Where is physics going? | Sabine Hossenfelder, Bjørn Ekeberg and Sam Henry

Sabine Hossenfelder, Bjørn Ekeberg and Sam Henry discuss whether its time to move past the standard model(s) of particle physics and cosmology.
If you enjoy this video check out more content on the physics, cosmology and the universe from the world's biggest speakers at iai.tv/player?YouT...
00:00 Introduction
02:43 Sam Henry | Recent experiemental data suggest physics beyond
05:35 Sabine Hossenfelder | Phycisists need to change to move forward
09:41 Sam Henry | Cosmology has become path-dependent
12:21 Why had progress in the foundations of physics stalled?
22:16 Are the failures to find conclusive evidence a cause for panic?
37:29 Would changing the Standard Model have wider implications?
Since the 1970s we have understood the world through the lens of the Standard Model and its account of the forces and particles that make up the universe. The theory correctly predicted the discovery of quarks, force particles and most recently the Higgs boson. But a series of deep puzzles have emerged. The theory does not explain gravity, dark energy or dark matter. The quest for supersymmetry and a theory of everything to simplify the Standard Model's random complexity has failed. And now, even more significantly, a new force has been discovered throwing the whole theory into question.
Can the Standard Model be modified to answer the increasing number of challenges it faces? Or is the Standard Model fatally flawed - and time for the next great paradigm shift to a radically different account of the universe? Alternatively, should we conclude that all theories have limitations and not worry about the flaws, however profound they might be?
#SabineHossenfelder #StandardModel #BjornEkeberg
CERN research scientist Sam Henry, renowned author and theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, and distinguished philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg discuss whether it is time to move past the standard model of particle physics. Acclaimed science writer Philip Ball hosts.
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you think it's time to move past the Standard Model? To find out more head over to IAI.tv for thousands of debates and talks tackling the big questions in physics! Visit iai.tv/debates-and-talks?channel=science%3Athe-universe-and-reality&page=0?KZbin&+comment ▼ The Institute of Art and Ideas

[@SpotterVideo]

Are particles really structures which store spatial curvature, and are particle attractions produced by particles with opposite spatial curvature? An analogy would be a screw with a right-handed thread being attracted to a screw with a left-handed thread. Are photons produced when the screws unwind releasing their curvature? Are photons absorbed when the particles rewind ? A photon of blue light contains more spatial curvature (energy) than a photon of red light. (Look at two sine waves drawn on a blackboard of different frequencies, and look at the curves.) Are gluons actually a part of the quarks stretched out like a spring, and entangled with the extended springs of other quarks? (Also similar to two or three long entangled electrical extension cords.)

[@RickDelmonico]

There is a difference between wrong and incomplete. Wrong would be, is the entire thing wrong.

[@nulfire]

Thanks for an intriguing and thought provoking post. There is a common thread that runs through this and many similar videos and it can be summed up like this: We need a new way of thinking a new paradigm. And what seems to be the sticky point is gravity. My explorations on this particular topic leads me to agree with most people. A new way of thinking about gravity is essential. Additionally I'm pretty certain that we are thinking about it all upside down and inside out because gravity actually reveals an extra spatial dimension to us! And also points towards another. Anyhoo it'll get published or it won't but until then thanks for the great work all.

[@oisnowy5368]

Have we moved beyond the Newtonian model? Yes and no. Newtonian mechanics still works good enough for plenty of applications. Is it the ultimate truth of the universe? No. Did it ever try to pretend to be? Not as far as I know. I think we would very much like to go beyond the standard model because we know it is not the ultimate answer. We just do not know what follows and why. So now it's not the time to move on because we have no where decent to go to.

[@user-ru6mq1xw9y]

The Standard Model is an approximation of the universe's subatomic behaviors. What appears to be happening is that observations are requiring increased complexity and time. What happens if a phenomenon under examination takes 10 years? Or 100 years? to observe a single data set. I suspect particle physics will eventually require artificial intelligence to utilize and confirm future discoveries. I suspect Sabine is correct. The solution will require defining exactly what a measurement is. The answer itself may not be capable for human cognition. It may eventually be that only an artificial intelligence can define this answer. AI is a tool that potentially can expand our ability to understand and make measurements.

[@stanlibuda96]

Sabine Hossenfelder? Instant click.

[@jonathonjubb6626]

Always..

[@terrywbreedlove]

Same

[@BR-hi6yt]

Sabine Hossenfelder as click bait?

[@nziom]

I love her channel

[@realGBx64]

Same

[@u.s.a.citizen5590]

Sabine clearly sees the weakness and strength of both standard models. Clear and concise. Wonderfully thought out arguments.

[@infinitinifni7057]

Sabine you are the Greatest Senser that the Greatest Writer' Noone and Nothing have ever heard. There is only one law in our universe and that is "love" between people and atoms. Welcome to the party of actions. ◇The Reveling Will Commence in due time.◇ ♡Thank you for your work.♡ -Hari D'Christ Opher A'Powell Ma'Honey

[@radupopescu9977]

I entirely agree with you!

[@808bigisland]

Nope. She is merely femsplaining her lifelong neuroticism, autoeroticism and narcissism while discussing mens thoughts. 99.9999% of everything is male for 30000 years. Its certain Sigma 10 that she wont add physics. Its thus pointless to educate beasts of burden.

[@em.1633]

She has an active KZbin channel!! Great high quality vids. Check it out!

[@infinitinifni7057]

@@808bigisland I revoke any writing or change effects of the entity, spirit, being, or other form that produced the message attributed to 808 Big Island's message and harmful effects of their actions. in jesus christ and all other names. -amends

[@iain5615]

Sabine is probably my favourite physicist. She definitely has her opinions but she tries to be objective and not let any beliefs affect her assessment. Sometimes she fails, but generally she succeeds completely.

[@schmetterling4477]

Look, Ma! A smitten kitten. ;-)

[@manueljesusarredondoruiz2444]

I'm new to her fandom. I'm also curious as to ehat some of her fails were. Could you please give me some such examples?

[@iain5615]

@@manueljesusarredondoruiz2444 she has her opinions about origins, etc. and there she goes with what she believes rather than exactly what science alludes to. Evidence does not really exist to support any specific hypothesis.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@manueljesusarredondoruiz2444 Every single one of her posts is near total bullshit. She is simply an internet troll. :-)

[@undercoveragent9889]

@@manueljesusarredondoruiz2444 Well, she has fully bought into the climate agenda and sadly, she has compromised science in the interests of politics.

[@Dave3Dman]

Standard Model is "too big to fail" Brilliant!

[@JK-tr2mt]

I appreciate Sabine's logic and straight forward explanations. Got her book Lost in Maths.

[@dria7387]

How much is it 😍

[@cipaisone]

Sabine the voice of common sense in physics

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

Really? How much?

[@oldmech619]

@@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668 If you would look at her channel, you would find her view very pragmatic. Ex: Multiverse is a waste of time, String theory is basically bs., She defends partical physics as The numbers work.

[@danwarb1]

Not here. Literally complaining about testing hypotheses.

[@ravener96]

She is complaining about the current "throw spaghetti at the wall" way of concocting hypothesises. If your theory predicts a thing and gets a null result, just tweaking some numbers to push the goalpost means your original prediction was just kinda bad.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

What are higher levels when as they say C has its limi? but still she is right its a waste of money do make a bigger machine. - That is what i ment nothing more.

[@pastorpresent1]

A really good interviewer, and diverse, top-notch guests. Doesn’t get much better than this.

[@gracenotes5379]

Agreed, far more informative and enjoyable than watching someone who doesn't have enough background trying to guide the conversation!

[@petersbayley]

Talks far too much in posing his questions :-(

[@taith2]

Sabine is great ambassador of theoretical physics to me, probably inspired many people to follow that field with her work on youtube I personally have other goals, but love watching her videos and gives me confidence in physics science, that despite being flawed, they try their best and show results

[@danmortenson5274]

Hossenfelder was the very first I saw (almost still) to delve into the "alternatives" to the FAILED Dark Matter hypothesis (no, it's not even a theory yet).

[@garethb1961]

Unfortunately, she is so clear-headed and communicative about important issues, she just exposes how bereft of those qualities other physicists are.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

Shes not a theoretical physicist. I am.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

@@danmortenson5274 Anti-Darkmatter theories already exist. Neither her, you or anyonre here is a THEORETICAL physicist. I am.

[@garethb1961]

@@Nah_Bohdi We're all theoretical physicists mate, deep down.

[@fanstream]

i've learned a lot from sabine, roger penrose and max tegmark. sabine is brilliant at explaining complex theories and ideas

[@noahway13]

To me, it seems similar to when you get a wrong word put into a crossword puzzle. It progresses you for a little while, but then things don't add up later on. I think there is a slight flaw in the standard model.

[@DonNohavec]

Great analogy

[@Thomas-gk42]

Sabine, the rock-star of science. Smart, strucutred, pointed, honest, soulful and entertaining. And a brave critic of obsolete strucutres in thinking and funding.

[@jimrutin]

Excellent discussion! Years ago I was at a funeral and the pastor at the pulpit said, "We are all wonderful, and we are all pathetic." And I thought, brother ain't that the truth. We get it right, we get it wrong, we carry on.

[@DebashishGhoshOfficial]

Good talk. I expect more videos like this regularly about the latest status updates in Physics.

[@TheMg49]

This channel has some very good discussions/presentations. Always interesting and informative. Ms. Hossenfelder's channel is also a favorite. Thanks.

[@danneil8778]

Thank you for this. Looking forward to more.

[@cedricpod]

I really enjoyed this conversation and I was very sad that it ended

[@markmartens]

"I do like the sound of 'a next great paradigm shift', because although particle physics is never dull, at the moment we'd really like to see a bit more excitement. It's been thirty years since the large hadron collider was turned on, and we found the Higgs-Boson, and we then hoped we'd see more discoveries; Supersymmetric particles, dark matter,...'some sort of new physics beyond the standard model'. But we haven't seen anything like that. In a way the problem with the standard model is not that it's flawed, but that it's too good. Nearly every measurement that we've made has matched the standard model prediction perfectly. But we know that the standard model can't be the final theory because there are too many unanswered questions, and they're going to need 'some sort of new science' to explain." Sam Henry 'Where is Physics Going'?

[@mickmiah7605]

Smashing discussion I enjoyed it a lot.

[@Vlasko60]

I see Sabine, I click.

[@andrewrivera4029]

You can see the generational differences from Sam to Sabine, on the one hand Sam is evaluating the landscape he was given as a young man entering the field where physicists are in the game of hyping every new study and pushing the view that we need thousands and thousands of scientists and larger and and larger detectors which invariably means TONS OF MONEY without even batting an eye. Meanwhile Sabine having studied in the field for a while knows hype methodology hasn’t produced ANY of the intended results not withstanding the huge sums of money and human resources poured into these questions.

[@talideon]

That's not quite correct: this is the fundamental conflict between experimentalists, represents by Sam, and theorists, represented by Sabine. Physicists in general aren't the ones hyping up discoveries: that's the media, who often get things horribly wrong and mischaracterise results for headlines.

[@andrewrivera4029]

@@talideon right the poor stupid scientists are media victims.

[@uninspired3583]

@@andrewrivera4029 no, we are all media victims

[@jeffwads]

@@talideon Are you serious? I will assume you are playing the field here.

[@andrewrivera4029]

@@uninspired3583 no way, the truth is out there. All of us are culpable.

[@ConnoisseurOfExistence]

Wow! One of the best talks I've ever seen!

[@dehilster]

What are you smoking?

[@rodsimmons9337]

Excellent discussion !

[@kerryburns6041]

When trying to explain reality, we end up describing our own limitations.

[@jacobvandijk6525]

WELL ORGANIZED EVENT. GOOD THEME, GOOD SPEAKERS AND (!!!) GOOD SOUND.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

I love how so quickly (in a time duration shorter than how long this video has been available) so many experts in physics have commented.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

@@vids595 🤣

[@td866]

I find it ridiculous that an expert on the panel isn't even an expert in physics- Bjorn Ekeberg. He doesn't have a PhD in physics or mathematics nor has he done any formal research in the field. His "credentials" are that he has written books and publicises himself as an expert. If he can be an expert opinion, then it is hard to criticise anyone in the comments for having an opinion.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

@@td866 All too true. But look. At least that author did a ton of research instead of just being an armchair ahole know-it-all. 🤷🏻‍♂️ But hey, this is online right? Everyone is a dang expert these days. When a group of real experts shows up, just the one that isn’t gets your laser focus, right.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

@@td866 And they aren’t even cast as opinions. I don’t think very many people think that is what they are broadcasting anymore today. And if an opinion is not what’s being offered, they can’t even tell the difference. But hey, that truly is just my opinion.

[@channelwarhorse3367]

Be an expert Mechanical Equivalent of Heat, drop the weight onto check ✔ valve, the Sir Isaac Newton Machine manufactured, stated impossible in Print by Newton. g = G Me/r^2( 1e-/+Ef/Eo) neutrino quarks as does the water 💧 ♥ molecule has an Event Horizon ♥ 1915 Child Exact solution to General Relativity mechanical Applied.

[@mrtiphat5405]

Thank you! I enjoyed this video.

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Amazing, Dr. Sabine.

[@jakecreighton9039]

Sabine is such a gigachad. I love how she isn’t afraid to deflate ridiculous hype with reason and logic.

[@danielbuehrer6887]

This is a wonderful discussion of the need for a philosophy of science to criticise the current ways to modify models of reality.

[@cydelegs]

So grateful to have found this channel

[@jimmyzhao2673]

It is an exciting time. So much yet to be discovered.

[@HeronMarkBlade]

Great content, thank you!!

[@sombh1971]

IMO, the last point made by Sabine is the crux of all this, that we need to push through it all because we need to figure out how gravity really works, especially if we want to expand into the universe, which we might need to do, if we come across the fact at one point of time that the planet is fatally doomed due to some reason or another. Not saying it'll happen, but we must keep our options open.

[@Red1Green2Blue3]

"we"

[@jook360]

The Electric Universe group has another explanation of gravity.

[@jprobichaud]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:18 🌌 *Challenges to the Standard Model* - Overview of the Standard Model's success in predicting particles and forces. - Identification of deep puzzles: inability to explain gravity, dark energy, and dark matter. - Introduction of the quest for supersymmetry and the emergence of new evidence challenging the theory. 02:48 🔄 *Divergence Between Theory and Experiments* - Acknowledgment of the prolonged period since the Large Hadron Collider's discovery of the Higgs boson. - Discussion on the challenges of the Standard Model, including dark matter and matter-antimatter asymmetry. - Introduction of the muon g-2 experiment as a potential indicator of new physics. 05:33 🤔 *Evaluation of Standard Model Limitations* - Recognition that the Standard Model works well but has some shortcomings. - Varied perspectives on the identified issues, such as dark matter, muon g-2, gravity, and neutrinos. - Emphasis on the need for completing the Standard Model without necessitating a radical paradigm shift. 09:28 🌐 *Two Standard Models: Particle Physics vs. Cosmology* - Distinction between the Standard Model of particle physics and the Standard Model of cosmology. - Focus on the challenges and potential flaws in the cosmological Standard Model, particularly related to the big bang theory, dark matter, and dark energy. - Discussion on the path dependence of science, where the cosmological model persists due to its entrenched position. 12:28 📉 *Progress Stalling and Challenges* - Recognition that progress in fundamental physics has slowed but not entirely stalled. - Identification of factors contributing to the challenges, such as theoretical assumptions, disconnect between theory and experiments, and the complexity of large-scale experiments. - Acknowledgment of the need for rethinking the connection between experimental and theoretical physics. 21:44 🌌 *New Developments in Physics* - Discussion on new particles, theories, and modifications to gravity. - Theories in physics go in and out of fashion, making it challenging to keep track. 22:13 🤔 *How Serious is the Current Problem?* - Evaluation of the seriousness of current issues in particle physics. - Lack of clear evidence for supersymmetry and the impact of the muon g minus 2 results. - Uncertainty about the significance of anomalies and their interpretation. 23:23 🔄 *Interpretation of Muon g Minus 2 Anomaly* - Discussion on the muon g minus 2 anomaly and its implications. - Identification of something beyond the standard model interacting with the muon. - Exploration of potential new forces or particles and the complexity of interpreting the anomaly. 25:30 📉 *Challenges in Theory Development* - Critique of current methods in theoretical physics. - The tendency to generate theories based on personal preferences and transient phenomena. - The need for a reevaluation of theory development methods. 27:33 🌐 *Debate on Building a Bigger Collider* - Discussion on the proposal to build a larger particle collider. - Skepticism about whether a bigger machine guarantees progress in understanding fundamental physics. - Exploration of alternative experiments for a more promising outcome. 29:26 🧠 *Philosophy of Science in Physics* - Reflection on the role of philosophy of science in addressing fundamental physics questions. - Importance of understanding evidence and questioning core assumptions. - The need for philosophical guidance in navigating paradigm shifts. 31:59 🔍 *Alternatives to Bigger Collider* - Exploration of alternative paths in particle physics research. - Consideration of precision measurements, muon g minus 2 experiments, and other avenues. - Open question about the direction of future experiments in the field. 34:07 🌌 *Dark Matter Challenge* - Discussion on the challenges posed by dark matter and the indirect evidence for its existence. - Limitations in building detectors when fundamental properties of dark matter are unknown. - Critique of the theoretical motivation behind dark matter experiments. 37:35 🌍 *Societal and Cultural Implications* - Exploration of the potential societal impact of a paradigm shift in physics. - Comparisons to historical shifts in cosmological worldviews. - Discussion on the role of explanation and understanding in shaping cultural perspectives. 43:18 🌐 *Expectations and Excitement in Physics* - Reflection on past incidents of unexpected results generating excitement. - The brief excitement around the OPERA anomaly, which hinted at faster-than-light neutrinos. - The importance of unexpected results in driving interest and discussions in the scientific community. 44:12 🔄 *Challenging Scientific Methods* - Discussion on challenging the current scientific methods in the foundations of physics. - The need for updating methods in theory development to be more careful and justified. - Critique of the current ease in explaining phenomena using existing methods. 45:33 🌍 *Societal Impact and Importance* - Questioning the broader societal impact and importance of developments in particle physics. - The consideration of who the discoveries matter to and when. - Emphasizing the mature state of physics and the varying significance of new findings based on their nature. Made with HARPA AI

[@mysterious_monolith_]

Great discussion.

[@rubiks6]

Kudos to all four of these thinkers. There were funny moments and thoughtful moments. Sabine very gently touched on the topic that is really the most explosive and the ruin of good science which is money. Scientists are truly afraid to stray too far from their colleagues for they really will fail to receive funding and should they find funding anyway, still they will be ignored and ridiculed for being different and they will be called rebellious. The way the scientific endeavor is carried out in fields like physics and cosmology, with peer review and such and refutation almost never being published, it is really just a popularity contest, not science. It's more about personalities than science. Keep this in mind - the popularity of an idea does not determine if it is true or not. When Hubble (and others) proposed the expanding universe, it was very, very unpopular. It smelled too much of a Creator (Heaven forbid!). Einstein initially and for quite a while refused to accept it. Sabine is blessed to be a good thinker as well as a likable personality. Still, when Sabine comes up with an idea that is a little too far from mainstream, she gets ignored and ridiculed (politely, wouldn't want to offend). Well - there's my thoughts. At least you know I paid attention a little.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Sabine may be quite wrong about Helion. Hopefully we will find out before 2030...

[@DjordjeRomanic]

Sabrine on point as always

[@gustavomirapalheta]

Hearing Sabine speak about the discrepancies with GR, the Standard Model and the astronomical observations from large scale objects (clusters of galaxies for instance) it crossed my mind that this search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy may end up being similar to the search for the planet Vulcan, the planet that should exist between Mercury and the Sun to account for the advance of Mercury perielium. In the end, what was needed was a radical shift in understanding. In other words, we are needing another Einstein and a revolutionary new theory of gravity not incremental adjusts on GR, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model. What you think?

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

I have really enjoyed the debate by very talented discussants on a field that is crosscutting and is of great interest to the wider community of science. True when physics progresses, chemistry progresses, biology progresses philosophy progresses and the world community progresses. As a chemist concern, given that the topics of quantum mechanics is of interest to physics, chemistry, biology and philosophy, it's time to get minds together to address this problem not just for physics but as a societal problem of the world in the 21st Century and beyond. From these excellent debate, this is my scorecard card as a chemist and friend of physics, having studied high school physics in Kenya, which I so enjoyed but was not as lucky to pursue further except for my interests in quantum chemistry. In my humble view the discussants and moderator had their eyes clearly on the ball. They clearly identified where the problems afflicting physics to day are and even had clear thoughts how these might be addressed in future. What was lacking, however, was a concluding identification of issues, way forward, who would be stakeholders, which institution would bring stakeholders together to work out a way forward and which funders would come together to find a new and paradigm shifting initiative that would take physicists from current silos to where to work together on new and clearly focussed mandates. If this is done, the problem could easily be fixed to get physics back on track, but just st some thoughts!

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you telling us that you are clueless about science? ;-)

[@CosmosNut]

Another interesting panel discussion, i hope budding students watch and learn from these great intellects.

[@bradstephan7886]

Excellent panelists, thank you.

[@michaelsmith6420]

I think the panelists make very weak arguments because they have failed to do their homework about dark energy and dark matter.

[@Red1Green2Blue3]

@@michaelsmith6420 The panellists, all with PhDs and who's careers are based on studying this stuff, haven't done their homework... but you have?

[@josephtraficanti689]

It would not seem that the Standard Model is wrong. It is incomplete. If the additional things fit in perfectly and just need some tuning, then fine. Carry on.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: a. What exactly is 'space' that particles and energy interact in? b. What exactly is 'time' that particles and energy interact in? * Without knowing these items, particle and energy physics could have some flaws.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

And for those who claim 'space' and 'time' do not actually exist except for as concepts, then: Consider the 'speed of light': a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time. b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points. c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept. d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality. e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept. f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).

[@merrickj.stemen3443]

I loved seeing Sabine's mind working as she is listening and nodding her head leading up to the point she gets to make around 25:00ff.

[@koroglurustem1722]

Why are these guys (so far listening to the first speaker 😆) so so eloquent ? Would you say uhm, or repeat what you said with another word choice because it fits better ?

[@Kenjuudo]

I'm a simple man. I see Sabine Hossenfelder I click.

[@appearance8932]

Dr. Ekeberg is well positioned to question the Standard Model of *Cosmology* as an outsider, Dr. Hossenfelder was quite supportive of his concerns. He's saying *nothing* about the standard model of particle physics. Dr. Ekeberg is right to raise questions about assumptions concerning the big bang, redshift-related distance measurements, and the veracity of the "Cosmological principle" when these assumptions are the foundation of our theories leading us to invoke non-parsimonious entities like "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" entities for which the only "evidence" requires the basic assumptions be correct. This is the "path dependency" that can (has?) cause theories to go way, way, way off course. Dr. Hossenfelder agreed with him that these "path dependencies" are a concern 26:12 . Cosmologists here are failing to see this as they are 'caught up' in the theories, here, a philosopher is needed to say, "wait, a minute," this Dark Matter that you are invoking as a "certainty" has no empirical evidence , rather, it follows from the assumption that basic *theories* are correct.

[@Amethyst_Friend]

How is dark matter non-parsimonius?

[@deanodebo]

Exactly correct. Whatever the popular paradigm is assumed to be reality. And then any problems with that theory requires new particles to explain - evidence be damned

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

Bingo. All of physics has an issue presently where we don't know how far back to chuck theory to make a new model, and so they've lost touch with reality a bit. Oddly enough, if you resurrect Kelvin's knot approach and apply it to the particle zoo rather than the periodic table, quarks start to look like knot crossings and you can see a way to toss some aspects of the SM, perhaps...

[@BR-hi6yt]

yup

[@KrisPucci]

Brilliant debate

[@noahway13]

This is about the correct number of guests. The talks with 7 or 8 speakers gets hectic and everyone is trying to throw out soundbites and one person gets hardly any talk time. Loud mouths like N D Tyson gets most of the talk time. Although I like NDTyson.

[@naakatube]

SABINE !!! ❤️❤️❤️👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼🔥🔥🔥

[@richardjeffery1473]

Exactly what benefits are there for knowing about some of the exotic particles . Surely the standard model does everything that we need . Or is there something that is preventing us in moving forward with practicle enhancement for humanities .

[@cliffordbohm]

We'll know when we know. I think your question is a form of the question "what is the value of pure research?" (i.e. research conducted simply to lean and not necessarily to solve some particular problem) Pure research has historically resulted in technology that improved life. The question, I think, is not if any research is worth doing... It's (almost) all worth doing, but what is the best way to allocate our limited resources to both maximize our understanding and to maximize quality of life... And how to balance risk taking that might expand our knowledge vs safer bets that are more likely to improve quality of life (i.e. long term vs short term gains).

[@JJ-fr2ki]

Good panel on the banal. I wish more physicists would talk about the numerous puzzles and questions in what is called “non-fundamental” physics, which is hot, exciting, and at anytime could yield results which reverberate all the way down. For example, many “fundamental” theories are weak. Eg QM can’t model most chemistry nor explain an ever growing set of named anomalous “effects” in solid state physics. Many areas of research have been prematurely passed onto engineers, such as fluid mechanics which again is very weak, hence our need to use wind tunnels or empirically test windmills. The blue LED was the result of trial and error. The gamma laser also lacks QM guidance. Puzzles in fusion abound. Finally, there are interesting deep questions that are just not called fundamental in this discussion (except for a brief remark by Sabine) in the foundations of QM, constructor theory, AI revisions of physics, robotic and control problems, quantum information, information period. The particle physicists need to go into these wrongly characterized as humbler domains (magnets, large molecules, solid state physics, computational neuroscience) which are less expensive but fraught with puzzles, which like an annoying issue in radar calibration could reveal a Big Bang.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Would have been a better discussion if it had gone into details about some of these anomalies. Personally, I think the solution hides in the near magical behaviour of fields and action at a distance.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

One of the major benefits of seeing the Standard Model in its correct perspective is the elimination of the photonic, electronic and consciousness universes, Many Worlds and the Block Universe, etc.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@vids595 I would say that it is the inappropriate application of QM, much like the idea of Quantum Gravity. The dogma of the particle runs deep. I also think that we need to revisit the accepted concept of temperature, the Kelvin scale is too particle specific.

[@scientistcraft]

Yes at least about measurements of masses we have to intervine other new factores to make consistent instead of contradictories

[@helicopter_traffic]

Here for Sabine. IAI note that your audience, and the internet at large, love her

[@curiouscat8396]

Now this is a good channel.

[@karantakkhi9037]

As per the discovery of accelerating Universe, the teams showed that high-redshift supernovae are expanding at a slower rate as compared to the low-redshift supernovae. For instance, a remote supernova with a redshift of 1.7 is expanding at a slower rate (decelerating) as compared to a local supernova with a redshift of 0.015. The same conclusion also comes while taking into account quasars and gamma ray bursts, such studies are also consistent with recent cosmic acceleration at low redshifts and past deceleration at high redshifts. All these studies show that high-redshift objects (redshifts as high as 9) are decelerating (slowing down under gravity) as compared to the low-redshift objects (redshifts as low as 0.01). Now, we all know that high-redshift objects are receding faster than low redshift objects, therefore, it is disturbing to accept this that superluminal (faster than light) remote expansion (redshift of 9) indicates slowing down as compared to subluminal (slower than light) local expansion (redshift of 0.01). This makes no sense; something has terribly gone wrong, thereby making the teams conclude that the Universe is accelerating! One will have to think out of the box to solve this paradoxical conundrum!

[@turnyourwifioffatnight7848]

Perhaps light decays in intensity at a very slow, but consistent, rate. Thus red shift is a function not only of movement in relation to the observer, but also the distance (primarily so, in fact). Does this not solve the primary problem?

[@jimbo33]

Sabina is great! Why continue to through money at research that has not produced any significant results. She deserves a much wider audience!

[@eyeofthasky]

i never can get tired of listening to Sabine ... i would love her making online lectures, as those of some universities sadly lack quality ... sometimes case of "professor dislikes the part that researching demands teaching too" (at least for countries where this rule applies)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Can more experiments be done on forces and fields in addition to particles?

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

Question for those who are passionate about the subject: Why was Kelvin's knot model not reconsidered in the context of the particle zoo? While inappropriate as an atomic model, as a subatomic model....

[@anywallsocket]

String theory has yet to incorporate knot theory because knot theory is surprisingly embryonic. Using knots outside of string theory, perhaps to improve the Standard Model, comes with extra assumptions the SM currently has no need for: it is easier to own a zoo of particles than a zoo of knots.

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

@@anywallsocket AFAICT, string theory has yet to explain any particle ever. Knot theory historically has been pure math without a context to help scope relevance. The proposition is that Kelvin's approach works to explain the zoo. Your zoo of particles it that case IS a zoo of knots. Electromagnetic knots, with no relationship to the string theory approach

[@wailinburnin]

You know, there’s a principle in symmetry that shows that vehicles on roads work perfectly well if the directions are reversed and this can be demonstrated by running video backwards or even viewing through a mirror. So the reference from which something is viewed is fundamental to the development of theories. It’s possible to simply reject an expanding universe and theorize from the standpoint of everything losing its “efficacy”, perhaps most easily imagined as fireworks, a phenomenon based on an initial “Big Bang”, the individual “particles” (what becomes the ash and gas) experience rapid expansion and evolution into their form upon burnout, every other part of the firework appears to rapidly go away (as though in expansion) the relationship to the rest of the firework would be the same as a secondary acceleration of the space between parts. It’s a trip to do these thought experiments, Hawking showed the Universe in terms of boiling water, which leads to the idea, is the Universe a change of state in the material of the immeasurable “void” of what we consider as beyond definition as time and space? “A simple change in state” [sung to Bob Dylan’s: Simple Twist of Fate]

[@moumouzel]

Let us embed people in giant bureucratic structures and then wonder why no paradigm shifts occur.

[@BR-hi6yt]

You nailed it, right there.

[@markusoreos.233]

Noooo! You must do your montly paperino to get your monerino! No time or allowance for your passion research!

[@stapleman007]

Don't get in the way of the Higher Education / Research Industrial Complex, less you find yourself in the particle collider and "someone accidentally turned it on". Oops.

[@MichelleHell]

Or maybe the universe isn't easy to understand... If it was, no amount of bureaucracy would halt progress and you'd have amateurs developing new and working technologies.

[@TenzinLundrup]

Last night reading the first chapter of Weiberg's General Relativity (GR) book it became clear that the mathematics may not be ripe for a paradigm shift. GR would not have been possible without people thinking about Euclid's 5th postulate over the centuries, followed by the deep insights of non-Euclidean geometry and the machinery of differential geometry. And on the physics side it took the insights of special relativity (SR) to do GR properly. The insights of SR could have been obtained with the Maxwell equations alone but the Michelson-Morley experiment certainly gave it impetus. Who knows when and how such favorable circumstances will exist for a new paradigm shift.

[@alexai6648]

yes. thats boring. but she ask for help, she cannot do it. she wants that the community start to work on it more efficient and without asuming multi ultra hyper symmetrical things. theoretical physists put all the time their dicks and the table, trying to invent theory of everything, say shut up and calculate and so on.

[@kristoferkrus]

0:57 Interesting! What is this new force, and what are the evidence for it?

[@edmondcohen2300]

The Paradigm shift was in the making since the advent of the Computer, Timing ~ computation Relativity.

[@janklaas6885]

📍31:33 👍 Sabine

[@eksffa]

The standard model is not uglier today than years ago. It’s not more incomplete now than before. Also, the sm is not more “renornalized” now than before. And it’s not more a patchwork than before. We don’t even know if it failed or the calculations failed or were just imprecise in such a way it can be again, patchworked as it’s done so many times. And if it can’t be patchworked won’t mean the maths can’t be again normalized. Maybe and just maybe after one more math arbitration and one more patch it becomes a little bit uglier. Still right now this years’ experiment and results stills need to be better understood and the conclusions derived from it, made more mature, to figure whether the sm needs to be revised, but it’s probably not the case to retire it, specially because if one decides to retire it he has no other tool to use upon all other aspects of the mode which has worked more or less fine so far. It’s still ugly, incomplete, and maybe it becomes even uglier, and still more useful than limited and with no pragmatic replacement candidate. It’s not tasty but it’s still something we will have to swallow for a couple more time. Maybe for this whole lifetime.

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

Some where physics came to be and the best thing we have is the STANDARD MODEL, how far is it from reallity when it misses gravity and all is GRAVITY BASED? still all expands as they say so how can you explane? Penrose says that

[@espaciohexadimencionalsern3668]

Some where physics came to be and the best thing we have is the STANDARD MODEL, how far is it from reallity when it misses gravity and all is GRAVITY BASED? still all expands as they say so how can you explane? Penrose says that

[@denysvlasenko9175]

> We don’t even know if it failed or the calculations failed or were just imprecise Well, the calculation of vacuum energy is pretty solidly a failure. They give divergent series...

[@eksffa]

@@denysvlasenko9175 Let me be clearer and rephrase. We don't even know wether the Muon minus G2 experiment failed the predictions of the standard model or if the calculations failed or even if measurements and expected results were just imprecise, also considering the fact the expected and observed results did mismatch only after half the right-most digits. Whatever the theory didn't account before it stills not accounting right now, it's explicitly considered in the initial considerations.

[@AdaptiveApeHybrid]

Philosophy is important!

[@crawkn]

I've heard Sabine complain that more massive collider mega-projects are probably not justified at least until we come up with new promising theories which might be tested within the energy ranges we are reasonably capable of employing. What I don't recall hearing is any suggestions for where that investment should be applied. I'm assuming she would still like it to go for leading edge research, but in what direction?

[@guystokesable]

That's sort of the point, isn't it an invitation to dream, just dream realistically.

[@crawkn]

@@guystokesable Sure, and I certainly concur with that sentiment, but I would expect those most well versed in the available technologies for exploration in various directions to have more specific ideas for which of those directions holds the most cost-effective promise. As and "armchair physicist," it seems to me that the capabilities of recent generations of space observatories are yielding massively important new insights, both at high and low energy ranges, and we could certainly stand to apply more resources toward analyzing the troves of data they have already yielded, especially with the use of machine learning models which are many orders of magnitude faster and better at pattern recognition than humans. And we must improve dramatically our capabilities of detecting extremely low-energy phenomena, since it seems probably that there are pivotal things happening beyond our capabilities of observation which could close many of the gaps in our comprehension, i.e. make us better at explaining those observations we have already modeled. So if I can put forth what I think may be reasonable conjectures for how our research dollars may be better employed than a new super-duper collider, it doesn't seem too much to ask for those physicist who spend a lot of their time critiquing the direction of current research funding, to offer more specific suggestions.

[@georgeliverpudlio1258]

Sabine is great

[@FighterFred]

Yes, it's time for a paradigm shift. The problem as I see it is that our brains are products of a universe that is to be explained by the same brains. So we're inside the system when we should be outside looking in. Imagine such an intelligence, what can be seen? Well, a universe (forget the multiverse) in which everything is connected. So it's not possible as the particle physics people do and calculate probabilities in a static spacetime. All ingredients are connected and should be treated as a whole. But what do I know, I'm just an old ex-astrophysicist rambling. Good luck, you'll need it.

[@BR-hi6yt]

If we were stuck in a video game - Tron like - would we be able to work out that we were in a computer? Even though we couldn't get out of the game? The answer is a clear YES. Logic and some experiments would understand our video world.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I appreciate the video just even being willing to question and hypothesize things because I'm curious if instead of dark matter, could it be extra layers to gravity? Could we improve off of the gravity we already know that works to an extent already? Like there could be the layer we know; then a Large scale layer that's on the scale of entire galaxies and nebula's and other complex and diverse grand massive objects that have all sorts of behaviors interacting with in each other that I'm sure needs to be factored in to get this layer of grand scale gravity correctly. Then there could be sub atomic gravity or micro gravity or atomic gravity layer. That can essentially be the strong force and the weak force but it's just a different version of gravity on the smallest scale. So right now I'm just theorizing 3 layers of gravity, as an improved concept of the nature of gravity withing the natural world. The smaller layer, the normal layer we have understood very well that relates to our solar system type scale. Then there is the 3rd layer, the massive layer. Dealing with things that are light years across, vast temperature differences, density's, velocity's and diversity. Intense pressures, electro static charges, electromagnetism, plasma clouds, black holes, pulsar, quasars, neutron star's, super Nova explosions, gas clouds, solar winds, radiation, tons of interwoven orbital interactions and angular momentum velocities, multiple galaxies interacting upon other galaxies. Just so many things that probably all have to be accounted for when we are dealing with scales with such vast massive intracity, and scales as vast layers of complexity that the 3rd layer of gravity hypothetically could be covering? This is just a gut feeling, and I'm just doing a thought experiment with and I'd love it if someone else wants to improve onto it. I'm all for that.

[@EWWFFIX7753]

Dark Matter isn’t real, check out the Electric Universe model instead and look at the Thunderbolts Project!

[@falkfischer9271]

Sorry, dass ich auf Deutsch schreibe. Ich glaube, dass es sich allmählich lohnt, den immer gemiedenen Begriff des 'Wesens' der Dinge in die Physik einzuführen, zumindest mal philosophisch. Die Grundfrage der Quantenphysik lautet ja: Wie kommen 'Dinge' zur Erscheinung - am Ende also die Frage nach den Übergängen, letztlich nach der Physik des Quantensprungs, der selber (bislang zumindest) außerhalb der Physik steht. Um ihn einbeziehen zu können, muss man nachdenken über das Verhältnis von Teil und Ganzem, weil ein Quantensprung ja nichts anderes ist als eine Unterscheidung in der Welt, und dieses 'in der Welt' heißt ja, dass 'das Ganze' instantan informiert sein muss, wenn ein Übergang 'passiert'. Es geht dann also um die Frage, wie es geschieht, dass ein 'Vorgang' (der noch nicht als solcher benannt werden kann) 'informativ' wird. Was mir persönlich schon seit längerem Kopfzerbrechen bereitet, ist - kurz gesagt - die Zahl 2. Als Quadrat taucht sie zuverlässig immer dann auf, wenn Prozesse klassisch werden (also bei der klassischen kinetischen Energie, beim Betragsquadrat der Wellenfunktion, bei E =mc_Quadrat...). Quadrieren kann man begreifen als Selbstproportionalität. Würde man das 'Ganze' - wie immer man es mathematisch formulieren will - als selbstbezügliche offene Randbedingung auffassen (ähnlich wie bei der Schallwellenerzeugung einer Trompete, wo der Druck am Ende der Trompete Umgebungsdruck sein muss), dann könnte daran so etwas wie eine Spiegelung stattfinden (immerhin muss man ja beim Übergang von den Wahrscheinlichkeitswellen zu realen Wahrscheinlichkeiten mit dem konjugiert Komplexen, also dem 'Gespiegelten' multiplizieren). Vielleicht lohnt es sich in diesem Zusammenhang auch, die Zahl 'i' tiefer zu verstehen. i_Quadrat = -1 ist ja nicht umkehrbar (wie ein Quantensprung auch). Als Quadrat mit negativem Flächeninhalt lässt es sich evtl. als eine Nach-Innen-Stülpung auffassen (analog zur Subjektivität). So betrachtet beschreiben die komplexwertigen Wellenfunktionen ein 'Welt-Innen'geschehen'', bevor der Messprozess in der Spiegelung am 'Ganzen 'als Teil 'zu sich selbst' kommt. Mir ist klar, dass ich hier sehr verschiedene Begriffswelten mische. Aber die Quantenphysik ist ja eine durch und durch ganzheitliche Theorie, ohne dass jedoch das Ganze als solches formal direkt thematisch würde. Damit so etwas wie ein Universum in Erscheinung treten kann, braucht es zwei (!) Prinzipien: Das Verbundenheitsprinzip (weshalb die Quantenphysik eine reine Wellenmechanik ist) und das Trägheitsprinzip. Trägheit ist letztendlich ja so etwas wie Gedächtnis, was bei jeder Art von Übergang ein Vorher und ein Nachher hervortreten lässt (und also Zeit generiert - und Raum). Wenn man Quantenphysik und Relativitätstheorie vereinen will, muss man meiner Meinung nach aus dem Verbundenheitsprinzip das Trägheitsprinzip herleiten, und da sehe ich einfach keine andere mögliche Randbedingung als eben das Ganze selbst. Letztlich müssten sich aus einer solchen Überlegung am Ende auch die Naturkonstanten herleiten lassen.

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

AltGr+2 = ² - sieht besser aus als '_quadrat'. Funktioniert auch mit 3 = ³ (AltGr+3). ;)

[@falkfischer9271]

@@MyReligionIs2DoGood Danke² für den guten Tipp!

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

I predicted if conducted this experiment to find "X" and it will cost a million; I spent 4 years on it and found nothing; can I get my PhD now... Amazing!

[@chrisgriffith1573]

It occurs to me that our search for singular "things" or "particles" to explain away most of the problems we have with finding or identifying Dark Matter or Gravity, when it may well be a conglomeration of many things, not just a flaming gun for these things. All the parts of the quantum world can be contributing to an outcome which settles into an overall result or results due to billions upon billions of interactions all at the speed of light on the quantum level, from billions of different interaction playing into each other.

[@abul-walidibnrushd7846]

Very astute! Historically, positing the existence of a "thing" to explain away unsolved mysteries of nature has usually led to positing the existence of a "supernatural thing" (or "god") which (or who) is inherently mysterious and beyond human comprehension, thereby, in the minds of the faithful, relegating science to the status of a fool's errand.

[@gbye007]

"They just guess their theoretical model"..... I think that says a lot about the current thinking in particle physics, and cosmology. We are in need of a bit more rigour in the approach, which maybe won't lead to as many papers being published. ;-)

[@GhostEmblem]

Its the other way round. The need to publish many papers is behind the less rigorous approach.

[@user-iy1su8wc8r]

(black holes and D-branes ) What, then, are the "degrees of freedom" which can give rise to black hole entropy? 👇👇👇 String theorists have constructed models in which a black hole is a very long (and hence very massive) string. This model gives rough agreement with the expected entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole, but an exact proof has yet to be found one way or the other. The chief difficulty is that it is relatively easy to count the degrees of freedom quantum strings possess if they do not interact with one another. This is analogous to the ideal gas studied in introductory thermodynamics: the easiest situation to model is when the gas atoms do not have interactions among themselves. Developing the kinetic theory of gases in the case where the gas atoms or molecules experience inter-particle forces (like the van der Waals force) is more difficult. However, a world without interactions is an uninteresting place: most significantly for the black hole problem, gravity is an interaction, and so if the "string coupling" is turned off, no black hole could ever arise. Therefore, calculating black hole entropy requires working in a regime where string interactions exist. 👇👇👇 Extending the simpler case of non-interacting strings to the regime where a black hole could exist requires supersymmetry. In certain cases, the entropy calculation done for zero string coupling remains valid when the strings interact. The challenge for a string theorist is to devise a situation in which a black hole can exist which does not "break" supersymmetry. In recent years, this has been done by building black holes out of D-branes. Calculating the entropies of these hypothetical holes gives results which agree with the expected Bekenstein entropy. Unfortunately, the cases studied so far all involve higher-dimensional spaces - D5-branes in nine-dimensional space, for example. They do not directly apply to the familiar case, the Schwarzschild black holes observed in our own universe.

[@AlexJones-ue1ll]

The problem is, can you build an experiment to test this? If yes, then its worth considering. If not, its just a fantasy - on par with the explanation: "God did it." The point is, just because something drops out of mathematical equations and looks nice, does not make it true. Unless its testable, its worthless in the field of scientific progress and more a question of philosophy.

[@adamstevens5518]

With atomic fusion and fission we were at the cusp of using that knowledge for practical purposes. What practical matters are likely to be impacted by quantum physics in the next 50 years?

[@marlonrondinelli903]

Advancements in fundamental physics could push computing power to the next level, just as they've made our modern computers possible in the first place. Given the boundless demand for and immense utility of computing power, I think this would increase everyone's quality of life.

[@jforkum3948]

The effect of matter in the universe, is not unlike that of a marble in a fish tank. The volume of the marble increases the water level in the tank just as the volume of a particle increases the space in the universe. Another way to perceive this concept is as follows. Space and matter are flip sides of the same coin. without matter, space would not exist. The pressure the marble is under as it travels deeper into the water; is comparable to the gravity effect we feel in our relative position inside the space that is being created by the matter around us. At the atomic level, the space that a particle creates, has a very defined end to that space as the particle has a constant density. As two particles' spaces become entangled, the two particles combine to create a larger volume of space together that locks the two particles inside that space while any photon wave energy that enters that space becomes trapped as an electron. The edges of the space these two particles create is less defined as the edges that a single particle will create as the two particles in their created space also have each their own density that is varied in the space the two particles are trapped in. This effect is known as the "strong nuclear force". As more particles become entangled together in the space created and common to these particles, the effect of the strong nuclear force begins to weaken. On the scale of large planetary matter collected and common to the space created by that matter, we feel that same effect as gravity. Each time a measurement is taken, it does not convey the curvature and the variations of space that occurs as matter moves through space that is created by the matter that is moving through space that has been created by other larger masses the matter is moving through. Gravity is only the observation of the strong nuclear force from our relative position in the matter and mass of the planet we are in when we observe a measurement.

[@lastchance8142]

Ok..so everything and every force is a by product of mass / massive particles . Where is the mathematical structure for this theory? Who is the primary advocate for this theory?

[@jforkum3948]

@@lastchance8142 Mass is the measure of the electron, the particles in the atom. and the kinetic energy potential as the electron moves within an atom. The word "Mass" better explains things on a planetary level of the gathered atoms that have become entangled in the same space and become a planet. I suggest it would be more correct to say, "everything and every force is a byproduct of matter", not mass. Even the magnetic force can be explained by this "theory". When many atoms are aligned with their electrons in the same direction the "space" inside the atom opposite of the electrons is more capable of accepting any new photon wave energy that enters it. The language of modern physics designates an electron as having a negative charge because it can move between atoms. but it is actually only the space inside the atom that can be capable of accepting an electron or incoming photon waves and is seen as a negative because it is not an excited atom capable of releasing an electron.

[@showmelookhere]

Interesting stuff between all the adds

[@scientistcraft]

So. Standard model can't give us for example the meaniful amounts about mass. So standard natter isconsistent and can't give us correct mass . For example about transformation of quarks we have to use different clocks. So we have difficulty on measurements.

[@tonyabrown7796]

I'd like to see this same panel talking about the repercussions on cosmology from the observations from James Webb Space Telescope.

[@GH-li3wj]

9:20I really like the realism of physicists when they say they don't yet understand how measurement works and the Standard Model prediction is confirmed by ... measurement. Anyway, I think physicists have a long way to go in understanding matter when you think that processing nuclear waste is just about burying it in the ground because you don't know how to transmute it into stable non-radioactive matter .

[@EnglishMike]

Or maybe they actually understand that transmutation is physically impossible regardless of the claim of various pseudoscientists.

[@barber5stanford]

Standard model being "too big to fail" is a very interesting notion

[@jessicarichards8531]

maybe answers to experimental problems like the muon mass and the proton radius could be found by considering existing _conservative_ steps towards quantum gravity like QFT in curved spacetime, einstein-cartan-dirac theory, proton-stable versions of georgi glashow theory, entropic gravity (perhaps without MOND), etc.

[@schmetterling4477]

Why are you collecting words that you don't understand? ;-)

[@jessicarichards8531]

@@schmetterling4477 : all of these things are approaches that are more promising than string theory, but that have been inadequately developed. - one of the biggest things people keep saying is that they want a theory of "quantum gravity" that is just as dynamic as general relativity, and yet general relativity really _isn't_ that dynamic. what relativists do is they take einstein's equations to find _static_ solutions that are useful for their physical situations, and then they use those static solutions. well we already have a static solution generator; it's general relativity. and quantum field theory in curve spacetime can be fit to any of those solutions. instead of trying to find a quantum theory that's actually more dynamic than relativity, we could just roll with what we already have and see if these exotic situations that aren't well-explained by quantum field theory in flat minkowski spacetime (i.e. the proton radius) could be explained by QFTCS on different solutions of general relativity (which, if it works, would tell us that spacetime is quite curved at the tiny distances, and subject to the strong forces, within protons). - the nonlinear dirac equation is basically the dirac equation with a complicated extra term. there is apparently a version of this equation that arises from the non-zero torsion tensor of einstein-cartan theory. i would be interested to know whether this nonlinear term could help better describe situations like the proton radius problem or the muon mass. - there is at least one paper (and there may be others) that describes a version of georgi-glashow theory (i.e. that uses the SU(5) symmetry group to unify the standard model group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)) that nevertheless predicts stable protons. not long-lived protons, but permanently stable protons. proton instability is the major reason georgi glashow theory was rejected, and it's one of the reasons so many people have flocked to string theory (despite string theory yielding neither experimentally testable discoveries, nor a reproduction of what we already know). again, asking how this variant of georgi-glashow theory applies to as-yet-unsolved physics problems might shed some light on its utility. - entropic gravity might be the first successful attempt to smoothly transition from quantum fields to tensor fields. its two biggest flaws are that (1) it bakes in MOND, which still has problems with bullet clusters and (2) we don't yet have a clear enough understanding of the edge between the quantum and classical worlds to know whether entropic gravity's predictions are correct throughout the entire range of scenarios it can describe. i would like to see how well this hypothesis holds up in situations that the standard model (which lives in minkowski spacetime) fails, and i would also like to see comparisons between the original version of entropic gravity and an altered form that doesn't have MOND baked in. - yet another approach might simply be to focus on a chain of symmetries that could be useful for high energy physics, namely de Sitter > poincare > lorentz > galilean. the idea is to posit de Sitter symmetry as the fundamental symmetry group of spacetime (rather than lorentz symmetry), and then to explore the consequences of that change. i have also read that de Sitter symmetry also contains newton-hooke symmetry (which also contains galilean symmetry), and that newton-hooke symmetry could be used (in a way that sounds kind of similar to MOND) to explain galaxy rotation curves. i'm a lot less familiar with this hypothesis, but this one probably intrigues me more than the others. (i'd also be interested to see whether spacetimes with fundamental de sitter and/or newton-hooke symmetries could be helpful in understanding bullet cluster behavior, or whether they'd have problems that are similar to MOND.)

[@schmetterling4477]

@@jessicarichards8531 Yes, that was a lot of bullshit. ;-)

[@jessicarichards8531]

@@schmetterling4477 : you sound deeply incurious. how sad.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@jessicarichards8531 Yes, I am very incurious. That's how I became the designer of a core component of one of the world's largest particle detectors. How many science experiments did you design, Love? ;-)

[@chuckschillingvideos]

14:50 "I think there's a self-reflection missing" Bingo. That has been the sad state of elemental physics for the last fifty years.

[@sbfcapnj]

Elemental physics, macroeconomics, microeconomics, political science, medicine.... Shall we go on?

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

Agreed. Where's my quarkoscope? If you want a fun model to consider, Kelvin's knot model looks much more useful for the particle zoo than the SM... Mobius electron, trefoil protons. The meme is out there but it's not been laid out coherently

[@MY29051944]

May I know your Critical Comments on "Sudhakaran-Sivaram Theory Of The Universe "?

[@tormentorox1]

It seems that the way in which we structure our societies are coming into conflict with the science as well. Sabine talked about the expense of a project as a potential issue. I think poking at the foundations is important, but I’m with Sabine with the idea that the motivations have to make sense.

[@tommylakindasorta3068]

I live in the country of Sabinestan.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

The standard model is, as it quite clearly says in the name, a model, not a theory, so it doesn't really "predict", it models.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

If it was a genuinely predictive theory, it would be universal, not standard and it would be a theoretically physically motivated structure, not a mathematical model.

[@scientistcraft]

That was tuned relativity that enestain was setting for inside atom.

[@hungryformusik]

„After all, the Standard Model is not a theory but a set of rules“ Paul Dirac

[@caseymay5449]

What do the speakers think about the electric universe ?

[@scarter9447]

The trajectory of a thrown rock in gravity can be found to be a mathematical parabola and adequately mapped for given initial conditions. The same math will not predict when a volcanic eruption will occur. Should we then question if the Newtonian ball equation be fundamentally 'fatally' flawed and thown out (pun intended). Our empiracle pattern derived laws describe observation well enough but are emergent from the underlying fractal dynamical system of quantised states.

[@erdemmemisyazici3950]

If the question is one of looking for cool things to build from an iterative historical perspective when it comes to life interacting with fundamental forces we've come to discover so far I think there is always good reason to build very massive machines to generate high energy gravitational waves. Now that we know they exist. 😁

[@seikojin]

In all seriousness, yes, it needs to be either replaced, or refactored. Instrumentation to make more accurate observations in the macro-level is much better than the past. As such, everything we used to build the foundation of the standard model upon are not as solid as they once were. We as a society should not fear being wrong and instead fear not improving.

[@exhaustguy]

Current estimates for next generation collider is $24B. Who knows what it will be with cost overruns.

[@alvinuli5174]

Now I understand the post of Sabina explaining the difference between English and American speaking.