Do we need a Theory of Everything?

I get constantly asked if I could please comment on other people’s theories of everything. That could be Garrett Lisi’s E8 theory or Eric Weinstein’s geometric unity or Stephen Wolfram’s idea that the universe is but a big graph, and so on. First I explain what physicists mean by a theory of everything and by grand unification (or a grand unified theory, respectively). Then I explain why the current approaches are no very promising but why, forgive me, I nevertheless think it's good to have them.
Support me on Patreon: / sabine

[@kefhomepage]

This why I love your channel , you don't just accept things and you are very critical of the state of today's physics . That's the mentality needed , if we are to keep going forward in the advancement of physics . And yes the universe doesnt give a damn ,what we want or what we think as pretty . It is what is it .

[@bhangrafan4480]

Sabine thinks for herself, and thinks clearly.

[@fzigunov]

True. Think of all other news reporters like PBS Spacetime and the such, who regurgitate these theories as if they had any truth on them.

[@smlanka4u]

I like the video so much, but I have a theory of everything too. According to Buddhism Suddhāṭṭhaka (“suddha” for “pure” or fundamental” + “āṭṭha” or “eight”) means a unit of matter consisting of eight fundamental entities. Four of these are the “satara mahā bhūta“ (The Four Great Bhūta. Bhūta is another name for “ghost” because of their elusive nature.): Pathavi (Solid/Earth), āpo (Liquid/Water), tejo (Heat/Fire), vāyo (Gas/Air). These are indeed the most fundamental units of matter, but they cannot be detected by themselves. The four mahā bhūta ('Matter') are with four basic “gati” ('Character of Matter'/ 'Antimatter'): Pathavi gati (hard/coarse), āpo gati (bound/attracted/liquidity), tejo gati (fiery or energetic), vāyo gati (motion). Thus, in Buddha Dhamma, it says, “gati (character) attracts a similar gati”. (*Read more about "The Origin of Matter - Suddhāṭṭhaka" at Pure Dhamma website.) According to my mathematical calculations the Universe can make two objects (Matter and Antimatter) using the 6 gaps of the 6 directions: (+0-0)3 x (+0-0)3 = Matter x Antimatter According to this mathematical formula (a+b)2=a2+2ab+b2 we can write (+0-0)2 as 02 - (+1-(-1)) x 0 x 0 + 02 (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) x (+0-0) = (+1-(-1))3 x (+0.0-0.0)3 (+1-(-1))3 can make 8 dimensional forms of space with a nature of Matter and Antimatter which can cause to convert those 8 dimensional forms of space into 16 quantum dimensional forms of space like Quarks, forces and etc. (+0.0-0.0)3 can make extra dimensions, Higgs boson and etc. Possible or Probable Outputs of (+0.0-0.0)3 (+0.0-0.0)3 = (+0.0-0.0)x(+0.0-0.0)x(+0.0-0.0) The Most Possible Output: (+0.0-0.0)3 = (0.02 - (+1-(-1)) x 0.0 x 0.0 + 0.02)x(+0.0-0.0) = ((+1-(-1)) x 0.000 - (+1-(-1)) x 0.000)x(+0.0-0.0) = ((+1-(-1)) x (0.000 - 0.000))x(+0.0-0.0) (+0.0-0.0)3 = ((+1-(-1)) x (0.000 - 0.000)) x (+0.0-0.0) I write it like this for identification: (+0.0-0.0)3 = (+(1)-(-(1))) x (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) Now we can combine the results of (+0.0-0.0)3 with the results of (+1-(-1))3 to see the most possible total result: (+1-(-1))3 x (+0.0-0.0)3 = (+ (+1)3 - ((+1)3 x (-1) - ((-1)2 x (+1)2)) + (-1)2 x (+1) - (+ (+1)2 x (-1) - ((+1)2 x (-1)2 - ((-1)3 x (+1))) + (-1)3)) x (+(1)-(-(1))) x (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) (+1-(-1))3 x (+0.0-0.0)3 = (+ (+(1))(+1)3 - ((+(1))(+1)3 x (-1) - ((+(1))(-1)2 x (+1)2)) + (+(1))(-1)2 x (+1) - (+ (+(1))(+1)2 x (-1) - (+(1))((+1)2 x (-1)2 - (+(1))((-1)3 x (+1))) + (+(1))(-1)3) - (+ (-(1))(+1)3 - ((-(1))(+1)3 x (-1) - ((-(1))(-1)2 x (+1)2)) + (-(1))(-1)2 x (+1) - (+ (-(1))(+1)2 x (-1) - (-(1))((+1)2 x (-1)2 - (-(1))((-1)3 x (+1))) + (-(1))(-1)3))) x (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) It gives 16 results and this unbalanced result (Higgs boson): (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) Now I can show all the most possible results (the 16 dimensional forms in atoms called quarks, forces and etc) like this: Distance of Directions in beginning of the Universe: (+0-0)6 = i: (+1-(-1))3 ii: (+0.0-0.0)3 = ( This should be the Pure Eight (Pali: Suddhātthaka) in Buddhism: Solid, Liquid, Heat, Gas, Character (Pali: Gati) Of Solid, Liquid, Heat, Gas) A: + (+1)3 B: - ((+1)3 x (-1) C: - ((-1)2 x (+1)2)) D: + (-1)2 x (+1) - ( E: + (+1)2 x (-1) F: - ((+1)2 x (-1)2 G: - ((-1)3 x (+1))) H: + (-1)3) )) x ii: (+0.0-0.0)3 = ( This should be the 12 elementary particles (of matter) and 4 basic forces in Standard Model (in particle physics). 12 Elementary particles: (6 quarks:) up, charm, top, Down, Strange, Bottom and (3 electrons:) electron, muon, tau and (three neutrinos:) e, muon, tau. And 4 basic forces: the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. 01: + (+(1))(+1)3 02: - ((+(1))(+1)3 x (-1) 03: - ((+(1))(-1)2 x (+1)2)) 04: + (+(1))(-1)2 x (+1) - ( 05: + (+(1))(+1)2 x (-1) 06: - (+(1))((+1)2 x (-1)2 07: - (+(1))((-1)3 x (+1))) 08: + (+(1))(-1)3 ) - ( 09: + (-(1))(+1)3 10: - ((-(1))(+1)3 x (-1) 11: - ((-(1))(-1)2 x (+1)2)) 12: + (-(1))(-1)2 x (+1) - ( 13: + (-(1))(+1)2 x (-1) 14: - (-(1))((+1)2 x (-1)2 15: - (-(1))((-1)3 x (+1))) 16: + (-(1))(-1)3)) ))) x This should be the Higgs boson in Standard Model (in particle physics): 17: (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) Each electron has an electrical charge of -1. Quarks make up protons and neutrons, which, in turn, make up an atom's nucleus. Each proton and each neutron contains three quarks. The Higgs boson field came from this: (+0.0-0.0)3 And this (+0.0-0.0)3 is combined to this: (+1-(-1))3 So always there is an interaction between the final resultS of this: (+1-(-1))3 x (+0.0-0.0)3 with this (0.000 - 0.000) x (+0.0-0.0) which can make a mathematical connection between those things. (Eg: Tau : Muon : Electron = 2000 : 100 : 0.5 = 4000 : 200 : 1) The reason to the birth of Atoms is the reason to The Origin of Matter and Antimatter. And it is the first part of 'The Theory Of Everything'. - W. Suresh Madusanka (The founder of that mathematical explanation about the start of the Universe and Atoms.)

[@vladdrakul7851]

@@fzigunov Yes I come here to get the hard core realism of Sabine and also Anton Petrov both sceptical individuals interested in the latest information and questioning 'NICE' assumptions as PBS Physics do. Indeed it was watching that show, that I do love, as speculation mixed with real science that made me realize that this is the same as Bronze Age speculations on what the universe is; ('Resting on the backs of turtles' etc ) rather than sober science. Interestingly even they have had to acknowledge the collapse of belief in 'String theory' and 'super symmetry'. (See 'What's wrong with String Theory')

[@rv706]

@@smlanka4u: Your theory definitely needs to be heard. By a psychiatrist.

[@dhawkins1234]

Reminds me very much of a Feynman quote: "People say to me, "Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not, I'm just looking to find out more about the world, and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it, that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then *that's* the way it is! But whatever way it comes out, its Nature is there and She's going to come out the way She is. And therefore, when we go to investigate it we shouldn't predecide what it is we're trying to do, except to try to find out more about it."

[@julkiewicz]

Words of wisdom indeed. All those self-indulgent quasi-scientists who try to insert themselves in the news should take that to heart.

[@ideliversoftontario4976]

Well, Feynman was an honest man. "Like my papa used to say..."

[@Grandunifiedcelery]

Thank you Daniel it's a good quote. Where can I see it?

[@dhawkins1234]

@@Grandunifiedcelery kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5zLc5aCoMRrnJI

[@user-DongJ]

So does this mean that endeavors/invesments in String Theory, Super Symmetry & Grand Unified Theory are like endeavors/investments in Cold fusion, N rays, Water memory, Cure for cancer/aging, Quantum computers, Super conductors, Bringing the dead back, Search for Aliens/UFOs/Ghosts/Big-Foot, Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology, Necromancy, Voodoo, etc? Could the endeavors/investments in cure/vaccine for Covid-19 become like this too?

[@MillzTheAthlete]

"I'm not interested in looking any closer because I don't also want to waste my time." The ultimate denial of a second date.

[@vanderslagmulders]

😂

[@jamesdolan4042]

Hm mh

[@BboyKeny]

It's also the reason why people aren't interested in science learning. The brain tries to be efficient. It does prevent you from becoming a genius. Because geniuses don't see "learning" as "time waste"

[@Javelin1x]

@@BboyKeny that’s only going if there is indeed something to learn and not a waste of time. Walking the razors edge for sure. Does it have substance or is it a balloon ready to pop leaving you eating humble pie as the saying goes 😊

[@BboyKeny]

@@Javelin1x I think finding out *why* something doesn't work is the main purpose of the scientific method. Therefore when a PhD in mathematics has been building a theory with mathematics for 40 years and you *know* that he's wrong. Then wouldn't finding out *why* this theory is wrong *be* scientific progress?

[@earlystrings1]

I remember being warned as an American going to work in Germany not to be freaked out by the fact that German professionals come straight out and say what they truly think, even if it’s highly critical. Sabine has turned this trait into an art form.

[@rickvenlo1362]

It is an art. A skilled one.

[@Lifeonthefastlane007]

So this implies working in America everyone just hides everything so feelings are not hurt? That's rather a third-world thing.

[@18890426]

Is that a German Way?

[@Randomlycreatedbyme]

This is a feature of Accademia in general, if you ever go to a conference, you’ll see people not holding back when it comes to criticism.

[@chrisstavaas5865]

I’m howling of laughter at that photo of Lisi Sabine selected for the video.

[@merbst]

I admire this guy, for achieving the feat of looking tan and topless in a video about his intellectual achievements!

[@ferretappreciator]

Gotta have that fan service, amirite?

[@dp2404]

Mens Sana in corpore sano. He looks good for a physicist.

[@Chiller0871]

What I like is that she seems honest without coming off as a jerk.

[@wizard7314]

She definitely comes off as a jerk.

[@alexscriabin]

eh, it's difficult for female professionals to speak confidently without being heard as "jerks".

[@brawnstein]

@@alexscriabin Get your sexism out of here. There is no relation of confidence and gender. What are you on about?

[@gingervytis]

@@brawnstein Hey Mister Helper, you completely missed Sciabin's point of reference. So get your prejudice out of here.

[@brawnstein]

@@gingervytis Oh really? Telling me my interpretation of his comment is wrong without telling me the "right" interpretation. What is this, Quantum Mechanics?

[@jorgefigoeroa9545]

Sabine, you have not only an independent mind in physics which is admirable, most importantly you are demonstrating to be an honest and humble scientist.

[@DrWhom]

she is a publicist these days, has not done an iota of science in a long time, and even what she did accomplish was middling

[@shadesoul]

Sabine is like that aunt in your family that everybody dislike so you think you don't like her either. But then you grow older and you start understand that they only dislike her because she speaks things as they are. You then have a choice to make. Say things as they are or say things as you'd want them to be. And you slowly realize what choice the rest of the family made.

[@BboyKeny]

She says things as she sees it. It's still perspective, think critical is the message (also about her perspective).

[@DrWhom]

yes, that is exactly the image she seeks to project. but your story was not finished: But then, finally, you discover the skeletons in Auntie's cupboard, and realise what motivated her phoney forthrightness.

[@youtopia9357]

This is sooooo satisfying to watch. One brilliant, thought-provoking, and still humble argument followed by another one. Well done!

[@dougg1075]

YOUTOPIA don’t be so ass kiss

[@christianlingurar7085]

Yeah, let's cancel physiscs! Let's focus on what OTHERS do WRONG. In OUR opinion.

[@jamiegagnon6390]

@@christianlingurar7085 But that is exactly what you seem to be doing...

[@user-DongJ]

So does this mean that endeavors/invesments in String Theory, Super Symmetry & Grand Unified Theory are like endeavors/investments in Cold fusion, N rays, Water memory, Cure for cancer/aging, Quantum computers, Super conductors, Bringing the dead back, Search for Aliens/UFOs/Ghosts/Big-Foot, Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology, Necromancy, Voodoo, etc? Could the endeavors/investments in cure/vaccine for Covid-19 become like this too?

[@kapoioBCS]

Christian Lingurar She is trying to be edgy and cklickbaity to sell books etc , like Lee Smolin.. Which is a hypocritical, super arrogant thing and very bad for her image as a theoretical physicist. Imagine believing that the work of Witten , Green , Vafa , Seinberg etc is a waste of time! This is not how a scientist thinks.

[@radviger]

Amazing! Your videos are like a breath of a fresh air after all these semi-scientific videos about physics that do not actually demystify anything, but instead add more misunderstanding.

[@The1belal]

Your videos are so easy to follow, you have a great way of getting to the point. I look forward to all of your uploads, Thank you.

[@pdsm1552]

Oh lord I love your perspective! I just stumbled upon your channel and as someone who's just finished a phys undergrad and has decided to continue learning about physics on my own rather than through academia, since it's more of a personal curiosity thing than an academic pursuit, I love how questioning of the way physics is going you are. I am firmly held by the idea that we are roughly where classical physics was just before the discovery of quantum mechanics, and that there's either an underlying classical world waiting to be discovered (like in 't hooft's cellular automaton interpretation of QM) or that there is entirely new physics to be discovered that we have not beforehand considered. I've even started questioning the fact that we do use calculus for EVERYTHING, it just reminds me too much of the old adage that "everything looks like a nail to a man with a hammer"... Maybe there's another way to do maths and physics that doesn't start with calculus. Or maybe multiplicative type calculus would show us some new insights we haven't seen before. I don't know, and my favourite thing is that right now- probably none of us know

[@theraven6836]

Wow. That is one of the most concise and plain spoken takedowns of TofE I’ve ever heard. Thank you.

[@rbarnes4076]

Not a takedown of TofE. Not in and of itself. It is a takedown of non empirical methods used to decide where to investigate. And that is MUCH worse. My initial understanding of science still holds today. Science is propelled forward by investigating where observations don't equal predictions. Each revolution in our ability to observes tends to lead to breakthroughs in our understanding, since the inconsistencies between observations and predictions get highlighted. This is precisely what led to General Relativity.. There were many observations that didn't square with Newtonian physics (where gravity is concerned) (read about the orbital anomalies of mercury to get an idea of how this came about). Making decisions on where to look based on mathematical beauty is an inane way to do science, yet it is where many in theoretical quantum physics live right now.

[@jakebrowning2373]

@@rbarnes4076 interesting, I haven't thought about scientific breakthroughs like that before

[@alexdevisscher6784]

Sabine: "It may not be what you want to hear." Me: clicks like button.

[@sun.sneezer]

Pose See e

[@jefersonnl]

That german directness that I enjoy

[@galev3955]

That is a great quote, because it sums up the entire message of the video so nicely.

[@chanseevoon3603]

@Alex De Visscher : but she mentioned it twice :)

[@DrWhom]

so it is what you want to hear, that you are right up there with the visionary maverick!

[@georgebrucks2833]

I’m currently reading Lost in Math. It is a curious thing: I don’t understand much of the science, but I find myself snorting or even laughing out loud at your sarcasm and self-deprecating humor. What a hoot. Thanks.

[@markosullivan4095]

Thank you for that Sabine. I had never considered that there is no need of a theory of everything. Nice to have one's thoughts changed. It keeps things interesting!

[@irvingchies1626]

I loved the Wikipedia linkhole reference 🤣 So many times I've been pulled by it while reading about physics it hit a soft spot

[@ReimerGodt]

It is like learning a nearby foreign language, which 50% of irrelevantivities being understood, and rest being special craft forces's vocabulary as one-word abbreviations declaring several pages of portrait papers content.

[@nuprophett]

Thank you Sabine. Understanding your point of view on these theories is a useful lens. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[@taihaole4900]

This has got to be the most clear, sensible and convincing argument I've heard on the matter. Many thanks!

[@shangoddard1289]

Hi Sabine, iv only recently come across your channel an instantly subscribed! Your content is brilliant, presented so well & really informative. Also its always pleasant to watch educational content from an attractive, educated scientist 😊

[@SangsungMeansToCome]

Sabine reminds me of Blackadder: "There is just a tiiiiny little problem with your GUT..." "And what is that?" "IT'S BOLLOCKS!"

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Slackbladder!

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

"Baldrick where have you been??" "Sorry sir but you told me to go and lay outside in the gutter so I could wash away with the rest of the turds"

[@dosomething3]

Sabine Hassenfelder is extremely brave. We need many many more like her.

[@konstantin.v]

And stunning :D

[@mrsn3sbit888]

Simply for shitting on other peoples ideas lol

[@oceanlawnlove8109]

Yeah she's the bad bitch of physics lol

[@GonogoBonobo]

@Ron Maimon , She is a physics theorist, It would be amazing that she doesn't understand physics theory. I read her bio on wikipedia but didn't find your's... Have you some degree in physics. Did you do some research in theoretical physics?

[@GonogoBonobo]

@Ron Maimon , First sentence from wikipedia article: "Sabine Hossenfelder (born 1976)[1] is a German author and theoretical physicist who researches quantum gravity." ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder Your comment is only an egotic emotional reaction not a factual comment.

[@bertski89]

Wow - beautifully expressed and perfectly articulated set of thoughts and arguments. Great video Sabine !

[@charlieprince8671]

Thank you so much for such concise and clear explanations of such complex issues.

[@THE-X-Force]

You are honestly the only other person on Earth that I have found that thinks in this same way that I do (though you do it much better than I ever will) and I can't tell you how lucky I feel for having found your channel, and how incredibly grateful I am for all you do.

[@DrWhom]

_that you have found_ think very hard about that qualifier

[@mspoints4fre123]

Haha gotta love how blunt Germans are. "I'm not going look deeper into their theories because I do not want to waste my time".

[@RinnRua]

I don’t think you listened to Sabine carefully enough - she acknowledged the absolute necessity of the lone genius in the progress of Physic; and, from your comment , you probably don’t understand that when a German speaker say ‘I don’t want to waste my time’ this is purely factual and does not constitute a disparaging viewpoint about anything.

[@Franciscasieri]

Augusto Helmer - no Poincare and Lorentz -= no Einstein.

[@dualfluidreactor]

@se fi japanese copied german cars, so yeah

[@dualfluidreactor]

@se fi maybe you are right about current times, that currently germany has lost some competency

[@leons.8011]

@se fi Was zum Teufel

[@calrowles9790]

Thank you for this. Although I am intrigued by the possibilities of the TOE, I understand our current inability to come remotely close to testing it. You touched on the potential disconnect between Math and realty, you worded it differently, but I look at it this way; Math is a language, and it is just as capable of fiction as English or German. It is only when you can tie it to reality that you separate fact from fiction.

[@SpotterVideo]

The following proves Spinor Theory is correct. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.

[@jr8209]

I love that shirt Edit: I also appreciate your sober take on theories of everything.

[@MrKelaher]

You are so pragmatic and clear. Thank you, I have learned a great deal from you.

[@fred8174]

I read her book, it’s a great read. I highly recommend it. Thank you Sabine

[@najinsky]

This is a much more watchable Sabine than the current iteration of her I see in more recent videos. I guess I don't fully understand the role she is playing, but continuing her theme about productive use of time, I enjoyed the time spent on this one which I guess is a little compensation for the time 'wasted' on others. I don't mean to sound harsh or unkind, it's critique rather than criticism.

[@tommylee2894]

This is the third time I am watching this video. And each time I can confirm Sabine is spot on about her points and observations concerning this subject matter!

[@KurtLichtner]

"'Because it's pretty' is not a scientific answer." Thank you Sabine.

[@DrWhom]

hers is a straw man argument, you are a dupe

[@AllFlimmits]

Yes it is.

[@loochunboon1615]

A very concise overview, great stuff. 👍A much welcomed departure from the (far too many) videos on multiverse, worm holes, 11 dimensions etc etc etc...

[@shlomobeck263]

Just a few days ago I was exposed to your lectures Sabine, and my conclusion, from the present lecture, is that indeed the universe can be governed by two non-integrating theories (quantum theory and general relativity). This is my first time having the "dare" to think so. It's thanks to you Sabine. On the other hand science is based on endless curiosity without stopping and staying in an existing state “warm and comfortable”. Thus even if there is a built-in separation between the two theories, we must not stop asking questions. Even if there is no total solution that unites the two theories, still the research itself can bring very great benefit to science and hence to humanity

[@reverseview2522]

I don't think your conclusion is correct. Sabine said that it is imperative to develop a theory of quantum gravity so that the two theories are combined in a consistent way. What she said is that it is not necessary (and she does not see it happening any time soon or even ever) that the theories can be combined in a way that demonstrates a link between all the forces so that we can talk about a single force rather than many different forces. In other words, what is disputed in this video is that there is a simple and elegant theory that describes every observed phenomenon, but NOT that there is a consistent theory that describes all phenomena.

[@DrWhom]

@@reverseview2522 she is bizarrely behind the times if she believes that ToE pursue that (at least directly) and if this were the case she might have a point. so it's a straw man argument.

[@paulbloemen7256]

I once, during my working life, was an IT security manager. I looked at different kinds of risks, like data theft, process manipulation, fire in a data center. I became aware of the difference between threats and vulnerabilities, and the relationships between them. I acknowledged that successful measures had to be about organization, people and technology. And I acknowledged the value of a mix of preventive, detective, repressive and corrective measures. Finally, it was absolutely clear to me that taking measures in itself wasn’t enough, one had to test and check on a regular basis, learning from the results, adapting the security system where necessary. This all, in a clear organizational framework of the security process itself, assuring the quality of that process. Nowhere was there a need to unify the security effort, on the contrary, there was strength in diversity of aspects: what the one aspect wouldn’t do satisfactorily, the other aspect would pick up. The whole diverse framework would ensure success by flexibility. The simple problem setting was: what can go wrong, and what is effective against it? Experts from different directions provided the input necessary to be good at what we were supposed to do. So, why would physicists look for a unification theory? Sure, it would be pretty if possible, but in light of the above, this striving is just answering the wrong question. Which problems are there to be solved, with which toolset can this be done best? To me, progress would mean, a better understanding of the problems at hand, and a better toolset to tackle these problems. Whether they would be diverse or unified would be quite irrelevant. Those paying these physicists could have some influence on them, by asking to set proper goals to achieve, instead of performing in a beauty contest. Or is this standpoint just a bit too matter-of-fact, not fitting the freedom of science? My guess is, it should be possible to combine the two, conflicts about it leading to a well understood set of checks and balances, working towards a result.

[@PaulMarostica]

I like your thinking, Paul. Very comprehensive and logical. I agree with you, except that I've already invented the theory everyone says they want. I'm offering to sell it, guaranteed. What do you think of the logic of science institutions ignoring my offer to sell it to them?

[@paulbloemen7256]

@@PaulMarostica The combination of science and politics is quite a tricky one, I’m sure. On a high level, and a low level, where it even may become personal. A Dutch saying goes, lost a bit in translation: there is a difference between being right, and “getting” right (people acknowledging you are right). My solutions may not work for you, but I start mentioning them anyway. Of course I not always got my way. So I made sure the case at hand was crystal clear: problem, alternative solutions, best solution, cost benefit analysis. Complete, but as short as possible. This way, I often got my way. When not, phasing was an attractive option, trying out the easiest and most promising part first, for a fraction of the cost. The additional benefit was learning while doing so, sometimes phase 2 wasn’t even necessary. And sometimes I got a firm NO, then I looked at the risks again, looking for alternatives that, while not ideal, could at least take the pain away. I guess, the above is not applicable to you, except the first part. You must write down your solution as good as you can, it must be crystal clear, not only for you, but also for your peers. Then comes the difficult part, to be compared with marketing. The aspect I would pick out is communication channels. Contact your peers, editors, all kinds of stakeholders, defend your case. Ask feedback, and maybe you have to modify if those peers have a point. Ask them to help you to publicize you solution. It may take some time: perseverance, patience are very important. You failed? Try again, try to find alternative channels: television, KZbin. Maybe you already did all this, and a bit more, maybe you are still in the middle of it: go on! And in the end, you will succeed, or alas, not. If the latter: if you tried everything, there is no shame on you.

[@PaulMarostica]

@@paulbloemen7256 Thank you very much for your time and your wisdom. Good luck.

[@DrWhom]

natuurkundigen zijn pragmatischer dan je denkt. het past in sabine's straatje om de boel op een bepaalde manier voor te stellen, zodat ze dat dan triomfantelijk kan neersabelen. het argument van de stroman.

[@paulbloemen7256]

@@DrWhom Hartelijk dank voor de reactie! Ik heb meerdere van Sabine’s videos bekeken. Ze neemt stellig stelling, ik begrijp dat een vorm van milde overdrijving dan helpt om e.e.a. over het voetlicht te krijgen, ik neem dat dus met een korreltje zout. De boodschap in deze video was, met inachtneming van het zojuist genoemde, best wel ernstig, nu overdrijf ik even: “ze doen maar wat en gooien een boel geld over de balk, straffeloos, want wie kan hun werk nu beoordelen”? Gebrek aan resultaat hoeft geen schande te zijn, soms is het echt moeilijk. Maar goede afspraken maken over wat te doen en waarom zou wel helpen, ik kreeg niet de indruk dat daar sprake van was, maar ik kan daar volledig naast zitten, meegesleurd door Sabine’s betoog. Ik houd van evenwicht, niet alles is alleen maar slecht. Bij een andere video van haar heb ik de vraag gesteld welke belangrijke successen er de laatste 10-20 jaar in de natuurkunde geboekt zijn, ik vroeg of zij daar ook eens een video aan wilde wijden. Tot nu toe heb ik zo’n video nog niet gezien, jammer!

[@x_abyss]

Your book, "Lost in Math", is what had led me to your KZbin channel. So I know exactly what your take would be on GUT or any other theories meant to explain reality.

[@manoo422]

We need more people in Physics like you Sabine, we might actually then progress. P.S I'm liking the shirt!

[@christianlingurar7085]

no we wouldn't. that woman bothers exclusively with what OTHERS do WRONG (in HER opinion). she herself didn't contribute in any way to physics

[@johnsmith1474]

Do you have any idea how gross you seem? A lame compliment and shirtless avatar image, you are super creepy.

[@johnsmith1474]

@@christianlingurar7085 - I take it you have not read Lee Smolin's book on Hossenfelder's recommendation (one of her latest previous vids)? Physics is all about what other do wrong, and physicists themselves LOVE to have anyone point out an error. Error discovery is a key to scientific advancement.

[@tripp8833]

Maybe she could you give one! Lol...

[@manoo422]

@@johnsmith1474 Ha ha ha and you are just a pathetic troll with nothing else better to do with your sad little life. But top marks for identifying yourself to the rest of us.

[@phillipnunya6793]

I agree that "pretty" math can lead down many rabbit holes and is often based on hunches, but I think that it is possible to create a single theory that accurately predicts all aspects of reality we can observe. I don't think we are anywhere close to it, but there is no reason to think it can not be done. It is a very logical deduction.

[@DeadDinosaur]

Making a reference to the number 42 is so brilliant and fits on so many levels!

[@bukkaratsuppa6414]

Finally. I was scrolling down comments wondering who else has noticed.

[@deepaknambisan3251]

@@bukkaratsuppa6414me too

[@alexcypher4794]

You know, I'm inclined to think there's a similar problem in philosophy that has always been somewhat more general: that because something is beautiful it must be the truth. The mind is always beset and deceived by appearances.

[@tarmaque]

"The truth is beautiful, but the beautiful is not necessarily true." -Timothy Ferris

[@ktx49]

Meh. While I get your point...I think you've got it backwards. Most good scientific minds find beauty in the truth. So naturally & logically, the most attractive theories tend to be beautiful.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

We follow intuitions. Physics, is however very counter intuitive. In terms of philosophy it is also questionable whether any ultimate course to truth is aimed for, then anything can be beautiful...largely conclusions are unknowables. ...except why compete, with artists, thats their job to make beautiful things no regard to truth. Thing is philosophy is a lot more humancentric. Hence it may actually bear some relevence to "create meanings" rather than "observe truths".

[@Franciscasieri]

We are pattern seeking primates.

[@deepparikh]

Once again clear and concise argument in favor of non-emotional physics. Love it. Please also shed some light on delayed choice quantum eraser double slit etc etc experiment. It has truly boggled my mind.

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

Double slit experiment will remain unexplainable as long as the idea about the photon will exist. Light is a phenomen, like are shadows, space and time, love and many other things. It is made of nothing physically existing. More about that will be in one of my future books.

[@Jehannum2000]

Perhaps look at this for a different take on the quantum eraser: transactionalinterpretation.org/2019/05/05/the-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser-neither-erases-nor-delays/

[@deepparikh]

@@Jehannum2000 Thanks for the reference. I'm checking it out.

[@dlevi67]

@@jurisbogdanovs1 Go ahead and explain the photoelectric effect (or lasers) in another way then. I'll wait for your published paper, but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[@jurisbogdanovs1]

@@dlevi67 Photoelectric effect is much easier explainable if there are no photons. This simply is a charge. And similarly to electricity in wires, it can only work if electeic charge is steonger than the resistence of the gjven material. And if you don't hold your breath, I am sure I will get over that...

[@crowlsyong]

I'm here from your talk with PBS Spacetime. Just found your channel. Super excited!

[@lousimms4766]

You're wonderful! You're so specific and concise it is delightfully refreshing. You treat us like adults, and I understand so much more because of it. I always felt as if what's the point in unification? Is it just to because it's pretty? And here my suspicions are confirmed. I feel we may be causing a disservice to mankind and to science by placing this great pressure on ourselves to describe the universe in 1 short theory of which all forces and physical phenomena can be derived from. If it ends up being that way, cool. If not, we shouldn't try to make it so! Awesome video and explanation!

[@dennisdonovan4837]

When Sabine was uttering “Lisi , Weinstein and Wolfram …” - I couldn’t help but think about that scene in “The Wizard Of Oz” when Dorothy goes skipping down the yellow-brick-road saying “Lions - Tigers - and Bears, oh my!” ❤️😂❤️

[@krisspkriss]

Love your videos. Keep them coming. Keep challenging everything and everyone.

[@kkrishna6001]

Very decent and most reasonable argument. Never lose sight of the progress and application. Cheers

[@gabeisawesome879]

I saw a channel focusing on wolfram's supposed TOE and was struggling to get a read on whether or not it was BS. You're the only physics channel I trust that had anything at all to say about it

[@Phoenixspin]

Here's my theory: Everything in the Universe is aligned against me.

[@jeremylee48]

This theory worked for me too. I think we’ve discovered GUT man

[@user-tq6hj8bh9y]

The opposite sounds more logical.

[@dualfluidreactor]

Here is the universe speaking: you are right on that one

[@shoujahatsumetsu]

There is no easy mode in the Universe game. No cheat codes. You can blame the Universe, blame other people, or you can get up and do something about it.

[@pcdsgh]

I doubt it. I think your body is simply inconsistent with the second law of motion at high energies. Shall we test it out? The experiment will greatly benefit society, so I'll provide the truck.

[@keistzenon9593]

Sabine is a great communicator, I would recommend her to friends who are interested in physics. It's odd to imagine that a a whole discipline of particularly promising minds dedicate large amounts of their potential to a these complex topics, and it all might be a giant waste. If this is true, then lets hope that this gets rectified soon enough.

[@x.0726]

Never afraid.. truthful and so so confident in her believes.. lot of respect!

[@enlightedjedi]

Thanks for the video, Sabine!

[@agreen182]

Thank you for the opening explanation, I finally understand what is even being discussed now. I've seen Eric present his theory, and he always does it as if everyone already knows the basics, so I'm lost from minute one.

[@Kelberi]

7:07 Brian greene comes to mind and then........ ouch Sabine you are a breath of fresh air in this oneupmanship era.

[@rfichokeofdestiny]

Sean Carroll bugs me a lot too.

[@NICEFINENEWROBOT]

@@rfichokeofdestiny These scientists are wizards on the stage. They constantly go from one supposition to the next "proven fact" and you don't just see how they manage this jump. "... a hundred billion galaxies ... were squeezed into a region about this big (shows one and a half inch between fingers)- literally, at early times..."

[@josephjohnson3738]

Sabine is quite the special modern physicist. No doubt about it. And a great fashion icon. She dominates in many fields.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Sabine, you are a treasure. An absolute treasure. Thank you for what you do.

[@armandos.rodriguez6608]

Very good point of view,don’t waste money on nonesense,but for practical purposes that can help us progress for us all. Thanks for looking out for all of us in these endeavors.

[@gilbertengler9064]

Very very good all your contributions! I loved your book: “lost in math”. But unifying the 3 forces seems a correct strategy and shows that unifying is a tendency followed by nature. But when you go beyond our universe and before the big-bang, I think only math may bring us closer to reality; experiments become virtually impossible.

[@theotryhard8651]

I think the point is that how can we say something is reality if we can’t observe it? We can’t, reality is defined as what we can observe.

[@reshalfahsi]

She reminds me of my mom, the way she talks makes my mind calm as the argument that being conveyed is remarkably astonishing.

[@Franciscasieri]

Like my mom, the way her low voice comforted us, the careful choice of words, always thinking before she spoke, never gaslit anything... Does that sound like a fictional mother? You bet your sweet patunias.

[@deanbuss1678]

SABINE, you rock ! Literally and figuratively. I understand and agree with everything you point out in this video!👍🤘🤘🤘

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

Great analysis. We need more scientists like you. Though Wall Thornhill and his theories are an outcast in the scientific community, he values you a lot because you can think critically and you are not afraid to say it out loud.

[@robmorgan1214]

Weinstein may not have a theory of everything but his theory about the culture problem in physics and other institutions (aks disc) as well as lee smolin's trouble with physics and your ideas about getting lost in the math are addressing something very important that's causing widespread academic stagnation. Thanks for keeping up the pressure. Also, please do a video on Quantum Darwinism if you have the chance. I'd like to hear your perspective on this subject as well as any thoughts you may have on the recent progress related to quantum discord.

[@domcasmurro2417]

Eric Weinstein is the typical hypocrite coward, who loves to pretend that poor leftist college kids, with debts in the order of hundreds of billions, are the major threat to mankind. Meanwhile you never heard a word coming from his dirty mouth about the real struggles of the people. His opinions are relevant only to the alt right and eugenists. I assume you are one of them, since you support the social ideas of that filthy excuse of a human being.

[@tonyharding4794]

@Dom lol. Weinstein rejects IQ as a valid measure.

[@allenroisen2386]

@@domcasmurro2417 you know it's rhetoric like yours that begins to give credence to his thoughts. Not like anyone anywhere in academia really cares about the "real" problems of people. Nor do any of us. If we did, we'd be in Haiti or Zimbambwe helping others rather than getting into youtube comment arguments 😅

[@robmorgan1214]

@@domcasmurro2417 I'm not certain we're talking about the same person. Both Eric (a mathematician) and his brother Bret (an evolutionary biologist... pretty much the opposite of eugenics) are PROGRESSIVES. The basic beliefs being universal human rights, meritocracy, scientific ethics, freedom of speech, pro limited social safety net, anti war, pro environment, anti authoritarian etc. (aka from a conservative perspective the basic mark1 hippy: tree hugging, peace loving, tolerance spouting, pot toking, granola munching, crazy haired radicals...). The basic stuff codified by the enlightenment (...and...well that other long haired Jewish hippy: jesus), and until recently, propagated through the liberal arts in the university system that they believe has been infiltrated by resentful illiberal authoritarian leftists...the kind orwell warns about in animal farm. Guys who don't like people being able to advance the sort of ideas that let you safely question the powerful and the psychopaths and narcissists who crave power and use manipulation and political correctness to take it. The barbarians that have broken through the gates and are currently metastasizing through our corporate and civic institutions. See Evergreen or chaz/chop for a master class on the destructive power of this game theoretically unstable ideology. It's Nash equilibrium is somewhere between dumpster fire and nuclear waste in terms of its ability to contaminate and depopulate/destroy social habitats. The systen of enlightenmnet values that both of these brothers have dedicated their lives to defending represents an existential threat to fascism, communism, marxism, maoism, neoliberalism and other autocratic totalitarian and plutocratic economic or government systems. Eugenics is the literal antithesis of their belief system. Eugenics is an unstable unethical borderline psychopathic system of thought that countenances and was used to justify some of the most horrible atrocities committed by the Nazis! Many of the Weinstein's relatives parished as a result of this ideology. I can assure you that they are not supporters of eugenics. Opposition to the type of fascism that nurtures thus ideology is probably one of the few things that could actually motivate them and those of like mind to physical violence or armed conflict. Harvey Weinstein (no relation to Bret and Eric) was a friend and at times, co conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein who was among other things a psychopath, pedophile, serial rapist, AND eugenicist. You've got a pretty huge case of mistaken identity going on here.

[@tiagorodrigues3730]

@@domcasmurro2417 But Weinstein doesn't think that the major threat to mankind are poor college kids, but their professors who teach them to believe that the world owes them a six-figure salary for their gender studies degrees instead. And if they manage to make Ivy League Universities in the US become similar to Brazilian public Universities like UnB, UFF and USP, then I think that Weinstein's fears are *very* well-founded.

[@m1lkweed]

"My brain after reading Wolfram" Exactly

[@devin8656]

I'm glad I stumbled across this video today. Just recently I had went on a rant to my wife about my frustration with string theory and the resources pursuit of it consumes while producing little in the way of results. In my opinion, it is, as of this point, purely flight of fancy. My poor wife doesn't have much of a scientific background so she was a bit confounded but I appreciated her listening to my tirade nonetheless. :D I would be as thrilled as anyone if the realities of the physical world turned out to be as beautiful as they are complex; however, this does not mean that we should search avenues simply because of their beauty. The unbridled search for beauty can easily lead us astray from ever uncovering the truth we set out to discover. The zeal with which some scientists search for beauty defies one of the core tenets of the scientific method in that hypotheses that show no evidence must be discarded or at least modified. (Usually heavily so.) As you mention in the video I am also for scientists searching for these things on their own, but when large amounts of resources and thought capital are dedicated to longstanding theories with which no proof has ever being experimentally obtained progress stalls unnecessarily and irreparably.

[@dennismajor1]

You are correct 'time' is extremely valuable and not to be wasted. So how to know if someone is worth spending time with and listening to? IMO it first centre's around the act of determining as best you can - does that person demonstrate that they have a functioning moral core that as a prerequisite is largely independent of their ego? That can usually be determined by investing a few hours of listening closely for indicators. One such indicator is showing empathy and understanding for those you disagree with at a fundamental level. Also, not willing to be seduced by beauty when you are enamoured of beauty (musical beauty) indicates someone who is well centred, grounded and clear headed. And so I give you what I feel is my most valuable possession. Thank you for taking the time to educate us.

[@stevencuadra2133]

It was a great explanation and certanly a very interesting point of view. I think she is one of the greatest explaneir I ever listened to.

[@61Ldf]

The mess started in 1927 with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanic when measurement was made a “special” interaction.

[@lambecolin]

Beautiful explanations and completely on point.

[@romanovrex]

Thank you Sabine, it's great to hear your clear and reasonable perspective. I cannot help throwing in my very humble thoughts ... 1 Someone attempting to construct a TOE must have the presumption that the world is consistent, and this is more an article of faith. 2 All theories are firstly a construction of language signs, which are a particular artefact of the human brain in its attempt to communicate with others of the same kind. There is no reason why our sign system should ever be able explain reality exactly.

[@____uncompetative]

1. Incorrect. Wolfram does have this presumption. His hypergraph contains within it multiple disjoint regions which are consistent. 2. Incorrect. Wolfram takes an approach that is beyond human language.

[@Jorge-ru9ek]

I'd love to watch a video of Sabine explaining quantum entanglement and the so called "spooky action at a distance" and the paradox that is supposed to create.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I did a video about this here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oGewqGaVqbSWhKs

[@nickknight5373]

@@SabineHossenfelder Yes, well, youtube should implement a search function.

[@Jorge-ru9ek]

@@SabineHossenfelder oh my bad haha thanks!

[@a.randomjack6661]

@@nickknight5373 If you go to a channels main page by clicking on it's name like hers : kzbin.info/door/1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw there is a looking glass at the far right where you can search that channel for any specific topic.

[@bhangrafan4480]

The thing that has shocked me most watching top physicists interviewed on KZbin etc. is the very poor grasp these people have of the relationship between Maths and Physics. When I was a student I found this very confusing, in fact it was the main problem which blocked my progress in learning Physics. Years later after I graduated in Biochemistry I turned to a study of the foundations of Mathematics as a hobby being still very much bugged by this confusion. I discovered that during the late 19th and 20th century mathematicians had established a very clear understanding of what mathematics is and how it works. The nature of maths and its relationship to Physics and other natural sciences was in fact quite clear. However today I find people with Nobel prizes espousing Platonist ideas about maths and equating Maths and Physics as part of the same thing. They even confuse mathematical 'truth' (a purely logically defined status, RATIONALISM) with scientific truth, something which is never fully achieved only approximated to and based on the empirical tests of theories (EMPIRICISM). I find it difficult to understand how people who have such proficiency in the application of Maths have such a poor idea of the difference between the purely logical, rational and linguistic on the one hand and the world of real natural phenomena on the other. The way I put it is they confuse a drawing of a house with a house and believe the two equivalent.

[@antoniomaglione4101]

A pure mathematician will produce a new theory or construction, without caring if it matches any structure in the real world of physics. I'm sceptic of math purists, but sometime they have a point, because a new mathematical reasoning structure could contain some potential breakthroughs.

[@skyworm8006]

It's lack of philosophical education and critical thinking. They are essentially specialised cultists. Today the most progress to be made in both physics and mathematics is likely philosophical, namely clarifying foundations and allowing for better understanding of how and what results from them.

[@user-DongJ]

So does this mean that endeavors/invesments in String Theory, Super Symmetry & Grand Unified Theory are like endeavors/investments in Cold fusion, N rays, Water memory, Cure for cancer/aging, Quantum computers, Super conductors, Bringing the dead back, Search for Aliens/UFOs/Ghosts/Big-Foot, Creationism, Alchemy, Astrology, Necromancy, Voodoo, etc? Could the endeavors/investments in cure/vaccine for Covid-19 become like this too?

[@bhangrafan4480]

@@skyworm8006 It's important but as you hint the problem is a lack of transmission of what is known and communication between specialisms.

[@bhangrafan4480]

@@antoniomaglione4101 The mathematician should not need to worry about applications because often no one knows what some mathematical structure will turn out to be useful for. Who would have guessed that fractals would be useful in non-linear dynamics etc. The mathematician is providing a smorgasbord of intellectual structures and techniques which the scientist and engineer can choose from. The more variety the better in a way. That is not to say that applied mathematicians are not needed to hammer away at recognised problems.

[@williambunting803]

I like hearing people describing their concepts as much for enjoying and admiring their logic and creativity as for the thoughts they invoke in my mind. Their ideas give me a platform to test my own ideas against. This is all part of a search for knowledge that spans our entire lives, and is the most fulfilling part of my existence, other than family and personal relationships, which will continue till I die. All science in all fields that is sincerely undertaken and not fraudulent should be funded, this is the core of our civilisation, but the exploration of how energy creates everything is the greatest detective story ever undertaken.

[@adammatthews7113]

So I am an a very pivotal time in my life of starting my first career. And focusing on anything less than everything is not my strong suit. Soooo. I’m at the fork in the road of social work, therapy, politics, and computer science and I am dead split on them all. Delusional even about whether I can commit to multiple focuses in the same time. I’ve thought this theory of everything could be amazing one day, because most things in this life are interconnected, from how we think individually to in a society to the behavior of the governing forces. I think we could come up with myriad new theories about American society and how fucked it is currently. But so far I’m just I’m creating a very tough future for myself at 25. All I really wanted to say was how much I enjoyed hearing you say “I’m not interested in looking closer, because I don’t want to waste my time” and, well, I respect you very much. So, this was comforting to hear as I seek to ignore many of my interests for focus in a couple.

[@tintirinao]

"Nature doesn't give a damn"

[@vturiserra]

Without a theory of everything, I've had quite a pleasant life so far.

[@julsius]

Another theory of everything was Einstein's relativity. And before him everything was great just with Newton. And before Newton everything was great with Galileo and so on and so on. Everything is always just great so let's not try making any theories at all.

[@freshbakedclips4659]

@@julsius Before these "scientific" theories came into existence, we have sorcery, mysticism, and supernatural abilities that anyone can do with diligent practice and learning. Nature's logic/laws can be bent so that people can perform unnatural things they now called miracle. Everything in the past are more interesting than today. It's like we're limiting and narrowing nature down to the point of restricting its abilities and powers. There are some truth from the quote "Ignorance is a bliss"

[@freshbakedclips4659]

Before these "scientific" theories came into existence, we have sorcery, mysticism, and supernatural abilities that anyone can do with diligent practice and learning. Nature's logic/laws can be bent, allowing people to perform unnatural things which they used to call "miracles." It's like we're limiting and narrowing down nature's true abilities and powers, restricting its full potential for us to harness. Everything in the past are more interesting than today. There are some truth from the quote "Ignorance is a bliss."

[@DrWhom]

@@julsius things were not so great for old hags who kept to themselves before the enlightenment came

[@christopherchilton-smith6482]

This is what makes you my hero. I am someone who grew up on the streets and is almost entirely self taught (patch-work education) as such I rely heavily on heuristics. It's nice to be grounded after having figures like Brian Greene fill my head with flights of fancy.

[@zaviermiller8980]

Love your videos, keep up the amazing work ‼️‼️

[@stayinthepursuit8427]

Curiosity vs Fantasy go hand in hand but people tend to get lost in them

[@irfanmehmud63]

Recently I have read in Paul Davies's book, "The Mind of God": "It is widely believed among scientists that beauty is a reliable guide to truth, and many advances in theoretical physics have been made by the theorist demanding mathematical elegance of a new theory. Sometimes, where laboratory tests are difficult, these aesthetic criteria are considered even more important than experiment. Einstein, when discussing an experimental test of his theory of general relativity, was once asked what would he do if the experiment didn't agree with the theory. He was unperturbed at the prospect. "So much worse for the experiment", he retorted."The theory is right!". Paul Dirac, the theoretical physicist whose aesthetic deliberations led him to construct a mathematically more elegant equation for the electron, which then lead to successful prediction of existence of antimatter, echoed these sentiments when he judged that "it is more important to have beauty in one's equation than to have them fit experiment". (p.174-175) So why, then, genius scientists of the past thought mathematical beauty as a guide?

[@mksensej8701]

Being smart does not mean they can't be arrogant.

[@irfanmehmud63]

@@mksensej8701 But their arrogance worked!

[@SweatySockGaming]

Maybe they were confident in their theories because it resolved some inconsistencies?

[@Solid_Brownies]

Thing is the experiments did agree with them. If they hadn't they'd be a footnote in physics.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

Maybe they just got lucky, and subsequently fell prey to hubris?

[@marxug1]

The search for the theory of everything will someday be remembered much as we remember the medieval search for the philosopher’s stone.

[@jamessmith9786]

I find it entertaining to have Sabine around.

[@oceanlawnlove8109]

"and who am I to judge them?" Aww

[@NLB90805]

Love how Sabine can be critical of Scientist in general, but then she isn't judging any true Scientist. If somehow someone can absolutely prove their theory, give them a Nobel Prize. She's more critical on the wasting of resources which are often misguided by governments and lobbyists!

[@foxkanga]

I like the comment: "In physics, breakthroughs in theory development have come instead from the resolution of mathematical inconsistencies" --- For my understanding it would be really great to have a list of examples of this.

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I go through this in most of my public lectures. Special relativity resolves the inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Gallilean invariance. General relativity resolves the inconsistency between special relativity and Newtonian gravity. The Dirac equation and quantum field theory resolve the inconsistency between the early formulations of quantum mechanics and special relativity. The Higgs boson resolves unitarity violation. Electroweak unification resolves non-renormalizability.

[@kwanarchive]

@@SabineHossenfelder What are real inconsistencies that remain (I guess quantum gravity), and what looks to be the most promising to be solved in the near future (I guess not quantum gravity)?

[@johnsmith1474]

@Bertrand de Born - You are utterly clueless, I suggest you start with HS physics and work your way back to reality. These physics comment areas always have a knucklehead like you who acts as though they know why all of modern knowledge is wrong. You remind of William Lane Craig.

[@eelcohoogendoorn8044]

​@@thealienrobotanthropologis8276 I dont think that is true. For you to prove your claim, you merely have to point out such an inconsistency. Then you can say later 'look, this is what the new theory resolves'. Well; what is there to resolve, other than aesthetic objections, like there being 'too many' different forces?

[@foxkanga]

@@SabineHossenfelder Thanks, I found your public lectures and the corresponding sections towards the end.

[@algorithminc.8850]

A video to share with others who want to discuss their TOE. Well stated and respectful. I enjoy some of your music about it too. Sincere thanks. Cheers.

[@henrybednarski2491]

Love it! One of your very best videos! I think all these very bright TOE physicists want to recapture Einstein's thunder and glory when GR was proven correct after the 1919 eclipse. But, my bet is that most future progress in physics will come from experiments and data collection within the realm of astrophysics. Data first!

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

We need a proper theory of everything so that we can finally put a lid on the subject and do some star trekking across the universe already.

[@LKRaider]

Richard Alleman buy a vr device

[@erebology]

Warp drive would make passengers age super quickly, but understanding it leads to a structure that unifies all four Dark forces at different scales.

[@stardolphin2]

You seem to assume that either: 1. Having such a theory would enable 'star trekking across the universe,' (it may also show it to be impossible) or... 2. That we won't find a way to do it, in *spite* of not having a ToE (we might find the necessary physics to do what you want, *before* figuring out how it all fits together, and it just becomes one more piece of the already messy puzzle).

[@CuriousOldMan]

When I see her I mentally picture a Venn diagram with one circle being very smart and the other being great communicator. She resides in the overlapping intersection. Many people are one or the other...precious few are both.

[@jorgepeterbarton]

Unfortunately most the world run by the second circle, not the overlap. Because even smart communicators cant reach the pathologically stupid (average?) Person. If no one was outside the first circle we may not need the second one. Although various smart people dont know physics, and i believe could contribute even if more philosophically (politically? Ontologically?) like Sabine is here.

[@DrWhom]

she does not reside there

[@Alkis05]

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. We will soon have some larger particle accelerators. Hopefully we will start finding some new particles. But more likely than not, it will only be useful for understanding better the ones that we already know, like the higg's bosson.

[@jeffmorris5802]

This channel is criminally underrated.

[@FirasSawaf]

I must be missing something but perhaps someone could please explain: by these arguments wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory and Kepler's refinements have also been useless/waste of time/resources because they did not "solve" any problem in preexisting theories? As a matter of fact, Ptolemy's epicycles gave much more accurate predictions of planetary motion.

[@calebcassell3628]

Her argument here is not so much that these proposed theories are inherently useless, but rather that they should not be the primary focus of publicly funded research (i.e. building larger particle colliders)

[@DrWhom]

@@calebcassell3628 because she could not get a job at these places!

[@ristopaasivirta9770]

I have developed a theory of pancakes. My life is set.

[@apophisxo4480]

The exact position and velocity of my fork can never truly be known when eating, but it appears that pancake, butter, and maple syrup are inextricably bound by gustatory forces and inexorably attracted to my gullet!!!! --Dr. Fat Bastard

[@stardolphin2]

Are waffles consistent with it...?

[@smellymala3103]

I hope this theory doesn’t fall flat 😅

[@tarmaque]

@@stardolphin2 You can eat out on the porch.

[@hipphipphurra77]

What predictions do you have for us?

[@Markph7]

Dr. Sabine, I love your honesty, logic, and dedication to the scientific method. I just stumbled onto your channel after a deep dive into String Theory. Thanks for explaining in this video and other videos how beautiful math does not make a theory scientific and our emotional leaps and attachments to our theories don’t carry science forward. Shame on NSF, NASA, and everyone else funding String Theory and the multiverse research based on romance and convincing salesmen

[@paulwharton1850]

I think you're fabulous ! Looove watching your videos. Many thanks.....all the way from London.

[@saarangsahasrabudhe8634]

Thank you for your service. When I was a part of Weinstein's discord group, that's exactly what I wanted to say. The trouble was, I had no clue what Weinstein's theory of Geometric Unity is, at least not in plain English.

[@jamesu3816]

His theory of everything is garbled nonsense and borders on a conspiracy theory when he blames the physics community for not researching it because they are elitist, especially with no evidence. Which is why weinstein has never published a paper on geometric unity and has instead just done youtube talks on Joe rogan and his little brothers podcast.

[@octavioavila6548]

His Geometric Unity is basically about teleporting to other galaxies

[@rfichokeofdestiny]

This view seems correct to me as well. As a software engineer, I appreciate the beauty of elegant solutions. But sometimes a problem and its solution are just inherently ugly and that’s that. 🤷‍♂️

[@tristanband4003]

I think you hit the nail on the head; the only thing that matters in any field in science is: A) does the model accurately describe and predict what is being observed, B) is it derived from repeatable observations and experimentation? Even theoretical physics, to be any good, needs to be built on experimental physics. The quest for beauty must give way to a quest for the truth, whatever it may be. And it may turn out the universe isn't actually symmetrical.

[@mahoneytechnologies657]

Gut! There are people like you who still are willing to think outside the Pack! Einstein, Feynman, Fermi, Bohr, Freeman, and Maxwell, to name a few, all have a smile on their faces as they look down on our world because of people like Sabine.

[@jusiphstolin8074]

Based Sabine blackpilling Eric Weinstein and his crackpotry

[@pedrolmlkzk]

Why does 4chan love sabine?

[@jusiphstolin8074]

4chan hates fake people. In this age of advertisement driven science, Sabine is an exception

[@pedrolmlkzk]

@@jusiphstolin8074 based and well put

[@71sephiroth]

4:47 now that I finally understand what do you mean by 'beauty in physics', I feel a bit scared... greetings from Bosnia!

[@christianlingurar7085]

this is not at all correct and exists only in the mind of Ms. Hossenfelder. don't get this wrong, this is a youtube channel for clicks, this is not a physics science program. she is fighting windmills and bases all her efforts on three hated people. there are no "many other people" like she says. and those three are OUT of the academic world. (she e g does never mention penrose... :-) and he goes only after beauty and harmony)

[@71sephiroth]

​@@christianlingurar7085 I can't see she is biased since, after all, she explained that there is also a possibility that 'they might be right' which implies that 'she might be wrong'. I'll leave you with a nice quote from Richard Hamming: 'In science if you know what you are doing you should not be doing it. In engineering if you do not know what you are doing you should not be doing it.'

[@antoniomaglione4101]

Math is more than mere science; like music and other arts, is an advanced form of communication, which doesn't use words, for the exchange of highly complex concepts. Music allow the communication of deep emotions, math allow to communicate the inner workings of the Universe, where words doesn't work. Math is like any other form of art; once you know symbols and methods, you can easily evaluate any beauty in them.

[@Newtube_Channel]

When people bring in terms like beauty, this is all in the eye of the beholder. Totally unscientific and open to interpretation.

[@LuisManuelLealDias]

@@christianlingurar7085 wth are you babbling about? She's clearly annoyed at string theory and the bazillion of work hours and tax paid money it wasted in the physics departments.

[@juniatamc]

Vor vielleicht 2 Jahren habe ich Ihren Vortrag in Mainz gehört, und ich kann gar nicht ausdrücken, wieviel Hochachtung ich empfinde. Niemals könnte ich mich in die Forschung anderer Physiker so tief einarbeiten, um so kritisch zu sein. Dazu gehört außer einem scharfen Verstand sehr viel Mut.

[@johnrendle1303]

Sabine is simply brilliant- opinionated but logical, critical but fair and actually very humble in a non false modest manner. Inspiring.