Is it particle physics or a fairytale? PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder, Gavin Salam, Bjørn Ekeberg

[@TNM001]

there is a dangerous possibility of ppl misunderstanding: its not about doing or not doing science, or thinking "we are done". its about a limited pool of resources and how to use it efficiently. building bigger colliders betting on pure chance to find more particles...is inefficient. theory first, experiment later. thats the point. and...opportunity cost. if you build the next gen collider...something else doesn't get build.

[@waynesaban2607]

You said It better than I would have. I believe this is Sabine point, as she has made it clear is other discourse. The problem is funding and who gets it. Unfortunately those decisions are not made by the scientists (in all fields, not just physics) but by politicians (I will not go further on that subject as we know where that will end.

[@adamnealis]

"its about a limited pool of resources and how to use it efficiently." - sounds like economics.

[@tomholroyd7519]

In biology if you say it's not reductionist clockwork ppl accuse you of believing in a "vital force". No, it's just that they don't understand emergent properties of non-linear systems. Or irreducible Poincare representations.

[@paulwood6729]

@@adamnealis It is. Everything has to be paid for. In world of finite money, doing one thing means not doing something else.

[@tomsPrivateVids]

Yes. If theory predicts there's more to find, it's worth spending the money to go find it. Otherwise there's no limit to how much money you could waste looking for bigfoot.

[@mavelous1763]

Sabine is talking about the proper use of financial resources. I’m not a scientist, but she is concerned (rightfully so) about the important use of funding.

[@foshyurgason]

Yeah. I feel even if there is more to particle physics, Hossenfelder is arguing that it would be much more worth using our time and resources into more important and impactful research. Later on when we have a better understanding of dark matter, dark energy, etc., we will be able to go back and look at particle physics with a possibly better perspective and understanding. She is arguing that if we have been stuck in this field for decades, maybe we should come back to it when we put together other parts of the puzzle

[@stephenphillips4984]

@@foshyurgason Unless we spend the money, we can never get the data that will show the connection between the parts of the puzzle. Sabine's proposal is antiscience. Don't fall for her frustration and pessimism.

[@foshyurgason]

@@stephenphillips4984 She's not proposing to stop research. She's proposing to invest our time into more important fields, since the reality is we are limited on things like money and time. She has an entire KZbin channel talking about all the stuff we should be researching, what makes you think she is making videos almost daily about different fields of study, just to say not to study science? That makes no sense, and would have the opposite effect if her goal is to "stop science." She's being realistic about science, and is proposing for a new outlook rather than continuing being stuck in a single field for another 50 years. Where did she say don't spend any money on science? Where did she say stop all research? Where did she say she was anti science? I mean she wrote an entire book on why she has a "pessimist" view on some of our current studies. It's a realistic view rather than sunshine and rainbows. Sometimes it's better to hear the actual truth rather than a sugar-coated one

[@ownyourgov]

​@@foshyurgason, for instance, by addressing the reasons for the shortage of resources?​

[@deth3021]

​@ownyourgov there can never be enough resources for particle scientists. They even want a collider on the moon.

[@Platypus_Warrior]

I studied physics at University and on my own as well. I really like what Sabine Hossenfelder brings to the table. It's refreshing to hear her talking on her channel about how researchers can be biased sometimes. She seem very relatable, honest and down to earth.

[@stephenphillips4984]

But she is shortsighted and pessimistic simply because of the slowness of progress in current particle physics. What she is advocating is antiscience.

[@foshyurgason]

@@stephenphillips4984 she is advocating realistic resource management. Saying we should temporarily stop particle physics research isn't anti science or even anti particle physics Here is an example if you want: If I have 5 workers and I'm a boss, all 4 are showing promising efficiency and the 5th is 50 years experienced and is no longer that helpful, especially when you can hire a newer possibly more efficient worker, I would fire that guy and maybe hire him again some time after one of the first four become less efficient

[@Platypus_Warrior]

@@stephenphillips4984 shortsighted and pessimistic ? antiscience? Have you checked her channel ? That's a lot of criticism with very little explanation. Take her video about nuclear power compared to other forms of energy for example. I'm actually informed about the subject and I agree with her optimism. Opinion may differ but facts are facts. Take care Mister

[@Platypus_Warrior]

@@hawkanonymous2610 Sorry to hear that. I can be wrong, thanks for sharing

[@foshyurgason]

@@hawkanonymous2610 source- "trust me bro, I met her and she is lying" Also which argument? The one about particle science? She has given multiple explanations to why things are like they are over the past 15 years. Not sure if I'm gonna trust a random comment online over the research papers and books she has written on these subjects. Your comment is quite frankly, ridiculous. Stop yapping random lies you fabricated to help your bias on a science that hasn't made real progress in decades. Stop living a lie and accept the fact that maybe it's time to look at a dead science field at a different perspective

[@markdearlove8634]

I agree with Sabine that a new particle collider would be an inefficient use of resources, and none seems to be planned. I would therefore have liked to have heard whether Gavin could achieve his goals with the current collider.

[@user-ed6ch1zv1e]

Surprisingly good panel talk. The different perspectives of theoretical physics at play becomes very clear. Bjorns contribution is also very valid because he keeps the historical context of ideas affecting research alive and kicking. Together they may achieve a multidimensional flip of the standard model.

[@Gallahaut]

I felt as if Gavin wasn't getting Sabine's point when he kept drawing the issue back to "well there could be more and we dont know." That was never the point Sabine was making, and it's unfortunate she had to clarify that several times throughout the discussion and it kept getting missed each time.

[@triaxon3791]

Yes, thanks fo pointing that out, I found it quite annoying and dishonest on his part. Very dishonest. Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[@paintspot1509]

She doesn't really have a strong point, that is the issue. She just doesn't like certain things and cannot understand why other people don't agree with her.

[@tomazflegar]

More particles will lead to more particles not to clearer picture what other 95% percent is

[@Eris123451]

@@paintspot1509 No, You clearly didn't properly understand what she was actually saying.

[@Shangori]

@@paintspot1509 That's one hell of a weird conclusion. She's saying that the current way of doing psychics isn't working. And it isn't. And it hasn't for almost 50 years now. People keep on inserting new changes to models just because they /believe/ it makes things look nicer or /believe/ it will somehow work out if they get funding. She's saying: most of the changes proposed aren't fixing existing problems nor are they truly falsifiable. The argument for a new collider seems to be 'there are things we don't know'. Yes, duh. But if you cannot know the things you do not know, you have no argument in favor of a new collider either. It's like, when you're looking for your keys, someone says 'have you checked the main vault at the bank of america branch in another country?'. Well, no, but why the hell would it be there? True, I do not KNOW it's not there, but unless you give me a reason for me to get tickets to check out that vault, there is no reason for me to think that they are there

[@paulclifford6941]

Finally, after dancing around the real issue for 20 minutes, the moderator gave Sabine a chance to address it: what is the most effective use of limited resources, i.e., money.

[@balasubr2252]

The most effective use of limited resources (money) might be to create an environment where many forks can be explored currently. By including the observer and their combined outcomes to improve the model. Studying the universe without the observer will always have an incomplete and inconsistent results. The multiverse of infinite potential is the true reality without ever having a complete understanding.

[@Stuart.Branson.]

The story tellers have infinite money, their stories will know no end.

[@paintspot1509]

​@@balasubr2252 that doesn't mean anything.

[@back-seat-driver1355]

so it is useless!

[@ParameterGrenze]

Lol, the moderator lady threw Dr. Hosenfelder a generous opportunity at the end to get to the real point of the actual debate. I do not envy Hosenfelder in such situations. Can she be as direct as she wants to be to some highly decorated member of the physicist elite or should she bite her tongue? Basically accusing someone of wasting good research money that others could put to better use isn’t the kind of thing you want to open with. This is what this whole thing is about: Money. There is not enough of it. Especially not in relatively meager research funds. And physics, despite the popular conception, isn’t all about those particles. Not even close. Despite this particle physicist get all the big moola money. Which in turn means they can pay PHDs and other staff. Which in turn makes particle physics more attractive to be in for young students considering their career, while other departments suffer.

[@Sancarn]

I do think it's a little dangerous to claim Salam is pushing an agenda. But there is certainly a conflict of interest.

[@agbuckley]

Haha, at least in the UK that big moolah money gets particle and astrophysics fewer PhD students than average across the sector! I'm more sympathetic than most particle physicists to critiques of the worthwhileness of new energy-frontier colliders, but a lot of this debate is at least being interpreted on a wonky understanding of the issues - theoretical and logistical - in this field.

[@fredrik241]

Maybe if Sam Altman gets his 7 Trillion dollars he could through a measly 100 Billion towards physics research? It might be the source of the next-next gen AI CPU's who knows?

[@ownyourgov]

@parametergrenze, I would go much further. Changing the priorities of this kind of research may be the most productive thing we can do for a breakthrough.

[@stevenverrall4527]

​@@ownyourgov I have first-hand experience and knowledge that experimental particle physicists actually despise theorists. I think it's a sign that the field is cannibalizing itself.

[@katalysis]

Sabine is totally right, but Salam can't agree cuz he is a particle physicist and needs to champion and prioritize his own career over physics as a whole.

[@TV-xm4ps]

I am glad to see that many noticed...

[@Bat_Boy]

Same with Neil DeGrasse Tyson regarding militarization and space junk in our orbit. For him...space exploration first, and be damn about the consequences. Our oceans stand as a clear example, yet he is blinded by his bias. (And he's suppose to be smart? Hmmmm).

[@orangerman_24]

Funding matters!

[@grandeau3802]

Or maybe he became a particle physicist because he has other opinions. But no, that can’t be possible, because Sabine is right and he is dishonest, period.

[@ngajambana]

Translation "Everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist. I'm the only one who is sincere. Everyone else is just pretending."

[@tomholroyd7519]

Two physicists walking in a garden at night, looking up at the stars. "Ah," says one, pointing up. "The Murray-Gell Mann memorial nebula." The other sighs, and says, "We'll never get funding like that again."

[@tyleredwards5643]

Yeah, there’s always the dissatisfied, and staying focused on real issues is important. However, claiming efficiency is the rule is also incorrect. Science is science whether it’s efficient or not, whether our dollars discover something or not. I want theoretical physicists to keep working on really crazy stuff whether it’s cheap or not.

[@9zetsu]

​@tyleredwards5643 science is indeed science, but in an ideal world, where everything works as it is supposed to work. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where economics and sociology are a big factor in doing science.

[@richinoable]

KZbin commentary reveals hs dropout physics and sore red sss

[@Hacker4748]

@@tyleredwards5643 But currently we are running the same experiment (looking for a specific particle) for several decades and it has not found anything. Should we continue the experiment?

[@tyleredwards5643]

@@Hacker4748 it depends. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. We seem to think the physicists and scientists haven’t thought about this. They know. Far better than we do. I highly doubt theoretical physicists are repeating the same exact thing.

[@GeorgeRupp]

One of the issues that unfortunately hasn't come up in this discussion is the negative result of "table-top" experiments of relatively low cost, like ACME-II or that of the Boulder (Colorado) collaboration, which have measured a possible electric dipole moment of the electron (eEDM) to an extremely high precision. The zero outcome of those measurements, pushing the experimental bounds further and further, have ruled out huge classes of models beyond the Standard Model and the particles predicted by such models, in the context of CP violation and usually supersymmetry, up to energies unattainable at the LHC and possibly even at the planned next circular accelerator of CERN, with a circumference of about 91 km and a projected cost of about €20 billion.

[@mrhassell]

Future Circular Collider (FCC) Feasibility Study, concludes in 2025, details are on CERN's website (where in 1990 the WWW was hosting the World's first webpage, the World Wide Web, being developed by Tim Berners-Lee, while working at CERN, was In 1999 named by Time Magazin, one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century), highlighting the planned circumference of 90.7 km, an average depth of 200 m and eight surface sites for up to four experiments. The tunnel would initially house the FCC-ee, an electron-positron collider for precision measurements offering a 15-year research programme from the mid-2040s. A second machine, the FCC-hh, would then be installed in the same tunnel, reusing the existing infrastructure, similar to when the LHC replaced LEP. The FCC-hh aims to reach collision energies of 100 TeV, colliding protons and also heavy-ions, running until the end of the 21st century. Resulting in about 800 000 person-years of employment created. Projected cost is around €15 billion, spread over 15 years, significantly less than 20 as stated and the turn around on all this, should be ready to start smashing by 2030! 35 years to just get the LHC agreed and first operational, September 10, 2008. Taking only 4 years to make the breakthrough of the Higgs. I can't deny there is value in as you said, "table-top" experiments, absolutely! When you look at the fact the LHC exists, this isn't anything like going back to 1984 and spend the next 35 years waiting for the project to come online. The fundamental foundation, already exists. This simply enhances what does exist, creating new jobs, with so many other potential benefits, as pointed at with the unexpected one of the World Wide Web, having come about during a brilliant man, working at CERN, found a use case for its creation and being bright enough to do so.. my point is, there's benefits in both cases, in fact the more we have happening, the more progress should collectively become possible! 2027-2028: Decision by the CERN Member States and international partners - 2030s: Start of construction Context, physics case for LHC was made in 1984; took 10 years for the project to be approved, 25 years for the magnets to be developed and installed. 35 years and how much.. this is nothing by comparison.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Exactly. Sabine already described this problem in her 2018 book "Lost inMath". She calls it "the desert". It´s mathematically quite unlikely to find anything behind the LHC in a 91km collider, you would need one with a diameter of the galaxy.

[@GeorgeRupp]

@@Thomas-gk42 It's not only mathematically unlikely, we now have hard experimental evidence that observing new and much heavier particles at the next generation of accelerators is becoming unlikely, except for BSM models that do not include CP-violation mechanisms. Yet I would support the also considered CLIC linear e+e- collider at CERN, which could attain centre-of-mass energies up to 3 TeV, while allowing to be built relatively quickly in stages, starting with 500 GeV. Such a collider would allow precision measurements and could serve as a Higgs factory, thus providing for possible new hints where to go next in both theoretical and experimental particle physics. Unfortunately, CLIC seems to have lost the fight against the FCC.

[@Number6_]

An inexpensive table top experiment does not draw funding that these PhDs can live off of for a life time.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@Number6_ Right, that´s why the funding system must change.

[@IlyaButenko]

Sabrine is right: there are better areas to research. All the discussions about "we don't know what we don't know, therefore we shouldn't stop and need to continue building more colliders" are down to the main question in the particle physics, which is money: if the Standard Model is complete, then there won't be more funds.

[@paintspot1509]

There are always "better areas" to research....

[@mrmadmaxalot]

Whether you agree with Sabine or not, she always manages to put a goo d case to her argument. That is what fascinates me.

[@TomD67]

In the late 1960s, my philosophy professor, Thomas K. Seung, mentioned to our class that the Standard Model seemed to resemble the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos. Over time, Ptolemaic cosmologists had to add more and more cycles and epicycles to make their model agree with observations. It "worked" (could predict astronomical events), but it became exceedingly complicated. And then Copernicus and Galileo came along with a radically simpler explanation of the same phenomena. The same seems true of the Standard Model, adding more and more particles, sub-particles, and quirkily named properties (spin, charm, etc.). It works -- nuclear reactors and bombs are proof enough of that. But perhaps a new Galileo or Copernicus will come along to show us a simpler model, based on radically different concepts, that explains the phenomena in other terms ... and can be experimentally validated! (Lots of alternatives have been proposed, but none I know of have been validated by experiment.)

[@back-seat-driver1355]

thanks tom67 you have expressed this wonderfully!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

This is a misunderstanding and bad example. The standard model of particle physics is not just theories built upon themselves or added more and more for explanative power, but actual observations of the true constituents of the universe and how they behave as observed and tested. I don't think this is relatable at all to the Ptolemaic example at all. Physicist worldwide are looking for the one simplified theory that explains it all, but they're never going to find it. If there were such a theory that can be proven mathematically it would be so complex that we could not understand it, merely because it needs to describe everything that exists in addition to each interaction with the results of the interaction. The simplest theory which still cannot be proven mathematically is, God did it.

[@bigbird1weekend]

Love how Sabin says what she really thinks and it makes sense

[@ownyourgov]

I love that she makes sense and can say what she thinks!

[@fbkintanar]

11:20 I like Ekelund's distinction between particles as fundamental indivisible units, an ontological notion, and experimental-epistemological particle concepts. Concepts are part of a theoretical framework, they are local to that theory, and competing theories will need to figure out how old concepts map to new better concepts.

[@BrianFedirko]

Sabine's caution is warranted. We still have a lot to do with the tools at the size we have. Time, is an aspect that isn't pondered here, the splitting of time. The Higgs Boson only exists for a brief little split in time, and we need to be studying in smaller time slices before we just pump more money into the "bigger is better" thing. I think the money that would go into a bigger build would serve better to be paying physicists to continue to play with the toys they have, as it's hard to even book time for all the ideas that should get a chance of getting tested as is. Smaller time slices, and more dollars per hour for working physicists to think and do. I hate the phrase, but, "time is money". Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[@bunsw2070]

We should send all that money to Ukraine. Lol

[@arctic_haze]

Sometimes, I fast forward such discussion to the next Sabine statement but this time Bjørn had some interesting opinions even as he is no physicist.

[@AMINJAFARIMOGHADDAM-g4c]

The direction of physics should (perhaps) be modified substantially. There is a difference between knowing and understanding. Knowing could be defined as detecting patterns and then building a model based on those patterns. While, understanding is linked to a sort of answer which covers all the "whys" you could possibly pose. To give you a better description of what I'm talking about, we physicists have been thinking towards many things so far, but no one is asking what is 'we' or what it means by 'thinking'! What are we actually doing when we say that 'we think'? We probably need to go in a direction to 'understand' beyond modeling. It's like that now, we're using something (i.e., 'us') to understand things without knowing what 'we' is in the first place. That's why I think we need a much greater picture of reality, and upon that, we can go exploring further.

[@beautifulsmall]

At the start of covid I had 4 weeks working from home and worked on a software algorithm, and a first principles model for multi zone thermal control. Tuning the model by comparing with recorded data. It formed an understanding beyond the physical naming of particles and velocities.Running the model on an arduino . having undisturbed time , days, weeks on end can allow great focus.

[@ALong-fo5so]

If Gavin Salam agrees with Sabine, he will be out of a job.

[@paintspot1509]

Incorrect

[@ownyourgov]

My takeaway: 1) desire for engineering contracts and weapons development not scientific curiosity drives demand for colliders. 2) we probably can't do physical experiments in dimensions we can't measure. 3) we could possibly find many better uses of collective wealth.

[@OAN3476]

If c2 is 2 times the speed of light, wouldn't c just be the speed of light? So, if the basis for dimensions is what hinders experiments, than that sounds like a first dimension to me. Then, the other parts of the equation could help, like m=e/c or something? That sounds pretty one dimensional. If a+b=b+a?

[@ownyourgov]

@@OAN3476 if the period of a wave is a billion years, I imagine you can impute a value but how would you design the experiment? As I understand this, we can measure only some effects of interacting waves that move in scales of time and space beyond our ability to measure, and we can describe the period of these waves in math beyond the ability of our technology to measure, and the math then suggests likely probablities of the waves based on the measured effects since they are points of collapse?

[@OAN3476]

@ownyourgov I think a good analogy would be writing on paper. You can plot the points, but what your writing with has filled in the line. So, if there is an infinite Cartesian plane of dimensional input, from either direction, then in any pattern or shape you could ascertain it's point of origin. Because time, as we know it, is based on revolutions of the earth around the sun. You can only follow that so far before it becomes something unrecognizable. It might be better to define time simply as distance, since in the space between two objects, or more, they can only exist within the confines of their dimensional distances together. This would be in any state they can share in the same moment. Like attracts like and all that. So I guess, the experiment would rely on what you're measuring. If, for example, all carbon shares the same state, that it has been that state of carbon, for as long as it has been in that state, then it is essentially as old as that state of carbon could have existed. Within the parameters of its existence. What your measuring is just as important as why your measuring it, I guess, so basically every experiment that can measure an input.

[@MBuckner]

I approve of this message.

[@Heater-v1.0.0]

That is a very black and white view of science. Generations of thinkers and scientists have been curious about how things work over a few thousand years. Was Socrates thinking of engineering contracts and weapons? Was Einstein? Were hundreds of others? Although certainly the thought of building a weapon out of whatever ideas these guys have has often pushed research. See Manhattan Project. Of course we cannot do experiments, i.e. measure stuff, if we don't know how or cannot measure it. Is our "collective wealth" better spent else where? Perhaps but even CERN is not consuming a significant amount of that.

[@chineserockethands4578]

I really love Sabine’s attitude. She’s gives off a vibe like, “Why are we even talking about this stuff? It’s all dumb and none of it makes any sense. We found some stuff with a collider. Great, now what?” It’s very refreshing.

[@nardoleoable]

@@chineserockethands4578 But that could be a bias too.

[@paintspot1509]

Refreshing is not the word I would use.

[@alanbloom20]

I find the discussion about “should we search for more particles” is framed in a somewhat narrow minded view. There is no doubt that there is more to find and a new particle accelerator would yield new physics but the question really should be inclusive of an economical frame: out of the finite resources (money) available, where can it be invested that would yield the greatest benefit to humankind? Is the answer a new particle accelerator or are there other areas of physics that would offer more benefit in the near future? Posing the questions to each expert as almost “is there even a point to continuing research” seems to side step the rationale behind the argument that maybe particle physics isn’t where money should be going.

[@halincandenza27]

I noticed the same thing. It was a bit odd to ask a question like “should we just stop particle research, then?” I liked hearing the participants’ opinions but I think the moderation could have included more nuanced questions that are a bit more modest in scope, and also more inclusive of our planet’s less theoretical and more geopolitical realities

[@touristguy87]

So personally I favor a moratorium on any new experimental research in physics. First summarise the state of physics today. Then list the areas of physics that might produce meaningful new science. Then evaluate candidates and experiments for future experimentstion. Plan progress forward from the possible results. We need to do a lot more thinking and planning and less "running into the lab to do stuff". But we live in a competitive world and competition involves waste. That's the nature of the game.

[@Killer_Kovacs]

I think the inner working of particles are more important than finding new particles.

[@mikeguilmette776]

To what end, though?

[@Killer_Kovacs]

@@mikeguilmette776 understanding the mechanism of spin.

[@mikeguilmette776]

@@Killer_Kovacs Again, to what end? Is there a potential practical application for that?

[@Killer_Kovacs]

@@mikeguilmette776 if geometry explains spin then it might explain delayed choice

[@mikeguilmette776]

@@Killer_Kovacs Is there any practical application for that?

[@bartgrossman9361]

Sometimes it's not a matter of giving up, it's a question of doing something else for awhile. You may find that you come back to this problem with some new ideas. It could be a better use of resources and, as I say, it night help us to find new approaches.

[@lepidoptera9337]

We are doing mostly something else right now: neutrino, dark matter and high energy astrophysics. Will these lead to new approaches? Probably not. These experiments are orthogonal to what can be done at accelerators. That's why we had to build accelerators to begin with.

[@SteveRowe]

During the introduction, Sabine just chilling and biting her tongue.

[@M-dv1yj]

I hope she covers my theory on her channel at some point. I like her too☺️

[@M-dv1yj]

She sharp and bout that truth

[@ToTheWolves]

I thought she gave the moderator a side eye or two during the intro

[@TheKenturtle]

how do you know for sure that CERN isnt creating particles by collisions? perhaps at that level it isnt just like dropping a cla jar and looking at the pieces and thinking the pot is made of clay. Perhaps at this small scale the energies involved in colliding creates new stuff rather than revealing what was already within.

[@OblateBede]

What does it mean, from an ontological perspective, to say that a particle is an irreducible representation of the Poincaré group? Are we to believe that reality is comprised of a collection of mathematical symbols which are not even necessarily unique?

[@ugu8963]

I think it means that a particule is an abstract concept in a mathematical model. The fact that this model allows us to act on reality doesn't mean that the model is the reality. So, a particule is not something real, it is an abstract mathematical concept, that's all. I think that's what she means.

[@andrewkarsten5268]

@@ugu8963 yes, if you’ve heard Sabine talk on her channel, after long enough you’ll realize this is exactly her point. She has a book “lost in the math” where she makes the critique of physicists that they assume the math IS reality, and that math is not merely a good descriptor of reality.

[@ugu8963]

@@andrewkarsten5268 Yep. Old stuff really. The map isn't the territory.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@andrewkarsten5268 This is a brilliant book, unfortunately it seems, that only very few people read it.

[@SuperChicken666]

Sabine has a great following on her channel. I suspect that many of her viewers, like me, don't actually understand half, I mean, three quarters, I mean, 99 percent of what she's actually talking about.😊❤❤

[@Thomas-gk42]

She worth to be watched, even if one doesn´t understand everything. To understand more of here thinking, it´s helpful to read her books.

[@Number6_]

That was proof. Bjom started out arguing that particles are an illusion, a trick or fantasy then stopped have way through, realizing that is where his funding is. Apologized, looked at his notes and changed his whole arguement in favour of particles. It is a case of the emperor's new clothes.

[@netezon]

Bjorn is a philosopher, not a physicicst, and doesn't currently have an academic posting. He's not getting any funding from anyone, let alone funding dependent on supporting the reality of particles. As far as I can tell he makes his living writing books criticizing modern physics through the lens of metaphysics. I don't think that what he said made any sense, before or after he interrupted himself (while philosophy of science and history of science are fascinating, I don't personally have much respect for metaphysics) but you have pretty much just projected your priors onto him here.

[@xantiom]

He never said it was a trick or a fantasy

[@WayOfAges]

Sabine is saying that we’re at a crossroads at which we should be taking a break from the hunt for more particles and reassessing the big picture. The guy on the left of the screen (farthest to her right) is arguing for bigger and better particle accelerators now, almost as though he were unprepared to step back and reassess the big picture. He loves the hunt and feels he’s in a comfortable groove that can only be occupied by those with access to collider time. Sabine is not missing his point but he’s missing hers.

[@blackrasputin3356]

The standard model is like trying to recreate the source code for a game by playing it over and over.

[@TheMikernet]

Pretty good analogy! You might be able to infer details about the physics algorithms in the source code...but good luck figuring out how the computer works 😅 I don't think we'll ever know how far the turtles go truly go, in either direction. There could be a whole universe inside every electron, and our universe is an electron inside a bigger universe.

[@ekekonoise]

Yeah, we're trying to find the source code while we're inside the game, we're characters in the game. It's like Nico Bellic understanding the programming of GTA IV

[@Orion15-b9j]

Even the "dum..." one state - "Stupidity is to repeat the same thing over and to expect a different result" - There is one book which you could like - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@nabuk3]

There was not enough discussion of the costs for different approaches to future research, or even whether massive spending in physics to answer esoteric questions is worth it. It's not just that building a collider larger than the Large Hadron Collider would probably cost tens of many billions of $, or whether the money could be better spent with other kinds of machines or experiments in physics, but whether it could be better spent on other human endeavors (outside of theoretical physics) that might provide more immediate and important benefits to humankind, such as better agriculture, medicine, or new energy sources.

[@MyWissam]

Atomism goes back to the Greeks, not the nineteen hundreds.

[@xantiom]

Atomism by the time of the Greeks was just a consequence of reductionism, it wasn't a scientific discovery. It was just yet another idea competing with substance theory. Tell me one physical or chemical prediction by Democritus. Atomic theory, as a scientific theory with clear evidence and our practical manipulation to make use of it is from the 1900.

[@Amenti_H]

As a concept - sure. But as a concrete entity atoms were discovered with a progress in chemistry in 19 century.

[@MyWissam]

@@Amenti_H Jes, vi pravas.

[@josephcaldwell7692]

Bjorn makes a good point about focusing on connections rather than reductionism for deeper understanding. Smashing and breaking down the parts is not a very sophisticated way of understanding a system. There is the danger of positivism which leads to a form of nihilism. A single entity tells nothing about the overall pattern of the universe.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The overall pattern of a car, is that it goes down the street at various velocities, can turn corners, and can swiftly stop while carrying human occupants in comfort and safety. But until you break down and examine the parts, you're never going to understand how it's made, the individual parts synergistically working with other parts and how to manipulate those parts to your advantage. Every system that I learn about, I have to break it down to its foundation and then build upon that foundation. Evidently you're learning is much different.

[@josephcaldwell7692]

@ Positivism nonsense. A car does nothing until it is actuated.

[@davidbailey6176]

I wish this discussion could have been recorded without a party going on outside!

[@Timothy-c4p]

What will finding more particles lead too? Will finding more particles tell us something we didn’t know before? Unless it could take us down to the level of finding something as tiny as a string. But I don’t think any particle accelerator would ever have the energy to do that. However, I’d also have to agree that giving up on particle accelerators would be going backwards. So the future going forward lies in what?

[@drbuckley1]

How are "fields" different from "aether"?

[@timakey4678]

The difference would be that fields explain what experimental evidence has uncovered while aether did not. There may be, it may even be likely, that there is an underlying reality supporting fields. But fields is as far as human intelligence has managed to get. There is one thing that is likely very true, we (human kind) are not near as intelligent as we think we are.

[@drbuckley1]

@@timakey4678 Thanks for the explanation. Could the failure to find aether be the result of imperfect understanding of the subject, and inadequate experimental instrumentation to find it? The notion that fields provide the medium for particles to interact sounds like the old aether theory, just reimagined and measurable thanks to progress in theory and experimental instrumentation. The difference seems only to be that, instead of a single "aether," there are very many "fields."

[@bjornsundin5820]

What do you mean by "medium" exactly? My impression is that fields are mathematical objects which are useful for predicting experimental results. They assign a vector to each point in space and time and that's it. A mathematical abstraction. What we really can measure are things like currents, movements, forces etc. Smart physicists came up with mathematical abstractions which have certain properties and obey different laws, and can make sense of observed relationships between currents, charges, movement. And allow for theoretical derivation of results due to the fundamental laws of these fields being very consistent. But I have not yet studied quantum field theory (only electrodynamics & quantum mechanics) so there may be something deeper I don't know about.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@drbuckley1 here's sixpence, now go and devise an experiment as see....

[@kinsleybyrne3399]

good question, I asked a particle physicist about this back in 2012 as the traditional M&M aether had been disproved on the grounds that it would act as a drag force. Why does the higgs field not act as a drag force? he didn't know.

[@anthonycarbone3826]

Would it not be better to put the money and energy into space exploration and technology rather than a larger collider on earth. It seems it would cost much less to build a mega huge collider in space while also subtracting out the effects of physics (massive gravity and other physic particulars to being on a planet) on earth out of the results and the tests being run.

[@cerad7304]

Sabine and Gavin may be on opposite sides as far as building bigger accelerators and what not. But I got the impression they both share disdain for the philosopher who spent his time talking nonsense.

[@8888Rik]

The philosopher, Bjorn Ekeberg, made perfect sense.

[@wout123100]

that is your view, i say he might be the sanest one here, talks too little to make that out.

[@MBuckner]

I'm a total amateur and don't grasp some of the nuances of this debate but, to me, physics has always been the search for "truth." How do things work? How do you explain that? What makes it tick? I don't think the question should be "Are we done with particle physics?", it should be "Is there something there that we can't explain yet?" If the answer is "yes", then explore it because you aren't done. It may be that the problem presents itself in the field of particle physics but the solution lies in some other discipline. In the end, aren't we looking for a "theory of everything?" I don't think that will be found until the rabbit holes of all disciplines have been explored because, by definition, a "theory of everything" would necessitate cross-disciplinary study. As for whether or not bigger colliders and accelerators are necessary, I just have to shrug on that one. That's not so much a question about physics as it is a question about finances and fiscal priorities.

[@Mike-yt4jq]

I don't think any one particular "particle" is the keystone to anything other than a bit more understanding on the 'particle' level. Its a very isolated focused view in respect to overall field complexity ( which is undoubtedly where the forces reside and are influenced) I am positive that studying overall field dynamics is where we should be , including what we view as electromagnetic fields, gravity and the interaction of the forces described between time and size scales... you know the micro, macro and "standard "dimension which we reside in. Neutrino research as well as interest in the concept of Muons also seem important for me. Technology is advancing at such a rapid pace these days. Once we are able to simulate fields and better understand their interactions more holistically , I think we will gain much insight. It's all energy folks, even what seems to be "matter". Its all a matter of perspective and relativity. ( no pun intended). Just my 2 cents. 🤓🙏✨

[@bokchoiman]

What is the limit of the periodic table? Are we done? Or are there elements that exist only in specific conditions that we cannot recreate on Earth?

[@mdwoods100]

I've noticed in this video and in many others comments saying if properties were even slightly different then the universe would be very different. Why do they keep bringing up the obvious. Shouldn't we just be concentrating on how the universe really is? Maybe I'm missing something, most of particle physic is way over my head.

[@juliavixen176]

The "way it is" -- the values of about two dozen measurements -- appears to be _completely random_ But if the values were anything else, we wouldn't be here to be asking this question. One of the things theorists have been trying to figure out for over a century is how to predict/calculate any of these numbers analytically from pure mathematics or something, rather than requiring physical measurements in experiments. At the low-energy electromagnetic interactions of our daily lives, the fine structure constant (EM coupling constant) is 0.0072973525693 Why? Why *_this_* number exactly? It could have been _anything_ and if it was anything else carbon atoms wouldn't exist.

[@ownyourgov]

@@juliavixen176 Is this number part of a series?

[@juliavixen176]

@ownyourgov Which one? The Fine Structure Constant? It's seemingly random, just like all the other constants of nature. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field is 246 GeV. Why 246 GeV and not some other value? No idea, the universe is just like this.

[@miniminamanmina3715]

You can keep on finding particles until the universe dies ,smaller and smaller more subtle ones and what does that get you other than the knowledge we already know that there is point where energy manifests as points. The real challenge is what ,where, how often, under what circumstance , and how energy goes in and out of existence. The real interesting thing for me is why point particles form in sentience , looking in all these directions we are aware of.

[@jay31415]

0:50 Sabine's introduction.

[@PatrickPoet]

Sabine is a hero to me--she actually sticks to the scientific method and so many scientists don't really. Of course, it would have been wonderful if she'd come with music and sang:)

[@lepidoptera9337]

The scientific method starts with observation and experiment. Can you show me an observational or experimental paper by Sabine? I am not aware that she ever wrote one. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@lepidoptera9337 1. Seh´s a theoretical physicist, do you know what that means? She made a lot of proposals about experiments, they were not funded, look on arxiv, genius.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@Thomas-gk42 Yes, as an experimental physicist I know what that means. It means that it doesn't matter how right you are as a theorist, until somebody does an experiment that proves you right you will never get the physics Nobel. Theoretically you still have a shot at the Fields medal... if your name is Edward Witten. If your name is Sabine, then you can't even get tenure. ;-)

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@lepidoptera9337 I agree, Witten´s "lanscape" never had a chance to be verified experimental, right? Weinberg won the Noble after the elctro-weak unification was verified by finding the weak gauge bosons, right? Sabine´s work and papers about solutions to the measurement problem including proposals for experiments did not find support. Scientific inquisition?

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@Thomas-gk42 Witten's results can not be experimentally verified except maybe on model systems. I do believe to have read that some of the methods he has come up with are applicable to magnetism, so we might get predictions about spin systems that can't be (or have not been been) achieved with other methods. So, no, I would not expect him to get the Nobel, at least not directly for his work on string theory. The Fields medal was awarded for the importance of his work to pure mathematics (the mathematicians have their own search for . There are examples of mathematicians like Villani who have gotten the Fields medal for mathematical work that is important to physics, so the mathematicians are quite open to such cross-pollination. I read Sabine's work on foundations of quantum mechanics. It's obtuse nonsense. She simply doesn't understand quantum mechanics. Even if she did, her work compares to Witten's like first grader's algebra compares to partial differential equations. Even I can understand all she did on QM, while I am usually lost after the third sentence in Witten's papers. :-)

[@therealDannyVasquez]

I love Sabine 🥰

[@TheParadoxDestroyer]

Great discussion on physics, with a rock concert thrown in. Nice. Seriously, where does physics go from here? It is true we don't know a lot about the Higg's Field, and yet at the same time, how does physics assimilate its understanding of quantum mechanics into the everyday world, especially the conception of matter presenting as wave forms? And there is increasing evidence of a "fifth" dimension inhabited by what may be considered a trans-personal human consciousness. ie, there is a strong debate between materialism and analytic idealism that intersects with physics. It will be exciting to see where this field of research leads to.

[@Ray_of_Light62]

There are seventeen different fields, overlapping in Space. The values and the transitions in these fields are what we call particles...

[@Quest_Ion_music]

I had the thought that particles exists as small dense material spheres, or possibly "energy". That may exist in fields or own their own in outer space?

[@alwayscurious413]

@ormrinn - I’d cite the electron as the proof. We know for certain that an electron has field properties including wave properties. If we treat the electron as a fuzzy cloud of charge then my take is that we call the particle is just the locational coordinate of that fuzzy field (maybe we could invoke Gauss’ law on that cloud to define that ‘point’ location that we call the charge.) once we consider/accept that the electron is a wave more than it is a particle, then it might follow that everything is ultimately a field (wave) of sorts and therefore it’s all fields really.

[@oblivion73]

Yeah I saw the beginning of this video and I thought literally the same thing....

[@alwayscurious413]

@@Quest_Ion_music - there’s a very door chance that what we think of as a particle as a solid core of matter is not correct. The fact that we can diffract and interfere electrons and atoms seems to indicate that it’s waves and the particle is just the coordinate of a localised field.

[@8888Rik]

Yes. "Particles" are the squares of the amplitudes of localized perturbations of the particular field in question. Electrons and photons, for instance, are the different squared amplitudes of very tiny perturbations of the electromagnetic field.

[@exerjiexerji289]

Name of the person who introduces the topic, please?

[@tyleredwards5643]

She was named - Shini Somara

[@exerjiexerji289]

@@tyleredwards5643 Thank you

[@HarryNicNicholas]

do you mean shini somara whose name appears 30 seconds in, or sabine hossenfelder with the mad professor hair?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

mate, they all get identified, what's your problem? 1:40 introductions.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

not to mention they are all listed in the description.

[@analogbunny]

The term that Sabine and Bjorn were dancing around is "diminishing returns". They absolutely could figure out all these questions, but they've come along far enough that it will take twice as much effort to discover half as much, meanwhile there are under-researched low-hanging fruit ripe for the picking. Not only that, but answering some of those questions may discover something new that unlocks particle physics and makes it easier again. This has more to do with economic theory (both in terms of money and effort but also especially in terms of resource allocation) than it has to do with particle physics. Yes... they could. But why would they at this point? I think the other guy doesn't see it because it's his field and he just wants to know.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Exactly.

[@mrhassell]

Dark matter and Dark Energy, are very likely to be explained by Quantum Field Theory, also possibly changing perceptions of the "primeval atom" hypothesis, of Georges Lamatre. The muon collider can be viewed as an electroweak vector boson collider, emphasizing its potential to study electroweak interactions comprehensively, similar to how the LHC is often seen as a gluon collider due to strong interaction studies. Future accelerators are seen as essential, not only for further studying the Higgs boson but also for potentially discovering new particles that may be beyond the reach of current experiments. There are reasons to anticipate the discovery of new physics beyond the Higgs. The standard model, is not complete and the periodic table, an absolute shambles. Intresting that it would of course be Sabine making these statements. I disagree with many of her views and have laughed out loud at somethings she has previously said but nobody is perfect, even if they think they are.

[@mrhassell]

The Poincaré group is a fundamental symmetry group that describes the spacetime symmetries of special relativity. It combines both translations (due to spacetime position changes) and Lorentz transformations (due to boosts and rotations). In theoretical physics, the space of physical states in a system with Minkowski spacetime (the underlying spacetime of special relativity) is typically a representation of the Poincaré group. More generally, it may be a projective representation (which amounts to a representation of the double cover of the group). In classical field theory, physical states are sections of a Poincaré-equivariant vector bundle over Minkowski space. The equivariance condition ensures that the group acts on the total space of the vector bundle, and the projection to Minkowski space is an equivariant map. Representations arising from the above construction (and their subquotients) are called covariant field representations. These representations are not usually unitary. For unitary representations, we turn to Wigner’s classification. QFT or quantum field theory, extends quantum mechanics to a relativistic framework. It involves solving relativistic wave equations (Lorentz/Poincaré invariant) and working with a Hilbert space composed of "Fock States". - No.. Fock... There are no finite unitary representations of the full Lorentz (and thus Poincaré) transformations due to the non-compact nature of Lorentz boosts (rotations in Minkowski space along space and time axes). However, finite non-unitary indecomposable representations of the Poincaré algebra can be used to model unstable particles. For spin-1/2 particles, a construction includes both a finite-dimensional representation and a scalar product preserved by this representation. Each particle is associated with a 4-component Dirac spinor that transforms under Lorentz transformations generated by gamma matrices. The irreducible unitary representation of the Poincaré group is characterized by mass and spin. These representations are given by two Casimir operators: the square of the total momentum operator (P2) and the square of the Pauli-Lubanski operator (W2). Interestingly, electrons and positrons have the same mass and spin but, are distinct as particles.

[@cristianandrei5462]

I disagree with you, if all or at least some of the things you talk about above actually exist in reality, like dark matter or all the particles in the standard model, you have to find a smarter way to prove it than giant expensive colliders which will be mostly paid from state funds, or go to the private sector for investment into it. My 2 cents on it...

[@Sancarn]

Maybe true, but without knowing a specific energy range where evidence for dark matter and dark energy will be found, is it really worth building a new higher energy collider? I'm not an expert in this field, but to me we have finite resources, shouldn't we wait until we have strong evidence suggesting dark matter/energy will be found within a finite energy range before we commit to building a new expensive and resource intensive collider, which might undershoot said range? I think this is Hossenfelder's point, and it sounds reasonable to me.

[@ownyourgov]

@@mrhassell Thank you! This must be what Sabine meant by "the gobbledegook". Can you please, explain that more understandably?

[@kafalonitis]

About new physics, the meaning of mass, cosmic expansion and the big bang, please see also doi:10.5281/zenodo.11401298 on the question: Is the Big Bang an artifact?

[@locman6228]

Maybe we have all the data we need; we just don't know how to read it yet.

[@axle.student]

I find that a strong possibility.

[@Orion15-b9j]

This is "spot-on"! We have mountains of data, but something is preventing us to construct a clear and sensible picture. This is like the situation of putting correct numbers into a wrong formula. - You will never have correct result. There is one book which proposing a different formula, which could be correct, because its results giving answer to all unknown phenomena. - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@axle.student]

@@Orion15-b9j I'm not a physicist, but I think there is something a little off the mark with the fundamental underlying paradigm in relativity (and maybe QM). The book sounds interesting but I can't afford to clutter my thoughts with it at the moment.

[@rendarcrow]

Casimir wave function detection device theoretical idea to measure quantum wave interactions with classical physics.

[@woofie8647]

Everything we know in physics is based on mathematics, which, as I believe someone here said, only "describes" what we see. The end point then of current physics is a total mathematical description of the universe, not a full explanation of exactly what "things" are, why they are what they are, how they function as they do, and where they all came from. The questions we would really like answered may turn out to be more philosophical or metaphysical than scientific. Hopefully one day someone will come along and bridge the gap between science and philosophy and show us what we are missing. Current science can only take us so far.

[@luststarling]

A theory is a frame of statement that works as a link between the phenomena and the symbolic world. The particle phenomena such as the detector or something are linked to different modes in math. Physics is to create those frames and statements based on the math tools and tricks to explain the dynamical phenomena we observe. As a theorist, I think the obvious existence of the observation and phenomena of motion, which means some dynamical parameter or degree of freedom we could abstract from anything you think(nature, unconsciousness entity, subject , etc), and the math trick of mode expansion, absolutely straightforward lead us to the concept of particle, which is the statement of modern theory. You link this concept to anything you want to call a particle, like the semi-particle, the phonon, the graviton, or the oscillator particle of economic dynamical freedom. I think this is a modern and clear statement of the concept of particles.

[@luststarling]

So, I think this is not a philosophical problem, because what we call a particle has a very well definition in modern physics. This is the same answer for a common question: does the graviton exist? Yes! No matter what you see the spacetime is, it is absolutely a dynamic degree of freedom, then we can do the mode expansion to its field equation which is the classical equation of Einstein, which means we have something to call a particle. And when we bring the Quantum principle here, we will have the discrete particle, math will always lead to the result of particle number based on the mode expansion, which can only be an integer in quantum representation. I think that thing is not a problem at all, because those concepts is very clear.

[@sunnyboy4553]

In the broadest sense physics must exist only to advance metaphysics with a basis in nature to evolve the consciousness of humankind - .a natural progression of evolution. There IS a convergence coming to the fore now of physics and metaphysics, but the prevailing inertial drag of scientism is still slowing it down.

[@En_theo]

Wrong. Theory tells maths what to do, not the other way around. Math are a very useful tool to compensate the fact that our brain are wired to think like apes, but in no way can maths develop a theory for you.

[@denysvlasenko1865]

"Philosophy" is not science. Do you ever saw a philosopher testing his predictions against experiments?

[@ginomarceca5876]

I did my PhD in particle physics as a member of the ATLAS Collaboration. Sabine is right. We should stop running expensive collisions (in terms of energy, money and human time), as we don't have enough theoretical reasons to go down that path (not anymore, and that has been falsified by particle physicists since 2012). I can understand the great inertia present in large scientific collaborations to change path, but we should be flexible and do honest science, because in the end that is how science works, on the basis of accepting our failures. Otherwise we would still be looking for the aether.

[@nazarovkonstantin2005]

@@hawkanonymous2610 The Higgs boson was the theoretical reason. Further enlargement of the collider is pointless, since there are no longer theoretical reasons for this.

[@paulmurtagh9823]

I was thinking here, is building a bigger collider an experiment looking for a Theory, or an experiment proving a theory?

[@Quest_Ion_music]

I agree with Sabine, that a new supercollider isn't necessary.

[@Kelnx]

Ditto. It seems ridiculous to build an even more expensive collider than the LHC when there isn't a specific particle to look for like the Higgs was the reason for the LHC. That's kind of where Sabine is coming from here with her comments on the Standard Model. Unless there is an actual predicted particle or set of particles from a developed new model or extended version of the Standard Model, then why waste the expense of building a new collider? Gavin Salam is just another one who wants a bigger machine without giving a solid reason for it. "We might find new things" isn't a valid reason. Sabine is basically telling him to "do the other work first" to establish a need for a bigger machine and not the other way around.

[@KippGenerator]

OK. It is a safe bet to agree with Sabine. But what are your arguments?

[@charleskramer6189]

I think the problem is we do not know what a new collider would find. MAYBE nothing. But we don't know. And up-until-now, new colliders have always produced useful information. And would not a "nothing" result also be useful information?

[@seditt5146]

@@KippGenerator Even worse is the majority of data coming from these colliders is tossed out. We generate too much and only really store what we are looking for. If we dont know what we are looking for odds are we are already chucking out the data we need so I fail to see how this can help until we are sure we reached the limits of our current machine which we surely have not.

[@mrhassell]

The LHC is a gluon collider, due to strong interaction studies and the requirement still exists for a Muon collider, an electroweak vector boson collider, has yet to surpass the LHC and be made. Its almost certainly going to happen and is in design phase presently. Nobody thought the LHC was necessary, until the Higgs "scalar" Boson, was discovered in 2012, then everybody had to agree with its benefits. It seems like the most counterintuitive thing that a scientist, should possibly ever want to even argue against. Its called progress and is more fundamental than we even know, yet we know what we don't know. So how, are we supposed to just guess? That's really great logic. I guess we should also abandon all work that QFT has made possible and in doing so, surrender the transistor, resulting in computers and go back to working with pens and paper too?

[@aroemaliuged4776]

@16.00 What other scientific method is there?

[@wahswolf88]

i am just an ordinary person with only basic understanding of the subject matter, though very interested in it all. I have become a fan of Sabine Hossenfelder and how she presents everything.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Good for you, she´s brilliant.

[@janpaulbusch1437]

Mad respect to the wellspokenness of the whole discussion

[@guineapig1016]

Sabine fan here

[@marianagyorgyfalvi3659]

It is probably a particularity of the wave, the electric impulse, and it depends on the intensity of the collision of the wave... to emit smaller or larger electrical units, woven or disintegrated...

[@romanieo]

Terrence Howard is in the parking lot

[@tubal1]

Debates between people not screaming are great because you can find then that everyone is right at some degree and depending from which perspective you are looking at the scene, so at the end you can get the best and merge. Any politician around here!?!?!?

[@celiogouvea]

I think Sabine is the smartest.

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

Wiser

[@garyfortington6641]

I would appoint Sabine as a Director for allocating funding to new or current scientific endeavours. Limited resources demand that careful and detailed business cases be considered by an expert group consisting of a wide range of stakeholders.

[@virtualrealitychannel2276]

A new collider probably means a lot of sweet, sweet cheddar for physicists like Salam so it's good that there's pushback against the same old routine. Maybe in the back of their minds they just want to keep those big paychecks coming in instead of being innovative and challenging themselves.

[@ownyourgov]

Of course, we all do, whether real estate commissions or colliders. Since its public money we especially have a right to ask about the public benefit. Good point!

[@wout123100]

Upton Sinclair: 'It is impossible to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[@johnbarbuto5387]

This is an interesting debate, perhaps as much for what is not said as for what is said. I agree with others: Sabine is not saying there is no value in looking for other particles. I think she is simply saying it isn't cost-effective in this era. As others have said, the financial resources for research are limited. The resources need to be spent where they are most likely to show value. I'm in medicine (not physics). And, in medicine the same problem exists. Those who make drugs think they should be used, even where there is limited value. Because drug manufacturers are in the business of making drugs they advocate "our treatment is necessary" (just as Purdue pharmaceuticals pushed its drug in the face of the opioid epidemic). But, what are we really treating: the desires of those who are invested in the drug, or the needs of solving a problem? There will always be things we "could" do, but are these also the things we "should" do? In a world increasingly aware of limited resources, the debate is important. "Bang for the buck" may be an odd metaphor in the context of particle colliders, but it is a relevant consideration.

[@trickedouttech321]

Sibine is the best, she is just honest and has no ego the rest are all ego and greed -driven.

[@EntrE01]

I feel like Mr. Salam is afraid for his funding.

[@supermanofficial]

glad we could get a mic in the music festival funk tent for this one

[@erehwhon]

Exactly what value did the "philosopher" add to this discussion? Just drivel.

[@DanielJones-wj7mm]

Your question demonstrates a deep IGNORANCE of the relationship between the disciplines examining abstract concepts. Sad.

[@ownyourgov]

Not unreasonable to ask. Since the answer requires some effort, its also reasonable to ask you to be specific. What specifically are you saying is "drivel" and why?

[@reinerheiner1148]

Your tone does not help your case lance

[@erehwhon]

@@ownyourgov All of it - his "answers" did not address the questions that were asked and were unrelated to the immediately foregoing comments of the other two participants - who had the qualifications as physicists to address the debate topic. He really was completely out of his depth about physics in general and particle physics in particular. Being a "philosopher of science" doesn't equate with being knowledgeable of some specific science discipline - which he aptly demonstrated. Hossenfelder, on the other hand, is not only qualified to opine regarding the state of particle physics theory and experimentation but has also demonstrated, in her latest book, that she has applied her mind quite diligently on the more philosophical implications of our current understanding of physics.

[@Logically_Fallacious]

Science broke into our brains with rtfMRIs and PET scans, you are absolutely right. We no longer have to hypothesize endlessly and wrongly in an unbroken chain of ridiculousness when we see what's going on in our brains with high accuracy and precision, while the AIs have passed AGI, now on to ASI. Then again, if you listen to Penrose, he makes scientists look stupid too, so there's always that and the history of popular scientists saying what the scientists believe then 5 years later changing that, never admitting they were wrong, and then 5 years later changing again, cause damn, experimental results really fubar their grift too. Now, even that there was a big bang is moot, because the JWST proved that wrong too. Might as well just get wasted and laid and wait for the AIs to solve it, because we are at our limit of observation and analysis.

[@danielmcwhirter]

I hope the debate might get more specific...the enormous value given us by the LHC, Gigs of collision event data per second, artificial intelligence required to sort and pattern various events that a human might understand, probabilistically picking apart whatever reality the machine can reveal...the enormous cost to design and construct a new larger collider, and how big is enough (?) 30 Tev, 60 Tev, 100?...let's see what the LHC produces. What grand expensive experiments compete? Do we need a fifty miles long gravity wave sensor in outer space? Do we need a $100 billion dollar AGI sucking up all scientific knowledge, controversies and all...to tell us "what is!" and "where to look!"

[@billcook7285]

A guy told me once, "there is no God". That made me start thinking, "how would we know"? I mean, if we didn't have noses, would smells still exist? How would we know? Maybe these particles, are just us discovering God? Damn I'm high.

[@bm9504nb12]

I think what you say is a very important point to consider in physics, and there's not much we can do about it. We are just another living creature. And we don't have the same skills as some animals do, who don't have most of ours. So these limitations are quite real. This can be applied to particles, dimensions / time and so on. And yea all this sounds pretty crazy if we think about it.

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

Yes you are

[@axle.student]

A large part of me is beginning to feel like it is all based upon a human created fairytale; a fundamental assertion of what the universe is that may not actually be correct. The problem appears to be in the human paradigm that we attempt to assert over the natural universe, and as such we create the theories to fit the terms of that fundamental paradigm or belief system rather than what the universe may actually look or behave like. To put in another way, looking at the right things but describing it the wrong way or from the wrong perspective.

[@Orion15-b9j]

This is a wise statement. We need to put together a correct fundamental elements in order to understand how the Universe works. We even don't understand how "Attraction" works, because exchange of particles can only propel objects away from each other. There is a book which could be of interest of yours, because providing answers - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@axle.student]

@@Orion15-b9j Yeah, I am currently exploring alternative paradigms and geometries. I have found a few pro and cons in the ones I am creating in my thought experiments. I keep running into issues with the fundamental description of 4D space-time as it is proposed in the theory of relativity. I am not a physicist and no assertion of wright or wrongs on either side, just something looks a bit off. I can't pollute my mind too much with other perspectives at the moment, as setting up my mind to think from different paradigms is exceptionally difficult lol

[@axle.student]

@@Orion15-b9j P.S. Thanks for the vote of confidence :)

[@Orion15-b9j]

@@axle.student I understand, it is not easy. Keep going, but stay with an open mind. If you have a 30 min. time, just think about how many dimensions is necessary to define space. - Having in mind that the dimensions is getting out from the Reference Point and that they cannot be measured in reverse from the reference point. When you done this, you will understand space and why there is only six stable electron shells and why the electron has to be rotated on 720 degrees to come back in its original position. Regards

[@axle.student]

@@Orion15-b9j Thanks for the hint. I Have a base familiarity with the half spin. > I'm rolling more fundamental in the geometry at the moment. Reconstructed something similar to past light cone (for photons) but as a sphere with a infinite point observer in the now moment. I end up with a kind of 2.5D geometry with spherical shells. Each spherical shell being a spherical 2D surface expression of a distance/time. This paint's the space-time gradient of the past that we see in the now moment. Much like what a human would perceive at the retina, or a fast camera. I can't find any 3D or 4D geometry in that without "assuming" some fixed cardinal point in the universe. I also did numerous forward (plank like) steps for a single photon into the future. I only have 1 dimension (distance-time) (forward) without assuming some universal fixed point. I can abstractly create 2 dimension from that if I split distance and time into 2. This gives me 3 possible transitions to the next moment. (That transition is quantum, so I left it alone for the moment ). If I "Assume" some universal (global) fixed point or static 3D universe (Which I don't feel comfortable with under the context of relativity other than 'c' being stated as global) then I can "assume" up to ~20 different geometry and coordinate systems for the future path of a photon. Each appears to have it's pros, cons and limitations. My main takeaway at the moment is that something feels fundamental wrong with the 3D, 4D geometry and coordinate system used in relativity used to describe "space-time" as a combined vector/direction. The other is how often I have to use the word "Assumed" when talking about physics. > I am attempting to find the human bias at the moment. That kind of requires me to assume different subjective beliefs within my mind so that it paints a reality and geometry based upon that belief. A kind of reprogramming of the minds subjective paradigm to visit the different human realities that paint over the problem. > Not easy to do, but I am seeing some potential for some subjective human bias that may have taken past geometry and painted over (or tried to mush it into) the description of space-time. As if Albert and mates had to bring along something from the past to appease the gods of the physics jungle back in the day :) > P.S. I did attempt to bring in the concept of gravity between to points of small mass, but every geometry so far breaks the speed of light (gravitational fields must transfer information instantly). Kind of falling into that gravity issue there atm. > The thought experiments are quite revealing even if ultimately wrong in the end :)

[@MyWissam]

What a waste of time.

[@MisterWillow]

Since nobody ask,s I must: What is the music in the background during this debate?

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

Sounds like a party. Just be glad you were not in the audience.

[@anxious_robot]

Sabine is so negative. She'd probably tell the Wright Brothers they can't fly.

[@smartinsilicon]

If the Wright Bros failed find their flight particle and kept asking for ten^N x money after each fail, maybe they should be grounded so that others can have a try.

[@Thomas-gk42]

No she´s not. You should read her books.

[@anxious_robot]

@@Thomas-gk42 I watch all her KZbins and she’s super negative. Her books are suddenly positive? That would be weird be I guess quantum says it’s possible.

[@Portents-Magic-imagination]

No she’s Realistic

[@anxious_robot]

@@Portents-Magic-imagination not really all the stuff she’s negative about is going to happen. She just doesn’t like that success and likes people to fail. It’s so negative.

[@arthurvrielink3229]

There is a particle we can't messure, reason its to dangerous. I am having a theorie about magma, how it can grow in strength. But what I am realising is that we can't produce the heat and controle it and also the force it will create, we can't control it. My vision is partly build on the Richterscale, if a reaction can cause an increase of 1,4 times more strength over and over. Till scale 7 its still 1,4 after that it slowly comes down. So could we control the force. I think not. How does it works, magma that runs in an obstruction will leave a foodprint, crystals that keep the energy of impact. When new magma 40 minutes (minimum timespan to get a 1,4 multiply reaction.) or longer due runs in it will react and the energy that was kept will be set free. This method is based on a two way interaction. So earthquake A and later B added up then devided by 2 then multiply by 1,4 gives the new high or lower rating if one is lower less stronger then the originaly first basic point. There's still a lot to learn. Think of fake diamonds, how many pressure and energy you have to put in to let it grow. Now say you have 100.000 or more, when that releases its energy. Thats what is happening in a magma channel and sometimes in a volcano.

[@JungleJargon]

Scientists looking for God.

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

Not just god but is it a Matrix or every human is a miniature version of god. They are trying to find souls as well.

[@jocr1971]

no

[@ritamsadhukhan772]

@@jocr1971 yes they are Edward witten on record said that M theory stands for magic , mystery , Matrix membrane depending on the taste only time will tell.

[@eryqeryq]

no

[@User-xp4kl]

Now look here. The purpose of science is to create models that describe how the world around us work. Its based on observations and logic. Science doesn’t have an agenda that it’s pushing, it simply changes overtime to best describe the world. Now science CAN end up proving that ”god” exists, but there is just no logic to think so yet. See, the difference is that in religion you straight up jump to the conclusion that god exists and therefore you need to believe that god exists because there is no logical outcome where that would be the result. You get it?

[@psmoyer63]

Before you can figure out why any particle has the value that it does you have to figure out what the universe as a whole is doing. Observation shows us that the universe is structured to make empty space. And empty space contains all the quantum fields necessary to make all the particles.

[@n-da-bunka2650]

Colliders ADD energy as part of their very design! We need alternatives that can provide insight into the internals of particles. Lasers tokomats might be two of those alternatives

[@mandygershon8603]

I am certainly no physicist, but I'm thinking particles are just part of the wave; how can we measure the wave? Open to constructive criticism. :) @6Min. Would anyone in General Systems theory be helpful? Could you accelerate neutrinos? Perhaps those detected by Ice Cube? (I know, I'm showing my ignorance here, but I am the curious sort.)

[@kreynolds1123]

If the question is, should we build particle accelerators the size of earth to answer deeper questions, the answer should obviously be a qualifed yes at some point in time. The next question is when. And we have to weigh human resources and cost to support fundamental physics vs practical physics. And it is good to remember that it's increases in practical physics that helps us improve our measuring technology. So is it OK that we shelve plans for bigger accelerators for a while and use our resources on more practical problems. Then when we return to building bigger and more powerful particle colliders, we can do better with the limited resources available.

[@ownyourgov]

The irony is that we have the collective wealth to do it now if we were not blowing it on warfare and various problematic commercial uses.

[@wout123100]

dont agree, we will never get answers by building bigger things, thats a big illusion.

[@kreynolds1123]

@@wout123100 if your refering to final answers, may be. I freqently reflect on Kurt Gödel's incomplentess theorems, and the implication for science to model or reason the universe. That any formal system of axiums sufficently advanced as to be able to do addition will have true statements that can not be proven within that system. And i reflect how that is in direct conflict with only truths in science are things that can be proven. Science can never be complete, no matter how many put their faith in its ability to eventually explain all truths. But we have learned things by building bigger. Reguardless, the main point of my inital comment was that there are a lot of competing interest and that maybe we can shelf ideas for a bigger accelerator for awhile allowing us to put more resources to science that improves our lives. And my follow up comment to another's in this discussion thread was that maybe we will have better efficacy to those ends in the private sector than the public. Either way, we could not do BIG science well without a larger population, and to that end, we need more practical science that increases the productivity, to do more with less constrained resources.

[@lordgarion514]

"And so far, it predicts everything pretty well." Pretty well, but not anywhere remotely perfectly. We have a lot of problems in a lot of areas.

[@CUMBICA1970]

What's with the thumping music in the background?

[@proteusaugustus]

It is absurd that the universe would chose all those particles to conserve energy. The standard model is a statistical representation of impact frags that are energies that they turn into particles.

[@Anna_Raphael]

At 6:12 Claim: Hick field gives the electron its mass. Fact: Electron mass is 0.05% of our mass; and it sets the size of atoms. If an electron is twice the size, how much bigger our atom will be? Mr. Salam said, "if it were half of that mass, the electron mass were different we'd be twice our size and supposedly that comes because the electron interacts with the Higs field." Why do you say that "if it were half of that mass"? According to Mr. Salam, the electron interacts with the Higs field. How does an electron interact with Hicks field?

[@lepidoptera9337]

The chemical scale can be understood as being "set" by a couple of things: the speed of light, Planck's constant, epsilon_zero, the electron charge, the electron mass. None of that really matters as the values of these constants depend on our choices of physical units. They are only "uneven" numbers in SI units, which are really engineering choices. Set c=1, h=1, m_e=1 etc. and you will find that the only "constant" that remains is the fine structure constant which is the famous 1/137. That is the only "unexplained" mystery here. What sets that? We don't know. We don't know what sets the ratios between electron and proton masses, either, because for that we would have to know what sets the interaction strength of quantum-chromodynamics. There are, in total, something like 21 such ratios in the current standard model of high energy physics and if supersymmetry exists, then there could be dozens, if not hundreds more of such free parameters in the low energy effective field theory.

[@WILLIAMMALO-kv5gz]

If "mass" is concentrated "energy" could we not be creating more "particles" of "mass" with increasing "energy"?? Is there not the possibility of generating a quantum flux in the "vacuum" at high enough energy level?

[@foshyurgason]

We have a budget to work with, and it would be wise to spend it efficiently. Hossenfelder believes we should come back to it later when we have a new perspective. Allocate our resources in more important areas for the time being

[@thomasdougherty3013]

It is straight forward and simple...there are no particles. They are a construct of our perceptions. Since, I believe, they do not exist, there is also no need for wave particle duality. What I think they are really are are the effect of two waves interacting. Therefore, what I call an Article ( Animated real time incented created latent eddy) they can exist anyplace on a wave since it is not there until the wave interacts with another wave. Thinking this way also allows us not to have to quantize gravity.

[@lepidoptera9337]

Yes, we told you all of that in high school. Sound of one hand clapping. ;-)

[@thomasdougherty3013]

Sorry, went to high school in the 50s. @@lepidoptera9337

[@ausgoogtube01]

But since the Higgs was a profound summit in theoretical physics in the 70's, and physicists dreamed of the day when we would be able to detect its existance indisputably, and then we did detect, it to all intents and purposes, indisputably, I think we need to be looking for something like a Higgs theoretical profundity, by which we may re-aim efforts in the experimental reality - ie. The Higgs drove the enormous effort to build a LHC capable of detecting it. But that drive started in the theoretical. I think that is what Sabine is saying. There needs to be motive, or conflagration in the theoretical world toward a new profound physics goal, which may not necessarily be LHC based. Perhaps it is quantum computing based - necessary to discover a new mathematical summit or equation. Although partical collision has an addictive effect since discovery of the Higgs, you can just as easily say, well... we need a larger one if were to arrive at any new observable data with which to begin looking for a new particle physics summit. But y'know.... when is enough of something enough, to stop pouring vast resources into it with no geopractical return....?

[@lewebusl]

The fundamental "particle" does not neccessarily need to be the smallest thing. A fundamental constructor of other thing might actually be a very large thing.

[@rodllewellyn]

what do you mean by "large"? Can a object be a constituent of something smaller than itself? If so, what do you mean by "size" in the first place?

[@lewebusl]

@@rodllewellyn Size has the same meaning as we commonly accepted. What I mean is that we can have an indivisible fundamental "particle" larger than an atom which is flexible enough to be squeezed or bended down to fit in the volume of the atomic radius/volume , but also larger than the atom radius/volume when you un-squeezed . Just like say a blanket which can be fit into a bag , but then expanded back.

[@nabuk3]

I wish the moderator had introduced herself (or that someone else had), since I found her opening comments to be some of the most interesting of the whole video, and to sum up the main issues and questions very well. Can we know a little more about her?

[@savage5757]

19:55 Can we build a particle accelerator encircling the earth along the equator? 🌍

[@DmitryTomat]

What if we build an accelerator even bigger than we have now, but do not make new discoveries, because it turned out to be not big enough. Therefore, I agree with you, to make it immediately the size of the Earth 🌏

[@pekkavirtanen5130]

will we find more "higs particles" of different sizes in different particle accelerators? The one found now has a certain size whose existence time is very short, so it is not permanent and is artificial? A tight bunch of protons? A tight bunch of protons? Higgs field = gravitational field-renamed? Is all the know-how lost?

[@lepidoptera9337]

Probably not at the LHC. There are plans for Higgs factories, but finding a Higgs multiplet is not going to drive the theory. It's already accounted for. What you are asking is basically the same as the question if one can discover nuclear physics by developing more precise analytic methods in organic chemistry. One can not and that's that.

For Sabine, things just have to work. It's not really about "finding underlying truths" or meaning, it's about finding a good model and that's it.