Sabine Hossenfelder - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics?

What is it about #mathematics that it can describe so accurately the world around us? From quantum physics, the very smallest features and forces of the foundations of matter and energy, to cosmology, the very largest structures and forces of the beginning and evolution of the universe, mathematics is the language of description. Why does the physical world follow so faithfully equations of abstract symbols and variables?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Sabine Hossenfelder is an author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the Analog Systems for Gravity Duals group.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@ChumX100]

"The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics resonates with me." Sabine: "I don't think that is a fruitful direction to even think about."

[@crudecod]

haha the work of a lifetime crushed in an instance

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@crudecod WHY ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS UNIFIED AND BALANCED WITH/AS WHAT IS GRAVITY: Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are LINKED AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations are unified (given the addition of a fourth spatial dimension); AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS TIME DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, Einstein's equations predict that SPACE is expanding OR contracting in and with TIME; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. THE SUN purely exemplifies time DILATION. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Let's compare this directly with BOTH a falling object AND the speed of light (c). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. It ALL makes perfect sense. THINK !!! The Earth that undergoes time DILATION IS thus represented (ON BALANCE) as what is A POINT in the night sky, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (So, notice that the BLUE SKY IS no longer visible. Think.) E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is FULLY proven. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Alas, the INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. I have truly, CLEARLY, AND MATHEMATICALLY unified physics/physical experience. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. (Notice the black space of THE EYE, AND the DOME of a person's eye is ALSO visible.) THE EARTH is ALSO blue. Again, E=mc2 IS F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Time dilation proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Hossenfelder is not a genius. She is lying about physics.

[@crudecod]

@@frankdimeglio8216 One of the great things about science, is that you can't lie about it, Frank. You may get something wrong, but the scientific method (experiment, replicability and peer reviews) guarantees that you can't lie about it.

[@adamburling9551]

@@crudecod No you can't lie about it, you just have to admit when you were wrong or not admit when you were wrong and make exceptions to tweak new theories to fit old theories.. or yes - Lie to everyone's face because YOU'RE the authority. Believe it or not there are many in the field of science today that lie through their own unwillingness to change as the science progresses and changes. And Nobody said science doesn't lie. First of all,, science is an array of methods of reasoning for many given subjects. You don't answer biology with physics. You don't need to carry out day to day forensics using mathematics. The idea that reasoning stops at numbers, or that numbers can explain anything as long as you can create an equation for them is utterly ridiculous. And truth doesn't just stop at science. There are many forms of evidence and truth our there.. the point is, is that reasoning and philosophy gave birth to everything there is that is known truth today.

[@Tmidiman]

Sabine is clear and straight to the point. No messing about.

[@danieldus5404]

that's basically no-nonsense german mentality

[@kramer3d]

her youtube channel is my favorite physics channel on youtube

[@danieldus5404]

@MrVM1980 why is that?

[@TobZeN666]

Actually she avoided the question in the end.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Hossenfelder is knowingly lying about physics. THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA IS CONSISTENT WITH/AS SPACE THAT IS UNIVERSALLY AND EXTENSIVELY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE): The experience of what is THE EARTH is necessarily possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE on the basis of the CLEAR fact that E=mc2 is directly and fundamentally derived from F=ma, as time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/energy is gravity. SO, ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is, in fact, CLEARLY PROVEN by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. GREAT !!!!!! INSTANTANEITY is therefore fundamental to the full and proper understanding of physics/physical experience. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Gravity AND electromagnetism/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. It ALL makes perfect sense. I have truly revolutionized and unified physics. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. In conclusion, A POINT, the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space, AND FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE are, in fact, then linked AND BALANCED; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Thoughts are invisible. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of thought (AND description) is improved in the truly superior MIND. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ACCORDINGLY, the rotation of what is THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. IT IS CLEARLY PROVEN. The ultimate unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/energy is gravity, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Ultimately and truly, TIME is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio

[@otraguardia]

Those two were not on the same wavelength.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

1:55 Kuhn mentions that certain problems have too many variables to solve with a reductionist approach (using Maths) to work 4:15 Hossenfelder says pretty much the same thing to him... What's strange is neither of them mention Complexity Theory.

[@Verschlungen]

I agree. Watching this was a very strange experience. In general, I have immense respect for SH, but here she seems not to understand what the famous Wigner article says, even though the interviewer tries repeatedly to guide in that direction. And I would bet that 90% of the people commenting here have, likewise, never read the Wigner article which was s-u-p-p-o-s-e-d to be the point of reference for the whole interview! SH either (a) perversely failed to acknowledge what Wigner said [much less comment on it] or (b) SH somehow failed to remember what the Wigner article is about (probably the latter).

[@aromn]

@@GonzoTehGreat it's because complexity theory has nothing to do with this.

[@GonzoTehGreat]

@@aromn As if you have any idea what you're talking about...

[@aromn]

@@GonzoTehGreat I am a mathematician.

[@chewyjello1]

It seems to me that Sabine is simply not affected by mystery. On the other hand Kuhn is greatly intrigued by mystery and it's the reason Closer to Truth exists as a series. He presses Sabine in this clip because he just can't understand how she is so unaffected by, what he sees as, great mysteries about reality. I love Sabine's no nonsense personality, but I relate more with Kuhn and others when it comes to appreciating the greater mysteries of existence. I'm not sure where some (like Sabine) get the drive to search out answers if they are not first in awe of the mysteries.

[@KirbyZhang]

@@vatrweaver5169 Sabine doesn't want these intellectual distractions, these metaphysical garbages 😂

[@mnp3a]

If I had to guess, i'd think the difference beetween them stems not from how they approach "mistery" but instead from the differences in their knowledge of real concrete in-development mathematics. I'm not completely puzzled by the existence of mathematically simple expressions for lots of physical laws. It makes me raise an eyebrow, yes, but at the same time that is how mathematics works: it is really good in encapsulating complexity. Yeah, the importance of things like the inverse square law makes you think twice about all this, but i'm not completely sure it should surprise us at all.

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@KirbyZhang She engages in plenty of metaphysical garbage herself.

[@mouldyvinegar5665]

@@Al-ji4gdcan you give an example of it? I have never seen her do as such.

[@Al-ji4gd]

@@mouldyvinegar5665 Well, superdeterminism, for one. Also, she waffles about subjects like free will and so forth.

[@GulfsideMinistries]

He's asking philosophical questions, and she's like, "Nah. I don't do philosophy."

[@adriancioroianu1704]

Yeah, because the philosophycal direction of the questions he asked and the theoritical physicists in the last 50 years were driven by, proved to lead us nowehere. So there's 2 possibilities: (1) We are either doing wrong physics and use this philosophy to push them forward or (2) the questions are wrong and we need better philosophy to guide us forward. She explains it very well in her book.

[@MorusAlba1975]

@@user49917 The confusion may be on the part of those who believe mathematics is merely a map and not reality itself. Mathematics may well be the map AND the territory. It is in fact the most obvious reason why math is so 'unreasonably effective': everything in existence (including time, space, life and consciousness) is an expression of complete mathematics, or as some refer to it: ontological mathematics. Mathematics is the singular "substance" with two aspects: matter and mind. But that's a scary thought.

[@bozoc2572]

@@user49917 I like how you casually presumed that mathematical realism is a bunk with absolutely no argumentation what so ever. No wonder Sabine has managed to sell you her paranoid delusions.

[@bozoc2572]

@@MorusAlba1975 you are onto something. Matter and mind might just be a relict from dualistic divisions. Math is probably immanent.

[@ondrej_hrdina]

@@bozoc2572 I only see one delusional person here and it is not Sabine. Don't mistake philosophical ideas for science if you cannot test them.

[@mickmickymick6927]

Kinda felt like each person was having a different conversation. Kuhn seemed to be saying that physical laws exist in whole numbers and simple equations, and that this is unusual or unexpected. Hossenfelder seemed to just be like 'ok, and?'. At the end then she mentioned about it being possible to make the quantum equations more elaborate. It felt like the conversation had finally begun at that point and then it cut off. Lol and all the while the camera man is like 'whoosh woo, wee, I can fly'

[@troytombstone2664]

You should write some comic stuff. Epic

[@astridmartin3736]

sabine wasnt like "ok and?" she was more like...that might be the case but i don't really care, its not my business, I'm only concerned with whether our equations work or not. in fact she said that its only futile to ask bother oneself with such questions or things like "if the laws didn't fit in simply equations maybe we wouldn't have been able to find them in the first place"

[@derickd6150]

@@astridmartin3736 Right but the reason we say math is unreasonably effective is that simplicity. If the force between two objects were proportional to some infinite series in r (the distance between the objects) then there would be nothing beautiful about it. But it isn't, it is only proportional to r^(-2). Not even r^(-1.9987...) or some other number from the uncountable infinity of numbers. That's why people say it's unusual how effective mathematics is and Sabine did not address this at all

[@CleverMonkeyArt]

Yes, I think Kuhn was trying to reach for a "meaning" or "purpose" behind this, or an "agency" perhaps. After all, his series IS called Closer to Truth, and he has interviewed everyone from scientists to theologians in order to find (or dismiss) this "Truth".

[@mnp3a]

@@derickd6150 hi there. If there is one thing that surprises me is the relevance of inverse square laws. But on the other hand anything that is radial and depends on area will have some sort of a square law and not a 1.9987978 law. On the other hand, you say: "If the force between two objects were proportional to some infinite series in r (the distance between the objects) then there would be nothing beautiful about it. But it isn't, it is only proportional to r^(-2)." yes, XDXD But! but, if that was the case, then someone would define a function by that power series and then it would be proportional to some f(r)^(-2) and it would still be compact and "simple" in kuhns view.

[@markmartens]

"It's not a question that there are patterns, but that there are patterns that are susceptible to very simple mathematics."..."Well again you could argue that maybe we've only been able to find the patterns that we can describe with simple mathematics." ['Pattern Recognition; A new model of Intelligence, and bonding'. On Kindle since 2017. By Mark Martens, Accidental Scientist]

[@jugbrewer]

She makes such a good point. Even though Sabine Hossenfelder and Stephen Wolfram are in pretty different camps re: the whole"theory of everything" thing and other topics, I think Wolfram had an interesting point when he recently said that the history of math is basically people finding little pockets of computational reducibility in a universe full of computational irreducibility (heavily paraphrasing). So essentially there are lots of questions we could ask about nature that are so complex - predicting next year's weather for instance - that even if you knew everything possible about weather and the current weather state, there's no computation that you could execute in the physical universe that would be faster than just letting the system evolve and waiting for the solution. And that's because systems like weather are computationally irreducible. The only math that's useful to us is math that gives us a shortcut to make predictions, so we are definitely biased toward simpler patterns. We're just continuing little threads of math based on what has been useful to us in the past.

[@seanleith5312]

Is social science science? Do they do experiment to verify their claims? If they do, they wouldn't say men are women, and women are men or there are unlimited number of genders. Social science is social but not science. social scientists are either morons or fanatics.

[@l1mbo69]

@@jugbrewer that's fine and all, but you and the OC both, like Sabine, completely ignore to answer Kuhn's reply to that. The simple laws are many of the most fundamental laws, and they're much simpler than they could've been

[@ibperson7765]

@@l1mbo69 Amen. She fist fails to get it 3:40. Then bizarrely says im afraid that leads to anthropic 🤦🏻‍♂️ 5:20 . Then on the third attempt denies it’s true. Next segment is better.

[@derickd6150]

Yeah I feel that she didn't listen here. For example, why is gravity proportional to r^2? There was an uncountable infinity of numbers that could have been in the exponent and yet it was 2. I don't think that that is simple because we "only find mathematics" that can described simply. There is something special about that

[@keesvp]

I admire people like Sabine. She's definitely one of the clearest thinkers in current theoretical physics. And she is polite enough to make the impression she's taking someone like Khun serious.

[@virtualrealitychannel2276]

She has wisdom... so instead of being grossly arrogant, which she has every right to do, she chooses politeness and artfulness. She's a teacher.

[@i.marchand4655]

I don't know this Khun fellow, but I have to ask: is the trailing 't' in 'Khun' both silent and invisible?

[@melgross]

Kuhn is a pretty bright fellow. There’s no problem in taking his question seriously. After all, he does almost exactly what she does, which is to question the accepted knowledge. He’s a neurobiologist, and extremely successful businessman. The thing though, is that the two of them agree more than they may have realized in that short segment of the interview. He is saying that higher level systems such as biology are so complex (and as that was my main field, I can certainly agree) that math would also be so complex that it wouldn’t be useful, or possibly even doable, as a way to understand the field, overall. That word “overall” is what some people don’t think about, and I’m adding it, as it wasn’t used, though he implied it. For simple biological functions, math is certainly used. But for complex biology, which at time’s approaches chaotic systems, math isn’t helpful. On the other hand, Sabine has stated many times, often to the ire of other physicists, that “beauty” in mathematical equations, generally meaning simplicity and symmetry, isn’t necessarily the correct way to look at theories. So in a sense, both are saying that math, as an explanation of the universe, can be messy and complex. He’s simply taking it a step further when he says that the further science gets from physics, the more complex and messy the math gets, which is certainly true, and that in biology, the math can get so complex and messy that it isn’t even possible to figure it out, much less use it.

[@melgross]

Pool Bal no. Messy is in complexity so great that it can’t be defined in a useful way. Math and physics attempt to refine everything down, as much as possible, to the simplest equation(s). In between, it becomes complex, and is often called, by mathematicians and physicists, messy. When dealing with biological systems, it becomes so complex that scientists give up. Biology is simply vastly more complex than any other system. So while math can describe individual interactions on a molecular level, it founders on higher level systems. And, ye4s, it’s called messy.

[@christianlacroix5430]

@@melgross Could you please give me an example of a biological system or event that renders mathematics ineffective ?

[@danpaulson927]

The interviewer, Robert Kuhn, talked a lot more in this interview than the interviewee. Sabine however, said a whole lot more. That's Sabine.

[@h00db01i]

spitlicka

[@randyrichardson6953]

No she didn't. She just said, "We don't know," "That's not a question for science," and "That's not a useful question to ask in physics." She said absolutely nothing of value. Watching this clip did not teach me a damn thing.

[@danpaulson927]

@@randyrichardson6953 Yep. If you need verbose fluff to learn, she's certainly not for you.

[@h00db01i]

totally simpin, but because it's her intellect, not her sex defining her in this context, spitlicker is more suitable

[@h00db01i]

I love compliments and hype, they're so brainless and shallow ;)

[@Galbex21]

I like how she is very straight to the point. Like "no I dont think so" lol

[@robertmuller1523]

@Goran Vukovic Why do you believe this question is relevant? Science is about figuring out *how* the world works, not *why* it works the way it works. That said, without any patterns, I cannot even imagine causality, and without causality, I cannot even imagine a world at all.

[@robertmuller1523]

@Goran Vukovic If you are looking for absolute certainty, that is *your* personal problem. For me, it is sufficient if a model describes known observations correctly and makes predictions that can be tested. Without patterns, how can you ever come to the conclusion, that there is a causal relationship between two events A and B?

[@robertmuller1523]

@Goran Vukovic "Get the numbers out" and "Shut up and calculate" are mantras of physicists not engineers. Newton never explained why masses attract each other, Einstein never explained why masses bend space time. While there might be exceptions, the general rule is that philosophy focusses on why questions whereas science focusses on how questions. Yes, there might be rare interactions that only happen once in a billion years, but a world without any patterns would be a world in which literally every kind of interaction is so rare that no repetitions can be observed.

[@robertmuller1523]

@Goran Vukovic Focussing on how questions has nothing to do with blindly accepting established beliefs. Newton and Einstein were both trying to figure out *how* to model observations correctly. Newton's model was appropriate with respect to the observations and tools available at his time. Einstein had to consider new observations that turned out to be incompatible with Newton's model. Einstein's work was clearly how-focussed. He started with certain axiomatic principles such as "the speed of light is constant", "there is no preferred reference frame", "gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent". He never spent much time on the question why these axiomatic principles hold true. Rather, he focussed heavily on the question *how* these principles will affect measurements.

[@robertmuller1523]

​@Goran Vukovic You can figure out *how* the world works by logical inference and empirical evaluation without obscure guesswork. From my perspective, guesswork rather seems to be the domain of people who are obsessive about why questions.

[@dosomething3]

Sabine is one of my favorite scientists. I wish she would further discuss this issue on her channel.

[@deepdooper3441]

Read her book - “lost in math” :)

[@805atnorafertsera6]

Agreed

[@frankdimeglio8216]

The page Nexus of Physics has now given the following two writings the thumbs up on their page. ALSO consider this: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE UNIVERSAL AND MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE SUN AND THE EARTH are described and represented by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational (IN BALANCE). Objects fall at the same rate (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS the SPEED OF LIGHT is RELATIVELY CONSTANT AS WELL. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. In fact, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. So, THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are not "falling" in what is "curved SPACE" in RELATION to what is THE SUN. This is nonsense. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. This truly explains PERPETUAL MOTION. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. By Frank DiMeglio EINSTEIN NEVER UNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICS, AS HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY OUTSMARTED BY SIR FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO: The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is ESSENTIAL. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE SELF represents, FORMS, and experiences a COMPREHENSIVE approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. MOREOVER, the ability of THOUGHT to DESCRIBE OR RECONFIGURE sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience. THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE. Dream experience is/involves true/real QUANTUM GRAVITY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, in dreams, BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE is invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE. IMPORTANTLY, dream experience is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. THE EYE is ALSO the body. Dreams improve upon memory AND UNDERSTANDING. Indeed, there is no outsmarting the GENIUS of dreams. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/with what is THE EARTH. NOW, get a good LOOK at what is the translucent, SEMI-SPHERICAL, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE sky. Excellent. The DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. THE EARTH IS also BLUE (as water). F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that, why, and how ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, and describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. SO, it is NECESSARILY a matter of precisely how these equations are understood in a BALANCED, EXTENSIVE, AND INTEGRATED fashion in RELATION to/with WHAT IS THOUGHT. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Get a good LOOK at what is THE EYE. POINTS are points. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. OPEN your EYES. NOW, LOOK at what is the FLAT, SETTING, AND ORANGE SUN (with the SPACE around it THEN going invisible AND VISIBLE IN BALANCE). This ORANGE SUN manifests or forms at what is EYE LEVEL/BODY HEIGHT as well. This ORANGE SUN is manifest ON BALANCE as what is NECESSARILY the BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of THE EARTH/LAVA. The viscosity of LAVA IS BETWEEN what is manifest as WATER AND THE EARTH/GROUND. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY electromagnetic/gravitational IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. F=ma AND E=mc2 do provide absolute, BALANCED, THEORETICAL, and CLEAR proof that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THEREFORE, the rotation of THE MOON MATCHES it's revolution. MOREOVER, a given PLANET (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is THEN consistent with/as what is F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is PERPETUAL MOTION; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. It ALL makes perfect sense. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. THE PLANETS (INCLUDING WHAT IS THE EARTH) are NOT "falling" in what is "curved SPACE". In fact, this is nonsense. It is PROVEN. By Frank DiMeglio

[@frankdimeglio8216]

Hossenfelder is lying about physics.

[@805atnorafertsera6]

@@frankdimeglio8216 member of flat earth society?

[@domcasmurro2417]

Great to see Sabine in this channel.

[@dennisalwine4519]

I agree. I am a theist, yet I find the suggestion that a tool developed with great care over many centuries to be an adaptable and accurate way of representing observation, somehow turns out to do so!! It's like saying language is 'unreasonably effective' because it so readily and flexibly facilitates communication, particularly useful for describing so many subjects!

[@sobeeaton5693]

Don't you remember noticing, as a child, how remarkable it was that you could multiply kilograms by meters per second, and come up with something, i.e. momentum, that was a useful concept? Now you're like, "Well, duh."

[@robbwhite13]

as often happens you have stumbled onto the crux of the issue/question. mathematics IS A LANGUAGE. that's all. no more, no less. Developed to flexibly facilitate communication regarding the observable patterns... I am often dumfounded (my status is always wonderful, wonderful sometimes = full of wonder) by the inability of very intelligent people (sabine) to state this obvious fact. perhaps she is overwhelmed by the inane questions Kuhn asks. he is indeed a "public intellectual." on the other hand he is doing it.

[@uubuuh]

@robbwhite13 this strains the ordinary meaning of "language"

[@robbwhite13]

@@uubuuh not so, One must take the high level observational approach. Mathematics is merely the language from which sentences, phrases, etc. are constructed. It is the language that allows me to speak to scientists all over the world regardless of their native language they understand the equations, The symbols all have fundamental meanings. You can assign an English part of speeds (grammar) or for that matter any grammatical constructs two mathematical equations. Simple example x = y. X and y are nouns, = is the verb or more generally a function or activity. SysML, MBSE,

[@adityakhanna113]

@@robbwhite13 Sure. Math as a language is a well known interpretation of math but it is not as straightforward as you explain. First up, there are actually experiments in Math Education where people are asked to describe what an equation means and people use verbs/nouns and all sorts of language to describe the same thing. There was an experiment performed where people were asked what the eigenvalue equation Ax = kx means and the responses were everywhere (A is acting on x, a verb It's a system of equations, noun. x is stretched by A, passive voice). So, there's not a one to one correspondence between math and language. Furthermore, imagining math as a language is an almost insulting discreditation of the subject. In this "language" you don't need an external context to create meaning. Imagine if it was possible in a language to create words out of thin air and have them already be imbued with meaning. Objects in math can be abstracted to such an extent that they don't convey anything tangible but they make complete sense in the mathematical universe. This debate of the effectiveness of math has persisted because math happens to not only capture everything around us but also very well extend its tentacles to weird and awfully abstract lands. It's not that this tool that we developed has outgrowths that align with the universe (as you say it's like the effectiveness of language). We didn't mold math to match our experiences. It so happened that our experiences lined up with the teeth of this giant hulking serpent of math. The weiiiird part is that whatever new thing we find just so happens to lie somewhere along this math serpent. Whatever we find continues to be explainable by math, sometimes new math and most often by abstract math developed ages ago.

[@derendohoda3891]

My response to "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is "the unreasonable deliciousness of food in my refrigerator." Of course the various mathematical theories we develop around physical theories work well-we wouldn't keep them if they didn't. Sabine is so clear and sharp here.

[@Mike-zf4xg]

I think you're just misinformed. That's not how it happened, though. The mathematics that are the foundations of quantum and general relativity were created before the physics (in some cases 100+ years before). Ex: Lie algebras. specifically, the SU(2) group represents electrons perfectly. It's like we found the way to describe symmetries before we knew they should exist, then what we found is that it perfectly* describes the universe. That is what seems unreasonable to me: how were we able to arrive at a process that describes symmetries of algebraic systems in complete independence of experiment, but have that be what the universe uses. Kuhn just can't articulate that because he isn't versed in the subject enough to do so.

[@mishafinadorin8049]

@@Mike-zf4xg In the end these are just the relations that we found. It is not out of the ordinary that some concepts that were initially only contemplated for abstract problems found use in more practical domains. There is still a sea of concepts and relations that have not been found useful outside of theoretical mathematics. Besides, there is not necessarily something magical about the way mathematical concepts describe physical world. These concepts are after all a product of our minds, the very minds that also experience the reality. One should remember that mathematics is founded on axioms, which for the longest time have been statements that were (philosophically) self-evident and ultimately based on our experience of the world. It is then not too strange that there are correlations between the world of mathematics and our perception of reality. Also, the concepts we use now are the best we could develop, but they are still subject to change and evolution.

[@Mike-zf4xg]

@@mishafinadorin8049 Hmmm. A lot of words for little substance. I gave examples of Lie algebras and the special unitary group: I think that would make it obvious I don't need to remember what axioms are or how mathematics is formulated. Regardless, I'd find it unreasonable the universe exists, and that its properties can be discovered through mere application of logical process. I'd agree for Calculus ie rates of change, but we experience nothing of the quantum world. It is remarkable that we discovered its most basic symmetries at all; even more so a complete framework of mathematics that describes its mechanics before experiment. The question should be framed: "The unreasonable logical existence of the universe." The fact that the universe is logical is strange. That is subjective; this is an emotional conversation, so i expect emotional dunces like you and Sabine to add little value to this conversation.

[@dmitriy4708]

@@Mike-zf4xg "The fact that the universe is logical is strange." That is because we develop logic to be useful in reality. Is it really strange that the tool we developed to describe patterns in reality is useful to describe some (not all) patterns in the Universe? Logic starts with our ability to comprehend reality on a basic level (developed through evolution to better survive in changing environment) and then we kept only the most useful tools to comprehend patterns that were shown to be consistently effective in describing patterns in reality and named them logic. Then applying these tools to describe some space patterns we created geometry, applying them to describe quantitative patterns we developed arithmetic etc. If our logic and mathematical tools are based on some patterns in reality it is reasonable to assume that sometimes they can be used to describe other patterns that we will discover in the future. So, nothing unreasonable here.

[@Mike-zf4xg]

@@dmitriy4708 Same thing again. You've taken the universe being logical as a given, and then rambled on with no point. Sure, if there is a mapping of some properties between math and the reality. Why the f does reality have those properties? It's a philosophical question, with subjective, and emotional answers. Also, trace back to me where the special unitary group's definition arrives from observing reality; then, justify how the universe presents that it itself follows those too. I have answer for this. Hint: somebody else in this series eluded to it, though, somebody that is equally annoying as Sabine, but on the opposite of the spectrum .

[@NAANsoft]

Her clarity is shocking the interviewer.

[@rgoodwinau]

Dr Sabine - We have difficulty solving something as "simple" as the general 3-body problem in physics. No wonder other disciplines are not using much maths - they are often still struggling to discover WHAT is happening!

[@antonioc3743]

The foundation of math is not numbers but logic, mathematical reasoning is extremely logical by definition

[@robertmines5577]

@Vendicar Kahn It's not like they aren't doing math. Physics can't solve the three body problem. In genomic biology, a single cell type can express like 10,000 proteins out of 24,000 genes, and in the human body, there are like 200 cell types and a total 30 trillion cells. This is neglecting mRNA dynamics, epigenetic dynamics, mutations, intrinsic and extrinsic noise, and the effects of the microbiome and chemical environments. Trying to be reductionist about biology is impossible. However, because of the scale of the data sets, and the huge amount of data available from high throughput next generation sequencing, genomic biology and bioinformatics has been a huge testing ground for statistical modeling (especially Bayesian stats) and machine learning. Further, single molecule tracking experiments and fluorescent labeling with light microscopy has made it easier to study stochasticity and intrinsic noise in systems such as single enzyme kinetics.

[@ATSF854]

This is amazing. Wish i could see more of this interview if it exists. Robert had to enjoy getting legit answers this one time

[@jsimonlarochelle]

Sabine is just more rigorous than many of those other scientists. I really enjoy that.

[@805atnorafertsera6]

Sabine has something called integrity. En masse.

[@nicka.papanikolaou9475]

Thank you for your videos Mr. Kuhn! They are all wonderful in their detail and depth!

[@007SuperSoldier]

Love Sabine for her contribution to the ordinary lay understanding of such incredible and fundamental questions of cosmology and the landscape of scientific discovery over the course of history.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

The TRUE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE as the proof that one will never be a great physicist if one is not a great philosopher: The semi-spherical blue DOME/sky and the blue earth are linked AND balanced by/WITH OUR involvement, as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, touch AND feeling blend; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Invisible AND visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance IS the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space consistent with/as fundamentally equivalent AND balanced gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. This is understood as constituting the SAME SPACE. So, distance AND no distance in/of space are also then consistent with INSTANTANEITY. The balancing of being AND experience is thereby accomplished. Great. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The orange, flat, AND setting sun (with the space around it then going INVISIBLE/visible) constitutes what is a fundamentally linked AND balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL manifestation (ALSO in relation to the earth/ground AND LAVA), as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This PROVES that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Clearly, ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. Therefore, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of the moon matches its revolution. So, gravitational force/energy is proportional to (or balanced with/as) inertia/inertial resistance; as gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. Therefore, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. Accordingly, a given planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times; AND this is then consistent WITH F=ma, E=mc2, AND what is perpetual motion; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. It all makes perfect sense. Think very carefully about it all. Why would Einstein not consider the man who is standing on the earth/ground (who IS experiencing gravity)? Balance and completeness go hand in hand. Very importantly, less explains less in physics; AND more explains more. Einstein never nearly understood gravity and SPACE. The eye IS the body. The EYE/body is invisible AND visible in balance. The DOME of a person's eye/body is ALSO visible. This PROVES that distance AND no distance in/of space are then consistent WITH/as the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of space AND instantaneity in accordance with what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent WITH/as what is fundamentally balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. Inertia/inertial resistance is proportional to (or balanced with/as) gravitational force/energy, as this balances AND unifies ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity; as this balances gravity AND inertia. (This explains F=ma AND E=mc2, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.) Accordingly, gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!! A photon may be placed at the center of the sun (as a point, of course), as the reduction of space is offset by (or balanced with) the speed of light. Gravity is electromagnetism/energy. Most importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. The composition of lunar rocks is practically identical to that of earth rocks. Importantly, the moon may also appear as blue. The curvature of the moon IS observed to match that of the earth/ground (that is, given a clear horizon, of course). The WATER rises up (high tide) in relation to the BLUE moon, as the LAVA rises up in relation to what is the flat, setting, and ORANGE sun; as gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, "mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent WITH/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy; as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is electromagnetism/energy. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. This is proven by F=ma AND E=mc2. The ORANGE, setting, AND flat sun is fundamentally constituted of what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. "Mass"/energy involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance consistent with/as what is balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL force/energy, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Energy has/involves gravity, AND energy has/involves inertia/inertial resistance. Inertia/inertial resistance is fundamental, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Carefully consider the term "INERTIAL RESISTANCE" in relation to BOTH relative impenetrability AND relative indestructibility. It all makes perfect sense. BALANCE in physics is essential. Now, consider that the eye IS the body. We want to balance being AND experience. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. THINK. "Mass"/energy are linked AND balanced, AND gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great !!! Really think about it. VERY IMPORTANTLY, the FEELING of gravity by the man who is standing on the EARTH/ground ALSO involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Touch AND feeling blend, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND balanced, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. We want to balance being AND experience. Now THINK !! Gravity/acceleration involves balanced inertia/inertial resistance, as electromagnetism/energy is gravity. MAGNIFICENT !!!!! So, it is now time to very carefully consider the ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL manifestation(s) that is/are LAVA, the ORANGE sun, AND the ORANGE flame (as FIRE). Consider INERTIAL RESISTANCE. So, THE ORANGE SUN, THE ORANGE FLAME, AND THE ORANGE LAVA are balanced middle distance electromagnetic/gravitational manifestations or incarnations; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Lava is balanced between AND also with the earth/ground AND the water (as fundamentally or basically BLUE), as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Moreover, the orange, setting, AND flat sun (with the sky going INVISIBLE/visible around it) is BETWEEN the blue sky AND the earth/ground. The lava and the blue sky are linked AND balanced, as gravity IS electromagnetism/energy. (Also consider the relatively elongated ORANGE flame very carefully.) The BLUE earth AND the semi-spherical BLUE sky are also linked AND balanced, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Great. Now, consider the VISIBLE dome of the eye/body AS WELL. Awesome. EVERYTHING COMES TOGETHER BEAUTIFULLY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. LAVA thus links, balances, and connects the BLUE moon AND the blue earth, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Again, the ORANGE sun is a fundamentally balanced ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL manifestation that is balanced BETWEEN the blue sky AND the earth/ground, AS GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. IT IS ABSOLUTELY PROVEN. I HAVE TRULY UNIFIED PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE. By Frank DiMeglio

[@bozo5632]

If our math didn't adequately describe nature we would get new math. That's what has happened in the past, and the process continues.

[@infinto1]

you can't reinvent bodmas i.e the foundation of mathematics what ever you try to invent in mathematics you are going to stand on the bases of bodmas so no we can't reinvent a totally new mathematics. You have to contend with the basis foundations + × ÷ - mods in the end it's all addition so what are you going to do with it.

[@infinto1]

He's asking the why question and she is interested in how so

[@vladislavanikin3398]

@@infinto1 saying that BODMAS is fundamental to mathematics is no different than saying that English is fundamental to reading. It's just wrong. And yes, Bo Zo is right, if our mathematics wouldn't be good at describing nature we would use something different, most probably some other mathematics.

[@grandpaobvious]

If you start with something that doesn't exist, you can make it do anything you want it to. If you want it to correspond to reality you have to be a little bit selective, but you should be able to do that.

[@Raphael4722]

@@vladislavanikin3398 The question is why should nature be possible to describe so simply? Saying we could invent new mathematics to describe it, is like saying we could invent a new language that would condense entire books into one sentence.

[@kenimprov]

as a student of mathematics, and former student of physics, let me say that mathematics is created precisely to describe the world effectively and efficiently, not the other way round. No one would use a something that is difficult to use. By the way, there is nothing inefficient about pi or e or sqrt(2). Expressing them as decimals is unreasonable, but expressing them in the way that they are meant to be expressed makes them elegant. For example, simply recall that the definition of pi is the ratio of a circle to its diameter.

[@robinloh992]

I'm not sure why multiplication was developed, but it was long before anyone said F=ma. This is what people want to hear explained: why does a simple multiplication (repeated addition, scaling, area of a rectangle etc.) describe the change in motion of macroscopic objects? physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2644/how-did-newton-discover-his-second-law

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@robinloh992 Thats because mathematics takes the very basics of our objective thinking and standardizes it. F=ma doesn't describe motion perfectly. We describe motion using something like this because it follows some of the very basics of our objective thinking, and we find that comfortable.

[@robinloh992]

@@SC-zq6cu I suggest you follow the link I posted and read about where F=ma actually follows from. We're forced to accept it because, for macroscopic objects nowhere near the speed of light, it agrees with observation to an incredible amount of decimal places

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@robinloh992 When we are verifying it using things like numbers, we are using mathematics. Of course it agrees. Now, it could've been some other formula. But, I suppose Newton can be credited with tremendous insight to arrive at the basic parameters and exceptional tenacity to check mathematically that this formula holds for a good range of values. He obviously didn't just guess it.

[@doriancostley9075]

The reason equations come out looking as simple as they do is because we make them come out that way. There is a reason we use a symbol for pi instead of writing an infinite sum whenever we write it. To answer his point about the equations being simple, or not having infinite terms, they do have infinite terms. We just write them in a way that hides this fact.

[@firestarten]

I thought they might start swinging chairs at each other. The location was great for a cinematic fight sequence.

[@ThomasJr]

Lol. Given Sabine's demeanor, I don't doubt that could happen

[@kevinkowens]

You invite someone to be interviewed on your show, then you pretty much get in the way of the interview. Why ask someone to come and answer a question and then assume that they need you to answer it for them? I think, while he brought up some great points , he got in the way of this interview a little bit and needed to dial it back some. Even Dr Hossenfelder got confused about what it was he was trying to do but showed great patience. This must be the new form of Journalism. Invite a guest and tell them what they think. (I.e....Don Lemons) When I tune in to see a guest I'm not interested in trying to find out how brilliant the journalist is, I would like to hear more from the guest please. Please simply ask the questions.

[@rohmann000]

Totally agree, although my impression is that this is not typically the case with these interviews :-)

[@kevinkowens]

@@rohmann000 Good to know. Thank you. I guess he was having a bad day.

[@nerfbutt]

I think in this case because Sabine is a woman who often uses the exact amount of words to communicate her thoughts and no more, he may have felt like he needed to fill the space. She's the exact opposite of Neil Degrasse Tyson who uses too many words and never lets the interviewer say anything. The videos on her channel are supremely written. They are perfectly worded and efficiently communicated. So good that even someone like me, just a layperson in this field, can almost understand what she is saying.

[@kevinkowens]

@@nerfbutt that's a really great point because I am currently reading her book "Lost In Math". I have rarely enjoyed a book this much. It is edgy, it is pertinent to today's modern physics. It is practical and logical as well as profound, and like you said she only uses the amount of words that she needs. I'm in total agreement with you as it relates to Neil deGrasse Tyson. I really used to like him but I think he started reading his own tabloids. Great astrophysicist, however he's very much in love with the sound of his own voice. I guess having said that and looking at this situation, no one is perfect.

[@LowellBoggs]

The question of why so many things seem to have integer relationships might be answered when considering what particles are. Particles are waves in quantum fields. They are very like standing waves -- even if they move, they seem to be pseudo-standing. Electrons are standing waves around the nucleus of the atom. The "standing" nature is what is important. Waves can only "stand" when they are interacting with each other in integral multiples of the the wave length. The importance of integers can be explained with the underlying simplicity of sine wave addition.

[@scottmiller4295]

@Vendicar Kahn yup calculating the circumference of a circle and getting pi the number of electrons in hydrogen. basic geometry are universal to our universe, particularly in beings like all life on earth that seek patterns for their basic survival.

[@MasterBunnyFu]

@Vendicar Kahn Additionally, mathematical notation continually evolves specifically to create more simple, or beautiful, representations of previously complex formulas and concepts in order to make them easier for us to understand and reason with. Improved notation which simplifies complex mathematics is the reason most new insights into how the physical world works come from. E.g., the original formulation of Maxwell's equations, then the vector calculus form, then Einstein's tensor calculus form which led to special relativity. If you tried to describe the current "beautiful" concepts with really old or basic mathematics and notation, it *would* be horribly complex and intractable.

[@tracev9381]

They aren't 'integer' relationships though, irrational numbers appear everywhere in the fundamental theories. The interviewer repeatedly said "Einstein's equations are simple with only a few terms" while entirely neglecting the fact that each of those terms is a 4x4 tensor, ultimately ending in a differential system of ~80 terms of which the solution is the geometry of the fundamental space time. Many of these science interviewers try so hard to bring it down to a layperson level that they end up saying absolutely ridiculous things to anyone with a scientific background.

[@MasterBunnyFu]

@@tracev9381 Yes, that exactly.

[@tommasofazio7586]

@@tracev9381 So true, I wonder why she didn't provide an answer of this sort. I hope laypeople won't misunderstand this part of the interview.

[@kipwonder2233]

Sabine is my FAVORITE science/intellectual celebrity. Pragmatic. Clear thinking. Concise. And definitely...provocative🤩

[@kumoyuki]

Sabine gets it. The things that we've done with maths - amazing as they are - are relatively simple in comparison to the hard problems of consciousness, mind, and society

[@NamasenITN]

Simple or complex does not imply math works in one but not the other context.

[@rohmann000]

​@@NamasenITN No you are right, but the important point is to acknowledge the distinctions between different forms of knowledge and the means necessary to obtain them. :-)

[@elliotfrahs5997]

"Simple" equations also encapsulate a lot of complexity. Shrod's wave equation is *written* simply but has symbols that stand in for quite complex ideas.

[@xBINARYGODx]

When physicists say "simple", they don't really mean it the way a layman would use it. Sabrina talked about this in one of her videos, but since I binged her stuff somewhat recently, I cannot remember which. Probably in one of the "theory of everything" videos or something adjacent to that topic.

[@jugbrewer]

Totally, you can say that a cell divides and becomes two cells, and the math to describe that fact is incredibly simple, but that doesn't mean the process of cell division is simple. Simplicity is a frame of reference.

[@2CSST2]

The point is that this complexity CAN be encapsulated in yes, SIMPLE equations, not that there is a lot of complexity that follows through from them which we knew from the get go.

[@firstaidsack]

Yeah, because the wave function is a complex function.

[@artkoenig9434]

Thank you for this interview. Fr. Hossenfelder has an almost Vulcan-like mode of thinking. One gets the impression that she will deal with facts and logic and that is how her arguments are based.

[@solowinterwolf]

She is a bit Spock-like. Interesting that she's into hip-hop style performance as well.

[@elck3]

It’s my understanding that that’s how women have to speak for them to be truly taken seriously. I might not be able to relate as a man but it makes sense

[@TonboIV]

@@elck3 I think you're selling her a bit short there. If she only talked that way, then it would show through sooner or later. To keep it up, she also has to think that way. She seems to just be a pragmatist. As she said at the end. She's more interested in what works than why the universe is that way.

[@bunnyben5607]

I think it's called "being German"

[@DocBree13]

Bunny Ben lol

[@JasperXoR]

I really like Sabine, she stays well grounded in the pursuit of knowledge.

[@oceanlawnlove8109]

Yess I've been craving for an interview with her. I'd also love to see her on mindscape.

[@jy1733]

Dr Sabine doesn't like to play games. "It is what it is." It's Khun's prerogative to attempt to entice others to see the World as he does; but not everyone is willing to live in his World (e.g. Sabine).

[@aliensoup2420]

I got the feeling this interview was more about the interviewer attempting to validate his ideas, or even impose his ideas on the guest. He dominates most of the discussion, then replies with "you are correct", which sounds condescending. He was using Sabine as more of a sounding board than a source of information or inspiration.

[@jy1733]

@@aliensoup2420 Well said.

[@danielm5161]

He plays devils advocate with everybody, there are other videos where he is playing the role of someone who thinks math is nothing more then book keeping (check his interviews with Max Tegmark)

[@Paradigm2012Shift]

Scientific Inquiry and Discovery requires scientists to constantly ask and seek out the answers to the important questions of "How?' and "Why?". This is essential in expanding human understanding and knowledge of the nature of reality around us. The fact that the universe has intrinsic patterns and follows understandable mathematical laws, which theoretical physicists such as Sabine observe and calculate, shows that the fabric of the universe is consciously constructed and not merely random.

[@caricue]

@@Paradigm2012Shift No offense, but you got that backwards. Nature doesn't follow laws, humans create laws that describe the behavior of nature. If a new data set contradicts the laws then the laws are simply updated, so they are kind of a cheat, but quite useful nonetheless.

[@md.fazlulkarim6480]

Sabina was excellent in this interview with logical insightful answers.

[@georgemonsanto4018]

Equations may look simple enough to assimilate in the mind but the underlying work and detail to get there weren't that easy. Thatz why mathematicians will always tell their apprentice "simplify your work." Thank you.

[@siquod]

I think part of the reason the equations appear so simple is that we spent centuries refining the concepts and language to express them. And then the individual scientist has to put in a lot of effort and learning to be able to understand the language. Another reason is that the distinction between data about things in the universe and the laws that govern them is artificial. The laws are just the regularities in the data. The symmetries of describing the physical world give rise to conservation laws. You can use them to compress data about matter by exploiting these regularities, but you cannot compress to 0 bits; these laws don't allow you to derive the particular content of the data. But there are further regularities: the few very similar codes that organisms use to encode their genes for example are a regularity in the data about organisms on earth. Thus the genetic encodings are laws of biology and can be used to compress data about organisms. But you still can't derive from them why one particular species has a certain concrete genome. By sampling the gene pool of that species, you can derive statistical models that allow you to describe the genomes of individuals of that species more compactly. And so on. All scientific research is basically data compression, except for many areas of mathematics where in a certain sense you start from compressed data (the axioms) and try to decompress them (by deriving theorems) using logic. Making predictions is basically using decompression to check whether your compression algorithm works and to exploit the known regularities to get an idea about the future. Reductionism is an illusion: If you find fundamental laws that govern everything, you still need to specify data for these laws to act on, or otherwise you have just described all possible realities governed by these laws, but know very little about the actual reality you live in. The universe is estimated to contain 10^123 bits of data, and the laws of physics as we currently define them should comfortably fit into a gigabyte of textbooks. Almost all of the data about the universe is unexplained by the laws of physics. We arbitrarily draw the line between laws and data at that position where we were able to find "simple" laws. Or maybe I should say: We perceive as laws those aspects of the data that that allow for easy description, and the messy things are just data to us.

[@cybervigilante]

I like the way they mention "simple" math that I'm still trying to bend my brain around 🤓

[@tonyvandevusse3249]

To me, mathematics is the disciplined study of patterns, and physics is the study of patterns in nature. It follows that the latter is a subset of the former. It also follows that not all solutions of our mathematical models of nature correspond to reality. For example if you calculate the radius of a disc of area Pi square metres you get two answers, plus 1 and minus 1. Only one answer applies in Nature. The reason why we can find nice looking mathematical models is that we work very creatively to make it so. For example, Oliver Heavyside greatly simplified James Clerk Maxwell's model for electromagnetism. And why does does maths work better in physics than in economics (say)? It is because Nature is a lot less capricious than humans. Facts tend to stay valid for longer.

[@tommasofazio7586]

Well said. I wonder what type of face would the interviewer have put on after hearing such an answer, considering that it was really a debate.

[@ratsukutsi]

Simple (not so simple, yet not so complex) provide excellent approximations. Might not be complete descriptions of the whole of reality, but it is very impressive that such simplicity gets us so far through understanding quite complicated things. And there is the fact that deterministic laws can provide enormous complexity if you add enough (even 3) objects to the equations. Sabine is fighting her sensationalist peers that make a lot of money out of mystifying the subject, which is good. But she pushes it way to hard the other way.

[@jamesalben6458]

Enjoyed your presentation! Hope you will do one on relational thinking leading to simplicity of a concept of the entire universe and our place in it. We observe the continuity of life from before ancient bacteria through all animals based on oxygen from plants and the sun for energy. Chemical reactions for living structures and metabolism are controlled by tendencies (probability coefficients) determined by the periodic table and the force fields upon which it is based. All of these can be described by mathematical models (some better than others), but the overall picture is clear: We build a concept of the physical universe in which everything we see seems to fit, and we are a necessary part of it. In this framework, we better understand the roles of competition and cooperation in terms of biological history and the future of civilization. The multiplicities of diverse complexities seem much simpler when things fit together. All one needs to understand is the Schrödinger equation and interactions of dynamically fluctuating force fields.

[@MillzTheAthlete]

Interviewer: Do you think the patterns in mathematics are fundamental to the nature of reality? Sabine: Useless patterns say nothing about reality. I only care if it works.

[@jakelabete7412]

They are fundamental to the way we think.

[@mnp3a]

Think about this cliche example: riemannian geometry was developed with exactly zero interest in concrete applications. It was a purely mathematical puzzle that started when people tried to imagine and understand geometries that were NOT real. And yet it was the perfect tool for describing relativity. So, Sabine may not care for the patterns unless they work sure, but the thing is: there is something in the way mathematics is developed that allows for this "working" even when it is not done with any interest in applying it.

[@jugbrewer]

"It's so weird that nature is so simple!" "No." Sabine Hossenfelder is punk.

[@wolframdiestel2740]

the dumber you are the simpler the world appears from your point of view and the more you are convinced that you are the one fully understanding how it works :)

[@BookOnThrough]

@@wolframdiestel2740 That's a pretty simple way to look at it

[@wolframdiestel2740]

@@BookOnThrough I mean, we sometimes forget that the way we see the world is shaped by the associative nature and limitations of our brain. We create associations as long as our brain permits and than look inside on some nodes which seems to be connected to everything else and say wow, there is some deep truth which rules the world. Like if you live all your live in a city made out of the materials of nature and say it is delighting that everything in the universe can be described by horizontal and vertical lines. But it is not. It is just the way we shaped it with our narrow minds, because the real, more chaotic, nature is too complex for us.

[@sthamansinha243]

@@wolframdiestel2740 But if you no one can observe this more complex nature. Then of what use is thinking about it?

[@wolframdiestel2740]

@@sthamansinha243 oh man: you are eating, tasting everything you can, trying out new recips, modify them, depending on your culture and personal taste prefer some over others. What use it is if you can't eat or even taste everything, if you can't digest many things raw, if you don't tolerate some? As humans, we simply need a model of our world to find and leverage hidden resources, we need to share views of our world with our culture and society in order to divide work and resources in complex ways. Coherent models are more efficient. We confine them by discussing and reflecting over our experiences and over partial, incoherent models. We need to adapt them to an ever changing world, ever evolving society... if you don't do it you get lost behind, get isolated may be die early... πάντα ρει So may be don't reflect too much if it is worth eating, if it is worth thinking - enjoy it, do it regularly, add something new to you recips from time to time ... :-)

[@scifrygaming]

This was a great discussion!

[@janosmadar8580]

Sabine is very right. I can totally agree with her. The key point is that - as she said - “mathematics about it is a way to describe patterns to describe and regularities”. Certainly, one can ask why there is relatively simple patterns and regularities in the basic level of the Nature: “patterns that are susceptible to very simple mathematics”. The answer is very simple: The whole scientific methodology - especially physics - is based on Reductionism. Reductionism does necessary results in simple patterns and regularities sooner or later. Again, certainly one can ask why Reductionism does "work" for the Nature. But this question is like "Why is there something rather than nothing?” question. One can imagine that electrons (and quarks, etc.) would by different from each other such persons are different from each other. In this case, reductionist methodology would not work, and the Standard Model would be such like sociology. But it is not the case. It is fact that there are very simple things (e.g. elementary particles or fields) which behave the same way under the same circumstances . It is just a basic experimental fact. From a philosophical point of view the “Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” is an interesting question. But from natural sciences point of view, this question is totally like “Why is there something rather than nothing?”.

[@niklastjitra1323]

Exactly. But the corollary to that is to admit that science cannot answer philosophical questions (and vice versa). They are in different realms. And so the attempt by some like Hawking to declare philosophy is dead and proceed to explain how something can come out of nothing is just childish presumptuousness.

[@JM-us3fr]

It’s not unreasonable at all. We explain the things we can explain, and the way we can explain things precisely is through mathematics. We can ask why anything can be explained at all, but if we’re being honest, it took thousands of years of developing mathematics before we had the adequate tools (calculus) to explain the foundations of modern physics (namely Newtonian mechanics). I think this represents the difficulty in explaining our universe, rather than the ease. Additionally, we don’t know how likely it is to live in a universe where things can be explained. I think that was Sabine’s point about the anthropic principle.

[@Chicken_Little_Syndrome]

Mathematics is a tool. Not all mathematical equations describe reality. Illogically premised equations describe nothing.

[@GamingBlake2002]

I've never understood the question, personally. To me it's like asking "Why are programming languages so effective for writing software?" or "Why are pencils so effective for writing?" But I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination so maybe this is an ignorant view.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

You're just logical thinking, Logic is mathematic in color, simple and clean.

[@homelessengineer5498]

Nope, you're right on the money. The question presupposes that math is somehow independent of human thought, that we "discover" it little by little and it happens to describe nature perfectly. That, of course, is a wrong assumption.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

@@homelessengineer5498 The Eternal Life-Structure is the basic for the mathematic, that is re-discovered, in all and any Developing-Circuits.

[@homelessengineer5498]

@@holgerjrgensen2166 You're speaking gibberish

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

@@homelessengineer5498 You're just Not used to see and understand realities in a Eternal Perspective.

[@johnadey9464]

Perhaps things that can be simply described are just more likely to be in existence than those that are more complex, and some of the deeper answers are just so simple and profound that our minds cannot grasp them.

[@99bits46]

I always thought the videos were from 80's and 90's. After watching Sabine I know you're from this realm.

[@bulwinkle]

I characterise mathematics as a language, it has a kind of grammar and a syntax and can be, often is very descriptive.

[@massimilianobelloni5613]

Sabine is an inspiration I never miss her videos

[@Dug6666666]

Sabine is a very grounded scientist. We need people to explore the fringes and look beyond what is considered fundamentally correct. If only to find where the brick wall is, because sometimes it is not a wall but a detour sign.

[@nicka.papanikolaou9475]

Dear Sabine, there is nothing unreasonable or magical about this. Math is a product of our mind which is a product of nature. It is only logical that math reflects nature to a great extent. I enjoy your videos, thank you for your effort!

[@Alkis05]

What physics would look like if every electron was different? It would look like sociology.

[@ericbremer6314]

Very Goooood.....!!!

[@jimbocho660]

In that case you'd use game theory not physics.

[@GonogoBonobo]

The unreasonable capability of my circurlar saw to cut wood board is amazing! oh! wait it was design for that purpose.

[@phutureproof]

But did we design maths or discover it?

[@ZenathD]

@@phutureproof And if we designed it, why are there still so many unanswered questions in math that we still cannot answer. If we designed it, we should be able to construct those answers from the ground up - yet we cannot. And if we discovered math, who or what designed/made it? Randomness? Math does not strike me as something that is constructed out of arbitrary rules and elements. I truly... truly wish that I knew the answer to this question... >> *Staring at the comment section of youtube where 90% of the commenters blatantly states the answer to this question*

[@kensmith8152]

The interviewer gave a great answer for the problem of the imprecise mathematical aspects of sociology and psychology

[@umu-i-d2785]

Great Interview. Sabine rocks!

[@virginfitness]

Mathematics is not inefficient in social sciences et al. The “science” of societies is irreducibly complex in variability, therefore until more efficiently defined variable-wise remains impossible to determine mathematically.

[@slow_goon73]

The bloke there is trying to guide her to some mystical conclusion about the nature of reality. I love how absolutely steadfast she is in her scientific rigor. We need more scientists like her.

[@vector8310]

Dear Sabine, you're on an interview program which is devoted precisely to perfecting anthropic understanding of the big questions in science. Dismissing a question or a line of inquiry because it will lead us down an anthropic alley is to deny the point of the interview entirely.

[@empemitheos]

I think something else that we should think about is why we find ourselves in a universe which has so much logical phenomena and very little if any illogical phenomena, yet we are even capable of being aware of the possibility that math and logic may not work in some places or situations

[@lllPlatinumlll]

3:11 hey guy....shut up I'm here to listen to Sabine.

[@GBabuu]

It's supposed to be a discussion and not solely a one way interviewer-interviewee dynamic. I find the former to be more exciting

[@milton7763]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 -“Here a question on an almost magical incomprehensible mystery” -“Here’s a truly scientific matter of fact answer. And by the way, your question is irrelevant”

[@blackfalkon4189]

why is the sky blue?

[@thetimebinder]

@@blackfalkon4189 Why implies intent and presumes a agent that dictated the state. Such statements aren't scientific. Scientific asks How in order to find cause to predict an effect.

[@blackfalkon4189]

@@thetimebinder why implies why

[@The0ldg0at]

A lot of people have fun adventuring into the metaphysical dungeons in quest for the truth of their existence. I quit that when I found out about pataphysics which is metaphysics pushed to the absurd. I like Sabine a lot, she is a down to earth scientist who knows the difference between creativity and inventivity. We create answers that fit our feelings. We invent answers that fit our observations.

[@edysinsimon8646]

I completely agree with her assessment of mathematics. It does indeed explain with natural world with extreme accuracy. However quantum levels of extrapolation is problematic at the least.

[@plat2716]

"You guys why does our mathematics describe what we constructed it to describe?!?!!?" Because we constructed it that way lol

[@jugbrewer]

Exactly, imagine the person who invented counting going "there are 6 berries on that bush... how strange that it's that simple! how come this counting thing is so basic yet so accurate?"

[@Raphael4722]

Dude.... Khun's question is something many physicists have asked. Just because Sabine has a different take on it doesn't mean it's a bad question.

[@GulfsideMinistries]

@@Raphael4722 It also misunderstands the question. The question is NOT 'why do our equations work?'. They work because they correctly identify a pattern. That raises the question, why are there patterns at all? But that's not terribly interesting. Anyway, the real question is how it is that our mathematics of describing this particular pattern can tell us something about the way reality itself must be with respect to things that are not a part of this pattern. So how is it that this equation plus that equation can mean that this particle, that we've never observed, must observe with this or that set of properties at this or that energy level; and lo and behold, we go out there to look and, sure enough, there it is. Prediction of how the pattern will evolve is uninteresting. Prediction of what must be true to make those uninteresting predictions work . . . for THOSE predictions to be true . . . that tells you that what is important is NOT the functional truth of your particular equation, but rather that you equation is talking about something deeply fundamental in reality itself. And why should THAT be the case? That's a mind blower (if you care to actually think about it and not just hand-wave).

[@zerodivider4333]

I have read her book. Highly recommend it. Shes incredible.

[@dohpam1ne]

I think something that would help Robert Kuhn understand the relationship of "simple" integer-based math vs. transcendental numbers is infinite sums. Numbers that are not perfectly describable with integer ratios, like pi, can arise from very simple rules in the form of an infinite sum which approaches pi without limit. So, our integers are more like a concept that approximates "real" values, and real values are things like pi. So really any "complex" description of something is just generated by a couple simple things interacting.

[@ytrichardsenior]

I've always wondered why we don't have a mathematics of 'music'. I think Bach tried this, but I'm almost certain a greater mind than mine could come up with some system for codifying music in such a way that we can do mathematics on it.

[@Mefistofy]

I don't know where to start but if you work with music (digitally), there is a ton of math involved in the plugins creating and modifying sounds. What brings the whole thing to life are the tiny errors though.

[@sandybathwater8385]

look up why a note is a note - I don't know what that will yield, but music can definitely be defined by mathematics -- and as you dive down that hole, you will start to understand that there is a very good reason why music "sounds good" and it is not arbitrary.

[@ytrichardsenior]

@@sandybathwater8385 Well ultimately notes are multiples of particular frequencies. But the maths of sound waves is already very well understood. It's more the maths of musical scales modes chords and chord progressions I was talking about. For example, we know the factors (notes) of C Major are a,b,c,d,e,f,g, we know that the 'odd' factors are special in some way, root, 3rd, 5th, 7th.. We know that we can transform or transpose those factors using some sort of operator, into a different mode or key.. All the building blocks seem there, at least in my imagination.

[@Primitarian]

At long last a physicist who dares to stand outside of the chorus! Mathematics is nothing more than relating concepts with high precision. If anything were to be effective, I would expect this to be it. Sabine raises the more interesting question: Why is mathematics often ineffective?

[@pierluigidipietro8097]

mathematics has a strict relationship with mind. The problem is, using set theory: does the math include the mind , or does the mind include math ? I suggest that the latter is true, because math is generated by the mind and not the other way around. At this point, math could be considered a subset of the mind, so it is unable to describe everything our mind is able to be aware or conceive. This would explain why math is performing so poorly when something like "free will" is an ingredient of the subject we want to describe, like economy.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

@@pierluigidipietro8097 The math. of the free will, is very simple, it goes in circuits from minimum to maximum, end of a circuit is the beginning of a new.

[@blackfalkon4189]

"a physicist who dares to stand outside of the chorus" aka. a (scientific) heretic

[@Coonfused57]

I've often wondered about this after all if man invented mathematics to describe the world why should we be surprised when it works??

[@antonystringfellow5152]

Mathematics is fundamental. Mathematics was not invented, rather discovered.

[@markhowell5012]

I agree: mathematics describes the physical aspects of the universe. It shouldn't be surprising that the physical universe is describable. Basically, math involves counting and measuring, and the universe consists (at least in part) on countable things and measurable relationships.

[@markhowell5012]

"of" not "on" in the last sentence .... sorry

[@markhowell5012]

@onetoone Could a universe exists without rules, and therefore without cause and effect, without any level of predictability? If so, could it have complex structures? That question's above my pay grade, but I suspect a universe without rules would be impossible (or very boring).

[@markhowell5012]

@onetoone Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I can imagine someone someday proving that existence requires laws. But I guess we'd have to start by defining what a law is. Is "Something must either exist or not exist" a law? Is "things that exist are distinguishable from each other" a law; and if so, doesn't that mean that things that exist are in some way describable? Is "Anything that exists has a location" a law? Is 'Describable locations exist" a law; and if not, does that mean that there would be no dimensions? If cause-and-effect relationships do not exist, can time exist? If so, it seems that there would be no "arrow of time", no before or after. I agree that a universe without laws is by its nature indescribable except in a negative sense (i.e., any law that we can imagine does not pertain) and is therefore inconceivable. But is it also impossible because such a universe would have no identifiable or describable features or characteristics, and that's a fundamental contradiction?

[@mysticone1798]

Ultimately, there is no discernable reason why mathematics is so effective at describing the behavior of the physical universe. Einstein expressed this when he said that the most remarkable fact is that the cosmos is intelligible at all. The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is certainly an eternal mystery, and is perhaps the clearest evidence that there is an underlying, metaphysical reality behind the manifestations of the material universe.

[@llauram3650]

She's so brilliant.

[@artstrology]

I use mathematics in art appreciation every day, and it definitely leads to a greater understanding. The problem is, explaining and demonstrating the origin of ideas, threatens our concept of ownership of them. Ideas and inventions are pre-existing and predictable, people are just opportunistic conduits.

[@dangreeney]

Where is there any evidence that "ideas and inventions are pre-existing and predictable"?

[@artstrology]

@@dangreeney Basic calendars. Nobody collects the data or looks for sets. Yale knows it, "Three Identical Strangers" In a basic 20 day calendar Tesla was born on the day of electricity and Jung and Freud were born on the same day in the 260 day. The proof is everywhere. The study is clearly being obstructed in academia. There is not one artist or scientist who can avoid it. But the religions dearly wish it to be not so.

[@sycodeathman]

@@artstrology If you want to attach a bunch of gobbledygook to art if it makes you enjoy it more that's totally fine, but if you start trying to attach it to actual scientific methodology you stop making any useful predictions, and therefore your methodology doesn't work. Art "works" by being enjoyable, which is why you can do basically anything with art in any media imaginable, but science works by checking against reality, and this directly works to create the clearest picture of reality we possibly can get.

[@artstrology]

@@sycodeathman Science has not mentioned the 20 days much. I imagine there's a reason for that. The sequence and functions are the precise same as the 20 amino acids. Science does not know what time is, and they are horrible at predicting anything.

[@psmoyer63]

An unreasonably effective response from Sabine !

[@andreab380]

She is right in saying that the question "how does it work" is her focus as a scientist, as opposed to "why". However, it can be fruitful even for a scientist to linger a bit on those questions and reach their own (extra-scientific but not irrational) conclusions. Popper granted that extra-scientific world-views could positively influence scientific discovery. This was the case for Einstein's pantheism, and possibly the case for Maxwell's laws stemming from a "Romantic" or "Idealistic" ideal of underlying unity. I often naïvely wonder, for instance, whether the formal similarity between the law of electromagnetic attraction/repulsion and gravitational attraction points to some deeper unity.

[@JAY-vm6jb]

0.39-Correct, i agree on that for accuracy. :-)....

[@danieljackson654]

Sabine is the best. She easily reminds that Science deals with How questions not Why questions. Implied is that Why questions are traps. Long ago, Richard Feynman made a similar observation regarding social sciences: unlike physics, for example with millennia of observations, social science really is not in the theory stage because the identification of significant relationships has not been established. I do not think this is likely to change since the shift in emphasis in sociology, for example, has been away from such a positivist agenda to more qualitative approaches that are, frankly, all over the place.

[@jy1733]

Is Sociology a real science or a pseudo-science where elites can toss their word salads?

[@brendanoshea2936]

The question wasn't do you think that "why the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics" is a physics question. This question is koan. It pushes the limits of ones thinking. No one can answer this question with an affirmative. It is of interest to the wondering mind, gazing into the bizarre universe we have find ourselves in.

[@danieljackson654]

@@jy1733 I believe this charge is part of the science game in general. Science is a technique and the charge of pseudo-science can be found in all fields, including physics. This time of Plague, for example, has brought forth many pseudo-science claims. Alas, the field, like psychology, has attracted many who use it as a bully pulpit platform that goes well beyond the scope of good science practice. This has certainly been the case over the last thirty years or more. That's a pity. Meanwhile, there is much to be learned from Sabine's level-headedness to say nothing of her constant articulation of where to draw the line between proper practice of the Craft and the Bully Pulpit.

[@danieljackson654]

@@brendanoshea2936 Absolutely. I'm with you 100%. I might reframe the issue: The issue is not in the Craft of Science; it is in the consciousness of the Artisan who engages in the Praxis of Science.

[@brendanoshea2936]

@@danieljackson654 quite elegantly said Daniel.

[@potterma63]

Very interesting interview. I'm a fan of Dr Hossenfelder. Very interesting. More to be discovered, for sure.

[@Mark-sc4bu]

Two very clever and intelligent people having a debate. Sabine is not so concerned with why mathematics works the way it does; she's just happy that it does! Robert has a more philosophical outlook and he is more interested in the why than Sabine. Both points of view are valid, it just depends what 'floats your boat' :-)

[@ThomasJr]

*Zabina is very smart. One of her greatest upsides is the fact she has people thinking. But like many of the people she calls out, she's not infallible. Then let's not forget all argumentation is passive of counter argumentation. That's because language is not math, iarguments can be dismissed even without logic, if that lack of logic is not obviously evident.*

[@edga69]

0:42 She says that's not a question for science, yet she's on an interview called "closer to truth", why not engage with the philosophical question? Her experience could provide insight a philosopher of science might not have.

[@dlee732ad]

I think it's acceptable to think that social sciences, neurological sciences can be more efficiently investigated thru the use of fractals.

[@Trp44]

Great great observations Sabine.

[@lrvogt1257]

Ms Hossenfelder is the only person I've heard Mr Kuhn push back on.

[@zaza-ik5ws]

His premise that nature is described by 'simple' mathematics is questionable.

[@nfarnell1]

His premise is clearly ridiculous. Do we understand Nature? Again clearly no, so to make the statement we understand something we know we do not understand, with Simple Mathematics is just sloppy thinking. The person who interviewed Sabine is not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and Sabine was wonderfully gentle letting him know that. I would gladly spend a good portion of what is left of my life working hard learning from Sabine.

[@zaza-ik5ws]

@@nfarnell1 Woah, lets not get our panties in a twist there buddy. Dial it down.

[@williamburts5495]

@@nfarnell1 Mathematics in itself isn't sufficient to explain reality on it's own merit because all of our perception and conceptions are within consciousness. A concept is something known by a knower so all concepts and perceptions are within consciousness and at the same time consciousness transcends concepts by it's aloofness.

[@nfarnell1]

@@williamburts5495 I am often troubled by human concepts being substituted for reality, I am also aware that we do not have a good alternative and we must work with what we have. For me Mathematics is a language we invented, it passes concepts from one to the another with amazing accuracy, and it is not wise to ignore what it predicts. All to often we take some of its predictions and smear them all over the place and call it fact. The one concept that puzzles me the most is TIME. The Universe exists at one instance and carries on with no need of time. I really wish we had a better way of understanding without dragging time into it. thks for your ideas.

[@williamburts5495]

@@nfarnell1 Yes, mathematics is created by our mind and it is a useful tool for understanding objective physical phenomena but by being a tool it is something relative not absolute. What is beyond the mathematical language is the mind that conceives of it and understands it.

[@ronaldmasonchannel]

Sabine - The best!

[@tomjohn8733]

Interesting discussion....trying to understand how nature works is like trying to know, either how big the universe is or how small we are in comparison !!!!!!

[@russellsnyder2634]

Mathematics can describe geometry and geometry can describe space/time. There are so many simple relations. I think harmonics are important to understanding QM. The harmonic series is very simple; all simple rational numbers: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, etc.. Then there is a simple statement E=MC². All that says is the amount of radiant energy E is equal to the mass energy M times the speed of light squared. It need not be complicated even though it took a long line of equations to arrive at it.

[@hrbeta]

Smart woman knows she is not a philosopher, she’s a scientist.

[@christianlacroix5430]

And that's why her opinion is lacking.

[@kevinkonig3892]

I believe a good scientist (if he/she wants to make a breakthrough) must be at least a little bit of a philosopher. I would call most scientists today mathematicians.

[@MrBenbenky]

Science without philosophy is meaningless

[@kashu7691]

@@flashmutex is it beneficial to consider the philosophy at her level?

[@kobemop]

@@MrBenbenky sounds like something someone that failed in stem subjects would say

[@JeffChen285]

I have watched some of the KZbin Videos by Sabine and found that she is a brave challenger to the current anti-meritocratic meritocracy system, especially the field of particle physics. "Effectiveness of Mathematics" is apparently an illusion. The whole trick comes from the physical units and constants defined by human themself. We can always make math effective enough by adjusting physical constants, adding some new constants, or eliminating a constant.

[@BugRib]

But gravity is described by a square root and a ratio which are incredibly simple equations and don’t require any human-invented measuring systems. They’re also made up entirely of very small integers.

[@JeffChen285]

@@BugRib Thanks for your argument! Many scientists today understand math as a counting tool. The reality is that counting is impossible without physical units or physical constants in the first place. For example, chimpanzees may have a sense of distance as they need to estimate how far they are from a tiger. However, math is useless until the units such as a mile, a chain-link were invented. Similarly, in the case of the law of gravity, a constant called gravitational constant G is still under the process of constantly adjusting and fine-tuning.

[@Jehannum2000]

@@BugRib Gravity is only approximated by that equation.

[@JeffChen285]

@Vendicar Kahn 【False. There are no constants that can be changed that alter the fact that for a planar circle the area is proportional to r**2.】 In my understanding, physics without physical constants can not be categorized as true physics.

[@JeffChen285]

@Vendicar Kahn 【If you select your units right, you can replace most physical constants with 1. Don't know if you can do it for all of the fundamental constants though』--- excellent argument! I think the topological transformation will be allowed to do it. However, the fundamental questions such as "what is exactly the difference between physics and math?" are still remaining. I think true naturalism shall be encouraged enough to discard the difference between such as idealism and empiricism, invention and discovery, etc etc because there may be no such things in the first place. True naturalism shall be "natural processism" and under which the concepts such as invention vs discovery, deterministic vs free will, math vs physics, unreasonably effective vs unreasonably ineffective, etc will be disappeared.

[@DwayneDeBardelaben]

The reason math works so well is that it's a perfectly consistent mapping from one domain to another. Physical reality is consistent. Math is consistent. If we had a means of mapping sound or color or (?) to reality, then we could also describe and predict reality from sound or color combinations. In a sense, math is an abstract mapping of reality.

[@talastra]

Math is the opposite of a mapping of reality. "All models are wrong, but some are useful" (George Box). Math is consistent with our mapping of physical reality, not physical reality itself (which is not even accessible). Arkani-Hamed & Trnka's amplituhedron, which takes locality and unitarity out of the model and makes them emergent to the model, are a step in the right direction, because it drops the (untenable) habit of thinking our models correspond in some way (in any way) with reality.

[@jonathanmitchell8698]

I think that this question is not framed extremely well. I appreciate Sabine's humility and honesty when it comes to what we can and can't speculate about, especially because the question is not framed in a way that scientists can rationally address. But I do think that this topic raises interesting questions. For example, assuming the universe is fundamentally mathematical and that patterns arise from simple mathematical objects and rules (one might say axioms), then we can investigate at least the necessary conditions required to produce a universe where patterns can be easily defined mathematically. I don't have a deep enough background in math or physics to say much more about this, but it would be interesting to see if there are certain kinds of axiomatic systems that give rise to either simple/definable mathematical patterns, and other axiomatic systems that give rise to infinite/undefinable patterns and relationships.

[@MelindaGreen]

The reason math works so incredibly well in the types of sciences that need it most is because those are the types of science we choose to study.

[@koho]

What sciences do we not choose to study?

[@MelindaGreen]

@@koho Dogs would develop smelltronics for example

[@lewdcharizard9902]

Are a lot of the formulas explained in whole numbers? I feel like I've seen a lot of them represented with letters/variables and fractions.

[@TheBeatle49]

And irrational and complex numbers.

[@allorgansnobody]

I think his language is confusing but I think what he means by "whole number relationship" is really a subset of algebraic relationships, like multiplication and/or addition, not that the values are actually constrained to be integers. In fact, discrete mathematics (math concerned with whole numbers), is much more complicated than what he is referring to!

[@doodelay]

Good question but no, there are many, many constants and laws of nature which contain non whole numbers. For instance, the gravitational constant is 9.8 m/s^2. Or the famous cosmological constant

[@jockm7940]

I am concerned “does it work?”, refreshing!

[@ronaldbrunsvold5632]

Science has many probabilistic descriptions of phenomena where specific answers for any given observation cannot be known a priori. I think that is similar to social science models where predictions for outcomes have to be described on probabilistic terms.

[@DrMax0]

Wow. That was extraordinary compared to the other interviewees. Einsteins equation just work and are simple, because the phenomena they describe are simple. And we know that Einsteins equations are wrong if the simplifiactions are not negligible any more. As simple as that.

[@09Ateam]

Fact of the matter though is they ARE wrong as they dont account for quantum mechanics.

[@Nikkoner]

09Ateam Maybe because they are not intended to account for quantum mechanics. Nor does QM account for GR.

[@Nikkoner]

Vendicar Kahn How can it be wrong? He wasn’t attempting to address that. So it’s not wrong if it was never intended to cover that aspect. If we ever encounter infinite energy density maybe we will need to worry about that. That wasn’t something he was attempting to resolve. That said, what is the work, the equation(s) that addresses GR plus infinite energy density geometry that supersedes his work?

[@Nikkoner]

Vendicar Kahn I’m confused. It sound like you are saying, It’s wrong if it doesn’t work everywhere, all the time, perfectly, outside the region of where the originator went with it, with full revelation of not only the what but the why. You can set that expectation yourself but you will never reach any semblance of correctness then. Not even for yourself. That definition of “correct” has never been applied to any science, ever, because it can never be true or factual. If you chose to set that standard, fine. It’s not very useful or fruitful or reasonable or scientific to do so. But go ahead. Just don’t be expecting people to agree with you.

[@Nikkoner]

Vendicar Kahn I’m not going to belabor the point. I don’t think you have a reasonable basis to call something “wrong” in comparing to criteria it was never intended to meet. You arbitrarily decided in your mind to suggest it should do something it isn’t intended to do in the first place. That makes no sense. It’s like saying something designed to do ABC doesn’t also do D, so you call it wrong. It’s not wrong, it was only said to do ABC not ABCD. Or that because a screwdriver cannot do what a hammer does it’s wrong. No, you just don’t have the right tool for the job. Again, nothing absolute nothing can do that. So I don’t know why you make a comment such as that.

[@ameremortal]

We want to find meaning in these patterns, but I’m not sure there is any. It’s fun either way though, so that’s good enough for me.

[@mikebaker2436]

My core assumptions are more aligned with the interviewer, but I have to concede that Sabine's reasoning is logical and sound verses the points as presented. She's not being difficult, her points are just such an effective refutation that the conversation drags on for 4 uneccesary minutes for the sake of content.

[@williambrown1095]

Thank you! So well put! {and why I read Scientific American and not Psychology}