The Other Side of Physics | Sabine Hossenfelder | TEDxNewcastle

[@SeanRJohnson]

I'm so happy to live in a universe capable of producing Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@kgbstudio]

Amen , good sir!

[@TeaParty1776]

The universe produced volitional determinism. SH used that to produce herself.

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@TheEndPhase]

Me too - don't care what it reveals. :D

[@ivangohome]

@@SeanRJohnson she puts Maxwell against Einstein for entertainment claiming that she can judge who is superior

[@hawkerdoo]

When I was a youngster I was completely captivated by Professor Carl Sagan, and here I am having that same experience with Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder in my Senior years.

[@DJWESG1]

Rare this.. an expert giving a Ted talk..

[@happyelephant5384]

Aren't ted talk made for experts to give

[@DJWESG1]

@@happyelephant5384 maybe

[@CarlyDayDay]

​@@happyelephant5384 Just seems like random *ss people to me. I guess maybe they're experts to somebody.

[@doctorpex6862]

@@happyelephant5384 mostly no

[@zyansheep]

*TedX talk

[@amphibiousone7972]

Sabine gives outstanding lectures. Thank You Dr.Sabine

[@nyworker]

She's got humility which is a great foundational trait for all great thinker's.

[@butwhoasked1821]

@@nyworker "Have the arrogance to believe you can do it, and the humility to recognize you might be wrong"

[@ivangohome]

She's annoying and pretentious.

[@lennyvlaminov9480]

Sabine is brilliant, a whole universe of insights and analysis

[@eric9615]

Fantastic talk, Sabine Hossenfelder has introduced physics and concepts in digestible bits for folks like myself trying to learn a little bit more every day

[@brianhadley527]

Clear presentation of somewhat difficult to comprehend ideas. Informative and educational in an interesting way. Gotta love this intelligent woman.

[@shubhanshjain]

Thank you Dr. Hossenfelder for taking time out of your busy schedule to deliver this lecture. I’ve learned some great facts and ideas from your videos.

[@sparky7915]

Physics can discover the laws of our universe and how we can use them. That is the limit of physics. It can not explain what happened before the big bang. It can not explain how psychics can communicate with the dead. It can not explain how it is that some people can see the future. Physics can not develop equations to explain these kinds of things. Sabine Hossenfelder makes physics so interesting and explains things so well. I think she's the best!

[@charlesdavis7940]

The best science communicator of our age? It is rare to explain the most complex ideas in a way that is completely understandable.

[@emalee8366]

She's wonderful! Smart, humorous, and good at teaching. Follow her science news channel. Oh, and she also creates music. 🙂

[@thej3799]

🌻

[@GerritSchulze]

It is always a pleasure to listen to Sabine Hossenfelder's thoughts. They are easy to grasp and to say in her words 'ascientific', at least for me... I have no evidence against nor do I have evidence supporting the idea behind her thoughts.

[@hyrocoaster]

11:26 I find the idea of a thinking universe on a large scale interesting and I hadn't known before that physicists have started to think about it. However, what I thought she would say, and this would have appeared rather self-evident to me, is that we know already that the universe can think through us. This wouldn't mean that the thinking is everywhere (in the sense of the idea that the whole universe can think), but as Sabine said herself we are part of the same universe, so apparently at least parts of it can think? So the question for me would be whether there is, in addition to the thinking that the universe already does, further thinking: among galaxies, tiny wormholes, etc.

[@PieterPatrick]

The world needs more Sabine!

[@davidpantoja676]

So good to have this content available, science is cool.

[@glenncurry3041]

Interesting to watch you from another perspective. I watch your youtube channel religiously! And watched you with Penrose and others in discussions. I always learn something and love your, yes, strange humor!

[@yinyuejia7]

Sabine, thank you for being so complete and clear!

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

When I have heard her before she seemed to lack imagination. Now I see it's just that her imagination is strongly tempered by precise logical thought. That is the mark of a great mind, my respect for her has increased significantly. It is an annoying aspect of a scientific world dominated by sensors, people who do not delve into the subconscious as much, that these insights are frowned upon. I hope as her standing increases she becomes more free to express them.

[@georgesheffield1580]

What ? Learn something ,please .

[@TheMarcusrobbins]

@@georgesheffield1580 The chance that you understand more about the world than I do is very small. And I have very small error bars on that prediction.

[@david_porthouse]

Well she has nailed her colours to the mast of superdeterminism.

[@Bengt.Lueers]

Sabine straying out of the circle she is supposed to stay inside of. How poetic.

[@Xamy-]

Haha

[@michaeltrower741]

Like a true scientist, she's thinking outside the circle.

[@gefginn3699]

Sabine is a Treasure.

[@marcusbeau]

beyond measure

[@thee_ms_enthusiast6030]

I don’t know if it’s the same experience with others. Being taught and given empirical meaning to what’s being taught, gives me liking and an opportunity to better interpret “stuff” and even maybe make advancement on them. I’m usually lost if I cannot pair what is taught with empirical meaning. This is why I like Sabine. She dangles these two so well. In undergraduate physics, I didn’t understand geometrical meanings of the cones in special relativity. And here she opens up so well to it.

[@daviddayag]

She’s so cute how she’s nervous 😊 I hear it in her voice since I had to also do a lecture and had the same “chopped” voice lol

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, she´s cute, though she has no reason to be nervous, being one of the most brilliant thinkers, humanity can count on currently.

[@axle.student]

Excellent talk. Thanks Sabine. > I am uncertain if "Can the universe think?" is the right question as it implies a certain human characteristic. I am more toward "Aware" but in an abstract non human way. All information across the universe being directly connected in the now moment, and that universal connection of information as a combined set forms a kind of non human knowledge. To use a human analogy, the universe knows the entirety of itself in any now moment. This is not human like though.

[@corrupt1238]

Saline 's just awesome, totally buzzing about her idea that the universe thinks

[@fernandoramos4636]

Very good! Fantastic! Congratulations

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Nice! Need to listen to this again, to remember some points that I noticed and share this video with some questions here and there...

[@Astronist]

13:00: "That they have quantum properties means among other things that they can be in two places at the same time. We also know that those particles have masses, and mass generates a gravitational pull, which brings up the question: if you have a particle that's in two places at the same time, where does the gravitational pull go?" - Interesting point that I've not thought about before. The obvious answer would be that gravity behaves like the particle's electric charge. If a charged particle interacts with another charged particle in some observable way, then that constitutes an observation and the wave function collapses; the particle is no longer in two places at once (or rather, the amplitude of its probability distribution no longer has two peaks at different points in space). So with gravity: if the particle exchanges a graviton with another particle, then again the wave function collapses. But it's a long time since I studied quantum mechanics (and not very successfully even then), so it's probably not that at all.

[@erickmorales4312]

I’m shocked . I came on here because I have listened to Sabine for over a year now. I actually alway wondered what if the universe itself is a brain trying to understand itself , and it is alive but in a way our brain cant comprehend. The same way we are trying to understand our existence. Now I don’t feel as crazy.

[@davidinkster1296]

If the universe is a brain, is the universe God, and vice versa?

[@erickmorales4312]

@@davidinkster1296 I think you could call it whatever you want. The word “ GOD“ is a word that was created by humans as was religion. We have to name what we don’t understand on our limited cognitive capacity. Personally I think there is a powerful force that pulls this together. Something we are yet to understand. Death might give us that answer. I don’t believe in the common “ someone is watching our sins” , what I believe is with at we are the universe expressing itself , trying to understand Itself in a physical form. I think both a science & spirituality could give us the answer one day. I hope I’m making sense, but as long as it makes sense to me . I’m fine with that

[@davidinkster1296]

@@erickmorales4312 I generally agree with you; I am an agnostic and I fully realize that using the word God will be controversial to some. Personally I like the view (attributed to Einstein) that there is a creator/god, who is not concerned about the day-to-day existence of humans.

[@tevatronlhc244]

i love the definiton of ascientific and the distinction to unscietific. if u dont mind, i will use if someone askes me about the multiverse idea

[@benmcreynolds8581]

In a way, she is giving motivation. Just like how dark humor can be therapeutic for a individual; being able to be self aware enough to realize when certain things get off track and it can motivate you/anyone to attempt to look at these things and try and find a new perspective/approach to solve a problem. The best inventors, philosophers, artists seem to be able to be comfortable with facing things and learning to harness the ability of how you observe things as a tool and through perspective experimenting, you can sometimes stumble upon new methods/manner's on how to solve problems in ways that others didn't notice/see/or understand. (Just like how Einstein had the ability to get lost in hypothetical thought and imagine different perspectives and then it stumbled upon his path towards learning about light/energy/physics etc.) That came from Einstein taking a category that previously was in a state of limbo, but he was willing to look at it and see if he could find anything else out about it. So if you get demotivated, or down, try and remember that even things we think we fully understand; have the total possibility that you can look at it/observe it in a new light that others haven't and totally find a new layer of complexity or depth to a topic. So even if we are faced with a lot of difficult situations, roadblock's, the best thing is the universe is full of amazing intracity so the chance of further understanding the world around us is profoundly possible and to me that's very motivational and Nature itself some how seems to have a way of always keeping that inner child like curiosity alive with-in my Life.

[@stratovation1474]

Yes. That's why most Ted talks follow cookie cutter formulae and are way overrehearsed and over simplified.

[@enockmarere3113]

Love her honesty

[@waltergith6535]

Dear Sabine (I hope you read the comments), I like your work a lot! I would appreciate if you would also tell people that what you call "compatible" indeed means that our philosophical speculations are at least 50% about our own theories and not about what we call "reality". In my eyes all our theories are "compatible theories". As the observer problem clearly shows, the reality itself is and will always be beyond our knowledge. I think the works of Donald Hoffman show this very impressively.

[@monad_tcp]

11:31 I agree with that from principles, I'm a computing scientist and its nice to hear from physicists that we converge on that.

[@scoobdubious]

Totally absorbing. Well thought out....

[@arijitsinha2263]

There are some recorded talks like this, which after ending deserves clapping👏👏 excellent!

[@strangevision99]

Wow, this was really close to where I live and I had no idea. It'd have been great to go along and watch one of my favourite science people on KZbin, in real life.

[@berniv7375]

Newcastle is a bonnie city. It used to be part of Scotland and for a time it was the capitol of Scotland. Well. I do not believe in the multiverse and I think the theory was born out of arrogance and fear. The universe is vast and incomprehensible and we belittle the universe by stating there are many. This makes us feel safe. My theory is that there is some kind of subconscious interaction between the brain and the universe and that computers are evolving our brains. If the universe was a gigantic brain it would send and receive messages through thought which is instantaneous and faster than the speed of light. Obviously if it is the universe that is thinking it will not be subject to the rules of time and space as we perceive them.🌱

[@Thomas-gk42]

Read her new book, 'Existential Physics',meanwhile, this lecture is about, recommend it very much, great to hear her talking life about it here.😊

[@marcusbeau]

/bow nod yes

[@carmenmccauley585]

It's about time someone agreed with me! It does "think".

[@LeksDee]

I am happy to inform you that Sabine exists in my subjective experience of the universe.

[@lupamartins8830]

Sabine Is such an underrated physics personality

[@das_schnitzel]

She's many things, but she's definitely not underrated by anyone remotely interested in the things she talks about

[@monad_tcp]

13:26 that means spacetime isn't the most basic property, information is, if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, and the biggest correlation between specific particles is what creates gravity, not the spacetime. Which is why theories can't be reconciled. one of them is basically missing "hidden variables". With general relativity its too easy to confuse an useful abstraction with the real thing itself. The real thing is information, not the space that information represents. Information can be duplicated, and information don't occupy space, but information can correlate with itself, that creates Shannon entropy, and that creates the effects of "gravity". Yes, I subscribe to the information-theoretic foundations of physics (for obvious reasons, I'm a computing scientist).

[@TeaParty1776]

>if two particles are in the same space that only means they are strongly correlated in a information point of view, Right! Reality is not information about reality.

[@xenphoton5833]

Sabine, you rock girl! 👍

[@binbots]

The arrow of time points forward in time because of the wave function collapse. Because causality has a speed limit every point in space sees itself as the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.

[@johnjennings8500]

Very interesting talk. Thanks for making this available.

[@sparky7915]

In Edgar Cayce's readings he states things that agree with physics observations. For example are we in a multiverse? It is fascinating!

[@Nocontextturkishboi]

I’ve been following sabine since 2020. Biggest fan of her 😍

[@tarmaque]

You _can't_ be the biggest fan of her, because _I'm_ a biggest fan of her and you're never at any of the meetings. 🤪

[@bjorntantau194]

You can only be her biggest fan if you keep sending her your theory of everything.

[@EstamosDe]

You cant be her biggest fan because you haven't heard her song "When they ask us" while crying :'o

[@GururajBN]

This point is very interesting: that we always see everything as it was in the past because of finet speed of light. We can never know the present, no matter how tiny a fraction of second the time lag is. Reality we experience is always in the past, never in the present. Raises interesting philosophical questions.

[@machintelligence]

There is also the time lag introduced by the speed of neural transmitters and cognition which dwarfs the physics time lag. You “see” things long after the photons strike your cone cells.

[@TeaParty1776]

>Reality we experience is always in the past, We experience that in the present. And the past that we experience is typically so short that it makes no practical difference. If chased by a tiger, dont tell yourself that its in the past or you will be in the past for eternity.

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

Love Sabine. For the algorithm

[@Danny_6Handford]

Now I know the difference between scientific, unscientific and ascientific. Thankyou Sabine.

[@XEinstein]

It amazes me how much her ability to speak English has grown over the years since she first started appearing on my KZbin streams. Nowadays you can clearly hear a person that speaks and possibly even dreams English on a daily rate. Few years ago it was very typical heavily German inflected English. Makes me wonder if she can already make Germans believe she's not German.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Know her video "talking English like Einstein"?

[@XEinstein]

@@Thomas-gk42 I know it exists, but I haven't seen it. I speak both German and English so I thought I'd understand the video also without seeing it

[@charlesmanning6489]

Physics might be the most powerful tool we have to make sense of our own existence but it is not powerful enough. Even if physics came up with a perfectly complete set of theories that precisely describe existence and for which no violations could be found we would still be asking "why universe is that way?" The answer to that question seems to be important for making sense of existence yet it is a question which no answer could completely satisfy.

[@dhayes907]

You cannot know everything about a system you are a part of.

[@singin4free]

Interesting and thoughtful! I think what I heard you imply is that since the concept of a thinking universe is compatible with what we know, though there's no evidence , one might say it takes faith to believe in it. Personally, I can't argue against having faith in that which is compatible yet unprovable. So, why not faith in a creator outside the universe?

[@juancuelloespinosa]

Yes, that guy again 😆 Sabine must be so proud he was German

[@rolomartinez2]

Eres un científica increíble ! Me has hecho cambiar la manera en que veo la ciencia❤

[@EstamosDe]

Yo ya estoy convencido del determinismo después de tanto Sabine

[@Gottfried1983]

We are absolutely not made of matter, matter is created inside us as infinite beings.

[@tinkerstrade3553]

Ah, Sabine of the Dry Humor. A jewel in every sense. I'm subscribed on YT, but found this on my own. Lucky.

[@markmcd2780]

SoL is not the main reason we do not live in NOW. The delay in processing the signal is. Reception of event via senses, transmission of impulse along nerves, processing in the brain, presentation of dataset to the 'I' who is watching it all.

[@michaeltrower741]

well put

[@danielvarga_p]

Shared by free so wonderful!

[@xxsuperheroxx3701]

I find such subject matters intriguing sadly there is no one I know to have conversations with about such deep-thinking subjects in person. It is refreshing to know there are like-minded people just so very few and the numbers are growing fewer as our education systems crumbles to third world country volcano god mentality. Great Ted episode Doctor Hossenfelder is an awesome speaker I do hope you have her do more!

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

You need to get out more. Expand your horizons. There is more to this world than the Ozarks.😎😎😎

[@donmcatee45]

I have always thought that we only see past events, not only the speed of light but the speed in which we process the images.

[@tarmaque]

“Alone of all the creatures in the world, trolls believe that all living things go through Time backwards. 'If the past is visible and the future is hidden,' they say, 'then it means you must be facing the wrong way. Everything alive is going through life back to front.” ― Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_ 1991

[@arielhernandez1638]

I've wondered if the universe was like a brain, with all those interconnecting filaments, made of galaxies, that look like the neural networks of a brain. Then I realized, that everything my consciousness interacts with comes from my brain, and when I interact with my environment, I'm not really interacting with it, but with a copy of my environment that lives in my brain. I'm probably an imperfect copier, who copies the universe and tries to fit it into my brain. Then we make A.I. and we make copies of copies of the universe, and so on and so forth, like a fractal or an infinite mirror.

[@georgeb.wolffsohn30]

This talk reminds me of the book "Flatland".

[@jimboswell4818]

There are many things in physics we have yet to understand, things we have yet to change our minds about, Things such as consciousness and spiritual physics.

[@jho2646]

Sabine deserves better lighting

[@michaeltrower741]

I love her proper pronunciation of Einstein.

[@nanumanu13]

How do we know that we aren't already constantly jumping between universes?

[@banksarenotyourfriends]

8:20 Just a minor correction; an agnostic atheist doesn't "have no opinion" on religion, they just don't think it's possible to know if a god exists or not for sure, but they've chosen not to believe in it anyway. Theist - believes in god/s. Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s. Gnostic - thinks it's possible to know a given thing for sure. Agnostic - doesn't think it's possible to know a given thing for sure. Agnostic Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s but thinks it's not possible to know for sure. Gnostic Atheist - doesn't believe in god/s and thinks it's possible to know for sure. Agnostic Theist - believes in god/s but doesn't think it's possible to know they exist for sure. Gnostic Theist - believes in god/s and thinks it's possible to know they exist for sure. I hope this is useful!

[@TeaParty1776]

Theistic certainty is better for mans life than agnostic uncertainty. Rational certainty is better than both.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is entanglement needed for any object or matter to have quantum properties?

[@EmanuelGaldr]

Watching her videos I feel like a curious elementary school student again.

[@egnielson]

Congrats Sabine!!!

[@MonsterSound.Bradley]

experience Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does a quantum wave (of particle or any matter) with probability distribution of particle / matter have gravity?

[@frun]

The general audience is unaware of Sabine's important work on superdeterminism.

[@jgeur]

2 points....one, the universe doesn't have to think, it already knows everything, and, i love how Sabine refuses to stand in the red speaker's circle, she seems to prefer to stand to the side, in the shadows.

[@Thomas-gk42]

The way a rebel does?

[@adamphilip1623]

Brilliant! Dr Hossenfelder is such a good speaker! Really interesting subject matter too and presented in a very digestible form.

[@mountainair]

Wonderful. Thanks Sabine. Existence of the block universe I always found chilling given how dark human history as we know it has been. Are those people stuck suffering for all enternity?

[@TennesseeJed]

Love her!

[@philosophy5441]

11:50 the universes size is relative, it might be in a quantum state or superposition.. i think everything in the universe is in superposition if you consider the singularity and the big bang where we were all one and we were all separated and pushed away from each other...so the universes quantum state might be nothing and something or 0 and 1 or inflating and deflating or expanding or contracting and we are measuring the state that exist b/n past and future from the present which is also relative every thing is something and something is every thing... since all matter in the universe is made up of entangled particles what if the communication b/n galaxies and other parallel universes happen instantly, and the universe might thinking.

[@SampleroftheMultiverse]

Yes you can sample the multi verse but you can only see one verse at a time which is what we see as our single verse.

[@FirstLast-tx3yj]

Now did she step of the red circle because she didnt pay attention Or Did she intentionally step out so we pay more attention Or Did she step out unintentionally and the realised so she kept stepping out Or Maybe she was stressed and though moving was a good idea

[@tarmaque]

She was reading her notes from a screen that was not in front of the red circle. Didn't you notice how she kept looking down at it?

[@michaeltrower741]

she's a scientist --- she's allowed to step outside the bounds of anything in order to get a bigger picture

[@depluribusunum3128]

Is there another way to measure the speed of light. The way it is done now might present a rubber ruler problem.

[@crawkn]

_My_ past present and future don't exist simultaneously in my own reference frame, only in some combinations of other reference frames. No _individual_ reference frame would perceive them _all_ as simultaneous, excepting the reference frames of some photons, were they capable of perception.

[@PJRiter1]

Can the future influence the past? As my memory gets less good it sometimes seems that I can remember the future in an anticipatory fashion better than I can remember the past...

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could causation be the present now, with perceptions of that causation varying as described by speed of light and special relativity?

[@catcrue9656]

Oh I love this lady! She's amazing ❤️

[@BulentBasaran]

If we run in circles meaning not going anywhere, we age faster. That's why we humans are a mystery to physics 🙂

[@fredparkinson1289]

If all particles are associated with fields isn't it possible information is associated with a field also?

[@spocksdaughter9641]

One of my fav girl nerds!! Let the future rolllllll

[@michaeltrower741]

she totally rawks!

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

Just because a system would have an unbearably low frequency for our mortal standards, doesn't mean it can't think, just that if it does the timescales involved are much larger. Unless the expansion of the universe rules this out someway I guess?

[@PaganSav]

Queen

[@of9490]

What about quantum entanglement? If one quanta reveals its self, don't the paired quanta across the universe happen NOW? They happen at the same time regardless of time.

[@frun]

It ultimately depends on the *type of clock* you are using.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

is it possible for universe to think very slowly, so long as the information needed for thinking is there?

[@ianhall3822]

There could be an Absolute Time measured not by light, but by entropy. The Universe is 13 billion years old. Everyone in the Universe agrees with this value, and also that the rate of increase of entropy in the Universe is the same for all observers. This rate of increase in entropy could be used as a unit of time.

[@thepom88]

Sabine ROCKS!!!!!

[@Al-po2oh]

Very Cool!

[@appletree6741]

Her KZbin channel is great too, good info and humour

[@johanfynbo5377]

That "now" is not part of our understanding of natural laws may rather be a limitation in our understanding.

[@PaulisimaSpringSpanish]

I LOVE Sabine!!!!!!!! :D

[@andrewbrodis1239]

People are confused because they fail to see the cycle of expansion, transition, contraction. Light only shows us what is in relative expansion. Apparent relative Cosmic Expansion and its acceleration is due to spherical expansion's radial divergence. The radial speed of the universal quantum expansion is the universal constant. Matter fractals are able to exist in this radial expansion by resisting 3 dimensions of expansion and just moving radially. This means energy transfers from atom to surrounding space will expand in radial trajectories of an expanding sphere, away from the transfer point. In the co-moving quantum expansion matter is moving radially @ c whilst Newtonian physics is going on between co-moving matter. One second worth of Newtonian physics happens over 186,000 miles. So trajectory through time in our perspective is constant motion in a straight line. 👌

[@jesperkthomsen]

A role model for all women!

[@michaeltrower741]

and for men too, we can all learn a lot from her.