I'm going to use supersymmetry as my answer to everything from now on -- what's the dog barking at? supersymmetry; why is there a clunk sound when I turn the steering wheel? supersymmetry; who's at the door? supersymmetry; why is there no money in my bank account? supersymmetry; officer, yes I was speeding but because of supersymmetry...

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

'I'm a Particle Physicist - Supersymmetry Ruined My Life, But I'm Addicted'

@ChrisPyle

2 жыл бұрын

Have I been drinking? No, I’m just super symmetrical lol I like your idea! 🤣

@jonaskerri1840

2 жыл бұрын

💭

@gefginn3699

2 жыл бұрын

Giggle giggle Wink 😉 🤣

@gefginn3699

2 жыл бұрын

I haven't seen a new Music Video in a long while Sabine. Are you still creating ? Perhaps I'm just not getting notified. I always enjoy your showmanship/ style. 🤩

I was at a nuclear physics conference when I first heard someone refer to quarks and gluons as “effective degrees of freedom” . Seems a lot of people reluctantly are of the mindset that all we have are effective field theories of effective field theories. “Turtles all the way down”, as they say. 4 years into my phd and I have no idea what a particle is anymore😂

@Vexas345

2 жыл бұрын

Niels Bohr ruined quantum physics. Particles are whatever you want to observe them as.

@ReclinedPhysicist

2 жыл бұрын

You don't have to know what they are. Just need some idea how they behave

@frun

2 жыл бұрын

I very strongly support the view, that all fields are effective. Furthermore, I have a feeling it is, because of fractal geometry.

@NetAndyCz

2 жыл бұрын

I think that particles are easy to spot from afar, but when you look closely, they vanish in probabilistic wave clouds... it is not a perfect analogy, but it reminds me of actual clouds. You can see clouds from the distance as clearly defined shapes, but when you get close to one, you end up in sort of mist with slightly reduced visibility that has no actual edge. Even better example would be nebulas you have no idea you are inside one as they are so empty.

@jameskerr9509

2 жыл бұрын

They all don’t know either but too proud to admit it 🤣

This channel is like having your own science consultant.

@idjles

2 жыл бұрын

I think you mean she is the physics therapist we all need.

@falconeagle3655

2 жыл бұрын

They actually provide it. It was something like 300$-500$ per hour for any kind of discussion.

@MrAlRats

2 жыл бұрын

Except she ought to be ignored when it comes to any area of research that she has decided to abandon in the past. She's reluctant to consider the possibility that others might see potential or merits in things that she failed to recognise. She is no doubt a very good scientist, but her opinion on what area of research she considers as worth pursuing or not is more of a statement about her than the area of research she is talking about. Such value judgements should not be mixed in with educational content in my opinion.

@lawrencedoliveiro9104

2 жыл бұрын

“Confessions of a lapsed particle physicist”. Somehow she makes me feel better about leaving physics behind after getting my BSc, and concentrating on postgrad computer science ...

@falconeagle3655

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrAlRats While I agree to some of your words. I need to say her key point is physics is not math. So without any kind of binding to reality or experimental proof any theory is rubbish. This is very important. Particle physics didn't bring out enough results considering their investment. I agree with her that we need to massive widen the fields and not put all of our eggs in the same busket.

Sabine is making friends in the particle physics community again!😁 I appreciate her skepticism very much.

@freefall9832

2 жыл бұрын

3 cheers for Sabine!

@mikkel715

2 жыл бұрын

Sabine doesn't need friends at particle physics, they need Sabine..

@aididdat1749

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder if it's a good thing to show her skepticism... on KZread. She's got great points, sure for that! But there are some people here that would use that as another argument to distrust science in general. KZread should be without comments (ironically I am doing one rn)

@freefall9832

2 жыл бұрын

@@aididdat1749 nah comments are good, particle physics deserves the distrust

@aididdat1749

2 жыл бұрын

@@freefall9832 why are comments good? You don't know me or any other readers. What if I am a troll? Comments don't really comment the video but weird general views like I am doing now. I also learnt something: I put in my first comment two different statements. You picked the least relevant. But it's my fault. Should have kept only the first statement. Anyway I'm mixing things now. Good day to you

Love watching Sabine deliver healthy doses of brutal honesty, with her characteristic deadpan expression.

@BigDsGaming2022

2 жыл бұрын

straight to the heart too

@TheDanEdwards

2 жыл бұрын

"healthy doses of brutal honesty," - I don't know what a "healthy dose" means, especially when it comes to something that is "brutal". But Sabine has now made a career of being the cynic in the room, from which she's crafted a business here on KZread. Her gimmick attracts quite a number of people who believe in quackery (just go through the comments), because this idea that the establishment-is-wrong appeals to those types.

@alphagt62

2 жыл бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards and I suppose you have all the data that proves her wrong? While she does have a lot of educated people watching her channel, the vast majority are not physicists, so it’s no wonder you get a lot of odd comments, but that is no evidence that she is wrong. To insinuate that she is acting dishonestly to appeal to idiots is a fairly uninformed position. These theorist who she claims do not like her, do so because they can’t prove her wrong either. If she were easily debunked, they would do so, but I have yet to see that happen.

@andersjjensen

2 жыл бұрын

My favourite is her remark about some dark matter theory that, if tweaked right, could be made to prove that the universe doesn't even exist.. to which Sabine coldly delivered "..which is in conflict with observations" and casually moved on.

@Manorainjan

2 жыл бұрын

MeToo ;-) minus the rating as brutal. But, since honesty seems completely out of fashion these days, even minor doses of honesty may be deemed "brutal". I prefer to see her style as the reasonable minimum of clarity.

I love that German aphorism: 'Don't eat the headlines as hot as they are cooked." Although the link between consumption of information and the consumption of food is not as obvious in English, it still works.

@noeckel

2 жыл бұрын

Just to clarify: the actual German saying is "Nothing gets eaten as hot as it was cooked" - so it's not just about headlines ;-)

@gerryjamesedwards1227

2 жыл бұрын

@@noeckel thanks.

@quillaja

2 жыл бұрын

"You are what you eat."

@freefall9832

2 жыл бұрын

I like the english, don't believe anything you hear and half of what you see

@tissuepaper9962

2 жыл бұрын

@@freefall9832 10% of what you hear, 50% of what you read, 80% of what you see

"don't eat the headlines as hot as they are cooked" absolutely love it!

This is the best physics channel on KZread right here. You lay things out in a way that my mind feels like it can almost grasp, when these concepts are way above my head.

John Von Neumann's quote "with four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk" still true for all supersymmetry theories.

@reaperinsaltbrine5211

2 жыл бұрын

Neumann was one of those guys whose brilliance and forceful style draw modern science towards where it is now. Not only in the good direction.

@pauldirc..

Жыл бұрын

​@@reaperinsaltbrine5211 please explain

@reaperinsaltbrine5211

Жыл бұрын

@@pauldirc.. Claude Shannon apparently had this opinion regarding Entropy as applied to Communications Theory: he said it was Neumann who suggested using the term, because "it sounds cool and nobody really knows what it means". It also sort of led to the situation where people seem to expand the concept of 'information' to be a fundamental force or interaction when Shannon's original idea was very far from it. At least the way I see it.

I’m not qualified to judge Sabine’s ability in physics, but I am qualified to know that she is a great communicator! What a gift to the world! I especially like how she believes that physics needs to advance society to be worthwhile. This is a view that I wholeheartedly share. Edit: Wow! Usually, my posts only get the occasional thumbs up. I didn’t think this would lead to a philosophical discussion. I’m glad it has remained civil. (Stay away trolls…) Goes to show that this topic is obviously more nuanced than my brief comment is.

@UnclePorkchop

2 жыл бұрын

I concur

@KeithCooper-Albuquerque

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnclePorkchop As to I. Nice handle, btw!

@tzeshanchen8563

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, Newton is the greatest scientist not just because he discovered universal gravitation but also he illustrated how to apply mathematical principles in natural philosophy which marked a departure of science from philosophy.

@Soken50

2 жыл бұрын

As a fan of recreational mathematics (and some of the uses found for them decades or centuries later) I have to disagree, sometimes just making a discovery is worthwhile even if it has no practical applications at the moment. A great example of this is quaternions, discovered in the 19th century, which are now an indispensable tool for drawing 3D graphics. I'll meet you half way and say maybe we shouldn't take funds away from promising projects to do so but we should still pursue these seemingly frivolous subjects in case they come handy later.

@berniv7375

2 жыл бұрын

@@KeithCooper-Albuquerque No! Insensitive! I do agree that Sabine Hossenfelder is a good communicator and that physics should be utilized to better society or more to the point help us survive and evolve.🌱☢🌱

I would respectfully disagree with your statement that the miniBoone anomaly has disappeared. No one has an explanation for how the observed excess came to be. The microBoone data still has very clear discrepancies between it and simulation, suggesting that they really don’t understand their data yet (and anyone from microBoone would agree that they don’t).

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I agree, it's a little more complicated than I made it sound. I'll be surprised if it comes back, but I wouldn't mind being surprised!

@metatechnologist

2 жыл бұрын

Dude, you watched the video. It's "supersymmetry".

@adb012

2 жыл бұрын

@pyropulse 20 heads in a row is very unlikely, it would happen by chance on average once every million times you flip a fair coin 20 times. 7 sigma however is 1 in 400 Billon. That means that for every time you get a 7-sigma even you got 20 heads in a row 400.000 times.

@stefanogandino9192

2 жыл бұрын

@@adb012 and yet you may get that result at your first attempt and then never again. Does that means obscure forces were at play? That you missed something in the deep work of nature that makes something so unlikely to happens? No, if it's not impossible it's "bound" to happen

@pablovirus

2 жыл бұрын

@@stefanogandino9192 that's not how inductive reasoning works.

Unlike most particle physicists, I think you are a valuable resource AND you have a great singing voice!

“You’d think that this would’ve taught me not to get excited about anomalies, but you know me better” Classic Dr. Hossenfelder

@rayoflight62

2 жыл бұрын

You may remember when some Italian researchers announced that they had observed particles travelling at superluminal speed. They said to have checked the calculations many times before making the official announcement. What they had forget to check was their equipment: a defective fiber optics connection gave a wrong timing. Sometimes, scientists are so eager to make a seminal discovery that they forget to check the basics...

@drdon5205

2 жыл бұрын

@@rayoflight62 That's a completely unfair characterization of what happened. It's true that the answer was a poorly connected cable, but when OPERA released their result, they basically said "we don't really believe this, but we can't find a mistake." They then asked the world for help. And, eventually, it was them that found the cable problem. It would have been irresponsible and religious for them to not release their result. And they continued to look at their data; they found the mistake; and they then reported the mistake. This is, in fact, an excellent example of science done pretty well.

@Schokland2007

2 жыл бұрын

I would love to see a whole "but you know me better" video of Dr. Hossenfelder!

On the whole, an excellent talk, with some appropriate cynicism or skepticism. With respect to whether the CDF announcement will stand or fall, I have some resonance with your position, since this is a ‘tour de force’ metrology result, but the details do matter. The reduction of error bars from the earlier CDF result is mostly due to two uncertainties: the lepton scale, from 7 to 3, and the Parton distribution function, from 10 to 3.9. Together, these account for nearly the whole of the change in the uncertainty, from 19 to 9.4. These parameters have good pedigrees and should be “easy” for other physicists to critique. Also, if we look at the last nine measurement of the W0 mass, seven of them have means on the high side of the theory. Excluding the CDF and D0, four of six are on the high side. OPAL and ALEPH are more consistent with CDF II than with the theoretical result, as are D0 and CDF I. So, the smart money would bet on either new physics or new calculation methods, rather than errors in the CDF II result.

@kalokajoe357

2 жыл бұрын

borderline appropriate

@lawrencedoliveiro9104

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I was wondering what a meta-analysis of all those results would show ...

@MaryAnnNytowl

2 жыл бұрын

@@kalokajoe357 *borderline A boarder is someone that rents a room from you, and they usually don't draw lines that matter. 😄

@3-DtimeCosmology

2 жыл бұрын

The new physics is on Gavin Wince channel.

8:30 … Then, "Most of them don't like me." Tension and release. As a non-academic whose freshman physics prof left CERN and decided he'd do better work to teach, this hit home.

I think you are to be commended, Dr Hossenfelder, for being so forthright in your honest opinion and speaking out even at the risk of offending your fellow scientists. Thank you for trying to keep the particle physists honest and for explaining to the public why these grandiose claims should be treated with scepticism.

I appreciate a healthy scepticism, it benefits actual progress in science. Thank you!

@mikkel715

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. Although Sabine's "scepticism of simulation theory/interpretation was too autorun scepticism..

@MrMSBranham

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikkel715 I think her scepticism is well founded. The particle physics area has gotten away with trying to bend theories on demand and becoming a paper mill for years, which is probably why we haven't seen progress like there's been in more healthy areas.

@MaryAnnNytowl

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrMSBranham you need to remember that Sabine publishes as much as any other physicist, so if you're going to accuse them of being a "paper mill," you'll have to include her in that. It can't only work one direction.

@michaelpettersson4919

2 жыл бұрын

All new ideas should face some resistance so they have to prove themselves.

@MrMSBranham

2 жыл бұрын

@@MaryAnnNytowl Fair enough, but since she has worked in the particle physics area, her criticism carries a lot of weight for me.

endless numbers of supersymmetry models are just like endless numbers of universes in the multiverse - explaining everthing and nothing

@gauravnegi4312

2 жыл бұрын

this is so clear comparison, idk if it's 1:1 but it does help a lot.

@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana

2 жыл бұрын

Well, only one can be true in the universe without some weird interference.

Great video, as usual, Sabine! I'm always so excited to hear your takes!

What's great about watching videos over the years from Sabine's channel is not only the quality of the content but the quality of the production as well. I especially like the unexpected segue from content to promotional tie-in.

Videos like this is why I love Sabin'e's channel! She tells it like she sees it.

Despite me studying theoretical physics and always amazed by particle physics, I think we should step back, and put money into other research, especially astronomy and astrophysics. A lot of low hanging fruits there that will shed a more light (pun intended) on what we do not know. For 20 years I was thinking we know a lot already about cosmos, and just figuring out kinks, but recently we had so many new results and new weird things from astronomical observations, and they keep coming up. With particle physics, yes, it would be nice to know about fundamentals, but there is no guarantee that we will ever have technology to explore it fully and explain it (with sufficiently simple model). Better to put money into other research area, let technology improve slowly, and once we are ready, do more experiments. Of course we should keep existing facilities and also explore at lower energies, because if we kill particle physics for 50 years, we will have little experts to run things again ;D

@milferdjones2573

2 жыл бұрын

Particle physics as it keeps hitting even more massive investment to learn anything simply now has was too many in the field. Early days research could be done at a great number of places.

Every Saturday is like Christmas morning. I get up really early just to catch your fabulous videos. Like my favorite show except I don't watch TV at all. I don't even own one.

Great post Sabine. I appreciate everything you are sharing here. Stay free, happy and healthy my dear. 🥰

I love this channel, Sabine's critical analysis is refreshing and whilst my own enthusiasm for physics has only grown I've learnt to be much more cautious about the apparent excitement of physicists and science media.

Your channel is like an Anti-Glare lens through which one can get a better view of scientific discoveries and concepts

@greg4367

2 жыл бұрын

I think that's a great analogy, and I very much agree.

@dennisconley5068

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed! Without Sabine it would be very difficult to learn quantum mechanics. There are too many theories with no proof, only speculation.

@jesse4202

2 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, thin film interference!

Thank you I have been waiting for this video. :)

Im just learning about physics as an adult, I dont understand 40% of what you're talking about but I enjoy watching your videos Sabine!

@cravenmoore7778

2 жыл бұрын

Max, welcome aboard. In my opinion this is the best channel on KZread. I probably should invite Sabine for a nice dinner at Chamberlains steakhouse in order to pick her brain 🧠.

@janami-dharmam

2 жыл бұрын

through a glass darkly!

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

@@cravenmoore7778 With a nice Chianti?

@CAThompson

2 жыл бұрын

Same, I think I'm understanding maybe about 55% these days.

@dewiz9596

2 жыл бұрын

If you can say 40% with any degree of confidence, you are understanding a lot more than you’re letting on 😀

Im living for sabine roasting particle physicists 💀

@natalia499

2 жыл бұрын

I actually chuckled at "They don't like me very much" part 😆

08:30 Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn !!!!!!

Great work as always Dr. Hossenfelder. I always appreciate the way you cut through the over-exaggeration of the headlines. It's really great to get the straight story from someone who actually knows the topic.

3:14 Precisely 3:51 SM Improvements 4:19 Supersymmetry • Property of a class of models 5:58 6:57 LHC did not rule out Supersymmetry, it never could. 7:45 String Theory 8:30 Particle Physics

'... they don't like me.' Und das ist warum liebe ich dieses Videos!

@tarmaque

2 жыл бұрын

It confuses me that I understood that sentence, and I don't even speak German!

@Noam_.Menashe

2 жыл бұрын

@@tarmaque same.

@mikegofton1

2 жыл бұрын

@@tarmaque English is a Germanic language, so…

@tarmaque

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikegofton1 It is, and I also do know a few words of German. Not enough where I could hold a conversation though.

That's a ripper idiom about headlines:) Love this channel.

Sabine knocks out of the park once again thanks Sabine! I love how you remember all those old anomalies.

Sabine, you help out many folks like me who like science but also confused by it. Please keep up the good work for all of us.

Thank you for not buying into every theory just because someone wrote a paper. I can see why some scientists won’t like you, but I think you’re honest and not “scientifically-politically” correct. I respect that.

@theultimatereductionist7592

2 жыл бұрын

She said supersymmetry is NOT a theory, but an unfalsifiable collection of models. So this is good news for theories, which are by definition falsifiable, testable.

I am a high school student (graduating in half a month lol) and it deeply sickens me that there is so much 'politics' involved in natural sciences. As a kid I always naively thought that sciences (especially physics) is a pure subject where people discuss to build and to converge the reality into one theory, one subject that could explain all. However, clearly there is a lot of politics involved in the sciences as well... this is my opinion but people are not able to think clearly due to several restrictions, be it restrictions in terms of funding, or restrictions due to the kind of people you work with (PhD politics, research field politics, academic integrity, etc.), restrictions due to dishonesty (as mentioned in the video regarding not being clear about super symmetry). You can call me an idealist, a naïve fool even, but I honestly wished Science was a subject full of pure objectivity which aims purely at growth and sustenance.

@drdca8263

2 жыл бұрын

On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand, I don’t know how to: 1) even specify what it should mean for the study to be without politics and such. Like, when there are limited resources with which to do experiments, even supposing that we have an objective way to say how informative about what questions we expect each potential experiment to be, there is still the question of how much to value information about different questions relative to info about other questions, and that would need to be evaluated to determine where to allocate the funding. 2) design an incentive system such that the incentives people have point them towards resources and research being done in such an objective and free-of-politics way.

@thirdeye4654

2 жыл бұрын

I would say there is just a lot of "human" in every scientist, to make things complicated. We have needs, motivations and are prone to biases and misconceptions. Even when you have good intentions.

@avinashreji60

2 жыл бұрын

It's not politics, humans have biases, that's just the way it is. Science was created to minimize them the best we can

@bearcubdaycare

2 жыл бұрын

Some of the problem is that, since the end of the cold war, there are too many physicists chasing too few jobs. (Hence, physicists branching out into financials, hence 2008.) I have a physics degree (enjoyed it), but went into software.

@astrophysicalevidence

2 жыл бұрын

Stay the idealist, hold your own, focus on being a good researcher or theorist and ignore the noise. You’ll do fine.

Amazing video as usual Sabine! Thank you!

Another well produced and well-spoken presentation, Thank You.

This video and the most recent PBS Space Time video complement each other well. Both discuss the W-boson mass anomoly. The PBS Space Time video dives deeply into the nature of mass.

@tarmaque

2 жыл бұрын

I came out of that PBS Space Time video even dumber than I went in. Not that it was wrong or anything, but about a third of the way through my brain cells started popping like popcorn and by the end I had begun to drool. Is this what a stroke feels like?

@Gudang9

2 жыл бұрын

@@tarmaque That video make me feel relax and sleep well in just few minutes.

@brothermine2292

2 жыл бұрын

@@tarmaque : Maybe a stroke. Maybe an epileptic seizure or a hit of nitrous oxide. For me it brought to mind the old saying that learning at Caltech is like trying to drink from a fire hose. For people who aren't already familiar with the quantum field theory of mass, that PBS Space Time video probably needs to be watched several times, with many pauses for thinking & googling.

@billyblim1213

2 жыл бұрын

The most recent Arvin Ash video also covers supersymmetry.

I love your frankness. Need more science communicators like you.

Awesome vid Sabine! Thank you.

Dr Hossenfelder, like you, I am always a bit skeptical about such news. One of the biggest reasons that I follow you is your sensibility. While I do not have a PhD in particle physics, I do have a few bachelor’s and a master’s, and know how dependent scientists are on grants and funding. Headlines translate very well into grants (given one’s paper writing prowess). Like you, I opted to pursue a different profession, chased my childhood dream and became a Pittsburgh firefighter. But science has always been my key interest; theoretical physics is you might say, my passion and my hobby. I always keep abreast of all the latest science papers, and discoveries… and I can spot a ‘sales pitch’ a mile away. When I hear of some new revelation, the first thing I want to know is “what does the data show?” Then I want to know if that group checked their procedures against controls, and potential errors or oversight. Science should always be objective and skeptical. We should continue to make exhaustive attempts to rule out errors in the models. I watch your channel because you do just that, you step back, examine the hypothesis objectively, then offer possible ways for the data to be checked. If you have detractors for this, then so be it. Someone has to be objective. One of my earlier academic forays was into anthropology (way back in the 80s-my major was in Biological Sciences, but I thought of taking the “easy road” to a degree). At the time, Richard and Mary Leakey were the preeminent personalities in this field, but their outright hostility towards any theory contrary to their own just showed how closed-minded, and biased scientists could be. It turns out their theory of Homo sapiens evolution was wrong. DNA mapping proved that some years later. Since then, I’ve learned to guard my optimism about new discoveries. I do not have a PhD, but I do have a scientific mind, and use rigorous scientific method to accept many claims. I wish I had you as an instructor, and I’m sure the experience would’ve been both stimulating and inspiring!

Came for the explanation, stayed for the roast on particle physicists.

Had Sabine been around in 1915 she probably would have scoffed at Einstein too!

Many thks for your video, Sabine at it’s best!!!!!!

Yay!!! So excited, have been waiting for this video

One of your best little lectures. I did not know the muon issue had disappeared but it's good news. The W Boson measurement is weird but would this not effect the fine structure constant ? and that's been measured to a very high accuracy. My money is on the standard model which we all know is incomplete but it working beautifully as a predictor in the real world.

@sammy-the-crab4107

2 жыл бұрын

The muon issue hasn’t disappeared.

I'm kind of surprised that such a big deal is being made about a value disagreeing with theory by less than 0.1%. but I guess I spend my time in the world of soft materials where a theory with disagreement of 10% with experiment is considered pretty good in some cases lol

@eulefranz944

2 жыл бұрын

In plasma physics we would be happy with that lol. Particle physics is set in a more clean environment and certainly take place on a purely microscopic level, imagine requiring 5sigma for anything not particle physics (with TB of data to analyse) In the figure you can see how narrow the sm prediction is and this is obviously a big deal

@IamGrimalkin

2 жыл бұрын

@@eulefranz944 People require results outside 5 sigma all the time outside particle physics, they just don't call it that. They'd just say the want results well outside the error bars or whatever.

@Kooky_Duzzfutz

2 жыл бұрын

@pyropulse If you predict it, it will come. LOL

@TysonJensen

2 жыл бұрын

@@IamGrimalkin I haven't seen it -- 1 sigma is publishable in soft sciences, 2 sigma will get your drug approved, 3 sigma is more than enough in chemistry, engineering and your typical hard sciences. 5 sigma is grumpy old men yelling at clouds in most sciences because you can just go build whatever your theory says you can build at 3 sigma.

@IamGrimalkin

2 жыл бұрын

@@TysonJensen usually when people require a result outside 5 sigma they don't say "five sigma" in particular. They'd just say your discrepancy needs to be "well outside the error bars". Since the error bars are usually two sigma wide, well outside the error bars is pretty much five sigma-ish. Also engineering uses six sigma quite often. Or has massive margins of safety.

Sabine thankyou for keeping us all,grounded. Please keep up these clear, honest physics updates. Bravo

@theultimatereductionist7592

2 жыл бұрын

8:57 Glad Sabine and I agree that quantum theory and research makes advances. But then that CONTRADICTS HER ENTIRE 10 MINUTE VIDEO, because quantum stuff is all about the very small, so that COVERS supersymmetry, W-bosons.

Thanks for this! I appreciate your viewpoint on particle physics.

Who could've thought that supersymmetry required this superexplanation 🙃

@UnclePorkchop

2 жыл бұрын

I was thinking the real message was about a particular science community were wishy washy on their findings because it has a direct effect on their research funding slowing the progress of discovery.

@r2c3

2 жыл бұрын

@@UnclePorkchop 4:18 drew my attention as a superexplanation... and yes, Sabine did underline a few anomalies alongside it :) ...

I love the (more than a) hint of professional cynicism. A necessary ingredient for healthy science.

@Alienami

Жыл бұрын

Narcissists are never wrong, no matter how much data or proof you have... It's always everyone else.

Thanks for another very interesting video.

Hahaha... I Love the smell of roasted particle physics on saturday morning... 😂

You are once again the voice of reason in a world of highly regarded and funded woo.

Are physics “new findings“ disappearing the way that the “new findings“ in psychology disappear? In the past few decades, psychology has become famous for having “new findings“ that seem to disappear once people start doing repeated testing. Is that where physics is today? Are the “new findings“ in physics that are published hailed as groundbreaking and debated disappearing as soon as people try and repeat the experiments? Are physicists going mad? Will they need to consult psychologists???

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

My understanding of the situation in psychology is that they have a lot of studies that are really undersampled and for a long time didn't use very good statistical methods that would appropriately quantify the risk of an "effect" just being due to chance. This is definitely not what is going on in particle physics. I think the major thing that's going on is that you have a large (and we're talking tens of thousands of people if you include experimentalists) group of really intelligent people who don't have much to do. They are desperate to have anything to discuss, hence every tiny anomaly receives a lot of attention.

@ChrisPyle

2 жыл бұрын

@@llo5000 I like what you did there lol

@wbwarren57

2 жыл бұрын

@@llo5000 I would say "Of course, you are right!" but that would be kinda hollow since my saying that was obviously pre-determined from the moment of my birth!

@wbwarren57

2 жыл бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Thank you - a much better reply than I really deserve. However, if you equate "string theories" and "supersymmetry theories" with psychology studies and equate "not thought through sufficiently" with "not subjected to sufficiently rigorous statistical analysis", the (super) symmetry between the two fields might be somewhat closer than I would like to see.

Yeah: the neighbour's dog, a Bouvier de Flanders, was suddenly startled by Supersymmetry last night, and barked furiously at it for a while, or maybe a tiny black hole went in one ear and out the other. It's a great watchdog, anyway. It can detect anything, even if it isn't there.

Dear Dr. Hossenfelder, I love your explanation. I think it time for me to rewatch the Leonard Susskind lectures.

How "standard" is the Standard Model? Is there one definition of it currently in use, or are there alterations made for certain applications (maybe just leaving out some terms not needed)? Around 4:00 you mention that if these results are correct, the Standard Model will have to be changed. Has it ever changed in the past? If it were going to change from this result, how would it change? Would some constant just need to get updated or would there need to be some larger structural change required to deal with the results?

@MaryAnnNytowl

2 жыл бұрын

I'm not a physicist, but the only change I recall is adding a mechanism for the mass of neutrinos. LOL, I can't help much, but your question reminded me of a post on the "explain xkcd" wiki, titled "2351: Standard Model Changes." It's really funny! 😄😄

@tonywells6990

2 жыл бұрын

The standard model Lagrangian (energy equations in each particle interaction) is a huge list of terms (about 100 or so) that have been added to and changed over the years. Each one of those terms can be expanded into even more equations of motion, such as wave equations. Some equations can be tweaked to give different 'shapes' of potentials that change the standard model in some way, such as changing the masses of the W, Higgs and top quarks and their interactions. Neutrino oscillations would be another addition whenever someone works out how that mechanism works. So yes, there are a lot of changes or additions that can potentially be done as long as they keep everything else consistent!

It has been said that with efficient parameters, you can fit an elephant, which just about sums up things like these particle physics anomalies. There are plenty more examples. I agree, as well, that statistics is a great subject: it is dead easy, and you can work out loads of good things. Maybe I should sign this comment 'A. Student'. ;-)

Great and informative video; you are an amazing instructor! Also, love your spicy takes spicy🌶️

Scientific method (old and antiquated): Propose hypothesis; perform experiment; analyze data; report conclusions Scientific method (new and improved): Perform experiment; analyze data; construct hypothesis that agrees with data; report hypothesis; reproduce hypothesis on news websites with exciting titles like "[old theory] is broken!"

Could the large error bars on the budgetary estimates for the LHC be due to supersymmetry?? It Could be. 🤓

It is so strange that very bright people who build amazing machines and analyze complex data are so biased , perhaps it is caused by a particles class of "believons" , the spooky massless dream things.

I really want to get more into quantum mechanics, particle physics, all that stuff, but all the conflicting articles and info makes me very worried... I guess I'm afraid to learn the "wrong" information or "wrong" ideas about it, and end up looking silly. It's nice to see videos like yours taking the grounded stance, but also I get even more worried about trying to learn! I wonder if those online courses really could be good places to start

A very sober analysis. Thanks! 👍

Got my PhD in particle physics. Been working in tech for the last 8 years. I haven’t once looked back.

@Boogaboioringale

2 жыл бұрын

Kudos. A very lucrative business to be in. Plus a lot of fun. Very rare in life

@somasundaramsankaranarayan4592

2 жыл бұрын

Hi, may I know how you made the switch? I am a particle physics student as well. I want to explore options at the industry as well.

@cougar2013

2 жыл бұрын

@@Boogaboioringale thank you! I’m very fortunate that it worked out this way. Even the people I thought would end up as profs all work in tech lol

@cougar2013

2 жыл бұрын

@@somasundaramsankaranarayan4592 are you a grad student? Anyway, what I did was to learn computing while in grad school. Choose a tech space you find interesting, like IoT, and immerse yourself in it when you aren’t working on your physics. The simple fact of a physics PhD carries some weight.

@DrDeuteron

2 жыл бұрын

I went to NASA. Lot's of ex-particle physicists around.

Is super-symmetry the same idea as superposition only for symmetries? All symmetries at one time.

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

Ha, interesting interpretation, but no, the "super" in supersymmetry has nothing to do with superpositions.

@anatomicallymodernhuman5175

2 жыл бұрын

It means type every subatomic particle has an evil twin.

@AyarARJ

2 жыл бұрын

@@anatomicallymodernhuman5175 Is the purpose of the evil twin to make the data fit the model?

@anatomicallymodernhuman5175

2 жыл бұрын

@@AyarARJ , yeah, it seems to get invoked for a lot of reasons. Mostly to plug holes in pet theories.

loved your video, thanks !!

Have been waiting for this video since I saw those headlines, which I definitely did not eat hot... Was not disappointed...

I love your sense of humor. I broke out laughing a half dozen times during this video. Well done Dr. Hossenfelder.

Sabine, thank you for your refreshing bluntness on how the last half-century of theoretical physics has become largely a paper-production venture. In such a model, folks too often gain stature not by predicting experimental outcomes or through vigorous self-critiquing, but by persuading others they have special insights into the nature of the universe. In fairness, inspiration-first approaches to understanding the universe have respected pedigrees dating back thousands of years, though earlier versions were called theology. So let's try something different: ----- Q: Why do GR and quantum theory resist merger? A: It's a deep-math error: Inertial frames are multi-scale particle (fermion) phenomena with a level of resolution proportional to how many fermions participate in a frame. Mathematical theories that assume the existence of infinitely precise inertial frames, including GR, inevitably produce nonsense when pushed too far beyond the resolution limits imposed by their finite particle sets. By that criterion, GR works fantastically well in areas of comparatively dense matter, and worst in areas of deep void. ----- Q: Is wave collapse real? A: Sure, it's how you create inertial frames. Collapse always occurs in pairs, since it's the conversion of off-shell quantum states into on-shell momentum pairs that collapses both ends and creates motion. Thus acceleration pretty much is collapse, as long as you pay careful attention to the pairing issue. Exceedingly short-range and short-lived collapse pairs are astronomically common in thermal matter, since every time one atom bumps another the wave functions of both collapse. Importantly, there is no limit to how different in mass the two members of a collapse pair can be. When one of the two new inertial frames in a pair contains vastly more rest mass than the other we tend to call that one the observer, although in actuality both are always observing (collapsing) each other. ----- Q: What is dark matter? A: Unresolved, large-volume collapse pairs, of which there are quite a few. The two ends of a collapsed pair need not be simultaneous in space and time, since "simultaneous" is a mostly meaningless word. Every collapse at one location of a Schrödinger wave function creates a bit of momentum -- an inertial frame - that must deposit at some other location to conserve linear momentum. Wave collapse thus is always a binary event, only one end of which contains a quantized particle. The other end usually is extremely faint and thus easy to ignore, especially when deposited in a large piece of classical equipment such as a Stern-Gerlach device or the "unused" arm of a photon interference experiment. However, ignoring the binary nature of Schrodinger wave collapse severely limits our understanding of what measurement and observation is. When that momentum is not expended immediately you get a fast-expanding volume of entanglement energy, which is an especially cryptic form of momentum. The deep space around galaxies is a good place for such waves to expand into, since they have less matter to collapse. On the other hand, such pairs need a concentration of matter nearby to form in the first place. Put those two together and you get a kind of halo effect. A more interesting way to say all of this is that 80% of the positive energy of our universe is in the form of a quantum computer that is busy figuring out how the future must to unfold to ensure that all conservation laws are met. Classical reality is, quite literally, the tip of a very large quantum computing iceberg. ----- Q: What is dark energy? A: Recall the part about how wave collapse is the same as creating momentum pairs? Recall also Feynman's description of rest mass as "momentum in time"? Dark energy is what accelerates and collapses our universe along the time axis. I like to call it the "ereboic" field. It has quanta that, from our embedded-in-time perspective, look like Higgs bosons. Accelerating expansion is the dipole curvature of that field. ----- Q: Is there a multiverse? A: Nope. Inertial frames are created by groups of particles, and there are only enough particles to create one universe. Even that requires 80% entanglement-energy ("dark matter") overhead. There is, however, a need for exactly one negative-energy contraverse. As with space-momentum pairs, a time-momentum pair must be just that: a pair. We are entangled with our contraverse, despite its great distance. Our universe and its contra partner collapse each other, making the passage of time meaningful for both. Unlike antimatter, when contra matter hits regular matter, all you get is… well, nothing. ----- Q: Is "contraverse" just another name for "antiverse"? A: Nope. If it can exist at all, an antiverse would contain an excess of positive-energy fermions, that is, of the weak-force-aware chiralities of antimatter. A contraverse is an exact CPT-symmetric version of our universe and has an excess of what we think of as weak-blind antimatter chiralities. Those chiralities are weak-blind only when seen here. They see their contra version of the weak force quite well when moving in contratime. ----- Q: Seriously, did you just redefine half the chiral fermions in the Standard Model as having negative energy? A: Sure. That's also how time works and why you cannot separate the fermions from the bottom-up construction of space-time. It's impossible to simplify the internal structure of the Standard Model without realizing that the Higgs mechanism is just a cumbersome, backward-in-time way of invoking short-lived negative-energy fermions. ----- Q: Didn't you just try to "persuade others you have special insights into the nature of the universe"? A: Hah! My expertise is more in effective analysis strategies, based in part on machine learning techniques. My sincere recommendation is that you ignore everything I just said, even though it's probably right. Terry Bollinger, April 30, 2022, 14;20 ET Sat CC BY 4.0

thx Sabine !! your are the best !!

"is it reasonable? Yes. Is it correct? I don't know." 🤣 3:30

The problem of the "Standard model" is that it isn't a conceptual model but rather a set of formulae. At some aggregation level "we" have working models like atoms, molecules, and a few parts in there. That works fine. At the deeper level, you are where humans were in the Middle Ages with their geocentric model of the universe where each planet or moon discovery and other effects required increasingly more difficult explanations. "Missing a particle" and next trying to "find" it in order to repair the model or make it work better. I don't have to explain that correlation is not the same as causation but "repeatability" is not causation either. The fact folk in the Middle Ages could predict some planet configuration did not mean their conceptual model was right.

@tbthedozer

2 жыл бұрын

Right!? I was thinking something similar but like your analogy better. I was going to say it’s like scientists doing experiments in pressure and discovering temperatures are important to their research. I kind of wonder if particle physics and quantum mechanics are similar in that we don’t fully understand either and don’t fully understand how and where they potentially interact..🤷‍♂️

@jpdj2715

2 жыл бұрын

@@tbthedozer - indeed. In other faculties doing quantitative research, you would need a theory or hypothesis (to try to falsify) with a conceptual model and next operational model. Before you start collecting data. In a quantitative (causal) model you might have some "noise" that you cannot explain. The biggest no-no is to collect data in the blind and keep altering the model without a theory or hypothesis/hypotheses - adding variables to replace the noise and hopefully improving the predictive quality of the model that way (fingers crossed). That is exactly what "physics" is doing and that would cost a professor in another faculty their title/job, I think. It is very easy to silence people in (quantum) physics by saying "there are no particles". And then tell them that CERN is a scam payed for by gullible politicians. I am totally in favor of fundamental research by the way, but we cannot set Occam's Razor aside, and if we summarize the "Western Scientific Method" in three terms: problem-decomposition, repetition, refutation/falsification (thank you Peter Checkland, and he added the fourth: systems) then we forget the most important quality criteria: validity and relevance. And that, learned friend is happening here too. To say there's a whiff of "the emperor wears no clothes" is an understatement. Take this one from the media a couple years ago: scientists have communicated through a quantum tunnel - my answer: what's the difference with radio or a copper wire and the space around it? To ironically quote Frank Zappa: "the torture never stops". By now, we should be able to formulate the GUT as conceptual model or theory in a couple sentences.

Particle physics is always exciting to me.

@freefall9832

2 жыл бұрын

Overrated for me

"Most particle physicists don't like me" Who would have thought that? 😂😀😂

Imagine all the future acienty of the world havi g access to all this information as kids. All we had was a small library to occasionally visit when I was a kid. This channel is amazing and could change the world with so many people having access to this info

What has to be remember by scientists in all fields is that our theories, models, etc. are our best 'navel gazing' explanation of how the universe appears to work. My somewhat sarcastic comment 'navel gazing' is more about the strong probability that many of our cherished models and theories have serious flaws that we are currently unaware of. Thus, by their nature they are all to some degree flawed and have limits of applicability.

Lots of people are good at finding particles of the green rectangular variety - no surprise more of them are turning up in particle physics these days, unfortunately.

@thom1218

2 жыл бұрын

@@sadaksara Thanks man - I can tell you have lots more work ahead of you.

One of my favorite parts was the smooth transition to the sponsor. Awesome. Best I’ve seen.

4:59 "scare quoting" Oh, I am using that now!

So funny. I saw some videos popping up about this topic and just thought: "nah... Wait a few weeks and see what Mrs Sabine Hossefelder can say about it". Good decision 😜

@fkeyvan

2 жыл бұрын

That’s the problem with her bad attitude. It spreads to others and screws up minds

@Stadtpark90

2 жыл бұрын

That’s the funny thing: Sabine would probably argue that science doesn’t care what proclaimed authorities say, but being a layman means that we the viewers actually do turn to authorities we trust, whenever we don’t genuinely understand something ourselves - and Sabine happens to be one of a handful of those we have on KZread. - What should we call them, if they don’t like to be called „authorities“? „Public Intellectuals“? „Science Communicators“? „Physics Influencers“ (just kidding)? „Science News Commentators“? - It’s more like being a fly on the wall of an expert conference: we get a little presentation of something that is still work in progress, where all the dirty little secrets are still on the table: something one would get if proposals for grants (or job offerings) were actual truthful :-) - that is also why Sabine is good at this: always pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, laying the fingers into the wounds. - That’s what good Science Journalism is, when it treats the papers not as the Stone Tablets handed down from Mount Sinai.

@fkeyvan

2 жыл бұрын

@@Stadtpark90 she says all this and you trust her without question because she is doing a monologue. Some people just like cynics. Same thing in politics. Cynics and naysayers attract a lot of followers

@markandreessen3218

2 жыл бұрын

To be a bit more precise: I don't know, if the W-boson breaks the standard model. Maybe it does and maybe the answer is supersymmetry. I just can't stand all those news with clickbaiting headlines, stating that the standard model is now again broken. "We found evidence!" When in fact, they found something that should be verified.

@fkeyvan

2 жыл бұрын

@@markandreessen3218 if you can’t stand those headline then don’t subscribe to those news outlets. Science is always full of hits and misses. Bumps always appear that could signify an important discovery or not. That’s part of scientific research and it always has been. Sabine speaks with such cynicism that makes the lay people think bumps that show up and go away are part of a scam to make money. The tone and the attitude is so negative and damaging to science

Oh boy, Sabina laying the smackdown yet again. I love this channel.

9:46 liebe Sabine, that was a very smooth transition 😎

brilliant as always, both content- and sponsorwise

This is one of the most relevant, valid videos I have ever seen as videos relate to science. Allow me to paraphrase please: "...scientists were either incompetent, lying, or both, and the rest just kept their mouths shut." The latter creature, the so-called "scientist" who kept/keeps their mouths shut, is quite probably more of a problem than the lying incompetent buffoons who generate tons of paper waste in the publish or perish goat rodeo. And these losers are not restricted to science. I have seen numerous examples in the military, in law enforcement, in other public safety fields, in politics, in public health...need I continue? People who know or at least strongly suspect that the liars and buffoons are utterly clueless and yet say nothing aren't part of the problem. They are the problem. "I need this job so I can't rock the boat!" "Yes, I know this casts a huge black cloud over particle physics, but let someone else go public." Thankfully, there are a few like Sabine who is willing to go on record with the truth, and as long as there are true scientists such as she, there is hope for science to redeem itself although admittedly that hope seems go grow smaller every day.

While I can indeed understand that you have a disdain for the amount of funds that have flown into gigantic particle colliders (and I am saying that as an ex-particle-physicist), I do have to ask at which point in the particle physics history you would say that it became irrelevant to further other fields of science or the progress of the human kind?

@Mike-be7uk

2 жыл бұрын

About the point where we are about to blow ourselves to bits. See you on the other side...

Thank you Sabine!

Instead of "add to the watch list" I clicked "do not show videos from this channel again" - bit was I scared for a second!

@SabineHossenfelder

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you're still here!

Very enjoyable presentation, as always. To add, I find particle physicist’s 5 sigma argument very limiting since this only addresses statistical uncertainties, which are easy to quantify. The real challenge in any experiment is quantifying the systematic uncertainties; the W mass plot Sabine shows is evidence that they haven’t a clue. (And has a W boson ever actually reached a detector?) Come on everyone, let’s cut our losses and move on….

@FridgeEating

2 жыл бұрын

Of course no W boson has reached a detector from the primary vertex. But a sighted person doesn't need to stick a candle in their eye to notice that it's lit.

@philipsinger1291

2 жыл бұрын

@@FridgeEating Great, how do you know it's a candle?

@someonespotatohmm9513

2 жыл бұрын

@@FridgeEating This analogy is actualy amazing, I love it.

Foreget about the people that don't like you. We like you!

I like the straight, brutally honest approach, we are now in a world where almost everyone gets so easily offended that one has to say nobody's is wrong, but that approach really helps nobody

@theultimatereductionist7592

2 жыл бұрын

Elon Shmuck cultists are the worst. Impossible to criticize and point out the flaws, many false promises, crimes, of fraudster Elon Musk without his followers getting easily offended.

Very interesting, I really appreciate your sceptical view on these kind of topics. In the time I studied physics, I encountered a false alarm at least three times, so I find it difficult to gauge the validity of news about particle physics. I do have a question however! You stated that the LHC cannot rule out Supersymmetry in general, since it's a property of a class of models. But can't it rule out Supersymmetry just for the SM? Because, if it could, that result would be important enough in itself, right? Thank you!

I hate headlines that claim a new discovery could break physics. The physical world was not broken, and physics is the study of the physical world. What may be broken are our models of the physical world, and they would merely require refinement. Basically they should remember that the map is not the territory.

Could you do a video on color confinement of quarks and how that might interact with the expansion of the universe at the longest timescales aka the big rip or heat death? Would this interaction spontaneously create matter throughout the universe and be a direct transformation between the expansional energy into matter formation. No one even writes about this or discusses it and id love your opinion of all people.

@Boogaboioringale

2 жыл бұрын

Dark energy is not energy in the same sense as the 3 quantum forces of nature. It’s a contrived “scalar “ explanation of the perceived expansion. It can’t convert because it has no “real “ energy only some unknown (dark) reason. In other words, they don’t know but if it was real energy, it would make up about 72% of the universe.

Fab video so well done thank you. Really appreciated. Love and peace. Tim

Sabine, you are an awesomely accurate source of physics news and infomation...