disregarding the souls, God, consciousness etc...)
Exactly. But its was pretty fun though.
I don't see this. First of all, string theory and quantum mechanics are related. And Penrose was not talking about cosmology. The background knowledge for this is that Newtonian physics works and makes accurate predictions, and quantum physics works and makes accurate predictions, but they describe the universe very differently to the point that you'd think they're describing different universes. Some scientists have come up with a mathematical untestable theory called string theory which theoretically unites both spheres of physics, and in the process predicts the existence of multiverses. Where they mainly differ is in substance and presentation. Someone like Michio Kaku is a very enthusiastic popularizer of science, and tends to gloss over a lot of details to make the science accessible, where Sabine Hossenfelder is a critic of the muddled views that emerge from such enthusiastic simplification. Roger Penrose is talking about the multiverse in general, and is wondering why they are talking about string theory as if it's the only theory that predicts multiverses - since he doesn't think string theory is very coherent at all. They're not talking at cross purposes.
Now I really want to listen! 😂
The thing is that all these scientists should not latch onto a favorite theory but keep everything, all options wide open. Pure math has made real predictions , as in the positron. Also not using math and only experiments have discovered most things. So all lines of pursuit should be followed up on.
Scientists in all areas do this and latch onto their favorite. I don't like it.
24:17 "I know lot of string theorists... serious string theorists" SHEESH 💀
jjahahahaha
I was looking for this comment
That was sublime…😂
I think that was totally out of place, she's too honest.
People that still shill string theory in 2024 🤣🤣🤣😭😭🤡
A long life to Sir Roger Penrose! What a legend, at 91 years of age his mind is more agile than that of most teenagers and young adults alive today!
granted the human brain doesn't fully mature until approx.25 lol.
He doesn't even look 90. He doesn't even look 80...maybe he is the multiverse in person, lol. No, he'd not like that 🤣
Most? Probably, virtually all.
Roger Pensrose have found the tech for eternal life and doesn't share it.
For real!! What the 92!!!!
31:20 I absolutely love and respect how Dr. Penrose doesn't mind saying "I'm confused" and using that as an argument against the gobbledygook that Kaku is putting forth.
It's not an argument, and I was quite disappointed in him for doing that.
@@carmensavu5122 I respectfully disagree, Carmen. As Pauli said, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
how so?
@@carmensavu5122
Then translate 4:55.
I don’t understand it, but it is embarrassing.
It is kindness to let that slip with the phrase “I am confused”.
I truely beleive he means it but.... if penrose says he doesn't understand and he is confused, that just ends up meaning whats been told is gobbledygook.
I love how Sabine and Roger so beautifully call out Michio and the other string theorists on their rubbish. Roger does it in such a classy British way. Sabine does it in an in-your-face German way. In both cases it's delightful to watch.
Ah cool, that's basically all I was really interested in: what side does Penrose end up between Sabine and Kaku. None of the details were ever going to be novel in this type of venue. Having to stomach listening to a floundering Kaku is more than I'm able to handle.
Thanks for the summary of the relevant detail 🙂
I think my favorite takedown was this line, from Sabine: "I know a lot of string theorists, serious string theorists..."
You do understand that neither Sabine nor Roger have evidence that string theory is rubbish, nor that the multiverse doesn't exist. They're attacking these ideas based on philosophical approaches, not science. Science requires evidence, which they don't possess. They're skeptics, which science needs. But their opinion are still just opinions.
@@commodoor6549 I'd like to see Maldacena folks get some people on stage for this stringy discussion. Also there is some wacky progress on ER = EPR.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yes, exactly .Kaku pointed out correctly that science technology has a history of getting to the dance late, and that just because there is no direct evidence for a phenomenon, that doesn't negate an idea.
Naysayers like Sabine supplement their income knocking ideas in their nascent stages, which are going to take more evidence to support. Einstein also doubted the concept of black holes, and he was wrong, partly because he, while brilliant, could not see past his own ideas. Science struggles to progress with regressive thinkers like Sabine, who harshly mocks these ideas yet has no alternative ideas of her own. And Penrose, is stuck in the past, and finding it difficult to even fathom anything other than his personal experiences.
This wasn't a debate it was a beatdown
great discussion, I really like how Roger And Sabine are so respectful when they are against an argument. I am not really familiar with Michio Kaku, but he seems to spread his argumentation a little all over the place without really making any real point.
Michio is great at producing enthusiastic rhetoric but pretty terrible at logic.
Indeed, I feel that one could, after watching this video, make the same conclusion, even if one couldn't understand Physics or English. In other words, you could tell from their tone of voice alone who is a deep thinker and who is a shallow one.
@@TheNameOfJesus that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
He's pretty good at that, yes. But he's a marketing genius, if it counts for something.
Great to see Roger and Sabine on the stage.
You forgot the clown on the monitor ...
@@melvinpjotr9883 lol
@@melvinpjotr9883 i agree
The interaction was great! Sabine is awesome, she has minimal belief, is consistent and complete, and probably questions her very fingers existence daily while Roger is very clever with large picture reasoning and has what are at least plausible areas of investigation for a better universal model. Michio is a bit out there with his confidence in extending a universal mathematical model - it’s like our universe is a building we’ve been in forever : Michio saying if we could simply stand outside we would see buildings forever, while roger is convinced it’s the same building just at different points in time while Sabine is saying the whole thing is pointless because no one’s going outside anytime soon.
@@melvinpjotr9883 I tend not to like him either, but there's no point in being mean to him. At least he's qualified to be a science communicator (unlike some others).
The faces of Hossenfelder + Penrose while Kaku speaks. Priceless.
Kaku is still smarter than you. He's had a great career in science while you are just a nobody
@S'probablyCancr: Kaku is still smarter than you. He's had a great career in science while you are just a nobody
@@TheMercury79 Mic drop.
Kaku so out of his depth it's funny
@@deank179 Don't be silly they are all clueless! - You just saw yet another talk lamenting measurement problems meaning science doesn't know & has no way to know.
Discussions such as this are such a comforting thing to watch. Calmly stated arguments, a steady pace, a respectful audience, and a fascinating topic.
I remember when Michio was one of the science educators who inspired me to learn more about the universe. Now he sounds like he’s trying to sell me a book or something.
YES that's precisely my impression during this debate! I used to look up to him, but now it's just a bunch of unintelligible science speech hemmed up with "...sioadn ds ksjdasQuantum theory, take that spiderman"
Hosselfelder makes him look like an AI generated version of himself. Shes cut and clear, and her words make sense together into a thought.
I just hope he's Japanese, and not Korean, because "michyo" literally means "to be crazy" in Korean lol
How can computers run on quantum theory and then everyone else says it is nonsense.
Did you expect anything less from someone who calls themselves a "Futurist"?
I felt off about this guy from the beginning but couldnt explain why. he does feel like a car salesman, its really obnoxious and patronizing
I am glad there still physicists like sir Penrose and Sabina
Sir Roger.
I'm a cosmologist and most people in my field are like that, fringe phycisists exist but are rarer than pop science would suggest.
I am glad there are both types. Science does not progress by everybody agreeing with everybody.
@@marcag9810 Like what? Cosmologist how? Another goddam applied mathematician? Sounds like you are pretending.
@@marcag9810 Where do you stand on Janna Levin
Michio Kaku is actually inspiring for young teenagers who don't yet know physics, he was for me. But he is very cringe once you know a couple things about quantum mechanics etc., it is uncomfortable listening to him recite his rehearsed analogies that sell books.
I fully agree. Penrose is the opposite. And I also like Sabine
Same the first books I read that set me on my path, which didnt lead me to theoretical physics, but ultimately into engineering were "A Brief History of Time" and Kaku's book Hyperspace, but I agree its been hard to hear him on these kinds of debate/discussion stages lately.
> Kaku explores the history of unification theories of physics starting with Newton's law of universal
> gravitation which unified our experience of gravity on Earth and the motions of the celestial bodies
> to Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. Kaku dubs the
> final Grand Unified Theory of relativity and quantum gravity The God Equation with an
> 11-dimensional string theory as the only self-consistent theory that seems to fit the bill.
This is a quote from Wikipedia about his 2021 book The God Equation. He is promoting his book in hardcore mode.
@@lesliespeaker668 Wow, I haven't heard of his new book. The topic is right on point. Thank you, I must read it right now!
My first shudder came with his "how do we prove that?''. Scientists don't prove. They model, observe, and disprove previous models.
Michio is seemingly incapable of genuine scientific conversation without resorting to sales tactics. Sir Penrose and Sabine conducted themselves very professionally considering the absurdity of Michio.
Yeahhh
I don't hold it against him, though. Perhaps time hasn't been as kind to him as it has for sir Penrose. Kaku has done a lot for driving interest in science, and he's probably just developed a strong habit of saying his usual lines over and over again.
I knew Sabine when we started to study physics. She always was extremely intelligent. It is interesting to see her becoming a public figure.
@@moonshine.squatter Really? Be more specific what do you want to say?
If she is nothing you are probably less than nothing.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 What is nothing? I am Robert Lawrence Kuhn.
@@TactileTherapy Had to look him up. I do not really see him as more prominent.
But even more, I strongly doubt that is you.
I get a feeling she is no fan of Michio
@@myhandlehasbeenmishandled She and Pentrose seem to agree.
Michio seemed out of his out of his depth in this discussion. I know Sabine did her diploma thesis about extradimensions.
Sir Roger is a world treasure. He is over ninety and still doing mathematical physics.
why believe these lies? they want people not to use the power of faith to work miracles, so it's just technology and bad people to do things.
Sir Roger is a true polymath, which is exceedingly rare in modern times. He's a profound physicist, an accomplished artist, and world-class philosopher.
He's able to do the far-out mathematics and understand the edge-of-science extrapolations, and then come back and ask "but does all this make any sense?" That's what I love about him.
well hes definitely doing some real gibberish lol
@@nellateea3238 Yeah, that's the thing. He's your classic elderly absent-minded genius. But if you can parse through that, or maybe watch some other science communicators explaining what he has actually done in his life, you'll see that he totally deserved being knighted by the Queen. Remember, he was Stephen Hawking's PhD advisor, so the guy is definitely no slouch.
@@YogiMcCaw hes selling his books here
It's thrilling seeing Dr.Penrose and Dr.Sabine H. on the same stage!
penrose non la maga cosmica!
And I come across it when my device is at 28% and we have a power outage. I bet Sabine could give me a solution, " Turns- off your device and watch tomorrow. "
This was a great debate.
Uncle Roger ! National Treasure if there ever was one !
Penrose is the real deal the other two are not even close to his level of achievement.
24:10 what a jab.
I know a lot of "serious" string theorists.
that was brutal 😂
Check mate!
Hahahaha, shiii how come I didn't realize that quick correction, "serious" lolol
it was awesome hahahha
I could hear Sir Penrose speak all day. He is incredibly intelligent, articulate and humble.
He is not humble at all. He's just deliciously soft-spoken.
He takes time, listens then think before responding. This is a quality we all should develop in ourselves. It’s very easy to be impulsive.
@@alexdrudigmail just bc he doesnt say "ugh oh maybe idk, ugh yeah maybe im wrong hshs idk" ?
His is the voice of authority. He’s proved it time & again
This was such a waste of everybody's time. Michio Kaku was already told many times that he is full of kaka. Why calling sir Penrose to do that?
I like how Penrose just calls out the whole thing "Are we talking about String Theory or the Multiverse Theory here?".
Exactly! Kaku is relying on experiments that may mathematically indicate string theory to then suggest that the multiverse theory is correct. That's not a logical jump.
Do you guys want a productive conversation about what might be or not? 😂
@@lawanbrown16 A productive conversation would require creating a list of possibilities, each mutually contrary to each other in some way, ranking from most likely to least likely relative to the available evidence. Speculation about only one possibility, other than making for fun imagination, is not productive because you then close yourself to the other possibilities which have not yet been discounted.
Kaku spends an awful lot of time speculating about one and ONLY one possibility, which hasn't been proven. He has lost balance to his perspective, making him unscientific in his approach, even if he has the knowledge and degrees to support his argument from his perspective.
why believe these lies? they want people not to use the power of faith to work miracles, so it's just technology and bad people to do things.
@@HM-rz8nv Kaku is an american showman and also asian/superficial.
This debate was a bit of a confused disaster but kind of amazing to watch as a result. It's great to watch Sabine tackle Michio and put directly to him criticisms that everyone's been thinking for the past ten years.
German directness. Blitzkrieg
So...this was a "Michio Kaku" is a fraud debate? I mean, Sabine is says she knows "serious string theorists" which suggests she thinks Michio isn't. Michio Kaku brings science to the masses and has a terrific education and work background. Why not just appreciate him for who he is? Why does this debate even matter? Michio can do whatever he wants. Sabine can do whatever she wants. However, Michio is just doing his usual simplified explanations while Roger disagrees, which is fine, and Sabine sounds a bit petty. If it's not jealously, then what is it with Sabine? Is Michio negatively impacting her in some way and she feels the need to put him in his place? And the host seems to be against the multiverse theory also which is odd for what I thought was a moderator. This whole interview was awkward and I can't understand its point. Oh well. Moving on.
@@mthedu Michio Kaku has permanently damaged science communication and the public's faith in science by pushing what seems to have been an unfounded theory for 10+ years. I'm sure he's a thousand times smarter than me, but his actions have negatively impacted science in general.
@@someguy4405 "Permanently damaged science communication". Haha. Okay. You do you. Take care of yourself.
@@mthedu Science is made with money. And if funding is diverted to FRUITLESS endeavours, good science you could be making instead isn´t done. This is Sabine's main point of contention. It is about String Theory not showing any good evidence for more than 40 years and still funding going there as well as time that could be spent on other research, more scientific, in her view.
Take note: this is how civilized intellectuals argue and disagree. They make rational, logical arguments, and try to communicate their ideas to the best of their ability. It's not ad-hominem, it's not emotion-driven. Everyone is trying to get at the truth of things. It's ok to be in extreme disagreement, but each person on that stage is expected to at least make some plausible arguments for their opinion, not just make wild claims. We need this not just among scientists but among all mankind if we are to survive.
It's debatable to call Kaku an intellectual at this point. String Theory is one of the greatest reasons for the loss of credibility in physics.
Kaku is not making “rational, logical arguments” or trying to “communicate” his ideas honestly in good faith. He’s shilling, playing shamelessly to the audience, deliberately using verbal sleight of hand. (He’s also butchering the English language in the process.) Kaku is the sort of person who gives science popularization a bad name. Continuing however: Kaku IS making wild (and logically scattered) claims. He is NOT proffering “plausible arguments”.
When Penrose says he's confused, he actually means he's hearing total BS :)
I think he's just being polite.
Wow that's quite an emotional response, way?
@@mentalslave8451 Sabine and Penrose both take a lot of shots at Michio, politely but often not subtly. Penrose dismisses Michio conflating a bunch of different multiverse ideas as one but also argues that they are not relevant to describing our universe. Sabine basically says Michio is a quack physicist and serious string theorists don't believe any of the things he says would prove string theory actually would.
Because Penrose knows absolutely everything, right?
his skepticism is much appreciated
If Sir Penrose was my grandfather I would visit him every day just to talk more about theories and scientific findings.
For Sabine I can’t wait for her next books, I wish I could read her ideas about new findings, new understandings for a long time.
she has a YT channel now
Sir ROGER!
what about kaku
The only problem is people like him rarely reproduce and therefore the probability of a random person being a grandson of someone like him is very low 😂
@@boogieman6529 He talks too much... nonsense.
Sir Roger Penrose is so quietly and confidently dominating, it's a joy to watch.
My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995
Ed & Frances Walters succeeded in real shots of Stern spaceships with the gray occupants. - Billy Meier had made excellent recordings of star spaceships (beam ships) with extraterrestrial people. Johann Zdebor discoverer extraterrestrials on 01/17/95.
Well, being a Nobel prize winner, having the "Sir" title and a British accent certainly confers authority.
@@alexanderpeca7080Naah... Nobel prize is being steadily demoted to a mere propaganda tool, a title of Sir was recently awarded to a man of very questionable integrity, and I've seen during my life too many people with British accent rolling in mud, blind drunk, or worse.
Sir Roger had it all way back in the days when it really meant something.
What do you mean by dominating?! I think he is quite the opposite he is just humble and calm. As a good Physist and mathematician should be 😌
@@3dgar7eandroBro, may I assume you are an American? Am I right? In any case, trust me, there are other types of domination, other than guns blazing and bombs away.
The difference between Kaku and Penrose is mind boggling.
If there is no evidence for something, then why do we even talk about it? To this day no evidence has been found for multiverses, string theory, supersymmetry, or additional dimensions. Just as important, reality behaves exactly as if those things are imaginary.
Thrilled to see Sabine on the panel 😁
Her German directness is refreshing in this context.
Sabine can get it.
aboslute queen
Love it when Sabine counters some of the "pop-science" which is going around quite frequently. Smart and pragmatic. Great!
THANK you for targeting the CORRECT target: POP science. NOT actual working scientists & public education.
She never lets the narrative magic of fictions like ST or "cold fusion" distract her from actual facts and experimental data. And that's actually, sadly, pretty rare, isn't it?
@Greg Mark I found her latest video on cold fusion to be a selective narrative. Interesting but selective.
@@gregmark1688 what's st again?
Smart and pragmatic, good description
As a layman, it seems like what Michio, and string theorists in general, have done, is, they develop a theory that then runs into a problem, and they theorize about what could solve this apparent problem, and then keep going. Its literally Theoretical Physicist Fan Fic
Yes, but writing fan fiction is fun! And in the case of String Theory, I think physicists getting attracted by the elegance of creating more general theories, even if the implications of those theories can't be tested or even specified...
While String Theory definitely is fun, I agree with Sabine that _most_ of our efforts shouldn't be in dreaming up new and more beautiful theories, but we should be resolving inconsistencies in the theories we currently have.
That approach might be workable, if the original theory had some clear evidence to support its hypotheses, such that refining the theory to account for new data would make sense. But just dreaming up some theory that has no scientific basis and then changing it every time evidence appears that contradicts it, just seems like a bait and switch to make sure your books on the theory don't stop selling.
Imagination clearly has a place even in science, if it leads you to something that actually relates to the reality that your theory is meant to explain. But imagination that only produces wild speculation shouldn't be conflated with science, as Sabine put it so well. And it can even damage the perceived integrity of science when this is the approach taken by someone who has scientific credentials and put the mark of their imprimatur on it.
@@NondescriptMammal they are doing that with a lot of stuff in today's science. A lot more theories than discoveries.
so was AI in the AI winter and now with ChatGPT we are in AGI game!
Human dilemma
Hilary Lawson is the STAR of the show. His amazing grasp of what has been said; and his insightful commentary and subsequent questions to the participants is truly impressive! This shows he not only fully understands the debate, but has the ability to ’think on his feet’.
It's pretty clear what Sabine and Penrose think of Michio in this, despite how diplomatic they were, lol.
He’s a grifter and an egomaniac who lives for the fawning of the mathematically illiterate public
They're serious scientists where Kaku is more of a marketing person.
Well said! Katu is a PR person and stuck in documentary mode, not a serious scientist at all.
@@eliteextremophile8895 You don't even know what they do on a day by day basis. Did you not listen to a word he said? String theory is more than marketing, I think you watch too much TV and never had advanced physics beyond you tube videos.
@@Physics072 I am rewatching this and it really does appear that Michio Kaku's ideas aren't very accurate/his ideas do not map to our current understanding of physics:
Source:
24:15
26:28
38:17
40:14
52:10
Penrose is always the brightest bulb in the room because his ego allows him to say "I don't know"
His ego or absence of ego ?
@@dodge9600 There's no escaping ego as it's an essential part of what you are. The question is "what type of ego"?
He's not overly informed by an outsized ego, like the zoomed image on the stage. Nor does he rely on embarrassing sci-fi hyperbole like Kaku.
Sabine is great ❤ love her down to earth approach
@@Anax100 but saying "I don't know" is not ego. It's the absence of ego to be actual.
30:11
- Lawson: Do you agree?
- Penrose: no.
🤣
😎
Look at that! People debating ideas and no personal attacks. No yelling, shouting, bullying. WELCOME BACK SCIENCE, WE MISSED YOU!
24:18 "... I know a lot of string theorists, uh, serious string theorists ..." Priceless again! This is Sabine being agreeable the German way.
Yes, that was a burn right there 😂.
😂
Everyone loves slights
I was surprised she burned him so directly at that point. I was a little disappointed
Being rude and unpleasant is not a proof of intelligence. Sabine could smile for a change. SMILE.
I love Roger Penrose. This dude knows his sheet. And doesn't play politics on camera. Props to this man. An inspiration brother.
He's a serious scientist, not like so many.
Roger will be missed!
Penrose is a living legend !
Long living legend. I hope +100years for him. Great mind!
It's embarrassing to see Penrose and Hossenfelder have to reply to Kaku directly. Flashbacks to teachers having to deal with freshman or sophomore year students who think they found some breakthrough idea and get high on their own supply. The number of jumps in conclusions, fallacies and other logical missteps are so blatant you can't but see the teacher get a depression inducing combination of decision paralysis on what to correct first as well as the struggle to not just make it for the door and go do something better with their time.
yep
I don’t know if the multiverse exists and will probably never know, however I can’t criticize Kaku for his belief that it does. Whatever else can be said about him, he is a highly intelligent person, and in all fairness none of us that this time can say we understand more about 5% of the cosmos.
I’ve heard conjectures of the multiverse that seek to explain inflation and dark energy. I don’t know if they are true but I can’t deny their plausibility.
When confronted by the universe, humility is in order.
Now, now... these are perfectly dispensable... excuse me, defensible ideas.
@@jackshultz2024 Kaku is certainly intelligent when it comes to math.
When it comes to physics, I put my trust on Penrose and Sabine.
It is easy to become enchanted by maths, and forgetting that the universe doesn't care.
In the fifth grade I was correcting my teachers. I was 10 years old
I find Sabine an absolute breath of fresh air
She's brutally honest
She's fine. She's infinitely smarter than myself. But I did find some of her RUclips content from a while ago a little patronising of Penrose. Everyone's making fun of Michio for selling books, but she monetises as well. Nothing against her, I'm not terribly keen on the multiverse idea either, but I take her with the same grain of salt.
Most uneducated people do. She is the Christopher Hitchens of Science. Making baseless attacks gets you attention and that is how she has made a living this past decade...attacking the very foundation of science...theories...where 100% of scientific advances comes from. A theory is unproven until it is, that does not mean it is not science. She herself has done nothing to advance science and has when she actually worked in the field, worked on other peoples ideas. She has created none herself. She is however a decent popular scientist and has a great channel when she explains known topics but she has a habit of backhanding theories as if an unproven one has no value.
Its as if she does not understand where new ideas even come from or how knowledge is advanced.
She manages to impress some people, although she does not know what she is talking about. 😂
@@guillermotell2327 your laughing emoji makes your point correct
Sabina and Roger rocked this conversation. I think Kaku thought he was filming an episode of Universe with Tyson and Alex Plippinpinko.
Kitty history
👍😄😄😄
I think it's funny how Michio Kaku over dramatizes his discussions by adding too many catch phrases like, "and all of a sudden". Almost nothing in cosmology happens 'all of a sudden', and I'm pretty turned off by his approach to science communicating. Like Neil Tyson and his loud mouth and huge ego, I suspect that their lack of humility has scared plenty of common folk away from cosmology and science in general. Science to me has been life changing and humbling to the core of my being and has given me real spirituality that I could never get from philosophy or any religion. How we communicate science is as important as the science itself and there's no place in it for vanity or ego. I often wonder if Carl Sagan would cringe at the behavior of some of the people he mentored who seem to have forgotten how important humility is as a tool for communicating. Especially science.
@@cosmoscarl4332 it's because it appeals to normies in America. Having a big ego in America is important for fitting in unfortunately...
😄😄😄😄
"I know a lot of string theorists, serious string theorists..." 🙂 Sabine just made my day. Wish we all had a good moderator during meetings.
I dont know if she meant to phrase it like that but what a thing to say!
@@LordOfFlies She knew exactly what she was doing
@@LordOfFlies Just look at her face when she says it. And the context of that quote is that those "serious string theorists" would say Michio is wrong. So, 100% she was insulting Michio.
I thought it very rude to ask a question and then interrupt a panelist before she can finish her very interesting answer.
If that was her full intent and she really meant to phrase it that way I think it was needlessly rude. Everyone gets the point, Kaku is apparently sensational and poppy, that isn't really a crime worthy of actual derision though
Sabine is quite wrong: multiverses are not interesting at all, even in fiction. It means that everything is possible, and therefore nothing is of any value. The Marvel movies are an excellent example of this: the movies quickly became tiresome and formulaic, but once they introduced the multiverse, the train really came off the rails, introducing all sorts of absurdities and plot devices, taking the audience for fools.
What a Legend Sir. Penrose is. He is one of the few living Legends of 20th century science.
Starting with Prof. Michio Kaku comment that quantum mechanics predicts particles can exist in two places, its clear he is not speaking about scientific prediction but only for popularizing things. Amazing to listen to clear statements of Sir Roger Penrose.
At that singular moment, I was amazed to realize I entered an alternate universe where I know about quantum superposition more than a PhD in theoretical physics.
Roger Penrose is very articulate at his age and what a joy to see and hear this mathematical genius ❤
what a condescending comment, as if age means much in the articulation of someone... my guess is you've only met stupid old people
Please be advised that Kaku spends most of his time writing pop-sci books, he quits doing research 20 years ago, meanwhile Sabine and Roger are still doing cutting-edge research.
kaku in the 90s and early 2000's was great to listen to . i use to love to listen to him . hes since fallen off .
@@RendySinoman how did you know? are you his wife?
@@marinoadventures8802How do you know that Kaku does it very well and correctly, do you know his daily routine?If you know his routine then how? Do you get your ass fucked by him?
@@marinoadventures8802 Google Scholar
While Kaku spoke about how close to confirmation String Theory already is, I could clearly see a quantum facepalm superpositioning over Sabines face. It didn't quite manifest in this part of the multiverse though, but certainly in many others.
To be entirely fair she's appealing to intuition as much as anyone. Her camps answer to many worlds is superdeterminism, which is equally speculative. Yet she makes no qualms about taking a stand on that, presumably because that's what her particular biases allow her.
There's quite a few prolific thinkers who would do more good admitting when a topic is far beyond our current understanding, and that it's pointless to engage in inflamed debate about it. In all this madness that is the world, surely Hossenfelder could do better than to reintroduce provocation as a legitimate way of communicating science... It's done enough damage already.
@@lemiureelemiur3997 At least Sabine has Einstein in her camp.
@@lemiureelemiur3997 Except that she doesn't fanfare superdeterminism as a scientifically proven theory, but merely a conjecture that coincidentally solves a lot of the bullshit in quantum physics.
Nice try, tho.
@@WillemDemmers that she does. She also has his face on the sweaters she sells here on youtube.
@@StevXtreme you're being facetious. You shouldn't be given that far more quantifiable experiments have been successful in sowing doubt about the premise of superdeterminism than Hossenfelder can muster to her defense. I. E she's the one behind the times on this question, given that her critics base their opinions on the latest real world experiments and she bases hers on what is comparatively speaking fairy tales. Local hidden variables were disproven in the 80's, which means Einstein was wrong...
I am amazed at how differently these thinkers appear in this discussion. Sabine and Roger appear serious, contemplative, and open to evidence based extensions of our understanding or this universe. Michio comes off as if selling a bridge. I'd have a beer with him, but I sure wouldn't buy a used car from him.
Sabine, you demonstrate amazing patience in the face of a barrage glib, well rehearsed, clearly well-informed, and more than a little kooky presenter-speak.
This is such a great description of Michio Kaku. I've been feeling exact that about him for the better part of two decades. I enjoyed his books as a teenager; they got me interested in the science in the first place so I'll always be grateful. But early on in my research I came to see him as a salesperson for physics, just as you describe so well here.
as for the science Mishio is a crook. He -is- was good for entry level astrophysics and thats it
@@TML0677 Exactly. He looks good on camera, but with regards to cutting edge science he is a blunt cudgel.
Thank goodness. I'm not the only one who thinks Michio is the Deepak Chopra of string theory.
And thank goodness for Sabine and Roger as fine examples of theoretical physicists.
Because he has worked on a unified theory his whole life & is excited that it is holding up so good so far & looking forward. The others are outside critics who review his unified theory & is not satisfied because he hasn't proven it definitively.
host: hi Michio can you explain newton's first law to the audience in simple terms ?
michio: Yeah sure, In string theory we ...
Ha aH Classic..
At this point Kaku is just sabotaging scientific progress
He always just gives rehearsed answers. Have you not heard him on other social media interviews? I would guess these "events" mean very little to him at all.
@@mthedu i noticed it too I have read some of his books and every interview he had he was just recycling and repeating same things from the books back theni didn't knew but now I realised
I’m not a scientist, but I was always taught that to be a scientific theory an idea must be testable.
I like Sabine's point of view that just because mathematics describes part of nature doesn't make that mathematics as real as nature. It's goal is to predict the outcome of experiments not to be considered the ground of reality.
Agree!
Yep. Ultimately, math is a Theory of reality. The most fundamental, perhaps, but ultimately a model that replicates aspects of it, but isn't IT.
My experiment via modelling to validate a theory is to fire neutrinos into a hyper-viscous charge_fluid droplet to spin off perfectly opposite pairs of electron-positrons assuming the charge droplet is neutral whole creating the monopoles we observe.
Then, once in hand to see if the energy lost by the neutrino equals the energy_of_annihilation of a pair.
That's the experiment.
The resources to model it needed beyond my reach.
Fun stuff 🍺
@@alexalcan NOT a theory, a means to describe reality
Sabine is so good!
Sabina's face every time Roger or the host slights Michio is fantastic. It is clear that people who have large confidence and have to campaign for their theories have dominated the public conversation around science, nothing wrong with that as that is Michios work, but just because they are the loudest about what they believe doesn't necessarily mean that they have the most careful and scientific attitude when addressing the public about the state of their field.
Michio is an entertainer. Not a scientist.
@@TV-xm4ps I feel like gatekeeping "science" is necessary and that is one reason I love Sabina, because she is strictly about science. I think it is a little different to gatekeep the label "scientist" as Michio, no matter how non-translational or even applicable to the real world his work may be, is most definitely a scientist, I mean look at the mans CV for god sake. I think scientists aren't and should not be thought of as infallible, and by saying he is not a scientist just because he has a seemingly absurd interpretation of reality is suggesting that scientists must be rational, which is not the case, science has to be rational.
Almost all theories need campaigns at their beginnings.
@@nickgibson3451 science is gate kept by lack of access to information. If you are not part of an institution you cant get access to papers on sites like jstr. College has also been corrupted beyond belief, destroying the traditional path to science
@@TV-xm4ps "entertainer" is a bit of an overstatement don't you think.
It's refreshing to see so many comments that reflect what I was thinking as I watched this. Two honorable, admirable, accomplished physicists having a conversation with a used-car salesman.
👍😄😄😄
What a shame Michio has digressed into a self perpetual hole.
I wish Michio had been physically present on the stage. Did the monitor endow an Oracle-like presence, or was it more like Holly from Red Dwarf?
"come up with a better theory!"
That's not how things work, and that alone immediately disqualifies him from any serious discussion.
"There was a murder. Who did it?"
-"It was Bob! He didn't like the victim!"
--"It can't have been Bob, he wasn't there."
-"Yes it was. If it wasn't, then who was?"
--"Don't know."
-"Aha! Therefore, arrest Bob!"
Damn michio really made an ass of himself
"Physicists who come to believe that the mathematics they deal with is actually real." Hossenfelder just became one of my favorite people.
who?
@@unfortunatebeam the woman on the panel
She is my favorite scientist, full stop. Her skeptical mind is exactly what every scientist should aspire to.
I agree with Hossenfelder and Penrose as well but this is going to be a long up hill fight. So many physics have staked their reputations (and in the case of Kaku, their bank accounts) on these ideas.
I’ve asked myself many times “Where has she been my entire RUclips life?❤😂
In a way, Kaku hijacked the conversation away from the proposed topic (as was constantly pointed out by Penrose). Kaku seems to believe that his version of string theory will eventually be proven to be that holy grail of physics: the theory of everything.
But let's break down just one of his arguments: Democritus' atomic theory. Democritus believed the atom was the smallest possible unit of matter, indivisible (hence, atomos). But what have we shown over the past 2K years? Atoms exist, but most of the mass is concentrated in the nucleus with a cloud of electrons. Then we discovered nuclear fission: the nucleus is not an indivisible unit of matter either. But wait, there's more! It turns out protons and neutrons aren't indivisible either - they consist of quarks. What started with Democritus and Leucippus evolved into the Standard Model: 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 4 bosons, and a Higgs. Democritus wasn't wrong, but he wasn't exactly right either.
If we're honest, science does have assumptions that are untestable: natural processes are governed by laws that can be expressed mathematically and that these laws are consistent across space and time. This assumption is baked into the scientific method in terms of reproducibility.
But mathematics isn't reality - it's a model of reality that is useful to describe our experience. But as I've often said, I can create any arithmetically valid equation you like - but it may not be measuring what you think it does.
I think you could still argue that an atom is indivisible because if you were to divide one, it would no longer act as the same atom. Eg, dividing a group of two neon atoms into two groups of one is a very different thing than fissioning a single neon atom.
@@GalaxyPedlar wouldnt anything by indivisible by that reasoning? A ball doesnt act the same once you cut it in half.
@@nemdenemam9753 The idea behind an atom is that if you keep dividing a substance, you eventually reach a point where you cannot divide it any more. So if you have a kilo of iron and cut it, you now have two separate pieces of iron. This stops working when you get to atom, because if you divide the atom, it is no longer iron.
@@GalaxyPedlarJust to be on the same page, this was my understanding of the point you were making:
division != separating it into smaller pieces
but
division = separating it into pieces where the pieces don't behave the same as the whole
Is that an incorrect understanding of your first comment? If it isn't then I don't see how that's an answer to my objection. If you cut a ball in half it's not a ball anymore. If it is incorrect then can you give a definition of 'division' how you mean it?
@@nemdenemam9753 Democratos proposed that every substance has a smallest particle which cannot be subdivided. Some people say it can, because atoms can be decomposed into subatomic particles. My point is that Democratos is still right because subatomic particles cannot be described as a particle of the original substance.
Kaku: **Starts telling Penrose (who literally first theorised the concept of a singularity black hole) about singularities in black holes being similar to the birth of the universe.**
Penrose: *Do not cite the deep magic to me, I was there when it was written.*
I hope the entirety of tomorrow is as full of joy for you as the last roughly 45 seconds were for me. Thanks for commenting.
Kaku said they're similar in that they operate at the Planck energy and that's where our laws break down, nothing else - he was answering the question of testability. Penrose replied with a non-sequitur to get a final jab at him. You have to be totally biased to not see that.
The first black hole proposer was Oppenheimer.
🤣nice segway
@@trtnec no you're totally biased for not seeing the awful way he conducted himself the entire debate, completely derailing the topic etc. I'd say he absolutely deserved it, and Penrose had definitely given up on having any sort of intelligible conversation with him at that point.
I am not at al intelligent like most of you here who are watching this . Actually im just a master builder . Yet I find myself watching everything about Sir Roger Penrose and I just am blown away by his sheer GENIUS . I have no understanding of most of this , yet I find when he talks I like get it a bit . This man is a gift to humanity and unlike these ridiculous celebrities who the world admires . Children should be shown this marvelous man .
Sir Roger is one of the greatest minds of his generation! Love listening to him speak. Sabine is a legit scientist too. Kaku is a joke and doesn't belong one stage with Roger and Sabine.
I love Sabine's mind and am always amazed at what Penrose says. Such minds are a treasure to us all.
Sabine doesn't even know about God and Jesus, she is a damned fool. What a shame. I don't know about Penrose, because I don't care my time is too valuable and I only clicked on a Sabine video because she was kind of cute and I was a man of culture.,
If they are so smart, why don't they know the Truth???
A persons personal beliefs or lack there of does not invalidate their contribution and work.
hello sabine , my name is mike
Sabine is so great... she's the reason and skepticism we all very much need these days
she is very smart and articulate.
Ah - Skepticism (or scepticism) in English. Yes I agree!
@@subplantant thank you
A fundamental fact from mathematics, that 4 dimensional space has an uncountable infinity of different possible 4-spaces from the work of Michael Freedman/ Simon Donaldson (not good for theoretical physics).
Sir Roger Penrose is a genius. I love listening to him.
Same here
Kaku is very creative and imaginative, and he contributed to some of the boldest episodes ever made by the History Channel.
Penrose is one of the greatest physicists in the world, simply brilliant.
Sabine is possibly the most intelligent RUclipsr ever. A talented artist, she is deep, direct, and sharp. Sometimes I get the impression that she can translate whatever she wants into words, even the most complex abstractions. And, of course, she really knows Physics.
It would have been nice to hear more from Roger and Sabine.
I kept having to skip that other charlatan
Sabine is the bomb here, incredible intellect. Roger is so refreshing to listen to, for classic science
Kaku seems completely unable to get away from the same 4 lines of text he's been repeating for years now. Sabine and Roger achieved a very coherent conversation
This happens when reality is not on your side. The same way SBF claims that he was innocent and FTX was financially strong.
What an amazing discussion. Sabine and Roger make a great pair
dr.kaku has mastered the art of talking without actually saying anything.
Michio Kaku is more like a cheerleader for Team Multiverse than a scientist. Anything that raises questions about his pet theories is motivation for more research to raise more questions about the unresolved questions that he's raising.
It sure guarantees a life time of paychecks while proving little to nothing for the work.
I mean, I am a phycisist and I tend to align more with Sabine's skepticism and outright rejection of fringe physics theories BUT I find that there is value in and a necessity for strange theories that push our boundaries and fight back the criticism. That's a healthy scientific environment in my opinion, even though it is not very healthy for science communication to focus on fringe science almost exclusively.
More like embarrassing !
You have to be a scientist of at least equal value to him to even spell such things, and this is measurable.
I believe that it’s simply reflected on his solid contributions in real scientific publications (quite poor considering his career stage!). Of course, for this, we have to put aside his heavily sensationalist material to catch general public’s desire for fantasy - just to earn his fortune and inflate his own name. It’s hard to look at him as a serious scientist in any sort of way…just one more canned Hollywood source of misinformation haha
Interesting debat and great panel. Was expecting more compelling arguments from Kaku and not drifting into string theory. Penrose is right, there are fundamentals issues with quantum theory and the multiverse is just a quick fix. Loved how composed Sabine looked while Kaku delivered the hocus pocus arguments.
You are really dumb and didn't watch the debate. Kaku was making concise arguments. I totally understood what he said.
"not drifting" such is the nature of a cult
Sabine was beside herself. she should've gotten more time to speak. Michio unfortunately just sounded like a string theory cheerleader, he didn't consider their points of views, or even make a counter argument. It's a shame, because he's a great mind. Maybe someday he will be more open minded to theories other than his own. And we can actually make this new theory he tells everyone else to make, a reflection of hubris.
Very interesting and insightful discussion. It is great to get all these bright minds together, particularly Sir. Dr. Roger Penrose and learn from their reflections on Cosmology.
It’s unbelievable that such an interesting debate has been ruined by the utter chaos the host and surprisingly Kaku also caused by mixing up the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics with the ‘multiverse’ theory of the (inflationary) origin of the universe!
Roger tried to point this out many times but unsuccessful so.
Well that's true but I do think both of those fall under a multiverse label.
It wasn't clear to me which Kaku was arguing for. His frequencies argument sounds like a version of many worlds. But then he also references bubble universes. So who knows.
I wasn't surprised by Kaku tbh, this has been his shtik for years. He has his pet fantasy-theory and nothing will sway him away from it.
He's a hack. He'll say anything to make quantum mechanics seem more mystical than it really is
I think both Sabine and Roger were frustrated with this mess but Sabine prolly just decided it's not worth it to fight this clown. Let him embarrass himself, who's stupid enough to buy his BS won't understand the difference anyway.
surprisingly? Really? Producing word salads is his a full-time job since many years! :)
Roger and Sabine thanks for taking the time to do this and being so patient 😅❤❤
This 100%!!
One of the things I love about the scientific community is that respectful behavior is the norm, even when opinions differ fundamentally.
Have we watched the same video? I am fully convinced Michio Kaku did a video conference to avoid the inevitable ensuing barfight level of hostilities between him and Sabine. Both were derogatory in different ways.
It's just way more under the table and passive aggressive.
Wish politics was the same.
💰🗞️ OFF CAMERA ? Look out honey !! Gloves off !! Chairships , Golden Parachutes, huge employment packages, tenure, peer reviews, highly paid lecture series, lucrative speaking engagements (HERE) with 1st class travel, 5 star hotels and fawning audiences, university appointments. Attilla the Hun vs Kahn of the Mongol Hoard on steroids. More competitive and dirty than a job opening for Police Chief in Beverly Hills and Worldwide Wrestling💪
If you cannot work with necessity you will never have any comprehension as to the nature of truth and reality..
wave structure of matter
spaceandmotion
I only recently discovered Sabine Hossenfelder, but I think she is brilliant... she explains things so well and introduces unnecessary uncertainty into things like the confidence with which Michio Kaku speaks: telling laymen to come up with "a better theory" (than string theory) for grand unification (which is not be even necessary, but just a "nice to have" ideal that appeals to the human mind) is to rather tell us to put up or shut up in nicer language with a bit of humor.
This was really a rather convoluted discussion... it was never clear that the topic was a multiverse, but rather the legitimacy of string theory. Sabine has a whole video where she tears apart the modern state of particle physics, which is where string theory falls, and explains very well how it seems that particle physicists are trying to overcomplicate particle physics by making wild predictions above energies that we have been able to explore yet instead of simply applying Occam's razor and remaining with the simplest theory that fits the standard model.
I find the idea of the multiverse quite fascinating and appealing, but it's just a hypothetical philosophical thought experiment for now, and may always be. Having Penrose there to propose another face to the argument was good, but I wish he had had the chance to speak more.
The topic of this talk should really have been “Is Michio Kaku absolutely full of it?”. Great stuff 😂
If you like thought-provoking Video-Essays, try Some More News, Hbomberguy, and
Professor Dave. They got plenty.
Fr tho
or who tries to sell his/her book first in this show , that competition goes to penrose
kaku is fun to listen to but seems to lack rigor sometimes. Penrose is more cautious and measured.
Hossenfelder and Penrose restore my faith in science. Not so much Kaku, I'd have to say he reminds me so much of Tyson, Krauss, etc. -- let's call it popular science.
As Penrose said, he's got no evidence on his theories. Kaku has just been watching too much Star Trek and just wants to sell books. He has nothing to contribute to Physics and I'm glad he was put in his place by Penrose.
I'd just add that i have a relative high certainty Tyson used the same populist-entertainment-science mechanics at least for the higher cause of saving fundings and spark interest, but for seeling books and general ego serving like Michio does.
Maybe still with a negative impact to the integral foundation of science :/
That has been his job for the last 20 years. Why do people feel the need to suddenly attack those making science popular? Talk about being a mouth-breather...
@@thomasjones4570 There's a difference between making science popular and distort science in making it a esoterical belive-what-you-like sandbox (so you can capitalise on simple minded people who want to belive in fancy bullshit).
Because people who are into sandboxing reality didn't fit into science - and vice versa.
@@thomasjones4570 That's right, he spent the last 20 years on making science popular. The question is how much it cost, and who financed this entertainment?
What a great mind Roger Penrose is. I've waited a lifetime for that speech about gravityzing quantum mechanics.
Yep. Me too.
When abouts in the talk did hey cover this?
Yes. But what do we mean by this? Why should we prefer GR as a basis? It is not an ideal theory. It is just inconsistent in a different way from QM: locality of conservation laws is not less of an issue than wave function collapse and measurement. So, the idea sounds good, but is it really that sound? ))
@Crab Crab for the very reason Penrose mentioned: GR is a consistent theory, QM contradicts itself. Quantum decoherence is a beatuiful term that hides a big problem with QM, namely that observers are not quantum objects and are thus completely outside of the standard model.
@@benjaminhalbeisen9175 Strictly speaking we somewhat mix inconsistency with incompleteness hier. QM may be incomplete, but it is nevertheless consistent. GR is probably both, but it is self-limiting. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that "quantization of gravity" is something I can at least imagine (to a very limited degree, but still), whereas "gravitizing QM" is beyond my imagination. (But no doubt it sounds cool). I just want to understand what it means...)
I think the theory which needs to be first formalised is how Roger Penrose is so sharp at 91.
Thank you Sabine Hossenfelder for staying on topic and succinctly stating your postion, that ontological realness of mathematical implications should not be automatically ascribed.
I think the point that was made that the math doesn't always correspond to reality ontologically, and even if it does correspond to experimental results on many fronts, like quantum theory, then the inherent contradictions such a theory presents as Penrose pointed out, is contrary to the law of noncontradiction in logic which is the basis for the mathematical rigor that the epistemology of philosophy demands and that science has adopted. How can science which is based on inductive reasoning ever prove the theory of everything for every possible claim of the theory if not every claim is testable? That seems to me to be one of the great shortcomings of the scientific method. And even if the mathematics of a theory claims much more than can actually be proven experimentally, you have Goedel's Incompleteness proof to contend with. So we all have to admit at some point, that we cannot know everything. Certain things will forever remain conjecture, if not a mystery. And that is the real issue of this debate, IMO. Occam's razor is no more provable than anything else that science assumes, such as physical laws and even so-called constants (e.g. the cosmological constant) being immutable. That being the case, we are back to Descartes dilemma, to find the one premise that is absolutely certain. Time to revisit Goedel's ontological proof of God.
It's astonishing to me just how articulate, coherent and methodical in his thoughts Sir Roger Penrose is at his advanced age. 'Genius' gets thrown around a lot, but he's truly deserving of this title, should be spoken of in the same breath as someone like Einstein or Feynman...
I concur.
His brother was a great chess player of his time smart family i guess
@@1man1bike1road Read his wikipedia page. His entire family on mom and dad side were successful in intellectual pursuits.
Well I agree to some limit, Einstein might be never truly matched
@@alexbauman4203 Gauss, Euler, Newton, Dirac :)
Just because I don't have a better idea doesn't mean that yours is a good one.
It is a little embarasing indeed, that Michio Kaku tries to defend the theories he proposes to be true and useful with illogical arguments that focus on aspects that go besides the questions that are given to him.
Yes, while I was saying to the screen several times, " *That* is your argument???", I can only assume that Sabine & Penrose were rolling their figurative eyes and telling themselves, "This guy is a clown, not a scientist." Michio's entire presentation boils down to this: "My theory will be proved someday, therefore (a) it's a good theory, and (b) you can't argue against it now."
This is true, but he’s talking about Quantum mechanics and GR and those are pretty good ideas I would say.
@@SplashJohn that doesn't mean its not true tho, thats why he refered to the concept of atoms
I'm greater than you because I'm a complainer who can't even make a better solution.
"I know a lot of SERIOUS string theorists..."
I love Sabine ❤️
It's crazy how Sabine leads a team and also has a successful youtube channel.
No, what's crazy is that someone who's next to nobody is praised more that Penrose just because she is a wamin.
and she's so funny!
@@kaczan3 no cryin
@@kaczan3 Next to nobody 😂
@@kaczan3 I can't comprehend how someone intelligent enough to listen to a video like this could have such a deluded read on reality
Love to see Sir Roger and Sabine on the same stage. Both are genius heretics who aren't afraid to speak out. They follow the logic instead of the fashion.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 Sabine is far more reasonable than Penrose. She is a no-nonsense scientist. Penrose sometimes let's his imagination run too wild.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 idc if Sabine hasn't made any major contributions. We like her because she is a critic of nonsense scientists who extrapolate from the evidence more than is actually there.
she also is a well-studied, published, and cited scientist??? Anyone setting the bar at “nobel prize or bust” is simply delusional or ignorant as to the nature of how progress is made in science
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 Still don't see how her not having contributed much (or at all) to science somehow discredits her argument, despite it being sound. The way I see it, you are trying to make up for your lack of understanding of the finer points being discussed here by barring access to dialogue to only a few people that have a certain badge of honor, in that way at least you're less likely of hearing someone say something wrong. What about Michio Kaku? He seems to have published quite a lot and he's not incredibly coherent here. I understand the need for expertise in a discussion like this but your argument reeks of academic classism more than a genuine desire for intellectual consistency.
@@derkleinemaulwurf07 May I propose a hypothesis? You only follow mainstream media/popular science and has never left youtube. I don't disagree that a nobel lends more credibility but that is not the basis of how we do science or conduct intellectual conversation. If that were that case, then how dare you continue to live in the same planet as Sir Penrose? You should not even be allowed to utter his name! See how stupid that sounds? Sabine is a scientist, Sir Penrose is a scientist. This is a panel of scientist. If it were designed as a panel of nobel laureates, sure. Also, outside of the nobel prize he receieved, he has no claim and does not even claim to have expertise on this topic. And as these two clearly showed, nobody is an expert on this. However, as scientist they are the closest experts to critic the idea. Would you prefer someone with a nobel prize in literature to be part of this panel just because they have a nobel prize? Have you actually tried checking the works of these people?
Michio wasn't really answering Penrose's or Sabine's arguments most of the time. He kind of just started ranting about different things every time they contradicted him and couldn't really ever explain his view properly
He gave some answers, particularly when they challenged him to produce verifiable experiments, but once they dismantled his arguments he didn't have much to say beyond repeating his usual schtick.
His pride in his theory is a bit too high, he needs to keep that funding
His challenge '"if you don't like it, come up with a better theory" fails the first law of claim presentation. He really ought to know better at his age.
@@LemoUtan It's essentially like saying you cannot criticize the president without 1st being the president lol
Actually, I was of the impression that for someone this deep inside his own complicated philosophical reasons for sticking with an idea that doesn't seem to hold much water in any of the supposed universes it's proposing, he was quite disciplined in sticking to the stuff that was discussed at any given time (perhaps with the exception of the accelerator the size of Milky Way, Sabine must have really cut deep with that remark to have him return to his complaints about it later).
Abandoning the multiverse theory might be premature, as it remains a compelling and thought-provoking idea in the quest to understand the universe. While the theory is currently speculative and lacks direct experimental evidence, it offers valuable insights into the potential nature of reality. The multiverse theory could provide explanations for key puzzles in cosmology, such as the fine-tuning of the constants in our universe and the nature of dark matter and dark energy. By positing the existence of other universes with different physical laws, the theory helps us explore the possibility that the properties of our universe are not necessarily unique or fixed but could be part of a broader cosmic landscape. Furthermore, abandoning the multiverse prematurely would ignore its potential to spark new avenues of research. It challenges our assumptions about reality and offers a framework for exploring phenomena that might seem incomprehensible within our current understanding of physics. Just as Einstein’s theories were once met with skepticism but ultimately transformed our understanding of space and time, the multiverse theory has the potential to reshape our view of the cosmos. Additionally, the multiverse provides an interesting intersection between quantum mechanics and cosmology, offering a way to bridge these two fields in a search for a unified understanding of the universe. While it's true that we lack empirical evidence for the multiverse, the theory remains a fertile ground for theoretical exploration and could lead to discoveries that we cannot yet predict. Rather than abandoning it, we should continue exploring its implications, as it may hold the key to understanding some of the deepest mysteries of existence.
It's not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis. There is nothing to "abandon".
Well, if they ever manage to make this idea testable, then science might take a crack at it. Til then, keep it in pop culture.
In some universes we have already abandoned the multiverse theory.
Mind blown
Definitely a physicist joke
It is both rejected and not rejected at the same time, until we look carefully, at which point things collapse.
Lol, you made my day!
Interesting debate but we went quickly from the multiverse theory as a possibility, which was supposed to be the topic of the discussion, to the validity of String theory. Michio defending it the best he could on the one hand, and Sir Penrose and Sabine literally "roasting" it every time they could. Not complaining because, again, it was an interesting discussion in the end, however, even Sir Penrose took notice of this a couple of times. I think the moderator should have led the discussion a bit better.
Thank you for this and hopefully next time we can have a longer debate on these great matters.
Looking back we can only imagine the truth as being sought but clearly not found
That’s all michio wanted to talk about as usual. He’s only interested in selling his books he’s been a broken record for 20 years
I think the issue was that the moderator is clearly way out of his depth. And so is the crowd really. The guests were attempting to have the discussion and remain intelligible to the general public but it meant that Hossenfelder and Penrose couldn't actually demonstrate the absolute BS that Kaku was coming out with.
Kaku is a master of analogies, metaphors and historic perspective. Too bad all of that is not relevant to the discussion.
Not sure that master is the right term for it. I tried reading one of his books years ago and didn't get very far with it, and not because the subject matter was too difficult. His style was really off putting, like in this video.
I like the sceptical attitude and criticism coming from the Nobel laureate and the rather down to earth Sabine in contrast to Michio Kakus Science Fiction! We are back to Socrates " we know that we do not know"! Michio mixes all kind of things that have no real connection to each other, he"s just a good story teller, and that's what people prefer to dry physical facts. For me he is not a serious researcher, sorry!
Now try explaining that to someone who thinks Elon Musk is a savant. too many people dont have the ability to see how unhelpful people like kaku are.
@@Cara.314 😁 I doubt most people even know what "savant" means. Elon Musk is on par with Kaku in the bullshit department, by the way.
@@Cara.314 People love Musk because he's a troll, and if the Trump presidency has taught us anything, it's that a certain (large) segment of the US population loves trolls.
Sabine Hossenfelder has completely won me over. She has a way of placing logical boundaries on proven theories ( at least for now) and asking how we can go beyond this without making wild assumptions that if they are untestable or, by contrast, verifiable in any classical way, they are most likely a waste of time at the present.
Sabine, I congratulate you for sticking to the basic principles os the scientific method. THANK YOU!!
The "scientific" method, as opposed to what? - The Winnie the Pooh method?
Can’t listen to someone so unpleasant when speaking. When she will express joy about her job, I will listen. Moody people, whatever their intelligence = Next. Immediately. Next. Einstein was happy when speaking about his field.😊
@@Hop754so you care more about her demeanor than her arguments? 😂
@@Hop754shes german.
All three academics are well worth following. Sabine is such a clear concise thinker. Roger is a mathematician of great renounce. I love listening to Michio. I don’t agree with I’m, but he is well worth the time spent listening. I am an avid follower of Sabine. Her news channel is fun, and informative. Thanks to all.
Should read great renown. (Roger Penrose)
Yes! Sabine's use of logic is razor sharp! I love her.
Watching a genius like Dr. Penrose is truly awe-inspiring