The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1704365499313x118636531309206380

@KrystelSpicerMindArkLateralThi

5 ай бұрын

3:39 Quantum gravity. Could that be block time (moments) along string current time (memory) & anything we remembered meaning they hadn't happened, not that they had. ⭐After something bad has happened to you, As you ever asked yourself if you'd received a warning? The block of time (moment) you recall back to where yes you had recalled a warning, any exists out of alignment with what you'd thought you remembered for a moment. Once you've been stubbed so fast you'd not burnt your wick as yet back. Time is a shattering and self-healing thing, hard to chase if you can't go faster than speed of light. I can't wait to show you all my stuff. & plans. Fragments of truth always create plans. I think I might have written a good 50 times more than Confucius lol. Really hope you all like it. The work is for the not so faint of heart, but it is free. Come with may. *Plays the willow maiden*🎶

@Human_01

5 ай бұрын

Thank you for your insightful vids 👍✨

@devonbrockhaus6554

5 ай бұрын

Loved this. At 3:41 though, I was feeling this: kzread.info/dash/bejne/hY2ej8mxhKXekaQ.html

@theunknownunknowns5168

5 ай бұрын

Nuclear Power. Sabine you miss the real argument against nuclear energy. Transfer of wealth. In history the biggest transfer of wealth to the already wealthy was the advent of centralised energy production and distribution. Nuclear energy is a continuation of the rich getting richer. Solar photovoltaics however allows for the average household to produce their own energy as opposed to giving their hard earned money to authoritarian pterostates that kill childen in unjustified wars or the corrupt oligarchy that permeates democracies. Nuclear energy is not a path to global energy abundance, it is yet another path to continued enslavement of the working class.

@theunknownunknowns5168

5 ай бұрын

Nuclear Power. Sabine you miss the real argument against nuclear energy. Transfer of wealth. In history the biggest transfer of wealth to the already wealthy was the advent of centralised energy production and distribution. Nuclear energy is a continuation of the rich getting richer. Solar photovoltaics however allows for the average household to produce their own energy as opposed to giving their hard earned money to authoritarian pterostates that kill childen in unjustified wars or the corrupt oligarchy that permeates democracies. Nuclear energy is not a path to global energy abundance, it is yet another path to continued enslavement of the working class.

That's such a small window of prediction. It is stunning that the measured mass is within it. I am surprised not to have ever heard of it discussed

@caseysutton1030

5 ай бұрын

Not really, she said the lower bound was 115 and the upper bound was 1000 but she also said if we assume the Higgs Boson exists and most Physicists were at the time it has an upper limit of 180 so we are working with a range from 115 to 180 that makes it a 1/65 chance of being a random guess but since he gave it an error of +-2.2 the actual odds of guessing it are 1/30 given the number of papers published on it I would say it was almost certain someone would have guessed it, that doesn't make it less correct but I would say with the limited range Its not necessarily a prediction

@thesenamesaretaken

5 ай бұрын

​@@marcosolo6491you're right and I agree that they're being dismissive, but I think their point is to imagine it's a monkeys writing equations on blackboards situation. Even if the monkeys get every step correct you can probably generate any prediction given enough time.

@psychohist

5 ай бұрын

Just shows the power of wishful thinking, even among physicists.

@frun

5 ай бұрын

Raphael Sorkin correctly estimated the order of the Cosmological constant 10^-127, beforehand and noone noticed.

@therealpbristow

5 ай бұрын

@@marcosolo6491 Yes, and so did everybody else who made all those other predictions. The point is, if enough people make enough predictions, then sooner or later one of them will get the right answer by chance. So the fact that one particular prediction was right on the money doesn't *by itself* tell us anything significant. In combination with their *reasoning* for doing the particular calculation the way they did, the close match between their results and the measured value of the Higgs mass tells is that "its still within the bounds of possibility that we just need to do a better job of doing that horribly complex extrapolation and then we'll have cracked quantum gravity". However, it doesn't confirm it. The confirmation will require us to actually *DO* the horribly complex extrapolation more precisely (using, as Sabine mentions, the latest and most precise (i.e. least uncertain) measurements of all the other variables), and keep getting answers that match closer and closer to the measured Higgs mass as we do so. Eventually, we *might* find that they all match to give us a 5-sigma level of certainty, and then we can maybe start daring to believe we've actually found the real answer. Until then, it's just an interesting *possibility*.

The uncertainty in their prediction of the Higgs mass was +/-1.7% which is pretty small. The measured value was 0.8% different from the prediction. I think they did an excellent job.

@adamrak7560

5 ай бұрын

that precision was excellent for a prediction, but very mid evidence for quantum gravity.

@Llortnerof

5 ай бұрын

@@adamrak7560 Enough to make you wonder if they wasted 50 years looking in all the wrong places, though.

@naukowywariat7123

5 ай бұрын

It was spot on really

@joshcryer

5 ай бұрын

It was more a testament to the SM and its accuracy than anything else. "If all else fits, then..." was their calculation. Wonderful paper though and generally approachable math.

@ericeaton2386

5 ай бұрын

⁠@@joshcryer not quite. The “if all else fits” prediction based purely on the SM was 115-180. The paper prediction was “if all else fits and it’s compatible with quantum gravity.” It’s not evidence for quantum gravity itself, but honestly, it’s more compelling as a reason to consider it than “the other forces are quantum.”

Well, it was probably ignored because it wasn't the only one. This 2007 paper (arxiv 0708.3344) which came out years before the Higgs discovery and updated till 2011, compiles the list of 96 papers that tried to predict the Higgs mass. The 2009 paper you picked up is one of the 96 papers but isn't the only special paper. The higgs mass is within the bounds of a lot of papers among them but with larger uncertainty, and all of them are coming up with different theories. But there's one 1993 paper by Kahana that predicts the Higgs mass of about 125 GeV as central values using dynamical symmetry breaking with the Higgs being a deeply bound state of two top quarks. At the same time, this model predicted two years prior to the discovery of the top quark mass to be 175 GeV. This and others that came very close in predictions should also be mentioned in a video like this otherwise it gives a wrong impression to commons that asymptotic gravity was something special.

@dennylane2010

5 ай бұрын

I think this answers my question. Need to read that arxiv paper. Thanks!

@faroncobb6040

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for posting this, it puts some very needed perspective on the video. Although I would find it hilarious if we actually did have a perfectly good theory of quantum gravity but nobody was willing to use it because it was too boring.

@employee8449

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the info! But what does it mean for quantum gravity? Can one of the theories used in these papers make predictions other than the Higgs mass?

@AnmolSahu

5 ай бұрын

@@employee8449 Yes, most of these theories will have other implications as well, when someone does calculations related to them. But not all of them will be relevant for quantum gravity. Asymptotic gravity was already an approach to quantum gravity, and made one more prediction so that's something nice. But the composite higgs theory also predicted the mass of top quarks as well as higgs mass before it was measured. And that too in 1993. And the authors are mostly ignored. They barely have any citations, and in total the authors have written 5 papers that come up in arxiv search. So one needs to recognise the work, and build up on it to see what else these theories can do. But one interesting thing is that Peter Higgs was aware of this paper. When the Higgs was discovered, and someone from the institution of Kahana was with Higgs, Higgs asked him to congratulate Kahana tell him that he was right!

@AnmolSahu

5 ай бұрын

@@faroncobb6040 It is fairly possible that we may already have a theory of quantum gravity by some unknown or not so famous scientist. We just don't know it. And it may be available in arxiv, or vixra or maybe in their personal website because he wasn't a professional scientist or his paper was rejected or he wasn't eligible to apply for publication. The thing is there is no obvious way to find out. If you look around among these papers, there are a lot of interesting ideas floating around. Tens of thousands of papers are published every year just in physics. Scientists are very selective on what to read, and what to ignore. And just reading also doesn't make things obvious because you have to sit down and do their calculations and carefully analyse their complex new theory. It may take weeks or a month to understand and carefully analyse one good paper that has well developed theory. So most people don't do that, and rather develop their own idea. We are in information overload. If Einstein had published his papers of 1905 or 1916 in today's world, with a reputation of patent clerk, almost certainly his papers wouldn't even make it to arxiv. Maybe he would upload it in vixra and forget it. And then after several decades some well established physicists would have developed the theory on his own and then it would have been known.

This is the best high level summary of both the history of the Higgs and QG I’ve seen. Great job Sabine! ❤

@pythagoronauthor

5 ай бұрын

I'm not actually qualified in this field but the explanation here was so clear I felt that I could actually understand it even though this would it seems to me be a very Advanced topic in physics Bravo Sabine!

@mraarone

5 ай бұрын

I do wish WIMPs or Axions were mentioned, along with how that interacts with the Crisis in Cosmology and crackpots like me discussing physics without a PhD.

@ElectronFieldPulse

5 ай бұрын

So, I have enjoyed her videos, although I watch them sporadically. I have read on reddit from physicists that she inserts her personal opinion as a scientific fact, or that she doesn't clarify when her explanation starts to veer off into speculation. Can anyone who watches her more regularly chime in on this?

@mraarone

5 ай бұрын

@@ElectronFieldPulse it’s part of her schtick and honest allure.

If it turns out we solved quantum gravity correctly more than 50 years ago, but accidentally dismissed it as un-elegant extrapolation, then I'm to be very frustrated. Also, I'm going to give the head of the physics department a bottle of vodka and a slap; I'll imagine he'll welcome both.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

Well, it wasn't really "solved" 50 years ago, Weinberg only pointed out how it _could_ be solved back then. Only about 30 years ago, Wetterich did do lots of the actual relevant calculations, as Sabine pointed out.

@hamstsorkxxor

5 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Yeah, you're correct, but whether its 50 or 30 years doesn't change my sentiment. I feel like that slap and bottle of vodka are still needed (I'm of course only saying this [mostly] in jest).

@pwinsider007

5 ай бұрын

​@@bjornfeuerbacher5514does that mean asymptomatic gravity of Weinberg is really quantum gravity?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@pwinsider007 It is a version of quantum gravity, yes. Sabine says that in the video, approximately between 5:04 and 5:12.

@CAThompson

5 ай бұрын

​@@pwinsider007Asymptomatic of asymptotes? 😉

I studied in Heidelberg, did my PhD work at that very institute and knew Christof Wetterich personally. :O (But I left in 2005, long before that paper was published.)

@SabineHossenfelder

5 ай бұрын

I've met him. Long enough ago, I hope, for this video to not be awkward 😅

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

I didn't know Christoff but I never went to that institute so I think I deserve some credit for that too.

@CandideSchmyles

5 ай бұрын

​@@undercoveragent9889Ditto! I think we need some recognition for it too.

@uku4171

5 ай бұрын

​@@undercoveragent9889true national hero o7

@TheGrinningViking

5 ай бұрын

I neither knew him nor went to that institution, but I watched this video so I'm at least as connected to him as I am to Kevin Bacon. 🤭

Thank you Sabine for giving Englert the recognition he deserves, together with Higgs.

@donaldkasper8346

5 ай бұрын

They found a signal without about 50% noise, and declared they found it. It might also be a straight line with no spike signal at all because the spike is within the range of error. Now if you had governments spend $20 billion to build your machine, you bet you would find it too.

@governmentis-watching3303

5 ай бұрын

So.... uhmm. Sabine... Are you going to redo this calculation to see if it's still valid?

A marvelous find! Without going into details, as an engineer working on some advanced stuff at the time, I made a name for myself by diving into the past and often old literature and finding gems of ideas or approaches that might have been impractical then and ignored, but were suddenly quite practical and useful using todays technology. This shows why remembering the past and delving into the past is actually a productive method for charting out our future! Don’t want to dwell on he past, but a lot of smart folks have come before us, and their work is often unknown or under appreciated. As in this case it would seem!

@Flyanb

5 ай бұрын

I make prototype tooling for foundry use and the parts engineered 60-80 years ago seem more well thought out, not just less complicated but simpler, more elegant and easier for maintenance and manufacturing. I do a LOT of conversion from 2D drawings to 3D models for direct to printed sand molds no tooling required.

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

One of those underappreciated smart folk was the Marquis de Condorcet. He invented a voting method in 1785 that was nearly 200 years ahead of its time because it requires counting all the head-to-head majorities that can be inferred given each voter's order of preference. That's a lot of counting, because there are N² - N head-to-head majorities & minorities when there are N candidates. But it became practical after computers & machine-readable ballots were invented a few decades ago. The importance of counting multiple head-to-head majorities is understood by the world's most frequently used voting method: the Robert's Rules procedure for voting on motions. It eliminates N-1 of the N alternatives by counting N-1 head-to-head majorities (analogous to a single-elimination sports tournament). Counting multiple head-to-head majorities is what makes Robert's Rules reasonably effective at defeating minority-preferred alternatives. Primitive voting methods, however, count at most one majority (or plurality), which can often be a coalition of minorities on different issues. That undermines majority rule, prevents policies from being stable, undermines politicians' incentive to support majority-preferred policies, and empowers extremists by making their votes needed by the rest of their coalition. Obviously that's important knowledge. But most people are incorrectly taught that there's at most one majority -- and sometimes no majority, only a plurality -- when an election has more than two alternatives.

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

A 13th century monk named Ramon Llull also invented a voting method that required counting all the head-to-head majorities, but it wasn't as good as Condorcet's method. Condorcet constructs the order of finish by processing the head-to-head majorities one at a time, from largest majority to smallest majority, placing each majority's more-preferred alternative ahead of their less-preferred alternative in the order of finish. Llull elects the alternative that has the most head-to-head majority "wins." (Analogous to a round-robin tournament.)

We were using steam power when I was born. My high school Periodic Table lacked all the elements. Slide rules were the thing in college. Our weak-kneed computer took up two full laboratories and was fed punch cards. We were amazed by it's ability to schedule our classes overnight! I am so glad to have seen mankind walk on the moon's surface and to view Sabine's videos. Though I struggle to understand the science, I enjoy her humor. What progress we have made. Never has there been a better time to be alive. Stay positive. We are moving in the right direction.

@blucat4

5 ай бұрын

Amen. 🙂 Let us pray ..

@helenamcginty4920

5 ай бұрын

Computer? I grew up with steam engines pulling trains. We had books of log tables, not even calculators. In thec1st year of secondary school at the start of each maths lesson the teacher gave us 2 or 3 sets of 10 mental arithmetic tests. Stuff like 13 x 7, 257 - 145, 390 ÷ 3, 17x 7 or whatever popped into her head. We got very good at arithmetic. This took us through the next 5 years so we were comfortable with the basics.

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for a great equation: the walk on the moon and Sabine´s rise on YT. Totally right.🙂

@fewwiggle

5 ай бұрын

"My high school Periodic Table lacked ALL the elements." Wow!!!! A Periodic Table with no elements -- it boggles the mind!!! ;-)

@BariumCobaltNitrog3n

5 ай бұрын

@@fewwiggle It was still just a periodic tree.

Thank you Sabine. I love your "realistic" style. I hate others fancy "science" videos where they try so hard to sound mystical with those "quantum eraser experiments" and "multidimentional multiverse magic"

@georgesheffield1580

5 ай бұрын

Same here , too many others sound are probably made by TV celebrities or high school football/science teachers

@LVeAV

5 ай бұрын

Gotta agree because those "multiversal magic" people are so caught up in string theory where you literally have to believe that string theory works in order to prove that it works. Circular logic for sure but then they'll just say if you can't figure out the math just keep adding dimensions til the math works. This leads to M-theory and 22 mathematical dimensions that will not and can never be actually tested or observed because all those dimensions somehow collapse into reality thus making it impossible to observe higher dimensions so therefore it's true. That's the best answer I could get from someone who "understood" string theory.

@ZReChannel

5 ай бұрын

I don't understand why there are people who are yet to be astonished enough of what science can already offer (which is fascinating), that they prefer fantasy over factuality

@ericsonhazeltine5064

5 ай бұрын

Plus, in her own geeky way, Sabine is kind of hot.

@jaimeduncan6167

5 ай бұрын

@@ericsonhazeltine5064 This comment is inappropriate. It's 2024 we don't comment on women's looks in professional settings, unless is modeling or something similar. I am assuming you are neurodiverse and simply have not noticed.

I have never quite experienced a feeling of being thrilled and disappointed at the exact same time like this video has.

10 seconds in and I hear Clash Royale sound effects. I love you, Sabine (in a professional way)

it is a shame how some of the good works from the past seem to have been forgotten, last year i was working on a problem i thought was new, then i found a paper from 1911 where they guy had actually already solved it, how could i not know about this? especially in this day in age, it should have been there in the internet searches

@threeMetreJim

5 ай бұрын

Google search has been somehow 'bent' to try to sell you something or be 'politically correct'. It's no longer a general search. Bing still seems to work for finding the kind of partial or exact matches you may have been used to in the past. Asking google vs bing this: "what do you call a person with two x chromosomes" will show the 'politically correct' bias...

@QuantumPolyhedron

4 ай бұрын

Simple solutions are often buried these days because they are not magical enough. Physicists want observer-dependence, things spontaneously popping into existence when you look at them, consciousness being some special substance, multiverses, so on and so forth. If you try to explain things simply, it is buried. Take Einstein's ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics for example. It's incredibly simple, yet almost no one has heard of it and you have to really dig around to find information on it.

Hi, I asked my niece if she knew what's inside black holes and she is sure it's marshmallows, just in case somebody is interested... An excellent episode, I had no idea of that prediction, I hope this video puts it on the radar of the Physicists community.

Ok, I love the fact that when I started watching the video, it had about 3,000 views. When I was finished, it had about 12,000. It's amazing to think that there are 9,000 people interested in advanced science topics like this, taking 10 minutes on a Saturday morning to watch this. Instead of click bait, Taylor Swift, or Kardashians, no less. It restores my faith just a bit.

@user-no1cares

5 ай бұрын

Taylor Swift? Where’s the link?

@aidanclarke6106

5 ай бұрын

I am sure I would have a blast watching quantum gravity explained by the Kardashians 😂

@petevenuti7355

5 ай бұрын

As a percentage of 8 billion though, I'm not getting my hopes up.

@lgolem09l

5 ай бұрын

Must be 9000 bored german physicist that are trying to apply for the one free job in academia

@XGD5layer

5 ай бұрын

Honestly, Sabine uses clickbait a lot more than most. It just isn't in the way you might be thinking about it.

Thank you for the video.

@00:48 FERMILAB !!! (Zebra shakes hoof at Fermilab)

Finally Sabine is back again. Nice to hear your voice with an amazing science story.

Now I need a video explaining Asymptotically Safe Gravity.

Thx Sabine, really interesting and new to me. In before asymptotic safe QC sounded to me like a math trick to get the result you want (you know do not fall for beauty of math ), but i had no clue that they could use it to calculate the higgs mass so spot on.

So if the calculated mass of the Higgs boson depends intrinsically on the masses of other elementary particles with their uncertainties, going the other way, does the measured mass of the Higgs infer any refinements to those other particle's masses, or is it too tangled a relationship to tell what values might be assigned to which particle?

Sabine, excellent clarification on the Higgs particle 👍, and excellent visual contrast today 👀👏🥂

I love your channel, intelligence, & humour. Keep up the good work.

All I know is that there are some really smart people out there and I am humbled and appreciative of them.

As a scientist, I don't give a shit about understanding Nature. All I care about is coming up with fancy "theories" (they are indeed hypotheses), proving that I'm smarter than everyone else. I also name them with fancy buzzwords so that I can fool people to get more funds. That's why my next work is titled: Physics informed artificial intelligence model for superconductive qubit driven quantum computer on topologically insulating twisted graphene at the event horizon of a super massive black hole.

Thanks for continuing to provide such great content.

Could you make a video about what it means for a theory to be "quantum"? What exactly about gravity would become quantized, the carriers of its force or the least amount of gravity possible? How does this play with the fact that's GR is purely geometrical?

@DKNguyen3.1415

5 ай бұрын

Isn't your last sentence the entire crux of the issue?

@philtrubey7480

5 ай бұрын

A theory is quantum if a particle’s position/momentum is indeterminate in that it can be superimposed across a range of space-time. Ie. You can’t say a particle went through a left or right slit in a double slit experiment, its wave function went through both, and only decoheres upon interaction. Bear in mind I’m not a physicist, so I could be completely wrong.

@blue-pi2kt

5 ай бұрын

​@@philtrubey7480A better description of what makes something quantum is that it is fundamentally describing the universe as non-continuous system ie that it is discrete at the most foundational level (plank length etc). When gravity is being quantised, you would assume it is referring to the force carrying particles (a theorised graviton) in much the same way the photon was quantised in the original theories of quantum mechanics. The issue for quantising gravity is that spacetime is a continuous topology in the three dimensions of space + time described by General Relatively. The same mathematical treatment used on other forces is not possible for gravity due to the infinite infinities it produces at asymptotic points such as black holes.

@AdrianBoyko

5 ай бұрын

@@blue-pi2ktThe Planck length is the smallest distance we *can measure*. It doesn’t claim to be the smallest distance *possible*.

@theslay66

5 ай бұрын

@@AdrianBoyko No, that's precisely the opposite. It is a fundamental limitation of nature, not of our capacity to measure. It litteraly makes no sense speaking of "smaller distances than the Plank lenght" because the notion of distance itself becomes meaningless at such a scale. According to our current theories, of course.

Can you do a full video about asymptotic safety of gravity? I’m intrigued. What is extrapolated? What infinities are avoided?

This one of the best uncoverings. One of your best videos.

What a compelling story about one of the most fascinating topics in physics. Thank you for sharing it with the community.

Such an understandable presentation of a difficult topic shows you have a total mastery of the subject, excellent stuff, keep it up!

Excellent physicist work, brilliant description. 😃

Yea! It’s Sabine!

It just seems like there's too many people looking for new physics instead of trying to figure out the physics we already have.

Wonderful walk trough Sabine - thank You. "prizes" do stimulate the good people that deserve them - and others who want to get one. In that regard they create focus, awareness etc. Maybe some retrospective recognition, in the form of some prize/title would be a good thing.

Great episode. I suspect the appeal of the story will suffer from the same limited interest, but it's exactly the kind of story I hope and expect to get here and no place else.

what an interesting idea....what is going to come of this? surely some physicists out there are following up

My mind is blown. This is the best of your videos, Sabine.

What happens in a black hole according to this asymptotically safe theory?

@SabineHossenfelder

5 ай бұрын

Very good question! Roughly speaking, gravity doesn't become as strong in ASG as it does in General Relativity and the singularity disappears. There's a paper here with details if you want that with equations arxiv.org/abs/2212.0949

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder That's an article about stellar streams, not about black holes in asymptotically free gravity?

@pwinsider007

5 ай бұрын

​@@SabineHossenfelder Does this video means asymptomatic gravity is really quantum gravity

@mikespangler98

5 ай бұрын

I saw an article long ago where a physicist said a singularity was not required. Two galaxies per proton volume was entirely enough to get the observed results without invoking infinity. 😊 A person working on string theory though that matter would decompose into entangled springs just inside event horizon, again no singularity and no infinite density is needed.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@pwinsider007 Yes. She says that in the video, approximately 5:05 to 5:12.

Great video ❤🎉

Awsome informative perspective on the Higgs and quantum gravity! Thanks ^__^

We care Sabine. Thanks for sharing ❤

When the truth is too boring it's human nature to ignore it. This is the origin for most conspiracy theories.

@lawsattitude1999

5 ай бұрын

But aliens are real right?

Congratulations on doing a competent literature search! I don’t follow everything you are saying but evidently you know the field. You could try nominating Shaposhnikov and Wetterich for a prize in their own country.

Fascinating! Thanks, Sabine!!! 😃 Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊 (Because I guess gravity already is. 😬)

I look forward to your explanations, as an amateur who is fundamentally fascinating by the big questions.

Thanks for another great video Sabine! A basic question but why was something so big & heavy 122 GeV, roughly the size/weight of antimony (Sb) or tin (Sn), so hard to find? Puzzled chemist.

@Michael75579

5 ай бұрын

It's because it's so big and heavy that it was hard to find; you need an accelerator that can put a huge amount of energy into a collision to create a Higgs boson. The Higgs boson also can't be observed directly as it has a half life of around 1.5*10^-22 seconds, so you need to predict how it's going to decay and then look for the decay products in the results of the collisions. Since the particles the Higgs decays into can be produced by other decay paths, you need to look for small changes in the relative amounts of each decay product when the collision energy becomes large enough to create the Higgs compared to the results when the Higgs boson isn't produced.

@tonywells6990

5 ай бұрын

It's not that it is hard to 'find', it is hard to create a Higg's boson and then to detect it once it has almost immediately decayed. You have to concentrate a lot of energy into a tiny point to create one (beams of protons smashing into each other), and then you have to detect its remains after it decays, basically looking for particles of a certain energy (eg. gamma rays or quarks or lepton pairs via intermediate W and Z bosons) in a vast ocean of data. A Higg's boson has a half life of 10^-22 seconds, about as short as some isotopes.

@sydhenderson6753

5 ай бұрын

@@tonywells6990 But surprisingly it's about a thousand times the lifetimes of the W and Z particles and the top quark.

Sometimes the simplest equations give us the answers to the most “complex” things.

@merlinc.4560

5 ай бұрын

But that was exactly the fallacy here, no? Physicists wanted this fancy new theory that should've expressed Quantum Gravity in an elegant formula, when *maybe* all they had to do was use a more complicated version of their existing equations.

HNY Sabine & I am looking forward to what other Quantum stuff you have in store for us in 2024! 👍👍💥💥

Sabine, I truly admire your work. You have splendidly addressed many lingering physics questions I have had. As to the Higgs boson, quantum field theory, and dark energy, my conundrum is that, as far as I know, Feynman regarded virtual particals as just a mathematical tool to solve the complex series of interactions in quantum electrodynamics. This idea and picture seem to have been lost in the following decades, with more and more physicists describing a universe in which virtual particles are real, and even contribute to (or amass to) the negative pressure of observed dark energy - while being wrong by 120 orders of magnitude, or so. What are your thoughts on this?

So... how does this relate to Oppenheim's "Post-Quantum" Gravity?

@SabineHossenfelder

5 ай бұрын

Yes, indeed, that's a very interesting question. Asymptotically Safe Gravity is compatible with other approaches to quantum gravity. At first sight it seems that it can't work together with Oppenheim's because ASG is a bona fide quantum theory, and Oppenheim's is not. Then again, maybe it's more difficult than that.

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder Maybe the Higgs field surrounding galaxies is weak and results in a reduction of mass at the edges. This would rule out the need for dark matter/energy, right?

@Zeuskabob1

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 Why would the Higgs field reduce in strength at the edges of galaxies?

@btmillack21

5 ай бұрын

@@SabineHossenfelder In my understanding Oppenheim does not rule out that gravity can be quantized but assumes, that for all practical energy levels it behaves like a classical random field. So there may be a connection between a quantized theory like ASG and Oppenheims PQG

@tonywells6990

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 There is more dark matter outside of a galaxy, they are surrounded by the stuff. It wouldn't make sense for the Higg's field to vary, that would probably destroy all matter in the universe!

I think it’s just you, Sabine. The rest of us are just glad our shoe laces stay tied.

@erinm9445

5 ай бұрын

Uh oh, but what if my shoe laces don't stay tied?

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

🙃😄rendez-vous with Sabine inside a black hole.

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

Me wear sandals, no like laces

~ When the Higgs Boson was found to be multi-massed, (a particulate), it was found to be an unexplained conundrum. But I remember back in 2014, I deduced that the lightest particle interacted with weakons, while the middle weight particle interacted as a correspective field mediator between the lightest & heaviest particle (which interacted with gravitons). A well described analogy would be, a book with plans representing the weakons, then the actions & methods to arrive at the finished & manifest object/result being mediated by the mid-weight particle, & finally the finished product/object/result being the heaviest particle, essentially a graviton. And I was completely ignored as well, even though I emailed my findings to Professor Higgs, also explaining that the Higgs' particulate functioned in parallel to each of it's particles. ~ So go figure, someday it will resolved, & then it will be known, that 'no', the Higgs particulate is not the God particle, it is only part of part of the fundamental particles that together constitute the God Process of energy to matter conversion, very much as the matter replicator in Star Trek movies. ~ SPOILER: The Higgs particulate will be found to coincide with direct current, which conducts internally via a material, as opposed to alternating current which conducts thru the outer surface of a material.

3 videos in, and am loving the style and content. Will be working my way through the rest now :)

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

I predict, you will be astonished, how good they are, also the older ones. That was my experience a year ago. She´s a great educator.

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

Wait until you discover Sabine's music videos.

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

@@brothermine2292Sad that she doesn´t produce new ones, but I understand it.

1:52 The probability that I'll like this video is larger than 1. 👍

In this video Sabine calls building LHC ‘a such a good investment ’ and then continues to discuss a Higgs boson mass prediction based on quantum gravity … I would love to know what her new year’s resolution was 😋

Please make a video about what do we know on how to study a subject efficiently. I have this major test coming em may and I need to start studying a huge field of knowledge. Do we know what works best? Flash cards? Writing? Reading?

They didn't understand the gravity of the discovery.

I love how playful you are with Albert the Great, just one of your many endearing traits.

You've restored my faith in Quantum Gravity. And faith is all we have to go on, you know.....

@blucat4

5 ай бұрын

"The desperate have no other recourse but only faith .." 😄

This is absolutely Maddening.

Very interesting, great topic!

I am surprised that these guys didn't get more credit for their prediction. What doesn't surprise me is that a promising approach to solving quantum gravity was ignored for being boring.

@naamadossantossilva4736

5 ай бұрын

It is also cheap,which should have made it more attractive.

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

It wasn't as "elegant" & "beautiful" as string theory.

Thank you for letting us know how the names of various German scientists should be pronounced. And for all the other stuff, of course.

Thanks for this Video. I never heard about that stuff before. Could you make a dedicated video about the Asymptotically Safe Gravity? It's it really just dismissed because it's boring?

They did not "correctly predict" the Higg's mass, it was exactly this calculation which was used to say the tiny blip in the statistics could be identified as the Higgs boson.

I just found out that Einstein was a real person. I always thought he was a theoretical physicist 😂

@robertjsmith

5 ай бұрын

Einstein is a story about atoms

@therealpbristow

5 ай бұрын

Heh. =:oD

It seems that scientists are also thrill seekers, to eschew the obvious in search of the obscure.😁

@gbcb8853

5 ай бұрын

$ seekers

Sabine is one of the only two vloggers not using clickbait to get views, the other is "Closer to Truth". I love the two channels

@brothermine2292

5 ай бұрын

Closer To Truth titles are often clickbait, in my opinion.

Yours is the only video I couldn't ignore when I get a notification.

Sabine, you're brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Thinking how the hardest problem in modern physics may still be unsolved because the proper solution isn't cool enough to gain traction and win grants just makes so much sense. I hope it turns out to be the correct solution.

Thank you. If gravity waves have indeed been observed, then surely gravity has a field and can be quantized; or am I wrong?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

Gravity waves are waves of spacetime itself; one could argue if one can call that a field or not... And as Sabine said, gravity _can_ be quantized in principle - the question is only how precisely to do that, because the standard methods for quantizing fields run into problems.

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

That was my idea too, but then we need gravitons

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@Thomas-gk42 Yes, if gravity is quantized, gravitons exist. Do you see a problem with that?

@Thomas-gk42

5 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Sabine recently published a great and correct physics video about that gravity is not a force. Many commenters then asked the graviton question, as if the possible existence of gravitons would mean it must be a classical force. I don't see the issue, but perhaps I 'm wrong.

@hubertheiser

5 ай бұрын

You are wrong in that "gravity waves" are not waves of gravitation but deformations of spacetime itself.

Sabine: I just watched a video on what was purportedly an anti-gravity device on a channel seemly called debunkified. What it had was two gyros on a device which had two gyros spinning off a central pivot leading to two arms hanging somewhat downward at a 40 degree angle. The man then used his finger to spin this contraption off a central bolt making the gyros swing out straight on either side. He had a spring which if lift was applied by the gyros would lift the center spring acting like a scale. As he spun the gyros in a circle with his finger during acceleration of spin the spring would lift up on the spring producing in effect upward thrust counter-acting gravity, thus his statement of anti-gravity but actually thrust in whatever direction was applied against the spin of these gyros hanging now upwards at 45 degrees, or so when spinning them faster lifted up on the spring. What I was going to do is spin these gyros much more rapidly (like with metal tops spinning at enormous spin velocity powering the central turning pivot with another electrical motor at whatever speed created the most force even though not anti-gravity would be thrust not according to Newtonian equal and opposite action on a body producing reactionless thrust. What is Sabine's prognosis on this device. I had a bunch of formulaes in my head producing how this force could possibly act in this way with centripital force acting upon spin angular momentum reacting against motion in the y direction counteracting motion towards radial movement reducing said angle. The search terms would be "DEBUNKIFIED ANTI-GRAVITY".

Hi Sabine. Great vid! Could you please do a comprehensive video on why we need a quantum theory of gravity? This is the first time that I have heard a real argument for the need, and the success of a quantum theory of gravity. There are a lot of KZread videos that claim we need a quantum theory of gravity, but I have yet to see a video that concisely and succinctly provides clear and complete answers as to why we need a quantum theory of gravity in the first place. Someone in past comments told me that you had done such a video, but I was not able to find it on your playlists. I think everyone would appreciate such a video so we can really understand why this is such a thing. This prediction with the Higgs boson, like I said, is the first time that I’ve heard something concrete, where it suggests that a quantum theory of gravity is needed, and then that it might actually be at hand! Thanks!

@thedeemon

5 ай бұрын

There's an interersting recent talk with Jonathan Oppenheim where first they discuss this topic, why we need a quantum description of gravity. Besides general mathematical considerations they give simple example of particle in a two slit experiment and trying to measure its gravity, it shows the problem quite well. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gH-DxpqinaXHYtY.html and then they proceed to Oppenheim's idea of how it may be not that quantum after all.

@hu5116

4 ай бұрын

Thanks! I'll take a look!@@thedeemon

Whatever happened to Occam’s Razor?

@XmarkedSpot

5 ай бұрын

As a rule of thumb one ought to regard such philosophies not quite as a natural law but the rule of thumb that they happen to be. This argument is brought to you exclusively by logic, a product of philosophy.

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

@@XmarkedSpot lol You said the same thing with regard to epicycles 2000 years ago and then again with regard to geocentrism at the time that Galileo challenged your dogma. You know that being a 'cheer-leader' is _not_ the same as being a 'thought leader', right?

@XmarkedSpot

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 The Ptolomaic world view had been extraordinarily useful over millennia as it allowed and is still allowing rather precise predictions over planetary motions. In other words: useful concepts about and accurate representation of reality are often - but here's my point: not always - the same. Maybe take the lead and go bark up another tree.

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

@@XmarkedSpot Nope; an 'approximation' is not the same as 'the correct answer'. But hey, if you want to believe in a geocentric model even with a flat earth at its centre then fill your boots; it's a free country, right? lol No, it's not though, is it?

@XmarkedSpot

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 ​ Just how on earth can anyone be so confidently incorrect with the words putting in another's mouth? I'm a physicist, nuff said. Now kindly get lost you wanna-be anti-contrarian.

To give a prize to anyone who predicted the mass of the Higgs boson is a bit like giving a prize to a lottery winner for winning the lottery. I would guess there were at least five papers for every 0.1GeV in the allowed range (and only a little sparser paper density outside)

@CaptainNormal

5 ай бұрын

No comment about who may or may not deserve a prize, but my take away from this was that it potentially says something about the assumptions that were made in order to come up with the production that apparently worked. Though it sounds odd to me that noone followed up on it simply because it's boring.

@eliavrad2845

5 ай бұрын

@@CaptainNormal II have no doubt they made an excellent, well-argued paper. But the sheer number of papers guaranties that someone well present an excellent, well-argued paper about any values the experiment would give. As long as you can't really prove this isn't a coincidence, no one can be awarded prizes for calling a number. They would deserve a prize if, when quantum gravity is eventually settled, their approach and methodology would turn out to have been foundational, or at least right..

Yes, I saw this paper. I remember talking a lot about on physics forums, but outside that palace, not many cared. There is also someone that caught the attention of many there, but people are not taking too seriously outside that, which is the work of A. Deur on Dark Matter, where he gets dark matter from self perturbative effects within General Relativity.

I'm not a theoretical physicist, not even close, but i love this channel. There are things we don't know, that we will never know, that we can never know. "... without a theory of quantum gravity, there are some situations in nature for which we just don't know what happened, such as the big bang or black holes." Science keeps inventing new theories to describe what is missing and new mathematics to provide answers for the theories, and particle experiments to create proofs for the math, but in the end, there are things we are not going to know, because we are not meant to. Not to worry, there are plenty of other satisfying careers for burned out physicists. ❤ Still love you Sabine.

Ptolemaic people knew that circles within circles explained the motions of planets. Interesting how we're now back to Ptolemaic beliefs, fighting to keep the theory against all facts and no matter how cumbersome our physics becomes.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

Which "theory" are we fighting to keep, and against which "facts", specifically?

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

lol Exactly. I have been of the mind that after the next big leap in our understanding, we will view 'time' in the same way we currently view 'epicycles'.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889And what's your reason for thinking that about time?

@undercoveragent9889

5 ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Well, I think that the concept of 'spacetime' has led us to consider the universe as a 'box', (spacetime), that contains all the matter and energy of the universe within it. Worse than that, we have come to thing that 'time' is some physical reality that constrains the evolution of energetic systems. Imagine two kettles: a 2KW one and a 1KW one, both filled with a litre of water. Wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish to conclude that it is because the variable 'time' is doubled in the 1KW kettle causing it to boil more slowly rather than conclude that it is because the energy is halved? Right? There is no variable 't' involved in the process whereas there _are_ the variables 'energy' and 'volume'. 'Time' is a 'thing' just as 'epicycles' were a 'thing', i.e., they are _not 'things'.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

5 ай бұрын

@@undercoveragent9889 "we have come to thing that 'time' is some physical reality that constrains the evolution of energetic systems" I neither understand what you mean with "constrain" here nor with "evolution of energetic systems". So no, "we" have _not_ come to think that, since you made that sentence up yourself. "Wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish to conclude that it is because the variable 'time' is doubled in the 1KW kettle causing it to boil more slowly rather than conclude that it is because the energy is halved?" Huh? What "energy" is halved there?!? kW is a measure of power, not of energy! "There is no variable 't' involved in the process" Err, yes, there is. You talked about one kettling boiling more _slowly_ than the other. I. e. you talk about the _time_ it takes to boil.

Wonderfull, stories like this would be lost without channels of divulgation

Very interesting indeed, never heard of it. The mass of the Higgs boson would be the first experimentally confirmed prediction by any quantum gravity theory ever, right?

@mithrandir77

5 ай бұрын

Same question was on my mind when finishing the video. A bit confused why @SabineHossenfelder didn't say outright that quantum gravity theory (as postulated by A and B, developed through the calculations of X and Y, later applied by Z and T to calculating the mass of the Higgs etc.) made a prediction for the mass of the Higgs boson that was probably confirmed by experiment (probability due to margin of error of the prediction).

Going off on a complete tangent here, but when I see a depiction of a globe I often try to place which part of the Earth is being shown. And the globe displayed behind Sabine for most of the video really had me stumped for a while. 😂 So for all my fellow map heads out there, I figured out after a while that this globe was “flipped” twice. First, the colors are flipped where the landmasses are in blue and the seas/oceans are dark colored. Second, the entire globe is flipped vertically and also tilted. Knowing this, you can see that Africa is on the right side, and the long thin dark bit above Sabine’s shoulder is the Red Sea. Phew! Not figuring it out would have weirdly bothered me inordinately. 😅 Interesting video in any case, Sabine!

Neat! Seems like this needs to be studied more.

3:16 See: Sheldon Doppler Effect This will help you get an idea of just how awkward it can be.

7.30 you woke me back up again 😂😂

I would rather have a boring solution to quantum gravity than no solution. I found Oppenheim's paper on the topic hard to read in the sense that I didn't know half the words. Has anyone else here had any success? First hit on "oppenheim classical quantum" pulls up a version with an "I have edited until here" marker on page 19. And black holes really do make that ominous sound at 3:46. I was listening to one just last night.

I love it. Sabine essentially says that these other scientists is entirely too emotional to accept the truth staring them right in the eyes. Absolutely brilliant.

Very clear explanation of something that appears to be profoundly important, but just not 'exciting enough' for modern science and so, is ignored. If the solution to a problem is a complex extrapolation, then so be it. I think scientists have become intoxicated with the idea that nature SHOULD ALWAYS produce a physical law or physical behaviour that allows for concise and elegant mathematical description. There doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why this SHOULD be the case. It's almost like a there is a notional standard that has been set by the relative simplicity or conciseness of the fundamental laws of physics that all future physics should conform to.

Yet another great video! Gravity is still weird, though

Your this video took me in down the memory lane. 1st Your past video where you have high lighted the problems in physics prediction . Too good fit is suspicious, a good error too is a good results. And 2nd memory before 2007 ( the targeted year proposed LHC - Higgs experimental preparation) I have listened few speakers talk on possible energy window for finding Higgs. Even then 125 Gev was a proposal in the lower end of this window probably ( memory) with SUSY. Now reason is very obvious. For Gravity sector it is good one.

this kind of result fits with pretty wild ideas of unification

I was following it at the time and was wondering how this was not a bigger deal

I would also, for the record, love to know what occurs within black holes, and what occurred during the big bang.

Black holes have no "inside." BH merger-observed gravitational waves: External post-ring down but no "internal singularities''" ringdown. No inside exists. The externally merged object does not thereafter wobble. BHs are 2-D membranes. There is no "internal" singularity to be exposed naked. Finally...what "Information loss?" Solenoid pseudovectors? Coherently rotate each mirror image about a parallel view axis so field reversal is now consistent with winding direction reversal. If perspective is relevant, "chirality" downgrades to "ellipticity." The Earth's rotation direction reverses (absent the external universe as reference) depending upon which pole you look down.

@Moon_Metty

5 ай бұрын

This is how I envision black holes. On the inside there's literally nothing, not even space-time. So the event horizon of a black hole can be considered an 'endpoint' or 'edge' of the universe.

When you find something new....exactly whete you were looking for it....then you learn nothing.

With this information available, have there been set any next steps for more research to confirm Y/N?

Very nice! What this theory of gravity tells us about black holes and the big bang?

Merci. Gut, Besser, Sabine.

Raphael Sorkin correctly predicted the value of Cosmological constant, but nobody cared.