US and European Research Traditions - or why Americans don't like to think thoroughly

A closer look at the history of physics of the 20th century reveals profound differences in research traditions.
The book is now available in English: www.amazon.com...

[@johnpayne7873]

A refreshing perspective. Having been a theoretician and applied scientist, I was acutely aware that the mid 20th century was a turning point for physics where economic pressures for results that were marketable and profitable intruded. Big business/big government/big military/big academia melded into a monolithic system that has, for the most part, stifled individual enterprise. It should be also pointed out that the rate of retraction of peer-reviewed articles has sky rocketed in the past decades and the inability to replicate work has seriously declined. Quite frankly, we live not in a period of science but of cheap and counterfeit pseudo-science.

[@TheMachian]

True, we live in sick times.

[@johnpayne7873]

@@TheMachian "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." I applaud you and encourage your efforts to unearth the compost heaps of big science and expose dung farmers.

[@donaldkasper8346]

The number of papers retracted skyrocketed because of China. They are just thieves in everything they do.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Non-replication is due to the use of supercomputers for simulations.

[@johnpayne7873]

@@donaldkasper8346 Hello, nice follow-up. Question: Who checks answers these days? In college I took a Fortran 7 course and distinctly remember remember how many coding mistakes I made because I independently derived solutions by paper and pencil. I also remember that digital machines "hate" to use division and that round-off errors increased with each numerical step. Has there been a revolution of accuracy I am not aware of? If not, have we - for example - really "seen" the accretion system of a black hole or just made pretty pictures that we already had in our heads?

[@JorgeBrown]

Dr Unzicker, welcome! I was missing your witty presentations. You are a bright star in the night of present magic-physics. The only person I am aware of to write a book about that billion dollars sinker called CERN. Keep up the outstanding job. I cannot imagine how much pressure and harassment you might go through but I hope you have enough strength to keep doing this essential eye-opening job to some open minded and real scientists.

[@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT]

I concur!

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

It seems that science is always in the dogma and heretic mode just like it was back in the days of Tycho Brahe.

[@chrimony]

Sabine defends the standard model of particle physics. She even did so while criticizing the free parameters in inflation cosmology. It would be interesting to see you two discuss the issue.

[@BlueGiant69202]

But aren't two Germans/Europeans going to think alike? How are they going to get out of the photon box if they have the same philosophical roots as Mach, Planck, Lorentz, Einstein and Bohr? Yes, I also would like to hear Drs. Hossenfelder and Unzicker discussing physics and even make small video clips in which they tell their physics 'war stories' like Freeman Dyson did for Web of Stories. Dyson made a great statement about Oppenheimer and his ideas about where the future of physics was going to come from.

[@TheDummbob]

Agreed!

[@reivanen]

And then she intorduces her own additive model that claims to resolve things, by introducing more free parameters not bound to anything physical.

[@ThePallidor]

The whole of physics since early 1900s needs to be erased. Start again.

[@bautibunge737]

@@ThePallidor Do you studied physics?

[@dragoscoco2173]

I just blame the imperial system. If from a young age you are used to having a bunch of constants with the sole purpose of unifying a chaotic measuring system you might not see the existence of another bunch of more fundamental constants as an oddity. As a side-note the British which still used the Imperial system in day to day life jumped quite early 1890's to metric adoption in the Scientific field.

[@fardinabrarsafee5796]

Such an underrated physics channel

[@sumdumbmick]

The 'American' culture he's talking about became very amplified post war. Prior to the World Wars you can easily see that the scientific cultures on both sides of the Atlantic are closely related, even if already primed to diverge. But in the World Wars you get America standing out as the industrial powerhouse of the world, and what this means is that applied math and science enter the broader cultural experience as the standards of math and science. The basic reason being that the mass production of gadgets and gizmos employs a huge number of Americans, and this activity is pitched as scientific innovation to end the war, and later in the '50s onward, to improve your life. This percolates into academia by the end of WWII with famous individuals of 20th century American science who received their PhDs in that period, like Noam Chomsky, who frankly never did a goddamned thing, launching very successful careers nonetheless. Murray Gell-Mann, btw, received his bachelors in physics in 1948 and his PhD in 1951, which means he absolutely falls in line with what I'm saying.

[@doltBmB]

Programming languages and compilers would not be possible without Chomsky's categorization of orders of languages.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Shut up and calculate and decade long Of QM perhaps qualifies separately if the achievements by American and European, as they did on so many occasions. I am aware of the Nobel Peace prize leveled at the Americans while the Europeans were starved, I am sure no one blamed the other side. The winners are physicists, who arrived at the QC function and the wave function completely describe Einsteinian reality ( with some shortcomings on the way). The tag of war between physics and mathematics is stretched by Penrose in spectacular fashion, claiming mathematics is based on FAITH. While Susskind introduced finite axion algorithm of finite gate QUANTUM CIRCUIT (With some jitters of his own), In the annals y discovery mankind kept all so happy. I cannot agree to be unhappy, in view of shortcuts evident. Only to be pounced by Maldacena. or that Smart Italian.

[@ebrelus7687]

@@doltBmB Great point. So let's ask now what programming is giving to the world? Isn't it mostly fake realities in gaming & publishing more of useless generic content in because of it even more useless internet trashcan? What fraction of programmers does something pushing science & understanding of reality forward? ;-) The commercialisation, production for only sake of materialism & celebritisation of scientists may not been so useless if not for new american paradigm of destroying sound dollar & creating ever deficit& cheap credit run economy. In 50s 60s there was lots of inventions & postwar technology applications (thanks too organic funding in debt-free post war USA) but since 1970 all fields of human culture, ethics, science & technology degenerated & lost reason. www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2016/01/23/why-the-system-is-rigged

[@joeboxter3635]

Now I agree that US culture is ignore philosophy. But Europe problems is lack of practical. Think this, for 50 years the cost of "petrol" in Europe has been extremely high relative to that of states. But no advancements towards electric cars. Not until an American - Musk - makes the world stage. This being just an example. We need both. I'd rather a world with both than only one or the other.

[@sonarbangla8711]

@@joeboxter3635 The electric car was a reality early in the 20th century. Improvisation can take a lot of time. Often the advantages aren't obvious.

[@minkis42]

Solving the fundamental physics questions requires a great deal of thought, focus and determination, in Einstein's miracle year 1905 there was very little technological distractions, even AM radio broadcasts would be another 15 years away. In the present day we are so consumed by all our technologies that any would-be lone genius stands little chance of solving the ultimate theory. ps. Get a studio microphone, I will sponsor this if you want.

[@TheMachian]

Distraction is a serious problem in modern times, I fully agree. Next time I will put my mic closer again, thx.

[@antikertech157]

Einstein's theories are garbage, all of them. Further delusion from the system that began with the tainting of the original Maxwell equations. All of this so that the Shadow Government of the time can develop secretly their Secret Space Programs.

[@plazma1215]

The main problem with Physics all too often centres around what is held to be true but is unverifiable, yet taught by (The American and/or western) college systems as being true. A belief upheld by a metaphoric show of hands and supported by self interest, hubris, and funding (i.e. Job security), and often defended by ego. “You view the Universe through the face you bring to it.” Anon.

[@gregoryholland3983]

Well now, that was a breath of fresh air and from my relative reference frame in the UK, a very accurate description, not only of the state of Physics but more or less the state of the Western world. If the EU presented the values of Europe as Dr Unzicker just did I may have voted to stay (I didn't vote by the way). Anyway, nice one Dr Unzicker!

[@fabienpaillusson7390]

Very much so indeed

[@donaldkasper8346]

The state of physics cannot be generalized into the state of the West. Physics died because of WWII.

[@johncusson5703]

Arrogance does not mix with truth. The pursuit of wealth and greatness leaves no room for philosophy. We have somehow left real progress behind.

[@cryptoequalsfreedom8622]

The problem with this argument is there are no counter examples given to say, "Look over here in Germany, France, India, Japan, China, etc. where physics since 1945 has been so much more productive and advanced the theories of the early 1900s so much further." That hasn't happened. What happened in the 1800s and early 1900s is that there were very real human needs and curiosities about what we now consider fairly mundane - electricity, light, radio waves, gravity - that propelled mankind to spend a lot of time understanding these phenomena enough to build new technologies. Humanity has reached a point where understanding black holes and the like are simply not motivating or necessary to enough people for them to sit and ponder them. There are also a tremendous amount of distractions from an early age to the point where the boredom that motivated highly intelligent people is a lot less common. Just take a listen to "the world's smartest man", a guy with supposedly a 200 IQ, who said he avoids watching television and the Internet. But where does he choose to appear? On "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire". Go figure.

[@nehorlavazapalka]

He does understand high level physics fairly well. He choses to tone down his ability for broader understanding.

[@Maungateitei]

We have lived in a world that has been controlled by American propaganda since they started WW2 by bombing the Hindenburg out of jealousy.

[@douglasstrother6584]

These talks are always thought-provoking. We had an era of post-Great War Physics from 1918 - 1939. This was followed by unprecedented Physics & Engineering accomplishments during the Second World War. Further development and discoveries in the context of the Cold War got us where we are today.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Someone had to make the 138th comment.

[@charlesrobbins1247]

I was fortunate to choose to do my thesis in the laboratory of Herr Doctor Professor Nottingham. He was the leading (only?) professor in the MIT Laboratory For Electronics (Building 20). Our measuring instruments were Ballistic Galvanometers, Compton Quadrant Electrometers, L&N potentiometers. Our equipment were mercury diffusion pumps, pyrex, tantalum ,and tungsten vacuum systems, gas/oxygen glass blowing tools, hands and feet. We studied Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics and thermionic emission and plasmas. We derived electronics properties of matter from application of Pauli Exclusion and Heisenberg Uncertainty. My thesis was on using thermionic emission from thoriated tungsten as a means to measure active and condensable gases in ultra high vacuum (10^-13 mm Hg). We were allowed to read Brattain and Bardeen's work at Bell Labs but were warned not to get caught by Nottingham if we ever read imposters. These were the days of arguments about Richardson's Equation of thermionic Emission where the 120 Amps per square cm constant was not constant. Turns out , the second order term in the temperature dependence of work function resulted in a E^-phi/KT produced a mathematical further constant effecting Richardson's as E^-phi/k independent now of T. Not a problem at all but causing many physicists of the time to propose many theories of garbage .

[@michaels4255]

I am an American and I agree with this. Americans have always excelled at practical applications and solving real world problems, but we have not been very good with theory (and this is not true only in physics but in general). This was understandable in earlier American history, but I am frankly puzzled as to why this difference persists - IF it persists. It is possible that higher order thinking is in free fall throughout the western world, and that this transition occurred at the very time when one might have expected an increasingly wealthy and sophisticated America to have made the transition to fostering more theoretical thought.

[@noiamnotjohn3351]

You shouldn't agree to this at all. The theory is largely unfounded and fringe. America has produced deep theoretical thinkers, not only in physics but in several subjects, its just that those thinkers were poo-poo'd by arrogant European ivory towers even when said American thinkers were more on the money than European ones. (e.g Dewey and Pragmatism, though Continental Critical Theorists later came to secretly use Dewey's methodologies and pragmatism in their own philosophies). At any rate, this presenter has no substance and no evidence for anything he claims. The entire video comes across mostly as a myopic rant about the stagnation of European scientific achievement which is the fault of Europeans and Europeans alone.

[@noiamnotjohn3351]

Though your own theory about a more global free-fall in intellectual thought occuring around the mid-20th century is interesting. Not American or American fault, but neither European or Asian. It does seem like we think less critically than we did in past eras, across all cultures, and this anti-intellectual trend seems to have begun before the era of U.S or American dominance, instead it seems to have begun in the latter end of European dominance (late 19th century up to the end of WW2), with only a few notable exceptions (largely in physics e.g Einstein).

[@seanvogel8067]

@@noiamnotjohn3351 , ah dewey, the death knell of American education

[@paxodont9136]

Thank you very much for your very interesting work that you present in a very nice manner to the public! I would wish that you would also make a video on David Bohm, who in my opinion was not only a great physicist but one of the outstanding philosophers of our time. Thank you

[@abdjahdoiahdoai]

hello, I have a few questions. 1) Don’t you think it’s a natural progression, that we treat physics (or general science) more and more like engineering? Since we have great computers and tools people back then can’t even imagine. 1.5) We have the rise of new fields, like computational biology, computational chemistry, blah blah blah. So instead of thinking the difference in the school of thoughts, shall we also try to look at the history of science in a longer time frame? Like start in somewhen, then Dicarte, to Euler, Einstein, to modern time? would that be an reasonable argument it’s a natural progression instead of it being a research style? 2) How do we know if there’s sampling bias, so even there’s 5% of “philosophical/ fundamental thinkers” out there, wouldn’t their papers get buried in the pile of paper released that focus on applications? 3) Say we want to find a better balance of application-ist and fundamentalist, what can we even do? The researcher’s fund is by the paper count, and the university structure is more courses-driven (for the most part). As I got my BA in the US, I don’t really get master/student relation with the professor, unlike Fourier/ Laplace lineage of thoughts they get to learn from. So my point is, for better or worse, isn’t it an adoption of commoditization of researcher (more paper = good) and just development of general tools?

[@clmasse]

It is the other way round. Fundamental science brings forth applied science that brings forth technology. Getting it in the wrong way will make fundamental science dry up, and after it technology.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Prof. Unzicker, do you have or are you willing to do a documentary - or a video - about science and theory? I'm just an engineer who never got to the end but I spent a lot of time at the university - enough to realize how much I do not know. Since then I developed an eagerness to now know much more! Recently there was a video by Veritassium claiming the energy on a pair of wires connected to a lamp travels outside the wire. I tried to tell the author there was some problem with the theory he used and that in electric engineering we choose the model we'll use depending on the problem we need to model. I am aware this is (as they say in the US) small peanuts for you but my goal is noble: starting from a perhaps trivial problem explain the questions you put forth so youngsters can learn more and better. I'm from Brazil and Feynman spent two years here to evaluate our educational system for the Department of State and he wrote a nice text about how bad our education was - a short text that helped change how we teach physics in universities, here. Einstein also spend a few days in Rio de Janeiro and he really admired the people - how people of different colors and shapes got along so well - but hated the social appointments because there wasn't a single person there who new the tiniest bit about the subject of his lecture. All this to say that education is important and I believe you have the knowledge to do the documentary/video. You don't even need to distill it - others will do it for you right here on KZbin. Thank you!!! This is the Veritassium video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHmsmZqulttsgrs This is the best reply to that video I found: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIfVmZ5rhM91hpo

[@reaperinsaltbrine5211]

I often wonder whether the reason for this is that the founders of modern physics came from a tradition where Classical Greek and Latin (incl. Oration) were mandatory subjects even in technical universities.

[@TheMachian]

Interesting observation.

[@timothyrday1390]

Yes, good point. Our wholesale abandonment of language and grammar studies in American education has had a negative effect in my view (our sheepish move towards Spanish studies in recent years notwithstanding).

[@andsalomoni]

"Is it a wave or particle? Is this a problem?" I think that light is not a wave nor a particle. It is an "entity" which we never have to do with directly (except when we see with our own eyes), we always experimentally see the traces that light leaves, or deduce something from them, and we obtain particle-oriented traces or wave-oriented traces (or both at the same time, e.g. particle dots on a screen, arranged in a wave interference pattern, in the double slit experiment). We could simply think that light is "something" that behaves the way we see in the experiments, but it is not made of particles nor waves. It is what it is, and behaves in a way that we need both particle and wave concepts to describe.

[@daves2520]

I am interested in your thoughts. Physicists say that the physical universe is ultimately made of energy; but what is energy? Can we say that energy is composed of something? If not, then can we say that the universe is not composed of anything either? To me this is quite a conundrum - attempting to define energy.

[@bautibunge737]

Violently agreed. I always thought that the so-called 'problem' of wave-particle duality is that people just were used to work with this two mathematical entities, so when they discovered that neither light nor matter were any of this, they thought this as a problem. light is what it is, the fact that we can sometimes treat it as a wave and we can sometimes treat it as a particle doesn't mean that this is its fundamental nature. The "problem" is just that neither of the most familiar mathematical entities accurately describes the electromagnetic field (or any other field)

[@johnpayne7873]

If I may add: The fault lies in overapplication of similarity - it is "like" a particle/it is "like" a wave. Analogies or comparative structures provide a framework from which deeper thinking might arise. They should never be used as finished concepts. Secondly, it seems to me that invoking a "dualistic" nature of anything - be it physical or abstract - disallows a proper consideration of what that thing truly is.

[@proof6930]

Waves and particles are concepts that work with newton'ian physics. They are very useful for many applications, but when they don't work for light, people can't let them go.

[@darinnozina2721]

Thank you! You have just pulled me out of a existential crysis.

[@cofresinfondo7196]

Amazing conference. Thank you professor

[@TheMachian]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@monabuster312]

He is not a Professor

[@christophershelton8155]

I may not always agree with your opinions but I still like watching your videos because I always learn something new

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Dr Unzicker, do you think we should go back to the Inverse Square law with the mathematics representing the geometry of a three dimensional process? We have Galileo’s square of time t² with the wave function of quantum mechanics squared ψ², the electron e² and the speed of light E=MC² all squared! Don’t you think this points very strongly towards one three-dimensional process that has spherical 4πr² geometry? The two-dimensional surface could form a manifold or boundary condition for positive and negative charge. This would form an interactive process with an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future unfolding with the exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy and movement of charge. Within each reference frame, the future would continuously come into existence with potential photon energy changing into the kinetic energy of electrons.

[@TheMachian]

I don't want to judge specific approaches here, I'd just say that physics is sick after th 1930s and we have to go back there at least if we want to make progress. The roay road for fundamental questions is in my view considering physical constants, as outlined in my book "The mathematical reality". You find also a recent paper in physics essays about simplicity.

[@maxheadrom3088]

I saw this guy somewhere else and I remember I liked him. Let's watch!

[@peterweston1356]

Ian McGilcrist’s new book may offer insights into why these traditions are different. He also suggests that what may have captured thinking in the USA is also becoming true in all Western (thinking) countries/communities. His book is called ‘The Matter With Things; Our Brains Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World.

[@rstewart2702]

Might the influences of thinking from the Frankfurt School scholars (who, like Einstein, fled the Nazi Reich) also have had an unfortunate influence in the US academy? Could this also partly explain the differences between US and Continental intellectual traditions in physics?

[@peterweston1356]

@@rstewart2702 that’s not something I’ve thought about. Let me try to respond after a short reflection. As I understand it there is an explicit Reductionist quality to the Frankfurt School Philosophy(see next paragraph). Also, in some ways (for me), any philosophical position that leads to action in the world (perhaps inevitably), must in some way simplify, particularly if it is ideological, (the clue being ideologies tend to reject any debate or acknowledgement of another’s position.). It seems to me the FS is ideological from my perspective. It is interesting that the roots of FS are in European philosophical thinking of the 19th and early 20th Century. I believe from the idealist position. This also underlines my assertion of its reductionist nature. Why it didn’t take root in Europe is perhaps more to do with our relative heterogeneity of culture, language and so forth, but now I am way out of my comfort zone and well beyond my expertise. I think McGilchrists thesis would suggest a left hemisphere take. So, yes you are probably correct, at the very least it’s valuable insight and I will reflect on it some more. Thanks Apologies. if my reply is rather convoluted.

[@blueredbrick]

I enjoyed the talk. The main message read between the lines is that you're worried about stagnation in physics and the sciences in general. Am I right?

[@TheMachian]

Correct. there are more videos about the stagnation, e.g. "The current state of physics" video from Prague 2019.

[@mykalkelley8315]

I think part of the problem is that since the 60's Americas average I.Q. Has been going down. The iq has been going down for a variety of reasons but one of the most important in my opinion is that high iq people tend to not breed, and if they do, they only have maybe one kid at all plus some cats. Likewise the poor, low iq members of the American population breeds above replacement level.

[@philipsinger1291]

Refreshing presentation, as ever. Interestingly though, America had the good sense of cancelling the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993, then in 1998 construction began of the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.

[@TheMachian]

Correct, but this was rather an economic desicion (some common sense) that insight regarding the problems of high energy physics. I wrote on that in my book "The Higgs Fake" (Lederman on Reagan :-))

[@jimolson9649]

The vast majority are lost in the thoughts, beliefs and traditions of those who control their minds and bodies.

[@bautibunge737]

Sorry, but if you're willing to say that QED iis "wishful thinking" becouse the energy diverges, then maxwell's classical theory is also wishful thinking, as the energy of an electron also diverges (and it actually diverges faster). Also, the fact that we can calculate decay rates, cross sections and masses of all known particles with less than 20 parameters, doesn't really feel THAT much. Of course, it will be great when we manage to reduce the number of parameters, but that is very different from "wishful thinking"

[@TheMachian]

Well, classical electrodynamics has contradictions, but they were obvious. The problem is the QED tries to sweep them under the rug. Regarding 20 free parameters, I don't think this is a reasonable theory.

[@johnsmith-fr3sx]

The drift off the sanity reservation started before WWII and in the US. This is where you got the 1939 Snyder and Oppenheimer paper purporting to prove the formation of black holes from dust (dust as a proxy for many galaxies) collapse. Einstein's paper from 1939 that showed no such formation was possible (i.e. regular matter would have to travel at the speed of light at some stage) was ignored. Einstein's intuitive approach was vastly superior to the formalism cranking of the new wave of celebrity scientists. The Snyder and Oppenheimer paper assumes, ad hoc, that the stress energy tensor is completely independent of the metric. It thus fails to account for basic processes such as radiation pressure which is very effective at stopping the collapse beyond the horizon radius as the metric curvature begins to explode towards the formation of the horizon.

[@JorgeBrown]

John, I dare to disagree. Einstein was wrong! Space has no properties. - Nicola Tesla. Therefore, space cannot stretch or fold. This crash theory has hampered truly scientific progress for more than a century! The speed of light is not constant. Dr. Unzicker has showed this in his book "Einstein's Lost Key: How we overlooked the best idea of the 20th century". Red shift is not space stretching. It is tired light. Fritz Zwick one of the brightest astrophysicists working with Hubble said but Hubble did not took it as seriously as he should. The expansion of the universe is, as you said above so wisely, a matter of religion (Thanks to George Lamaitre!) than actual science.

[@Chris.Davies]

Physics today seems to conform to the "Standard AM/FM model". In the real world we have AM (or Actual Machines) whereas in Physics & Cosmology we have FM (F*^king Magic).

[@RichardAlsenz]

I am an American physicist, though my ancestors were German. I will challenge your assertion regarding thinking thoroughly. I maintain it is not possible to observe or measure Space. If you disagree, explain to me how you would measure Space. Margitte explained that a picture of anything is not the thing. The proof has become known as surreal. But in fact, Margitte's proof does require observation. While Space can not be observed by any human or animal. Observation is a necessary component of Physics or Science. Observation is not required in mathematics; this is why no credible University considers mathematics a science.

[@TheMachian]

Hi Richard. This is nothing personal. But as a matter of fact, the scientific culture is different. Btw, the book will be available in say oct/nov.

[@lowersaxon]

I measure three D space on a x, a y and a z axis.

[@eurotrash5610]

Yo my Doc, keep up the good work. :-) You're doing history a favour by analyzing the underlying issues and publishing about it. Don't forget to breathe. Much love :-)

[@daves2520]

Dr. Unzicker, I agree with you. You have made some very truthful observations - money cannot buy everything. LOL

[@martinsoos]

Squeaky Hosenfefer is the best at bridging physics to the understanding of simpler foke. She is also so good looking that men and some women would listen to her even if she wasn't one of the smartest people in the world. (Inverse implied). I read one of your (Unzicker's) papers on Ether (or proximity of; for those who side with Laplace in the scope that Ether does not exist). Your strength is starting with physics and stepping into the unknown and pulling out the plum. I am hoping to read more of your papers and hoping that you will throw us a link. Or think of me as an American dog hopping that you will throw us another bone.

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

A single particle can't behave as a particle and a wave.. but a large group of particles can. That is because the inverse square f=k/r^2 derived for particles becoomes Hook's law in crowding f=K r , which is very easy to prove. Hook's law governs every vibration around and is responsible for the travel of sound waves. In the double slit experiment, Hook's law appears if you include the particles of the slit as well as the electron projectile and is the reason for the appearance of the interference fringes.

[@delvish9622]

Regarding wave particle duality, how was it ruled out that the "waves" weren't already there and the light(regardless of it's structure) simply illuminates this? Whether material objects themselves emit a "wave" or they displace a medium. When brought close together as in two slits there would be an interaction of the emitted/displaced substance and the light whatever it is "rides" it.

[@hotversus]

This was all decided in Denmark at the 1927 Solvay conference. To blame this on American institutions (who were more concerned with engineering) is an error.

[@m.c.4674]

too much group thinking can be very destructive .

[@averagesauceenjoyer7209]

Voilà, things can become a cult too quickly

[@alejandrorivera2734]

I can't agree more with your perspective. Physics and science as a whole had to be based in philosophy which develops intuition which is the highest level of knowledge as defined by Espinoza

[@farhanislam8463]

Thank you so much for doing this.

[@Cymatic-Mage]

It isnt just a deficit in the sciences. In my experience, living amongst the masses here in America, I see deficits in the whole thought arena in most people I meet and talk with. It is disheartening and becomes a reason to just not socialize much. I find much better conversations online like this.

[@tribebuddha]

Yep. But that would be just about any society under the sway of PR and propaganda, and that's everywhere.

[@TheMachian]

Insanity of masses is a worldwide phenomenon, certainly... yet I guess you are right.

[@peteparadis1619]

95% of humans are idiots

[@drbuckley1]

Building a bomb was never a physics problem, it was an engineering problem.

[@TheMachian]

That's what I say.

[@DTjoshtruction]

No wonder I have so many grievances with the way things are done in this country

[@rohinbardhan222]

I guess the issue has been the more engineering based approach to fundamental physics that was promoted by the post war physicists - the tendency to arrive at a makeshift fix for certain problems and worry about them later only to breed further problems later.

[@nikis7742]

You are totally right in your perception that now a days what is being taught is manipulative and crap whoever starts learning physics open minded would realize that what is being taught is just crap and my belief is that not only physics but basic math and even numbers have being distorted deliberately I would love to hear on math too. Do you know or not I don't know that math which is basis of physics is from very beginning is wrong that's reason why there are so many discrepancies in physics results which we can't understand or say that it's mystery or can't be explained 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@markuspfeifer8473]

„The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.“ -Neil deGrasse Tyson Europeans: „But scientists are under an obligation to make sense of the universe!“

[@andsalomoni]

Neil, "The Universe is under no obligation to be scientifically investigated" too. But if we investigate it scientifically, let's do it in a senseful way.

[@___Truth___]

He presents the distinction between "European" & "American" Research Traditions as if it actually is mutually exclusive when the organization of scientists throughout the world contributed to the experimentation/verification/observation of European & American scientific research in such a way where scientists generally throughout the world integrate into the same enterprise of science & scientific discovery. He also goes on about how he's not speaking in terms of nationality but singles out America as a nation (one that's heterogeneous & composed of many cultural & intellectual backgrounds, one that is very mixed with European Standards & original American Standards of research & intellectual development) then goes to speak of European Research traditions as if it's homogenous when it is also very diverse and where different methodologies and distinct histories of intellectual development have happened, to where the conclusion he reaches becomes messy, inconsistent, and counterfactual.

[@TheMachian]

So my fault is to be to detailed and too general. Wht exactly is wrong then with my conclusions?

[@antikertech157]

Another proud US citizen...the US empire is now gone.

[@balajiraju4157]

@@antikertech157 it won't be replace by Europe...your entire continent is obsessed in migration and economic recession..... American has lot of problems but they are self sufficient and can bounce bank it their power is challenged....but Europe depend on energy, security and technology....from gps to Internet

[@markuspfeifer8473]

I do not consider wave functions physical. If they were, even a wave function describing the locations of two entangled particles should already vibrate in 6 dimensions. Best thing you can do is to treat wave function dynamics as a economical encoding of the complex statistics and inference rules of observable „properties“ of particles.

[@lowersaxon]

Yes, but why then call it „a wave function“? Makes no sense at all. Simply start with probability density functions and tell the complete nonsensical „collapse narrative“!??

[@heraclitusblacking1293]

I very much appreciate this ideology critique of modern physics. Europe has (had?) a certain kind of institutional structure which meant a certain kind of motivational or ideological structure to its research. America has a different institutional structure, which means a different ideological structure. Yet the American scientific scene is still working with the theories devised under a different ideological structure. The result is all kinds of problems which are unconvincingly solved, because, as Unzicker points out, the American approach (as it is more directly influenced by market economics) tends to focus on whatever "works;" the result is a patchwork standard model that doesn't really tell us about the universe. It just allows us to get "functioning" results from calculations. The only problem, as I can see, with Unzicker's presentation is that he is a physicist trying to do ideology critique, and as a result he seems to struggle a little bit to make the point in a direct way. That's not a major criticism, but part of me would love to see someone like Raymond Geuss take up Unzicker's claims and really spell them out.

[@TheMachian]

Feel free to be outspoken about what you miss. I just had 15 mins :-)

[@LarsOfMars.]

My experience of working in the US was "this aint no backwater, we aint making art here, we move with the dollar...". The why and wherefore is neither here nor there, they just want to make a buck. Lots of them.

[@slynt_]

Judaisation of culture @@LarsOfMars.

[@philipm3173]

Just FYI even though you said 1927, the slide is labeled 1947.

[@shibhanlalpandita6975]

Physics is guess work sold in Math carry bags. Tell me what disqualifies momentum from being designated as kinetic energy? How is half spin of pendulum different from Spin of a subatomic particle? How do you explain Tautochrone observation that çurved path is faster than linear path?

[@nichtvonbedeutung]

*"Is it a wave or a particle?"* It's both. Okay, not really a hard solid particle, but a near superfluid one and this particles are moving out spherical in any direction of solid partiles while turning around the center of their stream, makink spiral waves from it. We all know what spirals do, if they drill into each other.

[@TheMachian]

Anyway, the problem is not solved I guess.

[@nichtvonbedeutung]

@@TheMachian The problem are the models, I think. Another problem is, you'll (resp. I) need a PhD to develop such a model. Models of interested laymens won't be accepted, an that's not a guess.

[@sillymesilly]

No it is not both that is a contradiction. More accurate to say it is neither a particle nor a wave.

[@nichtvonbedeutung]

@@sillymesilly Ah, I see... you mean magic, right?

[@nasirfazal5440]

could you please do a program on Edward Teller، l attended his and Hans Bata seminars۔Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA

[@TheJara123]

Fantastic talk and overview...

[@siulapwa]

Great talk thanks

[@sillymesilly]

You are a breath of fresh air! I was suspicious of Standard model discovery of endless amount of particles. Is the universe really fundamentally built by particles? Particle and wave duality is still not well understood. And here we have big grand idea of theory of everything with particles. A complicated mathematical mess as well.

[@davidsault9698]

I think the problem with the infinity is that an electron has a dual nature as a particle and a wave. Measuring the energy of an electron gives its local particle value while the math can indicate the wave form connected to the entire Universe and thus validly gives as infinite value - which indicates that the Universe is infinite in energy and thus must be infinite in size. "Renormalizing" the math then just chooses to anchor the math in the local, measured, particle form of the electron. The math would not be wrong or lying, but just not trusted enough. Dual particle, dual math paths. Didn't Einstein not trust his math in one famous case? ( I'm not a physicist)

[@drbuckley1]

That which cannot be observed--directly or indirectly--cannot be explained.

[@jacqueskools2566]

I think this romantic vision of "pure, clean" science in Europe and "dirty, applied" science in the US tells more about the state of mind of its afficinados than about the reality. There are plenty of counterexamples . For example "Why The West Rules, for now" Ian Morris makes a convincing case that the great works on celestial mechanics ( Newton, Lagrange,..) were motivated by a practical need to have a better navigation on the stars.

[@JOhnsmith-hv6xf]

Cô giáo Mây thật chu đáo... Tết có nhạc mới thành mùa Xuân...!! Chúc Cô giáo năm nay cũng được Long Phụng sum vầy nhé...!!!❤👍

[@someone1059]

Dear sir I wanted to ask if I am fluent in 3 languages including english then how much time will it take for me to read technical books and understand them in german language?I am asking because I am interested in some mathematics books written in german language which have no translation available.

[@TheMachian]

I really cannot tell you. There are some techniques how to learn foreign languages very quickly. For translations, David Delphenich has done amazing work. Check his site.

[@someone1059]

@@TheMachian thank you sir for the suggestion

[@andrewburbidge]

In trying to reach a description of what underlies the results and the claimed results of Physics, one can easily feel lost. In a comment for one of Dr Unzicker's videos some months ago, I said I thought that the electrodynamics scattering treatments could have begun with lucky guesses and then developed in a convincing way. It is interesting to hear again how doubtful Dr Unzicker is about it. Can it be shown that there are virtual photons that mediate the electromagnetic force? Can it be shown that magnetism depends on the movement of charges such that the same spin of opposite charges gives opposite magnetism? Could it be shown that the protons and antiprotons in CERN's collisions had the same spin? With same spins, would they have produced the observed jets without W and Z particles? Was it really opposite spins that collided, causing the jets? No W and Z? With a system of 3 equally spaced, synchronisd clocks with 2 other clocks approaching from opposite ends, does each give rise to Lorentz transformations that tell the other clock is slowed? Who really believes that? Isn't it reasonable that such experiments would reveal movement of the whole system through the transmission medium? That or a multiverse? Lost, but I think there may not be such virtual photons, no W and Z, no multiverse. Let's continue trying to find out.

[@TheMachian]

Skepticism is the base of science. (see video on evidence, 2017) Can it be shown that there are virtual photons that mediate the electromagnetic force? - virtual photons, by definition, are not observed. Whether their postulation does lead to anything substantial, I doubt. (see video about WED) Can it be shown that magnetism depends on the movement of charges (..)? - Yes, there are college leven experiments that show that. Could it be shown that the protons and antiprotons in CERN's collisions had the same spin? - Hard to show with direct evidence With same spins, would they have produced the observed jets without W and Z particles? Was it really opposite spins that collided, causing the jets? No W and Z? - These high energy concepts are a big theory-loaden mess, deproved of genuine evidence. I don't waste my time pondering over W or Z bosons. See "The Higgs Fake" With a system of 3 equally spaced, synchronisd clocks with 2 other clocks approaching from opposite ends, does each give rise to Lorentz transformations that tell the other clock is slowed? Who really believes that? Isn't it reasonable that such experiments would reveal movement of the whole system through the transmission medium? That or a multiverse? - I don't understand the question. I think that time dilation both makes sense from a theoretical point of view and that there is solid evidence that supports it. Lost, but I think there may not be such virtual photons, no W and Z, no multiverse. - Agree

[@andrewburbidge]

@@TheMachian Thanks. More about a physical model: Virtual photons; or enormous power of vibrations of the transmission medium, not provable to be spin-1 particles such as photons? The question about charges was because there is always angular momentum and charge involved with magnetism, apparently. But not with the neutron's magnetism. Still, there was the development of the fractional-charge model, with a neutron's negative charges having the greater effect than the positive charge but without a detectable charge dipole, as the situation remains today. Also without emission and absorption from any such structure. Nucleon variants are so many, maybe it could work. Still, there was only one claim of an antineutron detection, from the 1950s. Alternatively, magnetism isn't from the charge circulation. It's from the angular momentum. Reverse the flow of electrons, reverse the spin and magnetism is reversed. Also, an electron, in a p-orbital for example, has a maximum probability for detection in the orbital lobes. Does charge circulation throughout an orbit produce the magnetism? Or does the charge jump, with orbital angular momentum producing the magnetism? With the 3 clocks in a line and the 2 clocks approaching the centre from either end, they broadcast their time values and their predictions for the time value of the other moving clock as calculated using the Lorentz transformations. Experiment required. A transmission-medium model must account for the slowing of clocks, in a gravity field also. Without a physical model for Physics, find mathematics that gives good predictions and the technology can develop. Why worry? People like to find fundamental models, physical models.

[@johnl5316]

In academic psychology in the US there has been a focus on the empirical and building theories from the empirical in opposition to the theory based psychoanalytic tradition from Europe. I am retired and cannot speak to current affairs except to suggest that much of it has been taken over by "blame White and heterosexual people and free enterprise".

[@lowersaxon]

Very true! I could tell who and why. But I wont.

[@humanitech]

It's seems scientific study has always had two conflicting models...(1) To try a accurately identify, interpret, establish and confirm the constructs and nature of reality and all within it for individual or mutual knowledge, empowerment and benefit...or (2) To misuse, deviate, speculate, confuse,. disrupt and undermine the first process - to fit and suit the missions and agendas of specific individuals,, organisations, groups and actors all trying to fulfill their different personal agendas. And unfortunately in this hierarchically competitive, divisive and opposing (power and profit driven) world.... there is always great personal gains to be made from truths, lies, fantasy and fiction....which can clearly be seen in all aspects of human life.. not just in the sciences!

[@thomasgraversen7389]

It also seems like a tendency that Americans adore heroes more than Europeans, maybe amplified after WWII. This leads to adoring the science hero who battles against the frontier of man, trying to conquer the unknown territory of science. This leads to (maybe unconscious) accepting that everything the hero does is easilyer accepted and not questioned thoroughly, defeating the purpose of science and the scientific method.

[@SoloRenegade]

there are tons of American's that think the same way Europeans do. you just don't see them.

[@nyworker]

No matter how big you make a computer it is still a finite machine so there is a limit to the present mathematics. Americans do have the engineering mindset that you need to build a better deep space telescope to measure the universe or a better computer architecture to calculate particle physics.

[@nzuckman]

I think it's fair to say they're right about the telescopes, at least. A wider bucket catches more rain, a bigger telescope catches more photons. This kind of approach does seem to have run its course for particle physics, though.

[@christophmahler]

*Scientific culture is the domain of **_historians and philosophers of science_* - if it is communicated as a contribution to 'theoretical physics discourse', naturally every career physicist, appealing for grants will oppose such publications. There is certainly something to the culture argument that defies notions of the 'radical enlightenment' of man as a blank slate when even military field manuals for 'special forces advisors' adress fundamental differences in military branch and service culture ('Training Circular' 31-73 from 2008) - but the striking evidence would rather be e.g. the apparant inability to grasp a 'wholesome' national interest and to create e.g. the navy, to operate along those interests - as studies from 2015 bemourn, warning of _an imminent risk of complete failure_ due to a declining and ill-organized fleet in case of a near peer conflict ('Strategy Development in the 21st Century')... A typical example of 'American Dreaming' is an association like the 'Anacyclosis Institute' that wishes to hold the structural dynamics of societies - Hellenistic antiquity called the _'cycle of constitutions'_ ('metabole politeion') - captured in a single state of perpetual 'democracy' - which is arguably the equivalent of 'eating lead pills to achieve immortality' (the demise of the first Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang) when neither 'democracy' is realistically defined (simply the 'rule of the poor' to Aristotle who compared polities of his time), nor the 'political psychology' of political decline is fully understood (e.g. Durckheim's observations of 'anomie' that accompanies industrialization, leading to 'fragmentation' and ultimately civil war)... As international affairs evolve currently, the question of physics in the New World may very well be mostly a matter of historical interest...

[@FlitcraftEvanidus]

Basically, the difference between Edison and Tesla.

[@TheMachian]

I mentioned those two!

[@pm71241]

Sure... But aren't you contradicting yourself a bit. Even bif there a no good results yet, you say that they are just producing new unexplained things, yet you ask for producing more good questions. Isn't that exactly what's going on... Lot's of new unexplained things.

[@lowersaxon]

No, not quite. Fundamental vs derivative questions!!

[@christophershelton8155]

Penrose actually supports a multiverse theory, this article was from 2013 though so maybe he changed his mind

[@reframer8250]

Schön, nach Längerem mal wieder einen Vortrag zu hören! :) Da freue ich mich jedes Mal wieder drüber. Schöne Grüße aus Heidelberg!

[@TheMachian]

Danke! Diesmal war Heidelberg ja leider nur per zoom, hier war das letzte mal live: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXYmIWkepymeNU Viele Grüße!

[@reframer8250]

@@TheMachian Ja, das habe ich gesehen (leider nicht live). Ganz tolles Gespräch!

[@BlueGiant69202]

Must you put new books out on the window sill like pies? LOL! You are doing the right thing for the global physics community. I hope you did some lateral thinking in your book because I don't want to meet any Majorana Boojums. Has anyone tried to find out how many 'schools of thought'/research communities/social networks/broad lines of research currently exist? There are Americans like Edwin T. Jaynes, David Hestenes and Lee Smolin that have tried to escape the groupthink. I'm going to be looking in your book for something about the interplay between American technological entrepreneurship, industrial corporate scientific research and the military industrial complex. Tesla was trained in Europe and stated that Edison could have saved himself a large percentage of perspiration with a bit of theoretical thinking. How many 'schools' of thought are missing from your book because you don't appear to mention Russian, Indian, Japanese or Chinese schools of thought? I'm reminded of essays comparing British physics to Continental physics and British physics vs. French physics vs. German physics. The French always sounded in these essays like the ivory tower philosophers while the Germans were philosophical thinkers too but more pragmatic.

[@TheMachian]

In my book, I cite the above quote by Tesla on Edison :-). Translation will take some time. Notwithstanding the important contributions of others from all parts of the world, it is fair to say that modern physics started in Europe with Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei and Newton. And keep in mind this is not about nationality, but about scientific traditions.

[@david_porthouse]

America used to be a handful of colonies that we could just sneer at. Now it's a country of continental scale and generalisations like this are silly. Individual cities like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles are the equivalent of European capitals like London, Paris, Berlin and Rome. Whatever faults they may have are not automatically replicated elsewhere. Otherwise I agree that the world is going to the dogs.

[@lowersaxon]

No, they are not. Just look.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Max plank and Isaac Newton was right about their vision of the universe 4% is physical. Einstein's equation is good but his over all view was wrong. I would argue that materialist have taken physicalism to its max and become as corrupted as the dogma of the day that moved idealism over physicalism and but now its flipped and because they are trying call things that classified under idealism as if they are physical just because you can measure secondary effects.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Oh! There's a book called "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire" that talks about the origin of some cultural aspects of American society. For instance: it was a subset of the British people people who colonized the US. They were deeply religious people escaping persecution against their particular and peculiar religious views. They were not aristocrats nor worked binding books. Here's a video of him talking about the book: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYPUda17hK98o9k I have bilateral tinnitus so I keep videos like these playing all the time.

[@MrHuddo]

Bilateral tinnitus, did this stem from an earlier traumatic experience or is it idiopathic? I'm a registrar neurologist, a curious (nosy) one at that. Sorry to pester, but if you've tried transcranial magnetic stimulation, did it help alleviate your symptoms?

[@felhomaly]

Could that be even simpler? JUHÁSZ, András. The 'Smart Dreamcatcher' (SD) Physical Particle Model. European Journal of Physics Education, [S.l.], v. 13, n. 1, p. 28-43, apr. 2022. Sending of the link of my article failed, the system doesn't allow it, sorry. Greetings A. Juhász

[@SkyDarmos]

For most people the stagnation of physics starts in 1971 or 1974, not in 1930.

[@TheMachian]

That's why people who believe this are in a phase of stagnation as well.

[@harry.calisthenics4115]

Hi Dr Unzicker have a topic id love to hear your thoughts on. I really like your reasoning for how space and time are inappropriate concepts due the emergence of limits of C and H and other free parameters. It seems the depth of this mystery just get swept under the rug by the scientific community In my mind the other elephant in the room is that of consciousness. Consciousness seems to me likely simultaneously the most complex and most unexplained phenomena we know of in the universe. We don't have a damn clue how it works or where it comes from. Furthermore it seems that our limited and subjective conscious frame that we inevitably inhabit is constantly plaguing science with the issue of the observer or even assumption of observer. I think its logical to deduce that if life is subject to a evolutionary process then what is selected must necessarily be adaptations to what is real/reality, otherwise the organism will be die out. Therefore the existence of consciousness could mirror something fundamental about reality.

[@TheMachian]

You are right in wondering about consciousness. Yet I would be careful to link it to fundamental physics. Honestly, I am pretty unsure about this matter.

[@harry.calisthenics4115]

@@TheMachian Thank you for responding. Since the phenomena exists maybe one day if we have more breakthroughs in physics we will new frameworks to understand it better. OR maybe it isn't linked to a mathematical reality and it's a product of something else? I only think about fundamental physics and the problem of consciousness together because they seem to be the deepest problems. They are also examples of science not liking to admit what it doesn't understand.

[@clmasse]

Matter is only defects in the Universe, it is not the most important. Indeed, the Universe is almost empty.

[@harry.calisthenics4115]

@@clmasse Even matter is made of atoms which are mostly empty space. It seems like almost everything is also a mysterious nothing. Understanding the nature of nothing vs something is a real headscratcher haha

[@ClarkPotter]

As an American, just seeing the title I'm inclined to believe it's probably true.

[@TheMachian]

You are probably the exception :-)

[@MrHuddo]

@@TheMachian LoL

[@GH-li3wj]

There is certainly a bias between the United States and Europe, but there is also a social tendency everywhere towards the compartmentalization of scientific research which penalizes theoretical physics and, at the same time, the level of education drops everywhere in school. The academic level fell first in the USA and then in Western Europe. There is also the fact that the difficulty of scientific problems follows a log scale, i.e. it is easy to understand classical laws of mechanics but 1000 times more difficult to understand the atom and 1000,000 times more difficult to understand the behavior of the nucleus hence a feeling of slowing down.

[@awesomebearaudiobooks]

Why is it 1000 times more difficult to understand the atom? Maybe it took the humanity as a whole 1000 times longer to understand the atom than to understand the classical laws of mechanics, but that doesn't mean it was 1000 times harder to understand. The same person could understand both in a comparable amount of time. The only problem with atoms and nuclei is that one cannot just look at it with a naked eye, one needs complicated instruments to measure, but it's definitely not 1000 times, forget the 1000000 times more difficult to understand.

[@TheMachian]

I agree in part, but one cannot estimate a priori the difficulty of an unsolved problem. In hindsight, it MIGHT be easier.

[@GH-li3wj]

@@TheMachian This is not always true at least for some mathematical problem, like the prime number factorization, we can have an estimate of the computer power then an estimate of the complexity or the difficulty of the unsolved problem. We can notice that the major physical understanding by humans , fire, agriculture, metallurgy, atom, was linked to the size of their population, or to the number of communication between individuals but not only, the quality of these communications is a key factor. Certainly the understanding of the nuclear physic correspond to a new threshold, a new step for humanity.

[@tenbear5]

In a nut shell here's my take on it: America is fundamentally materialist, and the current paradigm favours the reductionist, materialist world-view. This is so obvious to a first-time traveller in the US: I was actually quite shocked when i visited.

[@balajiraju4157]

Lol....we need partical solution for our problem first...major discoveries are not happening in Europe too but blame it on entirely on America is bullshit

[@antikokalis]

Man, this is so annoying.. In the first 10 minutes you haven't said anything of substance... I hope the next 10 will be better....

[@TheMachian]

I suggest you first get enough sleep and then continue with YT :-)

[@antikokalis]

@@TheMachian :P

[@SkyDarmos]

Oppenheimer did more than just the atomic bomb. He was also an astrophysicist. You seem to completely ignore that.

[@TheMachian]

It's not unknown to me, yet The manhattan project is what he he famous for. More on his astrophysics activities in my next book about the sun.

[@SkyDarmos]

@@TheMachian Good. To me he is most famous for the Oppenheim limit for the mass of neutron stars. Something I work on myself, at the moment.

[@michelelevi3904]

Important slide on 13:00-15:11

[@geoffrygifari3377]

do you think there are notable american physicists who think european?

[@TheMachian]

I don't think that any contemporary physicist considered notable thinks thoroughly, that is, in the European style of the beginning of the 20th century. Fundamental questions are discussed today only by a heterogeneous group of so-called fringe scientists.

[@logicalveganlifts9521]

@@TheMachian "Fundamental questions are discussed today only by a heterogeneous group of so-called fringe scientists." I am still new to the world of theoretical physics but I have certainly noticed that the only people trying to come up with creative mechanistic models are considered fringe. It seems that at some point when nuclear physics was formulated there was a greater need for accurate calculations due partially to the Manhattan project which outweighed the need to understand the underlying mechanisms. If I am understanding correctly, I think your criticism reduces to being discontent that the bleeding edge of nuclear/particle physics cannot be performed ab initio. Is this the right interpretation of your views?

[@charlesrobbins1247]

Let's get to the crown jewel!. THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS A VARIABLE AND NOT A CONSTANT.

[@vinniechan]

Very interesting

[@davidwilkie9551]

An "outside observer", (no such thing in Totality), would say we are all together confused and distracted by the heritage Nomenclatures of religion that is default pseudo rigour. Perception paradox is the natural consequence of Quantum Operator Logic inside-outside holographic time-timing, because of the inherent positioning characteristics of log-antilog spin-spiral modulation-> interference-superposition, which is why the rules and empirical shaping laws are what they are. The Universe is composed of unique numberness, constant AM-FM condensation creation connection of uniqueness, so difference => pure-math relative-timing Calculus, is the Universe and occupants.

[@LarsOfMars.]

The term "British" isn't applicable to cultures of thinking nor indeed academic output. The English and Scottish philosophical approaches are, and have historically always been, two different very animals.

[@TheMachian]

Interesting. What about the Irish tradition with MacCullagh, William Hamilton?

[@LarsOfMars.]

@@TheMachian The Irish, as always, have a tradition very much of their own (that's why we all love them so) which survived through the oppressive influence of English and later British (after James VI of Scotland took the English throne and created the British monarchial union) conquerors.

[@frankmansour362]

What about the state of physics in europe? Europe is still there, investing in super colliders...

[@TheMachian]

Europe has been re-colonialized by the U.S. ... there is no difference in scientific culture today.

[@frankmansour362]

@@TheMachian I'm glad to find your channel. I'm watching as fast and as many as I can. I like Sabine, but you are more dedicated to skepticism of physics today. I had many doubts about the standard model, and it is refreshing to see that a bona fide physicist like you are stepping forward with no fear and calling a spade a spade. Please continue the great work.

[@Ben-xj6su]

This should have been called "why democrats don't think thoroughly"

[@Cymatic-Mage]

Why the majority do not think thoroughly.

[@lowersaxon]

Same.

[@paulg444]

He as a great point but associating it with a schism between European and American cultural traditions is pure fantasy. The US of the 1930s through the 1960s had an education culture for STEM on par with any in Europe. That US culture does not exist today in 2022 where we have tumbled to middling world status and Europe likewise has also fallen behind in STEM education in the past 50 years. Our fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves.

[@x--.]

If it were as you say, where are all the European breakthroughs? Europe did not end in the 1930s, unless you are claiming the brain-drain was so complete that the European 'research tradition' was completely subsumed by the 'US research tradition.' It didn't seem like what you are saying. What I will say (which appears to support you) is that the American research tradition is most certainly 'results oriented' and, more specifically, the arrow of funding points toward practical applications - even far-fetched ones and less toward the sort of basic research that might allow a strong thinker the time to ponder. That, I would argue, isn't a research tradition but it the same damn problem we see everywhere: Publish or perish, get your grant money or gtfo. It is disturbing and ultimately unhelpful but given our constrained educational system you can't just say, "Well, that's terrible!" without throwing out some legitimate suggestions for how to make it better. Put up or shut up. In this case, how do we signal value when it comes to 'basic research' - not just in funding but also in output. Is it teaching? Is that a suitable proxy for a strong-thinker advancing the goals of science or must we demand a different offering?

[@TheMachian]

There were a lot of breakthroughs in Europe until around 1927-1930. It's not America's fault that that stopped, maybe physics became too difficult. However, postwar physics culture does not even ponder those problems any more. For the rest, you pretty much got the point in identifying the problem. Naming it does not mean to have to provide a solution. Maybe we should fund "science monks" with a modest, livelong salary rather than ambitious big science projects. Bruce G Charlton is a good reference for those kind of problems.

[@x--.]

​@@TheMachian Science monks sound great to me! Naming it may not require a solution but it does beg for it. The vision for a better future gives us all something to aspire to see. Maybe we, as a society, aren't ready for the real solution? In a system that values revenues how do you justify research that is net negative? Setting aside solutions. I will dissent with your framing mechanism of Europe v. US. Is it the research tradition or is the funding mechanisms? It feels very naive these days to say Science for the sake of Science. It feels like every project I hear about has a revenue generating project or service. That's not Science, that's public-funded R&D. That wouldn't be so bad if the educational institutions collected a hefty royalty for the incubation service they provide to be reinvested. No, I'd argue the rotten smell is the fact that the job of scientists appears to have gone from answering deep questions to always justifying their budget. Every decision first passing through the filter- How will that impact my grants? How will that impact my prestige? How will that effect my path to tenure? Perhaps, though, I'm naive and it's always been that way. I'll tell you what I'd like. I'd like to see truly great thinkers being given the space to focus on big problems with other great thinkers. I'm personally biased, I would love to have someone to cut down my ideas so I could build back better ones. How do we get to that society? In any case, Doctor, I appreciate the video and response.

[@browncow7113]

I think you are on the right track. The real issue is not to do with America vs Europe. It is to do with the fact that modern science is largely centrally funded, and spending must therefore be justified, which requires metrics of performance; but these metrics are difficult to devise in a way that captures what is truly valuable. One way around the issue (but not a sustainable one) is evading the metrics. Consider the example of the development of information theory by Shannon. Bell Labs is a well-known instance where the tentacles of metrics loosened. The company was so large, and these teams of researchers had such latitude, that you could get someone solving a fundamental question (what is information?). An American! In a telephone company! That's as far from aristocratic Vienna as you can get. I would say that you just need to tweak the funding metric (and more generally, the academic performance metric). For example, why not look at the performance of a department, say, over 10 or 20 years, and factor that in? I also think the individual vs collective distinction is probably not that helpful. The modern equivalent of Tycho Brahe would be your large sky surveys, requiring millions of pounds of equipment, and teams of hundreds. Tycho Brahe may not have been a fundamental theorist, but I can think of some deep thinkers who were dependent on Brahe's results!!!

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Were the Soviets "American" or "European"? By the classification above, they would end up "American".

[@TheMachian]

However, the most important nuclear physics laboratory in Cambridge, directed by the tireless Rutherford, lost its best collaborators before his death in 1937. Some of them immigrated to America, while others, like Pyotr Kapitza, were involuntarily repatriated to Stalin's Soviet Union. There, by the way, conditions for science were hardly better than in Nazi Germany: physics was valued, if at all, for the purposes of weapons development. In 1937, for example, the mathematician and theologian Pavel Florensky was sentenced to camp imprisonment and finally to death for spreading “counterrevolutionary propaganda”. Guess what was meant by that: He had written a monograph on Einstein's theory of relativity. Russian nuclear physicists who later refused to participate in bomb development were arrested and deported.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@TheMachian You are repeating anti-Soviet propaganda. The USSR was a million times better for physics than N*zi Germany, because it produced incredible research. The He4 experiments (like the infinitely spinning superfluid in a tank turret, or the one with disks counter-rotating in Helium through the phase transition (the something something somethingShvilli experiment), those were going on DURING the war, with the Germans on the edge of Moscow. Relativity was never counter-revolutionary, it was a more popular subject inside the USSR than outside. Stop listening to right wing nonsense.

[@TheMachian]

I am not talking about the Soviet union on general, I am talking about the specific historic period, under Stalin. And I do not blame the scientists for their political leadership. My statement about Florenski was documented. Thanks for the info regarding He-4, was not aware of that.

[@greggstrasser5791]

@@TheMachian The comments on this channel are interesting. I don’t know that there is another channel on this level that receives so many negative & insulting comments.

[@110Nikita]

All the quantum research takes place in secret military facilities. We have made major advances that people are not aware of yet.

[@TheMachian]

Possible, but speculation. The best people usually don't like to work for the military 8with exceptions).

[@donaldkasper8346]

Early science was observations explained by formulas. Then all that was discovered. Then the question went to well why do these equations explain anything, a much harder set of questions. What are the constants these great men came up with? Fudge factors to make equations work to pretend understanding when there was none. Their flaws come from the fact that temperature, distance, and time are human created, made up concepts, not things discovered in nature.

[@SkyDarmos]

The "H" in honest is not pronounced.

[@brianmoore3659]

As a outsider to the physics community i agree with most of your view points. I’ve listened or watched many of your talks and i get where your coming from per say, but I struggle to understand what your solution is. I think after pointing out the problems for so long it becomes more of a nagging nancy type situation. Whats the point if you don’t break thru with a corrected path yourself? You basically become what your complaining about ✅

[@matterasmachine]

I can provide alternative which is pure logic based.

[@gilian2587]

This... is an interesting perspective. This seems a direct rebellion to the 'shut up and calculate' philosophy that I read about coming out of the Manhatten Project (and perhaps I'm misattributing it). The conditions that you describe should allow for fertile ground for you to develop additional fundamental physics, yourself; though, right? There is opportunity here, if you are correct.