Fundamentally and extensively linked, balanced, AND unified electromagnetism/energy AND gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. "Mass"/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. A photon may be placed at the center of the sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of space is balanced with (or offset by) the speed of light. Half of the galaxies are "dead" or inert due to motion and no motion in balance, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Any "curvature" of space necessarily involves what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is electromagnetism/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Superb. The earth/ground AND the semi-spherical blue sky are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Indeed, consider the appearance of the earth from outer "space"; as half of the earth does remain constantly illuminated. Touch AND feeling blend, as gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Now, the moon appears with the same curvature of space when compared with the earth/ground as well (given a clear horizon, that is). The earth AND the moon are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. The high tide is thereby successfully correlated with/to what is the blue moon. Great. Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand. Indeed, lunar rocks are practically identical to earth rocks; as the earth and the moon are fundamentally (or basically) understood as constituting what is the same body. Most importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, the rotation of the moon matches its orbit; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Moreover, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is then consistent with F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Great !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity in accordance with F=ma AND E=mc2 as what is/involves possible/potential AND actual in balance. Inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this balances AND unifies electromagnetism/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity.) Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. This also explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Now, the orange, setting, AND flat sun is understood as an electromagnetic/gravitational manifestation that is then consistent with/as lava. Outstanding !! Falling cannon balls form spheres, AND objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course); as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It all makes perfect sense. The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground also involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It is now perfectly, consistently, and extensively clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity. In fact, it is impossible to understand gravity apart from both ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Absolutely magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio
There is no doubt in my mind that Sabine Hossenfelder is the best 'explainer' and educator of physics since the great Feynman passed away. She is always absorbing and illuminating.
"You are accepting changes in time and space with remarkable courage." "You can be a real precursor with all the bravery for something new." & so forth
This issue of truth and beauty in physics has been used by some to imply the existence of God. For non-physicists this was annoying because the argument was very vague but difficult to pin down by those of us who are not in this field. Sabine's line of reasoning is refreshing and it is hoped that she continues to express herself and to develop her thinking further.
Yes, the problem might be that some people, when confronted with these problems, are looking for a *meaning* behind it, while following the scientific process it would be better to look for an *answer*. Instead of asking "why is this equation so simple/beautiful", the question would be "well this is the world we live in, what is the underlying pattern to all of this?" Meaning, beauty, mystique, these all are subjective, and any one of us could see any of these qualities in anything. This is why one thing that is meaningful for one, is not for the other, and thus wouldn't be an *explanation* for the phenomenon. The answer that predicts the pattern is.
@@sassort I think physicists are generally in search of that underlying pattern, but there’s also an aesthetic sensibility that informs their math choices. It’s not just an idealistic principle though. As the math becomes more complex, it’s application becomes less intuitive, and an adequate description of nature’s phenomena rapidly exceeds the boundaries of what the human mind can compute. I think a better way to understand it is that math constitutes the patterns of thought that can be brought into contact with those of nature. In that sense, mathematical descriptions might not really be an access point for objective truth claims about the actual elements of nature, so much as the supple dynamics of thought, which can be more closely “in resonance with” the actual forms in nature. It’s a bit of a reframe about the meaning of “being objective.” Insofar as we can interface with the deep elements of nature, our intuition filters the experience data (which I intend to expand to include data collected from whatever experimental apparatus is relevant) we gather through math models. Insufficient models don’t generate the most accurate rendering, but the complexity of the models only expands to the extent that they are still thinkable. True propositions that no one can think are useless until they become thinkable.
I tend to think that science and mathematics are useful tools to describe natural phenomena but are not necessarily properties of it. Not unlike the argument about whether numbers have objective existence.
@@teaser6089 Actually my point was that "interesting" depends on what your brain feels comfortable to figure out. The majority is just happy with their content. Of course it would be beautiful for us to have more people on our intelligence level. But I guess people more intelligent than you and I would be happier if there are more people on their level as there are even less of them and even we are to dumb. Well I'm just happy that we have a place to talk to people that actually understand us. That is nice enough ^^
It's great that we can use mathematics to explain some of the fundamental behaviors of the cosmos but, to assume that human ideas of beauty are objective is the water puddle assuming that the pot hole was made just for it.
It's important to note, I think, that she's not saying that some fundamental mathematical truth can't or shan't be beautiful. Rather, she's making the more pragmatic argument that beauty should neither be a motivation for nor an argument for justifying something that should otherwise be justified by more scientific means, e.g. reproducible evidence. I feel the speaker is arguing from a philosophical sense, while she's simply talking science. I.e. one of them seems more grounded.
I rediscovered this in the book called Reality+ Physics can be fully expressed using mathematico-logical notation without the need for verbal language. Computers operate on rules and bits, while physics operates on cause and effect with observation; they can substitute for each other in specific contexts.
This is an excellent way to learn more about Sabine Hossenfelder. She explains that her method of research is total immersion for 3 days and 2 nights, which was reassuring for me since I have always worked that way. She mentioned Justin Khoury at the University of Pennsylvania as a early source of inspiration on superfluid dark matter and I would like to hear more about that.
The idea of "beauty" isn't as arbitrary as some commenters suggest. It has to do with conserved quantities, invariants, and patterns in the mathematical language used in physics. It's not at all obvious that many physical phenomena behave in such predictable manners, yet they do. It's out of my depth to judge whether "beauty" should be a foremost concern when beginning an investigation. Paul Dirac was quoted in saying "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data." and nearly all my physics professors had used "beautiful" to describe one equation or other in lectures. There are countless others who avoid the word altogether. I suspect in fields that cannot be experimentally verified in the foreseeable future, "beauty" is all too enticing a motivator because all the pieces just seems to fit so naturally, especially when you don't have much useful experimental data to go on. (I should also mention that I don't think "beauty" is the right word. The right word should describe the feeling one gets when one is able to articulate the behavior of a system and its boundary cases in sufficiently concise language, but no more concise than necessary.)
Yes, we can become infatuated with beauty, even in the rarified sense of physicists, but we should never lose sight that it is real, as real as you and I are right now. Avoid certain tendencies toward mysticism, and you realize that beauty basically just means ease of comprehensibility. That which fits well within what we observe, and thus what we comprehend, is beautiful. Comprehensibility is to be expected because we are ultimately a part of what we observe. Nevertheless, one should not count on comprehensibiity absolutely given that our own existence, though undeniable, is puny, even to the point of often being negligible. And so it is with beauty. It is as real as our own existence, and thus it tends to work, even to a degree that is surprising, but not always.
The concept of beauty is quite complex. It links symmetry, patterns and emotions all together. It's a very "human" concept. What we perceive as beautiful is subjective to human perception because our brains grew/evolved with these concepts. Like Sabine said, maybe there is something "more" to beauty, but it should not dictate how we do science right now. We need boundaries, binarity and straight rules in order to live in a society and maintain peace, but in science, we need chaos, spectrum, complexity and loose concept in order to grasp it all. I think that beauty is just luck. Sometime life is beautiful, sometime it's not... But we grow from the ugliest part of our lives. Ok im too high right now.
Newtonian Physics is simpler than General Relativity. I thought that made it clear that the truth is not so simple as has been once assumed. So the natural conclusion from that is that it should be it getting more complex, not more simple.
It is simpler yes, but it explains a lot less. At present, no theory simpler than GR has been concived which is able to explain the same amount of observations with the same precision as GR.
@@thorium222 Yes, but my point is that GR is the simplest it can be. There are all sorts of theories able to explain observations, but GR is the simplest.
You know, I'm really happy to have found this video. I never felt like beauty was a pre-req for something to be right. Epicycles were beautiful, too. And how well can we judge what is "simple?" We can be leaning against something quite simple and have no idea of the complexity that can be on the other side of it. From the outside, many complex things look simple.
Sabine is wonderful and is fast becoming a star - no pun intended - in Physics and for good reason ; she’s introspective and clear in her thoughts and a fresh voice .
It is not the case that physicists favor simple theories out of some kind of aesthetic consideration. They strive for simple explanations because they have a much greater chance of making progress with simple models since one can evaluate many more simple models in the same time that a more complex structure can be grappled with. And since we have experienced success with several simple theories, it is quite plausible that we will have success with other simple theories. We can get to the complex theories at some later time...
was looking for a comment like this, i very much agree. sure, the sheer sex appeal of an elegant theory has gravitas in its own right. think it a Halo Effect of ideas: in the same way we presume beautiful people virtuous, we presume beautiful ideas True. but elegance has long had utility as well: through more concise symbolic representation of information (which this sentence is a dogshit doodoo diaper example of), we have greater density of knowledge per cognitive resource. memory, prolonged focus, intelligence: these are historically limited. finding systems of expression that allow these more mileage while maintaining accuracy has been a grand endeavor. now that these cognitive resources are less limited than ever (through the assistance of various technologies) I wonder if our ideas will begin to trend towards less compact, if that would allow them more Truth. what do you think?
"Physicists are using their very narrow-minded notion of beauty that they try to impose on the the laws of nature." This observation by Sabine Hossenfelder reminds me of a story, possibly apocryphal, involved with the 'debate' between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr on the meaning of the "Copenhagen Interpretation." Supposedly, Einstein wrote to Bohr "God does not play dice with the universe." Supposedly, Bohr wrote back, "Albert, stop telling God how to run his universe."
Fundamentally and extensively linked, balanced, AND unified electromagnetism/energy AND gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. "Mass"/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. A photon may be placed at the center of the sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of space is balanced with (or offset by) the speed of light. Half of the galaxies are "dead" or inert due to motion and no motion in balance, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Any "curvature" of space necessarily involves what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is electromagnetism/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Superb. The earth/ground AND the semi-spherical blue sky are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Indeed, consider the appearance of the earth from outer "space"; as half of the earth does remain constantly illuminated. Touch AND feeling blend, as gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Now, the moon appears with the same curvature of space when compared with the earth/ground as well (given a clear horizon, that is). The earth AND the moon are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. The high tide is thereby successfully correlated with/to what is the blue moon. Great. Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand. Indeed, lunar rocks are practically identical to earth rocks; as the earth and the moon are fundamentally (or basically) understood as constituting what is the same body. Most importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, the rotation of the moon matches its orbit; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Moreover, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is then consistent with F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Great !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity in accordance with F=ma AND E=mc2 as what is/involves possible/potential AND actual in balance. Inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this balances AND unifies electromagnetism/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity.) Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. This also explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Now, the orange, setting, AND flat sun is understood as an electromagnetic/gravitational manifestation that is then consistent with/as lava. Outstanding !! Falling cannon balls form spheres, AND objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course); as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It all makes perfect sense. The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground also involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It is now perfectly, consistently, and extensively clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity. In fact, it is impossible to understand gravity apart from both ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Absolutely magnificent !!! By Frank DiMeglio
I would ask Sabine Hossenfelder the same question I ask all women and because she is highly intellectual and able to say things as they are I have the expectation that at least she understands "it".
Numbers and mathematics look to have a reality in themselves. We discover mathematics as well as physical reality. Somehow numbers and math contibute to physical reality.
The truth and beauty of math that the average mind does not understand and therefore appreciate, but instead fears and subsequently hates. Just ask them. On a personal note as a grad student (long ago) the "toughest" math course I faced was Topics in Mathematical Physics. Though it really wasn't tough as it was strange (taught by one of the early proponents of string theory - in fact, to give a hint he was the first to ponder the 26th dimension).
Not quite. Your beliefs may color your hypotheses to be tested against reality, not the conclusions you'll eventually arrive to. This, if by "conclusions" you mean empirical assertions of course.
@@cliffp.8396 Well, then I will have to ask you: what do you mean by "conclusions about reality"? Cause the empirical aspect of reality doesn't change color according to anybody's beliefs. That's a little bit the point of science ;)
Marcello Gleiser makes same point in Tear at the Edge of Creation- that imagining that ultimate truths must be symmetrical, when so much that we find, including life, is asymmetric. Clearly there are many tensions that govern the intuitions of scientists. It's odd that the answer will turn out to be 42.
The #42 is all over in cosmology as well DNA and makes good numbers casually in the METRIC side is best acurate: 42/300000 everage yellow belt light speed = 7142.8571/314160(the PI 100000 times)= 43.9824/3.1416 = 14 and 14 is as well very common every where. 43.9824/17126.594(this is what you get if you add the 118 places in the periodic table mass)= 389.39653/77.86( this is the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc all added)= 5.0012397. 7.23/ 43.9824 = 6.0833195. 89.28 is what you get from 351.86/31416(the PI 10000 times). 351.86 M/S2 is the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc pluss the sun that is 274M/S2. 89.28/7142.8571 = 80.005119. I decoded a Mayan Callender and out of it came the Sernas Hologram that is made out of 6 Callenders, it works in 3 faces that when you add them you get 31416, thats right the PI 10000 times: 10920 IS HIGH FACE that comes by adding all the numbers(1560 places all with a number) of the Hologram. 10416 IS MEDLE FACE comes out by adding all the Holograms numbers but not BLACK( the Hologram conteins 8 colors). 10080 comes out by not counting BLACK and WHITE). 42/10920 = 260 that comes to be the places of a Callender. 260/300000 = 1153.8461/3.1416 = 367.27976/1.618(golden number)= 226.99614/17126.594 (periodic table mass) = 75.448833/3.1416 = 24.01605 that is not far from the 24 that are the ours of the very center yellow stars and just is grate doing grate numbers: 24/17126.594 = 713.60809/89.28(from 351.86/31416) = 7.992922. 24/10920 = 455. 24/10416 = 434. 24/10080 =420. 24/31416 = 1309. 24/300000 = 12500. 42/10416 = 248. 42/17126.594 = 407.77604/300000 = 735.69795/16180(10000 times the golden number) = 21.992721. this number is not far from 22 hearth years that is a complite suns cicle based in the suns black spots that is 11 years to the inside and 11 to the out side make a complite cicle. 22 X 365.25 = 3085.5/10920000(all numbers may go up or down it depends in the level)= 1358.9695/3.1416 = 432.57241/144 = 3.003975. 432.57241 is not far of our suns Hertz that is 432. 42/3085.5 = 73.464285 it is the angle that is in our ears and helps to make balance in our body. 73.464285/17126.594 = 233.12816/1.618 = 144.08415 near 144 that is a number from the serie PHI. 233.12816/1618O = 69.403884/3.1416 = 22.09189. 233.12816/100800(LOW FACE TIMES 10 = 432.38019. 22/10920 = 496.36363/3.1416 = 157.99708/17126.594 = 108.39816/1.618 = 66.995154. 77.86(the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc)/157.99708 = 2.0292458. 22/31416 = 1428/300000 = 210.08403. 1428/17126.594 = 11.993413. 22/17126.594 = 778.48154/77.86 = 9.9984785. 22/16180 = 735.45454/3141600 = 4271.644/3.1416 = 1359.7033/3.1416 = 432.80599/144 = 3.005897. 1359. 7033/171265.94 = 125.95831/1.618 = 77.848152 - 77.86 = 0.011848. Numbers like this ones are all over and they are not cherry picked nither are heavy math they are easy like sunday mornigs.
An excellent contribution by her. Set next to Uhlenbeck's answer to this question this shows both the messiness of the process and it widens the lens: a call to arms to employ more arcane (less pretty) methods probably more pragmatically - something that might shake out in the field of computational proofs or AI starting to do its own proofs.
If you think of Euclidean space, for instance, there are things that must be true in it regardless of our physical reality, such as the notion that the distance from a point A to a point B cannot be negative and that the distance from A = (a_1,a_2) to B = (b_1,b_2) is sqrt([b_1 - a_1]^2+[b_2 - a_2]^2), that is, the Pythagorean theorem always holds in Euclidean space. I think that reflects a sense of truth. People may say that things like the square root operation is man-made, however, I would argue that while the symbols are arbitrary and the mechanics of taking the square root is man-made, the concept of a square root is fundamentally true in the sense that it reflects a specific abstract pattern. Anybody who performed the operation of, for example, sqrt(1) would yield the same answer, independent of what symbols are used.
@@metakatana but that's what I was trying to hint at the OP. That Pythagoras theorem works in Euclian space is a consequence of our conventions of what an Euclian space is, what the Pythagoras theorem is about and how we define distances, also what a distance is, what points in a space are... and so on. There's no absolute truth, but truth within a given context once we have previously set out and agreed on the conventions relevant to the case under consideration.
I have a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest operators of quantum energy - spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large number; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half folded into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere..
The absolute horrific beauty of it is simply sublime to the one who sees the big picture. That picture like the tapestries of our interconnected digital domains of everything we wish see as beauty and simplicity are so far removed from the frank reality in which we live. To mix these two prospectives and then pour them into a third just too make the sum total of the algorithm or logic bomb appear to the one who sees the big picture as being a true master piece of the mind. The trick is to convince others of what is being viewed is that simple and beauty in this world are a subjective reality only to be questioned and quantifiable to self.
Physicist and mathematicians who insist on this argument, to compare them to a subfield of math, are like Euclidian Geometry trying to fit nature to perfect geometric shapes. Sabine is among others who belong to Fractal Geometry which provide a closer description of reality. If anything, this development in math should be a reminder that we may try to zoom closer on things and be surprissed that things don't become simpler but even more complex.
Simple solutions occur when economic aspects play a role. A naturalustic permutation would rather likely lead to easy laws at first. As an analogy, searching for pythagorian triangles would first lead to (3,4,5) and not to larger ones. And perhaps there are mathematical restrictions for a smallest symmetric universe. So Beauty makes economically sence, but best mathematical solutions are often pretty ugly as well.
Are we mistaking what beauty and symmetry is... beauty-.how do we define beauty? And there can be beauty in chaos and symmetry is what? Is there a positive for every negative? Why do humans gravitate to the complex? Simplicity does not imply without complexities... a Swiss clock is simple in concept but complex and simple in it's construction... is the passion for discovery not a beautiful thing to behold? Seems very important not to come into any endeavor with preconceptions... be it a thing or process can or cannot be a certain way. Talking in circles now, but my main question is does how we view the world and existence affect our forward progression? Obviously, but every time humans draw a line in the sand on an issue awhile or a generation later we learn better... Sabine herself said physics has been stuck for 40 years... is every computer processing leap just a refinement of what's there or a true leap in technology.... do we need different ways of thinking about a lot of things to better our imperfect understandings of so, so many things?
The abuse of the word truth is problematic when non-mathematicians and even expert physicists extend it to maths. In maths the word TRUE has a specific meaning which is defined. TRUE in maths means a statement is consistent with the chosen axioms of our mathematical system (ZFC). In other words the statement does not lead to any contradictions with the ZFC axioms. Thus TRUE in maths is a technicality that has little relationship to 'Truth' in layman's speech. Some physicists who should know better have played word games with this which are completely misleading to the public. TRUE in physics, or in any other natural science is not at all the same as TRUE in maths. One is empirically determined, the other is logically determined. In fact in science there is no absolute truth, just the survival of a theory when tested by experiment. All theories may well be replaced by superior theories as knowledge advances.
Yes exactly which should not confine ourselves to unjust beliefs if it is not backed up by good reasoning, as what seems to be the evident empirically, the evidence of it can be overturned upon more scientific inquiry or could be subject to revision and alterations, there is bound to be more underlying contingencies which is undiscovered owing to our finite discernability. Epistemic limitations for our ontology exists therefore statistical independence and the stupidity of indeterminacy comes in, which is can be overturned by more investigation.
The concept of beauty is quite complex. It links symmetry, patterns and emotions all together. It's a very "human" concept. What we perceive as beautiful is subjective to human perception because our brains grew/evolved with these concepts. Like Sabine said, I really wish that there was something more to beauty, but it should not dictate how we do science. We need boundaries, binarity and straight rules in order to live in a society and maintain peace together, but in science, we need chaos, spectrum, complexity and loose concept in order to grasp it all. I think that beauty is just luck. Sometime life is beautiful, sometime it's not... But we grow from the ugliest part of our lives. Ok im too high right now.
Human sense of beauty must be looked from an evolution perspective . Our ancients would be attracted to the things that would increase their hypothesis of survival and therefore they would be considered good , witch is another way to say beautiful . Maybe our aesthetic sense needs to get more developed in order for us to be capable to go beyond our current limitations?
There may not be a a god in that sense but there has to be a place where the source of energy powering this reality is coming from. Nothing moves on its own.
Sabine is correct in her assessment but there is a problem pertaining to human motivation. When you don't believe in the essential simplicity of the laws of nature, you struggle to find a methodology by which to pursue research, since the specter of chaos is always looming over your head. Researchers try to find connections between phenomena which previously were not known. Beauty in theory is a driving force. It may occasionally lead to a dead end, which is the problem.
I question the claim that the mathematics underlying general relativity or quantum mechanics or even electromagnetism is “simple”. Yes, terse equations can be written to describe them, but these equations are terse because very smart people put a lot of work into developing mathematical abstractions that allow them to be expressed that way. But the full meaning of these abstractions is not simple. Anyone wanting to deeply understand these physical theories understands this. It takes a tremendous amount of math education even to be able to study physics beyond an elementary level. When Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, he simultaneously developed a new field of mathematics so that those equations could be expressed simply. It would not have hindered the predictive ability of GR not to develop that mathematics. And if he hadn’t developed that mathematics, maybe the interviewer wouldn’t be mislead into thinking the mathematics for GR is simple.
Why do we use math to try to figure things out? Is that how we started researching to get answers. 🤔What if the universe can't be described in a math form?Does this lead to finding dead ends and wasted time?I'm just saying what if we're thinking about it from what we know as humans so far of course .But what if it's explanation is not a math problem? I'm just wondering I know I'm a rookie at understanding things but it's just a question I've been wanting to ask
I think this beauty or simplicity principle is the legacy from the similar 18 century belief that nature should be "orderer", mathematical (ie kepler, Newton) because was the language and the prove of the hand of God in nature.
Why this obsession of many physicists about having "few parameters"? What's the problem with "fine tuning"? Imagine somebody invents a theory that has a lot of parameters that can be effectively determined by experiments and such a theory perfectly reproduces the existing successful theories (e.g. general relativity and QFT) in the old regimes, plus it makes a lot of interesting new predictions about other, soon technologically accessible, experimental regimes. What on earth would you have a priori against such a hypothetical theory?
That's easy and Einstein came so close. Quantum can never be used as an absolute truth. It is like a squared circle or pi it can only bring you close but never all the way there. It is an approximation and even that if you ever have attempted to square a circle is a truth that moves the subconcience to a whole new location from which to view reality from.and that's where Einstein missed it Reality is only relative to the view point of the observer. No two people share the same version of reality.
Nothing to do with mathematics but as an aside. On RUclips. Carey Holzman Live-Building a Computer for Home and Office 8/28/19 at 5.30 discusses the filming of Shawn Mendez and Camila Cabello 2019 Live VMA Awards. It was filmed with one camera and the way Carey describes it is mind-blowing. Maybe the technique could be copied.
If Sabine Hossenfelder wants to make a bigger impact on this problem she needs to demonstrate an alternative more productive approach. It is not clear that the work she does on gravity differs in its approach to the work other theoretical physicists are doing. If she could lead by example this would achieve more.
The problem is that theoretical physicists now have to create ideas to explain phenomena which are so far from human experience and intuition where can they even start? One solution to this problem is to look for mathematical elegance as a substitute for intuition.
That's interesting. makes me ask myself the question, "Why is it that people seem to naturally believe (perhaps originally subconsciously, as I did) that the answer ought to be simple when we finally find 'it'"? if that turns out to be true, what would that mean about reality?
@@2adamast Yes, because if we had a lot of special cases, that would mean we have not found the simple fundamental principle encompassing all the cases.
Exactly. When nature starts building complex biochemical molecules and cells the precise mathematics is not found. Instead they deal in statistical measurements and non-mathematical ideas
Isn’t CTT subjective and perhaps ill conceived in a similar vain? Isn’t this exploration of few hundred episodes likely to conclude with a whimper rather than a bang?
Trying the create a theory of everything is and was a pretentious idea to prove something(beside the 3-4 forces in nature) . However we don't know if it came from a mathematician or a physicist perspective considering string interactions. Building a theory from our level of knowledge and with our mathematical instruments ,mostly will not bring the beauty as we know. Maybe the nature's reality beauty is different from ours and does not relay only on symmetry and conservation as we know, but rather of another kind of symmetry and conservation that we don't have yet the capacity to grasp .
The conciseness of theory is only required because of our inability to comprehend, and teach, 'complicated' theories. If nobody understands the theory because of cognitive limits, then it's not a useful theory. Sort of Catch 22.
But there is a reasonable case for simplicity (which is for most mathematicians beauty). With Ockham's razor a theory with less assumptions is preferred if it predicts the same.
@Nelson Giles Of course they are. General relativity uses the assumption that the speed of light is constant. Every theory in mathematics has axioms which are assumptions. It works like this: Assuming 1+1=2, then it follows 1+2=3. The less assumptions the more powerful the theory.
@Nelson Giles They are not irrefutable as they are assumed to be true a priori. For example you could make a theory without the assumption (axiom) of constant light speed. The mathematics would get more complicated but technically you can predict the same behavior. But since the motion of planets/stars/galaxies is easier(!!!) to understand within a mathematical context that demands a constant speed of light, it is to be preferred. Without assumptions you're not able to construct a model. So the task is to make an educated guess which assumptions you want to use.
@Nelson Giles Ockham's razor applies to theories of physics. All physical theories must be in the form of mathematics. Ockham's razor applies to mathematical theories of physics. What's your knowledge background?
No you derive your equations via the axioms. Often the axioms even are the equations eg Newton's laws. Newton assumed a flat spacetime in euclidean space for his laws to be true (even though he probably did not know this). Because we are not in euclidean space Newton's laws are wrong.
OR means don't add a layer of explanation you don't need -- not a comment on what you are going to need. Nature may be complicated and the theory may be complicated but still obey Ockham.
Her book Existential Physics is way smarter than what many that the rock and roll stars of physics have written. Why the hell would nature give a damn about mathematical beauty. Maybe at heart it's an ugly chaotic mess that has some neat layers of elegance at the surfaces that we've scratched. Maybe it's a quasi religious hope - that people want to find something beautiful behind all this.
But what if beauty and truth *is* the way reality is created? What if those assumptions come from an actual place of perfection (where beauty and truth are not only real, but primary; not just 'ideals' we make up)?
But what if it's not the way reality is created. What if reality wasn't created? The thing to do with "what if" statements is to make them precise enough they can be tested.
@@myothersoul1953 What if 'created' doesn't mean built with sticks, stones, quarks and forces... but 'created' in the manner in which dreams are 'created' ('they think, therefore they are')? Of course, you cannot 'test yourself'. That is why we leave ourselves COMPLETELY out of the equation (either we *are* the equation or we simply do not exist). ☯️
@@myothersoul1953 : "The thing to do with "what if" statements is to make them precise enough" I do not understand how a question (e.g.: 'What if...?') can be made 'more precise'. Isn't increased precision the objective when asking questions?
@@TheSimonScowl Why can't we test ourselves? Dreams, however they happen occur in stuff that is very much composed of quarks and forces or whatever the stuff of the world is made of.
@@TheSimonScowl Yes, increased precision should be the goal when asking such questions. How can than be done? By defining the terms you are using clearly and precisely enough that they can be operationalized and measured. That often has the nice side effect of making the question answerable.
Maths is nothing more than a tool that humans developed or invented - the real Truth is our Universe, it is everything that we learn & know within our capabilities
3:34 I suddenly feel the urge... to stop. to retry to understand... what the heck he thinks he's talking about. Ufffffff. It's hard for me as a not native speaker of the english language to follow the logical loops he's used to use. For me this induces an uncomfortable feeling... "Does this man try to trick my mind?*... a kinda thing (8)" or "Does he try to perform an intrinsic proof?*" Well, let me see... 4:34 Wow! (8) It did the trick. Sabine tried to adapt to the complexity of the language which he has induced to her mind... & i think it's due to her unfamiliarity to hear her own ideas in this strange form... that they become fuzzy. ( I usually know her as a brilliant thinker & speaker... but I also know that the style she's used to use is different... somehow more simple ) ... & after his confirmation... ( "Hm Hmmm!" ) she's back in her own ways of expressing her thoughts... & way better to understand... @least 4 me (8) 5:23 which he also recognises & positively supports. (8) °[ Nice session! Somehow... Jazzy. ♫ ] 7:50 Nice!!! She's resonating her now context confirmed self-esteem... & puts it into the flow. Great music! ( | ) ... PS: (8) °[ I hope you do not feel uncomfortable by my point of view... but this is a clip about exactly what I was writing in this comment, I think: The analysis of analytical thinking and its progress... wishful thinking versus thinking about a wish... hmmmmmmmm, more or less... i think... a metaphysical approach towards physical thinkability. ] [•¡•]
They were an adequate approximation at the time because they were much better than circular orbits with epicycles. And also much easier mathematics. It was an intermediary step to more closer approximations, but you have to start somewhere.
I think the "beauty" physicists refer to is just a euphoric reaction to finally understanding complicated physics. As a mathematical theory, physics is actually quite ugly.
Math works well if the frame is right I dont think space is flat, see the rainbow no matter where or what causes it it always appears in the same order in space, light follows atomic weight why not light? - The Standard models of cosmology and the particle one both are missing gravity, how a cuadrupedo would balance or walk right in 3 legs? - GR is based in gravity and still they cant explaine what gravity is. it looks clear to me that gravity is light refraction from all systems at different levels(densityes) our yellow belt stars laws just dont make it out of it, as soon you see out of the yellow belt stars Einstein, Hubble and Newton just dont fit because we got to a different density; there must to be 7 densities or levels same as light cause for each color there is an element or elements.
Doctor Hossenfelder always asks questions that hurt, deep down ! I believe it is a path we all should travel.
She’s awesome and calls it like she sees it.
Fundamentally and extensively linked, balanced, AND unified electromagnetism/energy AND gravity:
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. "Mass"/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. A photon may be placed at the center of the sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of space is balanced with (or offset by) the speed of light.
Half of the galaxies are "dead" or inert due to motion and no motion in balance, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy.
Any "curvature" of space necessarily involves what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is electromagnetism/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Superb. The earth/ground AND the semi-spherical blue sky are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Indeed, consider the appearance of the earth from outer "space"; as half of the earth does remain constantly illuminated. Touch AND feeling blend, as gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Now, the moon appears with the same curvature of space when compared with the earth/ground as well (given a clear horizon, that is). The earth AND the moon are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. The high tide is thereby successfully correlated with/to what is the blue moon. Great. Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand. Indeed, lunar rocks are practically identical to earth rocks; as the earth and the moon are fundamentally (or basically) understood as constituting what is the same body.
Most importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, the rotation of the moon matches its orbit; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Moreover, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is then consistent with F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Great !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity in accordance with F=ma AND E=mc2 as what is/involves possible/potential AND actual in balance. Inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this balances AND unifies electromagnetism/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity.) Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. This also explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Now, the orange, setting, AND flat sun is understood as an electromagnetic/gravitational manifestation that is then consistent with/as lava. Outstanding !! Falling cannon balls form spheres, AND objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course); as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It all makes perfect sense. The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground also involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It is now perfectly, consistently, and extensively clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity. In fact, it is impossible to understand gravity apart from both ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Absolutely magnificent !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
She is lying about physics.
@@frankdimeglio8216 You think she’s lying. You can’t read her mind. She could merely be wrong. Then again, she may be right.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sabine Hossenfelder is the best 'explainer' and educator of physics since the great Feynman passed away. She is always absorbing and illuminating.
the skywalker (ben) crew: to explore, space, vigilance
"You are accepting changes in time and space with remarkable courage."
"You can be a real precursor with all the bravery for something new." & so forth
I wouldnt quite compare her in that respect to feynmann
I would say it's Walter Lewin but i see where ur coming from. :D
Have you read what she believes? She is a quack when it comes to Quantum. She believes I superdeterminism conspiracy theories
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. By the way, I thought there would be some mention of Sabine's RUclips channel.
Her channel is awesome.
Both her channel and yours are amazing. Thank you so much!
If you regard beauty in terms of simplicity, any function has a smallest solution. In that sence beauty is not free ( ref. to. Colmogorov)
closer to truth is professional and does not advertise other youtube channels.
I dont see that chasing beauty has become more important than the true. She is to harsh...
This issue of truth and beauty in physics has been used by some to imply the existence of God. For non-physicists this was annoying because the argument was very vague but difficult to pin down by those of us who are not in this field. Sabine's line of reasoning is refreshing and it is hoped that she continues to express herself and to develop her thinking further.
Yes, the problem might be that some people, when confronted with these problems, are looking for a *meaning* behind it, while following the scientific process it would be better to look for an *answer*.
Instead of asking "why is this equation so simple/beautiful", the question would be "well this is the world we live in, what is the underlying pattern to all of this?"
Meaning, beauty, mystique, these all are subjective, and any one of us could see any of these qualities in anything. This is why one thing that is meaningful for one, is not for the other, and thus wouldn't be an *explanation* for the phenomenon. The answer that predicts the pattern is.
@@sassort I think physicists are generally in search of that underlying pattern, but there’s also an aesthetic sensibility that informs their math choices. It’s not just an idealistic principle though. As the math becomes more complex, it’s application becomes less intuitive, and an adequate description of nature’s phenomena rapidly exceeds the boundaries of what the human mind can compute. I think a better way to understand it is that math constitutes the patterns of thought that can be brought into contact with those of nature. In that sense, mathematical descriptions might not really be an access point for objective truth claims about the actual elements of nature, so much as the supple dynamics of thought, which can be more closely “in resonance with” the actual forms in nature. It’s a bit of a reframe about the meaning of “being objective.” Insofar as we can interface with the deep elements of nature, our intuition filters the experience data (which I intend to expand to include data collected from whatever experimental apparatus is relevant) we gather through math models. Insufficient models don’t generate the most accurate rendering, but the complexity of the models only expands to the extent that they are still thinkable. True propositions that no one can think are useless until they become thinkable.
I tend to think that science and mathematics are useful tools to describe natural phenomena but are not necessarily properties of it. Not unlike the argument about whether numbers have objective existence.
How beautiful would it be if society as a whole had this level of conversations on TV
It would, but I would be afraid that most humans don't have the brains to even grasp what would be said then.
@@teaser6089 The very same persons would find it horrible if everyone would have conversations like that. Like "this topic is the most boring ever"
@@DundG My point exactly, most people are just too dumb to enjoy interesting conversation.
@@teaser6089 Actually my point was that "interesting" depends on what your brain feels comfortable to figure out. The majority is just happy with their content.
Of course it would be beautiful for us to have more people on our intelligence level. But I guess people more intelligent than you and I would be happier if there are more people on their level as there are even less of them and even we are to dumb.
Well I'm just happy that we have a place to talk to people that actually understand us. That is nice enough ^^
@@DundG True, Cheers!
Sabine not pulling any punches, here!
It's great that we can use mathematics to explain some of the fundamental behaviors of the cosmos but, to assume that human ideas of beauty are objective is the water puddle assuming that the pot hole was made just for it.
H2G2! Wow!
It's important to note, I think, that she's not saying that some fundamental mathematical truth can't or shan't be beautiful. Rather, she's making the more pragmatic argument that beauty should neither be a motivation for nor an argument for justifying something that should otherwise be justified by more scientific means, e.g. reproducible evidence. I feel the speaker is arguing from a philosophical sense, while she's simply talking science. I.e. one of them seems more grounded.
@4:26 We all enter a time loop. It’s brief but impactful. I, for instance, was set free of mistakes I would’ve made during that loop.
I rediscovered this in the book called Reality+
Physics can be fully expressed using mathematico-logical notation without the need for verbal language.
Computers operate on rules and bits, while physics operates on cause and effect with observation; they can substitute for each other in specific contexts.
Talking about simplicity, I am a simple man. I see Sabine Hossenfelder, I upvote.
This is an excellent way to learn more about Sabine Hossenfelder. She explains that her
method of research is total immersion for 3 days and 2 nights, which was reassuring for me
since I have always worked that way. She mentioned Justin Khoury at the University
of Pennsylvania as a early source of inspiration on superfluid dark matter and I would
like to hear more about that.
The idea of "beauty" isn't as arbitrary as some commenters suggest. It has to do with conserved quantities, invariants, and patterns in the mathematical language used in physics. It's not at all obvious that many physical phenomena behave in such predictable manners, yet they do.
It's out of my depth to judge whether "beauty" should be a foremost concern when beginning an investigation. Paul Dirac was quoted in saying "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data." and nearly all my physics professors had used "beautiful" to describe one equation or other in lectures. There are countless others who avoid the word altogether.
I suspect in fields that cannot be experimentally verified in the foreseeable future, "beauty" is all too enticing a motivator because all the pieces just seems to fit so naturally, especially when you don't have much useful experimental data to go on.
(I should also mention that I don't think "beauty" is the right word. The right word should describe the feeling one gets when one is able to articulate the behavior of a system and its boundary cases in sufficiently concise language, but no more concise than necessary.)
Yes, we can become infatuated with beauty, even in the rarified sense of physicists, but we should never lose sight that it is real, as real as you and I are right now. Avoid certain tendencies toward mysticism, and you realize that beauty basically just means ease of comprehensibility. That which fits well within what we observe, and thus what we comprehend, is beautiful. Comprehensibility is to be expected because we are ultimately a part of what we observe. Nevertheless, one should not count on comprehensibiity absolutely given that our own existence, though undeniable, is puny, even to the point of often being negligible. And so it is with beauty. It is as real as our own existence, and thus it tends to work, even to a degree that is surprising, but not always.
The concept of beauty is quite complex. It links symmetry, patterns and emotions all together. It's a very "human" concept. What we perceive as beautiful is subjective to human perception because our brains grew/evolved with these concepts. Like Sabine said, maybe there is something "more" to beauty, but it should not dictate how we do science right now. We need boundaries, binarity and straight rules in order to live in a society and maintain peace, but in science, we need chaos, spectrum, complexity and loose concept in order to grasp it all.
I think that beauty is just luck. Sometime life is beautiful, sometime it's not... But we grow from the ugliest part of our lives.
Ok im too high right now.
Newtonian Physics is simpler than General Relativity. I thought that made it clear that the truth is not so simple as has been once assumed. So the natural conclusion from that is that it should be it getting more complex, not more simple.
It is simpler yes, but it explains a lot less. At present, no theory simpler than GR has been concived which is able to explain the same amount of observations with the same precision as GR.
@@lowlize Yes and my point is that if it explains more, then it most probably also is more complex.
@@thorium222 Yes, but my point is that GR is the simplest it can be. There are all sorts of theories able to explain observations, but GR is the simplest.
Simplicity does matters for one reason. If the theory is so complex that it cannot be used to make predictions or reasoned about, that is a problem.
You know, I'm really happy to have found this video. I never felt like beauty was a pre-req for something to be right. Epicycles were beautiful, too. And how well can we judge what is "simple?" We can be leaning against something quite simple and have no idea of the complexity that can be on the other side of it. From the outside, many complex things look simple.
Sabine is a star! 😍😍😍
Hold my lemma. I got this.
Beauty is not a measure. It is a fashion.
🎯
Sabine is wonderful and is fast becoming a star - no pun intended - in Physics and for good reason ; she’s introspective and clear in her thoughts and a fresh voice .
It is not the case that physicists favor simple theories out of some kind of aesthetic consideration. They strive for simple explanations because they have a much greater chance of making progress with simple models since one can evaluate many more simple models in the same time that a more complex structure can be grappled with. And since we have experienced success with several simple theories, it is quite plausible that we will have success with other simple theories. We can get to the complex theories at some later time...
was looking for a comment like this, i very much agree.
sure, the sheer sex appeal of an elegant theory has gravitas in its own right. think it a Halo Effect of ideas: in the same way we presume beautiful people virtuous, we presume beautiful ideas True.
but elegance has long had utility as well: through more concise symbolic representation of information (which this sentence is a dogshit doodoo diaper example of), we have greater density of knowledge per cognitive resource. memory, prolonged focus, intelligence: these are historically limited. finding systems of expression that allow these more mileage while maintaining accuracy has been a grand endeavor.
now that these cognitive resources are less limited than ever (through the assistance of various technologies) I wonder if our ideas will begin to trend towards less compact, if that would allow them more Truth.
what do you think?
"Physicists are using their very narrow-minded notion of beauty that they try to impose on the the laws of nature."
This observation by Sabine Hossenfelder reminds me of a story, possibly apocryphal, involved with the 'debate' between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr on the meaning of the "Copenhagen Interpretation." Supposedly, Einstein wrote to Bohr "God does not play dice with the universe." Supposedly, Bohr wrote back, "Albert, stop telling God how to run his universe."
Fundamentally and extensively linked, balanced, AND unified electromagnetism/energy AND gravity:
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. "Mass"/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. A photon may be placed at the center of the sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of space is balanced with (or offset by) the speed of light.
Half of the galaxies are "dead" or inert due to motion and no motion in balance, as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Therefore, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy.
Any "curvature" of space necessarily involves what is balanced electromagnetic/gravitational force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is electromagnetism/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Superb. The earth/ground AND the semi-spherical blue sky are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Indeed, consider the appearance of the earth from outer "space"; as half of the earth does remain constantly illuminated. Touch AND feeling blend, as gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Now, the moon appears with the same curvature of space when compared with the earth/ground as well (given a clear horizon, that is). The earth AND the moon are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. The high tide is thereby successfully correlated with/to what is the blue moon. Great. Importantly, balance and completeness go hand in hand. Indeed, lunar rocks are practically identical to earth rocks; as the earth and the moon are fundamentally (or basically) understood as constituting what is the same body.
Most importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.
ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, the rotation of the moon matches its orbit; as gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Moreover, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is then consistent with F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Great !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity in accordance with F=ma AND E=mc2 as what is/involves possible/potential AND actual in balance. Inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this balances AND unifies electromagnetism/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity.) Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND balanced; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. This also explains the cosmological redshift AND the "black holes". Now, the orange, setting, AND flat sun is understood as an electromagnetic/gravitational manifestation that is then consistent with/as lava. Outstanding !! Falling cannon balls form spheres, AND objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course); as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It all makes perfect sense. The falling man feels no gravity, as the feeling of gravity by the man who is standing on the earth/ground also involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. So, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. It is now perfectly, consistently, and extensively clear that Einstein never nearly understood gravity. In fact, it is impossible to understand gravity apart from both ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Absolutely magnificent !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
Excellent discussion by Sabine.
I'm a fan of Sabine Hossenfelder and her work. Thank you CTT.
I would ask Sabine Hossenfelder the same question I ask all women and because she is highly intellectual and able to say things as they are I have the expectation that at least she understands "it".
Beautiful locale. I'd very much like to see a debate between Sabine and Leonard Susskind over the holographic universe.
Numbers and mathematics look to have a reality in themselves. We discover mathematics as well as physical reality. Somehow numbers and math contibute to physical reality.
The truth and beauty of math that the average mind does not understand and therefore appreciate, but instead fears and subsequently hates. Just ask them. On a personal note as a grad student (long ago) the "toughest" math course I faced was Topics in Mathematical Physics. Though it really wasn't tough as it was strange (taught by one of the early proponents of string theory - in fact, to give a hint he was the first to ponder the 26th dimension).
Standard model "Messy", it does a pretty good job and much better than the alternatives.
The constantly moving camera is distracting.. why not just have it fixed?
because the camera man wants to be artsy and ended up annoying
I find it good
I so agree. Calls attention to itself. I just want to focus on what's being said.
"Fixed" would be too simple.
It's fine
An interesting discussion for ones beliefs coloring one's conclusions about reality.
Not quite. Your beliefs may color your hypotheses to be tested against reality, not the conclusions you'll eventually arrive to. This, if by "conclusions" you mean empirical assertions of course.
@@rv706 No I meant it as I said it.
@@cliffp.8396 Well, then I will have to ask you: what do you mean by "conclusions about reality"?
Cause the empirical aspect of reality doesn't change color according to anybody's beliefs. That's a little bit the point of science ;)
Light is orderd by colors that never chage their place so does matter in our universe just look at the rainbow and see they are always in their place.
Marcello Gleiser makes same point in Tear at the Edge of Creation- that imagining that ultimate truths must be symmetrical, when so much that we find, including life, is asymmetric. Clearly there are many tensions that govern the intuitions of scientists. It's odd that the answer will turn out to be 42.
The #42 is all over in cosmology as well DNA and makes good numbers casually in the METRIC side is best acurate:
42/300000 everage yellow belt light speed = 7142.8571/314160(the PI 100000 times)= 43.9824/3.1416 = 14 and 14 is as well very common every where.
43.9824/17126.594(this is what you get if you add the 118 places in the periodic table mass)= 389.39653/77.86( this is the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc all added)= 5.0012397.
7.23/ 43.9824 = 6.0833195.
89.28 is what you get from 351.86/31416(the PI 10000 times).
351.86 M/S2 is the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc pluss the sun that is 274M/S2.
89.28/7142.8571 = 80.005119.
I decoded a Mayan Callender and out of it came the Sernas Hologram that is made out of 6 Callenders, it works in 3 faces that when you add them you get 31416, thats right the PI 10000 times:
10920 IS HIGH FACE that comes by adding all the numbers(1560 places all with a number) of the Hologram.
10416 IS MEDLE FACE comes out by adding all the Holograms numbers but not BLACK( the Hologram conteins 8 colors).
10080 comes out by not counting BLACK and WHITE).
42/10920 = 260 that comes to be the places of a Callender.
260/300000 = 1153.8461/3.1416 = 367.27976/1.618(golden number)= 226.99614/17126.594 (periodic table mass) = 75.448833/3.1416 = 24.01605 that is not far from the 24 that are the ours of the very center yellow stars and just is grate doing grate numbers:
24/17126.594 = 713.60809/89.28(from 351.86/31416) = 7.992922.
24/10920 = 455.
24/10416 = 434.
24/10080 =420.
24/31416 = 1309.
24/300000 = 12500.
42/10416 = 248.
42/17126.594 = 407.77604/300000 = 735.69795/16180(10000 times the golden number) = 21.992721. this number is not far from 22 hearth years that is a complite suns cicle based in the suns black spots that is 11 years to the inside and 11 to the out side make a complite cicle.
22 X 365.25 = 3085.5/10920000(all numbers may go up or down it depends in the level)= 1358.9695/3.1416 = 432.57241/144 = 3.003975.
432.57241 is not far of our suns Hertz that is 432.
42/3085.5 = 73.464285 it is the angle that is in our ears and helps to make balance in our body.
73.464285/17126.594 = 233.12816/1.618 = 144.08415 near 144 that is a number from the serie PHI.
233.12816/1618O = 69.403884/3.1416 = 22.09189.
233.12816/100800(LOW FACE TIMES 10 = 432.38019.
22/10920 = 496.36363/3.1416 = 157.99708/17126.594 = 108.39816/1.618 = 66.995154.
77.86(the gravity of the 8 planets in the disc)/157.99708 = 2.0292458.
22/31416 = 1428/300000 = 210.08403.
1428/17126.594 = 11.993413.
22/17126.594 = 778.48154/77.86 = 9.9984785.
22/16180 = 735.45454/3141600 = 4271.644/3.1416 = 1359.7033/3.1416 = 432.80599/144 = 3.005897.
1359. 7033/171265.94 = 125.95831/1.618 = 77.848152 - 77.86 = 0.011848.
Numbers like this ones are all over and they are not cherry picked nither are heavy math they are easy like sunday mornigs.
An excellent contribution by her. Set next to Uhlenbeck's answer to this question this shows both the messiness of the process and it widens the lens: a call to arms to employ more arcane (less pretty) methods probably more pragmatically - something that might shake out in the field of computational proofs or AI starting to do its own proofs.
Mathematics is not Truth... it is just Description. It is an objective way of describing perceptions quantitatively.
Now define what 'truth' means.
@@User-jr7vf Imposition.
If you think of Euclidean space, for instance, there are things that must be true in it regardless of our physical reality, such as the notion that the distance from a point A to a point B cannot be negative and that the distance from A = (a_1,a_2) to B = (b_1,b_2) is sqrt([b_1 - a_1]^2+[b_2 - a_2]^2), that is, the Pythagorean theorem always holds in Euclidean space. I think that reflects a sense of truth. People may say that things like the square root operation is man-made, however, I would argue that while the symbols are arbitrary and the mechanics of taking the square root is man-made, the concept of a square root is fundamentally true in the sense that it reflects a specific abstract pattern. Anybody who performed the operation of, for example, sqrt(1) would yield the same answer, independent of what symbols are used.
@@metakatana but that's what I was trying to hint at the OP. That Pythagoras theorem works in Euclian space is a consequence of our conventions of what an Euclian space is, what the Pythagoras theorem is about and how we define distances, also what a distance is, what points in a space are... and so on. There's no absolute truth, but truth within a given context once we have previously set out and agreed on the conventions relevant to the case under consideration.
@@metakatana and by the way, negative distances are perfectly fine and often used when solving physics problems.
I have a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest operators of quantum energy - spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large number; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half folded into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere..
Great interview.
The absolute horrific beauty of it is simply sublime to the one who sees the big picture.
That picture like the tapestries of our interconnected digital domains of everything we wish see as beauty and simplicity are so far removed from the frank reality in which we live.
To mix these two prospectives and then pour them into a third just too make the sum total of the algorithm or logic bomb appear to the one who sees the big picture as being a true master piece of the mind. The trick is to convince others of what is being viewed is that simple and beauty in this world are a subjective reality only to be questioned and quantifiable to self.
Physicist and mathematicians who insist on this argument, to compare them to a subfield of math, are like Euclidian Geometry trying to fit nature to perfect geometric shapes. Sabine is among others who belong to Fractal Geometry which provide a closer description of reality. If anything, this development in math should be a reminder that we may try to zoom closer on things and be surprissed that things don't become simpler but even more complex.
Sabine nailed that! Well played! 👍👍👍👍
Paul Gross - sorry I must have missed that, what did she nail?
I agree, she's right to be suspicious of trends - especially those which have only produced more trends. Not just in theoretical physics.
I'd give my right arm to see Sabine debating with Stephen Wolfram
Simple solutions occur when economic aspects play a role. A naturalustic permutation would rather likely lead to easy laws at first. As an analogy, searching for pythagorian triangles would first lead to (3,4,5) and not to larger ones. And perhaps there are mathematical restrictions for a smallest symmetric universe. So Beauty makes economically sence, but best mathematical solutions are often pretty ugly as well.
Are we mistaking what beauty and symmetry is... beauty-.how do we define beauty? And there can be beauty in chaos and symmetry is what? Is there a positive for every negative? Why do humans gravitate to the complex? Simplicity does not imply without complexities... a Swiss clock is simple in concept but complex and simple in it's construction... is the passion for discovery not a beautiful thing to behold? Seems very important not to come into any endeavor with preconceptions... be it a thing or process can or cannot be a certain way. Talking in circles now, but my main question is does how we view the world and existence affect our forward progression? Obviously, but every time humans draw a line in the sand on an issue awhile or a generation later we learn better... Sabine herself said physics has been stuck for 40 years... is every computer processing leap just a refinement of what's there or a true leap in technology.... do we need different ways of thinking about a lot of things to better our imperfect understandings of so, so many things?
The abuse of the word truth is problematic when non-mathematicians and even expert physicists extend it to maths. In maths the word TRUE has a specific meaning which is defined. TRUE in maths means a statement is consistent with the chosen axioms of our mathematical system (ZFC). In other words the statement does not lead to any contradictions with the ZFC axioms. Thus TRUE in maths is a technicality that has little relationship to 'Truth' in layman's speech. Some physicists who should know better have played word games with this which are completely misleading to the public. TRUE in physics, or in any other natural science is not at all the same as TRUE in maths. One is empirically determined, the other is logically determined. In fact in science there is no absolute truth, just the survival of a theory when tested by experiment. All theories may well be replaced by superior theories as knowledge advances.
Cool!
Yes exactly which should not confine ourselves to unjust beliefs if it is not backed up by good reasoning, as what seems to be the evident empirically, the evidence of it can be overturned upon more scientific inquiry or could be subject to revision and alterations, there is bound to be more underlying contingencies which is undiscovered owing to our finite discernability. Epistemic limitations for our ontology exists therefore statistical independence and the stupidity of indeterminacy comes in, which is can be overturned by more investigation.
I think in this she answers the previous videos question in a better way.
Is there a loop in the edit, or do I have a short-term memory problem.
The concept of beauty is quite complex. It links symmetry, patterns and emotions all together. It's a very "human" concept. What we perceive as beautiful is subjective to human perception because our brains grew/evolved with these concepts. Like Sabine said, I really wish that there was something more to beauty, but it should not dictate how we do science. We need boundaries, binarity and straight rules in order to live in a society and maintain peace together, but in science, we need chaos, spectrum, complexity and loose concept in order to grasp it all.
I think that beauty is just luck. Sometime life is beautiful, sometime it's not... But we grow from the ugliest part of our lives.
Ok im too high right now.
Good!
wow deep
People assume math to explain things bcuz brain lack of capabilities, she is Honest 👍now we have computer to model and show a lot varieties/inaccuracy
Beauty is subjective. It's of no help in finding what's objective to be biased & have preconceptions toward beauty
CAN WE TALK ABOUT --- how on point Sabine's normcore fashion is?
Human sense of beauty must be looked from an evolution perspective . Our ancients would be attracted to the things that would increase their hypothesis of survival and therefore they would be considered good , witch is another way to say beautiful . Maybe our aesthetic sense needs to get more developed in order for us to be capable to go beyond our current limitations?
This mathematician and I were talking about NET ZERO in energy and he said it is a bunch of "FUZZY MATH".
There may not be a a god in that sense but there has to be a place where the source of energy powering this reality is coming from. Nothing moves on its own.
Sabine is correct in her assessment but there is a problem pertaining to human motivation. When you don't believe in the essential simplicity of the laws of nature, you struggle to find a methodology by which to pursue research, since the specter of chaos is always looming over your head. Researchers try to find connections between phenomena which previously were not known. Beauty in theory is a driving force. It may occasionally lead to a dead end, which is the problem.
Beauty should not be the driving force in science, accurate description should be.
I question the claim that the mathematics underlying general relativity or quantum mechanics or even electromagnetism is “simple”. Yes, terse equations can be written to describe them, but these equations are terse because very smart people put a lot of work into developing mathematical abstractions that allow them to be expressed that way. But the full meaning of these abstractions is not simple. Anyone wanting to deeply understand these physical theories understands this. It takes a tremendous amount of math education even to be able to study physics beyond an elementary level.
When Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, he simultaneously developed a new field of mathematics so that those equations could be expressed simply. It would not have hindered the predictive ability of GR not to develop that mathematics. And if he hadn’t developed that mathematics, maybe the interviewer wouldn’t be mislead into thinking the mathematics for GR is simple.
Why do we use math to try to figure things out? Is that how we started researching to get answers. 🤔What if the universe can't be described in a math form?Does this lead to finding dead ends and wasted time?I'm just saying what if we're thinking about it from what we know as humans so far of course .But what if it's explanation is not a math problem? I'm just wondering I know I'm a rookie at understanding things but it's just a question I've been wanting to ask
There is definitely one unified force..... 🙏
Does the search for simplicity, truth and beauty have to do with causality and getting back to a first cause?
I think this beauty or simplicity principle is the legacy from the similar 18 century belief that nature should be "orderer", mathematical (ie kepler, Newton) because was the language and the prove of the hand of God in nature.
Why this obsession of many physicists about having "few parameters"? What's the problem with "fine tuning"?
Imagine somebody invents a theory that has a lot of parameters that can be effectively determined by experiments and such a theory perfectly reproduces the existing successful theories (e.g. general relativity and QFT) in the old regimes, plus it makes a lot of interesting new predictions about other, soon technologically accessible, experimental regimes. What on earth would you have a priori against such a hypothetical theory?
@Breadstick Shrimpfry Care to explain in a less mysterious way? :)
I would love to hear what she has to say about Wolfram's proposal to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.
That's easy and Einstein came so close. Quantum can never be used as an absolute truth. It is like a squared circle or pi it can only bring you close but never all the way there. It is an approximation and even that if you ever have attempted to square a circle is a truth that moves the subconcience to a whole new location from which to view reality from.and that's where Einstein missed it
Reality is only relative to the view point of the observer. No two people share the same version of reality.
Nature, the spiraling sunflower seed pattern produces math, the Fibonacci sequence either/or math just describes the spiral found in the seed pattern.
Nothing to do with mathematics but as an aside. On RUclips. Carey Holzman Live-Building a Computer for Home and Office 8/28/19 at 5.30 discusses the filming of Shawn Mendez and Camila Cabello 2019 Live VMA Awards. It was filmed with one camera and the way Carey describes it is mind-blowing. Maybe the technique could be copied.
Who is the invited speaker? It's not mentioned in the blurb or in the video.
Not want to oversimplify think was word looked for.
If Sabine Hossenfelder wants to make a bigger impact on this problem she needs to demonstrate an alternative more productive approach. It is not clear that the work she does on gravity differs in its approach to the work other theoretical physicists are doing. If she could lead by example this would achieve more.
I believe she is currently working on DarkMatter as a superfluid.
She is right, not all theorems are beautiful, some are just downright ghastly.
ValhalaFiveSix losing faith in religion wasn’t a beautiful experience, it was necessary
Wow they have everyone on here
Neither a god or a randomly created universe owe us anything simple and explainable.
Two beautiful people.
The problem is that theoretical physicists now have to create ideas to explain phenomena which are so far from human experience and intuition where can they even start? One solution to this problem is to look for mathematical elegance as a substitute for intuition.
That's interesting. makes me ask myself the question, "Why is it that people seem to naturally believe (perhaps originally subconsciously, as I did) that the answer ought to be simple when we finally find 'it'"? if that turns out to be true, what would that mean about reality?
By nature science looks for a simple model and not a book full of special cases. It's the kind of answers we are looking for.
@@2adamast Yes, because if we had a lot of special cases, that would mean we have not found the simple fundamental principle encompassing all the cases.
Exactly. When nature starts building complex biochemical molecules and cells the precise mathematics is not found. Instead they deal in statistical measurements and non-mathematical ideas
Isn’t CTT subjective and perhaps ill conceived in a similar vain? Isn’t this exploration of few hundred episodes likely to conclude with a whimper rather than a bang?
Trying the create a theory of everything is and was a pretentious idea to prove something(beside the 3-4 forces in nature) . However we don't know if it came from a mathematician or a physicist perspective considering string interactions. Building a theory from our level of knowledge and with our mathematical instruments ,mostly will not bring the beauty as we know. Maybe the nature's reality beauty is different from ours and does not relay only on symmetry and conservation as we know, but rather of another kind of symmetry and conservation that we don't have yet the capacity to grasp .
we do but is missoriented.
The conciseness of theory is only required because of our inability to comprehend, and teach, 'complicated' theories.
If nobody understands the theory because of cognitive limits, then it's not a useful theory. Sort of Catch 22.
Mathematics is conceptual and not Reality. Bertrand Russell exposed the difference in his Principia Mathematica in 1903. Ajit Bir.
The world of mathmatics for sure is large but all is about the same even nothing is the same.
Sabine is someone I'd love to have dinner with. I'd mostly listen...
Correct is correct. Simplicity , elegance, beauty ? Get real
But there is a reasonable case for simplicity (which is for most mathematicians beauty).
With Ockham's razor a theory with less assumptions is preferred if it predicts the same.
@Nelson Giles
Of course they are.
General relativity uses the assumption that the speed of light is constant.
Every theory in mathematics has axioms which are assumptions.
It works like this:
Assuming 1+1=2, then it follows 1+2=3.
The less assumptions the more powerful the theory.
@Nelson Giles
They are not irrefutable as they are assumed to be true a priori.
For example you could make a theory without the assumption (axiom) of constant light speed. The mathematics would get more complicated but technically you can predict the same behavior. But since the motion of planets/stars/galaxies is easier(!!!) to understand within a mathematical context that demands a constant speed of light, it is to be preferred.
Without assumptions you're not able to construct a model. So the task is to make an educated guess which assumptions you want to use.
@Nelson Giles
Ockham's razor applies to theories of physics.
All physical theories must be in the form of mathematics.
Ockham's razor applies to mathematical theories of physics.
What's your knowledge background?
No you derive your equations via the axioms.
Often the axioms even are the equations eg Newton's laws.
Newton assumed a flat spacetime in euclidean space for his laws to be true (even though he probably did not know this).
Because we are not in euclidean space Newton's laws are wrong.
OR means don't add a layer of explanation you don't need -- not a comment on what you are going to need. Nature may be complicated and the theory may be complicated but still obey Ockham.
I agree , I've opened up to mathematic theory it's a game changer
Her book Existential Physics is way smarter than what many that the rock and roll stars of physics have written. Why the hell would nature give a damn about mathematical beauty. Maybe at heart it's an ugly chaotic mess that has some neat layers of elegance at the surfaces that we've scratched. Maybe it's a quasi religious hope - that people want to find something beautiful behind all this.
5.
If you reject the “beauty of math,” then you must reject Occam’s razor. They’re both philosophical statements with no proof.
But what if beauty and truth *is* the way reality is created? What if those assumptions come from an actual place of perfection (where beauty and truth are not only real, but primary; not just 'ideals' we make up)?
But what if it's not the way reality is created. What if reality wasn't created?
The thing to do with "what if" statements is to make them precise enough they can be tested.
@@myothersoul1953 What if 'created' doesn't mean built with sticks, stones, quarks and forces... but 'created' in the manner in which dreams are 'created' ('they think, therefore they are')? Of course, you cannot 'test yourself'. That is why we leave ourselves COMPLETELY out of the equation (either we *are* the equation or we simply do not exist). ☯️
@@myothersoul1953 : "The thing to do with "what if" statements is to make them precise enough"
I do not understand how a question (e.g.: 'What if...?') can be made 'more precise'. Isn't increased precision the objective when asking questions?
@@TheSimonScowl Why can't we test ourselves?
Dreams, however they happen occur in stuff that is very much composed of quarks and forces or whatever the stuff of the world is made of.
@@TheSimonScowl Yes, increased precision should be the goal when asking such questions. How can than be done? By defining the terms you are using clearly and precisely enough that they can be operationalized and measured. That often has the nice side effect of making the question answerable.
Maths is nothing more than a tool that humans developed or invented - the real Truth is our Universe, it is everything that we learn & know within our capabilities
4:17 and 4:35 :)
I saw another clip of this interview in which a similar repetition happened 🤔
Sabine Hossenpepper
Perhaps she will drive us again towards continue being a forum......not a choir.
3:34 I suddenly feel the urge...
to stop.
to retry to understand...
what the heck he thinks he's talking about.
Ufffffff. It's hard for me as a not native speaker of the english language to follow the logical loops he's used to use.
For me this induces an uncomfortable feeling...
"Does this man try to trick my mind?*... a kinda thing (8)" or
"Does he try to perform an intrinsic proof?*"
Well, let me see...
4:34 Wow! (8) It did the trick.
Sabine tried to adapt to the complexity of the language which he has induced to her mind...
& i think it's due to her unfamiliarity to hear her own ideas in this strange form...
that they become fuzzy. ( I usually know her as a brilliant thinker & speaker...
but I also know that the style she's used to use is different... somehow more simple )
...
& after his confirmation... ( "Hm Hmmm!" )
she's back in her own ways of expressing her thoughts...
& way better to understand... @least 4 me (8)
5:23 which he also recognises & positively supports. (8) °[ Nice session! Somehow... Jazzy. ♫ ]
7:50 Nice!!! She's resonating her now context confirmed self-esteem... & puts it into the flow. Great music! ( | )
...
PS: (8) °[ I hope you do not feel uncomfortable by my point of view...
but this is a clip about exactly what I was writing in this comment, I think:
The analysis of analytical thinking and its progress...
wishful thinking versus thinking about a wish...
hmmmmmmmm, more or less... i think...
a metaphysical approach towards physical thinkability. ]
[•¡•]
7.
The motion of celestial bodies as conic sections has a lot to do with the “aesthetic argument.”
They were an adequate approximation at the time because they were much better than circular orbits with epicycles. And also much easier mathematics. It was an intermediary step to more closer approximations, but you have to start somewhere.
Daamn right
I think the "beauty" physicists refer to is just a euphoric reaction to finally understanding complicated physics. As a mathematical theory, physics is actually quite ugly.
J M spot on.
Gotta sweep those infinities under the rug as they keep appearing!
Not exactly. Elegant physical theories represent reality with high fidelity and have a limited number of terms and operators.
Math works well if the frame is right I dont think space is flat, see the rainbow no matter where or what causes it it always appears in the same order in space, light follows atomic weight why not light? - The Standard models of cosmology and the particle one both are missing gravity, how a cuadrupedo would balance or walk right in 3 legs? - GR is based in gravity and still they cant explaine what gravity is. it looks clear to me that gravity is light refraction from all systems at different levels(densityes) our yellow belt stars laws just dont make it out of it, as soon you see out of the yellow belt stars Einstein, Hubble and Newton just dont fit because we got to a different density; there must to be 7 densities or levels same as light cause for each color there is an element or elements.
Geometry can be used in both mathematics and in a spiritual context.
Have you ever explored squaring a circle?
We must study nuclear force and its math only for the purpose of meeting the needs of society today. Environment friendly energy.
the idea of trying to keep things as simple as possible is a good idea. but nature has the last word.
The spectre of history looms in the shadows.
GK... The hectare of spistory shooms in the ladows... The lector of shistory spooms in the hadows...