With all due respect, I disagree. Her philosophical starting point is that the world exists, independently of if and how we measure it or not. However, our entire perception of the world is based on measurements, and how we measure fundamentally defines what we perceive. For instance, if you only have a watch that shown minutes, not seconds, then you could never measure how quick, say, the wings of a bird go. You would have no concept of times shorter than a minute ( a bit like with the tree in the forest, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest)

In my view, quantum physics is the most honest theory so far, in that it acknowledges and includes the effect of how we measure things. It is well possible that, in the future, we will come up with a theory that is better than quantum theory. But not because it includes the measurement process. That's a perfectly fine feature of it.

Peter

Her next video will feature arguments for why the earth is flat.

I've tried to watch her videos and click off after a few seconds each time. I don't like her attention seeking pseudoscience act.

1 hour ago, RichieFly said:

I've tried to watch her videos and click off after a few seconds each time. I don't like her attention seeking pseudoscience act.

Her style may not be to everyone's liking, but she is legit. She had a long career as a theoretical physicist, and I haven't seen anything in her videos that I would see as wrong. That includes the video above: she just speculates that quantum mechanics may not be the ultimate theory. Given that we had many very successful theories in the past that were ultimately superseded by a better one, I would not be surprised if some publishes a better theory tomorrow. That happened to the brightest people, including Newton and Einstein.

Fun fact: if you have watched Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer movie, there is a scene where Oppenheimer meets Niels Bohr and later says "How often do you meet a person who proved Einstein wrong". This refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr–Einstein_debates

 

I understand that quantum mechanics has plenty of anomalies. I only have anecdotal knowledge of the subject. But today we still see these things in the context set up by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Its fair to say the two biggest names in Philosophy of Science in the 20th century. Makes me think of the notion of the Grand Unified Theory. I don't think that there is much talk about that using that phraseology much anymore. My favourite story that I often recall is the Michelson Morley experiment to measure the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous aether. That was in 1887 or there abouts. At that time Physics was all but over but for a few lose ends this being one of them but that experiment basically falsified the paradigm of Newtonian Physical which had reigned for 400 years. From point of view of the philosopher science is very peculiar indeed. In Newton space is an absolute and time is an absolute. I'm pretty sure that Einstein must have read Kants Critique of Pure Reason to get where he ended up. Personally I've always believe that symmetry and this sign "=" is at the root of the problem. I don't think physics is ever going beyond where it is today. We have just about reached the limit of what it is possible to describe about the objects of our experience in a pure physics way.

Although she is highly intelligent, I don't trust her. Because in one of her videos she argued that America and Europe do not need to design and build super high speed ballistic missiles. Because the high speed nuclear weapons, like one other nation already has, would be arriving so fast we could not destroy their weapons in time. And therefore it would be a waste of money to develop our own. 

While that's true, it is irrelevant. The point is that we would have time to launch our own high speed weapons, if we have them. Therefore the value of us having them too, is for a deterrent. She spent a whole video on this subject of how useless and costly these weapons would be for us to develop, and never mentioned the tremendous value of having a deterrent to discourage nuclear war even starting in the first place.

14 hours ago, RichieFly said:

Her next video will feature arguments for why the earth is flat.

I've tried to watch her videos and click off after a few seconds each time. I don't like her attention seeking pseudoscience act.

 

I'd hardly associate Sabine with pseudoscience. And she's the last person on the planet to tell you the Earth is flat. 

The earth is nominally a flat lumpy plain!😕

2 hours ago, FBW737 said:

The earth is nominally a flat lumpy plain!😕

Plain.... are you saying its not decorated or elaborate? 🤔

46 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Plain.... are you saying its not decorated or elaborate? 🤔

know I just kant spill

Personally, I find Sabina Hossenfelder's commentary on physics excellent. Particularly for the the casually interested. Typically expert physicist won't let on anything other than everything in the field is spectacular and hunky dory. Not so and Sabina spills the beans. That's because she's honest. Don't forget Credentials and Character are not the same thing!🤪

 

10 hours ago, FBW737 said:

Personally, I find Sabina Hossenfelder's commentary on physics excellent. Particularly for the the casually interested. Typically expert physicist won't let on anything other than everything in the field is spectacular and hunky dory. Not so and Sabina spills the beans. That's because she's honest. Don't forget Credentials and Character are not the same thing!

Wow, that's a vicious attack on an entire discipline. I have to admit, though, that I would have difficulties to refute all her points. Good thing I am not a particle physicist 🙂

19 hours ago, FBW737 said:

know I just kant spill

 

Yus, will I dis spell weigh butter thn ew. 

On 7/31/2023 at 4:04 AM, martin-w said:

I'd hardly associate Sabine with pseudoscience.

Wow, you're on a first name basis with her.

Do you actually know her?

Just curious.

Dave

40 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Wow, you're on a first name basis with her.

Do you actually know her?

Just curious.

Dave

 

 

No, its just easier than typing or saying  Hossenfelder...  

Any more questions? 

 

Edited August 1, 20232 yr by martin-w