A New Physics Breakthrough Could Change Everything

[@victorsago]

150 years ago, many physicists thought that everything important has already been discovered, and all that remains is more and more precise measurements. And then Planck tried to resolve the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe"... The point is, nobody can predict what new physics can do, or how it can be applied, until we have discovered it.

[@mikemondano3624]

Which physicists thought that?

[@omardiaz6255]

Most physics, back then there were very few works focusing on UV cathastrophe, photoelectric effect and Brownian motion, only after plank and einstein thing began to get tons pf phisicist invested

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Some day when we have a much better understanding, we just may find that there actually is something much smaller making the quantum particles, or anti-spacetime, or hyper-dimensions, or a fabric of dimensions...🧐 Yet most of us are just trying to come up with a better ham and cheese sandwich!😁

[@SupGaillac]

@@mikemondano3624 Lord Kelvin, amongst others

[@jake_]

it's one of those things that "people say", but nobody bothers to prove if they are actually true or not. If enough people repeat something, it must be true.

[@christopherboreham583]

Thanks Sabine, Love your video's, Merry Christmas to you and your family, cheers ...

[@ericsmith6394]

A grand unified theory and explanation of dark matter/MOND would have practical applications! It would save us a lot of money currently being spent on discovering a GUT/DM/MOND!

[@shawns0762]

Relativistic dilation explains dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This doesn't mean mass increases, it means mass becomes spread throughout spacetime relative to an outside observer. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates.

[@Leyrann]

@@shawns0762 If it's that simple why don't you write a paper about it and take the Nobel prize?

[@PrivateSi]

Yep, because dark matter, quarks, the Higgs field don't exist.

[@cipaisone]

You are not even wrong

[@shawns0762]

@@Leyrann I studied physics for my own knowledge not for a career so I don't have a PhD. I realized dilation explains dark matter before those galaxies were discovered. All galaxies with low mass centers have normal rotation rates. More will be discovered soon. A graph illustrates the phenomenon of dilation. It has velocity from stationary to the speed of light on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. This shows its squared nature, it increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. The best way to understand it is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the graph shows nothing has changed at that point. When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point. When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer. This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere.

[@Amir_404]

I think the most straightforward application for a breakthrough in physics would be smaller and faster transistors, and I am not talking about quantum computers. Modern semiconductor tech has to fight against quantum affects in both malfunctioning and operation. Fun fact, flash memory is based on quantum tunneling. The gate of a mosfet is physically sealed, locking it into a on or off state, then electrons are made to tunnel in or out of the gate to change state.

[@DarkShroom]

that breakthrough happens pover and over again, every time Intel or the chip manufacturers find a new process

[@brunonikodemski2420]

The problem is that all of the present quantum research is in the 20'K temperatures or way below like 4'K. Present FET and transistor technology is already limited by thermal effects, electronic wind, local tunneling, and quantum coupling between cells. 3 and 4 nanometer cells are getting to a 50% point in long term memory retention. 2nanometers maybe unattainable at room temperatures, and maybe susceptible to ordinary cosmic rays. Retention times for quantum machines is only in the few-to-dozens of microseconds range, at cold. Not even possible at room temps..

[@axle.student]

"Modern semiconductor tech has to fight against quantum affects in both malfunctioning and operation." Instead of fighting against the analog system wouldn't it be better to utilize it instead of trying to force it to be digital?

[@xxportalxx.]

​@@axle.studentone of the main benefits of digital signals is that they dramatically improve your Snr, you can largely ignore analog noise. In this case we're talking about signals so small the noise is of similar amplitude, using analog signals would only make this worse. It's like trying to yell accross a loud bar room, trying to speak normally is hard, so instead you use Morse code where you shout the dots and dashes, but if the crowd is louder than you it becomes hard to even distinguish those dots and dashes, what you're suggesting is that somehow going back to saying full words will make it easier to hear.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

The uneducated have the most ideas in physics. Not so much in improving hot dog sales on street carts. What causes that?

[@alvarofernandez5118]

All microchips are "quantum", to a non-trivial extent. So at least in principle, the technologies and devices available in the microchip industry ought to allow us to access and manipulate aspects of quantum gravity, if and when we get a suitable candidate for experimental verification. So I speculate: if it is physically possible to create gravitational devices, they will be based upon nano-lithographic structures, and built by microchip manufacturers.

[@georgkrahl56]

Even good old vacuum tubes rely on quantum effects, tunnel effect to be precise. And they did work well before theory 🙂

[@osmosisjones4912]

What Dark energy is the needed negative mass

[@krippaxxuseredarlordofthes9940]

So youre saying we could build gravity with only earths ressources?

[@patrickday4206]

Maybe superconductors doubt semiconductors will give readable results

[@axle.student]

Ever considered the thought of just reverting to the underlying analog system and making use of that instead of digitalizing it :)

[@HarrydeBont]

Your reflections feel like a call for awakening, not just in physics but in how we approach progress as a collective. The question, ‘What problem are we solving?’ resonates far beyond science-it challenges us to confront whether our pursuits align with deeper truths or merely distract us. This video reminded me of the importance of clarity and purpose in both individual and societal efforts. Progress isn't just about solving puzzles or achieving breakthroughs; it's about engaging with complexity in a way that brings us closer to understanding ourselves and our place in the world. Your call to contribute-rather than passively await solutions-is such a powerful reminder. It’s through collective curiosity, courage, and alignment that we move forward, not just as scientists or thinkers but as a species. Thank you for framing this so clearly.

[@spiralsun1]

Well said. ❤

[@egglion7931]

Well said

[@dollarstorememes]

This was ChatGPT

[@JOANNAMARSHALL-g1o]

Joseph Campbell, the mind behind Star Wars 🧠 👁... let the Force be...

[@Milan_Openfeint]

@@dollarstorememes Wouldn't ChatGPT use correct quotation marks? On the other hand, who uses "-" instead of "-" ?

[@MPenzlin]

As far as I have heard: When Einstein realised that his theory would predict gravitational waves, he probably said that the effect was so small that it would never be possible to measure them. And vola: that is exactly what we are doing now. And he said that at a time when his theory was already finished. Now someone is saying that a theory cannot be applied before the theory has even been developed?? When I studied physics from 87 to 93: Blue LEDs are impossible Shortly before: Superconductors with a Tc greater than 35 Kelvin are impossible. It would be interesting to have a list of physical impossibilities that were actually possible...

[@shawns0762]

In some ways physics is going backwards. The concept of singularities is preventing clarity. G.R does not predict them. Einstein wrote in 1939 - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to dilation. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". This doesn't mean mass increases, it means mass becomes spread throughout spacetime relative to an outside observer. Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. Sound familiar? This is the explanation for dark matter/galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter. In other words they have normal rotation rates.

[@QuantumConundrum]

Well, certainly it's true that unexpected results have come, if I sit down and really think about it, blue LEDs haven't really changed my life the same way that say, electricity, or literally anything in all appliances that are used everyday. What you listed is a great example of diminishing returns. GPS accuracy to the meter is great, but centimeter or millimeter accuracy isn't nearly as useful... other than to blow up people in sandy countries. There are applications, just much more limited.

[@DJ_Force]

I think you are conflating impossible like breaking the sound barrier and impossible like breaking the speed of light. I don't think anyone thought blue LEDs would violate physical laws so much as no one knew how to overcome the engineering challenges.

[@patelk464]

​@QuantumConundrum maybe you should look at how many appliances you use everyday make use of blue led's before making such statement. As for cm accuracy GPS, this is already used by the military and will be important for unattended automation. As such it is likely to become much more important in everyday use in the future.

[@DJ_Force]

@@patelk464 Blue LEDs are more efficient than incandescents for lighting, but going from incandescent lighting to LED lighting is nowhere near as big a jump as going from candles to incandescent lights.

[@rwesenberg]

"Physics" includes many fields of study that do have practical applications. Physics is more than just theorists looking for " Grand Unified Theory" of everything. My concentration, for example, was in experimental atmospheric physics and atmospheric electricity. My career included work in engineering physics, heliophysics, planetology, and astronomy. Too many theorists have divorced themselves from experimental and engineering physics.

[@XxxThePsyCheMisTxxX]

Everybody wants to be the next Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, etc. pick your favorite Solvay Conference attendee.

[@downformexico5470]

Off topic but you could maybe answer me a question then. With which equations can i calculate the ion pair generation rate by ionization through secondary cosmic rays? Is it Bethe-Bloch? High voltage engineer trying to make sense of how to predict streamers in Gas insulated switchgear

[@rwesenberg]

@downformexico5470 It's been 30+ years since I worked in the field, but I would not begin with Betha's theoretical work, but with measured data. I would use theory to extend the measured data to the applicable regions. Beware though, the theory may not account for all the physics. Have you checked Cobine or any good text on cloud chambers?

[@downformexico5470]

@@rwesenberg i didnt read to much Literature on this so far. Because comming from my angle there isnt to much hints about this, or the connection between gas chambers and GIS hasnt been made yet. All my knowledge about cosmic rays etc comes from, embarassingly, chatgpt. For the first steps pretty good but know much more questions arise. Can you recommend some literature? I tried searching Cobine but couldnt get into anything useful.

[@michaelrubbo7467]

I am an electrical engineer (applied electromagnetics) working in corporate applied research and new product development. In the corporate applied research world that I experienced, the "big question" used to evaluate the benefit of working/spending money on a topic was ""So what?" While this experiencve may not apply to fundamental or basic research at university or government labs, this question was used to focus our corporate research dollars to provid bigger "bang for the buck" in improvement of existing products/processes or on technologies that could radically disrupt existing products/technologies. I think there is a general understanding in research that we can never know all of the potential upsides to new developments in a technology or science, and that the "killer app" for a new technology is not often the answer to the "So what?" question that drove the research in the first place. As a tool for evaluating what new research to sponsor, it can be a valuable guide. Having said all this, sometimes intellectual curiosity should be allowed to be our muse for discovery, I just wouldn't fund it with 50% of my research budget.

[@jessedbrown1980]

Meta- tagging particle clouds in a universe simulator - I already solved this

[@corkygoss7403]

Okay, but the Invention Secrecy Act of 1952 still sucks. It's like men in women's sports. Unfair scale tipping, rather than scale invariant. Cheers.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

Tightening up the lingo might benefit the corporation communication.

[@ShaggyUltraLounge]

If we are destined to become a space faring species, there is one practical thing that said species cannot do without. And it's not even a warp drive or some such. It's the ability to manipulate gravity. It is vital for a long term stay in space; various training machines simply cannot adequately compensate for the loss of muscle mass.

[@billmcleangunsmith]

Trying to understand the usefulness of things we don't understand by using things we do understand is rather like a seventeenth-century scientist trying to understand the usefulness of electricity when all he knows is lightning.

[@BenjaminGatti]

I think new physics will be data driven. It seems, and 2022 Nobel being awarded without published data is proof, that the current era of physics is based on naked trust - surely it will be an improvement to ground physics in published data.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Yes, indeed, this seems very likely

[@maladyofdeath]

Ugh this is a stupid direction to take.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Wormholes explain everything seem in dark matter and know practical use if wormholes were real

[@mikhagar]

Physics is the field where "human factor" is the main one, so look at this as a driving car in a traffic jam. Someone waits, someone uses a brilliant idea to use brain and find new way, rather than "asking what physics can do for you"

[@carparkmartian2193]

​​@@SabineHossenfelder there is good data if you know where to look. Genzel et al is grazing the sides of breakthrough data with their discovery of dark matter increasing in galaxies over time. However people including Genzel et al need to upgrade their outdated preconception that dark matter gravity is tied to mass and that it predates galaxy formation . The data simply does not support that. The particle you are after here is the sneaky massless transporter of spacetime (photon) and it's sedentary massless ground state - the scalar photon. Coming soon - The Scalar Project.

[@CaringRainbow-i7m]

The one thing to say, if we look at history and the great "new physics breakthroughs" we had in the past, before them people had absolutely no idea what they were and how they could be useful..

[@fcapio]

That’s not true. They “knew” what they are. Only the source of their “knowledge” was different. ( religion, superstition, philosophy, etc”

[@CaringRainbow-i7m]

@@fcapio did they tough? before electricity was discovered, anybody go like.. oh yes, we need to discover this, than we can make lightbulbs.. before transistors were discovered, did they go, we need to figure out the quantum mechanics in PNP materials, then we can make computers.. heck they didnt even have an idea about nukes when shooting protons at radium.

[@fcapio]

@@CaringRainbow-i7m you are definitely not “useful’…

[@rohanshah7559]

Yeah, a lot of discoveries seemed useless at first, but you can’t figure out how to utilize something until you know how it works. I think Sabine has forgotten that a little bit

[@ferenckovacs3939]

00:35 That was a wild change of pace/topic!

[@richj120952]

I am an Engineer by trade. I deal in the practical application of physical and physics principles. If there is a new "law" that I can exploit, I will exploit it. If there is a new quantum law that I can exploit, again I will see if it can be applied to a new tool or way of building something. So, I am fine with scientists researching and learning about the physical principles that makes up existence. By the way, just because I can't see a current use, doesn't mean that other Engineers with a different set of problems that need tools to address won't.

[@eecarolinee]

Dunno about humans becoming a space-traveling species but we have space cadet down pat.

[@Adam_Lyskawa]

I'm not physicist, but playing Master of Orion has alerted me to a scenario, that "the scientists discovered that our sun will explode in 10 years and we have to do something quickly to prevent it" ;) And then "new physics" might become handy to build a device that prevent our broken sun from exploding ;) BTW, the game mechanics worked treating research basically like a kind of currency. By funding research you received research points that allowed to advance the tech in the game.

[@andywe7524]

Very nice summary, Sabine. This was realy good. Thanks!

[@Chr0n0l0gic]

Thanks!

[@Thomas-gk42]

Great, that you support this channel

[@OnceAndFutureKing13711]

Nothing like giving money to someone who does not perform research.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@OnceAndFutureKing13711 She published three scientific papers this year, she´s research member of the center of mathematical philosophy at the LMU Munich /Germany. Nothing more childish than envious people.

[@JRKyt00]

Thrilling stuff: moving from the largest to smallest things and their effects and relationships in the universe; commenting on the theoretical and practical impacts of discovery; reminding us that what some trumpet as a monumental achievement may, instead, be brouhaha. Elegant, informative, fun, even: everything in just over 10 minutes. Brilliant, Sabine! Thank you, again!

[@alancook9102]

😊😊😊

[@osmosisjones4912]

Future techology

[@osmosisjones4912]

Wormholes explain dark matter

[@peterectasy2957]

we are in the situation like people at 1 st century. they could not discover planets and black holes because they did not have telescope they could not have had telescopes because they did not have technology and knowledges importantly - even if at that time ( first century AD) Einstein was born he would be unable to create theory of relativity or photoelectrical effect so that`s why we can not move forward with current "standart model" we do not have instruments and we do not have technology and we do not have knowledges -)

[@ellengran6814]

New science once killed God, created the story of "survival of the strongest" (misunderstood Darwin) and made europeans believe they were superior other human races (eugenics). Hopefully new science will tell the story of cooperation and balance.

[@Bassotronics]

Yay new shirt! I told Sabine 2 days ago and she listened. Haha 👍🏼💙

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, she´s always open-minded for new proposals😉

[@tair7]

Excellent topic!!! You are SIMPLY DA BEST, as always, liebe Sabine!

[@billscott1601]

I want new physics to lead to flying cars, teleportation, and warp drive, just like in Star Trek.

[@paulealing1]

Interesting ideas Sabine! Im not a trained Phsyicist but a Molecular Biochemist. Paradoxically I taught High School Physics (and Chemistry and Biology) for 18 years as a Teacher in Australia so I took a great interest in it. However I can't go inside the Mathematics of quantum Physics so I can't really enjoy your talks to the max! But I enjoy them because they really promote the philosophical side of Physics and Science in general! Good on you mate keep up the great work!

[@TheNorgesOption]

In other words, so what if a particle is detected in the woods and there is no observer?

[@TsvetanDimitrov1976]

6:58 There must be a new quantum field that keeps physicists excited. I'm sure we can find it if we build a new large enough colider xD

[@bitesizedgaming263]

Honestly feels like we don't know what we're looking for or why we're looking for it

[@vincentzimmerman2011]

Basically. We have no idea what we're looking for, so we have no idea how a new discovery would change our understanding of the universe.

[@sputukgmail]

Why? Because… Humans though our history have developed by picking at the loose threads in out understanding of the world around is. That curiosity is what has taken us from nomadic apes to set foot on another celestial surface. Its what gives us the device you wrote that on. Now, we don’t know what or even if a deeper understanding of reality will give us incredible benefits, but we know previous breakthroughs have reliably been a “good thing” for humanity.

[@stevegrieb6596]

@@vincentzimmerman2011 True, but I think curiosity and persistence are two of the best things about our species.

[@vincentzimmerman2011]

@@stevegrieb6596 Definitely.

[@blindyeti7313]

We search for answers because we want to know. That is the why for many, many researchers. Now, as to whether these answers are subsequently useful outside of quenching our thirst for knowledge, well that is always up for debate.

[@Kaimelar8]

Dark Energy could be the repulsive aspect of the electromagnetic force on a grand cosmic scale.

[@GrahamChristie-jg8sw]

"New Physics" especially something that claims to break new ground-has genuine merit is seldom straightforward, “popularity” in the form of media coverage or buzz in informal circles got String Theory a long way!

[@jessedbrown1980]

Meta- tagging particle clouds in a universe simulator - I already solved this

[@scottjuhnke6825]

Just wanted to extend my thanks once again. Not interested, at my age, in digging into the Maths, and I really appreciate you still teaching me tons of Science.

[@rasevero]

Saying that some of these discoveries would hardly have practical applications isn't like Hertz saying wireless waves would hardly have practical applications?

[@Milan_Openfeint]

Exactly. "I don't see how it could be useful, therefore it is useless." And that even before it was discovered!

[@TomHendricksMusea]

Summary of my model. Here are the key components of all my physics posts: Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance. The singularity of photons began the Big Bang. Photons created mass through pair conversion of electron positron pairs in the Big Bang. These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms. Protons are made of two positrons and one electron. Neutrons are made of one proton and one electron. Protons, could mostly be created in the immediate era after the Big Bang when positrons were plentiful Neutrons are unstable protons and decay in 10 minutes. The proton neutron bond in the nucleus, kept neutrons from decay and was key to building all elements. Neutrons and hydrogen atoms may be the same thing, but with different electron placements. The key to atoms stability may be the deuterium nucleus or deuteron that help binds one proton to one neutron. The missing anti matter is in protons and neutrons. Photons, electrons, and positrons, may be different versions of the same thing. Both electrons and positrons may move in a helix motion. Charge may be opposite helix movements. The horizon problem may have another possible solution. Virtual particles may be a key part of quantum leaps. Virtual particles may power beta plus decay. The mass of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs in pair conversion. The energy of the universe comes from electrons and positrons annihilating and converting to photons. The universe is 5% charged matter from Electrons and positrons, and 95% neutral force from Photons The universe is 5% electromagnetic force and 95% Dark energy or Antigravity. Dark matter is not gravity from invisible baryons pulling, but antigravity pushing from empty space. Dark matter and Dark Energy are both anti gravity pushing from empty space. The cosmological redshift supports this. The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons / dark energy / dark matter /anti gravity . They are the same. The force caused by acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity. Galileo and Newton's discoveries work for either gravity or in reverse for antigravity. Big Bang may be energy in, not expansion out. Time has speed limits up to the speed of light. The universe is open ended and will continue to expand. There may be two universes. This one and one of photons.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

It's not a model, it's word salad.

[@Jedbullet29]

@@denysvlasenko1865 agree....nonsense

[@corymoore2292]

A new physics breakthrough would make IKEA furniture way easier to assemble, clearly.

[@davegold]

We want furniture that assembles itself.

[@audience2]

That's an applied mathematics problem in classical mechanics.

[@user-yc3fw6vq5n]

@@audience2 Not if Quantum excitations CouLd put our chairs and beds together

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

The story is "What good is electricity" "Someday you will tax it." Leaving the look ups to the student as an exercise.

[@eecarolinee]

Nothing would change... except the models. The universe does what it feels like... doesn't care about our models of it. Or so it seems to me.

[@SJ23982398]

It would change our ability to manipulate the universe around us.

[@georgkrahl56]

Galilei said that long time before, in other words of course.

[@BillyThetit]

@@georgkrahl56 Some things Galilei is supposed to have said were likely made up by his admirers a century or so later.

[@DrDeuteron]

and our models don't care about our coordinates. Kinda of a big deal, really.

[@BenjaminCronce]

I am star dust, I am the universe

[@tpbtpb2602]

We really know very little about how things work. We can't design something from first principals because we don't have the necessary deep understanding. If I ask what is the highest density battery that can be made, no one can answer the question. If I ask how to make the most durable transparent glass possible, no one can answer the question. Our efforts to make better batteries or more durable glass are all done by trying things at random and testing to see if we have improved anything. We have spent decades in trial and error, not by actual design from knowledge on both of these. The same goes for electronics and biology. If I ask what is the optimum topology for an antenna that has certain characteristics, we don't know. We can guess at something and simulate it, but we can't simply design it without randomly trying things. In electronics, we try different gate structures, different semiconductor materials, different dielectrics, different doping, adding strains, etc., but it's all by trial and error, not by design. I won't even talk about how little we actually know and understand in biology. We can't ask our AI to answer any of these questions either because we can't program the AI with something we don't know or understand.

[@DustinRodriguez1_0]

Back in the 90s, when I was a teen getting deeply into computers, I had a thought: If you went back in time to like 1850 and you told someone 'hey, one day we are going to have machines that can do billions of mathematical operations per second' and asked them what impact they thought such machines might have, there would be no chance, whatsoever, that they could have imagined how radically computers have altered every single aspect of human civilization. And then I wondered what development like that might be likely in our own future. Something which at its heart seems like it'd be simple, but which bears world-changing fruit. What I came up with was that a fundamental understanding of the nature of complexity would revolutionize everything. The ability to design, intentionally, very simple systems of dynamically interacting parts which can give rise to predictable, controllable, engineered large-scale change. While mathematicians delude themselves by saying mathematics is the language of the universe, you ask them to figure out nonlinear dynamical systems of a dozen parts interacting and they immediately fall apart. Physics obsesses over vacuums and isolated systems, and doesn't much want to even nail down where 'temperature' comes from and is comfortable with merely observing that a 'large enough' collection exhibits it with predictable dynamics determined by observation rather than through generalizable principles that might enable us to design our own 'large enough' collections of interacting particles to give rise to something different from, but sharing traits with, temperature with its scale-free phase change diagrams and whatnot. THAT would be new physics. THAT would change the world in ways too monumental for us to be capable of imagining it.

[@ardalla535]

Interesting to note that completely empty space has no temperature. It's not zero K. It doesn't exist at all.

[@NemisCassander]

I would classify 'a fundamental understanding of the nature of complexity' under the P = NP discussion. I may be biased based on my background (Industrial Engineering/Operations Research/Computer Science), but that question has very far-reaching practical implications at every point in life. It doesn't quite fit the criteria you're looking for, though, as it is very understandable (at least to some of us) how revolutionary that would be. Unfortunately for the topic, I think the nature of complexity is impenetrable to rational (not just scientific) inquiry.

[@frankhoffman3566]

I think understanding the mechanisms of gravity could lead to the manipulation of gravity, that leading to interstellar travel.

[@tomschmidt381]

interesting topic. While I agree with Sabine's analysis I have a caveat, given the vastness of the universe and how little time we humans have been around I think it is fair to assume discovering new things will ultimately have a profound effect, even though at the start we typically have no idea what the effect will be. When in doubt I like falling back on the quote attributed to Michael Faraday about the practical use of electricity: "I know not, but I wager that one day your government will tax it"

[@skpince]

What I like about this channel is that there's plenty of questioning and criticism.

[@keithcruitt2861]

We have only scratched the surface of technological advances because we do not even know how the internal structure of a proton and neutron works. We have been assuming that we know almost everything about everything when we really don't know anything about anything.

[@azadr9231]

Thank you for your great channel and videos. As a lay person interested in science, this is one of few channels that I can understand and follow.

[@gregrice1354]

Thanks for resetting thinking on big issues in Physics. Maybe science journalists will learn something about researching and reporting issues in Physics. Speaking of physics simpletons - I have a question: On recent hypothesis of Worm-Holes being some way of "stitching together" the fabric of Space-Time - Does such a hypothesis lend itself to easy guesses at solutions? Due to latest measurements of Galactic Walls, mass of Universe and time delay from Big Bang to acceleration shift of expansion of the Universe, maybe? - - Would we expect to look for evidence of worm holes in larger number based on gravitational attraction? How should a good student learn to re-frame the question?

[@davidbrisbane7206]

You'll never break a dark matter particle. It will never talk 😂.

[@vaakdemandante8772]

Any more meaningful understanding of gravity and/or unification theories (like the original extended Maxwell's equations) will give us better access to new sources of energy and in the end that is all that matters.

[@thewetcoast]

We don't necessarily need a "new discovery." We need to abandon the old theories and seek a paradigm shift, then have another look at current observations.

[@williamschlosser]

Right. Inertia is a huge problem. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. An EM-based theory, as opposed to a gravity-based theory, is indeed a paradigm shift.

[@Detric-i9q]

Very interesting it seems humanity got to a certain point and just gave up and cling to old outdated ideas ,its a shame I'm glad you are bringing out into the light

[@Ken-er9cq]

As a former academic I can tell you what would happen if someone asked for a grant to spend their next five years working on something out of left field. Everyone is doing what is safe. You find something and give it a bit of a nudge.

[@rosskrt]

A pet peeve of mine is the general tendency to overlook fluid dynamics when it comes to being useful. I mean, QG, DM and the measurement problem are very interesting gaps in physics, but one should't underestimate the practical uses for a deep understanding of fluid dynamics and chaotic behaviors.

[@martinda7446]

Best way to think about fluid dynamics is with a glass of wine.

[@funnelvortex7722]

Meteorology and oceanography make a lot of strides in fluid dynamics, but weather and oceans just are not as interesting to pop culture as all that mathey spacey universe stuff.

[@evacuate_earth]

This might be of interest from a French fluid dynamics expert: The Janus Cosmology kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipezonqlgLV9obs

[@Jedbullet29]

@@martinda7446 or study James Gleick chaos theory, with a beer in hand. blew my mind back when I was studying.

[@I_like_gg]

Well yesterday I was watching interview with Prof. M. Czachor. He is working on new arithmetics for physics. He concluded that time flow in large scale (long period) should be calculated differently. It's something like calculation of speeds near light speed in Einstein relativity theory. He had recalculated physical formulas which suggests that there is dark matter and it seems that if you take into account his new arithmetics everything fits without those dark matter and dark energy. He compared serching dark matter and energy to serching of ether. One of his works: "Non-Newtonian Mathematics Instead of Non-Newtonian Physics: Dark Matter and Dark Energy from a Mismatch of Arithmetics" and "Cosmic-Time Quantum Mechanics and the Passage-of-Time Problem". It can change a lot.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

What a nice overview, many thanks. Besides Feynman, another scientist, Carl Jung uttered something interesting namely "Sex is the playground for lonely scientists".

[@alexcaledin4521]

The thing is, Nature as such is more playful than scientific, science is just one of the games coming according to participants subscription.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

@alexcaledin4521 he meant Dr. Freud, I think

[@peadarr]

"New Physics" would be a paradigm shift. Such things usually result in outcomes that cannot be forseen in the previous paradigm such as how nuclear energy is not described in Newtonian physics

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

A good way to experience a breakthrough in Physics is by eliminating the "fantastic propositions" like Multiverse, Simulations, Big Bounce, etc. Any proposition that starts with an "infinite origin" is doomed from the very start ... _even if it has no start._ Once these fantastic propositions get shelved, then physicists can start focusing on the more plausible propositions en masse.

[@rayparent1]

Lmao

[@ModuliOfRiemannSurfaces]

Citation needed

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@ModuliOfRiemannSurfaces *"Citation needed."* ... For what?

[@FMedeiros1994]

Many theories that were once deemed "fantastic propositions" became paradigmatic. The big bang, quantum properties, black holes were all ridiculed at some point.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Many theories that were once deemed "fantastic propositions" became paradigmatic. The big bang, quantum properties, black holes were all ridiculed at some point."* ... And rightfully so. Big Bang is a perfect example. Whereas everything after BB's singularity is logically conceivable, the singularity is not. Even Big Bang proponents accept that the singularity part is problematic and cannot be logically reconciled. However, "Multiverse" posits an "infinite origin" (no beginning) which is logically inconceivable; therefore, everything that follows in the Multiverse hypotheses is moot. To prove my point, the universe is estimated to be 14 billion years old. So, if I asked you what the midpoint is for the universe (with today being the most recent time) you would answer with, _"Seven billion years ago."_ However, if I asked you what the midpoint of the Multiverse is (with today being the most recent time) you would not be able to give me an answer. You can't because any proposition that's based on "infinite origin" cannot be logically reconciled within the human mind, ... yet we still waste so much time discussing it like it's something that might be "real."

[@thomasreedy4751]

The problem with “New Physics” is that it has become almost synonymous with the term “Pretty Math” rather than a property determined from the scientific method.

[@williamschlosser]

Right, there's nothing new about it, just speculation based on existing theory. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe, based on EM forces not the dead end of gravity-based theories.

[@crawkn]

"Quantum effects" is an unusually astute term in science. It says right on the label that it is an effect, not a cause. The "new physics" in this field will be to learn the cause. Zeptosecond clocks may get us close to that measurement capability.

[@premalgorroochurn6431]

This says something about what Sabine was saying in the video, that femotosecond clocks won the Nobel Prize, but aren't fundamentally new physics in and of themselves. I love your comment because it implies that while more accurate clocks aren't new physics themselves, they would still ennable us to make more precise measurements to discover actual new physics (eg. quantum gravitational effects)

[@m4inline]

Agreed

[@axle.student]

Clocks are deceptive like shadows on the wall lol

[@roymcnabb1750]

Practical application of the Graviton would be to travel between the stars. Soon as science learned to manipulate electromagnetism we got radio, tv, computers and mobile phones. Finding a graviton then developing ways to use it would put us light years ahead in tech than we are now

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

Sabine could make a video about it and sell some advertisement space on it. That would be practical application.

[@gavinknight8560]

The entire CERN budget for the last 15 years was essential expenditure for Sabine to produce her videos :), so, we did all get something out of it :)

[@josephhalwagy6435]

Well said. Thank you Sabine. I have been asking the same questions, have been getting dumb looks from my colleagues

[@olibertosoto5470]

Would be interesting to explore if there is any old physics left which has yet to be applied in a practical way.

[@premalgorroochurn6431]

This is a solid video as always. I just wanted to add: While a Grand Unified Theory or Quantum Gravity wouldn't have technogical applications TODAY since it is so difficult to even measure their effects with current technology, I do believe that in the distant future, if we become a Type 1 or even Type 2 civilization, we may be able to harness enough energy to actually make use of these theories. So maybe quantum gravity would allow us to build FTL spacecraft, it just requires far more energy than we can currently access.

[@RationalistRebel]

The phenomenon of "electricity" was known for a century before practical applications were invented. Things that seem like unimportant curiosities may have some practical application years from now, we just have to advance our knowledge of physics and engineering to level up first. Hopefully, it won't take another century to get there...

[@williamschlosser]

If scientists stick with the dead end of the Big Bang theory, it will never happen.

[@eldraque4556]

I'm giving brilliant a go, got a cheep cyber Monday deal too, so far its pretty good

[@yeroca]

I didn't expect a Kennedy-esque "Ask not" statement. "What we can do for new physics" puts it on a kind of pedestal. Let's appease it! Maybe if we sacrificed some livestock to it?! Seems a bit gruesome. Maybe it takes Venmo.

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

Maybe sacrifice your dreams and studies? Your deities buckle under the weight of sadness. oy vey fujisan

[@theostapel]

Leave them bovines - in peace and grace - as far as possible - not, so ?

[@Erowens98]

The thing is, its inherently difficult to know the practical use for things you dont know exist yet.

[@shkotayd9749]

I’d love for some kind of new physics, especially some way to achieve faster than light travel. As things stand right now, we cant even make it to the moon without an ENORMOUS effort.

[@johnbrobston1334]

ENORMOUS effort to go to the Moon is really more a matter of technological and economic development. Once circumnavigating the globe required ENORMOUS effort, now a teenaged girl (Laura Dekker) can do it by herself.

[@shkotayd9749]

@@johnbrobston1334 Sure, in that sense, everything is. But how to do all that easily was within our understanding of physics. Just had to develop the means to make it happen. Still can be done with a trip to the moon, say, but it takes years of planning, material and great risk. Can still say be done to get a human to Europa, but they probably wouldnt live long. Getting to the next star over in a meaningful amount of time?

[@AisleEpe-oz8kf]

You have the way of a great teacher. You love what you're doing and dont mind sharing with those interested. thanks again doc The answers you seek are from an infinite universe beyond and defining our locality within. Large forces and small forces build fields from within and without. I hope you find suitable maths to explain them. But in my mind, infinity does exist, and this universe is not it alone.

[@johnfrian]

I just want a pair of microfusion-powered anti-grav boots for christmas

[@richs5422]

I'm more interested in a bed that allows me to sleep at 0.5 g. Bliss!

[@Krunch2020]

Useful possibilities were described by science fiction in the last century.

[@axle.student]

Thanks Sabine. Your perspective is always enjoyable :) > I am not a physicist so take the following as personal thought experiments only. . 2:57 At the moment that just about sums it up. What is the universe. But does that answer offer practical application such as fast interstellar travel, or efficient access to energy conversion or greater confidence in the physics that we use already such as landing devices on the moon the right way up. > We have a lot of competing theories so for me it would be practical to bin everything that doesn't work and only keep the "correct" principles. Then we can focus upon application instead of staring at the CMBR. Don't worry you would still need physicists to understand it and apply it. > 7:04 It would be nice to work out what is this shadow on the wall called gravity. I know it's a poor analogy because photons don't fall into a shadow like particles of mass fall into a gravity well. But I still can't help but feel that gravity is the "lack" of something (Like the lack of space-time or some inverse concept of the vacuum.) > 7:35 For me Quantum is and always will appear to be fuzzy, not because of our measurement but because it is naturally fuzzy. If we imagine the now moment as a wave (either half or full) so it is a physical period rather than a time period as we typically think of it; I can imagine the universe being manipulated and formed (hidden) near the front of the wave, and classical reality (what we and the universe "seams" to experience) emerging near the back of the wave. The back of the wave being local and the front being non-local as well. So we have a kind of perpetually cycling wave moment from back to the front. We don't have direct access to the front of the wave (quantum) and can only ever realize it at the back of the wave. In some sense this allows for some non-local leeway "across" the wave so to speak. (I was attempting a thought experiment to visualize if I/we could "push" something into the non-local part of the wave for FTL information transfer.) > > I know I often say this, but take it as an alternative perspective/thought rather than any concept of a solution. . Make everything mathematically blurry/fuzzy. No discrete finite points, no '=', only approximate. So, everything that approaches a discrete mathematical boundary transitions through rather than ever reaching that point. . You can imagine a line of width passing over a line of width rather than an invisible point passing over an invisible point. (Is there such a thing as a physical non existent point?) . Everything is a transition, so the cat isn't dead and alive, it becomes not fully dead or fully alive as it is in transition. I wonder if it would be possible to emulate the analog precision by using whole numbers with mechanical analog for the fractions (infinite float values).

[@axle.student]

In addition to a lot of comments on what gravity and dark mater are... > Possibilities (Just my thoughts, nothing else): 1. Gravity being the lack of something, rather than being something. 2. A deflating (shrinking) of matter in the universe. > In both there is no need for dark matter, or dark energy. > [Also] Time latency of gravity between larger objects could also have an impact..

[@NemisCassander]

@@axle.student So a couple of things. 1) If gravity is the lack of something, why does it increase with mass? (That is, the gravitational force increases with mass.) Given the macro equation (Newton's), if gravity is a lack of something, it's... free space? If it increases with mass and decreases with distance, then you could say it's a measure of crowdedness. On a weird tangent, I build discrete pedestrian flow models, and if you don't get the parameters right, you often get this huge mass of colliding pedestrians, none of whom can go anywhere. It's sort of like gravity. 2) While the 'fuzzy' perspective should not be lost, neither should the crisp delineation of the = sign. It's the difference between describing something and defining something. A definition, as the term implies, is definite. A description can be quite loose. The danger in moving to a purely descriptive approach is the loss of certainty.

[@axle.student]

@@NemisCassander On point 1. I know its a difficult thought, but it is along the lines of inverting a vacuum. So false vacuums, +/- vacuums etc. So it is a concept of "inverted" when I say the "Lack off" Like the lack of light in a shadow. So you can think of it like a lower pressure region (lake of) in space-time, where pressure pushes stuff together, rather than a force that pulls stuff together. > This is a point (2) that is strong on my mind and may ultimately have no easy solution if there is a solution at all. Analog (mechanical, fluid systems) have no '=' operator. There is no such thing as '=' in analog. It is always a comparator between a lower and upper limit with a fuzzy approximation "somewhere" in between. Nature appears fundamentally analog (like). To attempt to describe that in a static discrete way breaks the very principle of an analog system and it no long behaves as an analog system. . It is possible that we are "breaking" and loosing the fundamental property of the universe by forcing a discrete digital description of it. You can't correctly describe an analog system with digital. This problem shows up everywhere in both relativity and Quantum. . In some sense it is like attempting to illustrate motion by taking a finite photographic snapshot of it. You will never find the property of motion in that static image. Placing a series of static images in a row still does not solve the problem, even if it tricks the human mind into thinking that it has. . The description of the above problem becomes extremely complex, so I will stop there :)

[@NemisCassander]

@@axle.student Perhaps what we need to look for is not the concept of equality, but the concept of equilibrium, as those do appear in analog systems (e.g., chemical reactions). Having said that, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that you propose that equality cannot exist in analog systems. If that is true, then the statement is an attack on reason itself, as mathematics cannot prove anything without equality. And once you start attacking reason, quite literally all thought collapses, as Chesterton so eloquently argued. Put a bit more simply, if you ever propound a theory that would invalidate reason, that theory must either be wrong or meaningless, as reason had to be used to develop that theory.

[@axle.student]

​@@NemisCassander "Perhaps what we need to look for is not the concept of equality, but the concept of equilibrium," This is in the correct direction in my view. . Analog systems, beyond a singular object, exist in a state of comparison. That's why we talk about "comparators" in analog systems, but it has no "=", only ≈. A small even infinitesimal amount of uncertainty always remains. This does not mean we can't pull close approximations of discrete digital values from it (logic). This is exactly how a modern digital computer function. > So yes, there are states of equilibrium, but they are a kind of fuzzy balance. Analog is dynamic, always in constant flux and never static. But like passing wave crests we can count the frequency with some degree of certainty even if we can't measure the exact peak of the wave crest. (Exactly how we convert the underlying analog system to emulate a digital representation in a modern computer.) . I feel that it is this fuzziness or uncertainty in that measurement that gives rise to a non deterministic universe where complexity and stability can emerge from the subtle noise (fuzziness) in the system. Like being able to count the fuzzy crests of the waves we can also have an emergent form of determinism (certainty), but the infinitesimal uncertainty always remains. > Make no mistake though, it is a difficult dilemma for us humans to deal with if correct. It breaks most of our math, and goes against some parts of our logical thinking. I have no current solution for that. Maybe Wolfram will find it in the hyper-geometry, but I am not confident. > P.S. Thank you for your thoughtful reply :)

[@Mik-v9q]

Can new physics tell us if other universes exist?

[@Thomas-gk42]

I don´t think so, new physics would be part of OUR universe

[@Mik-v9q]

​@@Thomas-gk42 lets say "new physics" discovers that the Standard Model constants are drifting very, very slowly in space and/or time.. given that we don't know the size of our "unobserved" universe, this would effectively imply the existence of other "observable" universes

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Mik-v9q In this sense, you are right, but that´s not, what most people mean by the term "multiverse", I estimate.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

No, but it can't tell us that they don't exist either!

[@Mik-v9q]

I suppose we might infer their existence if "new physics" led to a grand unified theory that was highly symmetric, elegant, and predicted our universe as just one of many? But I get the point we likely would not have the experimental data to confirm such a theory

[@ryangorski]

Not a physicist, with my mathematical skills I’m barely an engineer (struggled with multi variable calc)… but such topics are interesting to learn about as I drive to/from work… That said: I have a question I’m mildly curious about. For the sake of this comment section it’s rhetorical, maybe it’s a proposed question for minds more adept than my own to go explore…. Or perhaps it’s not a novel thought and then y’all can just move on: If quantum effects break down under observation, what other events cause quantum effects to break down: is there a way to prove the effects are breaking down without attempting to observe them? I would think if minds much more keen than my own could find other events, more knowledge can be gained in the absence of the quantum effect: having a more significant list of criteria which cause the effect to break down means more opportunity to study why it breaks down, and if we learn about the “why”, we may learn more about the “why not”. This may be a naive question, but then again, maybe not. Thanks for reading.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Quantum effects (superpositions) break down every single moment, observation is not necessary. They break down by interacting with the environment, a process, that´s called decoherence. I admit to watch Sabine´s great music video "Schrödinger´s Cat" with the nice little explanation afterwards.

[@Thomas-gk42]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5CTnZR3ndt7gacsi=WkkA3hM-CrIJKhiL

[@Glock007-os8xn]

The Peer review system In Physics I do find it the idea of "peer review" problematic In Physics for several reasons. I understand the need to avoid from accepting non-sense and therefore recruiting those people to stand guard and to "examine carefully" . Here are the problems in ones view. 1. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work by reviewers who are not "elite" . Similar to how an Olympic Medalist performance would not be evaluated by teenagers. 2. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might be Jealous and therefore prevent him/her from recognition and reject it on a false cause/with no cause at all. 3. Suppose one is "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might not be able to understand it. 4. Those "scientific body-guards" Prevent the complete freedom of expression, by the overwhelming power they get to decide and to censor. Science can only move forward when the freedom of expression is complete. "Peer review" is not allowing it. 5. In Physics, the guy who sent the paper that unified physics with no doubt, got his work rejected by moderators of ArXiv and of Physics letters A due to formatting issues. It just show you how terrible the system is.

[@caty863]

You yourself provided a good evidence against your argument. Judges at the olympics not need to be fomer gold medalists

[@axle.student]

I get what you are saying and it can be a problem. I don't think there is and nor do I know of a solution for that. The only thing you can really do is go it on your own and face the exile as Galileo did.

[@williamschlosser]

If you are open to something not peer-approved by the high priests of cosmology, try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. And ignored for the reasons you have stated.

[@shyamsundar-tl4cr]

Dirac’s antimatter is almost 75 years old and we seem to have ‘caught’ the antimatter at the LHC. But where is the application of that after 75 years?

[@JohnBayko]

PET scans for one.

[@palfers1]

What do you think of Jacob Barandes' Stochastic QM? It seems to offer the same explanatory route as does Oppenheim's Postquantum Gravity - namely stochasticity.

[@123mehmehmeh]

Jacob's work is phenomenal and he is incredibly well spoken

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@123mehmehmeh Well spoken, might be, but is there anything fundamental newin it? If not (what I assume), he´s a good communicator, but that doesn´t make him a good physicist.

[@VeryHonestGuy]

Searching for dark matter is like searching for unicorns. What a boondoggle!

[@ramonmartinez1348]

Could dark energy dark matter be plasma

[@aaronjennings8385]

Yes, Sabine Hossenfelder has discussed the possibility that dark matter could exhibit properties similar to a superfluid. In a video and associated discussions, she argues for the superfluidity of dark matter as a way to combine dark matter with modifications to general relativity. This idea is presented as an alternative explanation to the traditional particle-based dark matter models. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ameblKx4j8SWp5Ysi=eKW-w6lhc6FYfQkL This is her video above

[@SabineHossenfelder]

For something to be a plasma it needs to carry electric charges. The idea that dark matter has electric charges is uncommon, though there are some ideas of that sort. I've never heard of dark energy being of that type and don't know how it would work.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Yes, but the superfluid is not a plasma.

[@aaronjennings8385]

@SabineHossenfelder true. Lol.

[@Kaimelar8]

​@@SabineHossenfelder It's assumed that there is no charge separation in space, but it doesn't look like that. Dark matter could be an excess (electrical?) energy provlem and not a missing mass problem. The Fermi bubbles for instance seem to be showing a circuit on a galactic scale.

[@chrisl442]

I'm still waiting to know how many angels can stand on the tip of a needle.

[@calebgriffiths9062]

If dark matter wasn't particulate what might it be?

[@Microbrain4775]

Carbon atoms traveling in a wave-like formation traveling just under the speed of light generating an AntiGravity repository force...😊

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Well for one thing it could be that there is no matter but it's modified gravity. But even if it's matter it might be a condensate that's usually described by a classical field, not by individual particles. Of course one can ask then whether that would still be made of particles.

[@aaronjennings8385]

A Bose-Einstein Condensate. A superfluid.

[@Kaimelar8]

It could be an excess energy (e.g. Electric) problem and not a missing mass problem.

[@axle.student]

Possibilities (Just my thoughts, nothing else): 1. Gravity being the lack of something, rather than being something. 2. A deflating (shrinking) of matter in the universe. > In both there is no need for dark matter, or dark energy. > [Edit] Time latency of gravity between larger objects could also have an impact..

[@kevinroberts781]

When you waste time searching for something that never existed to begin with, kinda sets you back. Alot

[@PeterJDeVault]

New shirt, new physics?

[@VicVidrine]

Hey Sabine. Love the show. If, gravity is truly not a force then what is there to quantize ?

[@jamesretired5979]

Thanks Sabine.

[@archentity]

_500 years later..._ "Can you believe people used to think there wouldn't be any practical use for neutrinos?.."

[@manoo422]

It is very surprising how long its been since any new Physics has been discovered...

[@williamschlosser]

Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe (the science is still called "physics", after all). Your comment is exactly right as applied to academe.

[@markwhittington5020]

The current theories on physics limit our understanding of the universe rather than expanding it.

[@deeprecce9852]

I am surprised the most practical used of Dark matter is not mentioned...employment!!!!!

[@bgdavenport]

Interesting discussion which leads me to ask, "what is magnetism and what causes it?" We've been wrestling with that one for centuries. but we use it, make it, predict it, etc. Some things never change.

[@williamschlosser]

Electric currents cause magnetism -- electromagnetism is a single thing, as Maxwell proved. "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner is a great way to get into this subject.

[@DannyVega-DanielHall4Freedom]

Looking for an honest woman. 😂

[@virendrasule3258]

Oxymoron? 😂

[@linuxophile]

"It is unlikely that what we find in this pitch black room will be of any use. So we don't even try to turn the lights on". That is the attitude that the Renaissance tried to change. With mixed results a few hundred years down the road.

[@pharmagator]

Modern physics is based on centuries of assumptions... We should question ALL assumptions!

[@TheJohnblyth]

I kept stopping this video to write down cranky ideas. Such fun. Thanks!

[@joyl7842]

4:40 Impractical now. Not impractical when energy-production and global energy development have advanced sufficiently. How is this not obvious? We already spend extreme amounts of energy on impractical things such as SUV's, heating poorly insulated homes, single-use rockets, Artificial Intelligence, Crypto etc.

[@jacksfacts20]

One of the things that always stuck with me in school was one of my profs talking about why we do science, and we gave all the practical reasons for it but then stumped us when she asked "what else?". She pointed out that sometimes, you do science because it's cool as hell, and I love that.

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

Dark matter was introduced to explain the insufficiency of galaxy mass to explain the rotational speeds of distant stars. This can easily be explained if the effect of distant masses of Mach is taken into consideration. These cause an energy gradient causing acceleration towards the galaxy of a constant value regardless of the how far a star is from the galaxy. For more see this; “ A simple geodesic equation for gravity, electromagnetism and all sources of energy”

[@audience2]

It seems highly likely the solution to dark matter will be Machian.

[@tonibat59]

It will indeed: As soon as the dark matter problem is solved, scientists will (finally) stop talking about Mach and his crazy theories.

[@paulpaulsen7777]

Maybe a new frying pan with a dark matter coating makes cooking easier for me? 😅

[@j.j.maverick9252]

science builds on itself, maybe one of these potential discoveries is the missing link between what we know now and a paradigm shifting breakthrough

[@williamschlosser]

The llnk is: the latter disproves the former. Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. Totally incompatible with Big Bang.

[@not-high-on-life]

Sabine always brings a smile on my face and teaches me something new and interesting!

[@williamschlosser]

Exactly what did Sabine say, except that she would like to see a new theory appear?

[@2nostromo]

"There is no knowledge that is not power," - Ralph Emerson

[@alexfrank5331]

Advanced Physics is often enabled by Advanced Engineering. Currently, we have reached the limit of possible experimentations enabled by engineering. The hypothesis that cannot be verified in experiments does not meet the criteria of the Scientific Method. Without the scientific method, humans usually go into circle jerks.

[@jimparsons6803]

Interesting and thanks. The Physical Sciences advance with newer and newer instruments. Often these 'newer instruments' will reveal unexpected results, followed by researchers scrambling to explain the new findings. Exciting times.

[@williamschlosser]

New results that conflict with established theories -- like galaxies found by the JWST, which are too big and bright for Big Bang's predictions -- should lead to questioning the theory. If scientists aren't willing to do that, new data leads nowhere.

[@BillHimmel]

The Feynman quote is golden!❤