Particle Physics Discoveries that Disappeared

Invest in yourself! Use my link and check out the first chapter of any course for FREE! bit.ly/2Pcgnxa
Particle physicists seem to constantly announce discoveries which then disappear. What is going on? How seriously are you to take the recently announced Fermilab muon g-2 anomaly or the B-meson anomaly at the Large Hadron Collider? In this video I explain what's going on.
You can support us on Patreon here: / sabine
I have a longer comment about the recent muon g-2 measurement here:
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
Addendum to what I say at 5 mins 30 seconds: That's only for a normal distribution. The relation between confidence level and standard deviation can differ for other distributions.
Correction to to what I say at 7 mins 18 seconds ("had no known interpretation"). This only refers to the superjets, not to the pentaquarks (which, well, were interpreted as pentaquarks). Sorry about that.
You can support us on Patreon: / sabine
0:00 Sponsor Message
1:00 Intro
1:42 How do the predictions work?
3:12 Where do anomalies come from?
5:46 Anomalies that disappeared
8:48 Other problems
9:55 What's with that B-meson anomaly?
This video was sponsored by DataCamp.
#science #physics #data

[@robertansley6331]

Those _researchers that perform very creative analysis_ @9:00 reminds me of my accounting professor who said _Numbers will confess to anything if you torture them_ !

[@sunnyhighway1]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -=- Mark Twain

[@john-or9cf]

Recall the IHME model a year ago....

[@christianlingurar7085]

I did data analisys and statistics on IT in a leading financial institution in europe. I have involuntarily learned to prove and show opposite results from the same data set, depending on the addressee, either IT management or financial management. :-D those were the days (2001 - 2008)

[@john-or9cf]

@@christianlingurar7085 I had to do almost the same thing. We bought several specialized computers that I warned would not do the job. Two years later I had to provide “data” showing the manufacturer was at fault for selling them to us in the first place. When we purchased them, the project engineer said we MUST by them NOW because we won’t be able to buy them a month later since they would be out of production...he bought them, I had to later justify his screw-up...BTW, my confidence level they would not work as required was 5 sigma - at least!

[@patrickfitzgerald2861]

Yep. Just ask an economist. 😎

[@fluffy_tail4365]

physicist: we use 5sigma as the best confidence level, but people start getting interested around 3 sigma me, a biologist: 👀

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Haha, yes I read papers all the time about 2 sigma effects in psychology. It's not only the amount of data of course. It's also that in living systems there are many more potential sources of uncertainty.

[@_John_P]

@@SabineHossenfelder What methodology you believe should be used in place or in conjunction with the 5 sigma threshold? I mean, shouldn't there be a calculation to dynamically adjust the required sigma value to declare a discovery instead of just picking 2, 3 or 5?

[@sandorkovacs6649]

@@SabineHossenfelder 1

[@pwnmeisterage]

@@_John_P You're asking about a formula to calculate the confidence level of your confidence level? Applying an arbitrary threshold onto another arbitrary threshold still produces an arbitrary threshold, the math might be impressive but the results wouldn't be meaningful - they wouldn't increase accuracy to any degree.

[@LKRaider]

@@pwnmeisterage but think of the papers on methodology conjectures just waiting to be published!

[@gmaf79]

When I was a kid it was Saturday morning cartoons. Today, it's Saturday morning Sabine :)

[@EffySalcedo]

Thats a fabulous idea💡 I'm having both 👶🤓

[@robertelessar]

Ditto

[@area51z63]

LOL so Sabine is really a cartoon. Now I know why she is so funny

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@EffySalcedo The page "Physics of the COSMOS (Book Series)" has given the following writing the thumbs up on its page. FULLY UNDERSTANDING E=MC2 AND F=MA: E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This is PROVEN by BOTH F=ma AND E=mc2. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time dilation ALSO proves that GRAVITY IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. THINK about it. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS CLEARLY GRAVITY. ALL of SPACE is NECESSARILY ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (IN BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 is DIRECTLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY DERIVED FROM F=ma. ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Indeed, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); as the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the SPEED OF LIGHT; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. PERFECT. It is proven. F=ma AND E=mc2 PROVE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great. Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is FULLY INVISIBLE AND black. By Frank DiMeglio

[@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT]

Back then, I imagined myself as the Roadrunner. But Sabine shows me that all my best ideas come right out of an ACME shipping box, and failure is all in a day's work.

[@creightonfreeman8059]

Oh Sabine, you are so tactful. "Some independent researchers use, ..... very creative data analysis methods." lol

[@Doeff8]

That little zoom-in at the word 'creative' :-)

[@rosomak8244]

Some dependent researcher are b-shitting too. Quite often actually. Gosh more then half of universities is occupied by oficialy certified b-shitters: they call them self social sciences.

[@JorgetePanete]

@@rosomak8244 10/10 English.

[@johnboze]

This is a creative method all right: Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory "Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe" Photon Mass is Given by: Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg) Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) = F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2 where, m = mass of a single photon h = Planck Constant c = speed of light, λ = wavelength of photon After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers. From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper. There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start. 2021 gonna be a revelation in physics! EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" b = h/c (kg m) b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s) b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) "b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles. b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable. The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" : m = b/λ (kg) or, m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass: m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m) Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon: m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg ) Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES. Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter. The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure. Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity. Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking. This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates. We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate. The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles. Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper. Good Luck!

[@JohnDoe-sp5jd]

@@johnboze You should make a video about it. It would be easier to digest for most.

[@faarsight]

This is such a good video. Rarely do we hear about when a speculative new possible exciting discovery turns out not to have been true.

[@nziom]

very true

[@sarkolas]

The most expensive collider in human history looking for more fundings

[@Madsy9]

Just like how almost no one publishes papers where they fail to prove their hypothesis.

[@dlevi67]

@@sarkolas 'We' spent a lot less money (at PPP) to develop the LHC than 'we' did developing the atomic bomb. And 'we' keep spending more on the development (and the procurement) of weapons than on basic scientific research.

[@sarkolas]

@@dlevi67 this isn't even an argument what are you trying to advocate for? With that same logic I could say we spent a lot more on LHC than to try to end poverty and that's a valid point too.

[@marcochimio]

Excellent analysis, Dr. H. As you might imagine, this type of thing comes up in totally unrelated sciences, as well. The medical literature is littered (no pun intended) with reports of new and exciting biomarkers (molecules whose high or low levels indicate some particular disease) that only vanish when they are re-investigated by other labs. Part of the problem is we look at tens of thousands of proteins and use only 2-3 sigma to verify. About 10 years ago (I'm writing this from memory, so I may have some details wrong), some researchers re-tested at about 75 "exciting" new markers of heart disease from the journals. They found that 74 of these could not be reproduced, and the remaining one biomarker was "iffy" at best. It's just as bad or even worse with new cancer markers.

[@gehirndoper]

Statistical fluctuations are a huge problem in medicine, even more so than in Physics. There are two main reasons: 1) New discoveries can be marketed very quickly, and 2) unlike physicists, physicians don't understand statistics.

[@bubblebobble9654]

In high tech manufacturing, we collect a lot of tool data. Whenever we have a problem someone inevitably suggests to check the tool data to look for a signal and my note of caution is always the same. I say go ahead and do the due diligence, but >99% of the time you find a signal and

[@annamyob4624]

@@gehirndoper medical researchers do understand statistics. They also understand what brings the funding in. Until the funding institutions and venture capitalists stop jumping after the latest "excitement," hyperbole will remain a necessity for survival as a researcher.

[@gehirndoper]

​@@annamyob4624 True enough, we need more result-independent research funding (in all areas). My comment about understanding statistics was only half in jest unfortunately. The stories I heard in the math department, which helped out the medical grad students with interpreting their data, were appalling.

[@annamyob4624]

@@gehirndoper But that's how it SHOULD work... the math experts helping out the medical researchers. No one should have to be both an expert in their field, AND a stats/methodology expert. When one sees some of the junk that gets published, it's so easy to blame the researchers, but they're operating within institutions and an overall system that often doesn't reward the kind of diligence you and I value. I was fortunate to work in a university medical research setting that included a top-notch statistician, and nothing got done, much less published, without her approval. (and she, in turn, often consulted with colleagues in the stats department.) Unfortunately many researchers do not have that kind of quality support. In fact, I've known plenty who were forced by their department head to rush and publish work that was 'not ready for prime time,' because publish or perish. As for the geeks in your math department, I'm sure they did get lots of mileage out of the gaffes of the students; I've enjoyed such LOLs myself. But that's not a reflection on the students, who could run circles around those geeks when it came to physiology and pharmacology. If anything the geeks should be grateful, because there'd be a lot fewer jobs for them if all researchers could do their own math!

[@MedlifeCrisis]

As soon as I saw these stories break I was like "I need to know what Sabine says about this before I know how to think"😂 It's not that I'm blindly trusting of her, it's just that it's way outside my domain and I know it's Sabine's field. Also I'm blindly trusting of her.

[@khanhtn9665]

Wow, Dr. Francis! So, you like physics, too!

[@nahometesfay1112]

Evaluating anomalies hot of the presses is like eating pizza hot off the oven (or stove if you prefer pan pizza)

[@richardhuisintveld5084]

Seems like you lost your independent thinking due to a lack of knowing facts. You knowing your ignorance has made you dependent on the authority of others. You are not free because she overpowers your mind because she knows what is going on. Where it seems just a way to gather funding into the field and increase public interest through controversy.

[@MedlifeCrisis]

@@richardhuisintveld5084 seems like you lost your ability to recognise a joke

[@pianoraves]

As a highschool dumbass, I agree

[@Aufenthalt]

It is very important for the public to get an overview of the failures and not only the successes. Only so it is possible to get a non emotional view of the events. And Sabine make an excellent job in giving us an overview of the failure histories. Great channel.

[@KibyNykraft]

Absolutely. Some do in written versions as well, but tend to be mocked at or overlooked by the postmodernist neoreligious new academia and popular science thugs. Even if they partially offer literal solutions to the failures, with maths and detailed explanations. It is time to throw the hyperBo(h)reans off from the boat once and for all and accept that reality at all scales works continuosly motionwise in a literally empty space where all forcefields are aspects of basic charge, and not in creationist virtual boxes of unrelativity in a gelly space. But I am not sure if Hossenfelder is able to accept that fully, she however seems to be on the right path to some degree.

[@x_abyss]

The moral of the story: if you have a new particle discovery, don't let the New York Times publish about it. Jokes aside, fluctuation is the bane of any form of research. Great video as always Sabine.

[@andrewrivera4029]

But the New York Times is famous for fake news how else will they make a living?

[@claroquesi5168]

@@andrewrivera4029 Anda ya Andrés, ¡ni toda la pasta de Trump ha conseguido echar abajo al Times!

[@area51z63]

@@claroquesi5168 Trump syndrome is confirmed

[@claroquesi5168]

@@area51z63 Please... what is Trump syndrome? (I live in Spain)

[@area51z63]

@@claroquesi5168 Well clearly someone who lives in Spain and is mentioning Trump has TDS Trump derangement syndrome. The definition is online I assume you can do your own search

[@toddboothbee1361]

I'll never look at my paranormal coincidences with the same confidence again.

[@picksalot1]

Thanks Sabine for shedding light on this important subject. A 5th category may need to be added to the list to cover "Dishonesty." It would take into account things like sensationalism, seeking funding, fame, notoriety, and other incentives.

[@machineofadream]

Yeah, definitely. When you devote your life to particle physics, or any science, I imagine it wouldn't feel good when you don't discover anything. Perhaps wishful analysis could be a culprit, too. When people are doing tests to find something to tell people about and advance their science, they will be eager to interpret data any way that helps their theories, even if they aren't outright trying to be dishonest.

[@kwanarchive]

It's hard to be dishonest with particle physics if you don't have your own collider.

[@flockofwingeddoors]

The content you make is SUPER important! I don't hear this kind of analysis in the news that filters down to me usually, but having reality checks like this is important to keep us grounded and impartial

[@hyperduality2838]

Expectations = predictions or projections, making predictions is a syntropic process! Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). If physicists are making predictions then they are engaged in a syntropic (converging) process -- teleology. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Teleophobia is dual to teleophilia. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@michael.forkert]

Reality Checks?? Really, come on.

[@michael.forkert]

“Science” has been perverted by the fact that one focuses on what is not worth knowing, and with what is not knowable.

[@jagatiello6900]

"Noise happens to look like a signal." A great euphemism for 'I don't like this kind of music'. Great video Sabine, as usual...

[@clarkh3314]

*breathes, slight camera zoom* "very creative methods of analysis" that gave me a LOL

[@phdtobe]

Sabine, I’ve been waiting for you to cover this topic, as I have been sceptical about the strength of the claims made for some of the KZbin coverage of these observations. Thanks.

[@Aviv_S]

Data fluctuations. Can't live with them, can't live without them.

[@fragileomniscience7647]

You know, as the earth spins, some things don't.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

I'm wondering what gener of Rock/Metal band suits that name.

[@zonnopel]

Thanks for creating such an informative channel, loving the content! Keep up the great work

[@humanitech]

Great presentation and overview on the scientific standards, processes and practices of discovery. Thanks for giving this very clear and concise explanation of the complexities involved.

[@mailtorajrao]

Thank you, @datacamp for sponsoring these oh so excellent Sabine videos!

[@scullucs]

Aha. I was eagerly awaiting your take on these "discoveries". Very informative, as usual. Thanks.

[@1ApeinSpace]

I so enjoy spending time with Sabine, smart, funny and to the point.

[@chosenpeople3868]

Ughhhh. Get a real life.

[@juliusskoolafish9672]

“Hey! We don't allow no faster-than-light neutrinos in here!”, said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar.

[@paulgoogol2652]

Faster than sound too? Oh my.

[@eljcd]

@@paulgoogol2652 Even worse, faster than causality... Nerd joke, from Big Bang Theory, I think.

[@mrspidey80]

Nice. Haven't heard that one before.

[@FriedrichHerschel]

@@eljcd I know that one with Tachyons, and it's been around for longer then the TV show.

[@johnboze]

This may have been thought up in a bar in Cocoa Beach full of Astronauts: Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory "Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe" Photon Mass is Given by: Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg) Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) = F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2 where, m = mass of a single photon h = Planck Constant c = speed of light, λ = wavelength of photon After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers. From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper. There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start. 2021 gonna be a revelation in physics! EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" b = h/c (kg m) b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s) b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) "b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles. b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable. The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" : m = b/λ (kg) or, m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass: m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m) Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon: m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg ) Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES. Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter. The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure. Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity. Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking. This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates. We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate. The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles. Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper. Good Luck!

[@oubliette862]

u make it hard to even have a question...the topics are so complete...very nice. thank u dr.hossenfelder.

[@iainmair485]

Thank you for your productions, they keep me well informed.

[@RogerM88]

Nice to see you back. Hope some video about gravitational waves as the future trend study in Physics.

[@octosquatch.]

Seems like it's all about probability and uncertainty. So it's probably uncertain.

[@Darryl_Frost]

Are you sure about that?

[@octosquatch.]

@@Darryl_Frost not at all

[@Micetticat]

Systematic errors are so difficult to estimate sometimes!

[@sapelesteve]

All that I know is that my confidence level is always very high when I watch one of Sabine's videos! 😉👌

[@nswanberg]

Regression towards the mean is the second most powerful force in our universe.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

BRILLIANT QUOTE! I'M USING IT!

[@Sanelicv]

@@theultimatereductionist7592 Hi, can you explain, please?

[@alexandermagnus82]

@@Sanelicv I'm not very smart, nor educated on this topic. But I'm guessing he means after nuclear forces, the most powerful force is the tendancy for many researchers to walk back their bold claims because their deviations happened to be coincidences, and so consensus at the end of the day still settles around the statistical mean.

[@hank1519]

@@Sanelicv It's a statistical phenomenon involving correlations. For example, the IQ of a child is positively correlated with the average IQ of its parents. However, extremely brilliant parents will, on the average, have less brilliant children and extremely low IQ parents will tend to have children whose IQ is higher than theirs. Try this Wiki article en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean#:~:text=In%20statistics%2C%20regression%20toward%20the,to%20the%20mean%20or%20average.

[@eljcd]

Dr. Hossenfelder, thank you kindly for giving us an original view on the Physics world instead of regurgitating what others already said. Amazing how always can give us something new to learn in each video!

[@55455817296312345678]

Released on my Birthday, what more to want! 🌟🎉

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Happy Birthday!!

[@nziom]

Happy Birthday

[@nagualdesign]

Happy Birthday! 🎂

[@CAThompson]

Happy birthday.

[@jhwheuer]

Happy birthday

[@ajithkumarg3219]

Wonderful content Sabine❤️

[@HH-mw4sq]

Thank you so much for this clear and concise explanation.

[@nickthurn6449]

Love it. 🙃❤️🙃 Serious question: would it be fair to say that there is pressure to publish preliminary results because that can lead to more funding? So articles in the popular media, although annoying and often misleading, are just part of the process of keeping research going.

[@juanausensi499]

It's more than fair!

[@RobRidleyLive]

I think its the flip-side of popularizing science.

[@phumgwatenagala6606]

It doesn’t need to work like that…

[@usr7941]

*keeping bs going. The system is screwed up

[@Levon9404]

I love every single video clips you produced Sabine.

[@wynnroberts5388]

Thanks Sabine, been waiting for your opinion on this. Obviously there is more to come so I am happy to wait for your full explanation when you consider it to be real.

[@elizabethco6116]

I’m reading your book. It’s really good. If I’m not mistaken the NYT’s asked you what you think this time about the g-2. That’s progress.

[@oldmech619]

As a layperson, it is very difficult to follow the latest anomaly. I invest time in trying to wrap my head around it then find out it is a puff of smoke (I saw you do that on screen) Thank you so much for the sanity in science

[@CAThompson]

I now wonder how significant each reported development in particle physics actually is these days.

[@johnboze]

Muon g2 shows that the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles of the EM Field are colliding with the damn electron and making it wobble. Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory "Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe" Photon Mass is Given by: Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg) Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) = F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2 where, m = mass of a single photon h = Planck Constant c = speed of light, λ = wavelength of photon After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers. From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper. There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start. 2021 gonna be a revelation in physics! EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" b = h/c (kg m) b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s) b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) "b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles. b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable. The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" : m = b/λ (kg) or, m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass: m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m) Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon: m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg ) Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES. Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter. The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure. Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity. Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking. This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates. We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate. The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles. Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper. Good Luck!

[@oldmech619]

@@johnboze If true that photons loose energy over time, that would be an extreme contradiction from formal physics. Very interesting.

[@johnboze]

@@oldmech619 Photons Evaporate! All EM Fields loose energy via dispersion. Photons included. The visible universe limit is due to the FACT that Photons loose energy due to EM Wave Dispersion more specifically EM Dipole Dispersion. Photons loose dipoles one at a time via the Q Factor. This is the cause of Cosmic Redshift. No expanding universe. It is infinitely old. Max Q Factor for photons is like 10^11 for gamma photons. This translate to about a 50 billion year decay time before all photons evaporate. No photons larger than microwaves exist. The photons evaporate in the microwave range leaving only unorganized compression waves in the microwave range. this is the CMBR. The visible limit of the universe in gauged by the rate that dipoles evaporate from Photons. EXACTLY SAME thing as Hawking Radiation but Hawking was wrong. The radiation is from the dipoles themselves evaporating out of the sphere of the blackhole of EM Dipoles. A black hole is a volume of EM dipoles with no inter dipole distance so they can no longer vibrate to exert pressure against the pressure of the vacuum. Core collapses and the EM Dipole Mass/Energy Density Gradient is too dense for photons to escape. Photons are particles made of trillions of compressed EM dipoles in a complex flow of quantum superfluid or Bose Einstein Condensate of EM dipoles 10(-42) in diameter. The average orientation of EM Dipoles is its polarity. If the average polarities of a collection of EM Kinetic Dipoles are aligned in the same direction the particle will travel at the speed of light. The collisions between the individual dipoles and momentum transfers in the direction of the polarized dipoles provides the Self Propagation mechanical action of the EM field. If the average polarization of a particle is oriented elsewhere you simply get a particle with different degrees of wobble like electrons in the muon g2 experiment that shows EM Dipoles are causing the electrons to wobble.

[@oldmech619]

@@johnboze Question, Do you accept the Higgs Boson as the fundamental particle associated with the Higgs field and gives mass. Would this would be problematic to the theory of photons loosing mass? Just thinking

[@singleasiangaymale5935]

ms sabine always explain things clearly and succinctly.

[@stretch8390]

Always a delight to find a channel with fantastic content. Doesn't hurt that the paid promotion is actually a pretty good site, have used it for a few months now to learn R.

[@lovecraftscat5044]

Thank you for all you do! We need science communication more than ever, it seems.

[@johnboze]

yes we do need better comms. they either know more than us or they don't. but they are not telling us either way. so let me give you a small glimpse just behind the door... Electromagnetic Kinetic Dipole Theory "Do Photons Have Mass?" Yes ... aka " - 42 Is The Answer To The Universe" Photon Mass is Given by: Mass of Photon = m = h/cλ (kg) Momentum of Photon = p = m v = m c = (h/cλ) c = h/λ Energy of Photon = E = m c^2 = (h/cλ) c^2 = h c/λ Max Gravitational Force on Photon (cause of gravitational lensing) = F = G M m / r^2 = G M (h / c λ) r^2 = G M h / c λ r^2 where, m = mass of a single photon h = Planck Constant c = speed of light, λ = wavelength of photon After Dad help launch Apollo 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4 from inside the Firing Room he transferred to IBM Owego where he built Space Shuttle Flight Computers. From conversations during his space career with IBM for NASA and from his own intuitions on how the EM Dipole Particles of the EM Field literally caused gravity, after college I began to put his theory on paper. There are ~20 Equations but these are a good start. 2021 gonna be a revelation in physics! EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" b = h/c (kg m) b =6.62607004x10^(-34) (kg m^2/s) / (299792458) (m/s) b = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) "b" or ~10^(-42) describes how much mass is compressed into a volume defined by diameter of the wavelength. The spinning particle that created it did the WORK of compression. All particles including photons are compressed volumes of EM Field Dipoles. b = Number of Dipoles X Mass of Single EM Dipole X Wavelength with "wavelength" being the input internal variable. The Mass of a Photon us the EM Vacuum Dipole Compression Constant "b" : m = b/λ (kg) or, m = 2.210219x10^(-42) / λ (kg) ; //// - 42 ///// The Number of the Day A typical Red photon with a wavelength of 700nm has the following mass: m = 2.210219x10^(-42) (kg m) / 7x10^(-7) (m) Mass of a 700 nm Red Photon: m = 3.1574557x10^(-36) (kg ) Photons momentum comes from its mass at v = "c" and same with Energy. There are NO MASSLESS PARTICLES. Gravity is caused by the EM Kinetic Dipole Particles in Vacuum (EM Field) kinetically colliding with your EM Dipoles. Standard particles made of trillions of EM dipole particles in a quantum superfluid are actually a Bose Einstein Condensate of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles which are about 10^(-42) meters in diameter. The Planck Constant is the RMS distance between EM dipoles chaotically colliding in the EM Field. This is Vacuum Pressure. Collisions in Vacuum transfer momentum in the direction of the EM Kinetic Dipole Mass Density Gradient which causes gravity. Cosmic redshift is not from expansion it is from the fact that photons loose energy over time due to EM Wave Dispersion. Photons have a high Q Factor but still loose energy due to EM Dipole Dispersion. They actual loose dipoles one at a time. It takes a Gamma Photon 50 billion years to decay (evaporate) like Hawking. This visible universe is the length / time in which a photon evaporates. We will never see photons beyond this because photons evaporate. The EM Field is a Bose Gas of EM Kinetic Dipole Particles. Feel free to Peer Review and even write your own paper. Good Luck!

[@lovecraftscat5044]

@@johnboze :-|

[@catmate8358]

Some years ago a friend of mine was all excited regarding some reports from Italy about faster than light neutrinos. When I said that if true, it would break all known laws of physics, he said so what? It's amazing that people fail to understand how the laws of physics came into being and why they cannot be broken or changed three times a day...

[@RosaLichtenstein01]

Excellent video, Sabine. :-)

[@joachimkeinert3202]

An eye opener. Thanks Sabine.

[@robertbutsch1802]

Great video. I spent my career in medical research and analysis of clinical research data. It always baffled me that physicists want 5 sigma while we were always impressed with p < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval. Now I see.

[@stormtrooper9404]

Indeed! But your research are replicable as many times as you want! While in physics is usualy one pocus experiment.

[@genepozniak]

@@stormtrooper9404 I thought she said a million times!?

[@BlackHoleForge]

That is one of the things I love about science. It has to be repeatable.

[@maalikserebryakov]

Watch Jake the Muslim Metaphysician debunk physics

[@drake7036]

I could listen to this while I sleep... such a soothing voice and learning at the same time!

[@martifingers]

This is an excellent example of how to give an explanation of a complex issue without dumbing down.

[@markthebldr6834]

Yep. You are awesome Sabine. I'm just a dumb framer but I think some of what you said actually stuck. How come now that I'm almost 40 and are 20 years into my profession I find all of the best teachers.

[@LKRaider]

You weren’t looking before, I mean, kids just get what they get.

[@chosenpeople3868]

@@LKRaider awesome reply.

[@chosenpeople3868]

Looking for a date ?

[@NathansHVAC]

KZbin lets the most competent rise to the top. University does not. Kind of like socialism vs capitalism.

[@ChrisPBacon-nn9vy]

@@NathansHVAC the most competent voices are not on youtube... in fact the most competent voices are surely dead by now.

[@davruck1]

One of the best people at making complex topics simple. She's in the 99.9999999999999999999347 percentile of best physics KZbinrs.

[@DwainDwight]

Hi Sabine - thanks for this. ex review - very helpful - one of your bests posts

[@Wolf462]

Thank you for stimulating my brain with the physics and my endocrine system with your sweaters. Love your channel!❤️

[@chosenpeople3868]

Give me a break. Desperate much. Wow. You did not hear a thing she said. Yuk.

[@CAThompson]

Endocrine system??! Ew.

[@waynemarvin5661]

I know this is buried, but I have to say Thank You so much, Ms.

[@cros108]

thanks for being literally the only person with a significant following to actually expose this side of science to the world

[@marvinratchford7913]

Thanks for clarity regarding fluctuations. Think you also for your at once stunning yet fashionably calming attire!

[@brucecheesman2781]

An excellent video as per usual with a lot of information included. Sabine, what is your view on whether quarks are made up of even smaller particles,

[@barryon8706]

Last time I was this early, M-rays were pushing neutrinos faster than the speed of light.

[@douginorlando6260]

My favorite science discovery that disappeared? There are so many great contenders but I must give the top spot to the astronomer Hershel. He discovered the sun’s surface was habitable and populated with Solarians.

[@manueljoseblancamolinos8582]

The important thing is not to estimate the error of a measure but to estimate the error of the estimation of the error of the measure.

[@mryan2010]

Sabina, love your point of view.

[@guilhermehx7159]

Yeah!!! New video of Sabine

[@chosenpeople3868]

Oh yeah. But did you actually hear anything she said ?

[@guilhermehx7159]

@@chosenpeople3868 yes, I did

[@chosenpeople3868]

@@guilhermehx7159 you wasted your time.

[@guilhermehx7159]

@@chosenpeople3868 why? Explain

[@chosenpeople3868]

@@guilhermehx7159 These videos are full of falsehoods.

[@billferner6741]

Some scientists become "creative" with their data analysis. I like that expression.

[@hyperduality2838]

Expectations = predictions or projections, making predictions is a syntropic process! Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). If physicists are making predictions then they are engaged in a syntropic (converging) process -- teleology. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Teleophobia is dual to teleophilia. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@FleuveAlphee]

So-called "p-hacking" (look it up) has become a 'scientific discipline' in itself...

[@sophiavoigt5798]

Thank you, that is a wonderful video, very educational.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

You are one of my all time favorite science communicators! I am of the generation that remembers Jacob Bronowski. He was very good indeed, but you are far easier to look at and I love your humor and style.

[@lindsayforbes7370]

Great video again. Even things I think I understand, Sabine explains them better. I can say this with confidence >5 sigma

[@chosenpeople3868]

Desperate much ?

[@dougg1075]

I come hear for the real physics news.

[@hyperduality2838]

Expectations = predictions or projections, making predictions is a syntropic process! Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). If physicists are making predictions then they are engaged in a syntropic (converging) process -- teleology. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Teleophobia is dual to teleophilia. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@cicad2007]

Ms.. Hossenfelder, you have easily become one of my favorite video makers! Thank you.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Very interesting and worthwhile video.

[@japert00]

..."creative" methodes of analysis, such bluntness. It was interesting to know how frequent these discoveries appear and disappear. You are always a skeptic and calming voice in this hype new physic trend. Thank you.

[@FleuveAlphee]

"p-hacking" (look it up) has become a 'scientific discipline' of itself. Publish or perish...

[@jeromebarry1741]

Is the 5 Sigma confidence level of experimentalists replicable in other fields with, for instance, less voluminous mountains of data?

[@SabineHossenfelder]

Depends on the signal. If you have a signal that's outrageously improbable to be coincidence, you don't need a lot of data to reach 5 sigma.

[@wesleydawe15]

You dash our hope with logic, which is what some of us need. We love you dear Doctor.

[@markotrieste]

Was waiting for this video since I saw that muon headline (never cared to read further)... thanks Sabine!

[@mattiefee]

Sabine!

[@Jackissimus]

Exactly!

[@5thEncounter]

Beautiful & Smart, a great combo and so fun to watch...

[@chosenpeople3868]

I bet. Not too much fun I hope. Desperate much ? Yuck.

[@Pablo-nc6qu]

@@chosenpeople3868 projecting much? The creep is you

[@CAThompson]

The aesthetics are a mere bonus.

[@victorblaer]

Oh Sabine, always love your videos. I thought we were at 4,2sigma though?

[@petermuller7079]

Great video! I've learned a lot - thank you very much!!! :-D :-D BUT: I would have liked to hear more about the actual (and historical) process of 'disappearing'. Were there peer reviews that that disproved the 'discoveries'? How many/long did it take? How is the disapperance documented? .... (a good video always makes you ask for more ;-) )

[@lior5059]

It seems that maybe, an early publication in NY times, should also be added to the list (;

[@john-or9cf]

...or any publication in the NYT...just saying

[@pansepot1490]

Probably they just have an archive of old issues that is easily accessible. What look like new great scientific discoveries are covered by all the press.

[@john-or9cf]

@@pansepot1490 haven’t seen decent science coverage in the MSM in decades. Either they dumb it down or simply don’t understand anything about what they are covering.

[@silviogomez9982]

Sabine eres exelente , por favor , que youtube traduzca tus videos al Español .

[@keithmaddox1469]

I really like you videos. For me ( for what it's worth ) the human aspect of your presentations are what really do it! For example, your silly honesty in showing your volenrability and your being an actual ( non human super smartie ) let me relate. Love your work, please please keep goind. Hope you prosper for your hard work. Loves...

[@wordysmithsonism8767]

Great lecture and illustrations!

[@aliciaemiliahoward4300]

I don't understand these things that much, but like the vids anyway.

[@Sventragon]

And i can't unterstand, because she talks in english. Leider!

[@LuisAldamiz]

Conclusion: even 5 sigma findings should be replicated.

[@claroquesi5168]

OK!

[@Bgf777]

How many sigma out do you go to have something however real that is not repeatable before Andromeda arrives?

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@Bgf777 - I cannot answer that question, sorry. The sigma figure is an estimate of uncertainty in the results (with all the maths and what-not but still an estimate, as good as estimates can get but estimate anyhow), that's why replication is important: if replicated, the uncertainty declines a lot, not sure the exact figure but a lot.

[@fuba44]

This was super cool, thank you for the great video.

[@rtv1196]

Thank you Sabine! BTW your English pronunciation is delightfully beautiful!

[@Brainwizard.2]

Sunday with cake & church is not the same as another Saturday with Sabine. I reschedule my Saturdays to cake& SabineYT. Stay healthy! :)

[@Nilguiri]

Yeah, cake is cool. All you need to do now is to remove the church completely to enter into the 21st century of science and reason and rather than magic, superstition and bigoted immorality.

[@Brainwizard.2]

@@Nilguiri If my future wife eats cake & attends church on sunday, i wouldn't mind having 2 cakes each week. Happy Sunday.

[@Nilguiri]

@@Brainwizard.2 Haha. Touché :)

[@eternaldoorman5228]

I am becoming more and more convinced every day that if you want to understand the Universe you should study literature. 😀❤️

[@pwnmeisterage]

I might be inclined to agree. Except that we live in a world where all the people who define "the universe" are becoming increasingly illiterate.

[@nephronpie8961]

@@pwnmeisterage thank god you used the quotes

[@TheSemtexCow]

Thanks for doing this video. You’ve more polite about it’s possibility of a discovery than others have been it being a false signal.

[@annamyob4624]

You just thought you'd give us the background, so we can figure it out for ourselves. Oh, how refreshing in these days of hype and clickbait! You are a true gem!

[@brandonwickstead9159]

Sabine is based

[@kalokajoe357]

on science 😀

[@nagualdesign]

What does based mean?

[@o.n.5387]

@@nagualdesign Urban dictionary: "A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang. The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased."

[@nagualdesign]

@@o.n.5387 Thanks. So it's like _dude dat is well sic bro._ Essentially talking like a child. 😊

[@fragileomniscience7647]

Based and physics-pilled. No pseudo wish-wash, no philosophy derangement. Pure, raw, cold formalism. She's a hero.

[@reytorres6848]

You just explained the cold fusion "discovery" of 1989 to me.

[@moegreen3870]

ya i was thinking the same :p

[@jamsbong]

I really look forward to all the interesting topics Prof Sabine Hossenfelder puts up on her channel. Thank you so much for doing this.

[@charlesblithfield6182]

Love your deep research to prove your points.

[@CAThompson]

So it's sort-of like 'Jesus in a slice of toast', then.

[@sarkolas]

Except the slice of toast is worthy hundreds of billions of dollars

[@CAThompson]

@@sarkolas The toaster cost that much to make, and maybe if they build a bigger, better more whizz-bang toaster, maybe they'll find the Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything

[@ListenToMcMuck]

Hi C. Pleased to meet you. I've read some of your comments on Sabines blog & you seem to be the most fanatic Atheist I've ever seen... & I admit: I like it. My best wishes & stay well (8)

[@CAThompson]

@@ListenToMcMuck I'm not fanatic anything. I'm pretty sympathetic to faith, I've no tolerance for those who use their religion as a tool for suppression and control.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

Sabine keeping us based! ^.^

[@hyperduality2838]

Genes are dual to memes. Expectations = predictions or projections, making predictions is a syntropic process! Randomness (entropy, uncertainty) is dual to order (syntropy, certainty) -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). If physicists are making predictions then they are engaged in a syntropic (converging) process -- teleology. Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). Teleophobia is dual to teleophilia. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

@@hyperduality2838 "Flowing through all, there is balance There is no peace without a passion to create There is no passion without peace to guide Knowledge fades without the strength to act Power blinds without the serenity to see There is freedom in life There is purpose in death The Force is all things and I am the Force" -- The Gray Jedi Code.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@TheMemesofDestruction "Always two there are" -- Yoda. "The Force" = duality, the Jedi worship duality! "Sith lords come in pairs (duals)" -- Obi Wan Kenobi. Fear is dual to anger, anger is dual to hate, hate is dual to suffering -- the Yoda dualities. Energy is duality, duality is energy in physics. The conservation of duality (energy) will be known as the 5th law of thermodynamics! Energy = duality = the Force! Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- the mind duality of Albert Einstein. Everything in physics is made from energy or duality = The Force!

[@MrDaewen]

I didn't know about the 5 Sigma standard. Very interesting. Thank you Sabine for educating this interested layman.

[@Inexorablehorror]

Excellent as always!! Danke Frau Hossenfelder, einer der besten Wissenschaftskanäle auf YT!

[@Floxflow]

It would be interesting if you interviewed Alexander Unzicker! And, could you please explain the entirely hypothetical particles "quarks". And that they have never been detected, only inferred.

[@guillermotell2327]

Why would that be interesting? Unzicker denies just everything, basically the entire Standard Model, simply because he has no idea how quantum field theory works.

[@JonFrumTheFirst]

I didn't mind listing to the datacamp ad because I was entranced by the visual model of gravity shown by the curving horizontal lines of Sabine's pullover. Two masses warping space!

[@Finnec123]

We could be without such comments.

[@CheatOnlyDeath]

What a great topic! Most illuminating to me was that fluctuations were the most common reason for results to “disappear”. That suggests that scientists are especially good at doing science. Other professions could take note.

[@dutchflats]

5:48 "Quarks, for all we currently know, are elementary particles" - Most honest scientific statement I've heard in a while! Emphasis on "for all we CURRENTLY know"...