Does beauty deceive physics? | Michio Kaku, Sabine Hossenfelder, Max Tegmark, Juan Maldacena

Come and see Micho Kaku and Sabine Hossenfelder LIVE next weekend at HowTheLightGetsIn London (23rd-24th September). They'll be debating topics from the Standard Model to gravity and time, at the world's largest philosophy and music festival.
Get tickets here: howthelightgetsin.org/festiva...
Sabine Hossenfelder, Michio Kaku, Juan Maldacena and Max Tegmark debate beauty, fantasy, faith, and physics.
We think that we pursue the sciences solely for knowledge and truth. But is this a mistake? Untestable ideals like beauty have been baked into theories throughout the history of science. Paul Dirac, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, proclaimed "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment." And recently, Roger Penrose described string theory as a 'fashion', quantum physics as a 'faith', and cosmic inflation a as 'fantasy', arguing that scientists suffer from the very same prejudices that affect the rest of us.
Do we pursue science for a pure desire for the truth? Or should we accept that some beliefs, especially in the foundations of physics, are akin to religious beliefs dressed in mathematical language to give our theories meaning? Or would seeing science as simply another theology undermine the field and the progress made over the past few centuries?
#michiokaku #sabinehossenfelder #physics
00:00 Introduction
03:06 Michio Kaku pitch
06:22 Sabine Hossenfelder pitch
08:32 Max Tegmark
11:07 Juan Maldacena
13:34 Is beauty more important than experimental data?
23:36 Are some assumptions in physics akin to religious tenets?
47:37 Will physics be undermined by untestable criteria?
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist and science communicator who researches quantum gravity. She is the author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray.
Michio Kaku has spent his career inspired by the search for a grand unifying theory of everything - carrying on Einstein’s quest to unite the four fundamental forces of nature. His latest book is Quantum Supremacy.
Juan Maldacena is the Carl P. Feinberg Professor in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study. Due to his field-defining contributions to the foundations of string theory and quantum gravity, Leonard Susskind has called him “the greatest theoretical physicist of his generation.”
Max Tegmark is a pioneering physicist, cosmologist, computer scientist, philosopher, and public intellectual based at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tegmark is the author of Our Mathematical Universe, which argues that reality is fundamentally a mathematical structure.
Hosted by Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Professor of Religion and Science in Society at Wesleyan University.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Next weekend, Micho Kaku and Sabine Hossenfelder will be coming to speak at HowTheLightGetsIn London (23rd-24th September). Come and see them live, debating topics from the Standard Model to gravity and time, at the world's largest philosophy and music festival. Get tickets here: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?KZbin&

[@RWin-fp5jn]

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

[@bobwilson7684]

the inconsistency is in our heads- that was great

[@niblick616]

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

[@oajillbennett5934]

❤

[@colinbrash]

I have an idea for another video: put Sabine and Michio together to talk about what they agree on! I’d watch the whole 10 seconds!

[@SirContent]

[@caveman3592]

😂😂

[@CFLsurfr]

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

[@mickrivard8344]

Team Sabine!

[@gabor6259]

Sabine was the only one who respected the 2-minute mark every time. She's also the most based.

[@Thomas-gk42]

She talks the less, but says the most.

[@ArmanddesEsseintes-ry7vv]

Germans.

[@kundakaps]

Sabine is the physicist for the conservative-type mob.

[@BenjaminGoose]

the most biased how?

[@GhostInPajamas]

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

[@CAThompson]

Hossenfelder & Kaku both on board, I should've made popcorn for this.

[@Gredosh]

That was so awkward. I have second hand embarrassment.

[@jamjam3448]

😂 😂 😂

[@chekote]

I love watching Sabine’s expression wherever Micho speaks 😂

[@donavenmusic]

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

[@niblick616]

Why would any rational person care about what you say?

[@niblick616]

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

[@discomallard69]

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

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Sabine😂 trying to casually hide her outrage against Kaku's claims with German self-control 😂 so funny to see

[@atmanbrahman1872]

@@SRCX.ClimateResearch I love me some physics drama

[@ronaldrussel1158]

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

[@amihart9269]

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

[@CAThompson]

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

[@CJFCarlsson]

Teutonic fury, eh?

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

I believe that Sabine can defeat me in any "try not to laugh" challenge

[@zwigoma2]

😂😂😂

[@CAThompson]

That woman is made of far sterner matter than we.

[@niblick616]

And?

[@robertlamantin5088]

The first speech of Michio Kaku, saying that you can't critic a theory if you don't bring up a better one at the same time, is a joke : so, if you don't like a movie, you can't tell nor explain why, unless you're a movie maker ? In a restaurant, you can't dislike a plate because you're not a cook yourself ? And if you're not a writer, you have to love bad books ? That's a really poor statement.

[@user-ej9hi3gm9f]

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

[@musicbro8225]

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

[@whitemakesright2177]

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

[@Doozy_Titter]

Michio Kaku just does marketing for his books at this point, he is like a robot or sth 😂

[@JCO2002]

Same ilk as Avi Loeb. Click-bait science.

[@EscapismPinball]

The time has come for him to shut up

[@Gjoa1906]

Dream peddler..

[@abdouabdel-rehim8537]

I think it is not fair to have Sabine vs other 3 physicists who follow these ideas of mathematical beauty. I don’t think it is true that the cosmological constant was added to make the equations more elegant. It was added to avoid a practical problem that Einstein thought exist with his initial equation.

[@arctic_haze]

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

[@abdouabdel-rehim8537]

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

[@logielleEntiopya]

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

[@bikewriter0154]

Micho is the world's brightest used car salesman, except that he does not have to sell cars to make a living. The secret to being a good string theorist is to know how to get grand money year after year, which Is Micho's forte.

[@antrikshluthra6599]

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

[@jelaninoel]

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

[@devalapar7878]

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

[@stoppernz229]

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

[@alexpavalok430]

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

[@-Gorbi-]

The key to physics is moving on from the String Theory cul-de-sac, it’s been 40 years guys

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

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

[@-Gorbi-]

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

[@purelife8559]

Consciousness as primary is what's next

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

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

[@bryck7853]

@@dmitrysamoilov5989 keep searching for phlogiston and aether?

[@jamesmiller4184]

Max puts real heart and love into his physics.

[@mycount64]

if someone believes in a theory... they likely will call it beautiful. So, the question is: What comes first? Do we like beautful things or do we find beauty in things we like?

[@JarodM]

The answer is both, in no specific order.

[@fred_2021]

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

[@RKPT9]

Watching this signifies one of the issues I believe continues to plague the scientific community is certain individuals that feels the need to grandstand and take up much of the oxygen in the room. They also focus and control much of the means by which funding is distributed.

[@techteampxla2950]

Thank you iAi - so excited when I saw this Topic and great Team to talk about it!

[@xyzero1682]

Sabine calls out String Theory Cultists as "staring a a pretty wall and getting nowhere". Immediately after, Micho shows his wall and how pretty it is, and magically thinking of how the wall will disappear one day.

[@erggish]

Noone of the participants gave the magnificent answer from Feynman on whether there's a GUT or not... Putting in a simple words, Feynman's answer was along "I don't care. if there is so be it, if there is not so be it again. I don't care, and I like it that I don't care. In the meantime I enjoy searching".

[@Kastled5]

Maldacena's first "2 minutes" was brilliant.

[@whitemakesright2177]

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

[@jp7152]

Thks, Great conversation!!! Damm beauty, Always in the middle Of things!

[@viditpanigrahi9190]

Juan is such a pleasure to listen!

[@rastysalam17]

Thank you very much for this

[@fc-qr1cy]

in all honesty, this would be my perfect panel for such question.. LOVE this conversation.

[@Blueberryminty]

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

[@andrewmoonbeam321]

Sabine always happy to be there as usual.

[@CAThompson]

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

[@fadingintent]

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

[@CAThompson]

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

[@whitemakesright2177]

The least miserable German

[@Eric-zo8wo]

0:39: 🔬 The debate explores the relationship between science, faith, and physics, questioning whether some assumptions in physics are akin to religious beliefs. 5:28: 🤔 Is mathematical beauty a guide to truth? 11:06: 💡 Mathematical and physical consistency are guides to truth in fundamental theory. 15:21: 😊 The power of generalization in physics theory lies in its ability to describe a lot of data with minimal information, allowing for new predictions and discoveries. 20:34: ! The video discusses the inconsistency between special relativity and the Schrodinger equation, and how string theory was proposed as a solution. 25:14: 🌌 Dark matter may be a presence of supersymmetry, which is a legitimate physical symmetry of the universe according to String Theory. 30:14: ✅ The fact that some predictions of a theory can't be tested does not make the theory non-scientific as long as it predicts other testable things. 34:54: ✨ The speaker believes that gravity should be unified with other forces and that there is evidence for the unification of couplings in gauge theories. 39:23: 🔬 String Theory is a theory under construction that has had successes in understanding perturbation theory and certain spacetimes, but is not yet complete and cannot describe certain situations like the beginning of the universe. 44:18: 🔬 String theory has a double identity, one as a theory of gravity and the other as a theory of ordinary matter, but it also presents the landscape problem of potentially infinite universes. 49:18: 🔬 Progress is being made in the development of string theory based on consistency and exploring new ideas from other areas of physics. Recap by Tammy AI

[@jantonisito]

Love the way Sabine is giving Michie a Dirty Harry stare

[@nickallbritton3796]

That closing statement by Sabine was incredible. I've come to almost the same philosophy at this point in my education, and that's the direction I will probably start to take my research in my career. In the meantime... back to work lol

[@Awesomes007]

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

[@kundakaps]

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

[@rishabhprasad5417]

No way you got Maldacena on the show💥💥💥💥

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Way

[@starwaving8857]

I have enjoyed this talk. Thank you.

[@amdredlambda]

it is very simple, this is how it goes ................................................................................................................. what? Are you still waiting? 😯😏 I really did like this video, specially to hear from Tegmark. Sabine and Kaku are inspiring figures to today everyday physicist debates, and they deserve the rightful limelight on these matters. Thank you Mary-Jane. es muy sencillo, así es................................... ................................................. ....................... ¿qué? ¿Sigues esperando? 😯😏 Realmente me gustó este video, especialmente escuchar a Tegmark. Sabine y Kaku son figuras inspiradoras en los debates físicos cotidianos actuales y merecen la atención que les corresponde en estos asuntos. Gracias Mary Jane.

[@giovannironchi5332]

Thank you for this conversation. I hope you will also have Peter Woit, Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli more often!

[@benjaminbeard3736]

Wolfram too

[@QuantumPolyhedron]

Rovelli is the best.

[@user-ii4kx7no1r]

Well done moderator, you are the star of that show 👍

[@ili626]

I took an anthropology course at UVA about the world of academic physicists over 20 years ago that asked questions along these lines.

[@AlfredoSepulvedagbit]

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

[@tinytim71301]

Maldacena's book spines suggest he reads his book rather than rely on audible, etc. Very cool! Tegmark on the Universe work was brilliant. Superb Panel. More of these, please?

[@eishuno]

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

[@tinytim71301]

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

[@CAThompson]

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

[@Edison73100]

Fantastic

[@douglaswatt1582]

What's very strange is people talking about beauty as a criteria for truth without much reference to aesthetic theory, or to the now reasonably well mapped neural substrates of aesthetic experience, or to the emerging body of thought linking strong aesthetic experience to the experience of reverence and mystical experience, that's a lot to leave out. Particularly if you're interested in bridging science, philosophy and religion. And the basic science suggests that contrary to the notion that the experience of beauty is some kind of ethereal cognitive process unrelated to baser concerns like survival, in relationship to physical beauty - what we consider to be sexually attractive - it is clearly a proxy for reproductive fitness which explains why a sense of beauty is selected. This fundamental survival relevance extends to the ability to appreciate beauty in nature, where the detection of a beautiful scene is intimately related to the ability to detect environments that support fecundity and thriving and diverse life. All these considerations are omitted but they explain why mathematical beauty is seductive and possibly a component of Truth, but certainly not any acid or most critical test. The biggest problem is that both many wrong and many right theories turn out to be beautiful so it's really not a sufficiently selective criteria. There's not a single person from neuroscience or psychology in this group, although Sabine is clearly the most knowledgeable panel member in relationship to those scientific domains. But you can't leave out the science of aesthetic experience and talk about beauty as a criteria and expect not to miss large amounts of relevant material. I wish however that this was an uncommon mistake instead of it being a common one.

[@dallinsprogis4363]

Interesting and I have said this before. If you understand how a human is grown, then you can begin to understand truth and create real solutions to understanding the relationship between our environment, consciousness and our biological being that drives us to think through sensory input. I’m gonna stick with Carl Sagan’s quote. “For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring” Great video!

[@NYNEO1]

What I learned is that there is nothing more fundamental than what we can't avoid assuming.

[@bigbird1weekend]

Great episode Sabin Hossenfelder & Max Tegmark loved the beutiful straight honest answers . Thank all of yall for you tome and knowledge

[@cgmp5764]

Interesting discussion, I think though that when it comes to ticket pricing the IAI is applying Sting theory!

[@ipadasher]

Maldacena is the biggest brain in the room

[@davidmireles9774]

1:38 (referring to Juan Maldecena) no lie, thought that was for a moment lol inky 1:38 in so far❤ looks like a good discussion. Thanks for uploading

[@cristo_en_bolas8714]

It may seem irrelevant or ridiculous to notice the worn and consumed books behind Mr. Maldacena, when I remember that many politicians, theologians and academics show off a brand new library, as if they only had it for decoration.

[@mrmass144]

Mass and energy are two fundamental properties of matter that appear in different phenomena. By applying the principle in a correct way we can easily make a unified model for the whole universe. This will condense the whole literature of science to some simple equations and understandable rules.

[@DavidLoveMore]

The physical constants are derivable from Schrödinger's equation? Anyone have a reference?

[@punkypinko2965]

Excellent job moderating.

[@ralphhebgen7067]

14:00 😂😂🤘 Big shout out to Mary-Jane! “Michio Kaku has thrown down!” Love it! Best host ever!

[@laurafortier9295]

When Dr. Kaku mentions "power", he seems to be using it place of "utility". Because we don't really select things based on power but mastery over a given utility. Because what variable substantiates what is powerful?

[@tusharjain9366]

I feel motive of science is not beauty but truth. Beauty is just human construct while science is for any sufficiently evolved consciousness. I believe biggest question (may be in philosophy domin) is - why does universe follow a set of rules and so mathematics?

[@NotASeriousMoose]

Thank you Juan for saying the quiet part out loud! String theory is not even a theory yet. Lets take it seriously when it becomes one...

[@lenpersson6510]

Anxious to see a quantum pc x

[@remusporadin6223]

What a great show! It is amazing to finally see that a relatively large number of people have displayed a real understanding of what physics truly is, and, more importantly, how close the modern physics is to the reality of the physics that is governing the universal realm of which we are all currently parts of. Of course, I am not at all referring to any of those four sad faces I have frozen on the screen of my monitor. I am actually referring to the many people who have finally managed to point their surprisingly deep and clear comprehending ability to discern where the contemporaneous science of physics genuinely is. You are the real stars of this show. Your comments have not only made my day. They have managed to restore my faith in humanity, even if briefly this early morning. Thank you. I bow before you all.

[@musicsubicandcebu1774]

"Truth may seem, but cannot be; Beauty brag, but 'tis not she; Truth and beauty buried be... " (William Shakespeare)

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

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

[@emefcue]

The talk i paid for but was misled with start times and zoom call problems

[@crawkn]

Sabine's closing idea that quantum gravity may not be the answer, and it may be that we don't understand the quantum mechanics side of things, is interesting. It certainly seems that the assumptions so far in pursuit of a "theory of everything" have focused far more on relativity being wrong than on our interpretations of the quantum realm being wrong. There's plenty of reason to question both.

[@PerpetualScience]

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

[@crawkn]

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

[@PerpetualScience]

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

[@JohnSmith-ut5th]

Max is right. (Sabine is my favorite talking head, so you can't accuse me playing favorites. I am only after the truth.). FYI, What Max Tegmark is talking about is called "Kolmogorov complexity". Put very simply, it is the measure of the length of the shortest computer program that is equivalent to the thing you are trying to measure (in this case, a physics theory). I pointed this out about 12 years ago (because at that time I was doing my graduate studies relating to Kolmogorov complexity), many many times on the Internet and KZbin (to the point where people still, to this day, talk about Kolmogorov complexity on KZbin often indirectly quoting my original posts).

[@Otsuguacor]

It doesn't matter whether something is beautiful if it doesn't explain reality. Beauty is subjective and people do not agree what is beautiful so how to generalize when there is no agreement in the method to look for knowledge.

[@timkbirchico8542]

oh dear its come to this

[@vladpetric7493]

What's the beauty in: * Requiring 7+ additional dimensions of space? * No supersymmetry? (to be clear, string theory is no longer "beautiful" without supersymmetry)

[@ili626]

28:00 Yes

[@wangtoriojackson4315]

Paul Dirac: Suffering From Success

[@ludviglidstrom6924]

Even though I am not a big fan of Michio Kaku I actually like the way he said “put up or shut up” to the critics of string theory: if you don’t have anything resembling a serious alternative to it, then I have a hard time taking your criticism seriously. And the point is that there is no alternative to string theory; loop quantum gravity for example doesn’t even reproduce known physics, the standard model. Maybe it will in the future, maybe there will be an alternative to string theory in the future, but for as long as there are no known alternatives I simply don’t understand the cockiness and arrogance of the critics. If you don’t have any better ideas, then shut up.

[@andyiswonderful]

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

[@ronaldrussel1158]

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

[@NotASeriousMoose]

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

[@gyanprakashraj4062]

It's true...

[@ywtcc]

If science is a body of knowledge, produced by method, then it should be understood socially. The methods of engaging in dialog with the universe, the experiments and observations, are critical parts, that I don't think are inherently social. However, from the languages we speak, to the mathematics we use, the vast majority of our knowledge is inherited. And, this body of knowledge has been filtered, and litigated, through the lens of beauty (I think simplicity, and ease to teach, is perhaps closer to the mark), as well as any number of social factors. I wonder, what if this body of knowledge became self aware, and no longer needed to be taught to students? Would the need for simplicity still be there? Would it suffice to have a theory of every prediction locked up in a prediction machine that no one understood its inner workings? This is the idea of a theory of everything that no one understands. I think its timely.

[@alexandrascherer5463]

On which time, speed and size scales are your theories valid? What assumptions are wrong on other scales? What degrees of freedom do the "dimensions" (free parameters) in string theory correlate to?

[@alexandrascherer5463]

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

[@alexandrascherer5463]

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

[@goldwhitedragon]

Chris Langan's CTMU accounts for rescaling.

[@peterstanbury3833]

If one argues that mathematics is invented, rather than being an ontologically 'real' thing, then the sense of 'mathematical beauty' becomes even more suspect. It's also worth adding that equations only really tell you that some quantity is 'equal' to some other quantity or quantities....without ever actually telling you what the things being quantified fundamentally actually 'are'. A world of mathematical physics in which everything is described in terms of everything else only really describes relations between things, and somehow skips over where the 'stuff' and the rules come from. To me the real acid test for physics is whether a scientist who had never heard of universes and hadn't first had a peek at our one could come up with today's physics.

[@schmetterling4477]

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

[@TheWilliamHoganExperience]

I don't know much about theoretical physics, but I do know about beauty and applied physcis whenn it comes to sound. Garbage in, Garbage out: I'm an artist, architect, and an autistic savant / musician, I love it when spoken audio is clear, undistorted, even, unclipped, and intelligible. Good microphones, proper mic screening, vocal technique and placement, room acoustics and level setting are pre-requisites for decent vocal reproduction. A tiny bit of reverb, EQ, and careful use of audio compression can polish up a fundamentally good vocal recording, making it easier on the ears and more intelligible. Sabine's audio feed sounds best. Note also that she's the only one properly monitoring herself using closed over-ear headphones. You'd think the smartest people on earth would understand the physics of sound, and use proper audio equipment, but alas.... Unfortunately, Zoom style video conferencing feeds always have terrible audio because of ANOTHER kind of compression. The horrid lossy digital compression Zoom and other streaming software use to bit-crush both audio and video to reduce bendwidth. Now, add in the various hardware and software used by each guest to participate and aggregate their feeds through this same lossy digital flattening, plus KZbin's own lossy compression, and audio compression alone might help normalize the VOLUME of the resulting audio nightmare, but it's still gonna sound like a bunch physics geniuses gargled with broken glass before the show. As an autistic person, bad sound litterally hurts. It's too bad, because there's some great content that I simply can't watch / listen to because of painfully bad audio. The audio here gets a C - which is actually pretty good given the format.

[@adrianwright8685]

All seemed quite clear to me. Maybe you or your equipment has a problem?

[@Jon-ti1rb]

String theory is good for tying shoes and tangled fishing lines,etc.

[@sjoerd1239]

It is not an accident that symmetry conveys beauty, yet slightly imperfect symmetry tends to convey more beauty and not everything that is beautiful is symmetric. Mathematics is not fundamental. It must refer to something. It only has meaning in application to something non-mathematical. Pure mathematics has implied application.

[@wulphstein]

Having a model that obeys Occam's razor and is inspired by physics experiments is the key to physics.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

THEORY OF EVERYTHING: For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism. For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is: S+o = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace) Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as: E= A͚͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness) For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history. To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 “The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓 P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India): 🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉 Chandogya Upanishad 3.14 (‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’. “Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence. There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).

[@jagatiello6900]

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"

[@fred_2021]

Let's just remember that Occam's razor isn't a law to be 'obeyed’. It’s a rule of thumb and it’s fallible.

[@amihart9269]

It isn't always obvious how to apply Occam's razor. Sometimes it is a but ambiguous over which assumptions are actually simpler. For example, take hidden variable theories. We could treat quantum mechanics as an incomplete theory due to lack of knowledge about hidden variables, and in some sense this is a simpler interpretation because it fits in well with previous assumptions in all other fields of science without having to make an arbitrary exception for quantum mechanics. But nobody has ever discovered these hidden variables, so you might argue it's simpler to just say they don't exist because they're not needed to explain observations. Which approach is more parsimonious?

[@user-ln5nk7mg4v]

Seeing Michio in the panel begged the question whether this video would be a waste of my time. Physics' idea that a simple equation is beautiful encourages physicists to pile assumption upon assumption driving clarity for the outsider down the rabbit hole.

[@davidwilkie9551]

As an Amateur motivated by Euler's Absolute Zero-infinity reference-framing containment of pure-math relative-timing metastability, I hereby entrust Max to make a complete Conception of Actuality that Sciencing Observation Students can appreciate holistically. Because it's innate to the operation of the Holographic Universe that we are embedded and in resonant probability type awareness of the 0-1-2-ness harmonic sense-in-common cause-effect connection of 2-ness tangency environment to line-of-sight superposition parallels of coexistence. If you have the rhythm of reciprocation-recirculation awareness, it's "beautiful" to naturally tuned perceptions. A Teacher of Max's capability is in a position to sort all the feedback of his years of experience to produce a learning sequence of superimposed QM-TIME Completeness curriculum.., with everyone's assistance of course.

[@LuisAldamiz]

I love how Sabine has evolved towards the quantum vs relativity issue: very explicit in her last comment, maybe it's the quantum part what we don't understand well enough yet. And this brings me to one of Maldacena's observations (BTW, typo in his surname in the captions) about maybe strings being chains of gluons. Not sure if that's the answer but got me truly intrigued and would like to learn more about that: the strong nuclear force is so underrated and potentially so important into unification!

[@schmetterling4477]

We understand quantum mechanics perfectly well. Quantum field theory is perfectly relativistic and has been since the 1930s. You might want to catch up on science history when you find the time. ;-)

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@schmetterling4477 - No. We don't understand a lot of QM, for example why particles have the masses they have, why there are three generations of fermions or many other things. And nope: QM is not general-relativistic, at best QFT married a narrow segment of QM to Special Relativity, which is not general enough to be considered a good marriage. You are the one who has to catch up, including watching the video and what Sabine, a real physicist with quite a good brain, has to say.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@LuisAldamiz There are no particles. Massive fields have an effective mass term with a running coupling (logarithmic) that depends on the coupling to the Higgs and the other fields. Is this an effective field theory? Yes. That doesn't mean we don't know how the theory works. We just don't know how it behaves at the high energy end because we don't have a machine larger than LHC. There is a difference between not knowing the experimental data and not understanding the theory... a difference which you clearly don't understand. ;-)

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@schmetterling4477 - That's QFT rather than the Standard Model and, as I already said, QFT only marries parts of QM to parts of Relativity. It's not the final answer, even if it is a good inroads. Particles are necessarily a thing in all versions of QM because QM is based on the particle-wave duality and "quantization". "Particle" (Lat. "particula") only means "small part" but everyone uses it in the sense of Newtonian-style point-particle, Feynman himself was very clear that he thought that particles are point-like but of course it's a matter of contention, an open question. I was watching Maudin, probably the best philosopher of science alive, and he claims that the issue of wave-particle duality has only three possible answers: wavfunction collapse (Copenhagen), pilot wave (Bohmian mechanics) or that crazy idea of Many Worlds Interpretation (which he considers legit but I do not). I don't know if there are other possibilities but in any case there is an issue with that wave-particle duality that granted Einstein his only Nobel prize. Personally I find that indeed the wave-particle duality may be not fully right for bosons, after all the photoelectric effect only implies that electrons (fermions) absorb a quantized amount of light's energy (measured by momentum, i.e. frequency) and not that photons as such exist as individual particles but I may be wrong on this (not-an-expert). I have the gut feeling that treating bosons and fermions as if they'd be the same, especially as no gauge boson is actually directly detectable, only inferred, may be a legacy burden of QM. I also suspect that the three generations of fermions (and their unexplained mass values) may be hiding clues about a possible simplification of the Standard Model and the secrets of mass, and thus gravity (relativistic gravity: how mass curves space-time, not the imaginary and irrational proposed "graviton"). But again not-an-expert (certified by no-university non-diploma, like Tinubu of Nigeria), so feel free to have a different opinion than mine. Only thinking freely (within the bounds of experimental and observational science) can produce results and advace physics beyond this two-headed little monster we have now.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@schmetterling4477 - PS: I also recommend you to watch what Sabine has to say about larger than LHC wastes of money and resources. Bigger is not necessarily better and there are absolute limits to what we can build anyhow.

[@vijaypanchalr3]

I loved juan's point of view. On the point

[@kerycktotebag8164]

beauty and intricacy both deceive and motivate, so it's a difficult game to not get a massive complex about it

[@flatisland]

41:41 that's a good point and also what I've always thought. Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does. Still, a competing thought of mine I simply can't neglect is the simulation hypothesis. A lot of things may indicate that the universe doesn't "work" at all but just fools us into thinking that it does...

[@frun]

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

[@TeaParty1776]

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

[@flatisland]

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

[@TeaParty1776]

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

[@TeaParty1776]

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

[@ahuachapan2]

Fairy tales are beautiful. Lies sometimes are beautiful... so string theory is very beautiful.

[@ticthak]

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

[@Awesomes007]

Will not all answers to the greatest physics problems be beautiful?

[@GiordanoBruno42]

Beauty is never a guide to truth, but is a guide to an individual's pre-existing conditions of desire. Beauty, as a guide, can lead to terrible outcomes just as easily as positive ones. There can be no genocide without poetry.

[@ThatisnotHair]

4:50 í 10:05 -·¹ 10:50 -·- 14:23 ·__ 14:47 ~· 12:00 23:22 26:29 27:21

[@jimspectre]

I’d like to see a scientists roast, or battle. Closest I’ve got was a panel with Hossenfelder, Penrose and Kaku. Hossenfelder and Penrose spat some savage bars on that one.

[@Blueberryminty]

I understood physics as the discipline that tries to catch reality in a model/theory so that the theory fits reality and we can make predictions with it, that can be useful (or sometimes are only interesting). But it turns out that some have an opposite view where they have beautifully consistent theories and they try to fit reality into that theory. I don't think it's directly useful, but I can accept the usefulness (or maybe just the beauty) of that viewpoint. It's certainly a nice (and for some, an elaborate) thought experiment. But I equally question if we can put that kind of thinking into the bucket of physics. It looks more as a philosophical experiment, then a physics one. (allthough the usefulness of trying to put everything neatly in our abstractly created buckets, is questionable on its own, so I don't know if we need to. It's just that Michio Kaku doesn't seem to bring much to the table except for this philosophical viewpoint that turns the goal of physics on it's head; but he brings this view not that elaboratly and in a quite messy, repetitive and commercialy looking packet, which makes me wonder about the value of it in many conversations, as it often gives the impression of devalueing conversations to a level which keeps spinning around the same surface ideas)

[@JoeBlowUK]

We don't "know" there is dark matter. We simply have no explanation how gravity works at a galactic scale, without inventing some fudge (dark matter) to prop up existing theories.

[@schmetterling4477]

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

[@JoeBlowUK]

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

[@schmetterling4477]

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

[@dimitrispapadimitriou5622]

There's a very useful procedure ( when used properly ) called compression, that smoothens unevenness in volume. Especially useful in conversations...

[@observerone6727]

Unifying gravity, if it's fundamentally continuum, and quantum (quantized) physics may be dichotomically impossible. If all quantization/discretization is 'simply' vibration modes made of the all/one force field continuum, yet gravity IS the one underlying continuum 'soup' of force fields (always seeking to cancel force debts by way of attraction), then we are asking the wrong question(s) in trying to mathematically unify continuum and quantization. The final GUT/TOE laboratory will be consciousness using applied epistemology, reasoning and elimination, because particle colliders can never arrive at the asymptote of infinity/continuum. Beauty could be found in a profound unifying statement, not necessarily an equation.

[@phillustrator]

Michio Kaku is one of the best History Channel physicists out there.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

😂

[@rjlchristie]

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

[@AnyaGlows]

I believe the theory basics already there mathematically look at Reimann 19th century developed all and used in cosmology but universities don’t go deep in it. It was ww 1,2, all used to develop weapons and economic theories of profit even statistics and all. Money go into politics. Internet was developed as a university project but now corporations have higher speed access and best computers or stock manipulation. Either way hopefully the resources come back to theoretical physics

[@draxiedru]

I wonder if Micho Kaku’s pride will ever allow him to try and save himself by abandoning the Titanic.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

he IS the titanic. science advances one funeral at a time.

[@leeFbeatz]

❤

[@ibrahiymmuhammad4773]

Hey all

[@adrianwright8685]

Would I be mistaken in equating beauty and Ms Rubinstein or is that entirely subjective on my part?

[@adamsheaffer]

Using the old systems that we do makes us susceptible to not recognizing the beauty of mathematics and the universe. Just because our current methods are crude, it doesn't mean that we aren't doing god’s work! It's a metaphor of course, but I believe that history blinds us from the truth in a way that not many of us recognize. Let us find the best way, not be stuck to the status quo in a rapidly evolving world.

[@martinbjorklund2003]

Love how the two not as famous scientists are humble and open to explore theories, compared to Michio and Sabine who seem a bit too certain in their theories.

[@rjlchristie]

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

[@eugen-m]

Beauty , symmetry = Emmy Noether ❤

[@logielleEntiopya]

and hence conservation laws!

[@david_porthouse]

My version of quantum mechanics definitely fails any beauty contest. It's tachyonic Brownian motion in the microworld, but classical Brownian motion on larger scales, with a bit of handwaving thrown in.

[@user-qq3bl6py3g]

I propose to you and Atom is light gaining mass and why we are a projection

[@risingphoenix8056]

The issue with the great GR theory is that it assumes 4 dimensions, one being time. However, time is not a dimension. There is only matter and motion. We would do better to explain what actually is electro-magnetism, let alone strong and weak force, and gravity. Just writing down maths that describe their behavior does not explain what they are.

[@tkopp4005]

Sabine, you once again perfectly align knowledge, wisdom and culture as beautifully as yourself or any equation.

[@veronicatash777]

I'll also throw in at this point that her ending on "make progress happen again" appears to be a postmodern Nazi dog whistle.

[@zengamer21]

@@veronicatash777 Or it means exactly what it means... theoretical physics has been stuck for decades and needs to make progress.

[@ThatisnotHair]

12:00 23:22 26:29 27:21

[@johndoolan9732]

Try we must simple as possible human brain has more potential as now we can break down to come up with answers on different questions in science