Real Physics Talk - David Gross

[@Tom-sp3gy]

I guess particle physicists do the best they can with what they have. Thankyou Unzicker for creating an atmosphere of transparency and doubt in theoretical physics. It’s very bold of you. But I’d like to make a small suggestion - be a little kinder to these big guys. They are after all gracious enough to sit on the grill.

[@problematic7993]

That's because they are arrogant frauds who are used to getting their asses kissed by fools.

[@Hoyacoder]

David Gross is very impressive and persuasive in this video. He has facts at his fingertips and makes a great case for QCD and, I guess, for the standard model.

[@dehilster]

Folks, there is more double talk than you can shake a stick at. This is mumbo jumbo served on a baloney sandwich.

[@christianfarina3056]

Gross was so respectful. Unziker never let him finish his sentences, which is basically what people without facts generally do when they try to argue.

[@dehilster]

Here is a theoretical LOL! Contridictions, spurious statistics, double-talk and obviously doesn't answer the questions. He was uncomfortable with confrontation. THAT is the problem.

[@DissidentScience]

The idea has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with the amazing double-talk that today's physicists spout off with complete arrogance. This is recorded for history to see just how far off the deep end particle physics has gone.

[@MassDefibrillator]

@@dehilster Absolutely. He got so annoyed at him simply asking critical questions.

[@TheEarlVix]

Bullshit. The evidence in the video is that it was Gross who first interrupted Unzicker and didn't let Unzicker finish his opening statement.

[@dukestirling]

The most fascinating thing in the video, beside the gaping intellectual distance between the two interlocutors and the incredible patience and kindness on David's part, are the bits (the poor editing indicates they are obviously recorded afterwards and in a different location) where the camera points to Unzicher's face and he makes all sorts of funny faces -- gold!

[@bjh3661]

you know that's because he's editing something out but he has only one camera. perhaps he filmed his reactions afterwards while watching the footage. tv interviews and documentary interviews use this all the time to get through sections of the interview which are not needed. otherwise one may be left with hours of footage with no way to reduce the playing time.. If you never noticed this before you will now.

[@bdm1000]

"Gaping intellectual distance" between the interviewer and interviewee. Hmmm, how exactly (and specifically) did you arrive to that conclusion? Strap in everyone and hold onto your seats, because I'd love to hear this. Unzicker was merely being polite and trying to keep Gross talking so he could either avail or hang himself (which the latter he did). It is clear Mr. Gross is full of shit, and this comment should be a lesson to everyone that if someone chimes in using the word "interlocutors" to insult someone that person is revealing far more about him or herself than the person being insulted.

[@dukestirling]

"Interlocutor" is plain English and hardly an insult. Sorry mate, hope you can ask a refund for the dictionary I made you buy

[@monabuster312]

The editing is really cringeworthy

[@edfederoff2679]

The tension in this session is surely measurable! LOL

[@michaelhicks3030]

If I ignore all the things I don't know, I know everything! I'm a god, I'm a physicist, I'm telling you!

[@stevenverrall4527]

​​​@@surenmoodley7744 It is a sarcastic comment. Far too many high profile scientists act like they are God's replacement. If someone can calculate the fine-structure constant from fundamental principles without adjustable parameters, it doesn't mean they understand the mind of God. It merely means they know how to calculate one of the many physical constants.

[@dmitrid385]

Throughout his answers Gross sets his own limits on the % of approximation to settle the issue for 100%. I would expect a better defense for a truly settled issue in physics, which is called exact science for a reason. Why energy conservation law has to be 100% accurate some other numbers have to be privileged and accepted as an approximation. How can a physicists accept qualitative understanding in lieu of an exact number? I understand why Unzikier had to interrupt Gross. This was unfortunate and made him look bad. But Gross was not giving a lecture, it was an interview where he was asked specific questions. He chosen to attempt to lecture instead of answering them directly. The purpose of the interview was to show that there are unanswered questioned and Gross seemed to be opened to freely admit that. Perhaps if Unzikier chosen not to challenge Gross, but explain what he wants, we would hear much more about the problems from Gross himself and that would be really nice.

[@ritobrotomohanto6762]

If you ask a question you should at least have the courtesy the let the other person finish answering before interrupting again and again.. This was hard to watch

[@TheMachian]

Nobody forced you to watch. To whom are you talking btw? Gross?

[@guitarika8477]

@@TheMachian he is talking to you dumbass

[@TheEarlVix]

@TheMachian I'm 7 years late watching this video but better now than ever. Gross' arrogance is just way too much. I found you respectful and inquiring in a very fair manner.

[@PhyZack]

If this man ( Unzicker ) claims himself a physicist then he might be able to calculate the intesity of gravitational atraction between two elementary particles. Guess what, one can neglect that once the other interections are thousands of time stonger, e.g. the electromagnetic and strong ones. In the very same fashion a sophmore neglects mass doing electrodynamics exercises, top theorists may neglect gravity when they're doing particle physics once it's rather small in comparison with the other forces, just a simple and VERY accurate aproximation.

[@777666777MICHAEL]

Unzicker is a crazy dude

[@jonathanhockey9943]

Are you not aware of the top theoretical physicists Lee Smolin, or Roger Penrose? As both see key theoretical questions about gravity as critical despite the weakness of the force. This is a typical ploy used to distract from the deep theoretical issues involved. Sophomores are following rules of accepted use to get a good grade, not questioning the theoretical foundations of the scientific claims. If the theory is wrong, if we need a background independent approach, then all these approximations are no better than Ptolemy's epicycles.

[@AshishThakur90]

Gross's final gesture sums up the value of the conversation. I came here to watch Gross speak. What was Unzicker actually trying to do?

[@TheMachian]

There are enough talks on KZbin where Gross delivers his sermon unchallenged. Feel free to watch.

[@PrivateSi]

QCD and the Standard Model is full of toffee and fudge... All atoms and nuclear reactions can be electrically balanced using intrinsic electrons and positrons plus NEWLY FORMED electron-positron pairs.. Up Quarks are 1/2 neutralised positrons, a Down Quark is a fully neutralised electron.. -- In my Positronic Universe Model in the the making the first batch of electron-positron pairs were formed at exactly the same time with exactly the same phase in time.. The underlying subspace field is a simple close packed matrix of +ve charge balls (cells, quanta +1) held together by free-flowing -ve charge 'gas',... -- Positrons are out of place cells continuously trying to balance, but instead overbalancing back and forth, electrons are the holes left behind. Electron focuses -ve charge around a field cell, while positron free cells move between field cells. Thus they are half a phase apart in space.. -- Blips' are vibrating field cells, that squeeze through the 3 cells in front to the cell beyond and back, also compressing the field laterally before returning. Blips have recoil and same phase (charge) blips in the opposite direction repel, sending repulsive force back down the blip field surrounding the charged particle focal points.. Opposite phase (charge), opposite direction blips form an in-sync, alternating current and blip recoil pushes the two particles along this 'flux tube' (that can perhaps be as thin as 1 cell wide for distantly entangled particles). -- he next batch of electron-positron pairs formed after the first batch are formed from the first batch so have the same phase in time.. There is an emergent 'universal clock'.. The Matter-Antimatter Catastrophe is avoided as although electrons and positrons do annihilate back to regular subspace field two positrons colliding at the right angle with a field cell at the same time sends the cell flying, immediately creating a NEW electron-positron pair, with the captured electron sandwiched between the two colliding positrons, and the new positron is ejected... Now there exists 1 Proton that is positron proof, the 2 electrons of the 2 colliding positrons and 1 ejected new positron that will most likely annihilate with one of the electrons... Net result is Protons and electrons = PLASMA and hydrogen... -- Gravity is a all-pervasive, -ve subspace charge gradient due to the fact 1 Positron attracts 1 quanta of -ve subspace charge gas away from the rest of the universe. This adds up.. Variable size cell gap due to amount of -ve charge locally can be used as a Dark Energy mechanism. -- Spin/Strong/Magnetic force is Direct Current (DC) 'spin loops'... I go with 6 for an electron or positron as 12 balls max can surround another ball, 6 ins and 6 outs at the point nearest the centre... There are 6 quark proton models too.. These form strong bonds between electrons and positrons.. Some bonds can join into magnetic circuits in strong magnetic / ferrous materials, Loops in a magnetic circuit are pushed outside the material due to conservation of energy and joining of some strong bonds into the magnetic circuit.. -- There are billions of atoms in a magnet and magnetic/spin/strong force loops also compress/decompress the field as they loop through, sending out lateral AC field vibrations, as electrostatic blips do... This explains the Left Hand Rule. -- This model can explain many fundamental physics mysteries.. Double slit wave-particle duality... Entangled laser light, entangled electronic systems... It's a rigorous thought experiment strictly sticking to the Keep It As Simple As Possible premise.

[@curiosityzero2151]

@@TheMachian Do you understand underlying theory of QCD?

[@ianp3112]

@@TheMachian and you didn't challenge him on anything! In fact you didn't even listen, you had your bullet points in your head and waited for buzz words to spill your points! It almost looked like a dad talking to his uninterested teenage son! 'Sermon' really, going so low as to equate religion to science, you should be ashamed sir!!!

[@milesprowr]

@@ianp3112 29:45 😁

[@MassDefibrillator]

"once it's in the textbooks, it doesn't go away" My astrophysics/cosmology textbooks from just a few years ago say things that have already been contradicted by JWST.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Most high-school and below textbooks still depict electrons on circular orbits.

[@delb0y1967]

This was hard to watch. It's obvious Gross is used to being surrounded by star struck yes men and not at all used to having his ideas questioned.

[@MH-mc3pp]

the questions were badly misinformed....any 3rd rate student would know what he was saying was correct. there was no point questioning it in the way he was doing.

[@nrosko]

@@MH-mc3pp He showed great patience.

[@elonmhsk737]

Why are you using a fake background?

[@stevenverrall4527]

An absolutely fascinating interview between two flawed human beings, as we all are. In 2023, Gross still believes in experimentally unfounded supersymmetry. Unzicker still does not accept the experimentally supported principles of QCD. Both are almost certainly wrong in their core beliefs. However, both agree that the primary goal of physics is to explain measurable numbers.

[@TheMachian]

Supported by what concretely? QED is already bunk (see video, paper Consa), QCD is based on it...

[@mahmud9490]

Unzicker was sincere with his question and showed real curiosity, despite knowing that most of it is based on imagination. Unfortunately, I see a lot of science enthusiasts exhibits an attitude that is found in the cult. It's sad because they will never learn, they are simply putting those scientists in such high regards, so the assumptions begin from a position of as if they have got it all correct and we cannot question their conclusion. I am not against respecting people, but it's painful to see in some of the comments where David grosses fanboys labeling this interview being disrespectful or he showed misconduct.

[@quietackshon]

30:39 _"Go look at the data",_ like that in itself is proof of what he believes. Does he mean the data they discard or the data they filter and interpret? He's so sure of himself there is no doubt in his mind that he is right, he gives lip service to any other possibility. He is pompous and arrogant, bathed in his own hubris, patronising those that challenge his tea-leaf reading.

[@andrewalaniz6656]

Fundamental physics’ purpose is essentially to explain our observable reality. The way we “observe” our reality is by experimental measurement. And guess what measurements generate, data. He’s not being pompous and arrogant, it just might be a little annoying being questioned and constantly interrupted by someone like this guy when you’ve taught, advised and trained some of worlds most important scientists, for instance Edward Witten. They’re on different levels, plain and simple.

[@quietackshon]

@@andrewalaniz6656 That doesn't address what I have stated. He thinks he's right based on filtered and cherry-picked data. He's so sure he's right based on this incomplete data, and won't listen to information that conflicts with his reality. That's not science, that's dogmatic ideology.

[@andrewalaniz6656]

Quiet Ackshon The fact that you think the data being generated by the LHC is “cherry-picked” speaks to your understanding of how the world performs experimentation and scientific inquiry. He “thinks” he’s right because the theories he’s literally thought up have been perhaps some of the most successful ideas in our understanding of physics. If you want to speak about “proofs” that’s the realm of mathematics not physics. Moreover, if you really think someone like Gross hasn’t had to listen to information that conflicts with his own reality and defend his own ideas, you really must not understand how physicists and mathematicians progress their fields.

[@quietackshon]

@@andrewalaniz6656 How much data does the LHC throw out? Who decides what should be filtered and what shouldn't. That's the definition of cherry picking. You might be an Acolyte but that doesn't make me wrong.

[@andrewalaniz6656]

Quiet Ackshon My point, and why I put cherry-picked in quotation marks, is that every and all large scale experiments such as the LHC is then cherry-picked, so I’m missing your point in using it as a criticism. Should we also do away with filtering data now? The people who get to make these decisions are, for the most part anyway, the ones who are the most dedicated and successful in their fields. And if I’m an acolyte, you just seem a little out of your depth here more than anything else with your shallow unwarranted criticisms.

[@johnlord8337]

Its amazing with modern academics - that they never learned Greek logic. You FIRST start with a hypothesis ( a question), and building upon the concept with valid postulates, corollaries, and axioms (self-evident and valid data truths) ... that lead UP TO theorems (theories), constants, and LAWS. In this, all of the peeps (and academic pervs) instantly quote theories (just like Darwin) and constants ... that are only geo-centric HERE - and not cosmic (universal) values. Using calculations, and disregarding certain portions of compounds in the equation (as an absolute statement - negate the masses of the quarks - quarks have no masses ... being small they are negligible) is like buying a car - and given the keys for $60,000, everything else is free - is BS. (But that example is very true, try driving that free car without those expensive keys !). All these modern theoretical physics and their postulations (not postulates) are opinions, beliefs, "thought" concepts that do not start with valid data, potentially (intended) manipulated data and only certain portions of data to found their theory and laws. It is no wonder that modern physics is Swiss cheese with so much faulty foundations and BS, that the BS manure air flows through their speech as well. Tell this theoretician ... now go back and figure quarks from their masses as partial equations and theories, and this should also give you answers. They must be the same as your partial theories. Otherwise, partial theories and partial theories with conflicting data means that one or both processes are flawed - and can't be accepted as truths. What I hear here is a person's hubris at finding some hypothesis with some partial data - and resting on his laurels (which are pointy and hard leaves) and he needs to sit on them even harder like a holly wreath - as his statements and posturing are as hurtful as those laurels and holly to the rest of the whole academic community and the world.

[@ZeroOskul]

10:11 Gross wonders: "Can I just get up and walk away?" He spends the entire rest of the interview wishing he had, and wondering why he just doesn't. I think you would appreciate William S Burroughs's Course on Creative Reading, creative READING, which is on KZbin and about three hours.

[@TheMachian]

He was free to leave at any time. If you recommend reading, please summarize.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@TheMachian You are the second person in two days to ask me to summarize a lecture on KZbin. Patterns tend to repeat, will it happen again? The Course on Creative Reading is comprised of three audio recordings, each abut 1.25 to 1.5 hours, of a lecture series given by Burroughs at Naropa University in 1979. The ideas expressed essentially expand on basic reading comprehension, allowing a reader deeper insight into the meaning intended or implied by an author or speaker. He uses an example from Joseph Conrad's "Lord Jim" where Jim must have walked over a dead body and Burroughs explains that Jim blacked out for that moment because he doesn't know if he did step over the body, he only knows that he must have. There are so many little nuances between definite and subjunctive tenses that can completely change the meaning of a person's expression. Like when certain theoretical physicists say their ideas MAY be true and IF they are true THEN these other mind-blowing ideas are also true, which makes no definite statements about anything real and only excites the person about the mind-blowing ideas that have nothing to do with reality. Did you know that critical editing was invented at the Great Library at Alexandria about 450BC(E), which is about 200 years before the scientific method was invented there based on critical editing, and that critical editing is integral to optimal use of the scientific method? It's all about finding problems and clearly identifying them in the structure of the story and correcting them. Every algorithm is just shorthand for a usually very boring story and Gross, in your interview, seems to have difficulty explaining the story his research tells as it seems to keep running into ignored or unnoticed problems and plodding past them instead of backing away and just saying: "We don't know. Let's solve this problem and find out."

[@krazykoder3938]

I think the interviewer went in with a closed mind … not listening to what the responses are and try to understand the perspective. So many times interrupted Gross not letting him finish. What the hell. He is stuck in Einstein and Dirac era, ignoring modern experimental evidences and forgetting the basic fact that physics is a collection of theories and newer theory better than the older one explaining things better than it did before. Not perfect not absolute but better.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@krazykoder3938 What modern experimental evidence is he ignoring? What new theory are you suggesting works better that which old theory?

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@ZeroOskul photon spin problem... which effectively debunked the quark model in 1977

[@aureliosuarez7271]

MR Gross. demonstrated that the weight and volume of Quarks is measured accurately in US$. ....

[@jaydenwilson9522]

wish he saw that 1977 study and 1979 paper which debunked the quark model... but here we are still with a photon spin problem lol

[@christiankokail4989]

This whole thing reminds me on a discussion Richard Dawkins once had with a religious fundamentalist: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/oF6ok2qhbZyahZI, with David Gross in the role of Richard Dawkins arguing with facts and Unzicker in the role of the religious person arguing on the basis of the bible (the bible in this case is replaced by this silly book of Andrew Pickering). Every time D. Gross comes up with an argument, Unzicker immediately comes up with a new unrelated thing. The fact that Unzicker asks Gross if he ever has been in contact with experimental results just shows that this guy completely lost contact to reality.

[@TheMachian]

I love when people start commenting with "this reminds me". If anything is related to religion here, it is certainly Gross with his string gospel.

[@frankslade33]

A comparison to Dawkins is the greatest insult you can make to any scientist - a dogmatic blowhard with his fingers in his ears. The phrase "you can't inherit acquired characteristics" was his mantra for many years - decades. Now epigenetics and other modern research proves that you can in fact do this, he pretends he knew it all along and has nothing to revise. He is an embarrassment with an agenda, and one nothing to do with truth or science. So if Gross reminds you of him, well I agree with you,

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

the fact is, the theorists don't get their hand on the data, they only look at the result. The other fact is that the data at LHC is really dirty, literally. We need to clean up the dirty stuff so that the processed raw data agree with simulation (which base on the theories).

[@drsjamesserra]

Please let David Gross speak, why interrupt...Let him finish his story.

[@billyoldman9209]

From what I understand, he just gave a lecture where he had plenty of time for story telling. These people are simply not used to being questioned, even though they're supposed to be the most critical and inquisitive minds in the world.

[@drsjamesserra]

@@billyoldman9209 When you ask a question, you have to let someone answer, you don't interrupt in the middle of the answer. You can tell when there is room to ask another question, especially when you are a trained interviewer. Gross is a scientist, he questions what he does every single day. He asks himself questions about Nature, it's his job.

[@billyoldman9209]

@@drsjamesserra Gross also routinely interrupted the questions and started rambling every single time. The problem is that these people simply refuse to join the horizon of skeptics because they're so invested in their probabilistic noise interpretation that they can't even imagine that good science can be done in radically different ways, as for example Dirac did. The question is not whether Dirac's numbers are correct but that there are undiscovered ratios in nature that could provide the key to eliminating constants (signs of imperfect understanding) and simplifying theory.

[@drsjamesserra]

@@billyoldman9209 Interesting, did you see the paper of Thad Roberts? Interesting read about how all natural constants could be derived from just a few. www.quora.com/Is-there-a-theory-which-explains-the-values-of-all-fundamental-physical-constants/answer/Thad-Roberts?ch=2&srid=zSzY

[@billyoldman9209]

@@drsjamesserra Unzicker's position is that even one constant is too much, and I can see the validity of his argument. The example that comes to my mind is Pythagoras and the notes on his lyre, where there are no constants involved. It's a simple ratio between the length of the cord and the frequency of the sound it makes. Elegant and simple. Now compare that with the idea that the universe is made out of fundamental units (as the quora post also suggests), and nothing can become greater or smaller than those. You end up creating magical particles with no mass (Higgs boson aka. "god particle") and a speed of light that is constant and nothing can go faster than that, even though there is no reason why nothing could go faster than c. Take Ron Hatch who argued that GPS corrections can be accounted for by simply including the satellite's speed in the calculation, so there is no need for relativistic time dilation. And when you have two explanations for the same phenomenon, you use Occam's razor and pick the simpler one. That is how science can move away from the epicycles.

[@baraskparas9559]

Someone like Gross who seems so logical could sell any whacky idea, nine dimensions etc depending on whose side he decides to be on. Good on you Unzicker criticize a theoretician for getting the Nobel prize when you are a theoretician yourself.

[@problematic7993]

He doesn't come off as "logical" to me. He talks with the sly grace of a narcissistic fraud.

[@symphonicsco1014]

When you interview somebody, especially a Nobel Prize winner at that, Please let him FINISH!! Do not interrupt continuously..

[@TheMachian]

That's precisely the difference between a talk and an interview :-)

[@GaneshGunaji]

@@TheMachian You were incredibly rude. I hope you understand that the LHC cannot possibly exhaustively rule out supersymmetry. The goal of string theory is just to mathematically unify general relativity and quantum theory. It is constructed to be consistent with all known experiments. If future experiments rule it out somehow, then people will seek a new theory. It is still important they continue this work, which has led to many good ideas for mathematics as well. You should look at science as a work in progress. If an alternative theory mathematically unifies two seemingly incompatible theories and explains experiments in the appropriate limits, it deserves to be explored. Whether it is "the truth" remains to be seen.

[@MassDefibrillator]

@@GaneshGunaji He wasn't rude. Gross deserves no more respect than any average human. And he deserves far more criticism than the normal human because of the funding he has tied up in his ideas. The idea you are pushing for is priesthood.

[@AkulaSriRahul]

​@@GaneshGunaji It çan categorically rule out supersymmetry. It's mathematical nonsense

[@TheEarlVix]

Isn't Barrack Obama a Nobel Prize winner too?

[@musaire]

I add this to my funny videos list! Thanks mister Unzicker!

[@judjudersawn2596]

Your interviewing style makes it very difficult to understand the interview. I appreciate challenging conventional knowledge but perhaps there is a way to do it with a bit more tact? If you were less aggressive he would less flustered, his ignorance would be more clear to us, your viewers, and we would understand why you feel he needs to be cross examined. It would make for a better interview if you could be more polite. edit: also we can barely hear or understand your questions, and we cannot follow your line of inquiry...your mic gain is too low and you are not proceeding in an expository format... you are merely taping a private conversation

[@TheMachian]

The audio is not optimal, as several people have noted. Apologies. I do not really see in what sense I have bee impolite but I really think the type of rigmarole he and others deliver needs to be challenged. If you show me an interview where this is done in a more polite way, I'd be happy to watch.

[@judjudersawn2596]

@@TheMachian Perhaps a better word is respectful. You could be more respectful by keeping the interview within the allotted time of 5-10 minutes. You don’t seem very thankful for his time or his contributions to physics. You become increasingly irritated throughout the video. You seem frustrated by the fact that he is always speaking with the audience and camera in mind.

[@judjudersawn2596]

@@TheMachian here is a good example of a KZbin host who challenges his guests with difficult questions yet still gives good interviews because he is respectful and is focused upon communicating to his audience kzbin.info/www/bejne/rZuQq3mdraiIpLs

[@TheMachian]

There was no "allotted" time. I felt the increasing irritation was at his side, but you may interprete everything as you like. You are right in the sense that I am not a usual journalist; I am primarily interested in fundamental physics. Unfortunately, this is where he had little to say.

[@adude9882]

I disagree that the interviewers style was innapropriate. He interjected supplementary questions politely. The interviewee appears to me to indicate a certain defensiveness that is interesting considering he is in the mainstream which should confer an attitude of relaxed patient confidence.

[@MVybz]

unzicker you need to let the man speak, seems like he's not being able to express his opinion on the matter properly

[@TheCedricolo]

The form: I find it annoying that you have artificially superimposed yourself on D. Gross' answers to better show your skepticism. This was not necessary. The substance: you are making a case against him. The proposal: if you have a better theory (which I doubt), publish it.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

why are there 3 colors? each color represent a level in a not broken system which are levels, fields ar orbits and they follow atomic weight, red, yellow and blue when united form the 4th color that is white.

[@dehilster]

This speaker reminds me of what script writers for movies write when they are inventing a fantastical fantasy world. I think it is called "FICTION". My gosh, this is not double talk, or triple talk. This is "fractal talk".

[@stopthis2458]

REAL PHYSICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[@chillyshotorbitus5152]

Hello David. First of all..these Noble stars should understand that IN EVERY EMPIRICAL SCIENCE to claim anything (delusions like invisible supersymmetries, quarks, black holes, strings, dark energies, matters, multi universes, Higgs bosons, space-time tunnels....etc etc U NEED FIRST TO SEE AND DETECT THEM IN REALITY. If u break this rule u become nothing else than a classical mid-age charlatan.

[@bdm1000]

You can tell someone is lying to you because they try to shame you into submitting to their opinions and claims.

[@drsjamesserra]

Alexander please, let the man speak, it makes him feel very uncomfortable.

[@TheMachian]

It's not the business of an interviewer to make the interviewee feel comfortable, but to challenge the obvious inconsistencies.

[@drsjamesserra]

Unzicker's Real Physics I don’t agree.

[@radiofun232]

Mr. Serra, when that challenge is not done there will be no development in physics & science.

[@drsjamesserra]

@@radiofun232 What has interfering the speaker to do with development?

[@radiofun232]

@@drsjamesserra He interferes with questions, that helps the development.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

He gives the point away there at the very end: All that experimental data is "described" by the standard model. Indeed it is described, not explained and not predicted. That is the point. You have effectively just built up a list of particles like a list of animals in zoology, to describe what is found in experiment. This is valuable stuff, but its not not a theory, and its not explanatory.

[@monabuster312]

I watched some of your videos and talks. I respect your critical thinking but can you exactly describe what in your point of view is wrong with the Standard Model! Of course there is missing pieces and flaws in it but it is still a successful and proven theory. So what do you criticize and what is your suggestion to do instead? And citing quotes and books is not sufficient as an answer to me at this point. If you can’t provide this I can just consider you as someone who wants to draw attention for is personal benefit (selling books and getting views)

[@TheMachian]

There is a video about the standard model, also talk in Prague.

[@monabuster312]

@@TheMachian but still you don’t provide any real idea or opinion on what „real“ physics should focus? So is your suggestion to just stop what is currently done and do nothing? I don’t get your points. But as I think you just want to draw attention on your person. That’s all

[@longhoacaophuc8293]

@@ianp3112 I think he don't want to answer a question that he explained in his videos. So let me do the work here: The SM introduces 3 generations of fermions (lepton and quark), then quarks have 3 colours, and the bosons. The masses of those particle are never been calculated, that they become the new constants of nature, which is a flaw of the standard model. The other flaw is that it predict nothing (you can say that Peter Higgs predict the existence of the Higgs boson, but we still not confirm by experiment that the anomaly at 125 GeV really the boson we've looking for)

[@michaelball6309]

It's frustrating to hear David give explanations only to have Unzicker ignore them and keep asking the same question again and again, instead of asking for elaborations and engaging in a genuine, intelligent, informative discussion. Unzicker is to particle physics as creationists are to evolution. Embarrassing!

[@FloydMaxwell]

The first interruption happens at 4:25, and David Gross makes it. The man is fantastically unimpressive. Trotting out the standard nonsense. Contradicting himself whenever he feels like it. QCD is the worst part of the worst of physics today. Yet, talk to David Gross in 2016, and he thinks it is all very reasonable. Delusional is much too kind. More interruptions by David Gross at 12:25 mark.

[@dukestirling]

Gross is not interrupting anyone at 4:25. The man is absolutely remarkable, his achievements are stellar. His thoughts are coherent and conveyed in a terse (and polite) way. QCD is by far the most elegant (if still mysterious in its long-distance behaviour) part of the SM; not only is it very reasonable, it is vindicated by experiments with astonishing precision. For delusional people, look elsewhere -- a mirror might be a good starting point. You're welcome.

[@DissidentScience]

There comes a time to say: "the emperor has no clothes". And that is what Unzicker is doing. It is simple enough to let David Gross talk. His arrogance is extraworldly and logic today in particle physics is such a small, tired, and sad bubble that these conversations become priceless for today's and future generations to see how far from reality particle physics has gone.

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

I have something to show both you and David Gross about the nature of the fine structure constant. I am not a certified scientist. But I would really appreciate it if you would give me a chance.

[@User53123]

Why not publish and show everybody?

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

@@User53123 I do not know how to publish

[@User53123]

It doesn't have to be a scientific paper. You could publish in a blog, or write an ebook about your ideas. Lots of people are doing this. The market for it isn't great, but once you've published somewhere you can point people to it and your ideas will be out there. I'm writing an ebook myself and I feel this is great way for everyone to share.

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

@@User53123 well I have a set of journals which contains all of my ideas

[@ianp3112]

@@keith.anthony.infinity.h Let's start with YOUR definition of the fine structure constant!

[@MrVaticanRag]

Dr Charles W.(Bill) Lucas Jr. explains it a lot more sensibly and clearer than David Gross?

[@philoso377]

In an expanding universe what sorts of force, work and by how much it takes for that expansion?

[@problematic7993]

Inertia is the only opponent of gravity. So we would assume when the universe moves apart it is because inertia is more powerful than gravity. This could be due to the universe being a spiral and the edges are thrown out with speed.

[@BarriosGroupie]

Very good interview, and I appreciate you letting David get his points across which I've learned from. I'm surprised that he's still open minded about SUSY turning up: he reminds me of classical physicists like Schott around 1920 who couldn't let go of classical models for the electron despite the evidence against them such as spiraling into the nucleus via radiation. It works to a point, but new theoretical frameworks such as QM need to be introduced.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Yes, modern string theorists are much like the early 20th century physicists who refused to let go of classical physics.

[@kjustkses]

"Once it reaches the high school text books, it's there to stay" Go Science!

[@billyoldman9209]

Aristotle was scrapped from the canon after 2000 years, which is too bad, since these theoretical physicists seriously need to read the Categories, because the categories they come up with on a daily basis are totally useless abuses of language.

[@CM-bq9fp]

Dont underestimate the bullshit ending Up in schoolbooks.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

The standard model as well QM are missing gravity, so how a cuadrupedo animal will walk in 3 legs? for sure they wont stand for long just waite and see.

[@tooneboone3869]

I just love to see someone ask the great minds enough questions to put them on the --we believe, we guess, if we could, when we, and such, that, that is their proof.

[@cookrileyw]

Thank you for your interview with David Gross. Honestly, I have liked your videos, but after watching them I find you never highlight what precisely the theory is wrong about what it's explanation is and why it is wrong with evidence. You tend to claim there is flawed science. Well then actually show in detail what is wrong instead of quoting other physicists who were making broad statements on complex issues. Obviously there are flaws in the standard model, but you act as though the models do not describe anything at all, which is just not the case.

[@TheMachian]

The most detailed book about the SM flaws is Andrew Pickering's "Constructing Quarks"

[@cookrileyw]

@@TheMachian Thank you, I suppose I will have to take a look. I generally really like your videos. I just found this interview a bit hostile.

[@ianp3112]

@@TheMachian how much did you have to pay Mr. Gross for this interview? I doubt he would have sat through that smug look and the outdated questions otherwise! Hey gotta spend money to make money! Cheers 😽

[@777666777MICHAEL]

@@cookrileyw have you notices that Unzicker doesn't adress your point and juste give a name of a bock which has nothing to do with his outlandish and unfounded criticisme of the standard model.

[@liederivative3312]

@@777666777MICHAEL I know that this is a rhetorical question but yes I have, and I wish more people had noticed. While it is fashionable to criticize the Standard Model, it is not yet fashionable to critisize critisisms of the Standard Model.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

You know when you watch one of those exposé videos and some cute girl gets an ego driven business guy to gloat about some of his power plays, like there was a famous one with Project Veritas and some guy who was responsible for vaccine mandates, this kind of feels a bit like that. It is actually really sad how disconnected from critical reason and philosophy that a lot of mainline institutional science has become. You can see they never face criticism and never even think about reasonable criticisms and how to respond to them. As much as Feynman did some good stuff, his complacent and dismissive attitude towards philosophy, while all the time having himself quite dogmatic philosophical attachments, started this culture that has now become ingrained.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

To give one example, he says there is no mass, only force that we detect, yet then he uses that force as reason to infer a mass. If there is no independent way to establish mass then this is completely unjustified and would just involve defining mass in an operationally dependent way on these forces, but in that case, you have defined the values based on experiment, not discovered them in a neutral external world, which is the purpose of the mass concept, is that it was meant to secure some independent access to such a realm. If it is just a bunch of forces being detected then access to that independent realm is gone, and so any claim of a genuine experimental verification is also gone. There has to be two sides to the equation mass = energy, for it to have physical relevance, if it just means defining one as the same the other, then one side of the equation is redundant, and we have an analytic statement, not a physical or empirically verifiable or falsifiable statement anymore.

[@amiraslkhalili5638]

29:04 i will the book anyway . ignorance is not bliss when it comes to scientific endeavor. My naïve intuition tells me universe is not reducible into quantized particles . space , time , quanta of force might be , the rest being badges of force-constancy across the fabric of universe , the underlying force field lets call it Lorentz force is a self-contingent phenomena , i suppose .

[@enlongchiou]

2^(1/6)*ch=125.0895 Gev Higgs boson from string theory of ch=111.4421 Gev extra 6 dimension , 1/137.036=e^2/(2*ch*p) is super symmetry of string theory.

[@noufbouf]

tbh I found Unzicker a bit rude here

[@jaydenwilson9522]

"... i think that would of been news to Dirac too." 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@kafalonitis]

"Novel quantitative push gravity/electricity theory poised for verification" provides another platform on which to reconsider all the experimental evidence and data available. I would suggest that both theoretical and experimental physicists should have a good examination of it. It is an open platform for contributions from all. It is about time to do some experiments for the verification of that theory at minimal cost.

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

One thing for sure, David Gross is no Richard Feynman! This is in response to some of the comments, it's interesting to note, that David attempts to answer the questions and the majority of the dialogue of the words is David Gross, unfortunately interviewee is unintelligible.

[@MH-mc3pp]

I think Feynman would have been much more aggressive against this crazy interviewer

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

@@MH-mc3pp I think the opposite; it's David Gross which sounded incoherent and unintelligible, also made false statements. He couldn't defend his stance. David Gross is an embarrassment to the scientific community, he should have responded more intelligently and professionally. David Gross is no Feynman, that's for sure!

[@MH-mc3pp]

@@rubenanthonymartinez7034 he did a fine job defending it. it is hard to react to a crazy line of questioning from an ignorant interviewer. it is very similar to having to explain to some flat-earther that the world is round..it gets frustrating and difficult when they ignore the mountain of evidence. good job David Gross for trying to talk to these guys with their heads in the sand...maybe someone will learn a thing or two

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

@@MH-mc3pp well, flat earther? that was resolved many years ago, the Earth it's essentially three dimensional sphere. But, one thing for sure David Gross response, qualitatively speaking, was flat! QCD has not solved the quantum gravity issue, qualitatively or quantitatively, this issue is still not resolved, end of a story!

[@MH-mc3pp]

@@rubenanthonymartinez7034 QCD is the theory of the strong force, not gravity. criticizing QCD for not explaining gravity is as silly as criticizing the three dimensional sphere earth model for not explaining electromagnetism...how ridiculous. end of story!

[@rossevans11]

One of the world's most celebrated physicists, and he can't provide a coherent explanation of his work.

[@ianp3112]

Because the interviewer refused to listen, all he was concerned about was his own agenda and bullet points! You view it and accept it because it fits your own narrative!

[@mattcutts247]

just because you're too dumb to understand his explanation doesn't mean it's not coherent.

[@laurenth7187]

"This is not worth discussing" i agree with him. Jumping into sociology suppose you have already finish the prosecution in the field of science.

[@TheMachian]

Well if Gross would discuss Pickering's book or even read it, that would lead to some serious questions about his own research he is so proud of. Unfortunately, without history, methodology and sociology of science, you will hardly understand physics, in particular the high energy physics business. I recommend books by Harry Collins, Peter Galison, Gary Taubes and Andrew Pickering.

[@laurenth7187]

​@@TheMachian A science that can't cut the link to its origin, doesn't fit the criteria of epistemology. There is so much money wasted elsewhere, for example in ITER, according to Pierre-Gilles de Gennes. I really don't believe there is a business in particle physics, because it's too hard to do. I think money is wasted in Ligo and such sort of things, from which i don't believe a single result.

[@laurenth7187]

@@TheMachian To make it clear, i won't read any book, because i know. I'm 55, i don't take advise, i give some. I'm not interested in things you can't explain right now.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Everything is worth discussing when your field is in a stagnation crisis.

[@Mostafa-jf4nr]

Can you come with quantum gravity

[@TheMachian]

I recommend this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mai4d4ioZ5mFY80

[@robreinhart4284]

The interviewer was deeply uninformed.

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

Really, how so?

[@MH-mc3pp]

Rob, you are correct.. this was cringe worthy

[@nfineon]

Grossly arrogant, ignoring forces and fields will only ever give you approximations and never the underlying fundamental processes at play. Thus your numbers are only estimates and can never lead to a deeper understanding of actual mechanisms. You can only tell us what the measured numbers/ratios are but never how they originate thus you've solved precisely dick, only added additional mathematical terms and complexity. No more free parameters? Time? Space? Origin of masses? Emergence of life? Consciousness? Pre-big bang conditions? Only small corrections left? Well then we've solved everything, no more dark energy or dark matter needed just ignore them. No more need to revise cosmology guys everything is known now and solved, expansion can be ignored quantum chromodynmics solves everything! How do we calculate exponential expansion of ego and what does it expand into? Infinite mind space? Can we renormalize that to remove the infinities to get a finite value? We have only scratched the surface of a true theory of everything but every generation of scientists believe they are on the verge of total knowledge.

[@allanroser1070]

What a load of waffle from David Gross .....

[@Naomi_Boyd]

I hope they never make particle physics illegal. Could you imagine being stuck in a jail cell with that guy?

[@TheMachian]

:-)

[@cvdevol]

The guy has seething anger just under the surface.

[@rubenanthonymartinez7034]

I get a sense that David Gross, doesn't really understand his own theory, somehow he babbles, I say this because "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein. Or maybe he's nervous?

[@Mumon010]

Very interesting discussion, conducted in an open minded and productive manner.

[@shintafukuda2274]

I am a layman. This is the first time I've heard of, or seen David Gross. So, apparently he's a real big-wig of modern theoretical physics? Yet he's _horribly_ pompous and smug. Insufferably so. And therefore, with a mystic's logic, horribly, horribly in the wrong. I would never, for instance - even for 10⁻²⁷ s - mistake David Gross for Richard Feynman.

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

This is Exposing the uncertainty of these scientists (House of cards)!

[@ylst8874]

Respect you Mr. Unzicker for stand for your ideas as a scientist.

[@maxotbekessov5919]

Good talks, but who knows and sure 100%.

[@ThinkTank255]

If Dr. Gross thinks physics is finished I think he should just retire and leave the actual work to people that want to do the job.

[@mikepurdy5734]

Arrogant exasperation, as we've come to expect from the pencil fairies.

[@dimitris410]

This was like watching a boxing match, but with posh Englishmen fighters, in the mental arena. 😝

[@BloobleBonker]

What pomposity

[@IvanAvramidi]

The interviewer lacks the interviewer's skills completely. Let the man speak. We are not interested in your "opinions". Get a Nobel prize first and then interrupt Gross. Total lack of respect. Disgusting to watch. I just found that the interviewer published a book about "fake" Higgs particle claiming that it was not a real discovery. I wonder why did Gross agree to give that interview.

[@TheMachian]

I wonder for what purpose you watch an interview. There are plenty of talks by Gross where he talks at length about everything under the Sun and beyond unchallenged..

[@IvanAvramidi]

@@TheMachian I never engage in conversations on social media but since you asked here it is. I recommend that you watch some of the best interviewers (on any subject, science, physics, finance) to see what they are doing. What is the purpose of your interview? The only reason people are going to watch it is because of the caliber of your guest. They are not interested in what you think about it. This is not why they came here. If you have something to say yourself then make your own videos, monologues. There are plenty of people who do that, like Sabine Hossenfelder, for example. People who want to watch that will watch it. But when you invite Einstein (or Dirac, or Weinberg, or Gross) they came because they want to hear what he has to say. It does not matter how many videos with them I watched, I am still wondering if they might say something original that I have not heard. It is the same with papers. I am not going to read thousands of papers that appear every day on arxiv. I want to know what new ideas a big shot like X might have, so I would look at his new paper, just because of the name.

[@IvanAvramidi]

@@TheMachian An interview is not a debate with a guest. It is rather an attempt to get out as most as possible out of him that might be of interest for the public.

[@TheMachian]

@@IvanAvramidi In fact, I was happy that I got him to make all these blunders on tape: Dirac's alleged prediction of a change in alpha instead of G, no free parameters in QFT etc. Whether you like the interview style or not, many appreciate the exposure.

[@IvanAvramidi]

@@TheMachian That is the point. You have the "gotcha" attitude. You hunt for blunders. I am not interested in this soft of things. Everybody can misspeak, or forget something. If he knew that this is what you are after, to "get him on tape", then I am pretty sure he would not agree to do it. It is not a tv game show.

[@NondescriptMammal]

What? String theory isn't dead yet?

[@juanxia962]

Good explanations and jokes.

[@paulmaydaynight9925]

so... American -soothsayer- theoretical Nobel laureates Have Measured in reality by Extrapolation and KNOW its a Fact... Measure:1.ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units. reality:1.the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Extrapolation: 1.the action of estimating or concluding something by -badly- assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable. gambling with their American -soothsayer- theoretical Nobel laureate snake oil sales credibility... ps if you're going to Extrapolate down to quanta sizes particles at least use fractal woman's Modified Unit Analysis (MUA)

[@timemechanicone]

Cool post

[@chillyshotorbitus5152]

It is funny to hear all these Noble prize winners "wisdoms" ...while they didn't even discover yet that space is something which expands not curves ...or that atoms expand not "wibrates"

[@Chayonray]

What a horrible interview. It was more of a debate and should have been framed as such. Not a good look Mr. Unzicker.

[@monabuster312]

Unzicker is not eager to listen to Feedback

[@myallhanckel8405]

that was gross

[@joqqy]

This was great. David Gross was not convincing at all.

[@giakon1]

If this guy represent the modern physics... the humanity is really lost! Science fiction! what is ‘mass’?

[@CM-bq9fp]

Quote of that old Guy: "we Unserstand Polymers, human beeings etc" .... "In Principe". They Claim Till 40years, and gettung paid for this Guy taxpayer.

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

Amazing, an Nobel prize winner is just babbling, incoherent explanation!!

[@MH-mc3pp]

what a babbling, nonsensical comment.

[@cymoonrbacpro9426]

Blah blah blah blah blah Physics

[@mikedugdale281]

Royalty vs commoner. Sorry but unziker wins.

[@yaoooy]

Wodoo physics