Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
109
-
Great, informative video. I love your genuine open mindedness, your capacity to separate what is, “science,” from other provinces, such as, “politics,” and your unflustered way of dealing with reality; “The facts, ma’am. Just the facts.” Awesome. And, sadly, rather unique. Popular science dissemination needs more people like you, Sabine.
68
-
31
-
31
-
23
-
23
-
19
-
19
-
14
-
She’s wrong. Not about Dirac, or the incorrect assumptions that some scientists have made. Nor is she wrong (necessarily) about the vast sums we spend on colliders and how it might better be used. I’m not qualified to quantify that last. But, to argue that there is no value in trying to understand why anti-matter did not annihilate the entire universe at its inception is just wrong headed. She’s trying to invalidate the science by invalidating the question, which is a personality thing, not a scientific approach. Even she admits it would be great to know the answer. We don’t have to call it a, “problem,” but surely it’s a sensible question? She makes an assumption of her own; that there simply wasn’t an equal amount of anti-matter, but she cannot know that, simply by inferring it from our existence? The discovery of anti-matter stars would make a nonsense of that assumption for a start. There could have been a condition that kept anti-matter apart from baryonic matter, which would in turn, tell us incredibly important things about physics and the universe? To say the question has no value is no different to saying any question in physics has no value, despite her knowledge that many of the greatest, most important discoveries that have tangibly changed our world, were made by scientists who were simply interrogating questions that interested them and could have had no way of knowing where their investigations would ultimately lead. Newton could never have known that he was contributing to GPS Satellite technology for instance.
It strikes me as a stubborn resistance to accelerators has been conflated with the basis of their use in her mind? She’d be more honest if she questioned their use alone, rather than the question itself. When she does that I see a slippery slight of hand at work, but she’s merely sawing at the branch she’s sitting on. Anyone can say, “It is what it is,” about any value. Indeed, many scientists have done so in history, and later come off as the fools for doing so. Edward Hoyle did the same thing when he coined the, “Big Bang Theory,” for work that he personally didn’t like, yet which proved to be perfectly true.
I wish scientists would stay out of their internal politics in these videos and just get on with the science? There’s a, “teachable moment,” in this for her too.
8
-
Sounds like an unhelpful way to live? She put her finger on it at the end, there. It’s not an argument about science, but one about philosophy. If anything, it’s a political debate about, ‘’Trust,” and refusing to rely upon authority figures. It’s easy to defeat a flat earther’s scientific argument, if they are in the same room as you, and you have access to the internet. But, they will discount everything you show them, based on their, “distrust,” of sources. Exploring WHY their distrust, and the incomprehensible, elaborate, and pointless lengths all governments would have to go to, to agree upon one single conspiracy theory, when they cannot agree on the price of bread, literally, will only tell you more about their emotional dysfunctions, intellectual shortcomings, or both. So, that’s why I hesitate to even lend flat earthers the flattery of acknowledging their philosophical position. Because you can still be hyper-skeptical about the world, without refuting demonstrable facts. Most of them know they’re just trolling anyway, which makes them emotionally damaged and intellectually challenged to start with. Others are exploiting people for money and attention. They represent the malign influence that has grown like a cancer over the planet, with the expansion of the World Wide Web. The rest deserve our pity. ✌️👍
8
-
Physics has one of the worst historical records for denial and holding back progress in science, but it isn’t talked about much. I would love to meet just one proponent of Inflation Theory who has taken the expansion of time into account, along with space, for instance? Tell them, “From a huge distance, space and baryonic matter looks tiny, so why shouldn’t time? Or don’t we believe in the direct connection between space and time, which is why we call it space-time since Einstein, anymore?” The best answer I’ve had so far is, “You just don’t get it.” But I can never persuade them to explain what I, “don’t get?”
Sooner or later, people will accept that Inflation never occurred at all, but only appears to have done so from our distant perspective, from the further away you are in time, just as space looks different, from the bigger the distance. It’s a set of category errors that actually reveals something interesting about how we grasp complex notions like Space-Time. It’s not intuitive, therefore it’s vulnerable to assumption and confirmation bias, because we can’t resist thinking about it in terms of our own, limited, experience.
In this case, complexity has taken such a deep hold on thinking about astrophysics that common sense is being left out of the equations.
What I’m certain of is that we need more scientists with the attitude of Sabine, who simply speaks without deference or emotion, but plainly and without fear of offence, though whilst being polite at the same time. She’s just interested in the facts, regardless of how people feel about them, or what the emotional investment is.
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@clicheguevara5282 : Awesome. I wasn’t kidding about being diagnosed with both Autistic Spectrum stuff and ADD, and I am often perceived as being, “over assertive,” (a logical impossibility if you understand the definitions of those words) with strangers, when I just think I’m being direct. I guess I say the quiet parts out loud too much?
The irony is, I was very successful as a psychotherapist and family therapist, taking the then Queen’s shilling, for preventing kids being taken into care, wherever possible, safe and in the interests of the child. But my history with friendships and relationships has always been rocky.
Your mum sounds great. I bet I’d get along with you guys rather well. Thanks for the comment. Made me smile, my friend.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@caribbeanman3379 : Flat Earthers are, “neither stupid nor anti-scientific,” but they are obtuse trolls, who love getting attention of any kind, even if it’s not positive attention. They exploit the paranoia of people who already don’t trust, “authority,” figures. The ones who are, “not faking it,” are no mystery either. In fact, she answered any queries as to their motivation in her very next utterance. The, “Money.” There’s an awful lot of it to be made, out of the gullible, the credulous, the distrustful and ultimately, the emotionally and psychologically damaged. Such people, who accept grants for the, “research,” and donations from around the world, are ruthless exploiters, or ignoramuses, not realising (or caring) about the harm they could do.
Or, to put it another way, Flat Earthers are, for various different reasons (not always their own fault) full of sh*t.
4
-
@johnjamesbaldridge867 : When you fall into the, “Well, other people agree with me,” trap, you’re already on shaky ground. As far as I know, (and I really HOPE I’m wrong about his?) Roger Penrose is the only physicist I know of who has (obliquely) asked a very common sense question about Inflation Theory (which should technically be called, “Inflation Hypothesis,” but that’s another can of worms) which is:
If space, “inflated,” in the blink of an eye, why didn’t time inflate with it? Why does Inflation Theory abandon Einstein’s fundamental hypotheses at the CRUCIAL moment? I genuinely believe that once you put E=MC2 back into the equation, you will get a result that makes perfect sense and explains that, “space,” did NOT just jump on its own! “Time,” as viewed from a vast distance, looks tiny in the same way that distant baryonic matter does!
Why should Space-Time cease to be a, “thing,” despite absolutely EVERY other observation we can make conforming to the basic rules of physics, wherever we look at any point in space and time? The reason that space has the same temperature (“homogeneity”) across the entire sky is that it all occurred at the same, “time,” but only appears to speed up, because we’re seeing it from a vast distance. You literally have to abandon E=MC2 for Guth’s hypothesis to make sense! And he offers absolutely zero account for WHY space decided to just expand at a rate that literally requires more energy than the universe posses! Not just a bit more, but logarithmic scales more energy than could possibly exist. Occam’s Razor applied to the problem; and you look for an explanation that accounts for what we SEE and for what IS right now, and we apply the KNOWN theory of how space AND time are INEXTRICABLY linked, making them ONE THING. Then it’s actually intuitive, makes more sense than inflation, and fits the evidence.
Space and time are expanding, which is basically, “what,” the universe is. The none-static properties of the universe are what give rise to ALL observed phenomena, and explain why we automatically miscalculate, “time,” and distance, failing to take time’s expansion into account along with that of space itself. But plug in time’s expansion and you have solvable equations that stay within the parameters of OBSERVATION.
I would so dearly love to sit down with those two guys over a coffee. Although, maybe Guth’s should be decaffeinated? 😉
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zed1stwizard : We’re probably on a similar, if not the same page? Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watch Maker, (though flawed, in my opinion) was a tour de force and an excellent read. I would recommend it to anyone for its sharp focus on the scientific process, and for the thinking about how and why we do science at all. It’s a great look at the philosophy of science, almost Baconian in its depth and scope. He put forward his arguments, made his case, and should have left it at that. But, rather like a child, he was unhappy when challenged, or refuted. And there’s nothing like a scientist who doesn’t want to own his own mistakes or oversights, who gets all, “defensive,” about his personal philosophy, and wants the world to accept his personal philosophy as the Paradigm we live in; no questions asked. Before we knew it, he’d built a large following, with cult like adoration, and he’d turned what could have been an interesting contribution to the philosophy of science and skepticism, into a LIFESTYLE choice. Now, we’re all either in his club, or suspect outsiders at best!
I joined a live chat on the web, for one of his book launches, over 10 years ago now. He got really mad at me and left the chat. Stating that he was leaving because he didn’t like my contributions. This left me surrounded by a bunch of disappointed fans, happy to, “blame,” me for his absence, and abusing me in Royal fashion. I had a ball, I must admit; staying calm throughout and focussing on those who were able to ask and answer questions.
But, here’s the funny bit. About 5 or 6 minutes after he’d left, he’d returned, stating that his agent had told him he was contractually obliged to see through the session. Yet, I think he’d assumed that, because he’d set his dogs on me, I would be gone. A strategy that he probably employed before? When he saw I was happily chattering away with people, (I must admit to being a little childish here) I wrote something to the effect, “Don’t feel bad, Richard (no one else was using his first name, nor had he suggested they should) I’ll accept your apology graciously now.” And, he up and left again. Immediately, without a word. You can imagine the reaction I got from the fan base then . . .
He’s a miserable tick, who’s ego seems to be most massaged, when he’s shattering children’s toys and stealing their sweeties, it seems to me. Proud, Bishop like and joyless.
I honestly came away from that experience somewhat disillusioned and unhappy, despite having a wail of a time, while it was happening. But, then I read Rupert Sheldrake’s book, The Science Delusion. I thought it was going to be a bunch of mystic mumbo jumbo, so I’d put off reading it, but it was a revelation to me. Not just because it was written by a highly respected scientist, with revolutionary science to his own credit, and a firm belief in the scientific method, either. But, because he includes a chapter about his dealing with Richard Dawkins. Once I saw the Dawkins I’d encountered, reflected precisely as I’d encountered him, I felt a lot better about myself and the way I had behaved. If you haven’t read that book, I urge you to. And, you’ll see how Dawkins is not above doctoring his own results and committing what amounts to all but fraud in my book, for a Channel 4 Documentary in the UK.
So, I have little to no respect for the man, much more for his abilities as a philosopher. As a scientist, I have considerably less respect for him now, because I’ve learned that he will blatantly misrepresent the views of others, and their science, which, to me, is no different from defrauding your scientific results . . . At least, morally speaking, and with respect to, “character.”
Sorry to go on so long, but I though you might be interested? ✌️
2
-
2
-
That’s a misunderstanding of what, “free will,” is. And a conflation of will power with free will. No, we cannot change climate outcomes by positive thinking. But, free will has no bearing on that. Consider your example, about what to eat, but then think of when someone denies themself a food, even though they really want it and have access to it, but know it will be bad for them. Choosing not to self harm despite the organic imperatives of the brain, reacting to generations of genetic programming, which telling you to eat sugar, salt and fats whether you need them or not, because of a scarcity that no longer exists, is a higher functioning thought of autonomous decision making, which overpowers instincts and is an act of free will. That exists and is essential to the meaning of life.
Your definition is something else and needs its own label. Simply because physics cannot comment on free will, doesn’t rule out its existence. Granted, that is no proof of its existence, but it is not incumbent on free will believers to prove anything to the sceptic, who cannot prove her hypothesis. Science has little to say about the matter, but this really is a case of, “That whereof we cannot speak, we can say nothing,” as Lichtenstein put it. It does not prove anything more, other than the fact that maybe people have been bad at explaining what free will actually is to you?
2
-
2
-
Many Worlds Theory (MTW) is a philosophical argument, not science. There may well be some math to support it as an, “argument,” but there is no evidence, testable predictions, falsifiability, and no scientific reason to even want to believe in it. The reason MWT was invented was, ironically, as an argument to refute the existence of God. And that’s all it does. It is now a form of Dogma, reinforced by people who are guilty of the precise crimes they teach us are abominations in science. The same egregious group think, dogmatic refusal to accept reality and willingness to persecute those who reject their philosophy, that Galileo is argued to have been the victim of, at the hands of the Catholic Church, is literally WHY MWT exists! Fact.
2
-
2
-
And that is precisely why science has hit a brick wall and been stuck for about 20 years on the issues of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Because physics and wondered into the realms of philosophy, not science. Worse still, it has done so for largely disingenuous reasons.
I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He.
I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly.
That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me!
“Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god.
So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . . ✌️
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jaybingham3711 : Well said. I also believe that there ought to be a compulsory foundational year devoted to science history, science philosophy and critical thinking theory. At least for anyone who’s studying to a degree level and plans to have a future in the field. A lot of us overlook the fact that most top scientists are ordinary people who expected to spend the rest of their lives doing science for a company or the government, making a decent living, but never expecting to be thrust into the limelight. Then, these shy, cerebral people find themselves becoming famous, making serious money from their books and lecture tours and being discussed in YouTube videos. They get prestigious awards and are not trained or equipped for the world of, “popular science,” or necessarily have the wherewithal to cope.
They are flawed people who, unlike actors, singers, politicians, etc, are not experienced in the field of, “popular opinion,” and don’t have, “managers,” or and entourage to help them cope (or lead them on a path to their own destruction in a tabloid splash about hookers and cocaine😆) so, if they are not supremely well adjusted, they can go a little strange when people start challenging the very work that won them their prizes and the root to all that cash.
Critical thinking can go out of the window so fast in some situations. That’s why I like Sabine. She knows she’s going to take a lot of heat for being rational. I don’t always agree with her, but I know she wouldn’t be emotional about that. She would want to hear my argument and then prove me wrong, agree that I’m right, or need to time to think it over and test her equations. That’s a rare quality that I admire, and which I believe needs to be defended at all costs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Loved this video. FINALLY I found a serious physicist willing to say out loud what so many of us lay-physics-fans have been thinking for all these years. I disagree with your definition of religion, if not the point you were making about it, but that’s all. After all, for many, the personal revelation of Gods or a God is very real to them, therefore has a personally evident basis for conviction in that belief. However, any thinking person would accept that this is not a basis for forcing that belief on anyone else, even if they enthuse about spreading it. So I have always maintained that the multiverse is a philosophical belief, like a preference for a political system. You can see effects in the real world resulting from the work people do to strive for that ideal - or in multiverse terms, the effects of their experiments to try to prove the hypothesis, or the effects their math has on others - but you can never see, touch, smell, or feel the idea in the real world. It still alters people’s behaviour and their goals in life, but that has no bearing on science or platonic evidence for being a thing. Not sure if I’m making sense now, but I hope that makes sense to someone.
2
-
@PaulGreeve : I love her show and her style, but haven’t read her book. Yet, I don’t agree with her entirely. Taking a page from your own book, so to speak, I disagree in principle that the mere investigation of what sets the values of anti-matter versus baryonic matter is valueless. Whether we call it a, “problem,” or not is merely word play, after all? It’s an interesting mystery.
Dirac only predicted that there would be such a thing as, “anti-matter,” by doing math and he was later proven correct, though he never suggested he knew what the amount would be. So far, so cleared up, and thank you to Sabine for that. Yet, to just take the, “Shut up and calculate,” attitude thereafter and to suggest that it’s time wasting to delve deeper into that mystery is wrong headed in my view.
I am not expert enough to comment on whether the vast sums spent on colliders is worth it or not, or if the science is valid when it comes to this question in particular, but there is an obvious question worthy of investigation by science isn’t there? If the amounts of anti-matter and matter were 1 to 1 equal, there would be no universe in which we could ponder the question at all. So, isn’t it natural to wonder what caused that imbalance? It was by pondering such questions that Einstein came up with his ideas, for which later scientists like Arthur Eddington dreamt up experiments that could prove him right.
Either, there was an equal amount of both matter types and there was something that caused them to avoid direct contact in the earliest moments of the universe’s existence, or there were different amounts to start with? Either way, how is trying to discover which is the case a waste of any scientist’s time? Knowing what conditions set these values could change our understanding of physics altogether?
I think it’s a slippery slight of hand to try to invalidate the question, just because you would rather spend money an resources differently. She admits herself that it would be, “wonderful to know the answer.” But, then just goes on to say there is no way to figure it out. I think she’s wrong about that, and about the ingenuity of science to come up with ways of interrogating these questions. She reminds me of Hoyle dismissing the Big Bang theory whilst coining the expression, refuting the very basis of the science out of a personal dislike, rather than for a scientific reason. To speak in absolutes, “There is no science in existence today equipped to investigate the question,” (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s pretty much what she said) is a bonkers thing to say, like standing in a forest and saying, “There’s nothing here from which we could build a house,” when a thousand carpenters would beg to differ.
Don’t get me wrong. I love her show, and she’s usually right on the money. But she has an emotive attitude that sometimes gets the better of her, which a lot of people miss because of her cool Germanic style. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Of course it’s an intriguing question, from which the whole of physics would benefit by the answer! Maybe the debate should be about, “how,: it is investigated, not, “if,” it should be?
What do you think? ✌️
2
-
Presumably, one needs to give very specific instructions, such as, “Give me a critical review of this paper, as a fellow scientist of the same field would, ‘pier review,’ it. Seek out and draw attention to any logical flaws, fallacies or mistakes. Take care to explain the fundamental idea expressed in the paper and test whether it can withstand scientific scrutiny.
It may simply need some small corrections, ranging from its grammar to the conceptual basis of the paper itself. Assess this and give a pressie at the start of your response. Ask me if you need any further clarification for this task, before undertaking it.”
You would have to think through what you want your outcome to be, how to express each aspect of it in unambiguous terms by breaking it down into stages. E.g. Explain what a scientific paper needs to do in generic terms, specify any special things you’re looking for in this paper, explain how the process of pier review and specify any particular types of critical thinking you need to apply to this specific paper, and so on . . .
Note: I am just guessing here, not having used ChatGPT in this way. But, from the very little exploration I’ve done on this topic (certainly compared to you, Sabine) I am always thinking of Wittgenstein, since it’s a problem of grammar, so far as I can tell.
1
-
So, it’s not what they would, “observe,” through a telescope at the same time, if one sat still and the other was jogging past the same location at that moment? Rather, it is what they would perceive if they each had possession some magic device that could show them the events in that Andromedan location, as they were occurring simultaneously, in their, “now,” on Andromeda, right? . . . My brain hurts . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
“Are these ideas science?” Great question. I think not. Philosophy is what they are: thought provoking, mind expanding, even educational, and they’re great notions to explore if you want improve your lateral thinking skills, or learn to look at problems in science from a new perspective. They are by no means a waste of time, or even misplaced (as an adjunct to science) but, given they are not testable, disprovable, or based upon evidence, they are by definition, not science. They make no predictions and have no practical applications and, to treat these ideas as science has inherent risks; like closing off avenues of research, or of dismissing new scientific ideas, due to dogma. This has happened before in science, so we cannot pretend it does not risk doing harm. So long as they remain in their lane, under the category, “Philosophy,” they can do no harm. At least, that is how things should be until, or unless, someone creates a testable hypotheses, or offers hard evidence, or starts making reliable predictions? Which is why I would never condemn people for thinking about these ideas and taking them seriously . . . Only for mis-categorising them. ✌️
1
-
What I find most interesting about it, is what she put her finger on, right at the end of her presentation. It’s a, “philosophical,” difference. It’s a mutation of paranoia and distrust, born out of anti-authoritarianism and disillusionment with, “authority,” figures. Give me a Flat Earther in the same room as me and access to the internet, and I can destroy their, “scientific,” arguments, in minutes. Yet, I know this will not convert them, for one of three possible reasons: They’re (1) too emotionally damaged to, “want,” to accept the truth (too proud to admit this six foot, hairy boomer, who can’t stop laughing at him is right, for example) (2) too educationally challenged (stoopid, or probably a combination of 1 & 2?) or, (3) they’re being paid to refute common sense. The group 3 are the ones I despise, because they could do untold harm, and they do it for money. You might argue there is a group 4? The troll. But, actually, the troll is just any one of, or a combination of, the previous three categories.
But, here’s the, “interesting,” bit that I promised (trigger warning) : Many Worlds Theory, or MWT. That is a, “hypothesis,” which has some mathematical basis, which can be made to fit the hypothesis. But, only ever at the cost of disregarding some other fatal flaws which have yet to be resolved. It is popular among many of our leading physicists. And, though more and more people are questioning it, it has taken on the trappings of Dogma. Yet, there is no, “scientific,” basis for it. No evidence, no disprovability, no testable experiments, no predictions, no applications, no foundation for its conjecture whatsoever. It is a philosophical idea, which some scientists cling to with the emotional commitment of high priests. Why is that, exactly?
I believe it is because it solves one thorny problem and no other. If it were true, we could then dispense with, “God.” And that is the ONLY reason MWT is a philosophical belief that has taken root in physics and is doing duty for science where there is no science to be had. In other words, it’s not just Flat Earthers, who are willing to run away with their philosophical ideas. It seems anyone is capable of that type of thinking, if the emotional stakes are high enough? . . . Food for thought? . . . ✌️
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you looked down the back of the couch? I often find missing stuff down there. I bet the anti-matter is stuffed down there with old magazines and pound coins, (or Euros in your case? I have no idea where you live.) or in the couches of our anti-universe?
Perhaps it was the imbalance of the universe’s levels of anti-matter that created matter out of energy and the thing we refer to as the, “Big Bang,” in the first place?
I think the misunderstanding about Dirac’s work comes from the conclusions that later science has predicted as a, “necessary consequence,” of what they’ve found and the very fact that our universe exists being the, “mystery,” that springs from it. Like the game of Chinese Whispers, people have inferred the wrong things by being told about the original work, without actually checking it themselves. The danger of, “assumption,” is bigger in science than in other fields, as it can lead to a lot of wasted time and resources based on incorrect assumptions. So, it’s important to have people like you around to keep us all on the straight and narrow path of facts.
Thanks ✌️
1
-
1
-
My youngest daughter took her physics doctorate at St Andrews. Now she works in a hospital, using various frequencies of light to both see and zap brain tumours, providing all the motivation you could imagine. It also involves an awful lot of coding, as you say.
I always knew she was a genius, but if she had listened to her school teachers and others in her broader community, she would have learned to, “manage her expectations,” in a downward direction for the rest of her days. She was too smart for that. Oh, and yes, she had to move away from her hometown to another country, but she’s still within Britain (fortunately) so all of your cautions check out.
There is no feeling more wonderful than that which you get at the moment you realise that your kids have surpassed you in education, maturity, wisdom and achievement. All three of my girls have done that, each going in very unique directions. I always tell young people that physicists can get employment in just about ANY field.
I look forward to sharing this video with my youngest and getting her response to it. You are the main YouTuber I share with her, though your fields within physics are very different. And she would probably tell me I’ve described her current job very badly too.
I certainly hope you do more videos exploring the careers and possibilities for young people considering a future in physics. Thank you for this one, regardless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Those jokes (ironically unfunny . . . I hope?) are a bad development. We enjoy your videos because you don’t do them, (or didn’t used to?) and you just do the science. Please stop? Whomever has told you they are good for your videos has mislead you, badly. Comedy is a skill that requires skill, timing and many years of practice. As a scientist, I’m sure you can appreciate how big a mistake it is, to attempt a professional skill that you have no training in? You do what you do BRILLIANTLY. The improvements in the graphics are great too. Don’t listen to whomever it is that is telling you, “ maybe a few gags would improve your material,” because they’re so wrong! You’re occasional, wry, implied irony works, because it is YOU. Forced, “Venus,” gags? Nooooo! ✌️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find her presentations fascinating and her voice is so soothing to me. I’m quite the fanboy . . .
The Many Worlds notion has always struck me as bogus; from my not-expert perspective. It’s untestable, and certainly unprovable, for a start, even if, “evidence,” may one day be found. The same evidence can and will be usable for rival theories. But, my real problem with it, is that it’s actually philosophy, not physics.
The very same prejudice that Einstein felt, which made him find the work of LeMetre so unpalatable, (which evidenced the Big Bang Theory) is at work in MWT. It’s a philosophical argument, with one purpose; refuting the existence of God. Einstein apologised to LeMetre, a Catholic priest, after having once told him, “Your math is correct but your physics is abominable.” And, The Big Bang is now generally accepted, despite having been held back for almost a generation by the egos of over powerful scientists. And, once again, we are seeing the history repeat itself.
The idea of something miraculous happen, that the physical world could actually be altered by the mere act of, “observation,” and all that this implies, is intolerable to an atheistic culture, that is as guilty of prejudice, groupthink and dogma, as any religious organisation in history. The very same people who worship Galileo as their Martyr for being a victim of prejudice and dogma, perpetrated by an over weening establishment, have now become that very thing they despise. They are sacrificing science on the alter of that dogma, which might as well be stated as, “We refuse to accept any conclusions that may imply a creator of the universe, regardless of what the facts are,” and they come up with the most extravagant, superstitious and logically implausible solutions, and pursue them with such vehemence that they have become the new dogma!
No doubt, someone reading this, will assume that I am a, “believer,” in God, and have a personal axe to grind, rather than question their own assumptions, because they have been trained to respond in that fashion, as though I was a Flat Earther or denying Gravity . . . But, my actual point is that there is yet to be a scientific explanation for our observations, and that the Copenhagen position has become a dogma, enforced by a powerful scientist, with a famously powerful and intolerant personality, and has evolved in to ever increasingly extravagant philosophical ideas. Without any evidence (hard or otherwise) Physics has been actively encouraged to wonder away from the path of science.
We must look harder at the problem, and bring in fresh minds. And, whether we find evidence, or proof, of a God, a creator, or the exact opposite, we must accept the truth of whatever we find, unflinchingly, with the disciplined eyes of the scientist. We must leave philosophy to the philosophers, especially when we cannot even establish a working mathematical model for MWT that doesn’t have one or more fatal flaw in it. We simply have NO BASIS for MWT. Yet, I hear, you can actually fail your doctorate for saying that now!
You would have thought we’d have learned by now, after the famously appalling ways great scientists have been treated, by the scientific community in the past, (leading to suicides and even murders! . . . In the 20th Century!) that anything that smacks of dogma is unhealthy for science. And the establishment must NEVER be allowed to get too comfortable, or, “established.”
These were just some general thoughts on the nature and culture of science today, as it relates to this fascinating problem . . . It’s worth pondering, do any of you know any Christian believers in science? Physics especially? And, do any of you know any atheists in that field? Of the ones who claim to have, “open minds,” who are the least tolerant of difference in beliefs? You already know the answer, right? . . .
1
-
What is the hard evidence for your interpretation of determinism? We have never (not once) deciphered the gap between macro and micro physics. We know that there has to be a relationship between the two, because they coexist in our world, but no one has ever come close to bridging that gap. My experience is that I have free will. That is my experience of the world.
You’re trying to pull the, “Science says it’s so,” card, yet you’re behaving like so many of those scientists that you have distain for because you have no proof. A quintillion quantum events took place in my right arm as I saluted the screen just now, yet my arm bent to my will along with all of those events, not because it was written into the Big Bang but because it seemed a suitably random choice of illustration.
And, just because a computer can predict whether I was about to move, or not move, my arm before I knew I was going to do it means nothing when it comes to bigger, more general choices, such as watching your video, forming an opinion about it and what I do with that information, since I am more than an electronically measurable mechanism; much more than the sum of my parts.
Choice, free will, I grant you, are more illusory than many think. But they’re not totally absent, just because of one type of measurement of motor function, set against thousands of other experiences humans have which are under their control.
Perhaps there are only a few of us who truly are free willed free thinkers? Perhaps I am exceptional? But, I would say I’m one of those, wouldn’t I, being neurodivergent and all? Give me acceptable, empirical evidence please? Otherwise, why should I privilege your opinion over so many other untestable, unproven hypotheses?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ : Let us try to reason together without the chest puffing? When I heard Penrose discussing this last, he was talking about memories. You can program a computer to know what a grandmother is, in terms of genetics, economics, diet, fashion, even in terms of culture, and with modern large language models, you can have that same computer speak convincingly about having a grandmother, even sounding rather sentimental about it. But that computer still, “feels,” nothing.
However, when a human has the task, that discussion triggers emotions and digressions that are not logically programmable. While you’re describing the colour of grandma’s eyes, you might actually be thinking of the way she smelled, or the smell of her house and suddenly say, “I haven’t eaten apple pie in a long time. Let’s make a pie. I know a recipe.” Not just a tangential connection being made, but a course of action, including time used, resources spent, shops visited and cooking and eating with a person whom you want to share the experience of what Grandma’s apple pie used to taste like.
I can expand further on the qualia aspect of what it is that Penrose is getting at. But that is what he said he doesn’t believe an AI can match. That does not mean that there aren’t new avenues to pursue that might result in subtler, more capable, “thinking,” processes for computers. Indeed, he has discussed possibilities himself. Which is why I believe Sabine may have the wrong end of the stick here.
1
-
@ : Addendum: The point Penrose is making about current approaches is A) Being large language models, they are brute-forcing the problem, rather than refining it. This is why all the tech companies are stealing as much data as they can from any source available, because it’s an unwieldy process that doesn’t mimic human thinking at all. B) They are still, largely, black boxes. These are self teaching models that are essentially told, “correct,” or, “wrong,” billions of times an hour, over simple reasoning and recognition tests. Yet no one, not even the programmers, know what adjustments the machines make to their own code to get to the correct answers. This is why they frequently hallucinate. It is the equivalent of setting off to the moon, one millimetre off course, which will place you millions of miles off target. And no one can prevent these hallucinations because they’re occurring within a closed system to which the programmers do not have prior knowledge.
Sure, you can lift the lid to see what went wrong. But you’re then doing the equivalent of trying to identify which grain in a cup of sand is blue, when all the others are red.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I find most interesting about it, is what she put her finger on, right at the end of her presentation. It’s a, “philosophical,” difference. It’s a mutation of paranoia and distrust, born out of anti-authoritarianism and disillusionment with, “authority,” figures. Give me a Flat Earther in the same room as me and access to the internet, and I can destroy their, “scientific,” arguments, in minutes. Yet, I know this will not convert them, for one of three possible reasons: They’re (1) too emotionally damaged to, “want,” to accept the truth (too proud to admit this six foot, hairy boomer, who can’t stop laughing at him is right, for example) (2) too educationally challenged (stoopid, or probably a combination of 1 & 2?) or, (3) they’re being paid to refute common sense. The group 3 are the ones I despise, because they could do untold harm, and they do it for money. You might argue there is a group 4? The troll. But, actually, the troll is just any one, or combination of, the previous three categories.
But, here’s the, “interesting,” bit that I promised (trigger warning) : Many Worlds Theory, or MTW. That is a, “hypothesis,” which has some mathematical basis, which can be made to fit the hypothesis. But, only ever at the cost of disregarding some other fatal flaws which have yet to be resolved. It is popular among many of our leading physicists. And, though more and more people are questioning it, it has taken on the trappings of Dogma. Yet, there is no, “scientific,” basis for it. No evidence, no disprovability, no testable experiments, no predictions, no applications, no foundation for its conjecture whatsoever. It is a philosophical idea, which some scientists cling to with the emotional commitment of high priests. Why is that, exactly?
I believe it is because it solves one thorny problem and no other. If it were true, we could then dispense with, “God.” And that is the ONLY reason MWT is a philosophical belief that has taken root in physics and is doing duty for science where there is no science to be had. In other words, it’s not just Flat Earthers, who are willing to run away with their philosophical ideas. It seems anyone is capable of that type of thinking, if the emotional stakes are high enough? . . . Food for thought? . . . ✌️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jaybingham3711 : There are countless examples of great physicists and chemists who have gone to their graves never knowing that their breakthroughs would be accepted and recognised by a tardy, ungrateful world. Einstein is the exception of the lionised man in his own lifetime. Indeed, some of physics’ greatest thinkers have committed suicide in the face of mockery and rejection, or died in poverty, only to have their theories form the basis of what we all know now or their work form the standard by which we all do things now. From Mendeleev to Tesla, the list is long. All because of rampant egos, which force humanity to have to wait for a generation for the old thinkers to die off, before new ideas are allowed, “permission,” to be right.
Now I feel like we’re all waiting for Alan Guth to die before someone says, “But, wouldn’t time have expanded at the same rate as space? After all, E=MC2 and all that?” and wins a Nobel Prize for his special theory of the bleedin’ obvious! 😉
1
-
1
-
1
-
I find her presentations fascinating and her voice is so soothing to me. I’m quite the fanboy . . .
The Many Worlds notion has always struck me as bogus; from my not-expert perspective. It’s untestable, and certainly unprovable, for a start, even if, “evidence,” may one day be found. The same evidence can and will be usable for rival theories. But, my real problem with it, is that it’s actually philosophy, not physics.
The very same prejudice that Einstein felt, which made him find the work of LeMetre so unpalatable, (which evidenced the Big Bang Theory) is at work in MWT. It’s a philosophical argument, with one purpose; refuting the existence of God. Einstein apologised to LeMetre, a Catholic priest, after having once told him, “Your math is correct but your physics is abominable.” And, The Big Bang is now generally accepted, despite having been held back for almost a generation by the egos of over powerful scientists. And, once again, we are seeing the history repeat itself.
The idea of something miraculous happen, that the physical world could actually be altered by the mere act of, “observation,” and all that this implies, is intolerable to an atheistic culture, that is as guilty of prejudice, groupthink and dogma, as any religious organisation in history. The very same people who worship Galileo as their Martyr for being a victim of prejudice and dogma, perpetrated by an over weening establishment, have now become that very thing they despise. They are sacrificing science on the alter of that dogma, which might as well be stated as, “We refuse to accept any conclusions that may imply a creator of the universe, regardless of what the facts are,” and they come up with the most extravagant, superstitious and logically implausible solutions, and pursue them with such vehemence that they have become the new dogma!
No doubt, someone reading this, will assume that I am a, “believer,” in God, and have a personal axe to grind, rather than question their own assumptions, because they have been trained to respond in that fashion, as though I was a Flat Earther or denying Gravity . . . But, my actual point is that there is yet to be a scientific explanation for our observations, and that the Copenhagen position has become a dogma, enforced by a powerful scientist, with a famously powerful and intolerant personality, and has evolved in to ever increasingly extravagant philosophical ideas. Without any evidence (hard or otherwise) Physics has been actively encouraged to wonder away from the path of science.
We must look harder at the problem, and bring in fresh minds. And, whether we find evidence, or proof, of a God, a creator, or the exact opposite, we must accept the truth of whatever we find, unflinchingly, with the disciplined eyes of the scientist. We must leave philosophy to the philosophers, especially when we cannot even establish a working mathematical model for MWT that doesn’t have one or more fatal flaw in it. We simply have NO BASIS for MWT. Yet, I hear, you can actually fail your doctorate for saying that now!
You would have thought we’d have learned by now, after the famously appalling ways great scientists have been treated, by the scientific community in the past, (leading to suicides and even murders! . . . In the 20th Century!) that anything that smacks of dogma is unhealthy for science. And the establishment must NEVER be allowed to get too comfortable, or, “established.”
These were just some general thoughts on the nature and culture of science today, as it relates to this fascinating problem . . . It’s worth pondering, do any of you know any Christian believers in science? Physics especially? And, do any of you know any atheists in that field? Of the ones who claim to have, “open minds,” who are the least tolerant of difference in beliefs? You already know the answer, right? . . .
1
-
@Jehannum2000 : Try telling that to the scientific community? The unspoken rule seems to be, “Your conclusions better not come out = God, or anything that might imply it.” It’s not on anyone’s mind, until the unspoken rule is enforced. People like Richard Dawkins have become the new High Priests of an increasingly cultish society, doing untold harm, based upon the mere suspicion of what could be, “read into,” scientific results and conflating religion and personal beliefs into a totem of fear and loathing. If only your statement were true? “God,” should have, “nothing to do with science and vice versa.” But, that’s simply not the case. I read Einstein’s correspondence about LeMetre (and with him) and he isn’t exactly subtle about his mental blocks. We do ourselves a disservice by failing to acknowledge an institutional prejudice, however, “benign,” we can persuade ourselves it is.
But, thank you for responding, and for being patient enough to wade through my diatribe in the first place. All this time after your initial comment, I really didn’t expect to be noticed, let alone actually answered. Respect ✌️
1
-
@Jehannum2000 : Let me put it to you like this? Do you think it was really the, “science,” that Einstein was struggling with? It wasn’t LeMetre’s math? He told him as much, right from the start. At the very minimum, Einstein was struggling with his own personal pride, in being able to admit of flaws in his own theory? It was a period of years, before he could admit LeMetre was right. But, he said himself that he did not like the implications of a priest, no less, establishing a moment of, “creation,” in physics, and that he was suspicious of letting God into the science. LeMetre was the one who argued that God was irrelevant to the discussion. It was just the way the universe worked . . . works . . .
But, imagine if LeMetre had been as bombastic as Bohr? Or just egotistical enough to match Einstein? What if he actually was pressing the religious subtext as hard as Einstein feared he, or others, might? How long would THAT debate have lasted? And how many casualties might such an intellectual war have claimed? Would we still be debating the Big Bang to this day? Would the Hubble Telescope ever have been funded, by a Congress that can get so very twitchy about, “religion,” in politics?
Too much, “personality,” and not enough science, is the problem that people of faith run into in science (physics in particular) and which the people without never even notice. They make a point of not noticing. I speak as a none-scientist, outsider, looking in. I know many scientists, and I’m reasonably well,read on the history of science, though, by no means any kind of expert. But, I honestly believe (bringing this back to the topic) that the MWT is nothing more than an expression of this desperation to lock away certain possibilities, due to an unspoken, but no less potent, dogma. It is a philosophical explanation, doing duty for science, where science has nothing to offer. Or, what it does have to offer, we cannot yet tell, because no one has tread that ground and been lead where the science is taking them.
I do see an increasing number of sceptics, unhappy with MWT though. And I occasionally wonder if such people will get the support they need to explore the no man’s land, or if they’ll just find themselves on another front, of the Galileo Wars? . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I’m kinda late to this party but, for what it’s worth . . . It is true that science has nothing to say about, “God.” Certainly not the God of the three main faiths that share the same original Jehovah. In the same way that physics has nothing to say about an individual’s personal taste in music, or to explain why we’re happy or sad. And that works both ways. While one’s personal faith might inform a scientist’s personal approach to their work, their relationships within the scientific community, or the type of physics they are interested in, God will not show up in their equations, nor should He.
I take issue, only in part, with one thing you said. Dark Energy is my exemplar to explain why. People assume it exists, because of observed phenomena, but they might be investigating something that is not even there, or real in a physical sense? It could be an effect of gravity that has not yet been discovered, or any one of several other hypotheses that have been suggested by great minds? Yet, we investigate it, because we want to understand the universe better and settle on a universally understood theory, which would benefit all of science and, ultimately, all of human kind. You will say, “Yes. But that is a scientific response to a real, observable phenomena in the universe, which science has something to say about.” But, my answer would be that there are phenomena which are genuinely, objectively experienced in the universe, which could be caused by something outside of our time space continuum, like Dark Energy, that could be caused by a knowing, all powerful, “god-like,” consciousness. Science cannot rule that out, despite the fact that there is no hypothesis for investigating it directly.
That being said, though science has nothing to say about God and God has nothing to say about hard science, all I’m suggesting is that, once we start using science to refute the existence of God, we have done a disservice to both science and people of faith. On the one hand, we are ruling out the possibility of something, without any evidence to support that stance: attempting to prove a negative, which is by its nature, impossible. And, on the other hand, we are making God a preoccupation of science, whilst arguing that God has no place in science. If scientists believe there’s no place for God in the physics, they fail to see the fallacy of their own placing of God at the centre of the science, in a vain attempt to prove a negative.
That’s comes off as a bad faith exercise, and somewhat oppressive to people of faith, don’t you think? Scientists need to leave God alone, if they truly have no belief in him. A trivial point, you think? If you think that, you’re failing to see why physics has hit a brick wall in the last 20 or so years. Instead of doing the science they get paid to do, physicists (not all of them, obviously) have devoted themselves to the disputation of faith, spending time, money and other resources on ever increasingly extravagant hypotheses, which are reaching a breaking point of sheer lunacy, if you ask me!
“Many Worlds?” Really? An entire structure of, “scientific,” thinking, upon which millions have now been spent, despite there being ZERO proof for any of it! Sure, there are elegant mathematic theorems, etc, but all of them are fatally flawed when any attempt is made to apply them to the real world. An infinite number of dimensions, stretching out forever, from every single decision point of every living creature, which would make one minute of one day create so many separate universes springing into existence (out of thin vacuum) that their number is literally incalculable; yet bigger than the number of electrons in the known universe? Give me a break! It’s a philosophy, not a scientific hypothesis, and what’s more, it is far less plausible than the notion of a god.
So yes, I would agree that the two spheres of human endeavour, “faith,” and, “science,” have NOTHING to say to each other. But, instead of fallaciously trying to rid god from the equations, why don’t scientists get their own message, and leave God alone? If they stuck to the observable universe, instead of wasting vast sums on colliders, we might have all had our flying cars by now, floating on a cloud of Dark Matter, repelling the effects of gravity? I mean, who knows? Does it really require a new, enlightened generation before science can take its next paradigm shift, back to real physics? . . .
1
-
1
-
1
-
I made a comment that leaned very much in the same direction as your conclusions. People sometimes get attached to theories like they’re their children. And that’s often because of the system they operate in, wherein they are now, “known,” for their Dark Matter work and get asked to guest on, or even host, science shows on that basis. It becomes the foundation of their reputation, even the gongs they have been awarded, so they fear being, “discredited.”
It takes discipline and courage to lead the charge on alternative theories when you’re in such a position. Even Einstein was capable of a bit of humbug. Though he was at least capable of apologising for that and giving credit where it was due. Yet, that is a vanishingly rare quality in every profession. And I think it goes some way toward explaining many of the hold ups we have seen in the history of scientific developments.
I think it was Earnest Hemingway who said, “Sometimes we have to kill our darlings.” I may be paraphrasing that, from my unreliable memory? But it was pretty close. He was talking about great characters who, nevertheless, do not serve the story you’re trying to tell. Or a great plot line, which nevertheless, interfere’s with or fudges an otherwise clean story ark.
But it’s people with that kind of commitment to their craft, whether it be science or the arts, who always win out in the end. It would be a tragedy for, “Dark Matter,” to end up being remembered in the way we think of, “Flat Earth theories,” today. As beloved ideas that were clung to in spite of all mounting evidence to the contrary. But it seems to be steering that way.
1
-
@usdeac : People do complain about that a lot, so you’re obviously not alone. But, as a convention for identifying a phenomena that cannot be described by science (yet) I think it works rather well. At least as a short hand. I immediately know something about the topic, because I know what science means by, “dark,” when applied in the name. I think it arose out scientists referring to the opposite side of the moon, which gets as much light as the side we all see, as, “the dark side of the moon.” But I stand to be corrected there.
Dark energy, dark matter are known (at least, proposed) entities, but we don’t know how they work. I find the term useful.
1
-
Challenge for all: Who can answer this? Alan Guth says space inflated, but, “Time,” didn’t? If space inflated, so did time with it! That’s why it, “looks,” like space suddenly inflated in the blink of an eye. It didn’t. Time expanded with the rest of space, so it looks, “smaller,” from a huge distance, in the same way that baryonic matter does. I’m amazed this never occurs to physicists!
Can anyone contradict this? Or show where Guth has taken the expansion of time into account? Presumably, we are still believing in time dilation and Einstein’s theories? And before anyone says, “They must have thought about that,” I ask you to site ONE example where inflation takes the expansion of time into account? Just one?
I tell you, one of the greatest oversights of common sense in astrophysics is inflation theory! Which should technically be called the, “Inflation Hypothesis,” given that there is zero evidence for it, unless you count that which, as Sabine just explained, can be applied to a raft of other theories?
I can say, “There’s this guy who paints the sky each night to make it blue, but some nights he’s too tired and leaves it, so it’s white on those days.” To which you can say, “But, where’s your evidence?” To which I answer, “Look at the sky? It’s blue isn’t it? That’s my evidence.” Preposterous? Welcome to Inflation Theory.
It’s so obvious, when you think about it! Einstein showed us that we have to think of space AND time as being properties of the same thing! But then we exclude time for inflation? Inflation never happened!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1