String Theory is Falsifiable After All, String Theorists Say

[@arctic_haze]

I have long ago created the theory of non-discoverable dwarfs. Until today I thought it was untestable. But now thanks to this amazing new study, I know that every experiment which does not discover the non-discoverable dwarfs is a confirmation of my theory. I await the call from the Nobel Prize committee with dignity and humility

[@Thomas-gk42]

😂

[@rbaxter286]

Carrot Ironfoundersson has been assigned you case and would "... like a word, please."

[@OnTheThirdDay]

It is falsifiable, therefore science.

[@bobwhite459]

You have made a fudamental error in your theory, they are, of course, non-discoverable pixies, and whats more they are pixilated pixies. Dwarves would just be silly.

[@fk9277]

Answer me this. Does their name non-discoverable dwarfs presuppose that they are non discoverable, or is it totally something unrelated?

[@yeroca]

I saw recently that Michio Kaku in an interview is still peddling String theory as if it's still the standard theory of everything. He spoke as if there's no controversy about it. I don't understand that kind of "science communication".

[@SabineHossenfelder]

He's drifted off into lala-land long ago.

[@Thomas-gk42]

@@SabineHossenfelder Hihi

[@thomasjgallagher924]

I've been wondering why there's so much bad work that you're covering, and I assumed the answer you provided today: It's hard to find good, novel research for a programme that run as frequently as yours. I do think there is value in these videos; just to keep people's mind's focused on how to think about science. In my own field (more of a pragmatic economics area), I have realised how much bollocks there is out there. But it was there 30 years ago, too. I just trusted the people with PhD behind their names back then. Now I understand their motivation and their intellectual limitations much better. Most of it is quite bad from a science research point of view. From a political and selfish point of view, it's slightly more functional. I hope you have DoE employees subscribing to this channel.

[@parodysam]

@@SabineHossenfeldergood to know

[@joecaves6235]

Strings are a thing, 1 dimension is a string. From our 4D perspective of (LxWxHxT ) we have no point of reference, we only imagine we can see time (t)

[@jeffryborror4883]

LHC didn't find super symmetry but if they only had a much larger collider, it definitely wouldn't find unicorns. Where is the kick starter?

[@FishDoExist]

Thanks for that laugh 🤣

[@jimmyhillgren7479]

Just wait a while and Musk probably build a hyperloop that spans around Mars.

[@rustybrooks8916]

Sadly, in the future, it turns out that it does find Unicorns after all and suddenly all those invisible unicorn jokes have to be taken seriously.

[@FishDoExist]

@@rustybrooks8916 Such a discovery might also explain the unicorn "therians" (those who "identity" as unicorns) ...turns out, they were possessed this w/hole time: "Do you have a little unicorn in you? Would you like some?" 🦄

[@kiiandrii]

while getting my phd, i was shocked at how basic researchers are pushed to publish like the number of papers/citations is proportional to how much “science” you’re doing. i thought tenure was supposed to allow them to slow down and really think about heard problems. we need to get back to quality over quantity in basic research.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Impossible. Science is a vocation like all others. It's been watered down with too many people who don't have the real passion or talent for it, like all other vocations. The education system created a need for itself in day to day life and by doing so it's watered down it's own value.

[@fk9277]

Why can't you see that Sabine's argument was a straw man?

[@Teddy_Miljard]

Back to the reality.

[@iepineapple]

@@fk9277 You must not understand the concept of "Burden of proof" Quite simple really

[@fk9277]

@@iepineapple are you asking me to explain why it was a straw man?

[@TehVulpes]

I propose a new theory for the lack of interesting papers: Dark Science. Interesting papers exist, but cannot be observed or interacted with. Furthermore, I propose that Dark Science encompasses every paper you will never read, meaning you’re stuck with just the bad ones.

[@yeroca]

This has kind of a "Brazil" (the movie) flare to it. Maybe dark matter is really PhD-level papers from across the Universe, clogging up the works, circling galactic drains.

[@OnTheThirdDay]

Funny

[@QuantumConundrum]

I laughed more than I should have

[@tvuser9529]

Already been done, see Dresden Codak.

[@williambranch4283]

Eric Weinstein says, all the captured alien science is classified, sorry ;-)

[@lellyparker]

It's almost as if the clever people have found a way to get paid for being clever without actually doing anything clever by being far too clever for the unclever people who pay them to understand just how clever they really are.

[@bdnnijs192]

Philosophy?

[@SylvanNewby]

bruh

[@nathangamble125]

Hmm, clever analysis.

[@victotronics]

Except that NSF/DOE use review panels of their peers, so the people deciding on the funding are pretty clever too. But in order to qualify for the panel you need to be expert in that field, so the string theorists are probably reviewed by other string theorists.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

It’s almost as if some people aren’t actually all that clever.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

I blame this on two imperatives of our time when it comes to science: ▪︎Publish or perish! ▪︎Stay relevant! These imperatives are the greatest threat to science as such.

[@yashJoshi-hn6bf]

True, Is publish or perish just american/European phenomenon or is this disease has spread all over the world?

[@QuantumConundrum]

Absolutely. The publish or perish culture is why people will sacrifice rigor and integrity. And how can you blame them, that means losing your mortgage and being homeless. You can have all the integrity and scientific analysis you want but it in the current system, this won't stop the guy in the shopping cart from throwing rocks at you.

[@MercurialStatic]

It’s not science when people are getting paid to have premises ‘proven’ .

[@williambranch4283]

Win Nobel, new major discovery every year like clockwork ;-(

[@Marvin-tpa]

@@QuantumConundrum In the old days only people with means persisted with the search for an answers and basically had self study, and I think this is how they were able to think outside the box. Now we are searching for an answer that suits the way you are paid just to survive.

[@charliemiller3884]

When you have spent your entire career supporting String Theory, you will NEVER acknowledge you wasted your life.

[@sabhishek9289]

I think you described the sunk cost fallacy.

[@Happidap]

You can still acknowledge your findings and stop other people from wasting their lives

[@drgetwrekt869]

this applies to anything. like trump supporters will never acknowledge that they wasted their vote (well I cannot say I would have liked Kamala tho).

[@kingkeefage]

​@@drgetwrekt869I can't imagine how sad and depressing you must be. Grow the fuck up. Take care, and have a great one!

[@AndrejPekar]

I don't understand it. Life is meaningless. Jumping off a cliff has the same meaning as winning a Nobel Prize. What do you expect to achieve? Every invention up to this point has only made the speed at which we reproduce more efficient, nothing more.

[@fischX]

Sadly my perfectly falsifiable theory that monster trucks jumping over a burning pit of taxpayer money can manifest Santa is still waiting for funding from the department of energy

[@CrustyWhiteBread]

Exactly🎉

[@Magic_M_Hayashi]

​@@CrustyWhiteBreadI mean, that is a theory that can, in fact, be falsified!

[@woody442]

Well if it's gotta be taxmoney, it will be difficult since the government burns it all up already.

[@hitdrumhard]

if your theory said it can NOT manifest Santa, then it would get funded. and every time Santa didn't appear you would point and say 'SEE?! any other source of the burning money and we would be overrun by Santas!'

[@mertcaj]

no wonder my santa didn't arrive this year, damn taxpayers we do not tax them enough.

[@Marvin-tpa]

Wasn't string theory woven into new clothes for the emperor?

[@gary.h.turner]

Ah! The theory of the "Emperor's new string vest" - unfortunately, it had a few holes in it! 😂

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

I am totally stealing this.

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

@@gary.h.turner I am totally stealing this too.

[@MarkAitken-kn6xi]

Such an elegant description of how we’ve lost our way in the pursuit of discovery. Finding contradictory papers by the same author published close together is amazing. I am going to spend a lot of time now finding unicorns as the source of problems facing me.

[@HIIIBEAR]

You added nothing

[@williambranch4283]

On the one hand, on the other hand ... One wag said he was still looking for a one handed economist ;-)

[@christianlibertarian5488]

@@HIIIBEAR Au contraire. He added a *net* nothing, but there were virtual breakthroughs in contradiction to each other. So, although for less than the Planck time, we had a theory of everything.

[@hugegamer5988]

Science is not faith or belief. When the field does not have a clear direction forward it’s NOT a bad thing to propose different hypothetical solutions and do a paper if for nothing more than feedback or following any citations to give ideas. So it’s not in the least wrong to write two completely contradictory papers with respect to themselves and publish both simultaneously.

[@danielhicks1824]

Sabine kinda misrepresents the paper. String theory has had millions and millions spent on it. And the paper here proposes a model for how it could be ruled out. It moreso gives a route to dismiss string theory than to prove it. They never claim finding nothing would teach us something.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

No one can disprove the existence of my imaginary friend, Raymond, so he's real. Raymond likes pie so I ask for an extra slice.

[@Rampart.X]

Raymond laid a nugget of dark matter in the corner. Can you please clean it up?

[@presbiteroo]

Please let the department of energy give this man an extra slice!

[@bartsanders1553]

Raymond told me String Theory is wrong. That settles the argument for me.

[@woody442]

But is Raymond symmetric?

[@yashJoshi-hn6bf]

Raymond says that earth is flat

[@ucfj]

So basically you can publish anything as long as you are smart enough to get the math roughly correct. Who's going to question it, there's only 3 other specialists in the field & they're all reviewing each others papers

[@fk9277]

@@ucfj are you sad that you aren't in the quantum loop?

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

To get the math roughly correct it helps to be able to spell small numbers like “three” when they aren’t functioning as part of an equation.

[@1dgram]

Not quite, but you're close enough

[@xxportalxx.]

​@DummyAccount-f1q your petty sarcasm aside, I actually find that etiquette of writing numbers as words rather unhelpful, as then the part of my brain that processes natural language has to read it and pass it along to the part of my brain that does math, and that transition is honestly just a waste of time.

[@DJWESG1]

The ability to manipulate statistics is fundamental to many fake and bs jobs

[@danielbirnbaum8540]

Philosophy of science perspective: The paper is technically doing something that is productive: namely, if your theory predicts x and doesn’t predicting y, seeing y should increase the probability that x is true, but this can either be negligible (if the thing, like you said for unicorns, is not going to be true on many models of the world/ physics) or very important (if some theory predicts not seeing something and most others so, and we end up seeing nothing). This is all related to Popper’s idea that a good theory should be hard to vary: namely, that if this model makes a very specific prediction that anticipates very different experience from a small tweak, there is a much higher chance (popper wouldn’t talk probabilistically, but this can be a modern interpretation) that the theory is correct. Hopefully that’s understandable and helpful to some people!

[@danielbirnbaum8540]

It should also be noted that I’m gonna have to disagree with Sabine here: from a conceptual engineering POV, I would argue that a theory is scientific if and only if it is falsifiable (without other necessary conditions). The stuff to be said about extra assumptions is good but I don’t think this is particularly about whether this theory should be viewed as science or not - it is important for estimating initial probabilities of the theory being correct on priors (/ prior beliefs in the Bayesian sense). (There is much more to be said here, but I’ll leave it at that).

[@ivanatreides]

Whether it likes it or not, scientific comunity needs people like you. Science needs to recover common sense

[@mobilephil244]

That commodity is demonstrably absent from the Science / Politics interface as it is with the Politics / everything-else interface.

[@oldcowbb]

i smell the altright energy leaking through your comment

[@ivanatreides]

@@oldcowbb What? Is thinking that Science needs to stop wasting resources and properly spend them in fruitful research altright?

[@danielhicks1824]

​​@@ivanatreides this paper isn't even how sabine portrayed it though. We are already planning to do experiments to look for multiplets, they are plausible enough for that. This paper just points out hey if they exist that could disprove/falsify string theory and here is the range of collider results that would falsify it. So, this is a paper proposing to potentially get more out of already planned experiments, not waste more moeny on new wild goose chases. And it doesn't even make any claim that this could somehow bolster or support string theory

[@krakoa942]

The dry sarcasm with which Sabine approaches theories she disparages is tone-perfect comedy.

[@theostapel]

She cracks me up often and she is German !

[@garbarekw]

​@@theostapel German self-awareness is built on self-irony. It's just not loud enough for show.

[@meleardil]

Stand up science comedy... I love it!

[@theostapel]

@@garbarekw OK - find it to be quite rare - here in Munich - where Bavarian knee slapping jokes are liked.

[@theostapel]

@@meleardil It is a fine enhancement to the serious stuff and this type of humour is essential for intense meditation practice which I practice. Thanks.

[@Mutex30]

FFS, this was formalized in my first year undergraduate logic class String Theory implies not(Observation) does not mean that not(Observation) implies String Theory The fact that string theory predicts that a particular phenomenon should *not* be observed does not provide any evidence when the observation does not happen. If string theory is compatible with the standard model (which it should be), then it also implies that we shouldn't see photons with a 1 kg rest mass. The fact that we don't see photons with a 1 kg rest mass doesn't confirm string theory though, and it's absurd to say "well, string theory can be falsified by finding a 1 kg photon".

[@NemisCassander]

I would wager that 80% of physics programs do not require any classes in logic (either for the major or in the general education requirements), and the ones that do don't spend any time on the actual fundamentals of logic. But yes, mixing up the converse and the contrapositive is a Logic 101 fail.

[@MsSonali1980]

It's the other way around. They say if X (Observation) is true then Y (String theory, in its current form) must be false. But you can neither prove or disprove that X exists. And they knew that from the beginning. You should look at the paper, it's fairly short. It's in the last two sentences of their discussion section (if you really don't want to read the whole thing).

[@danielhicks1824]

Sabine misrepresents the paper. They never argue that this method could prove string theory, only that it'd be a potential way to disprove string theory depending on the result of experiments to look for multiplets (a dark matter candidate), something they were likely going to do anyways.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I disagree with Sabine’s concept of the purpose of science. The purpose of science (at least in physics) is to generate grants from the US Dept. of Energy. As such, all of papers mentioned have been eminently successful, except the one with funding from elsewhere.

[@Adi-bo5do]

I am assuming you think Science is a Marxist conspiracy every time right wing elites can’t control it.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

I wonder what the purpose of this comment is

[@christianlibertarian5488]

@@channeldoesnotexist I am trying to get DoE funding. Not successful so far.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

@@christianlibertarian5488 you've been unsuccessful at humor too. Don't try again lil bro.

[@danielhicks1824]

This paper isn't bad in that regard. It never claims finding nothing would teach us anything like Sabine implies and it also doesn't propose any new experiments. People already intend to look for multiplets and if they are found this paper tells us that from that same data we may be able to falsify string theory. It's not even written by a career string theorist or anything

[@Chrisministeriet]

String theory isn't a theory at all, it's a hypothesis, and as such it must have a path for falsification or verification, otherwise it's just an unprovable postualte or conjecture. Calling String theory a "theory" gives it the same kind of weight as Theory of Relativity, Theory of gravity or Theory of evolution.

[@MsSonali1980]

I guess they call it theory because all the maths in it is functional. You could propose a horse('s skin, outer shell) is a donut just with the right assumptions and maths. But yeah, a horse at least actually exists. So, it' may be not the best comparison.

[@fk9277]

@@Chrisministerietevolution can't be falsified, it's not a theory either

[@vidal9747]

​@@fk9277 Of course it can. Let's take the main way stuff evolves: Natural selection. This is proven by the fact that new bacteria emerges from older bacteria. If there weren't any new diseases ever, evolution would be false. As there are new diseases and types of bacteria appearing frequently, evolution is true. Also, genetic tracing can prove that animals share genetic material. It is the best theory to fit our observations. Anyone who claims otherwise is either stupid or a religious nutjob. Give me a better explanation for different species that don't involve unfalsifiable sky daddies please.

[@Tablis0]

There is an awkward historical reason for this. Strings were created to calculate the behaviour of the strong force. These strings are made of gluons and are a part of the standard model. This "string theory" was and is perfectly fine theory, which is proven to work (as an approximation). But then they took this theory and applied it to all forces and particles. This is where nonsense started, but they didn't change the name.

[@fk9277]

@@Grauenwolf would you be happy calling string theory a metaphysical claim?

[@drbachimanchi]

Your ability to explain scientific research and its deficiencies is unmatched. I really hope oneday your efforts will lead to introspection and course correction in the field of fundamental physics.

[@jonwesick2844]

When I took my first college physics course in 1974, physicists said the quark model was unfalsifiable because no one had yet to detect a free quark and likely never would.

[@AdvantestInc]

The discussion on falsifiability in string theory is a great reminder of how crucial testability is in separating science from speculation. The examples here really drive that point home.

[@danielhicks1824]

The thing is this paper isn't really claiming what they found as a way to support string theory. Only a way to falsify it from the results of a search for particles people were already planning to search for.

[@richardedwards9044]

It’s valid to say “if we observe this, we have disproven the theory” as long as the argument is sound. This has NO value to prove the theory, only to disprove it. It has value to identify ways to disprove a theory. It sets others up to attempt to do the disproval. Wouldn’t it be momentous to disprove string theory? If your concern is that others would hijack this as evidence in favor of string theory, that is valid. I hope that isn’t what the authors are trying to do.

[@Stef.Cata051]

Isn't this because doctors and profesors have to constantly write papers? To me it feels like that would generate a lot of BS

[@MsNyara]

It is exactly this, yeah. You need to write x number of papers or you are homeless. Everyone in the system knows 90% of what this system produces is trash, but the people funding the system and putting the rules of the system does not read nor understands any of its output, except for total amount of papers, and they associate more numbers = better, since that is how capitalism works elsewhere too.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

@@MsNyara Maybe in physics, but when I was studying Music Theory in grad school, I found precisely no one willing to acknowledge it.

[@MsNyara]

@@DummyAccount-f1q The capitalist mindset is kind of antagonist to humanities, as the capitalist philosophy is one of self-service self-preservation only, thus it is inherently against or in disinterest of other philosophies, as it just needs and wants itself only.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

“They’ve found a way to prove it wrong, making it more legitimate” is a very funny sentence

[@jordanlapointe4690]

but that's actually foundational to the scientific method? If there's no test that could disprove a theory, that theory is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

[@afelias]

@@jordanlapointe4690 Not really, because coming up with the falsifiable bit this late makes everything preceding it even less scientific. The model should have had that criterion to begin with - it simply seems less plausible that the criteria were made separately and well after the fact.

[@fk9277]

@@afelias okay well given what you just said, what's your opinion on evolution?

[@afelias]

@@fk9277 Evolution's not really a theory. It's practically axiomatic for biology to even be a field in the life sciences. We can talk about individual mechanisms, such as how genes and heredity are related, but those all came with the possibility of falsification from the get go.

[@fk9277]

@@afelias good answer! At least you are consistent. But I don't agree with your claim that finding a falsifiable this late in the piece makes it less scientific.

[@Revolutionarythought]

To sum up they are saying If X then ~Y. ~Y therefore X. Their logic is broken *prima facie.* I guess we could be charitable and say, they are saying, "I predict that is X is correct then ~Y. ~Y therefore X could still be correct." That does not tell you a whole lot--leaving aside challenges to their predictions--other than "string theory could still be right!" Well, okay... I guess that could be the basis for a not very good scientific paper that might give a future scientist an idea about writing a good one? So I am not so much flummoxed that this was published, but rather by how serious the authors of this paper take themselves. In a perfect world there would be space for papers that fall into the category of "here is an idea I thought was interesting, but it is not really new science" where the people who wrote those papers are up front about those paper being ideas that interested them, and that you might find interesting to, but really do not constitute serious claims about the world. These should be published in journals with titles like "Not Serious Science: But We Thought it Was Kind of Interesting to Think About This Stuff."

[@gubx42]

They are not claiming that string theory is correct, they are claiming that more research is needed, i.e. they want to keep their job. Of course it passes peer review, because their peers want to keep their jobs too. It is hard to be critical of things your living depend on.

[@fk9277]

Why?? Why does it upset you so much? A paper showing that string theory can be experimentally falsified is really not a reason to cry like a Turkish woman. Like, what do you want???

[@Revolutionarythought]

@@gubx42 I know this, but you and I both know that this was written by string theorists and was intended in a very particular way, which if we are not being charitable is a logical fallacy, and if we are being charitable amounts to "good news guys, this idea I have no real support for would imply that string theory might still be the correct answer;" which... great (referencing the authors not you here), bro. You managed to say "my random idea does not falsify string theory! More research is needed!" Well, I'm tempted to tell you that is a very self-fulfilling argument AND since string theory could be correct, or not, prima facie "more research is needed" by definition. We did not need your paper to tell us that. So you have not really said a gods' damned thing other than "I had this neat idea when I got stoned last week" (again all in reference to the paper author(s) and not you, unless *you* wrote the paper. :D)

[@Revolutionarythought]

@@fk9277 it does not actually show it can be falsified now does it? It makes an unproven prediction about particle pairings if string theory is correct, then says "gee we do not see the number of the particles from my unproven prediction, so... string theory!" AND... like I said, I just do not think this is a very compelling thing to say. It is interesting to physicists and string theorists maybe in the exact context I mentioned--it is an interesting idea someone had, but is total speculation. I was serious though, unlike Sabine I guess I think there is room for this sort of thing in academic publications, I just wish--because of the relationship between knowledge and power--that there was a space to share interesting ideas without having to try to assert you are actually saying something that's well founded.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

@@fk9277 I want you to restrict yourself to one question mark at a time, thank you very much.

[@jjeherrera]

Which reminds us scientists should study formal logics.

[@BlackRaven-w4e]

Undoubtedly. Philosophy of science and epistemology as as well.

[@theostapel]

Logical enough and hence vitally useful.

[@MrKalidascopeEyes]

Logic should be standard education from an early age.

[@theostapel]

@@MrKalidascopeEyes Good idea - with good results - if this is instituted. Push ...

[@zelven6109]

So... mathematics

[@MrRolnicek]

There's an energy crisis and the Department of Energy isn't building any new nuclear reactors. Where is all of their money going then? Oh...........

[@theostapel]

I keep far away from them - atoms - of course I cannot see them and don't want to feel them either. This world is our world and fertile and beautiful and not a hitching post for Mars folk. Love it and care - with love alone and of course - naturalness.

[@MrRolnicek]

@@theostapel Bad news for you buddy. You're made of atoms, can't really keep away from them.

[@stephanklein257]

Your energy crisis is a direct consequence of deregulation policies in order to maximize profit for energy companies, as part of the overall neoliberal agenda that's been going on for the last 40 years. But yeah, blame some science dudes for it.

[@hugegamer5988]

We can’t build new ones because a critical mass of the uneducated have been conditioned their entire lives to fear and hate it. No facts or reason will work as they never entered that equation at any time.

[@hugegamer5988]

@@theostapel too true and good advice. I personally never use water that’s billions of years old, yuck! I get only the freshest hydrogen and oxygen atoms, hand picked and lovingly assembled. That’s why they call it artisan water.

[@jmf5246]

I loved physics as an undergrad major 40 years ago. Today i would recommend any youngster interested to go into engineering or comp sci.

[@goaway7346]

You mean something with measurable results?

[@ldgaetano]

theoretical physics is only one subfield of physics...

[@blinkingmanchannel]

I’m gonna write me a paper too! Yeehaw! 😂 Keep going! This is literally the only forum in which I get to see somebody engaging with difficult subjects. I love this stuff so much I spent 6 years in undergrad and then 3 years in graduate business school. I’m so well-rounded I’m spherical! (I have three hours of everything except “rocks for jocks”!)

[@JohnSmith-mf3dh]

If you can't prove with the scientific method the "theory", then is not a theory... Is just an idea.

[@southpaw7426]

One of my old elecrical engineering text books opened every chapter with a quote. that best applies to theoretical physics says: “ a mathematician is a man who will assume anything - except responsibility “.

[@serhansahin8989]

Someone's gotta teach them some basic philosophy and, more importantly, honesty.

[@hunterlee4412]

In my experience, philosophy is anything but honest

[@garbarekw]

Theoretical physicists are people with the most developed sense of humor. This skill cancels out the ones you mentioned.

[@desarguesbaptiste5577]

Talking about honesty, could you provide a line where the authors write something along the lines of "there is no disproof therefore is it correct"? Because this is what Sabine claimed in the video but I could not find it in the article

[@danielhicks1824]

Sabine misrepresents the paper here. They basically just say hey when you look for this TYPE of particle people already want to look for, if any of the outcomes are bla through bla, that disproves string theory. It's not like the paper is proposing any new experiments of its own, just something to look out for in ones we will likely do in the future.

[@Satori-d6y]

*Symmetry groups* 1) If Cartesian coordinates mappable, it may be chiral by odd number of axes' coordinates' inversion. Point groups can be chiral re molecular symmetry. Space groups re crystallography. Eleven pairs of Enantiomorphic Space Groups (chiral lattice even absent contents), plus more for lacking inversion point, mirror plane, improper rotatons... S_4 symmetry elements. BARF, Tetrakis[3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]borate anion, [{3,5-(CF3)2C6H3}4B]−, is tetrahedral but BArfs with hindered, hence coupled internal rotations can be chiral. Physics is carefully incomplete when it eructates.

[@tsuribachi]

Now, I kind of wish LHC somehow produces Unicorn.

[@Deletirium]

I'm picturing the collider humming to life, and a few seconds later, alarm klaxons suddenly going off as a glowing singularity begins expanding, and then coalescing down to a vaguely horse-shaped anomaly. Then the requisite "guys in labcoats and rolled up shirtsleeves cheer and high five each other" scene, and camera pans into one disheveled, but happy supervisor: "We did it, gentlemen... the world is saved."

[@williambranch4283]

At Gev level, definitely popcorn ;-)

[@richardsuggs8108]

😂

[@alsecen5674]

I just love this channel and your way of holding physicists accountable for their techno-babble. Thank you

[@CrustyWhiteBread]

Well...im not convinced it can be falsified, however it 100% cannot be verified.

[@Daniel-yj3ju]

😂 Every video your Christmas card list gets shorter. Do people sit next to you at conferences or on the other side of the room and look over angrily frowning? Love your work

[@michaelwright2986]

I know Dr Hossenfelder thinks Philosophy is bullshit, but a little Philosophy, or even the Philosophy department's GenEd course on Critical Thinking, would have helped people to avoid this sort of error.

[@BillyThetit]

If what you say about Hossenfelder and philosophy is true, then the woman is an idiot.

[@channeldoesnotexist]

The problem is that philosophy is many things. It's indeed bullshit in the sense that it doesn't produce any knowledge whatsoever and that misconception has resulted in a lot of problems. It isn't bullshit when it comes to logic and mathematics.

[@michaelwright2986]

@@channeldoesnotexist I don't think you know what philosophy is. And it's not even a girl's subject.

[@danielhicks1824]

They don't make that error though, Sabine misrepresents the paper. It is presented as a way to falsify string theory if outcomes from experiments from experiments people already want to do fall into a certain range.

[@johnholmes912]

When I read Physics ( back in the 70s) , one of the first classes was the philosophy of science.

[@spaceodyssey7659]

Sabine. There was a cosmology related video in late 2024 in which you give a brief description of the early universe. About 2/3rds of the way thru the video. Your description of the first moments of the universe was compact just a few sentences, elegant and beautiful. It kind of shocked me that it was such a fine compact description of The beginning of space-time, energy and matter. By any chance do you recall which video? I'd like to listen to it again. Maybe I won't consider it so beautiful on second thought, but otherwise, I'd like to share it with some family members. I've been panning through your videos but there's so many.

[@p.tylerhochla51]

How do you robustly determine which assumptions are necessary?

[@williambranch4283]

Genius, which is always in short supply

[@NemisCassander]

Quantitatively, you can do it by encoding assumptions as factors, and seeing their impact on model explainability. Essentially, Sabine is arguing for people to remember the Law of Parsimony (or Ockham's Razor).

[@williambranch4283]

@NemisCassander Where Planck saved appearances.

[@danielh.9010]

If the hypothesis still works without the assumption, then the assumption isn't necessary. I suppose this is meant to include substantial effort to modify the hypothesis accordingly.

[@walterlampert1753]

Love it when Sabine says "Nonsense!" , probably my favorite word. Sooo useful!

[@tomlanier3794]

3:40 It's not contradictory to say both "Maybe there was some dark matter before the big bang" and also "Maybe some dark matter was produced after the big bang". Negative Nancy.

[@shexec32]

This is closer to the Raven Paradox than faulty generalisation. Up and Atom's channel has imo the best explanation video on the raven paradox. Also, a little Bayesian reasoning shows that: yes, failing to find the "unicorn particle" is still science. It just isn't great science, because it only goes a tiny way to confirming string theory, and also works as confirmation of competing theories (including string theory's null hypothesis). Science *is* still all about falsification.

[@MrBradWi]

There needs to be some sort of "Consumer Reports" vetting with people who can read and actually understand these papers, but which can exercise enough clout to deny publication to low-value nonsense. And can anyone explain how a string becomes part of even a "non-standard model" in any universe? How can something be less complicated than a particle and have more dimensions? Something has to change the landscape. Used to be you could tell science from speculative grant fishing.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Grant fishing works.........so grant fishing will continue.

[@MrParondo]

isomorphic S-duality groups point towards a beautiful and interconnected web of string theories, where seemingly distinct entities are linked by deep symmetries and dualities. This is a key motivation for the search for a unified description of string theory and a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of reality

[@philochristos]

You should replace, "That's not how science works" with "That's not sound reasoning." After all, if the reasoning is sound, but that's not how science happens works, then that would just mean science needs to work differently.

[@NemisCassander]

Why? Science is empirical; reason is rational. These are, in themselves, about as opposite as you can get. The fact that the maths (apparently) work out actually means that the reasoning is sound. The issue (and I believe that Sabine would agree with me, as she constantly mentions this) is that the mathematical model is not borne out by observation.

[@garbarekw]

Hmm.. There is no reason to find common sense in unscientific methods. This is a programmatic theme for Sabine - all her heroes take advantage of the fact that mathematics covers up any nonsense of theoretical physics.

[@danielhicks1824]

They don't actually suggest what Sabine claims they do. They only propose this as a potential falsification of stirng theory, not a way to support it. And it is based on a TYPE of collider outcome people are going to test for anyways... it isn't proposing any new experiments just something to look for in ones we likely already will

[@alhypo]

Everyone: "This proves nothing" String theorists: "Exactly" 😌

[@Dadas0560]

I just love the Unicorn analogy!

[@Waldohasaskit210]

Scott Alexander (Astral Codex Ten) recently wrote a substack on the academic priesthoods (by 'priesthood' he means a generic definition of a people set apart from society, not necessarily anything deity related) and how they have to be separated from influence by public opinion in order to be useful information gathering organizations. This makes them less susceptible to the random chaotic biases that regular influencers frequently fall prey to but more susceptible to certain kinds of group think biases. I'd be interested to hear your take on his views of the structure of academic priesthoods.

[@Velereonics]

oh dear

[@Dowskiify]

"but now I'm repeating myself"... I was reminded a while back that we should tell the people we love why we love them. This is why I love you Sabine!

[@nuprophett]

“They’ve invented an entirely new type of nonsense” - Damn, Sabine is hardcore sometimes 😅

[@Thomas-gk42]

unique!

[@luck484]

Sadly there is no Noble Prize for BS.

[@DrJamTastic]

This is the classic joke: "Why are you banging two rocks together? To keep away the lions. But there aren't any lions around here! See how well it works!"

[@KieranLeCam]

I'm no defender of string theory but wait one second. It looks like you're upset at the fact their inference is unreliable. Not at the logic of falsifiability itself. If this is a genuine attempt to falsify string theory then great. I think your cynicism is getting the better of you. If we found large multiplets, if the inference is reliable, it rules out string theory. I can't shake the feeling you want things to go either your way or the highway, Sabine, no offence. Maybe you can learn to see the positive in things instead of exclusively what could be better? Either way, interesting video! :)

[@devinscott5216]

I felt the same thing. Maybe I missed something but I'm really struggling to understand what exactly she's mad about in this case. In her unicorn example she finishes by saying "therefore unicorn theory is great", but I highly doubt the paper authors said anything of the kind, just that it's falsifiable. If that initial conjecture is baseless as she states (which does seem to be the case with a lot of fundamental assertions that big name scientific theories are built upon) then that would be something to warn people about. But I've also lost my faith in Sabine's assertions to a large degree over the past year. This certainly doesn't help. I'll rewatch the video later to see if I missed something

[@KieranLeCam]

@devinscott5216 I think it's an emotional response. She's jaded. And i get it, but it's not appropriate logic to see everything through your own biases, to the point of seeing everything in the worst light. Everyone has a a story. Yourself too. But then so do the other people that aren't you. So I personally practice being myself, having my opinions AND listening to others, and seeing the best version of theirs. A mix of + and -. Like the electromagnetic force!

[@OliverDehalt]

what would be ruled out by big multiplets is only the conjecture (!) that this would rule out ST. So next day, String Theorists could still invent new conjectures 🥴

[@KieranLeCam]

@OliverDehalt yes of course. But that's the case for anything. If you falsify one thing, by all means come up with something else... as long as it too is falsifiable. We don't want to stifle ideas we disagree with. We want to set the standard of falsiability for all ideas. So who cares if string theorists come up with new ideas? As long as they're falsifiable (and practically so, ideally), we're good in the hood.

[@OliverDehalt]

@@KieranLeCam On Falsification: Creating sth which is falsifyable is not natural science. Only the other way round. E.g. I claim next year same time you'll win 10mn in Lotto. Falsifyable by observation next year - and no science. Maybe we can agree on natural (!) science: In natural science, observations not existing don’t need explanation and don’t provide explanation. The realm of what we can observe is limited by nature. The undertaking to explain these observations is natural science. On the other side, the incredible vast realm of what we do not observe is limited by human fantasy, only. To explain the latter can be philosophy or math or science fiction (all of which I really like) but it is no natural science. Also: the explanations of this non-existing realm are barely limited (Philosophers, mathematicians and SF writers make their own rules, though). For sure all that is brain work but: no natural science, as nature is what is and natural science to explain what is and not: Why is “it” not there though I can imagine “it”. In our case: One of the unlimited members of the realm-never-observed in nature is big multiplets. Never observed, but imaginable (at least with some brain effort ;-). Now we can, if we have spare time or get paid for paper production, start reasoning: Is it because they are rare and hard to find, is it because God does not like big symmetry groups. or: is it they just don't exist. Or: you name it ... Or: is it because I conjecture this contradicts to String Theory. And now, the paper claims this absence tells sth about String Theory’s relation to nature because there now was created sth falsifyable: no natural science.

[@mooscastelijn6295]

But string theory not being falsifiable meant that 'A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test. '. Now, an observation can be made which would falsify the theory, so it is falsifiable right? And it being falsifiable meant that it is a more promising theory? I do agree that if the standard model also predicts no larger groups (if I understood correctly), then it does not differentiate between those which might be problematic

[@eleventy-seven]

Epistemology is non existent in String Theory.

[@NemisCassander]

Well, considering the state of epistemology in general, it's a little difficult for me to hit string theory too hard on this. Whenever people forget (or deny) that metaphysics is prior to epistemology, problems arise.

[@NielMalan]

I wish I had a citation for this, but I understand Leo Szilard proposed that the government pay mediocre scientists to _not_ publish papers. This would save a lot of money and allow science to progress much more rapidly.

[@tropicalbluwaters]

Maybe we should focus on measurements and eliminate government funding for these type of papers?

[@JorgetePanete]

I need to understand something: do we need to not make hypotheses unless there are discrepancies in observations?

[@Thomas-gk42]

😂Poetic refutation, thank you!

[@jniland8770]

5:08 "but then I repeat myself" 👏👏👏

[@Deipnosophist_the_Gastronomer]

String, string, string, string, everybody loves string String, string, string, string, everybody needs string Pull up your pants, slip on your vest Everyone agrees, string is best!

[@thq7579]

How can a person figure out whether Michiu Kaku writings are science fiction or physics? Clockwise, counterclockwise strings, some of which vibrating in 16 dimensions, is that even imaginable by a human brain?

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

Check to see if Kaku’s lips are moving. If they are, assume, whether its sci-fi or not, that it’s nevertheless ungrammatical.

[@thq7579]

alta, bist Behindie oda wass?

[@vensroofcat6415]

Why do we keep calling String theory a theory - isn't it more like a hypothesis?

[@andrewhotston983]

It's now not even a hypothesis - it's a gambling strategy.

[@vensroofcat6415]

@@andrewhotston983 Those guys should have done 3 of them at once. In hopes one actually works. Although they have been doubling down a few times already so far, so probably not all is lost. Purely from math perspective?

[@andrewhotston983]

@@vensroofcat6415 Scientific spread betting!

[@HarDiMonPetit]

- Do you know how elephants hide in strawberry fields ? - No - They put their sunglasses. Did you ever see an elephant wearing sunglasses in a strawberry field ? - No - It's because it works ! 🤔

[@AndrewBrownK]

Let me guess, requires collider the size of solar system?

[@Thomas-gk42]

Galaxy

[@gxfprtorius4815]

I like that you now mention the funders, as the uncritical evaluation of the projects being proposed to them for funding is at the core of the problem. They don't want bad press for their money.

[@kourosh234]

They invented a new sort of nonsense 😂 2:37

[@tom-kz9pb]

Finding a means of falsification is very good for string theory, by giving it scientific testability, or very bad for string theory, if it does in fact wind up being falsified. Let's wait and see, but this should at least represent progress, if factual.

[@ronnetgrazer362]

I came for the savage takedowns, I stayed for the savage takedowns. Get 'em Sabine!

[@calvingrondahl1011]

The strings are in another universe… our universe is low budget particles.

[@zackyezek3760]

A mathematical “group” like U(1) is just a SET (collection of “same type” elements, like numbers or vectors) plus a multiplication function “*” that multiplies pairs of things in the set to produce another thing in the set. To be a group the multiply function and set also need an element that acts like “1” (i.e.1*x=x*1=x for every x in the set). The standard model uses them to model things like electrons and the fundamental forces because the unified math structure can explicitly capture things like physical symmetries (e.g. swapping plus and minus charges has no effect on the physics), operations where order matters (“non-commutative”), etc. They’re also really useful in programming since custom objects that belong to groups need less error checking and handling logic.

[@MsSonali1980]

I got recently a bit into group theory and I quite enjoyed what I learned from it.

[@codetoil]

It's technically a Lie Group, which is both a group as described above; and a manifold, which is a space that locally looks Euclidean.

[@no-one-in-particular]

The thing you described is called a monoid. A group also requires every element to have an inverse.

[@johnholmes912]

not even wrong ..SIGH

[@connormeredith3144]

Don't U(1), SU(2), and SU(3) all have the cardinality of the continuum? What do we mean by "larger" here?

[@EffettoKirlian]

With 'size' she means dimension of the Lie group, not cardinality. The smaller the number inside the parentheses, the smaller the dimension: U(1) has dimension 1, SU(2) has dimension 3, and SU(3) has dimension 8, according to Wikipedia's 'Simple Lie group' page.

[@alirezamarefatkhah2173]

But damn it is hard.

[@javiernajar1457]

Since the first time I heard that String Theory would explain everything without knowing how or why, I just thought it didn't make any sense to make such claims. I think whoever came up with the idea had a dream and thought it meant something, a message from the heavens.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*Religion:* "God." *Science:* "1-dimensional strings and 26 unobservable dimensions." ... So, science beats religion 2-to-1 on "pure speculation."

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

That is assuming ST is science.

[@Leon-eq6ei]

God + angels + devil + holy spirit + jesus. Another w for science

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"God + angels + devil + holy spirit + jesus. Another w for science"* ... Not so fast! Let's add Multiverse + branes + simulations + many worlds + super string theory + big bounce, + big crunch + dark matter + dark energy to the science list. *Speculation Totals:* *Religion:* 5 speculations *Science:* 10 speculations

[@goldeagle7106]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Religious claims keep being proven wrong by science tho like the origin of man and all the living things for example. If it weren't for the scientific method we d still believe god made two people out of dirt few thousand years ago and we re the result of their inbreeding

[@DrippySausage69]

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLCIf it weren't for the scientific method people would still believe our origin is two people created from dirt by god and we re the result of their inbreeding. I think science wins, it got people into space 😂

[@hubertheiser]

2:10 Love the unicorn theory as an explanation of the paper contents 🤣

[@roundgarage]

String theory ? I'm a frayed knot.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

Yeah, we’ve seen that quite a few times now. Try something original.

[@adrianwright8685]

5:03 " A scientific theory should not make unnecessary assumptions " Is that true? Newton assumed an inverse square law between masses. But it was only when he calculated that this was consistent with apples and planets that he promoted it.

[@avsystem3142]

So, it appears that Newton made a necessary assumption.

[@adrianwright8685]

@@avsystem3142 It was an assumption that worked - but my point is he had to make an assumption in the first place. For all I know he might have made and rejected many others before he found this one that worked!

[@mm-yt8sf]

"i doubt that this is correct but let's just go with it" aka, "you lost me at your initial assumptions" 🙂 reminds me of a math joke where the punch line is "let's assume all horses are spheres"

[@MsSonali1980]

Nah, horses are donuts. They have a hole (food in/out).

[@williambranch4283]

Deduction all the way down, there are no assumptions ;-)

[@theostapel]

Do not get this humorous verse - but I like it.

[@gary.h.turner]

That was cows, wasn't it? 🐄=🔴

[@theostapel]

@@gary.h.turner There are also cows ? Complications - within data - and puzzles in revealing solutions. Where or who - does it end and what will it be ? Cows - gentle creatures - always change everything.

[@TsvetanDimitrov1976]

At this point I think they'll predict anything as long as falsifying the prediction needs an even *larger* collider.

[@chrisheist652]

Scientific Keynesianism?

[@mechaileh1]

Dear Sabine, you promised to focus on positive things this year. Have you forgotten already?

[@igorstasenko9183]

Well. You can always make any negative thing to be a non issue by folding and hiding it in extra dimension! :)

[@nickcarroll8565]

She’s positive all this is garbage

[@henriksundt7148]

If something is mathematically sound, there may be something physically to it too - ref. the unreasonable effectiveness... Thus I think there is some value in _disproving_ that it has physical relevance, if possible.

[@John-tc9gp]

It's becoming clear that academic dysfunction and corruption is the reason why theoretical physics has not progressed much in a long long time.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

It doesn’t concern me that it hasn’t progressed. It does concern me that professional scientists are forced continually to wade through these worthless papers.

[@poetmaggie1]

I moved my Green's book into the fiction in my library a long time ago. Its a beautifully written book.

[@backyardthinker5996]

i have a "theory of everything" including the elementary particles, i will only give it to you if you want to help me answer more questions about ... if not eventually i will make a silly video and broadcast to everyone

[@gregoryclifford6938]

I'm having trouble following just what quarks, muons, charms, fermions, bosons, and now "strings" are all doing inside atoms. It seems rather crowded, and do they all wear party hats, blow whistles, wave pom-poms, and throw confetti? Sure they can crash into one another and decay into yet other obscure things, but what is their entire purpose if it's not to hold up the tent?

[@darylcheshire1618]

this thing happens in management. Declare a methodology, money is spent implementing it with training courses, then defund it and quietly bury it. They are named with 3 or 4 letter acronyms.

[@garbarekw]

pok & heck?

[@darylcheshire1618]

@ ITIL comes to mind, probably good in the UK in the ‘90s but it was preached harder than Shakesphere

[@SirZafiro]

Hi! Just wanted to remind everyone that, even though you may or may not agree with Sabine on a lot of things, you should not immediately take her word as truth either (that would not be a very scientific thing to do), especially when she makes some categorical statement on how science is being done nowadays. Instead, you should try to diversify your sources (maybe even read the primary sources, if you're a physicist or mathematician), and form your own opinion with an open mind. Obviously the system has its flaws, but there's a lot of extremely brilliant people working on it, and it's reasonable to often give them the benefit of the doubt. Sabine is a very vocal critic of string theory. Even though I personally am not a big fan of string theory (but I am a big fan of Sabine!), this clearly introduces a certain degree of bias. Peace!

[@TheThinkersBible]

I really enjoy the realism you bring to science. It's quick to criticize disciplines outside itself but is so slow and blind to see its own faults and shortcomings. All disciplines have faults, shortcomings, limitations -- and bad behavior. It's important for the sake of basic integrity to be honest about that and to not be too arrogant about other disciplines or belief systems.

[@aresaurelian]

I wonder if the number telling the size of the group should be the other way around, larger number, smaller group, as they are infinite.

[@pallharaldsson9015]

Thanks Sabine, I look forward to reading the "Pixelated Universe" paper. BUT is it about an added assumption? Or was the assumption to begin with that the universe was continuous, i.e. not pixelated/discrete in some sense, meaning fitting/using the calculus math we knew. I think we're using the wrong type of math from the start, and have noticed videos about that, that I've not yet watched, so not just my own idea. I like better that the universe is discrete, rather than the latter, and I'm not even sure the continuous status quo (assumption?) is unfalsifiable.

[@Ordinator1]

0:13 "How to falsify String Theory at a Collider" At this point, I knew the video was going to be fun. 😂

[@doublepinger]

It's not useful for the practitioners, it's useful for the theorists. They're defining an upper bound to rule out certain things. This is actually a good thing that would drive them towards a model that represents reality. It's the same as defining rules for a Super-Symmetry theory and finding a way to prove some rules wrong. It's the reason we looked for the Higgs Boson, to validate or refute theories. An actual attempt to steer String Theory in a concrete direction, and it gets pish-posh'ed?

[@alskidan]

I was watching a three body problem animation the other day. The whole system seemed to have quantum properties (all that position vs momentum thing). I wonder if that was a coincidence.

[@rosomak8244]

Both are in the realm of non-analytic phenomena. It was indeed not an accident.

[@williambranch4283]

Classic QM is non chaotic. But theorists keep trying to redefine QM and chaos.

[@mike1122-o6c]

Repeating an earlier request, I wonder if you might discuss Jacob Barandes's approach to the measurement problem, and whether it is a satisfactory solution in your opinion. Thanks.

[@EdwardCurrent]

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how progress *can* be made in the foundations of physics.

[@feedvid]

Thank you for sponsoring Brilliant and not AG1. 👍

[@johnholmes912]

50 years ago when I was reading physics, it was drummed into me that if I couldn't explain a concept in physics to the man in the street, I didn't understand it.