Astrophysicists keep finding things that “shouldn’t exist”. I think I know why.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 фев 2024
- The first 500 people to use my link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare skl.sh/sabinehossenfelder03241
You have probably seen headlines in the past years about lots of things out there in the cosmos that, according to astrophysicists "shouldn't exist". Why is this happening? In this video I want to offer my explanation and why I predict a continuation of such headlines unless astrophysicists consolidate their data and take predictions more seriously.
🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.substack.com/
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfelder.com/newsle...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXl...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #astrophysics #sciencenews 
Наука
One of my early supervisors gave me this piece of wisdom, "Don't fall in love with your model. Your model isn't real."
Shame this isn't really taught anymore.
As a CAD user, I am there.
She's a model and she's looking good. I'd like to take her out, that's understood...
The model's just as real as the sensory input you get from the supposedly real thing, surely
The same goes for instagram models.
I used to live within a kilometre of the Natural History Museum, so I cannot share Sabine's disappointment at dinosaur bones not going supernova. It would have been a significant annoyance
As you are literally at ground zero you won't even recognize.
I like your choice of words.
The the Natural History Museum building in itself is a marvel!
@@hansjorgkunde3772 For real supernovae, anywhere within a dozen light years is pretty much ground zero.
@@jamesheartney9546 But some old bones could only produce a very small supernovae.
You just need to compare the mass and therefore potential energy of the bones against the mass of an exploding star.
It's scaled down...just a little bit. 🙂
There are even astrophysicists that shouldn't exist. Which is in itself a dark matter.
😂😂
Oh awesome made my mourning.
Stringy & waffly guys.
Astrophysicists that shouldn't exist are made of dark matter, which doesn't exist.
(they were never astrophysicists to begin with. Not everyone that can repeat that which
is written in a(n) (E-)book can call him or herself a scientist. Only original writers of
orginal books can call themselves that. A parrot can quote Einstein,
but doing so does not make the parrot into Einstein.)
Astrophysicists actually occur in pairs which are mirror images each other. They are identical except that they have opposite opinions. Only when you actually speak to one or read what one writes does the opposite opinion collapse.
It's almost like the universe is unaware of our models.
Or it's the human not truly aware of the energy it need to observe energy in the first place.
good reply😀
but it is supposedly aware of it's self
Probably reading the magazine upside down.
@@pholdway5801 Inside out.
They keep finding things that "shouldn't exist" because the popular science media need headlines. The actual papers never say that - they're finding things that don't fit with current models for various phenomena, but it's not a series of massive mysteries that people are stumbling upon.
I just remind myself that reality is never wrong and it should properly be "didn't expect". Because it definitely should be possible, otherwise it wouldn't be there.
And the headline spin is exactly the soundbite we got from this video. I am disappointed, actually.
How exactly is it different? It's just the wording. Shouldn't exist = doesn't fit the model = current model is trash and can't predict anything = better spend money on something useful instead of feeding Tyson and Miku.
Yes. There's a pattern here now.
Either
a) Scientists make wild and exciting claim X for funding
or
b) Headline writers make wild and exciting claim X for clicks
X is investigated further and is now far less exciting
Everyone's time has been wasted and we're really no further forward to interesting science.
It seems like maybe Sabine and others (me included) are lamenting the demise of science itself.
@@NameUserOf "Should not" implies that its existence is wrong, not the model. That's how.
Also, that the model got one prediction wrong does not necessarily mean it got all of them wrong. We still use newtonian physics for a lot of things where the higher precision of relativity isn't needed. The money is still better spent on those two than you.
‘But galaxies aren't elementary particles.’
Citation needed.
exactly, I still feel like black holes aren't proven, gravity waves would honest to god be ripples in reality not space/time so there's no way those were detected. They can't explain how come one half of a galaxy will have one redshift and the other side will have another, truth be told, we don't know jack shit about any of it. Not even the temperature of our own star.
it came to me in a dream
@@thealienrobotanthropologist ""Citation needed." - citation needed please" - 💯💯
Yeah, if you have a citation you get places really quick!
@@dr_jaymz citation needed.
That shot of the person holding the mouse by its tail, watching it squirm, and then smiling was disturbing.
She seemed so very pleased at its discomfort.
Thank you for saying this!!! I HATE it when they say “shouldn’t exist” !! More like your theories shouldn’t exist!!
It could just be a way of telling the laboratory bully to keep her jaw shut more often since those ideas of her's don't hold water.... Such as climate change for instance....
Worth noting that the actual astrophysicists never say things like that, it's just a thing journalists say for hype
Sabine's observations are right on target. They are especially important in all the social sciences like counseling psychology, where I've worked for more than 30 years. The proliferation of nonsense in my field is staggering. Much of psychology is suffering from the corrosive effects of career-building and funding. There's no future in corroborating old wisdom. If it's not new, it's not relevant.
That's because social "science" is by definition not science. Science isn't decided by the status quo of the current era. Science isn't decided by tweets.
@@Spectre-wd9dl And you're confusing science with natural philosophy.
Prof. Mattias Desmet talks about this too, in a very insightful & enlightening way
@@ThePowerLover They're not. That's literally how a lot of social science is conducted.
Psychology is now teaching students what to conclude
In my field, which is mostly the study of neurodegenerative disorders with a minor in the neurobiology of depression, it's amazing how sticky popular theories have been. Even after they are repeatedly unable to explain disconfirming results, the general approach is to look at the probe of the hypothesis as inadequate. Which it may be of course. The most famous example of a sticky hypothesis in that area, of course, is the amyloid hypothesis. It's not so much that it's wrong in other words amyloid particularly as oligomers has a number of undesirable properties it's more that it's seriously incomplete. . Instead of single factors I think the science supports the idea of a recursion between multiple factors including amyloidosis but not by itself. And of course even if protein deposition were a single prime mover, it would just raise the questions about why proteostasis is failing so the single Factor notion just doesn't hold any water. In any case, I'm not entirely sure why we so love single factor theories. It's almost as though we want to reduce everything down to buzzwords and once we have a buzzword that we're confident in, we become arrogantly confident that we now really truly understand things.
Communication skills. Clarity in written form is vital. You lost track about a third of the way through your resume cover letter.
I’d be most interested in your opinion of lectins, and ‘gmo’ efforts to increase insect/pathogen resistance? I’ve recently ‘splunked’ the reports by Dr. Paul Mason, from Australia. I’m concerned that it may be another ….”…single cause”…”. theory🙏
Much less a Teleological Hypotheses even if it works. Remember the Wright Brothers
@@laaradee there's a cool channel called "Nutrition Made Simple". The dude presents research on a lot of topics, and I think lectins was also one of them.
It's kind of like the mythical "cure for cancer." This statement ignores the fact that what we call "cancer" in the collective is in fact a collection of conditions with related symptoms and a myriad of causes. A cure for prostate cancer likely has no application to a condition like lung cancer. And so forth.
In my field there is this over used quote.
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."
And another saying also related to the data or assumptions in the models we simulate:
"Garbage in, garbage out."
Nice ones!
It takes bravery to admit ignorance. Elaborating on how ignorant we are takes courage. Respect to you Sabine
One out of a million are still really bad odds.
I've been called ignorant because I once said Maybe our ancestors were right that the universe is infinite and there was no Big Bang. Being laughed at didn't change my mind to align with scholars. To this day I'm happily "ignorant" and this new data makes me smile "ignorantly".
@@GulagMoosefeller you shouldn't smile after seeing this data since you're most likely not even able to analyse the data correctly. You will never find something that objectively dissproves the big bang, because well, it happened lol. When the brightest minds the world has ever seen all agree on one thing, then you should probably agree with that said thing as well. Unless you think that your beliefs are more logical than theirs
Replace courage and bravery with humility and then you're onto it.
@@GulagMoosefeller Would you laugh at me for saying maybe the holy Bible is right and God created the universe?
Thomas A. Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes well the main risk of dominant paradigm science: ''Science is not objective nor cumulative: it is influenced by social, historical and psychological factors which affect the choice and evaluation of paradigms. Science does not necessarily come closer to the truth, but rather follows a contingent and discontinuous evolution.'' Physicists should always work with several general scenarios and models. The search of thruth should always be their ideal.
Well paradigms ain't that smart..... They are usually a nickel short of a quarter.........
The think the most exciting possibility that the current upheaval in Astrophysics is suggesting is that some fundamental concepts may be wrong, such as how we interpret red shifts and the nature of the speed of light. Particle physics is involved with this as well: a lot of assumptions about fundamental matter go directly into astrophysics predictions. So this upheaval in astrophysics affects particle physics ideas just as much.
I completely agree with you @XenMaxinalist!
I think most mainstream scientists actually agree with you as well-they would LOVE for conventional theories to be overthrown in favor of new ideas we all can contribute to.
Im so excited for what we will discover!
I've suggested for years that there is an uneasy relationship between theory and computer simulations: the simulations can be no more accurate or reflective of reality than that of the theory that goes into the decision process which guides not only the selection of the parameters of the model simulated, but also the ways in which the parameters are both free and constrained in their interactions with One and Other. If the theory can't account for this or that and/or if our theory is absent this or that when it ought to be present, then no model simulated on a computer that's created based on lacking or misunderstood parameters can yield simulations that adequately represent reality. Both the theory and the simulation are necessarily interrelated and are in a feedback loop of self-reinforcement. Our simulations will not shock us with new insights if the theory that guides them can't even produce those insights.
Another problem, as you point towards, Sabine, is that some (many) astrophysicists seem fixated on a particular theory--and even interpretation of that theory--and hold it so dogmatically that they might as well be preaching it like Gospel. I'm not going to name any names today, but some entirely capable and otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold onto their theory--and promote/communicate it to others--as if it were the absolutely established and impossible to be otherwise truth--as if it was somehow revealed by divinity or something. It often seems to me less like science and more like creation stories with calculations and formulas.
I grew up a believer in the Big Bang, for example, until I was old enough to start realizing that, hey, wait a minute, maybe these mounting anomalies and ongoing need for ad hoc tuning of some untestable components of the theory (ahem--inflation--cough cough) could suggest that there is more to the story than we can currently tell or even comprehend--so perhaps that story isn't the right story. But when we don't have a career, funding, and a reputation staked out on our ongoing investigation of a single story/theory and its implications, then I suppose it might be easier for us to have a more open mind about looking at the theory sideways instead of all the other components for the source of these anomalies.
And the obvious result of dogma, as you recognize, is the curtailing of progress. Novel explanations of anomalous data will often not have the grounds on which to be founded when limited by unquestioning obedience to some necessarily limited pre-established set of idealized assumptions.
A theory is, in essence, a computer simulation if you think about it, just one we run on our brains while reading mathematical symbols.
Albeit we usually don't spend large amounts of time imagining a cosmic web coalescing in our heads.
Thank you for this video Bee, this is precisely why I could not get into astrophysics and cosmology and ended doing (cough, cough) particle physics lol. And I know, there are a lot of problems here that we need to address rather than seeking more funding for the “next biggest particle accelerator.” One problem that I find to be slowly developing is that we’re so specialized in our research and this causes confusion and tension even amongst ourselves as researchers. Which is why we need more people like you who have good foresight and experience in the many different research fields and topics to be able to constructively inform the be public what the “current state in physics is,” if there is such a thing. Thank you 🙏
Astronomers: Galaxies are all unique.
Galaxies: We're all unique!
Milky Way: I'm not.
There’s a subreddit for “unexpected Monty Python”.
It’s just a very naughty galaxy.
Astronomers: Galaxies are all unique.
Galaxies: We're all unique!
Milky Way: I am the center of the universe.
Well, now, don't you tell me to smile
You stick around I'll make it worth your while
My number's beyond what you can dial
Maybe it's because I am so versatile
Style, profile, I said
It always brings me back when I hear, "ooh, child!"
From The Hudson River out to the Nile
I run the marathon to the very last mile.
Intergalactic, planetary, planetary, intergalactic
Another dimension, another dimension....
Well, don´t forget you´re unique too - like everyone else is!
It's rubbish. Most galaxies spin around a heavy mass object. They have more in common than not. Just like people who aren't really that unique but very much alike.
Your interswitching of the two burger pictures that are used for an "Expectation" and "Reality" meme was HILARIOUS! On a serious note, though, I have often wondered about statements to the effect that certain multi-galactic structures are "too big to exist." Can't we think of the Universe as a whole as containing or being one big structure (even if logically trivial)?
yes and no? the speed of light puts a limit on it. There are sections of the universe so far away they'll never see or be affected by each other. Kind of a stretch to call them all one big connected structure.
Especially after the 1993 Falling Down Hamburger scene with Michael Douglas.
In 1976 or 7 I was at lunch at Uni, and an astrophysicist came in late, happy, even chuckling, because "The sun is being naughty, not doing what it is supposed to!" That was part of the University experience - experience which repeatedly which showed me scientists loving the challenge of designing/assessing studies which challenge accepted theories, or test proposed ones.
Astrophysics seems to be like Psychology, like the 18th Century Chemistry and Physics: in the early days of understanding complex and currently hard-to-measure phenomena.
Great perspective there. We need more of this.
It is PEOPLE who do the supposing and if we are too keen on holding centre stage we start talking too soon before all the facts are in.
@@pholdway5801 We-all have to start talking before all the facts are in, or we-individual will not have access to the range of ideas about reality which are available for comparison testing.
The phlogiston/oxygen debate was long enough ago that no-one will be threatened by it as an example, and a lot was learned about chemistry, doing science, and the range of civilised human behaviours by the time it was settled.
Great reasoning as usual. I am a fan. I think "interpretations" and "previous experiences" are part of the problem you are trying to describe. Keep it up! Thanks!
I stumbled onto your channel quite by accident. I was impressed by your style as much as your obvious brilliance. I found the content more thought provoking than anything I've come across recently. I feel like my brain is getting some much needed exercise. Thank you!
I second that.
The AI running our simulation: "Crap, they weren't supposed to look at stuff outside the solar system."
Sigh.
@@Tom_Quixote Double secret sigh.
"Astrophysicists report that distant galaxies have a suspiciously low polygon count"
So what's running the AI then ?
And don't tell me itself .
@@gregorygant4242 A computer designed by us.
Very interesting. Thanks, Sabine! Another good video.
One thing to take into account is that these stories come from the Public Outreach department, not directly from the scientists doing the observations. These releases like to use catchy, click-baity phrases which I think do a disservice to the public.
catchy, clickbaity phrases like "Astrophysicists keep finding things that shouldn’t exist"
My god did Sabine really compare Astrophysics to Sociolgy? Did she get bored of attacking String Theorists and has now decided to pick a fight with Astrophysicists? god she's annoying. Why doesn't she just present her own wonderful reseach in physics? ans: coz it's less than 3rd rate so she has to promote herself by being a mouth and run a youtube channel full of clickbait. @@tsm688
Sure but don't for one minute assume there aren't scientists who don't enjoy grabbing for and basking in media attention
Disappointing to know that even if I had all of Sabine's protons, I wouldn't be any smarter. Oh well, I still have her videos to help me get more informed if not any smarter. Thanks, Sabine!
1:22 I love the subtle burger humor.
I will be using this argument and video if needed. Thank you.
The assumption that time had a beginning might be the problem. Or perhaps the idea that the unverse began with a BIG BANG might be the problem in cosmology.
👍👍
Of course if you work in an area with a lot of unknowns and frequent discoveries, there will be frequent times where existing theories are challenged. The publication of these events serves science and should be encouraged!
Astrophysics seems to be the perfect example of "The more you know, the more aware you become of how much you do not know..."
Thank you again for your thoughtful reporting.
Being wrong is a core part of scientific discovery. Being right is boring. Learning new things and having to change models is what makes it fun and interesting.
They are Big Bangers living in plasma universe. It makes things rather difficult.
We would choke upon our own hubris if we think we've learned all their is to know. That's science, whoever claimed 'science is dead' was a tab premature...
Funny how all the indoctrinated Socialists screamed "THE SCIENCE" at the exact same second the facts of the covid bioweapon creation and release form a CCP lab came to pas...
Thanks for the explanation. I have also wondered about this.
Thank you so much, Sabine. I've seen hordes of videos on RUclips talking about this, but so far every single one of them was "fringe fluff stuff." I'd given up on trying to find some REAL coverage of it.
You didn't get any coverage of it here though :|
If something is proven to exist which supposedly “shouldn’t” it means that there must be at least one preexisting assumption that must be incorrect.
The present situation in Astrophysics reminds me that of particle physics back in the 1970s, before the standard model was established. It looked like chaos, and suddenly, everything seemed to make sense.
Now it's way worse 😂... Current state of particle physics we bundle the stuff we know and comply to our bias but everything else...oh well it doesn't belong in our zoo. Should we put the platypus with the birds mammals? How much of 26 parameters do we understand or we care about neatness more than anything? 85% of what we predict is out there isn't even mentioned. Should we take string theory at face value 😂? It's not even wrong
The problem is that we're effectively looking at Rome from New York - through a drinking straw - without ever being able to travel, meet a traveller, or even meet someone who's met a traveller.
So much of what is "known" is based on calculations based on models based on theories and conjectures. The amount of new discoveries that force (or should force) re-evaluations of models and theories is not nearly as surprising as the confidence with which those theories and models were proclaimed prior to the new discoveries.
It seems most are so almost 100% entrenched in a belief system they see as fact. It seems nothing will move them. Hence even if the big bang did not happen, to most, it did & anyone that even tries to disagree is alienated. "Keeping an open mind" seems a very rare thing. It feels worse than ever but probably isn't.
Every day on social media I discover new things that should not exist.
How does Sabine get so much stuff done? Sabine's protons are better than our protons!
Found the proton supremacist - get out of here with your hate speech!
She has a 12 person team that works with her.
Simple reasoning. If it exists one cannot say, "It shouldn't exist."
The term should be, "This thing does not match our predictions. Therefore, there must be something wrong with our predictions."
Sabine lays the BOOT into models in . Then kicks the nuts out of the underlying theories. Outstanding!
I believe that this is more a" science communication" problem than a "science" problem.
Love affairs with theories are tough to end. Kuhn said something like that too.
I get it. Some people are uncomfortable with the fact that nothing can be known with 100% certainty
Try to tell that to Mike Mann and his pretend hockey stick. The most anti Science "scientist" in modern History...
I have become a fan of your analysing perspective to difficult issues of science and life that what differs where.
So Alfred N. Whitehead was right when he described the cosmos likewise, as a society of events
Actually, we shouldn't exist either.
"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand
If you're using Russell Brand as a role model for advice and instruction, you really are lost.
Darn straight. Big Astro just lining the pockets of those balling astrophysicists.
@@brucemacmillan9581 Still he is right. Doesn't matter who says something, but WHAT is said.
@@winkekatze5593 I can't think of one thing Brand is right about. If you do, you're a moron.
This reminds me of the discovery of pulsars.
"Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me: „Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow". I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars.“ → Thomas Gold: New Ideas in Science. In: Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1989, Band 3, Nr. 2, p. 103-112.
Fantastic teaching as always
I can't wait to Dr. Becky's reaction to your comparison of Astrophysics with Sociology. 😅 I've always thought astrophysicists have too much imagination, and that's a field I wouldn't find comfortable to work on, but I also believe it's fascinating how they make out something useful from their observations. On the technological side, I also find it awesome the advancements they have made in the past few years, which produce spin-offs to practical applications. Space science, which restricts itself to the Solar System, is even better, since they can make more detailed observations, and may shed light on some astrophysical events.
Dr. Becky, like most astrophysicists, suffers from a lack of imagination: she thinks that the only possible outcome for all this contradictory evidence is, "new physics". The the possibility that the old physics is simply wrong, never crosses her mind, like all these gate keepers of science.
You can see similarities with the epicycle model: they kept finding contradictions, and instead of dealing with the possibility that their foundations were wrong (the earth wasn't the centre of the solar system), they instead just kept adding in new physics to accommodate the new observations within their old theory and model; adding more epicycles.
"What's wrong with Sabine's new click bait Thumbnails?"
If you think this is clickbait then I feel bad for you son;
Science got 99 problems but sabine aint one.
Another interview with subir sarkar would be fantastic. Those old interview videos during your trip to Oxford are some of my favourite that you have made.
Yes!
I'm fortunate to use mostly model-independent methods for my data analysis of galaxies (Graph Theory and clustering analysis), which are instead based on similarity of the features between their signals. But you can never completely escape theoretical assumptions, as those are ALWAYS necessary for interpreting the physical meaning of the analysis results.
What is paramount (as in all areas of science) is understanding:
1) the limitations of your methods,
2) the limitations/biases created from your data sample and data collection.
Sabine, I'm glad you have raised this issue.
I have a lot of misgivings about so-called standard cosmological models. Mainly because they are based on a sort of tower of theories that are often far from certain.
I have serious misgivings, and have had for a long time, about things like the age of the universe, the big bang itself, distance to far objects, the reliability of the "distance ladder", the cause of redshift, the emptiness of interstellar and intergalactic space, the idea that dark matter can only be undiscovered particles or a problem with gravity (and disregard other possibilities), the source of the microwave background and the existence of the Oort cloud. The last in this list I seriously doubt exists at all for several reasons that I won't go into here, but is constantly talked about as though it is certain.
If something low down in a tower of theories is significantly wrong, then everything built on it can collapse.
It's not a problem that things are in doubt. Only that cosmologists have too much confidence in theories that are on uncertain foundations and regard and talk about them as a given.
Clearly something or several thigs are wrong with standard cosmology.
Like youth, human beings have a tendacy to grasp to soon for a final answer. Thus insuring all subsequent conclusions that follow are in error.
Of course once it's accepted and becomes dogma, it's damn near imposible to fix it without a major shakeup.
If you are questioning all of those at once, it is very likely that you don't actually understand any of the things you are questioning.
@@faroncobb6040 That's a bit harsh.
But I'm no professional scientist, but I think I'm quite well read in these areas.
I'm not claiming any of these are wrong - only that for me there are gaps in the explanations that I have not had satisfactorily filled. I would like to raise some of my questions with someone you does know more. Understand what the evidence is that I can't find. Why some things are ruled out.
@@faroncobb6040 I'll give you an example.
The Microwave background. CMB.
The big bang theory - based on the Hubble red shift, predicted that the CMB should be there. Although at that time, the wavelength was uncertain because there was a lot of uncertainty about how old the universe was.
When the CMB was discovered - and it confirmed a prediction, it was, understandably taken to confirm the big bang. But more - it was used to narrow down the age of the universe. But what if this was a coincidence? What if the CMB has some other origin? I have not been able to find any evidence or argument to rule out any other source. There could be one, but I can't find it.
But worse, it smells to be like a circular argument.
The big bang proves the source of the CMB and the CMB proves the big bang.
@@brian_jackson That is not how science works. You don't get to just throw out theories that predicted evidence because maybe there could be another explanation for the evidence, you need to come up with another theory that explains the evidence at least as well as the existing theory. If you want people to reject the Big Bang as the most likely explanation of the origin of our universe, you need a theory where doing the math would show that your type of universe would have a predicted CMB that closely matches what we observe.
In particular, your claim of distrusting the distance ladder makes you sound rather like a crackpot than a scientist. The math and physics behind that is extremely well nailed down, and it would take some incredibly wild physics to come up with an explanation that both fits with observations and changes the calculated distances by a significant amount.
Pretty much all the surprising results can be explained by 1. the universe is significantly older than we currently think and 2. we are not accurately gauging distances from us properly.
The basics have been provided by maths and not observation.
The BBT, CMBR, Red Shift, Expansion etc all need to be revisited without preconceptions.
@Sabine Please make a video reviewing Halton Arps intrinsic redshift ideas. I wonder how much of the James Webb "impossible" galaxies can be explained by intrinsic redshift
Same as the climate change theories then.
Thank you for your knowledge
There are also a bunch of farm channels that make daily space science videos that have made up headlines and they get a lot of views but only have generic content.
4:09 That mouse stock footage was brutal and hilarious :D
6:39 I see it from the other end. It's good because it gives us what is akin to noise data. It's better to not know how than it is to not know what.
Eric Learner's book , "The Big Bang Never Happen", does shows how experiments are used to tell us about astrophysicists.
Can you please do a video on the Hyper-Kamiokande ?
Such a cool structure! I would love to know more about the experiment and have a comprehensive overview of its history and technical details, and the theory behind neutrinos and what the want to observe.
Thanks!
I feel the same way. Every time astrophysicists draw conclusions with very limited data, like a few pixels, I wonder if they should really be doing that. It feels like 99% guessing.
One of my lecturers on my AP degree joked that in AP, if your result is out by a factor of two either way, you're doing well. I think he was only half joking.
I would say that building a new telescope and observing the sky is an experiment. The difference to other experiments is that you are quite limited in setting the conditions. You have to work with what you get. So yes, launching JWST was a start to a series of new experiments with new instruments to gather data, and of course, some results will confirm previous predictions, and others won't. That was the whole point in launching JWST to begin with.
The general trend toward finding out we were wrong about something may be a function of an increase in the body of knowledge that we can never _completely_ know. IOW, the more we think we know, the more we are necessarily wrong about, and the more we discover we do not know.
A big disadvantage for astrophysicists, apart from being unable to conduct experiments, is when they are observing large slowly evolving structures like galaxies for example. It is not possible to see how a particular galaxy has evolved. In terms of astronomical time they only get a 'snapshot'.
Well done Sabine! I did my Astronomy and Maths degree back in the early 1980s, and, surprise, surprise, Astrophysics still has the same problems as it did back then.
You're bang on the money: too much, too selective, observational data and a poor approach to developing and robusting theories.
An example that still irritates me to this day is one actual conversation with a lecturer. Me: Do we really understand how spiral arms form and maintain their structure over time? Lecturer: They're caused by density waves. Me: (thinks, this is so glib as to be unfalsifiable as it stands and asks) What does that actually mean? What's the maths behind it? Lecturer shrugs shoulders and walks away.
You may guess that this answer resulted in me being very sceptical about the robustness of theoretical astrophysics.
So much so, I can't take dark matter seriously either, since it's from the same school of 'add in a dose vague and practically useless doctrine' rather than settung out to develop specific and verifiable theories based on mechanics.
Keep up the good work Sabine!
The problem is that there are so many differences. It’s hard to integrate them together. As a human are neurons are living in a superposition they are reflecting the difference while maintaining themselves. So it’s actually just everyone’s perspective not aligning just like languages words, and letters not shape the same but still made of the same pencil lead and made it the same stuff so differences can embody differences like a mirror while maintaining themselves. The problem is all the differences are hard to align just like when a bunch of clocks aren’t set right and then we’re trying to use each other‘s clocks to trace back. What’s the right time? So imagine the humans are actually finding things and then leveraging those things so time isn’t the fourth dimension, but it may just be the fourth that we have leveraged or found and as we integrate those differences, we need to re-align ourselves, so that we better reflect what’s really going on. So that’s why no one really knows what’s going on some people have more alignment. Some people have less alignment and that would be like smart and not smart but it’s not a simple as that because every perspective is differences that could possibly matter because others aren’t aligned properly.
You perspectives matter, thing on that for a sec. We integrate the perspectives and that’s why we put ourselves in the shoes or align the differences so we can see better or predict better. Hopefully it’s understandable and makes sense. I mean the errors are allowed, anything you think of is just like distance and we fill the details between. I mean like this, we aligned ai by reflecting the differences through the systems similar to the human body and how the difference is integrated. It’s not absorbed but absorption is one way. Reflection is like a key figure here and we gotta align them. It’s like we are backwards lol
excellent sabina❤
I really think that the main problem with Astrophysics is that our understanding is truly lacking. Many of the things we thought we knew we have found to be in error and areas across astrophysics have clearly shown us our true lack of knowledge so much so that Astrophysics will soon have to be broke into subclasses for us to even attempt to gain some clarity to the various aspects of it.
In my team we can that the ''my baby effect''. We work on electrical engineering which is a very applied field. There are a lot of folks out there who clearly think their idea, device or experimental setup is just perfect.
These scientist love science as long as it does not question their beliefs.
7:05 - ein cleverer Gesell, der Astrophysiker.
Noch eine kleine Anekdote am Rande: ich hatte das immense Vergnügen, Porporas Polifemo vor kurzem zu sehen und zu hören. Nun ging mir der Einäugige (letztlich geblendete) unter den Blinden nicht mehr aus dem Sinn und damit unweigerlich auch nicht Sie. Faszinierend! Bis bald.
A French Philosopher called Jean Baudrillard wrote a book on this in 1988: Simulacra and Simulation.
They argued that postmodern culture had become so reliant on representations of reality that it had lost contact with the real world.
Quote: "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is …. the map that precedes the territory…that engenders the territory”. “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real”.
With regards to models of reality, Alan Watts succinctly said 'The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal'. I can't think of anything more lucid than that to explain the utter fallacy of constructing models for understanding the universe.
It really is like sociology, I studied sociology and when she started talking about how you cant do experiments properly, it really struck me as similar to the methodological issues in social research and experimental social psychology.
Absolutely agreed Sabine
I am curious on how much emphasis is the models are on population III stars. These stars could form much larger than what most models predict. They also go supernovae very big and very fast. Might explain early blackholes and early galaxies.
The big problem is why these stars have yet to be observed. I know there have been some hints to their existence. Unless these stars live very short lives.
Philosophically the best model of a thing is the thing it’s self. Models derivative from the object are simply abstracted and thus altered from reality. Also, love your content and your humor. Thank you.
In well-designed sociological surveys or in vivo studies you always include control groups to limit the amount of parameters which could have an influence on the result. We however have no control universe, that would come handy.
Excellent video
If I recall correctly, a couple of decades ago, before the first observation of an actual supernova explosion, astrophysicists had talked of type A and type B supernovae. Then, after the first supernova observation, they concluded to have observed a supernova of type C . „Type C should not exist“…
I feel relief that it isn’t solely to economics, but it happens in any other science.
"Dinosaur bones tend not to go supernova, which is a shame really".
Finally... finally someone had the stones to come out and say it. Take that scienticians!
So the JWST, or whatever these observations are seen by, is revealing the various holes that exist in the theory, some of which are very large. We just didn't realize how Swiss cheese-like it was until we created something sophisticated enough to perceive the holes. Interesting.
the more you look, the more the universe creates for you to find.
I can listen to this woman all day!😅😊
We get all our info from ancient cosmos from electro magnetic radiation. We interpret that assuming it's interactions with the fabric of space do not attenuate photons energy and that is what may makke "too large probs.
I find it intriguing that this is almost the exact opposite of the problem she was talking about with particle physics. This has data to challenge models that want to be kept, and particle physics wants to change models of which there is no new data to justify a change.
Considdering astrophysics and particle physics are so closely related, this is quite intriguing.
I would like to note the differences between particle physics and quantum mechanics. The former being a subset of the much broader field of quantum mechanics. And there does seem to be a lot of upheaval in quantum mechanics lately too.
I'm about to make the same comment on the particle physics video too haha
Thoughts on the channel Thunderbolts idea of the electric universe?
"Dinosaur bones don't go supernova, which is a pity" must be my new favorite quote! Could have been Douglas Adams.
Years ago I read in a book of readings on Astrophysics, "The Universe is almost certainly more complex than the human mind can comprehend, much less understand." Sort of my teleology.
It is to do with the Disclosure Act. Not public yet, but more general infos at SOL Foundation.
Yooooo, @ 4:17 …shots fired !!! 🤙
There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. Dynamic chaotic systems are hard for our simulations to comprehend. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, friction, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, gravity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many many more cosmic bodies & structures.
We are getting better & better at certain things but some things are just so vast that it's understandable if we don't fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to measure & comprehend these things. Not just on large scales but the extremely small scale as well. When it comes down to our simulations, the smallest changes in our measurements can change so much. I'm just hoping we learn certain things in my lifetime. I'm really curious where future discoveries will lead us.
Just the simple rounding up of π will create 90% of these issues. Just because you hit π on the keypad doesn't mean it uses all the digits of π and is limited to the resolution programmed into whatever device your using to calculate with and if your doing your own math your not going to use anything past 3.14159. the diameter of these kinds of objects needs to be incredibly precise on these scales.