Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
@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