The key to finding a ToE is not in some new super beautiful theory. It is recognizing the flaws in the old theories we take for granted. Correlation we found. indeed. But not correct causation. May I present to you the most valuable remark a Nobel Prize Laureate made in the past 100 years; Sir Roger Penrose time and again stresses; '....yes we have E=MC2 (Einstein). But we also have E=hf (Planck). Substitute one in the other and you get mass equals inverse time; if you have mass, you have a CLOCK in the QP world...' I want all of the distinguished panel guests to please pick a side. Is Penrose correct to call Mass fundamentally equal to inverse time ( and as a direct consequence, energy equals inverse space) , or do you say mass fundamentally equals energy. Both can't be right at the same time. You see the pickle Penrose presented ? Do you really? spoiler alert; Penrose is right and Einstein was not. Now think what this does to Special relativity. Pls dear panel, stop these endless debates. The answer is far more simple.

the inconsistency is in our heads- that was great

I am not interested in listening to a liar like Hossenfelder who has stated “… I no longer have faith in science…”. The wording of that statement indicates that she is deliberately appealing to the anti-science,flat earth and religious brigade.

❤

😂😂

I'd bet you'd be surprised, because behind closed doors - Sabine really doesn't have a problem with String Theory proper. She's just saying we can't confirm it now so let's put the brightest minds on practical physics instead of theoretical because we simply are running out of time.

She talks the less, but says the most.

Germans.

Sabine is the physicist for the conservative-type mob.

the most biased how?

@@BenjaminGoose they said “based” which is slang for blunt honesty

That was so awkward. I have second hand embarrassment.

😂 😂 😂

He’s unbearable to listen to almost every time he speaks lol

Why would any rational person care about what you say?

@@donavenmusic He is not to me , so your claim is a demonstrable and silly lie. You sound like the sort of person Hossenfelder is deliberately trying to appeal to, given she stated that “…I no longer have faith in science…”.

I died with her face when he said that 'we physicists take this multiverse idea very seriously' (45:14)

😂😂😂

That woman is made of far sterner matter than we.

And?

@@SRCX.ClimateResearch I love me some physics drama

Sabine is right, because Kaku has been doing a bad thing for physics for years (especially for string theory). Kaku used to write good professional books, but over time he turned into a person who promotes science poorly. Sabine continues to write scientific papers, but over time she also became more of a popularizer of science.

Both don't publish many papers and both promote very opinionated pop "science" and their own strange personal theories.

@@amihart9269 Sabine knows though that if a topic of research isn't fruitful the best thing is to drop it and move on to a different in prospect rather than reinventing the lost cause.

Teutonic fury, eh?

Every time I hear him, I feel he is trying to sell something … seems he has the same answer for every question. I guess that is his universal theory, but these other experts don’t seem convinced.

Rather like people saying, 'if you don't vote, you have no right to complain'. It's just Gaslight.

Yes, it was merely a rhetorical trick to try to paint String Theory as the "default" position. It isn't. The default position is "we don't know." "We don't know" is a better theory than a theory (String Theory) which has continually failed to be proven by experiment.

Same ilk as Avi Loeb. Click-bait science.

The time has come for him to shut up

Dream peddler..

In my opinion 99% physicists do not think about this problem at all. They simply do not deal with anything fundamental enough. When you use established laws of physics to solve a problem, you are not concerned whether they are beautiful at all.

@LorneABrown True. Mathematics is beautiful, but mathematical beauty was never the driving force behind physics discoveries (in my opinion). However, no doubt that our best theories are expressed by beautiful equations. In other words, mathematical beauty comes as a by-product. I might be defeating my own argument, but I don't think many likes the equations that describes the standard model with all these parameters although they fit experiment so well.

@@abdouabdel-rehim8537 I agree with you. In fact, my desire for mathematical beauty is exactly what compelled me to decide to be a pure mathematician instead of a theoretical physicist! 😁

The answer is both, in no specific order.

'...is in the eye [mind] of the beholder'. The point about symmetry is well taken, though. It's a known significant factor in sexual attraction. So if a physical theory turns you on, you know why, lol

Yes, I quite enjoyed what he had to say. He was the only one of the "mathematical beauty" camp who actually gave a definition of what he considers "mathematical beauty" to mean. Additionally, he seems quite grounded. Meanwhile Kaku and Tegmark seemed to just wax poetic about their fantasies that one day String Theory will be proven, despite its failure for 40+ years.

These scientists showed so much respect towards each other. They didn't speak over and humbly agreed/disagreed. We can also be nice as listeners. The edge of fundamental physics is fuzzy.

He always talks like he’s on a documentary. I hate it

I think that is too much. Michio Kaku is passionate about string theory. And string theory is not a theory like Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein. It is a true scientific theory and which was developed in the traditional way. And we should study string theory, because it answers a lot of math questions. But I agree he goes sometimes too far and hypes things up. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study string theory. And Sabine Hossfelder agrees with this. Also, there was good reason to study string theory, because it is the only theory that gets rid of infinities. I am not sure if you work in the field. This is a huge problem! And string theory is the only theory that has solved it.

Even our most accurate theories fall short. Atleast String theory ticks more boxes. I think guys like winstein constantly having a crack at string theory just do it to collect fans boys for their youtube channels. You are one.

​@@devalapar7878actually string theory is more of a mathematical philosophy. Traditionally science needs to be testable

Way

we are on the cusp on AI-Assisted Theoretical Physics research... we don't have to move on from anything. Instead, we can expand our search.

@@dmitrysamoilov5989 String theory is still a cul-de-sac which has wasted 40 years of our smartest physicists lives. I think Ed Witton knew this, I think he was employed by multiple entities to keep research stagnant

Consciousness as primary is what's next

@@purelife8559 consciousness is not primary. Meta-language is.

@@dmitrysamoilov5989 keep searching for phlogiston and aether?

I guess she finds it tolerable, or her rider is good. 🤷🏻‍♀️

@@CAThompsonNah, there are different kinds of people with different strengths and weaknesses. She is an "INTJ" personality type, her brain puts very little attention to processing and doing facial expressions (among other social stuff). You can see that she has such facial expression even when she sings (makes music videos) which is something she enjoys - for example some of her songs: You talk too much: watch?v=OUE9E1MxY2I Catching Light: watch?v=FDkfXCMDzZs INTJs are very analytical, very direct, and very introverted people. Their weakness is processing the social stuff and they are bad at pressuring people and making quick decisions.

@@fadingintent I've watched her music videos. I don't believe that the Myers-Briggs types do a good job of explaining how people are. I've seen Sabine use facial expressions when she's in unscripted conversations.

The least miserable German

She is kinda what I’d imagine a female Einstein to be in the modern world.

​@@Awesomes007 A female Einstein? Yeah like Einstein mentally ill daughter.

they could have skipped Michio Kaku's invitation in my opinion. He only seems to bring the obligatory commercial salespitch for whatever sponsor of the show has asked for it (excepts that he's his own sponsor and the show doesn't get anything back from it). I really like to give his ideas a chance, but there doesn't seem to be something substantial coming from what he says. 😕

One can be economical with conveying ideas, but still be wrong. Hossenfelder is so stuck up with herself as the queen purveyor and self-appointed gatekeeper of what physics is primarily from yes laymen to her absolutely boring and non-expanding blogs.

is reading books really... that rare or something? i have always found audiobooks a bit awkward as i have the tendency to reread sections and having the text and visuals infront of me is helpful. I obviously listen to podcasts and such while I am doing something or walking etc

@@eishuno fair question, I have little time for pleasure reading and have had to reduce my reading to audible books. I, too, must reread sections at times when my imagination takes control, and you can rewind portions of audio books. Even so, I do not retain the audio book details as well as I do reading. I suspect there is little to no cognitive benefit to passive listening, especially compared to reading.

Hossenfelder's 'Existential Physics' is an interesting read.

Wolfram too

Rovelli is the best.

🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.

The Born-Oppenheimer-Approximation is the basis for all quantum chemical calculations - differentiating the time scales. Is something similar at other scales?

Degrees of freedom for vibration, rotation, translation and excitation are not about multiverses at all. All formulas should works for all time/size levels. Mathematics and Physics are only models to reality not reality itsself

Chris Langan's CTMU accounts for rescaling.

and hence conservation laws!

😂

Ha ha, true Listening to occasional interviews with him over the years on Discovery Channel, I've found him akin to a magical thinker.

Amalgams were common prior to the 1980s because there were no good alternatives for "permanent" fillings. If he energized his magnet with appropriate frequencies of emf (mostly rf and microwave), amalgams and other heterogeneous fillings can just disintegrate, in the case of microwave heating, the metals in amalgams will expand differentially- the fillings will fall out, not be pulled out, but it's hard to tell the difference. I've actually had several amalgams fall apart this way (probably from long-term low-level rf exposure.)

Agreed. I'm currently trying to classicalize quantum mechanics. To violate Bell's inequality, we either need nonlocality, indeterminism, or statistical dependence. GR allows for wormholes connecting distant particles, which represents a "nonlocal" connection. That's what ER=EPR is about. I say we keep determinism and add "nonlocal" wormholes. No clue why this didn't become the dominant interpretation after ER=EPR stuff was researched.

@@PerpetualScience perhaps because ER=EPR hasn't been broadly accepted as accurate yet. I'm afraid I'm not yet familiar enough with it to form a position on it, and the issue of wormholes generally is far from settled science. Probably most physicists accept their theoretical possibility but question their attributes and implications, and probability of occurrence in nature. Much as was once the case with black holes themselves.

@@crawkn That would be a good explanation as to why!

I don't agree. String Theory has failed on every level. So, we should continue beating this very dead horse? No, of course not. Start working on something new. I don't know what that is, but I do know that burning more money on the altar of String Theory is obviously wrong. Some physicists would be quite happy to continue getting cash for their work in String Theory, but it will still be cash flushed down the toilet. Instead, use that cash for other new things. Kaku really needs to retire and shut up already.

​@@andyiswonderfulString theory has not failed on any level, nor does it take much money, theorizing is cheap. You have no idea about string theory.

Isn't this exactly what science shouldn't be like? Who cares if there is no better theory, or even worse, if I can provide it to you. Every theory should stand on its own legs. Kaku basically said what religious people have said for millenia when others objected to the efficacy of the religious teachings.

And all of these "fakes" can lead to the greatest of achievements when carefully examined and properly utilized. After all, beauty is just another human construct.

Lols, Sabine wasn't peddling any theories, it was only Michio doing that. Sabine was the one to honestly and forthrightly challenge him on it. Max at one stage also tried, but in a lukewarm over-polite manner.

Standard model is the low energy effective field theory of the more fundamental qft. Physics is bound to search for a more general qft at higher energies, indefinitely. This is akin to drawing a picture of a mathematically fractal at a certain scale. Scientists are yet to discover "renormalization group" for mathematical logic.

>Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does. How do you know its an approximation w/o knowing what reality is? Physics needs a philosophy of the focused mind.

@@TeaParty1776 if I *knew* I wouldn't say "maybe". But I have a feeling the math is what keeps us from finding the true nature of the universe. I like the approach of Prof. Wildberger's from Australia though I don't know if that's the answer to everything. Since if it's all a simulation like thing your guess is as good as mine.

@@flatisland I have a feeling that mysticism is a product of an unfocused mind.

@@flatisland > math is what keeps us from finding the true nature of the universe. Stop using your mind for a few days and report back.

Mathematics is invented, but it was invented along the lines of physical observations. Ordinary mathematical logic was derived from the observations of the behavior of finite collections of classical physical objects and their immutable properties. Your deep confusion about the matter stems from this trivial piece of science history that you don't know about. ;-)

Dark matter is the observation that there seems to be more gravity in the universe than suggested by the presence of optically measured matter. That means we know "how" dark matter works. What we do not know is if the explanation for dark matter involves dark (matter) fields similar to heavy neutrinos or if we have to modify the laws of gravity (in addition). Having said that, there are also some quite credible people who say that relying on past measurements of the effect (specifically in galactic rotation curves) might be unreliable because the data analysis of those observations involved some assumptions that may not be valid. Form a high energy physicist's perspective dark (matter) fields are preferable because they could solve a couple additional problems in high energy physics at the same time. From a quantum gravity theorist's point of view modified gravity would probably give more bang for the buck. Oh, wait... I am overtaxing your mind with the actual details. I am sorry... I didn't want to do that. You must be getting a headache, already. ;-)

@@schmetterling4477 You, in a most long-winded way, just said exactly what I eloquently stated in a short statement. You prefer a long waffle, it's still fudge. When someone resorts to insults, it is a sign of a lost argument.

@@JoeBlowUK What I said is that "it's complicated" and that you don't have the attention span for complicated. You just proved me right. ;-)