It is not a prediction of String Theory. The idea came out of AdS-CFT duality which had string theory ideas, but is independent of string theory, and it morphed into a quantum gate logic idea. It's purely a quantum information result. Entanglement simulates a nontraversable wormhole --- also the converse if they actually had a minimal nontraversable wormhole... which they may have, but that's not something easily "seen" or measurable yet.
But the girl counting 9 qubits on her fingers (4:41) was too much, I laughed really hard. Mathematics (9) and physical proof (girl), all happening in this very Universe! 😁
In Brazil we have a saying: "If my grandmother had two wheels, she would be a bicycle." Meaning that rearranging things for your argument's sake doesn't change what those things are. I believe it applies here. Great video! ❤️
@@yehezkielpurba4149actually the idiom has been around a lot longer than that Italian chef you’re referencing. A version of it was even used in Star Trek 3 in the 80s by Scotty.
Years of working in publicly funded research taught me that the endless challenge of seeking funding often leads to less than honest claims which are not always exposed later after the money has been approved and yes, getting published is absolutely critical for most science careers.
Something very similar was stated by Sabine in a video on the process of going where the money is (speaking of research grants) One has to appreciate her style of calling out things as she sess them to be. She makes a lot of sense. I love her no nonsense style.
My understanding is that just publishing is not enough; Publishing positive results is heavily favored, leading to additional problems in the literature.
@@mcdermottpa Sabine highlighted in a video an AI paper with thousands of citations which was not actually good. Many years ago, she did an interview with a researcher, on the serious issues of questionable reproducibility in (IIRC) psychology. This is getting worse and worse. It is preferable that what you commented was trending stronger but...
I love how down-to-earth Sabine is. She is fearlessly honest and openly sticks out her neck to call a spade a spade. That's why I subscribed and watch all of her stuff.
@@1voluntaryist she is misrepresenting greene incorrectly, watch the original video. She is downright lying to make you click on this obvious bait content. She is neither fearless or honest. That doesn't mean all her stuff is bad, but it means she's more concerned being in the good graces of RUclips algorithm than her integrity as science educator.
I watched that talk as well, but I didn't get the impression this was presented as facts, but rather as a hypothetical possibility. But once they are in the middle of the talk it often sounds as if this is already confirmed, when the are really continueing based on the previous assumptions. Otherwise they would have to constantly repeat things like "based on those assumptions" or "if the reality really is like that then ...". But that wouldn't help the listener.
In response to a previous video of Sabine's about string theory someone posted an excellent joke which bears repeating. I got home from work early the other day. I found my wife in bed, and a naked string theorist hiding in the wardrobe. I knew he was a string theorist because he said he could explain everything.
I'd say it will be better for Sabine to wait a little bit, prepare as she only can, then and only then Destroy the f**k out of 'em... Asmongold's farming tactic, that has been proven the most effective in terms of resounance and view farming, goes as follows: Hyped news --> cover rapidly with hype but mantaining skepticism pretty high --> wait for the gigaflip of the situation u already are expecting --> at top hype drop a 2 to 4 hours long video reaction on the matter with a balance of "technical & down-to-earth" way of interaction in Live streaming (u need others content to react otherwise u really can't physically). The audience is going to digest that contet Live or Bit by bit slowly on yt, and this way the algorithm tends to suggest "not so new" videos in Home and Suggestion Bar. With Sabine's actual numbers this kind of moves could make her channel blow up so much that the entire yt would pick up on this kind of news, making it finally mainstream and not "taboo argument".
@@SabineHossenfelder What do you think is the difference between string theory & Weinsteins GU in a sense, that they both try to describe the finer/underlying structure of the universe using mathematical constructions, if any?
A science enthusiast, attracted to particle physics, cosmology of all subjects, watched quite a few lectures and videos. Thinking I'm sort of science liberate and I find your work is like pointing out spelling mistakes and incoherence and outright errors. Thanks for the effort and keep up the goodwork, raising the literacy level of the public.
I'm glad you told us this . I watched it and was amazed how smug they looked considering it sounded to me they had not achieved anything like their speculations on future resalts.
I really like that, despite your strong opinions on topics like string theory, you still make sure not to misrepresent any information from the other side of the argument. That should honestly be the standard, but for most people nowadays, it's not.
Yes - immagine an absurd and abstruse model, decorate it with some math and math structures, then call your friends to help you serve it as if it was a genial representation of reality, then make the world forget that its only application is that of talking the talk about the model itself. With your believing that you realize who-knows-what from the vague phrase ("imagination is more ...") you can gain only a temporary ephemeral sense of "cito ergo cogito".
You are doing such an important public service, I hope that your audience gets bigger and bigger. I'm doing all that again to share it in my networks. Thank you for your work.
I watched the interview before seeing this Hossenfelder critique ... and my memory of it was that Greene was extremely skeptical of the claim that they had actually created a wormhole and asked questions very similar to Hossenfelder's critique. But it had been a while, so I couldn't remember for sure ... so I watched the video again. One of the experimenters (the one sitting next to Greene) does actually claim (surprisingly!) that a wormhole was created -- although later his language is much less assertive. Greene seems to have the same skepticism towards that claim that Hossenfelder does ... and the other experimenters definitely pull far back from the claim. The experimenter sitting farthest from Greene explicitly says that the interpretation as a wormhole is "highly speculative". The experimenter in the middle mostly talks about the difficulties of making sure that the TELEPORTATION actually happened, and the methods they used to test that it did. Then they say that IF we accept the mathematical equivalence between teleportation and wormholes (and Greene stresses the IF as much as they do), THEN the things learned from the teleportation provide a "new tool for looking at the difficult problem of gravity" and POSSIBLY new insights about wormholes. One particular such theoretical or mathematical insight would be that the exchange of CLASSICAL information (the "phone call") that is necessary to make the teleportation actually work would be analogous to something (also a "phone call"? they don't actually say) which would create the negative energy (or its mathematical equivalent?) which would keep the wormhole open. So NO ONE actually makes the claim which Hossenfelder is lambasting them for supposedly making, except for the one guy ... and he very quickly (although admittedly not very forcibly) pulls back from it. Certainly Greene does not make that claim. The hype about "Wormholes Created in a Quantum Computer" seems to be on the part of the popular press, not the actual scientists -- as usual. And don't forget that Greene often interviews people he very explicitly disagrees with, just because they are "in the news" as part of the current discussions. He never hides his own views ... but he doesn't seem to censor anyone for having opposing views Disclaimer: I didn't watch the entire 43 minutes. I just skipped to the parts near the end where they talk about the wormhole representation. So I invite everyone to watch the entire video and see if you agree with my interpretation
you have a point and are logically correct. But the bigger issue is that Greene constantly pushes us to seriously consider his pet string theories delusion. Talking constantly about a mathematical delusion does not give it gravitas, regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with another delusionary mind that confuses desires and math fantasies with science. Greene is a great speaker and directs our attention to new and old discoveries. Sabine is right to challenge the entire discussion. Brian Keating, M Kaku and Brian Greene are running circles conflating hypotheses with tested/testable "theory!"and Sabine is right to call these guys out on the carpet. Eric Weinstein on the other hand has the good sense to describe his hypothesis about the origin of the universe as a possibility to be proved or unproven. There is an interesting schism here with Weinstein, Sabine and Unzicker on the other side. I hope that Sabine addresses this schism directly..................
Thank you, you gave me the final push to unsubscribe from this sad controversy-seeking grifter that became an algorithm-addicted shell of her former self.
@@finalfivevoting That is irrelevant! She could have just disagreed and presented the right explanation without attacking the reputation of Mr. Greene. There was no reason to falsely accuse him of promoting misinformation.
Don't forget to fact check the fact checker. Sabine can be rather... opinionated, especially when it comes to her former field of study. She's got a bit of a habit of doing some of the same things she calls out - posting content based on skimming the source and filling in the blanks with her existing biases rather than putting in the time to do an in-depth analysis. It's not quite as bad when she tries to tackle topics like climate change or medicine or whatever where she hasn't spent most of her career building up those biases but it really shows when she's talking about particle physics.
She is downright lying to make you click on this obvious bait content. How is she honest? That doesn't mean all her stuff is bad, but it means she's more concerned being in the good graces of RUclips algorithm than her integrity as science educator.
Mic drop, DrSabine! A retired uni prof myself, I can attest to the various shenanigans occurring within the IvoryTower, and at "academic" publications, from my own experiences during the past 30 yrs...
Thank you so much for your work. How about once in a while using your platform to talk about solid research being done at smaller institutions or other unexpected places, that doesn't make it into Nature because it is from unexpected places or in fields not flashy enough for Nature and the likes?
Hi, Dr. Hossenfeld, I do appreciate your knowledge and your critiques. I've looked at, and listened critically to, the video about which you speak. I myself found it quite interesting. The title does not say Einstein did solve the biggest mystery in science, it was simply put into question. Clock bait. Furthermore none of the physicist said that he did. Brian said they were "presenting" mathematical "idea", "potentially" using quantum computer to bring string theory, particularly entanglement and quantum gravity together, "if" real we can "kind of" simulate and touch. Such statement as: we "believe" there is a connection, "if" these ideas are correct, "it has not taught anything about quantum gravity", these are first and baby steps, this "may" lead to a huge break through I don't know. I didn't hear any claim that Einstein did solve quantum gravity. Physicists were very careful of making bold claims of certainties merely based on quantum computer simulations. To me personally they are on the right track. We should not interfere and let them work. All of humanity will benefit a little now, but greatly in the future. Faster than light speed communication and travel is on the horizon!
Nice to see someone responding thoughtfully rather than jumping on the "let's trash Brian Greene" bandwagon like most of the replies on this thread. I have also seen the original video and I think there is a degree of mis-characterization going on here.
@@nickrr5234 I know right, this is madness. I respect both Dr. Hossenfeld and Brian Greene. Both are brilliant scientists. I was just trying to keep an open mind toward them both. I appreciate both their thoughts, ideas, and content. I mean of course no one agrees with everything, not even between scientists. But, these two are some of my favorite and actually most reasonable and sound.
If they are on the right track, they should be able to reason a bit more than they did, namely nothing. Sabine is right with her claim, that ST works not (and did never) in the laws of nature we observe, but in a sc. "DeSitter"-space. It´s like ghost busting and I agree, we can let them work, but not with money of others. Funded science must be reasonable, and ST is more a theory of nothing (Avshalom Eltizur, physicist) than a theory of everything.
What’s interesting is that frequently whenever you hear Brian Greene or his colleagues refer to themselves, rather than say they are physicists of some sort they instead often say they “work in String Theory.”
*I SO appreciate* you pushing back on unsubstantiated "scientific claims." ... Society thinks just because someone has a PhD that their claims must be valid, but scientists make mistakes just like everyone else.
In this situation, it is not about “making a mistake” but rather about how a group “massively self-promoted” themselves around “dubious claims” that had a lot of negative implications for the credibility of scientific research in general. It left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths.
more often what makes it big in the news seems a lot more deliberate than mistakes i guess we need more focus on "peer reviewed and congruent with proven claims"
@@GrantWaller.-hf6jn Sabine is a breath of fresh air for sure. I don't expect her to be right on everything, but regardless a healthy dose of informed skepticism should always be welcome.
@@mcdermottpanobody is right 100 percent of the time. I as well disagree with her on somethings. In this she is 100 percent correct. Doing bad science for money. Is BS these dumb dumbs don't realize once your repatriation it comprised few will believe you. But I can be wrong in this age of information or disinformation depending on your point of view.
Greene started by saying this work "at least suggests we might be on the cusp" of achieving the goal and calling it "highly controversial." Pretty fair. Possibly using quantum computers to explore ER=EPR is fascinating.
Though String Theory Greene's focus, ER=EPR doesn't rely on it. If you like quoting a certain political candidate (rather than addressing the substance of my comment), Sabine beat you to it in the intro: "A lot of people" asked me to comment on this.
She really has next to nothing to lose anymore. Calling out the scientific community on it's identifiable rent seeking activities is an important public service.
@@SabineHossenfelderInformation systems may be ideal for proving quantum gravity. Recent developments in holographic theory and quantum gravity (e.g., the AdS/CFT correspondence) suggest that gravity might emerge from deeper informational principles. Gravity may be an emergent phenomenon that arises from the deeper structure of informational reality. If gravity is an informational interaction, it could serve as a bridge between quantum theory (where information plays a central role) and general relativity.
THANK YOU! The first time I saw Greene was in 2010 and he was trying to explain String Theory for laymen (like myself), but nothing he said made any sense! And recently I saw him again after all these years talking about quantum computing.
Sabine, please help me understand something. In an earlier vid you told how gravity really isn't a thing in and of itself, but actually how space curves. The more space is curved the more the effect of gravity is felt, but it's not actually a force like the other three. If this is the case (and I'm presenting it properly), then how can it ever be unified with the other forces? Please explain.
And narrated in real time by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Man, these people really got inflated their (former) TV fame from various documentaries and tv shows into their ego.
Science isn't a system of strong opinions, it's a system of "show your work which can survive criticism and replication by others". There is no place for confirmation bias in science. The world is the way it is if we like it or not -- it's not obligated to conform to our beliefs.
Why implies an intent. And the answer to the question why is always “god” if you’re religious and “happenstance” if you’re not. We know why, so it’s just not a useful question. Why does the universe exist? The Bible has something to say about that. HOW does the universe exist? Well, there’s a question we can answer.
You do more for science than most. Love how you debunk this stuff, I'm nowhere near that intelligent to understand all the intricacies, but even I sometimes look at this stuff when I read articles and think it's BS..good to know there's someone actually debunking this stuff.
I understand she said others are wrong because they don't have proof for their claims and so is she. This video adds nothing scientifically meaningful.
@@xfghffhfg does it have to to be scientific to make her point any less real or meaningful..? Same losers who think posting a paper somehow makes it more credible..
I really love you and the journey that you are on. I am a black man, and my daughter just earned her PhD. I constantly send her articles that you do because of your journey, and the issues you've had with academia. I'm so happy that you're journey brought you to RUclips and made you accessible to more people, mainly Me. Continue your work girl, and enjoy your journey. And please continue to educate as many people as possible, that are searching for knowledge.👍🏿👍🏿
Thank you for giving us such a (a bit depressing, I must say) glimpse on the misconduct that reigns in what is supposed to be an intellectual enviroment where Science and Honesty ought to rule above all other goals
He is so consumed with being the Carl Sagan of his time: "famous for being famous". The science world most wants to know if he got too much or too little attention as a child. And how to make certain it doesn't happen to any one again
@@WayneLynch69 There is a Carl Sagan of our time: Neil deGrasse Tyson. He actually had contact with the OG Carl. They were both astrophysicists, and not string theorists. Most importantly in the present context, NDT is less prone to hyping up wild speculation as fact.
@@pierrecurie Man, You clearly haven't seen all the stuff he is talking around. Yes, he managed to get "new" Cosmos tv show production (and that's mostly done fine), but apart from that, he is also sooo ful of himself, "know it all", pushing his opinions to everything way out of his experise.
If you're obsessed with differential geometry and never had much time for algebraic topology, number theory, complex analysis, or group theory, Einstein is the man! He ushered differentiate geometry into physics land. Pigs can pop it's just rare that birds get angry enough IRL to do it. Anyone who has owned a parots knows that birds are pretty chill...
That's funny, because algebraic topology (and accordingly, group theory) end up coming back in a vicious way with braiding theory. So vicious, even Wheeler et al shied away from trying to fully analyze the topological aspects of geons.
None of this makes it easy for a regular individual to learn what science actually has to offer. I appreciate those scientists who have the consideration to say "from this point forward this is speculation" or "this is our interpretation", (not necessarily supported by anything other than the scientists preference). It makes it easier for one such as myself to identify what points scientists agree and disagree upon. Perhaps if the drama could be turned down just a bit? Times like this it's too bad we have to compete with one another through a Capitalist system when all we want is to learn something.
Yes, because then you get tax-funded universities where the motivation is to *discover* things and teach people (so that you have an educated and (scientifically) literate population) rather than just a make-loads-a-money institution.
Einstein DID solve the biggest problem in physics. The biggest problem in physics in 1915 that is. Quantum phenomena was first discovered in 1900, but it wasn't until Schrödinger ideas about wave mechanics were published in 1925 that anyone started thinking that perhaps there was a gravity wave (later dubbed gravitron) somewhere to be found.
I would love to see a discussion between Sabine and Brian. I have learned a lot from his books. And StarTalk episodes with him on it are usually really good. So this whole episode comes as a kind of surprise. Really would love to see that discussion!
Did you also read Sabine´s books ("Lost in Math", 2018 -- "Existential Physics", 2022)? If not, I highly recommend to do, you won´t be bored one second.
Thank you for watching it so I don't have to. I got as far as the mention of wormholes and switched off. Love the tiny violin that shows up when string theory is mentioned. Lol
I think the way they did that press conference for a research paper says a lot. The only other time I've seen something like that was the "discovery" of cold fusion.
@@arctic_haze I don't think that's fair. It's not a waste to go down a rabbit hole and reason out crazy idea's. Proving something doesn't work is just as important as proving something that does. But with that, you need to accept when something isn't working, and not necessarily give up, but don't bullshit people about where you are at with your theory.
@@Whippets Just putting the name in the title as clickbait. She either didn't watch the interview or is lying for monetary gain. Really good science communication here as well as intellectual honesty. Embarrasing.
@@jackhand4073 Yep, I clicked it when I saw Greene's name specifically, I don't find Greene to be the type to promote "nonsense" of any kind --- unless of course you happen to fall in the camp that string theory on the whole is pure nonsense, but that's another issue. lol
What a HOT TAKE! (@6:20) Iwish I had finished my physics degree in the 70's, gotten to be your advisor, and could sit back now and say "THAT'S my student!" 😂😂😂😊❤
You are the only one I trust because I think what you see saying makes sense and I don't feel this massive bias coming from you. You aren't afraid to call out bullshit and I respect that I wish there were more people like you in the top
I have to call bullshit now. This is a clickbait title. Brian Greene may have hosted that on-stage dialog, but it is unfair to use his name in the title unless he was lead author in said study.
In other words, it's kind of like telling everyone you worked out your home grown "theory of everything" on your Casio calculator and when it comes out completely wrong, instead of going back to the drawing board on your theory, you say "Well, I'll just go get a bigger calculator".
As someone who works in an area drowning in failed theory (musical complexity), I applaud Sabina for standing up to imperious, high-handed editors of magazines with hidden agendas, vested interests, and Boards of Directors to whom they are beholden.
@@bradb.4682 and she caters to the algorithm and click bait. She is misrepresenting Greene in this vid to such an extent she is lying. Not the first time she does something like this but I haven't seen her target colleagues for her own personal gain before - at least not so directly as now. Time to unsub.
@@blurgle9185 care to elaborate more? this is a genuine question. p.s. i am not a physicist or engineer, just a science enthusiast, so i may not understand some part of her (and prof greene's) explanation, but i enjoy this kind of "debate"; i don't know or understand what part is she lying? and i don't defend greene either, genuinely curious. thanks in advance.
@@mgilangr9883 nothing to do with science. watch the original interview. this is not at all what he was saying. he himself was pretty sceptical and it wasn't his position or idea
I really like you. You call out the BS,, AND THAT IS IMPORTANT. It helps prevent someone watching a BS video, then parrot what was said in an attempt to sound knowledgeable!!
I love what you do here. 🥰 Please keep going. This morning, I'm listening to you and my amygdala (I dunno!) gives me two ideas connected. "A paper published in Nature is worth a lot of money in grants..." (Sabine) alongside: "Da Vinci had a hella notebook. Back then, patronage and lopsided wealth distribution were more nakedly accepted." (Blinking) ... Thinking about it this morning, I think DaVinci didn't write his notebooks left handed because Da Vinci was a curious fellow... it was because he was protecting his income stream!!! 😏 ...What do you do to get grants (or patronage)? ...You capture the imagination of your benefactors. ...With what? ...With whatever butterflies that dude is chasing these days! Heliocentric orbits? Geocentric orbits? Tantric orbits? Shortcut to cinnamon? Who cares! But you're gonna need an idea for that at the next meet-n-greet at the palace... or TED talk, as the case may be... Looks like history repeats... So if mobs are a no-no, these days, then what are we gonna do about our perverse incentive structures? I hope we figure it out before the abuses get much worse. For example, Ukraine is a hobby for Putin. He clearly imagines himself a candidate for the "Ivan the Terrible Medal" in the 2022-25 Imperial Games... With all due respect: WTF???🫣
@@orangegummugger1871I agree that the most compelling motives are, very broadly, "higher purpose" or causes greater than ourselves... But I don't think that stuff applies to the ultra rich, does it? ...That is to say, I thought the consensus had landed on sociopathy as the best skill set for entrepreneurship...?
Seriously? There are ten of thousands of hours of first rate, double A triple plus content on RUclips, and you barely have to lift a finger to find it. Pry yourself away from "girl bikini FAIL" videos (tens of millions of hours) and you will be amazed.
Some scientists love to call bs on postmodernist sociologists who overestimate the relativism in the social project called "science", but the same people never seem to call bs on fantasy science like string theory. Sabine's intellectual honesty is depressingly rare among her most eminent colleagues.
Greene did not say that we created a wormhole, it was a scientific discussion and everyone just put ahead their views, what's wrong with that. I very much respect professor Greene and he does not promote nonsense. Please remove this thumbnail.
Sabine, your voice, and others like you give science the credibility it sorely needs these days. The scary thing these days is that, mainstream science seems to sink deeper and deeper into a fantasy rabbit hole.
String theorists are turning into the villains of Physics. I can already imagine Christopher Nolan working on a movie with some main character based on Ed Witten
@@drbuckley1 Because he is the host of Science Festival? Which he does a great job at as a science communicator, usually. I'm specifically mentioning the moments where he almost reluctantly pushes for testable string theory predictions and visibly strains while he doe so. He is learning.
Thank you for the clear and honest analysis of these papers. It is really sad that the politics of grants taint both the work being done by some scientists and the manner information about this work is delivered to the public. These days we can ill-afford to create an environment of distrust of science. But that does not mean we should blindly trust. Your videos help us get to the truth, ugly or not. After watching you, I learn not just about science, but how to question what we are fed in articles & news and sift through the noise to get to the truth. TY!
I'm very glad that the situation you described forced you to turn to You Tube. Your ability to educate those of us who would like to understand the nature of entanglement but lack the foundation of knowledge you do can have access to your entertaining explanations. Thank you, and please keep up the good work!
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
5:35 Sabine predicted this would happen. This is one prediction more than string theory ever managed to get right.
It is not a prediction of String Theory. The idea came out of AdS-CFT duality which had string theory ideas, but is independent of string theory, and it morphed into a quantum gate logic idea. It's purely a quantum information result. Entanglement simulates a nontraversable wormhole --- also the converse if they actually had a minimal nontraversable wormhole... which they may have, but that's not something easily "seen" or measurable yet.
@@AchrononmasterFine words that sum up to very little the way you strung them together. You should consider rereading the comment you replied to.
But the girl counting 9 qubits on her fingers (4:41) was too much, I laughed really hard. Mathematics (9) and physical proof (girl), all happening in this very Universe! 😁
And one more than string theory ever managed to get wrong.
In Brazil we have a saying: "If my grandmother had two wheels, she would be a bicycle."
Meaning that rearranging things for your argument's sake doesn't change what those things are. I believe it applies here. Great video! ❤️
😂👍👍👍
in brazil? nah its from an italian chef in a tv show
@@yehezkielpurba4149actually the idiom has been around a lot longer than that Italian chef you’re referencing. A version of it was even used in Star Trek 3 in the 80s by Scotty.
falou brasil n[os aparecemos.
@@Zulmofo ‘Aye, and if my Grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon.’😂
Years of working in publicly funded research taught me that the endless challenge of seeking funding often leads to less than honest claims which are not always exposed later after the money has been approved and yes, getting published is absolutely critical for most science careers.
Something very similar was stated by Sabine in a video on the process of going where the money is (speaking of research grants) One has to appreciate her style of calling out things as she sess them to be. She makes a lot of sense. I love her no nonsense style.
My understanding is that just publishing is not enough; Publishing positive results is heavily favored, leading to additional problems in the literature.
@@mcdermottpa Sabine highlighted in a video an AI paper with thousands of citations which was not actually good. Many years ago, she did an interview with a researcher, on the serious issues of questionable reproducibility in (IIRC) psychology. This is getting worse and worse. It is preferable that what you commented was trending stronger but...
Open Source Science, it's already here. There are limitless options.
Some people can print as much money as they want and this boolsheet is the result. People are getting dumber.
I love how down-to-earth Sabine is. She is fearlessly honest and openly sticks out her neck to call a spade a spade. That's why I subscribed and watch all of her stuff.
She and Weinstein are calling out the bullshytters😅
@@1voluntaryist she is misrepresenting greene incorrectly, watch the original video. She is downright lying to make you click on this obvious bait content.
She is neither fearless or honest. That doesn't mean all her stuff is bad, but it means she's more concerned being in the good graces of RUclips algorithm than her integrity as science educator.
she is a bullshitter, one of the worst offenders
Lol😂
@@Thragginit poor baby!
I watched that talk as well, but I didn't get the impression this was presented as facts, but rather as a hypothetical possibility. But once they are in the middle of the talk it often sounds as if this is already confirmed, when the are really continueing based on the previous assumptions. Otherwise they would have to constantly repeat things like "based on those assumptions" or "if the reality really is like that then ...". But that wouldn't help the listener.
Based on the assumption I'm not a shark, then I could be the Pope. Thank you for listening to my talk, please give me $400,000.
You are right. I THINK SABINE IS USING CLICKBAIT. Love both of them
@@spamtonto It is incredible how stupid people like you are, yet you're so confident that you understand what you're talking about.
In response to a previous video of Sabine's about string theory someone posted an excellent joke which bears repeating.
I got home from work early the other day. I found my wife in bed, and a naked string theorist hiding in the wardrobe. I knew he was a string theorist because he said he could explain everything.
😂
Ba-dum (ting)
😂😂😂
nice
😂
Quantum Mag's loss is our gain. Freedo to call-out these scientist must feel liberating. However, I am very disappointed with these gentlemen.
Totally agree!
Quanta magazine. Their mathematics articles are very useful.
Indeed ! The Simons Foundation really should re-do that magazine.
You and who else😅
Please do the whole world a favour and debunk all these hyped up b.s panels/lectures before they get millions of views.
Thanks so much. I'll see what I can find...
I'd say it will be better for Sabine to wait a little bit, prepare as she only can, then and only then Destroy the f**k out of 'em... Asmongold's farming tactic, that has been proven the most effective in terms of resounance and view farming, goes as follows: Hyped news --> cover rapidly with hype but mantaining skepticism pretty high --> wait for the gigaflip of the situation u already are expecting --> at top hype drop a 2 to 4 hours long video reaction on the matter with a balance of "technical & down-to-earth" way of interaction in Live streaming (u need others content to react otherwise u really can't physically). The audience is going to digest that contet Live or Bit by bit slowly on yt, and this way the algorithm tends to suggest "not so new" videos in Home and Suggestion Bar.
With Sabine's actual numbers this kind of moves could make her channel blow up so much that the entire yt would pick up on this kind of news, making it finally mainstream and not "taboo argument".
@@SabineHossenfelder What do you think is the difference between string theory & Weinsteins GU in a sense, that they both try to describe the finer/underlying structure of the universe using mathematical constructions, if any?
@robertm3561 And since some tuition ought to be a thing, how much will you pay for the answer?
@@aaabbb-py5xd The question exists and carries valuable information, thus you should pay me, if the answer sucks/no answer imo.
A science enthusiast, attracted to particle physics, cosmology of all subjects, watched quite a few lectures and videos. Thinking I'm sort of science liberate and I find your work is like pointing out spelling mistakes and incoherence and outright errors. Thanks for the effort and keep up the goodwork, raising the literacy level of the public.
Yeah. Like you can't spell "literate".
What effort?
I'm glad you told us this . I watched it and was amazed how smug they looked considering it sounded to me they had not achieved anything like their speculations on future resalts.
I really like that, despite your strong opinions on topics like string theory, you still make sure not to misrepresent any information from the other side of the argument. That should honestly be the standard, but for most people nowadays, it's not.
Perhaps they proof: Einstein's statement. IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE. But they do not really realize what he meant.
Proof by contradiction.
1. Let's assume knowledge is key
2. Fail
3. QED
I imagine you're right.
Yes - immagine an absurd and abstruse model, decorate it with some math and math structures, then call your friends to help you serve it as if it was a genial representation of reality, then make the world forget that its only application is that of talking the talk about the model itself.
With your believing that you realize who-knows-what from the vague phrase ("imagination is more ...") you can gain only a temporary ephemeral sense of "cito ergo cogito".
You are doing such an important public service, I hope that your audience gets bigger and bigger. I'm doing all that again to share it in my networks. Thank you for your work.
😊
She's a bullshytter
I fully support Sabine to say BullShit when she means BullShit!
Which is everytime.
@@DingBatDaniel probably the only reason you actually like her content.
I watched the interview before seeing this Hossenfelder critique ... and my memory of it was that Greene was extremely skeptical of the claim that they had actually created a wormhole and asked questions very similar to Hossenfelder's critique.
But it had been a while, so I couldn't remember for sure ... so I watched the video again.
One of the experimenters (the one sitting next to Greene) does actually claim (surprisingly!) that a wormhole was created -- although later his language is much less assertive. Greene seems to have the same skepticism towards that claim that Hossenfelder does ... and the other experimenters definitely pull far back from the claim. The experimenter sitting farthest from Greene explicitly says that the interpretation as a wormhole is "highly speculative". The experimenter in the middle mostly talks about the difficulties of making sure that the TELEPORTATION actually happened, and the methods they used to test that it did.
Then they say that IF we accept the mathematical equivalence between teleportation and wormholes (and Greene stresses the IF as much as they do), THEN the things learned from the teleportation provide a "new tool for looking at the difficult problem of gravity" and POSSIBLY new insights about wormholes. One particular such theoretical or mathematical insight would be that the exchange of CLASSICAL information (the "phone call") that is necessary to make the teleportation actually work would be analogous to something (also a "phone call"? they don't actually say) which would create the negative energy (or its mathematical equivalent?) which would keep the wormhole open.
So NO ONE actually makes the claim which Hossenfelder is lambasting them for supposedly making, except for the one guy ... and he very quickly (although admittedly not very forcibly) pulls back from it. Certainly Greene does not make that claim. The hype about "Wormholes Created in a Quantum Computer" seems to be on the part of the popular press, not the actual scientists -- as usual.
And don't forget that Greene often interviews people he very explicitly disagrees with, just because they are "in the news" as part of the current discussions. He never hides his own views ... but he doesn't seem to censor anyone for having opposing views
Disclaimer: I didn't watch the entire 43 minutes. I just skipped to the parts near the end where they talk about the wormhole representation. So I invite everyone to watch the entire video and see if you agree with my interpretation
Absolutely true. Sabine's title is rather aggressive
you have a point and are logically correct. But the bigger issue is that Greene constantly pushes us to seriously consider his pet string theories delusion. Talking constantly about a mathematical delusion does not give it gravitas, regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees with another delusionary mind that confuses desires and math fantasies with science. Greene is a great speaker and directs our attention to new and old discoveries. Sabine is right to challenge the entire discussion. Brian Keating, M Kaku and Brian Greene are running circles conflating hypotheses with tested/testable "theory!"and Sabine is right to call these guys out on the carpet. Eric Weinstein on the other hand has the good sense to describe his hypothesis about the origin of the universe as a possibility to be proved or unproven. There is an interesting schism here with Weinstein, Sabine and Unzicker on the other side. I hope that Sabine addresses this schism directly..................
Sabine's point is that the equivalence would be to a wormhole in a universe that we do not inhabit (2-dimensional anti de Sitter space).
Thank you, you gave me the final push to unsubscribe from this sad controversy-seeking grifter that became an algorithm-addicted shell of her former self.
@@finalfivevoting That is irrelevant! She could have just disagreed and presented the right explanation without attacking the reputation of Mr. Greene. There was no reason to falsely accuse him of promoting misinformation.
They proved the following theorem of Einstein: "90%ofl all Internet content is crap".
Best Belly laught I've had in days !! THX
Exactly.🤣
Applicable to this chat forum as well?
That's a version of "Sturgeon's Law": 95% of everything is shit.
Certainly applies to media engagement with String Theory.
Nah, that's the quote from Newton
Sabine may be the single most important scientific fact checker today. Take! My! Money!
Blackwater erik ??
Her clickbate hit piece full of misinformation earned her $2. She lied. Thanks for rewarding that.
Don't forget to fact check the fact checker. Sabine can be rather... opinionated, especially when it comes to her former field of study. She's got a bit of a habit of doing some of the same things she calls out - posting content based on skimming the source and filling in the blanks with her existing biases rather than putting in the time to do an in-depth analysis. It's not quite as bad when she tries to tackle topics like climate change or medicine or whatever where she hasn't spent most of her career building up those biases but it really shows when she's talking about particle physics.
Thankful for your honesty and work. Despite all our technology, we still are plagued by a constant tsunami of bullshit.
All the great physicists of the 19th century wouldn't believe their eyes if they lived to see this lol
@@devon9374 see what? people complaining about scientists don't test without adding anything meaningful, i don't get it.
She is downright lying to make you click on this obvious bait content. How is she honest? That doesn't mean all her stuff is bad, but it means she's more concerned being in the good graces of RUclips algorithm than her integrity as science educator.
Mic drop, DrSabine!
A retired uni prof myself, I can attest to the various shenanigans occurring within the IvoryTower, and at "academic" publications, from my own experiences during the past 30 yrs...
Thank you so much for your work. How about once in a while using your platform to talk about solid research being done at smaller institutions or other unexpected places, that doesn't make it into Nature because it is from unexpected places or in fields not flashy enough for Nature and the likes?
She *does* report on cool new science breakthroughs. It’s not *all* about making a fast buck.
"Everyone has a wormhole in a quantum computer until they take a Hossenfelder to the Face." - Mike Tyson
...brillant!
BwaaaaahahHaaa!
I use my wormhole everyday. A lot comes out but nothing ever enters...
Funniest thing I’ve ever read in comments! Magnificent.
Lol
Hi, Dr. Hossenfeld, I do appreciate your knowledge and your critiques. I've looked at, and listened critically to, the video about which you speak.
I myself found it quite interesting. The title does not say Einstein did solve the biggest mystery in science, it was simply put into question. Clock bait.
Furthermore none of the physicist said that he did. Brian said they were "presenting" mathematical "idea", "potentially" using quantum computer to bring string theory, particularly entanglement and quantum gravity together, "if" real we can "kind of" simulate and touch. Such statement as: we "believe" there is a connection, "if" these ideas are correct, "it has not taught anything about quantum gravity", these are first and baby steps, this "may" lead to a huge break through I don't know.
I didn't hear any claim that Einstein did solve quantum gravity. Physicists were very careful of making bold claims of certainties merely based on quantum computer simulations.
To me personally they are on the right track. We should not interfere and let them work. All of humanity will benefit a little now, but greatly in the future. Faster than light speed communication and travel is on the horizon!
Nice to see someone responding thoughtfully rather than jumping on the "let's trash Brian Greene" bandwagon like most of the replies on this thread. I have also seen the original video and I think there is a degree of mis-characterization going on here.
@@nickrr5234
I know right, this is madness. I respect both Dr. Hossenfeld and Brian Greene. Both are brilliant scientists. I was just trying to keep an open mind toward them both. I appreciate both their thoughts, ideas, and content. I mean of course no one agrees with everything, not even between scientists. But, these two are some of my favorite and actually most reasonable and sound.
If they are on the right track, they should be able to reason a bit more than they did, namely nothing. Sabine is right with her claim, that ST works not (and did never) in the laws of nature we observe, but in a sc. "DeSitter"-space. It´s like ghost busting and I agree, we can let them work, but not with money of others. Funded science must be reasonable, and ST is more a theory of nothing (Avshalom Eltizur, physicist) than a theory of everything.
Ok, as a classicist, it was very confusing at first to understand why they were measuring in obsolete cubits.
Your world will shatter, once you find out, time is motion. we can't measure anything else.
😅 “So the tablet says Wall Wall Reed Wall-and we’ve determined this to be a black hole.”
What’s interesting is that frequently whenever you hear Brian Greene or his colleagues refer to themselves, rather than say they are physicists of some sort they instead often say they “work in String Theory.”
*I SO appreciate* you pushing back on unsubstantiated "scientific claims." ... Society thinks just because someone has a PhD that their claims must be valid, but scientists make mistakes just like everyone else.
In this situation, it is not about “making a mistake” but rather about how a group “massively self-promoted” themselves around “dubious claims” that had a lot of negative implications for the credibility of scientific research in general. It left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths.
more often what makes it big in the news seems a lot more deliberate than mistakes
i guess we need more focus on "peer reviewed and congruent with proven claims"
Thanks
Thank you so much!
lol, you do have money to throw away
Ability to call bullshit when I mean bullshit. Epic!
Yea I subbed over that one.
"...without some editor spitting into the soup." Most likely the best mixed-metaphor I've ever heard! 🤣🤣🤣
@@GrantWaller.-hf6jn Sabine is a breath of fresh air for sure. I don't expect her to be right on everything, but regardless a healthy dose of informed skepticism should always be welcome.
@@mcdermottpanobody is right 100 percent of the time. I as well disagree with her on somethings. In this she is 100 percent correct. Doing bad science for money. Is BS these dumb dumbs don't realize once your repatriation it comprised few will believe you. But I can be wrong in this age of information or disinformation depending on your point of view.
All the vanished comments could disprove her. If they weren't vanished, that is. But that'd prove even less.
I am not a physicist, but I know how things go, and I have no doubts that Sabine is doing a worthwhile job.
Greene started by saying this work "at least suggests we might be on the cusp" of achieving the goal and calling it "highly controversial." Pretty fair. Possibly using quantum computers to explore ER=EPR is fascinating.
String theory has concepts of a plan.
Though String Theory Greene's focus, ER=EPR doesn't rely on it. If you like quoting a certain political candidate (rather than addressing the substance of my comment), Sabine beat you to it in the intro: "A lot of people" asked me to comment on this.
Thank you for pointing this out.
"I can say bullshit when I mean bullshit." - love this.
The problem is that she keeps confidently saying "bullshit" when it's obviously not bullshit.
I prefer : „It would be like claiming that playing Angry Birds is evidence that pigs can pop.“
@@annaclarafenyo8185 a paper with no real proof/evidence is bullshit
5:58 Getting ghosted by a magazine is crazy.
Probably because what she said was legit, but also bad for business.
@@pierrecurieAnd if it's bad for business; that's the quickest way to irritate academic administration!
It´s a kind of scientific inqusition. Her articles includung the ones in quanta magazin are always accurate interesting and valid.
Modern Bride hasn't responded to one of me once.
Depends 😂
Right or wrong Sabine is the only popular scientific thinker today who isn't afraid to go against the grain on a subject IMHO
Thanks, really appreciate that!
Going against the grain in a ratio of 80/20 with/against is probably the best way to get far in life, if you pico your battles carefully
She really has next to nothing to lose anymore. Calling out the scientific community on it's identifiable rent seeking activities is an important public service.
@@SabineHossenfelderInformation systems may be ideal for proving quantum gravity. Recent developments in holographic theory and quantum gravity (e.g., the AdS/CFT correspondence) suggest that gravity might emerge from deeper informational principles. Gravity may be an emergent phenomenon that arises from the deeper structure of informational reality. If gravity is an informational interaction, it could serve as a bridge between quantum theory (where information plays a central role) and general relativity.
Interesting thoughts!
THANK YOU! The first time I saw Greene was in 2010 and he was trying to explain String Theory for laymen (like myself), but nothing he said made any sense! And recently I saw him again after all these years talking about quantum computing.
Sabine, please help me understand something. In an earlier vid you told how gravity really isn't a thing in and of itself, but actually how space curves. The more space is curved the more the effect of gravity is felt, but it's not actually a force like the other three. If this is the case (and I'm presenting it properly), then how can it ever be unified with the other forces? Please explain.
A quantum wormhole between Greene and Kaku?
My thought.
Nice
Yep
😂😂
And narrated in real time by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Man, these people really got inflated their (former) TV fame from various documentaries and tv shows into their ego.
Science isn't a system of strong opinions, it's a system of "show your work which can survive criticism and replication by others". There is no place for confirmation bias in science. The world is the way it is if we like it or not -- it's not obligated to conform to our beliefs.
Well put.
And I'd add that "why" is not important. Only "how" is usefull.
Confirmation bias and climate change go together in this way.
No proof,just a lot of circumstantial evidence and selective statistics.
@@theslay66 Could you elaborate on that? My firnst instinct would be that "why" is immensely important in science.
It's more like "show your work because you have confirmation bias"
Why implies an intent. And the answer to the question why is always “god” if you’re religious and “happenstance” if you’re not. We know why, so it’s just not a useful question. Why does the universe exist? The Bible has something to say about that. HOW does the universe exist? Well, there’s a question we can answer.
I fell down the hyperbole hole- arh but then I popped out the other end
Such a condensed way of explaining physiks on youtube? Instant subscribe!
You do more for science than most. Love how you debunk this stuff, I'm nowhere near that intelligent to understand all the intricacies, but even I sometimes look at this stuff when I read articles and think it's BS..good to know there's someone actually debunking this stuff.
I understand she said others are wrong because they don't have proof for their claims and so is she. This video adds nothing scientifically meaningful.
@@xfghffhfg does it have to to be scientific to make her point any less real or meaningful..? Same losers who think posting a paper somehow makes it more credible..
@@tricktap8502 Both actions are meaningless if you want to acquire knowledge.
I really love you and the journey that you are on. I am a black man, and my daughter just earned her PhD. I constantly send her articles that you do because of your journey, and the issues you've had with academia. I'm so happy that you're journey brought you to RUclips and made you accessible to more people, mainly Me. Continue your work girl, and enjoy your journey. And please continue to educate as many people as possible, that are searching for knowledge.👍🏿👍🏿
I trust you realize we are lucky to have you.
Immense respect for Sabine
Yes!
6:08 thank you for remaining honest and trying to combat misinformation / misinterpretation of science and math, we love you Sabine!
Sabine, you are a breath of fresh air. Thanks.
Thank you for giving us such a (a bit depressing, I must say) glimpse on the misconduct that reigns in what is supposed to be an intellectual enviroment where Science and Honesty ought to rule above all other goals
Four hours of Brian Greene discussing Computational Universe / Quantum Gravity. Wonderful bedtime stories. Puts me to sleep in under five minutes.
I'm so glad they've finally been able to create a wormhole without rupturing space-time, scientists rupturing space-time is getting quite annoying.
Right??! I mean, come on
Not to worry, each time they do it the universe gets replaced with one where it's slightly harder to rupture.
So refreshing. Thank you for making this.
I work at Rovio and I am very grateful for your reference!
Sabine: I have watched, as you have, Brian flounder with his pet for decades. A man who doubles down on doubling down.
He is so consumed with being the Carl Sagan of his time: "famous for being famous".
The science world most wants to know if he got too much or too little attention as a child.
And how to make certain it doesn't happen to any one again
He's not just doubling down, he does it in 26 dimensions.
Man, when I first saw a video of Brian over a decade ago it didn't resonant with me.
And I haven't watched anything with him in it ever since
@@WayneLynch69 There is a Carl Sagan of our time: Neil deGrasse Tyson. He actually had contact with the OG Carl. They were both astrophysicists, and not string theorists. Most importantly in the present context, NDT is less prone to hyping up wild speculation as fact.
@@pierrecurie Man, You clearly haven't seen all the stuff he is talking around. Yes, he managed to get "new" Cosmos tv show production (and that's mostly done fine), but apart from that, he is also sooo ful of himself, "know it all", pushing his opinions to everything way out of his experise.
Sabine is right where she needs to be.
Outside of academia and resentful about it.
If you're obsessed with differential geometry and never had much time for algebraic topology, number theory, complex analysis, or group theory, Einstein is the man! He ushered differentiate geometry into physics land. Pigs can pop it's just rare that birds get angry enough IRL to do it. Anyone who has owned a parots knows that birds are pretty chill...
Never piss off the seagulls, they will crap on you every time.
And even there, some would say that Poincaré and Hilbert are the real inventors of theory of relativity (for the math side at least)
That's funny, because algebraic topology (and accordingly, group theory) end up coming back in a vicious way with braiding theory.
So vicious, even Wheeler et al shied away from trying to fully analyze the topological aspects of geons.
You are good, Sabine! Keep it up, we are with you.
Sabine. We love your clear thinking and presentation style. And coming from an older Dutchman that's some praise.
None of this makes it easy for a regular individual to learn what science actually has to offer. I appreciate those scientists who have the consideration to say "from this point forward this is speculation" or "this is our interpretation", (not necessarily supported by anything other than the scientists preference). It makes it easier for one such as myself to identify what points scientists agree and disagree upon. Perhaps if the drama could be turned down just a bit? Times like this it's too bad we have to compete with one another through a Capitalist system when all we want is to learn something.
so right!
This is why many believe climate change is a scam.
@@windfoil1000 and socialism would help?
Yes, because then you get tax-funded universities where the motivation is to *discover* things and teach people (so that you have an educated and (scientifically) literate population) rather than just a make-loads-a-money institution.
Einstein DID solve the biggest problem in physics. The biggest problem in physics in 1915 that is. Quantum phenomena was first discovered in 1900, but it wasn't until Schrödinger ideas about wave mechanics were published in 1925 that anyone started thinking that perhaps there was a gravity wave (later dubbed gravitron) somewhere to be found.
THANK YOU for calling out Brian's BULLSHIT!!! We love you Sabine!!
We know he’s bullshitting
I would love to see a discussion between Sabine and Brian. I have learned a lot from his books. And StarTalk episodes with him on it are usually really good. So this whole episode comes as a kind of surprise.
Really would love to see that discussion!
Did you also read Sabine´s books ("Lost in Math", 2018 -- "Existential Physics", 2022)? If not, I highly recommend to do, you won´t be bored one second.
You calling out is therapy for an engineers heart ❤
I appreciate your voice for calling out bullshit. Somebody has to.
She may never get a Nobel Prize, but she made get a Pulitzer for accurate reporting on physics.
she bullshits on topics she has no idea about all the time
its like seeing grownups discussing santa.
*"its like seeing grownups discussing santa."*
... You're not a "Santa denier," are you?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCSanta deniers when they find presents under the christmas tree: "Uhhhmm, ahhh, ehhmm, idk, must have been science!!"
Physicists seem to be good at inventing impossibly complicated theories that can never be proven. This is very important work and needs more funding.
With hundreds of Millions at stake!
I remember there were very extensive calculation attempts to measure the speed of Santa...
Thank you for watching it so I don't have to. I got as far as the mention of wormholes and switched off.
Love the tiny violin that shows up when string theory is mentioned. Lol
Perhaps he meant tp say wombles.
Very informative. I can now remove that discussion from the list of videos to watch later. Thanks for saving my time.
Thank you, Sabine. You are the reasonable voice we need.
It appears that Brian Greene is practicing woo science now. All show, not much go.
He wasted his career on the string "theory".
I think the way they did that press conference for a research paper says a lot. The only other time I've seen something like that was the "discovery" of cold fusion.
BICEP2 and the B-Mode detection for primordial gravitational waves. That was another hype without enough scientific scrutiny. Science corrects.
@@arctic_haze I don't think that's fair. It's not a waste to go down a rabbit hole and reason out crazy idea's. Proving something doesn't work is just as important as proving something that does. But with that, you need to accept when something isn't working, and not necessarily give up, but don't bullshit people about where you are at with your theory.
Money corrupts everything, including science.
Money is paid for Time spent on something. Yet time itself is motion. Funnily enough, Time corrupts money.
If you can measure it in quantum mechanics it's not rea
I don't believe Greene promoted "this" nonsense, if anything he was highly skeptical of it.
I agree completely. I watch everything he puts out to the public, and frankly Sabine Hossenfelder lied. She flat out lied.
She’s completely disingenuous or straight up lying. Watch the interview again. Reported channel and “do not show me this channel”
@@jackhand4073 It's not like her to be honest, so I'm surprised. Will have to keep an eye out in the future, more so than usual.
@@Whippets Just putting the name in the title as clickbait. She either didn't watch the interview or is lying for monetary gain. Really good science communication here as well as intellectual honesty. Embarrasing.
@@jackhand4073 Yep, I clicked it when I saw Greene's name specifically, I don't find Greene to be the type to promote "nonsense" of any kind --- unless of course you happen to fall in the camp that string theory on the whole is pure nonsense, but that's another issue. lol
What a HOT TAKE! (@6:20) Iwish I had finished my physics degree in the 70's, gotten to be your advisor, and could sit back now and say "THAT'S my student!" 😂😂😂😊❤
Great video Sabine, apologies for not seeing it through, got a lot of scrolling to do.
You are the only one I trust because I think what you see saying makes sense and I don't feel this massive bias coming from you. You aren't afraid to call out bullshit and I respect that I wish there were more people like you in the top
I have to call bullshit now. This is a clickbait title. Brian Greene may have hosted that on-stage dialog, but it is unfair to use his name in the title unless he was lead author in said study.
The comments praising her honesty blow my mind. Click bait title slandering Greene. Reported for misinformation.
@@jackhand4073 that is kind of a good point. Clickbait titles like that are somewhere between misinformation and defamation-esque.
In other words, it's kind of like telling everyone you worked out your home grown "theory of everything" on your Casio calculator and when it comes out completely wrong, instead of going back to the drawing board on your theory, you say "Well, I'll just go get a bigger calculator".
As someone who works in an area drowning in failed theory (musical complexity), I applaud Sabina for standing up to imperious, high-handed editors of magazines with hidden agendas, vested interests, and Boards of Directors to whom they are beholden.
@@bradb.4682 and she caters to the algorithm and click bait. She is misrepresenting Greene in this vid to such an extent she is lying.
Not the first time she does something like this but I haven't seen her target colleagues for her own personal gain before - at least not so directly as now.
Time to unsub.
@@blurgle9185
care to elaborate more?
this is a genuine question. p.s. i am not a physicist or engineer, just a science enthusiast, so i may not understand some part of her (and prof greene's) explanation, but i enjoy this kind of "debate"; i don't know or understand what part is she lying? and i don't defend greene either, genuinely curious. thanks in advance.
@@mgilangr9883 nothing to do with science. watch the original interview. this is not at all what he was saying. he himself was pretty sceptical and it wasn't his position or idea
You are an absolute star, Sabine. Keep going!
I really like you. You call out the BS,, AND THAT IS IMPORTANT. It helps prevent someone watching a BS video, then parrot what was said in an attempt to sound knowledgeable!!
I love what you do here. 🥰 Please keep going.
This morning, I'm listening to you and my amygdala (I dunno!) gives me two ideas connected.
"A paper published in Nature is worth a lot of money in grants..." (Sabine)
alongside:
"Da Vinci had a hella notebook. Back then, patronage and lopsided wealth distribution were more nakedly accepted." (Blinking)
... Thinking about it this morning, I think DaVinci didn't write his notebooks left handed because Da Vinci was a curious fellow... it was because he was protecting his income stream!!! 😏
...What do you do to get grants (or patronage)? ...You capture the imagination of your benefactors.
...With what?
...With whatever butterflies that dude is chasing these days! Heliocentric orbits? Geocentric orbits? Tantric orbits? Shortcut to cinnamon? Who cares! But you're gonna need an idea for that at the next meet-n-greet at the palace... or TED talk, as the case may be... Looks like history repeats...
So if mobs are a no-no, these days, then what are we gonna do about our perverse incentive structures?
I hope we figure it out before the abuses get much worse. For example, Ukraine is a hobby for Putin. He clearly imagines himself a candidate for the "Ivan the Terrible Medal" in the 2022-25 Imperial Games...
With all due respect: WTF???🫣
@@orangegummugger1871I agree that the most compelling motives are, very broadly, "higher purpose" or causes greater than ourselves... But I don't think that stuff applies to the ultra rich, does it?
...That is to say, I thought the consensus had landed on sociopathy as the best skill set for entrepreneurship...?
Thank you so much for your support, really appreciate it!
No one should claim, that RUclips is not good for something. Well done Dr. Sa🐝, that you have sharpened your sting.
Seriously? There are ten of thousands of hours of first rate, double A triple plus content on RUclips, and you barely have to lift a finger to find it. Pry yourself away from "girl bikini FAIL" videos (tens of millions of hours) and you will be amazed.
@@afterthesmash ???
He didn’t actually claim that there was nothing (else) good on RUclips though.
My favourite is 3blue1brown.
Some scientists love to call bs on postmodernist sociologists who overestimate the relativism in the social project called "science", but the same people never seem to call bs on fantasy science like string theory. Sabine's intellectual honesty is depressingly rare among her most eminent colleagues.
"honesty" in a video where she is straight up lying.
watch the original interview and tell me she is representing it properly
Alles Gute zum Geburtstag, Sabine!
You are a shining light for us total amateurs who love to meddle in this complicated scientific world. Thank you.
If the only place your theories work is the simulated reality you created, maybe reality is trying to tell you something.
We should all upload ourselves to the Matrix? Wormholes would be cool!
That’s what I love about your channel. You’re never afraid to call bullshit, bullshit. A great antidote to the hype out there.
Greene did not say that we created a wormhole, it was a scientific discussion and everyone just put ahead their views, what's wrong with that. I very much respect professor Greene and he does not promote nonsense. Please remove this thumbnail.
Remember, it is always easier to be critical than it is to produce.
Good on ya Sabine..cheers from Australia 😎
The tiny violin... almost spit out my coffee laughing.
Yes😂
Especially when the person was rubbing the bow across their finger (or thumb?).
Yeah, it was a great addition to the video xD
Thank you for calling out the bullshiters.
Bravo! I have always revolted against stupid "therories" without actual PROOF.
Sabine, your voice, and others like you give science the credibility it sorely needs these days. The scary thing these days is that, mainstream science seems to sink deeper and deeper into a fantasy rabbit hole.
Thank you Sabine for calling BS when you see it! This is such important work
So, this was more about money and less about science
Shots fired.
String theorists are turning into the villains of Physics. I can already imagine Christopher Nolan working on a movie with some main character based on Ed Witten
That would be actually incredible... please pitch this to Chris Nolan!
Eric Weinstein also needs a role in this, not sure which one. And Sabine in Physics cat-suit 🙂
Love this editing and format.
Love to see bloopers if there are any.😅
Back in 2003 Brian Greene was one of my heroes, but it has been quite some time since I felt that way about him.
Misinformation dripping in this video! People praising Sabine, please watch the actual interview first.
Please comment this again. Sabine is completely off base
Brian Greene was never my friend
Not quite as annoying as Michio Kaku though. IMHO.
@JackBerringer-ig1ct a agree. It was just a meme joke from Dana white
Watching Brian Greene come to the understanding that string theory is a fool's errand with each Science Festival talk.
Why is he given so much screen time?
@@drbuckley1 Because he is the host of Science Festival? Which he does a great job at as a science communicator, usually. I'm specifically mentioning the moments where he almost reluctantly pushes for testable string theory predictions and visibly strains while he doe so.
He is learning.
Thank you for the clear and honest analysis of these papers. It is really sad that the politics of grants taint both the work being done by some scientists and the manner information about this work is delivered to the public. These days we can ill-afford to create an environment of distrust of science. But that does not mean we should blindly trust. Your videos help us get to the truth, ugly or not. After watching you, I learn not just about science, but how to question what we are fed in articles & news and sift through the noise to get to the truth. TY!
I'm very glad that the situation you described forced you to turn to You Tube. Your ability to educate those of us who would like to understand the nature of entanglement but lack the foundation of knowledge you do can have access to your entertaining explanations. Thank you, and please keep up the good work!