Sabine, your ability to present both sides of the argument and bring clarity to each side with such objectivity can be summed up in one word...BRILLIANT!

@jus_sanguinis

2 жыл бұрын

Sabine, have you read the "Noise level" sci-fi short story by Raymond Jones? What are your favorite sci-fi books and movies?

@nunyubiznezz

2 жыл бұрын

She IS Brilliant isn't she !!!

@AndroidPoetry

2 жыл бұрын

Sabine is one of the few people who I agree with on almost every point. Her logic is impeccable.

@lincolnlee5191

2 жыл бұрын

@@AndroidPoetry Not just her logic, but clarity in reasoning and arguments, objectivity in presenting pros and cons of each side of the debate, and to top it off, she does it all with some great sense of comedic timing. I tell you...just BRILLIANT!!

@michaelbariso3192

Жыл бұрын

Light travels in both directions, anyone having a conversation with their friends understands this simple phenomenon yet Einstein's disciples believe people on earth are time traveling backwards and forwards in space-time relative to one another. Don't drink the Kool-Aid folks. Testing the speed light in on Earth is like riding a bicycle up hill, gravity will show you down. The biggest threat to humanity is human stupidity. The theory of everything according to humans that believe their intellect evolved from a monkey's brain. If the light waves from the sun were 8 minutes and 20 seconds in a past dimension of Einstein's space-time then people on Earth are just imagining the infrared warmth of the sun coming up on the horizon. The communications delay between Earth and Mars is approximately 20 minutes. We're either viewing the light from Mars in the future, Einstein's past dimensions of space-time or in real time, which do you think is more logical? Einstein's relativity is wrong light has no limitation of speed; it cannot be slowed down because it isn't moving. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions. Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. According to Einstein's relativity-time dilation's, photos taken of the Earth from the Discovery Space station traveled from the past to the future violating the laws of physics, conservation of energy and common sense. According to Einstein's projectile light particle proton light has a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second moving through spacetime, but if light has a (constant speed) then moving clocks cannot run slow through spacetime! :-) The speed of light according to Einstein's relativity is 186,000 miles per second, but according to physics if two mechanical watches were synchronized on earth and one traveled across the universe and back, there would be no difference in time between the mechanical watches proving the speed of light is instantaneous as the only way a mechanical watch will run slow is if you tighten the main spring. Big Bang, Einstein's relativity-time dilation and nearly all of science debunked. Using optical clocks, lasers and GPS to prove Einstein's time dilation-space-time curvature is like using a metal detector to find gold at Fort Knox. The closer you are to the electromagnetic fields, mass and gravity of the earth the more light bends aka gravitational lensing. If the speed of light is constant then past and future dimensions of spacetime and an expanding universe would not be possible, obviously destroying the twins paradox as each twin cannot move faster or slower than the other. A mirror is a wave reflector that flips images from left to right, but according to Einstein the images you see are the result of projectile light particle photons being transported into past and future dimensions of space-time. Explain how particle light photons can re-converge their molecular structures in mirrors and how this is done without violating the law of conservation of energy. From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in all directions (forwards and backwards through Einstein's space-time) while violating the law of conservation of energy. Explain how Einstein's projectile light particle proton can travel all directions having a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second. Einstein would have made a great used car salesman :-). Light waves can stretch, bend-curve and occupy a state of superposition, whereas the hypothetical Einstein projectile light particle (photon), a particle that has never been observed cannot. Unlike a TV or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of frames that create the appearance of a moving image. There are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just video recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. Neither time, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. Time and space are independent of each other, not material bodies or fantasy unions that magically stretch Time, energy, and matter like a rubber band into space-time dimensions. Einstein's projectile light particle proton has a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second moving through spacetime and because so wavelengths of light cannot stretch through spacetime! Red-shifts are simply the result of decelerating electrons, as moving electrons of charged electromagnetic waves-light travel through the plasma of the universe each lump (or "quanta") of energy in the electromagnetic waves are charged then discharged to the next lump, eventually the energy dissipates causing the delay in radio communications giving the appearance of time dilation - longer wavelengths in red shift. Will the James Webb Telescope view the birth of the first galaxies? Nope, the universe goes on to infinity. Neither time, the atom, energy nor mass can create itself into nothing, reside in nothing or expand into nothing simply because nothing has no properties. The James Webb Space Telescope is not a time machine, you can’t travel back in time to view the beginning of the universe with telescopes that were made in the future :-). Light and electromagnetic waves are independent of each other. If science uses Einstein's wrongly theorized speed of light like an odometer to calculate past dimensions of distance and time, then using that same method to calculate forward dimensions of distance and time would mean the Big Bang was created and expanded in the future before time existed. Unlike a television or computer monitor the images we are viewing in the universe are in real time, not a series of still image frames that hypothetical Einstein projectile light particles photons create to give us the appearance of a moving image :-). The speed of electromagnetic wave is 186,282 miles per second vs Einstein's projectile light particle proton at 186,000 miles per second. Is this a coincidence or did Einstein plagiarize yet another phenomenon to fit the math of relativity? Electromagnetic waves in space can neither slow down or speed up, this is consistent with the law of conservation of energy. If light slowed down, its energy would decrease, thereby violating the law of conservation of energy so the speed of light is instantaneous and cannot travel slower than it does. If Einstein's projectile light (particle photon) had mass it's light could not travel across the universe, high speed particles traveling at 186,000 miles per second would break the Hubble and James Webb telescope mirrors, debunking the speed of light, Big Bang, Einstein's relativity and any science that uses relativity in their theories. Similar to a mirror light is a real-time wave reflector where light and images travel in straight lines-in all directions in space as they do on earth. The faintest stars and galaxies are neither in a past or future dimension of Einstein's space-time, they're in real-time. Everyone knows cell phone electromagnetic radio waves travel both ways, yet Einstein's disciples believe time energy, mass and light can only travel one way back in time. If you simply run the Big Bang theory in reverse you reveal the insanity of Einstein's relativity and Big Bang theory. If the expansion of the Big Bang were true, time, energy, mass and light would be in the future from the vantage point of an expanding singularity-Big Bang and planet Earth would now reside in a past dimension of Einstein's time dilation (moving clocks run slow) space-time 13.8 billion years ago :-). From every vantage point in the universe light is omnidirectional-instantaneously traveling in both directions (forwards and backwards through Einstein's space-time) while violating the law of conservation of energy. Explain how Einstein's projectile light particle proton can travel in both directions having a (constant speed) of 186,000 miles per second :-) It's truly amazing how the science and politics of the left are able to keep people denying reality, there are no DCU digital convergence circuits in space, yet Einstein's disciples believe the light and moving images they see in the universe aren't really there, they're just recorded images of the past 13.8 billion years. Pretending not to notice the gross contradictions-pseudoscience in Relativity is typical of Einstein's disciples, devaluing the source of any information that's in contradiction with their beliefs-theories. You could lead a cult to water, but you can't make them think. If the light from the universe travels to past dimensions of time then it's light is also traveling into future dimensions of time (instantaneously). “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” a state of superposition where time and gravity run inwardly, outwardly, in all directions in the same time frame, similar to the electromagnetic field having no beginning and no end. The Doppler effect is wrongly conflated with cosmological Redshift. As one approaches a blowing horn the perceived pitch is higher until the horn is reached, then becomes lower as the horn is passed. This phenomenon is caused by the physical movement of a mechanical soundwave traveling through the medium of air, similar to throwing a rock in a pond, the rock creates physical movement in the medium of water. Cosmological Redshifts are merely the GoPro fisheye effect where wavelengths appear to lengthen-stretch from the phenomenon of gravitational lensing. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" Magnetron

I sympathize with the Universe. I did the same thing when I was feeling isolated and alone. Of course it is harder to get out of the house when houses are just another part of you.

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

It could be that the Universe is actually 'turtles'. :)

@djbabbotstown

2 жыл бұрын

As I have too 😂. But does it expand like us? I may grow fat but my organs stayed inside me. But as the universe expands parts of it expand beyond the horizon. What the hell is that!

@amedeeabreo7334

2 жыл бұрын

@@CAThompson Except for the early period of the Universe which was the "Turtle Neck".

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@amedeeabreo7334 😆 🐢

That was a rollercoaster. Until quarter of an hour ago, I'd thought inflation was pretty much a done deal, as far as scientists were concerned at least.

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

Same. I'm pretty used to Sabine deflating these misconceptions though.

@juzoli

2 жыл бұрын

That’s the best theory we have today by a lot, so we shouldn’t discredit it for sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s proven. And don’t confuse the inflation with expansion. We are talking about the first second of big bang. Expansion has way stronger evidences.

@deltalima6703

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, I knew it was thin on usefulness and some outliers (Brian Cox,...) ignore it completely, but I thought it was a wrap and we were just sorting the details of it. Sabine makes it sound really shaky indeed. :-/

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@juzoli Good point! Thanks.

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

I think Guth would ask her to cite another theory besides inflation theory that answers both the flatness and horizon problems. Well, Sabine??

That makes me think of Einstein's retort (yes, that guy again) when hearing about a book or newspaper article '100 Authors against Einstein', rejecting his theory of relativity: 'If I were wrong, one would be enough'. The number of articles written about a theory can never be an indication of its validity.

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

@Nat-oj2uc

Жыл бұрын

Yep truth doesn't care about how many people believe in it.. ask Galileo lol. True science isn't democracy but many 'scientists' think it is. That's why modern 'science' is full of bs

@Nat-oj2uc

Жыл бұрын

@@fluentpiffle great quotes. Thanks

@duprie37

3 ай бұрын

It's rather like Christians who argue Christianity must be the one, true faith because it's such a successful religion and there's so many Christians in the world. Ok, but what about the fact that nowadays Muslims outnumber Christians? "But that's the Devil deceiving people!" Sorry, NOT an argument 🙄

I appreciate your pointing out how unfortunate consensus is to science and how social media and politics affect so many subjects. History is replete with such thinking. It’s refreshing to hear a scientist admit we don’t know the absolute truth on so many major areas of study in physics and cosmology. It’s ok to admit we don’t know for sure but the quest requires open mindedness. Learning a previously held tenet is wrong my be hard on egos but is good for science. Just my humble opinion

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

It's good to have practice in letting ideas we thought we understood go, philosophically, scientifically and personally. This channel is good practice.

@ShawnHCorey

2 жыл бұрын

On the other hand, science is about debate. If a theory can stand up to all criticism, then it should be correct. Debate is a fundamental part of science. After all, nothing in our universe is black and white.

@juzoli

2 жыл бұрын

Science is the field where it is the most likely that someone will admit, “we don’t “ know, or “we are not sure”. Of course sometimes it is lost in translation, and by the time a study get into the morning TV show, it is presented as fact… But if you actually follow science, and at least occasionally you read the source material, you will have a pretty good picture of what is sure, and what is just a best guess.

@OBGynKenobi

2 жыл бұрын

A scientific argument is only scientific if it admits it doesn't know on it's own. This why it requires independent verification and must be testable. IE, if you have your own theory about something then put forward your rigorous assertions and then let others put them to the test. And no, faith, or screaming the loudest are not science.

@RyanEhli-MusicAndGuitar

2 жыл бұрын

@@OBGynKenobi I wanted to make a comment on irrationally based beliefs (such as faith & emotions) - I agree with you. In general, I believe open mindedness, skepticism, & a basic willingness to improve on ideas as more data is received, is what advances more precise understanding of reality.

I've enjoyed Sabine for a while now but I didn't realize she has the strength to publically challenge big name scientists and outright call them out for wrongness and logical fallacies. I'm proud to be in this community!

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

She's amazing and I'm going to practice being like her.

@belledetector

2 жыл бұрын

She´s done that for years. It´s hilarious, sobering and educational - all at the same time.. Watch the episode where she is dismantling the fusion energy sector and ITER

@SandSeven

2 жыл бұрын

You should watch her theory of everything dis video.

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@SandSeven The music video? I have. :)

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@belledetector The first video of hers I think I saw was her ripping into particle physicists who want a bigger collider. I didn't know who the heck she was at all but it was entertaining and enlightening.

This is such a concise explanation of how to think and how even many experts fall into cognitive traps

@mikemondano3624

2 жыл бұрын

Real experts do not fall into traps. I can tell who the expert is because non-experts are sometimes 100% sure of what they are saying. Experts never are.

@alberton.1601

2 жыл бұрын

Congrats. I would like to hear, and see, your opinion on patents and copyrights. Escencialy, how much of what is "created" is REALY NEW if a lot of our knowledge comes from ANCIENT TIMES and MULTIPLE PEOPLE? v.r.g. Can we legimitelly claim rights over an operating system or an electric car if we didn't invent the maths that lead us to our "creation"?

@snekmeseht

2 жыл бұрын

You can trust most science, but you can't trust most scientists.

@John-mw3jf

2 жыл бұрын

cognitive traps perhaps, but career protection is in the mix as well

@johnjamesbaldridge867

2 жыл бұрын

I watched that interview with Roger Penrose and Alan Guth a while back, and, well watch it and judge for yourself. My opinion was that there was a clear distinction in the way arguments were presented. Spoiler alert -- in case you want to pause this comment to watch it before proceeding ------ I was highly impressed with Penrose's calm, dispassionate, matter-of-fact approach as opposed to my shock and surprise a felt from Guth's. Penrose stood on his own ground demonstrating thorough understanding of the underlying problems and explaining his points in response to criticism, in contrast to Guth who waved his hands a lot, never explained any points he made, made lots of appeals to authority, continually criticized Penrose and CCC by naming authors of papers but never explaining what it was those papers said or indicating that he even understood them. His entire defense of Inflation amounted to "look at all of these other people who agree with me. I'm popular." Perhaps I'm overstating it, but I was expecting a lot more from him.

Great to have a view on current cosmology from a higher distance to see the bigger picture. Thank you Sabine.

@mikemondano3624

2 жыл бұрын

From a higher distance, you then fail to see the details and complications.

@tdb2012

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikemondano3624 Agreed. But there is much value in seeing the forest for the trees.

@andsalomoni

2 жыл бұрын

Spooky views at a distance...

@reasonerenlightened2456

2 жыл бұрын

The Universe begins when you are born and dies when you die.

3:20: There is one important difference between predictions and retrodictions, though. It's relatively easy to create a mathematical model (not quite a theory, I admit) that closely fits known data while failing miserably with unknown data points. I've seen this referred to, by statisticians, as "overfitting". You set parameters so they fit the known data closely, but that doesn't mean new information would fit the same mold.

Damn, I didn't realise that Inflation was on such shaky ground. Thought it was a "done deal" scientifically-speaking. It's also bizarre to see people like Alan Guth use such rookie logical fallacies to support a theory that should speak for itself. Would love to see a video on alternatives, especially cyclic cosmologies!

@AlexanderGieg

2 жыл бұрын

Most scientists are bad philosophers, and vice-versa. Scientific inquiry would benefit greatly from undergraduates getting a solid basis on philosophical fields such as Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Mathematics, Logic, Dialectics, and Epistemology, as well as a basis on Rhetorics to better defend themselves from it, and on practical Rationalist topics such as Bayesian Inference and Cognitive Biases.

@marcellisrobinson

2 жыл бұрын

Why not buy a copy of Barbara Ryden's "Introduction to Cosmology", to give yourself an excellent overview of these topics? Make sure that you do all of the homework problems at the end of each chapter, to make sure you understand the math involved. There's only 60 of these problems, and some of them are fun to solve!

@crowstakingoff

2 жыл бұрын

I think the video before this one was about that very topic

@cutebabyseal621

2 жыл бұрын

@pyropulse I don't think you should assume malice. I think instead we should take this as further evidence that even the smartest people are susceptible to their own biases and can fool themselves and others into going down a questionable or less-useful path. In Guth's case, inflation has gotten a lot of good press and it's his baby, I can understand a strong personal bias to keep working on it.

@theultimatereductionist7592

2 жыл бұрын

Alan Guth just needs to find the right parameters out of a collection of 9000!

Another corking episode, Sabine - I particularly like the 'Let's discuss the rules of football, rather than playing the game' argument

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Thank you for reminding us the importance of scientific method. And you brilliantly incorporated the ads into the video, what a smooth transition. I always enjoy your videos! Thank you for making them!

I have looked at the inflationary model as special pleading ever since I first heard it. Of course it makes a prediction, it was specially tweaked to do just that. That is why predictive ability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for accepting a hypothesis. There are many good explanations for why we would see inflation in an early universe, but none of them tell us why it stopped or why it lasted for the precise amount of time we would like. These gaps point out the synthetic nature of the theory's origin.

@alastorgdl

Жыл бұрын

If it's a tweak for getting a result, IT'S NOT A PREDICTION, IT'S A CHEAT Scientism adepts keep surprising me year after year

@PrometheusZandski

Жыл бұрын

@@alastorgdl Scientism? Sounds like some butt hurt chri$tian who can't deal with reality to me. You do know "scientism" (not a word) made that computer, your lights, your heater, your indoor plumbing, your car and your house all possible. Delusional religoids never surprise me with their inability to understand reality. They are all the same.

I cannot tell you what a relief it is to hear someone use the term "exponentially" who actually knows what it means.

@stephenpuryear

2 жыл бұрын

our next target should be missuse of the word "literally "

I just love the way Sabine cuts to the chase and gets right to the core of the problem. So refreshing to see complex points and counter-points eruditely stripped down to their bare forms.

Sabine, your videos get better and better. This must be one of the best yet. Thank you!

Possibly my favourite Sabine videos are the ones in which the smacks some proper science onto other scientists. Keeping science in check like that is extremely important, and I am so glad Sabine takes part in that.

@alastorgdl

Жыл бұрын

Saying predictions are really overrated is not proper science, is the exact contrary You got the idea critical thinking is conducted by gonads

Although I just watched Alan Guth teach an MIT course on inflation, Penrose doesn’t agree that it would make the universe isotropic. Guth says inflation predicts Omega will be 1 as Sabine points out.

Thanks a lot …again :) Great explanation and always very good at untangling the situation in a very clean way.

One of your best so far! I'm so glad I get to listen to your videos ❤️

This channel has personally revitalized my love of theoretical sciences. Sadly as pointed out in this video some theories have become battle grounds for ego and popularity and not science. The good news is there is still science being done and even possible bad theories still provide insights and data that we can use going forward. Honestly I'm extremely excited to see how the James Web impacts current popular theories such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter. My personal belief is they will not survive the decade as the JWST will provide new empirical data beyond Hubble limit. I look forward to see what new theories comes out of this data and honestly I hope to see more of it here as honestly I'm blown away by Sabine's depth of knowledge and hope we can see her insights as these new theories arrive.

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

Not sure what you mean by Dark Energy and Dark Matter as theories?? They are not theories in themselves. Thus they are called "dark".for a reason. But you are correct in your hopeful findings by the James Webb. It will indeed be an exciting ride.

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ascendlocal They're hypothesised to exist. There's not a firm distinction between what is a hypothesis or a theory.

@eriknelson2559

2 жыл бұрын

Pride isn't helpful

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@eriknelson2559 One can take pride in oneself and one's work without being arrogant. Pride in one's sorry can encourage us to do our best.

@hyperduality2838

2 жыл бұрын

Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Physicists making predictions is empirical proof of a new law of physics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective. The Necker cube is a good example of duality and you should watch the spinning dancer:- www.medicaldaily.com/right-your-eyes-science-behind-famous-spinning-dancer-optical-illusion-336122 Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Brain dominance is based upon the (time dependent) Hegelian dialectic:- Master (Lordship) is dual to slave (Bondsman). Left brain dominance is dual to right brain dominance. The Hegelian dialectic is dual if it is dependent & independent of time (both at the same time). Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato' cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat. The spinning dancer is visual proof of the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

If I would still be teaching research methods, I would show this video to my students. Excellent material !

@davewilkie3436

2 жыл бұрын

Would you still write a conditional sentence with two "woulds" in it? Sorry for being insufferably pedantic.

@zefallafez

2 жыл бұрын

Probably posting from his phone or tablet. I think he changed what he had written and didn’t go back and proofread what he rewrote. Been there. If I were still teaching research methods...

Sabine, you knocked this one out of the park. Hole in one. This one I'm sending out. Well done.

Love your videos Sabine, clear and so much fun to follow the logic. Keep up the good work!

Dear Sabine, I watch all your videos and I'm a really big fan. I feel, whether certain opinions are correct or not, they are always worth listening to. Thank you for your hard work on the sciences.

@marktrued9497

2 жыл бұрын

I can see her peers reacting to the public perceptions resulting from some of the rhetoric used here. Terms like "crappy" might be acceptable within the group but it creates a different dynamic used elsewhere.

@FrederickStadler

2 жыл бұрын

@@marktrued9497 well, she is very opinionated.

The best videos are the ones that at least keep me entertained and I'll learn something anyway, even if half of it goes over my head (again.) I can now put 'cosmic inflation' firmly on the pile of cosmology and physics things that aren't actually sorted, and if it ever comes up in conversation I can 'well, actually...' with confidence. Thank you, Sabine! :)

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@pyropulseI am happy to admit my ignorance, see that? I'm joking. Going 'well akshully' at me joking about going 'well, actually' isn't a great look either. 😆

@jonhowe2960

2 жыл бұрын

I skip the well, actually and go directly to well, Sabine says... saves me a lot of time, cheers

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonhowe2960 'Well SABINE says...' does have a nice, authoritative ring to it. :)

@hyperduality2838

2 жыл бұрын

Making predictions to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, projection) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Physicists making predictions is empirical proof of a new law of physics! From a converging, convex or syntropic perspective everything looks divergent, concave or entropic -- the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All observers have a syntropic perspective. The Necker cube is a good example of duality and you should watch the spinning dancer:- www.medicaldaily.com/right-your-eyes-science-behind-famous-spinning-dancer-optical-illusion-336122 Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise. Brain dominance is based upon the (time dependent) Hegelian dialectic:- Master (Lordship) is dual to slave (Bondsman). Left brain dominance is dual to right brain dominance. The Hegelian dialectic is dual if it is dependent & independent of time (both at the same time). Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato' cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition. Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic or Hegel's cat. The spinning dancer is visual proof of the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

One of my favorite quotes - *_"There is no democracy in physics._*_ We can't say that some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi."_ _Luis W. Alvarez_ I'm not suggesting that consensus be ignored, far from it. I am suggesting that it's not a sufficient justification by itself.

@simongross3122

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Reminds me of all those advertisements that start with "9 out of 10 dentists agree...."

@Pippins666

2 жыл бұрын

Why not? Broadcasters, especially the BBC, do it all the time, especially wrt global warming, dangers of smoking, fracking. With global warming, firstly there will be an interview with a serious scientist who has spent years researching the subject - then they will turn to a complete amateur numpty, often ex politician Nigel Lawson, with absolutely no relevant qualifications whatsoever, an give him equal time to bring out his preposterous views. Listeners are then left thinking the science is still in doubt. NO IT'S F****G NOT. And it's the same for any scientific theory that might damage someone's commercial interests - Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, Big Oil, Big Pharma...

@Ni999

2 жыл бұрын

@@Pippins666 Thanks for venting your frustration with politics and popular media. That had nothing to do with what I said - that's why not.

@juanausensi499

2 жыл бұрын

And that's true, but i think some people draw erroneous conclusions from that. For some people, the 1 out of 10 always is right.

@Ni999

2 жыл бұрын

@@juanausensi499 They're still being democratic but they changed the question after the fact. 😜

Thank you, Dr. Hossenfelder, I've been looking for just such a reasoned explanation of the pros and cons of the science behind inflation. Well done!

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

Well, you won't find it here. Watch the 1.5 hour discussion, debate between Alan Guth and Sir Roger Penrose. Both Nobel Laureates BTW. Inflation theory has literally become the standard model for Cosmology by a very large plurality among the theoretical physicists & cosmologists. The data is supported regardless of her subjective opinions. Inflation theory solves the flatness and horizon problems. It still has challenges such as the measurement problem but it nevertheless the leading theory.

If I’m not mistaken, the Inflation theory was created to explain the smoothness of the energy distribution we see in the universe. What I’ve never understood is why couldn’t the universe have started out very smooth and therefore not need inflation?

@malavoy1

2 жыл бұрын

The argument, if I remember correctly, is that it did start off smooth, but if it didn't expand as fast as inflation theory proposes, then it would have gotten 'lumpy' by the time it reached 'full' size. Inflation gets it to that size (however big in the early universe would have been considered 'full' size or 'big enough') while maintaining the original smoothness.

@cloudpoint0

2 жыл бұрын

The Inflation theory (framework actually) was created for other mathematical reasons related to how the Higgs field should behave and artifacts that should be present but aren't (I think). Flatness was just a bonus that arose from the Inflation solution.

@kurt9395

2 жыл бұрын

I remember the same thing, it was needed to explain the smoothness of the CMB. From what I remember, inflation was basically saying that, for a time, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, the CMB would be more intense in some directions as opposed to others. I don't recall hearing about any mechanism proposed to say how something can travel faster than light, but never mind. I guess that the alternative would be to concede that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang Theory and that's a bridge too far for most cosmologists.

@randalljsilva

2 жыл бұрын

I have a crazy idea at spaceTimeCells followed by the standard domain suffix, which would support either inflation or not. The idea is the universe is a cell/bubble that keeps dividing making smaller cells but remaining the same size. The first division was the first tick of time or what we’d call the moment of the big bang. Cell/bubble membranes form at the speed of light (I don’t know how or why they form) and grow to the middle. In the inflation period, many membranes form at once, so rather than the cells creating a doubled next generation, they create a 2^n next generations.

@eriknelson2559

2 жыл бұрын

@@kurt9395 Everyone knows entropy decreases backwards in time back towards the Big Bang, so that the Universe had to have begun in an anomalously low entropy state. Out of that state emerged (evidently, apparently, according to observations) an anomalously smooth distribution of matter & energy. Out of anomalously low entropy = high order came an anomalously orderly distribution of energy. So, you could just say, "the Universe began in an anomalously ordered state" (= known fact) and leave it at that (?) This YT channel also has a video about how the Universe is far more clumpy than originally thought ("Cosmological Principal" episode)

When we learn about inflation in a textbook manner, the only convincing argument about the "need" of inflationary cosmology, in my opinion, is the fact that CMB shows very small temperature fluctuations in regions of space that would be causally disconnected (distance greater than the horizon) according to the Lambda-CDM model. So one logical (?) conclusion is that we are wrongly computing the horizon distance and apparently disconnected regions were actually close enough to reach thermal equilibrium. However, this does sound more a Lambda-CDM problem as a whole than an strong argument in favor of inflation (can't we invent other models that solve the horizon problem?)

@unduloid

2 жыл бұрын

Cool. I'll be awaiting your peer-reviewed article on the matter.

@09Ateam

2 жыл бұрын

@@unduloid Will you really though? Do you even read papers on the subject and not just New Scientist articles?

@tomerwolberg37

2 жыл бұрын

Can't you just solve this problem by saying the universe just started homogeneous like we observe?

@maximevilleneuve8842

2 жыл бұрын

Have a look in the Janus Cosmological Model where involvement of negative mass and variable magnitude of cosmological constants overtime may solve this problem. It looks quite promising to me.

@11Matthew16

2 жыл бұрын

@@guyg.8529 Thanks for the suggestion

The way you were describing the difference between a good and a bad scientific theory really reminded me of the way Max Tegmark phrased it in one of PBS' podcasts - (paraphrasing) a good scientific theory is essentially a data compression algorithm for the universe. Something can be untestable "pure math" and still be good science if it allows you to compute the same results with fewer steps and inputs.

Admittedly a totally air head regarding anything scientific. I absolutely love your presentation s. Thank you for these wonderful videos. . I am always appreciative of your knowledge and witty comments. Looking forward to your next video

You need Einstein T shirts as merch, with a catchy phrase

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

I think "Yeah, that guy again" would be catchy enough and appropriate. Mugs too.

@SebaBuenoHaceMusiquitaJijiji

2 жыл бұрын

@@brothermine2292 I would totally support

The problem with inflation is that we cannot build a particle accelerator and measure an inflaton field. I guess we have to accept that models of the early universe are going to involve a lot of speculation and cannot enjoy the same status as more well-established theories.

@YourIdeologyIsDelusional

2 жыл бұрын

Any theory with practical use should produce some kind of testable predictions. Even if the people who made the theory didn't intend or weren't aware of those predictions, we're dealing with a universe wide phenomena. If a given inflation model is worth anything, poking it with a stick long enough should produce something that can confirm or debunk it. Not really a fan of this video because it doesn't do a good job establishing that reality. If inflation is real, it would have consequences on a cosmic scale, and any worthwhile theory should point to where those consequences demonstrate themselves.

@Achrononmaster

2 жыл бұрын

Inflationary big bangs are not only caused by the mythical inflaton field. Penrose CCC does not require an inflaton for instance, but does describe an inflationary epoch. Last I read of CCC though was Penrose was now postulating the need for a new field, so it spoilt things a bit along the lines of putting more in to the model than one gets out..

Thanks for all of your videos. I appreciate you sharing knowledge with laypeople like myself who are interested in science, physics, and astronomy.

Very much looking forward to the follow-up with other hypotheses.

1:20 It’s funny in physics that a ‚prediction‘ is associated with an event which happened in the past 🙃

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

I think the reason inflation is so popular is it fits with observations in cosmology on large scales

@alphalunamare

2 жыл бұрын

So Does God if you are inclined to have faith in popularity of mention.

@jonathanjollimore4794

2 жыл бұрын

@@alphalunamare Not really explain that please in more detail it makes no sense

@alphalunamare

2 жыл бұрын

I was knocking 'popularity' as a means of assigning credibility to a theory. Inflation is designed fit with observations in cosmology on large scales so it is hardly surprising that it does.

@jonathanjollimore4794

2 жыл бұрын

@@alphalunamare Designed how do they design observations? You can't design these observations. Once more what you say makes no sense at all? Again in detail how did they "design" observations? They built galaxy's to move way from us? What you are say is just silly

@alphalunamare

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonathanjollimore4794 Read what I said ... I said nothing about designing observations. I see that I left the 'to' before the word fit however.

I very strongly agree with the perspective of Penrose on this matter. The leap from Hubble's observational data to such grandiose and fantastical conclusions as Inflation and talking about the "singularity of the Big Bang" as though anyone has any actual clue about the truth of any of that, merely that extrapolations based on current observational data using our best models lead to a "singularity", which is just a mathematical paradox. There's a vast gulf between saying "there's a mathematical singularity" and saying "everything began at a single condensed point that then exploded outward in a completely unique, almost miraculous event, which funnily enough coincides very well with vague notions of a monotheistic "creator" performing an "act of creation", but we won't say that out loud ever or reflect on why such a theory might be so inherently attractive for non-scientific reasons". Just like there's a vast gulf between "we've hit a wall in our ability to measure reality, so we are forced to use compromises and probability schemes to do the math" and "nothing is real, fundamentally at the most basic level things exist in superposition, which Schroedinger made up this great analogy for to make the concept make more sense (when he literally made up the cat thought experiment to directly show people how absurd the concept of superposition was if taken literally and not seen as simply a mathematical tool), and what this means is that at every instant, because of the infinite possibilities always present due to everything being in superposition and nothing being real, infinite parallel universes are created and splinter off for every possible different outcome of superposition. I am a serious physicist. Einstein's thinking was so limited, hahaha."

Fabulous clarity. Well done, Sabine. Well done.

Sabine, you amaze me! Each week you help me understand how our egos get in the way of our work, which causes us to rethink and discuss what we really know. Your videos are an invaluable service.

Should I get a beer for this? Oh, what the hell, I'll get one!

You keep giving us hit after hit with your wonderful videos, sabine. Much appreciated as always. May I request you to make a video where you discuss the recent sky survey findings which show the concentric arrangement of galaxies with the milky way galaxy at the centre of the structure, and what that means for the cosmological principle? I think we would all appreciate your take on that matter.

6:15 They picked the initial values based on the current data that would give the correct values for the current data. It's like going to the lottery people after the winning numbers have been announced and telling them you want to buy a ticket with the numbers for the winning lottery numbers they just announced.

Thank you. You mentioned one idea is the universe inflated 80 magnitudes in less than a second. How does one determine size from within the expansion if there is no outside ruler to measure against? Same question with time. Just one clock?

@landsgevaer

2 жыл бұрын

There is only spacetime, space and time together. The "absolute ruler" follows from the constants of nature (e.g. Planck length). Do you also have problems with expansion of the current universe, not due to inflation? That is measurable from inside that universe.

@joshyman221

Жыл бұрын

Bit of a late response but hopefully I can shed some light. Essentially the key quantity of interest here is something called a hubble size, which is loosely the size of you’re universe (things you could have been in causal contact with). If you look at the CMB, which was emitted 13 billion years ago, the Hubble size is about 2 degree on the sky. But everything in the CMBis almost perfectly isotopic. So regions that were never in causal contact have exactly the same statistics. Inflation explains this by supposing that the universe begins with an exponential period of growth, during which, if you do the maths, the Hubble size shrinks. So you can start with a region within a Hubble size, and have two different areas become separated (like in the CMB) but still contain the same statistics (up to QM effects). The number of 80 magnitudes corresponds basically to the difference between a Hubble size at the CMB time to our current universe. This is a lower bound on inflation, it must have at least blown up the universe this much such that the Hubble size shrunk by enough to observe the different regions of the CMB being isotopic.

9:51 "It's because of arguments like this that people don't trust scientists." I disagree. Very few people who don't trust scientists can follow any such arguments or even give a rough approximation to what science is, much less tell you what cosmology is. They read something about basic established science and see that it disagrees with what they've decided is true and learned from something other than science, and from that they decide science and scientists are wrong.

Excellent presentation. That a theory should put out more than gets put in - referring to parameter fitting with the parameter values as observed from measurement. That resonates as a basic and profound truth.

The graphics crack me up - I love it! Keep up the great work. 👍

Once again excellent analysis from one of the best minds in science today.

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Such an odd argument in favor of inflation... "It's the same as what we do in quantum field theory"... yes, but most physicists at the time were deeply uncomfortable with a theory that doesn't predict what its own parameters should be and instead just plugs in whatever we observed and then pretends the theory predicted it. It is NOT a strength of QFT or the Standard Model that we have to do this, but rather a fundamental weakness.

@tomerwolberg37

2 жыл бұрын

It's not necessarily a weakness if you actually need this many parameters in the model. The problem with too many parameters for a model is that it can cause overfitting (i.e., making your model extremly accurate or even too acurate to the data points you have but you can't extrapolate or interpolate new data with it), but if you have too few parameters you can underfit (i.e., you can't even predict the data you have with this model). That means that you need the least complex model to tune that you can still fit to all of your data, and to avoid or decreasing the chances of overfitting you would just need a lot of data (the more complex your model is the more data you will need). But in QFT we have huge amounts of a data and QFT predicted it correctly to amazing accuracy, that means it's unlikely we are overfitting here.

@usr7941

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that argument. So ridiculous lazy and unscientific

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

You are so good at explaining this stuff. Good job!

Thank you Sabine. The first time I watched a lecture about the inflaton field I thought that it is just basic function series expansion, and that changing the parameters you can make Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or a picture of my grandmother instead of the CMBR.

Sabine seems to be bringing science back to science.

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Oh wow since I was a child I always trusted scientific documentarys and took anything in them as absolute fact that's why I used to think dark matter inflation and other theory's as proven fact but if it wasn't proven I think it should be communicated in a different way rather than a fact it should only explained as a possibility

@mikemondano3624

2 жыл бұрын

Anyone can make a documentary in their garage.

@nziom

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikemondano3624 I meant like the ones in national geographic or DW what kind of documentaries you watch

@KuK137

2 жыл бұрын

Dude, you're wrong at the basic level. NOTHING in science is a fact (that's why we call it 'theory') because future scientist might (and usually will) develop better theories. That doesn't mean Newtons theory of gravity it's wrong, it's correct for 99% of purposes one might reasonably need. That's why we use Einsteins theory of gravity for the remaining 1%, not 100%, because for all the other cases it's overkill and there is no need to bother with it. The fact that some future theory might be 'more' correct doesn't mean nitpicking of today makes theory wrong and you shouldn't trust it. If we have a theory at all it's because it does something well, and is as close to a proven fact as it gets. It's that simple.

@deltalima6703

2 жыл бұрын

Some theories (plum pudding model of the atom for instance) are garbage and thrown out. Other theories (bohr model of the atom for instance) are mostly garbage but can help understand stuff and hang around. Modern theories (Quantum model of the atom for instance) are usually brutal to work with mathematically but conceptually not that hard and extremely accurate. The low hanging fruit has been picked, after all.

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

Great video, Sabine! Thank you! Nice Data/Brent Spiner reference, by the way!

This is my favorite of your videos yet!

One Question: Can expanding space time still be called flat space time or has curvature nothing to do with expansion?

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent question. You have to carefully distinguish between flat space and flat space-time. Space can be flat in an expanding universe, but space-time can't. When people talk about cosmology they usually refer to the curvature of space, not space-time.

@juzoli

2 жыл бұрын

If you draw lines on a paper, and expand the paper uniformly, then the lines stay straight, angles stay the same, and the paper stays flat. You can repeat it in 3, 4, 5 or n dimensions. I don’t say this is happening, but this is a geometric possibility. The default possibility.

@BigZebraCom

2 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Hi. I'm sorry about all the inflation in the universe. I didn't mean to do it, it just happened. I fell asleep when I was supposed to be keeping an eye on things; and the whole universe just blew up on me.

@christophbader3713

2 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you for your answer! Easy to mix things up, I guess. Maybe a topic for a video? :)

@dailykittencuteness5598

2 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder why can’t space time be flat in an expanding universe? Is it because of the connection between time and the speed of light?

I've never been convinced by inflation theory, so hearing that its no more credible than dark matter theory really clicked for me. But I also didn't know about the ET correlation, which might actually convince me. So I hope you do a video on that. Although I'm still leaning towards Steinhardt's interpretation and cyclic cosmology. Needing an extra inflaton field seems to violate occam's razor. Could that field not be the higgs field? But of course if it was we wouldn't see rapid inflation at the beginning of the universe... provided that WAS the beginning of the universe. The simpler alternative being that something similar to the inflaton field may have occurred, with the inflaton field being analogous to an already existing field... but not in this epoch. Also there are issues with multiverse theory itself that leaves me about as convinced by it as I am inflation theory.

@Ascendlocal

2 жыл бұрын

You might not have been convinced but the Nobel Prize committee was. Oh, and BTW, gravitational waves imprint on the CMB when confirmed by peer review, will be like killing two birds with one stone. Eternal inflation is the natural predictor from inflation, just as black holes were to General Relativity. And of course we have now a visual proof of a black hole. Eternal inflation theory also answers the fine tuning of our pocket universe and the resulting Anthropic Principal

@RedRocket4000

2 жыл бұрын

Note the definition of Dark Matter has expanded to where any answer to the gravitational anomalies will be Dark Matter even if it some idea that does not include matter. Your statement is correct the hypothesis that Dark Matter is made up by particles is still unproven yet its often stated like it's a proven theory (I have a major problem with Science using a different definition for Theory than the general public one)

@dariozanze4929

2 жыл бұрын

@@RedRocket4000 Would be better if it was called "gravitational anomaly" or even "something" from the beginning.

It's really hard to have an unbiased review on anything and I'm very pleased with your approaching on the matter. To me it was always the tendency to see the Universes as a nearly flat disk, since it's what we usually observe from galaxies around us and the Milky Way itself. By the way, at some point you slipped the "Steinhardt" with a German pronunciation, and it made my day. ♥️

Great summary and opinions. I thought you were going to comment on the BICEP2 experiment as well.

Sabine, you are the breath of fresh air that modern physics needs. You cut through the confusion sowed by your less scientifically rigorous colleagues and if they would take the time to listen to your cogent points and update their thought processes, humanity could see faster progress in our understanding of reality. There are a lot of brilliant minds out there, but we need a mind like yours to keep them on a course towards scientific progress, rather than waste time circling an issue that is likely not at a state where it has any scientific merit. Please, keep doing the amazing work you do. Humanity is better for it.

I really like sabine's realistic point of view. She reminds us that science should not be made into a kind of new techno religion... it is good to always keep in mind what is proven to a good degree, and what is pure hypothesis still...

@yuvalne

2 жыл бұрын

+

good question!! I d love to hear.

Very well put! The many different inflationary models that don't explain the data are irrelevant. We should look at the ones that do fit and see how complex they are compared to the other options.

hahaha Guth's head going into the machine 4:48

The popularity argument is the true nemesis of progression. My concern about many things though is that there may be no overall benefit to humanity to even get to a wholly true answer. The whole thing is based on the Big Bang which is based on expansion, both of which could be fairy tales of their own hanging on what red shift means; which is another one which won a popularity contest. If it now looks like galaxies rotate around “braided magnetic ropes”, might this affect observations of which direction we believe other galaxies are travelling in. They may be rotating away from us and/or we may equally be rotating away from them. Can we even measure distance properly when we depend on red shift theory being correct. Whatever the truth, it sounds more like a “nice to know” than a “must know”. I’d rather see funding and research into more local matters that will affect our lifetimes. How can we live better today. How can we live better in the near future.

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

The big bang hypothesis was NOT based on "accelerating expansion." It was based on Hubble expansion, which was an interpretation of the red shift observed by Hubble in the 1920s. For many decades it was assumed that the expansion was slowing due to gravity, and might eventually collapse to a big crunch. No one dreamed of accelerating expansion until the observations of the red shift of very distant supernovae in the 1990s.

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

Relatively little money is spent on these things you consider unimportant.

@mcnaugha

2 жыл бұрын

@@brothermine2292 minor detail corrected. Expansion was the key word. It doesn’t affect my point.

@mcnaugha

2 жыл бұрын

@@brothermine2292 minor detail corrected. Expansion was the key word. It doesn’t affect my point.

You're fantastic Sabine. A down to earth breath of fresh air . Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Love your experience and knowledge in challenging things

Hello Sabine When are you going to release another Music Video?

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

I have been working on a new video with two other people for, like, a year, but it seems neither of us got much done. I certainly hope that eventually it will become reality!

@RaniaFarislovesRoubi

2 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder ❤❤❤❤❤❤

tldw; Inflation is a rough idea of what might have happened, some parts can be built on in the future.

Great post my friend. I appreciate you, even though you often stretch my brain beyond its natural capacity. 🤣😇⭐💛

Excellent presentation, Sabine

An interesting idea: the next big paradigm shift in physics will allow for instantaneous, universal communication technologies.

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

I would love that!

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, great... yet another thing that only the ultra-wealthy will be able to afford. Like quantum computers.

Brilliant, thank you. I hope this epic fight of cosmologists is settled in my lifetime.

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

I hope Sabine keeps making videos of it while it lasts.

@obsidianjane4413

2 жыл бұрын

If they did that they wouldn't be able to get new grants or publish!!!

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@obsidianjane4413 They'd have to cook up something else, then.

Great video. I like your dry humor. Keep it up

Sabine after seeing you I always feel light headed and my head and heart swell...!!

Inflation always struck me as a place-holder in an equation. It works for now in that it might explain the data, but the data do not necessarily support the theory. I think physicists need to keep reminding themselves, and others, that the first moments (minutes? seconds? milliseconds?) of the universe are mysterious and perhaps always will be.

@johnwalczak9202

2 жыл бұрын

Why does the universe must have a beginning? It is the weakness of our mind to assume that everything must have a beginning and the end.

@cristianpallares7565

Жыл бұрын

@@johnwalczak9202 those are my thoughts as well. I believe there's no beginning of space and time. It's the only explanation for existence that makes sense to me

I appreciate this video of Sabine's! I was afraid she would have bullshitted about "multiverse is unscientific" (which isn't necessarily the case) but concentrated on explanatory power in terms of how much info you have to throw into a model and how much info you get out of it in terms of predictions (which doesn't necessarily mean pre-diction in a temporal sense).

Sabine, I love your fearless honesty when critiquing other scientists. Keep it up!… Forgive me if this question is naive, but as I think about inflation theories, they all seem to focus on the notion that the university, or space itself, expanded exponentially in a very brief period of time, helping to explain the homogeneity of the universe and geometric flatness of it as observed in the CMB. (Hopefully I got that right.) Anyway, I have perhaps 2 perhaps philosophical questions in challenge to this notion: 1.) How does time have any meaning in this context, since time as we know it (yeah that guy again) is relative and the reference frame for this time this all took place is philosophically meaningless vs our perspective today? 2.) How come the same amount of expansion occurring over a longer period of such “time” in the early universe couldn’t have produced the same observations we see today in terms of homogeneity and geometric flatness? That is, aren’t we applying our innate assumptions about the speed of something happening “fast-fast” to spread out something to large scales without creating a lot of wrinkles in the process to something that really could have just happened on normal time scales all the same?

What bothers me most about inflation as an idea is the kind of question a 5 year-old would ask: why? Why did we have a inflation field? Why did it decide to show up so early in the Universe? Why can we have one today? Of course I could make the same objections about dark matter and dark energy (and I do). There is much to be done.

Inflation, the idea that the universe size increased "almost" instantly by 30 orders of magnitude, always felt like magic thinking to me.

@obsidianjane4413

2 жыл бұрын

Psssssst. Cosmology is all just magic thinking with math.

Speculating on what happened at the instant of creation sort of reminds me of two people discussing what the edge of the earth looks like. They just don't understand the fundamentals. Scientists never make it clear that these are theories, at least the layman never walks away thinking that. Ask anyone what some of the competing theories are. They are there, but I bet the reader know few if any of them. I'm referring to their existence.

@srobertweiser

2 жыл бұрын

The instant the universe was created is probably similar to the instant all life is created. I like your analogy of two people discussing what the edge of the earth looks like. l thought of a similar analogy when I heard people discussing what the edge of the universe looks like, l thought it would be like discussing what the edge of your mind looks like.

@GRay-fp2kb

2 жыл бұрын

That instant all mind and intelligence was created so no human mind can fully explain what happened at that point apart from surmises and conjectures in the form of theories

EXCELLENT!!! Your attack on the "argument from popularity," and how it properly leads people to stop trusting scientists, is spot on. I love your independent and skeptical spirit. Keep it up.

I have heard that one argument for inflation is the uniformity of wave lengths in the CMB, i.e. that it would be hard to have that kind of uniformity without some kind of inflation....

Mrs Kimberly is legit and her method works like magic I keep on earning every single week with her new strategy

@barbarathomas3910

2 жыл бұрын

I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Mrs Kimberly. I think she is the best broker I ever seen

@donnamiller5526

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for introducing me to Mrs Kimberly. My first investment with Mrs Kimberly gave me profit of over $24,000 us dollars and ever since then she has never failed to deliver and I can even say she's the most sincere broker I have known

@debrawinger9994

2 жыл бұрын

Mrs Kimberly has changed my financial status for the best.all thanks to my aunty who introduced her to me

@debrawinger9994

2 жыл бұрын

Yes I' m also a living testimony of expert Mrs Kimberly

@cindylevi9230

2 жыл бұрын

Mrs Kimberly is obviously the best, I invested $3,000 and she made profit of $28,000 for me just in 15 days, Her success story is everywhere

"It's because of arguments like this that people don't trust scientists" As someone who quit during their physics postdoc in big part because of this mob mentality, which included being pressured not to publish my research because it contradicts that of my boss, I felt that very deeply.

@carlosgaspar8447

2 жыл бұрын

your dissertation would need approval from your boss and peers; they would then be admitting their mistakes in public...

@Ivan.Wright

2 жыл бұрын

It's too bad the tool of science gets corrupted by egotistical scientists. It's not even right to call them scientist at a certain point.

@bobysze

2 жыл бұрын

While I do feel for you, it’s not usually what happens in science. Usually disproving an established theory is encouraged, since it gets a lot of attention. Your bosses theory probably wasn’t very established at all and since it’s probably also wrong, he sounds like kind of an idiot. But as we have seen in this video, there is always another camp, just waiting for good counter arguments! Also, why people don’t trust scientists is because they think 10 minutes on Google is just as good as studying a subject for years. They have a gut feeling and think that’s just as good as real research.

@nas8318

2 жыл бұрын

@@bobysze Your optimism is cute

@bobysze

2 жыл бұрын

@@nas8318 it’s my own experience as a researcher. I feel sorry, that your experience seems to have been very different. I can also understand, that early in your career (even more so pre PhD), there aren’t a lot of options, if your boss is a d**k. In the end though, it has nothing to do how the public sees scientists and science in general. Most people aren’t in research, but many have had a bad boss once.

Imagine a Zolly movie effect, if you will: 1. The camera moves toward a subject. (Space is contracting) 2. The camera zooms out so that the subject remains the same size in the frame. (Space is contracting) 3. The background becomes smaller. (The Universe is actually fading out, not expanding.) I don't expect this to be correct in any way, but felt that another visual representation was possible. If everything were fading into non-existence IN PLACE the results would seem to be the same as the observed states of inflation. No expansion is necessary in this model as it's all just 'subjective' at this level anyway.

Fantastic video, Sabine! Thanks! 😃 But that trend of scientists using fallacies really makes me mad... Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

I think it's very interesting how, for cosmology especially, scientists' preconceived notions of how the universe "should be" hold so much sway over the types of theories they support or argue against. Steinhardt's point about overfitting is certainly well taken, but to pivot to a completely different cosmology just because one thinks the multiverse is intractable is baffling. Like Einstein and the cosmological constant and the whole nonsense with the steady-state universe. Let's go an do some experiments and see which theory explains them the best, like we're supposed to!

Even really smart people fall for the traps of cognitive biases

I love that you included the SkydivePhil channel, his content is great and the interviews are fantastic. He deserves more subs, 👍

A fantastic video! And a good commercial, too.

Inflation was proposed decades after Einstein died. The question I prefer to ask is “if one removes inflation theory from cosmology or the big bang model, can you account for what is observed today?”

@ascaniosobrero

2 жыл бұрын

This is not necessarily the right question. Current models could be wrong and leave us with no explanation, but no explanation does not mean we should consider correct whatever model can account for observations. I still think prediction ability is the key for a sound theory.

@trucid2

2 жыл бұрын

Physicists observe that our universe is expanding and assume that it originated from a point, the big bang. The math doesn't work out, so they introduced inflation as a fudge factor. I think a more likely explanation is to do away with the big bang singularity assumption. Perhaps the universe is cycling or steady state.

@reessoft9416

2 жыл бұрын

@@trucid2 The maths does indeed work out. Observational data supports the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model works well even without inflation. Inflation was only introduced to explain the homogeneity of the CMB. That's only one small part of the overall model Steady state was disproved decades ago. It doesn't come close to agreeing with the data that's been accumulated over the last century.

Great critique of inflation, it will be amazing if we are able to learn more about the extremely early moments of universe. Kudos for calling out the argumentum ad populum fallacy. This is the first time I noticed WTF is the reverse of FTW. Great bit of English trivia from Sabine.

@fluentpiffle

Жыл бұрын

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics) "What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning" (Werner Heisenberg) "For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation." (Einstein, 1940) "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (Albert Einstein, 1954) "Some things that satisfy the rules of algebra can be interesting to mathematicians even though they don't always represent a real situation." (Richard P. Feynman) "Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe) "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla) "I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1600) "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world) "History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) Far from 'Standing on the shoulders of giants', modern 'big bang' supporters are dancing on their graves..

good video! i always wondered what this brilliant thing is ;)

Thank you Sabine for the great videos! Brief question on inflation theory for anyone who can help: I understand that the inflation hypothesis rectifies the "Horizon problem" of causal contact that we see in different regions of the CMB that are on opposite sides of the sky. I am curious if inflation is needed if the universe was not flat but a different geometry such as spherical? Is it possible that the causal contact problem (Horizon Problem) of the early universe could be explained by geometry rather than inflation?

The proliferation of models when a paradigm is uncertain is called by Thomas Kuhn, “Extraordinary research.” This phase of research with it’s proliferation of competing explanations of phenomena, says Kuhn with, “the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundamentals” is fundamental to the scientific enterprise.

Thanks for the video. What is your opinion of what's down at a correspondence level? Nothing between somethings or something all the way?

Sharp cookie found here. Such a well rounded and researched explanation of the issue.

the description reminded me of the cartoon where there's a space on a cluttered blackboard that says "and then a miracle happens". when i wonder about stuff in the real world my brain often just makes similar boxes and i think "i could probably fill it out if i had more time and energy :-D"