ASR without the A. Science news without the BS

[Cbdb2]

Weekly science news from a Phd in quantum physics.

https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder

And sometimes funny too.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

She's also a musician, and yes with a sense of humor.

Personally, I think the cat is dead.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Sabine Hossenfelder’s videos are required watching in my house

 

[JSmith]

Sabine Hossenfelder’s videos are required watching in my house

Agree and same here actually, along with PBS Space Time.


JSmith

 

[Ken1951]

Personally, I think the cat is dead.

Heretic!

 

[JSmith]

Personally, I think the cat is dead.

There is no cat...

Good to see Sabine is a Trekkie too.


JSmith

 

[Rednaxela]

Cool channel I didn’t know about, thanks!

 

[voodooless]

Yes! I really like the no-nonsense and satirical way she does her videos. I also like her view on science, basically calling out her whole field of theoretical physics to stop the nonsense and get on actually figuring stuff out.

 

[dpturner]

ASR is primarily a text-based site. Some videos, sure. Personally, I prefer reading over watching. For "science news without the bs", I recommend sciencenews.org. Actually, I've subscribed to the print version for decades, but visit the website when there is breaking news that I don't want to wait for.

 

[kemmler3D]

I also like her view on science, basically calling out her whole field of theoretical physics to stop the nonsense and get on actually figuring stuff out.

I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that, because - let's be honest here - who among us is actually qualified to critique the contemporary practice of theoretical physics? I think she actually is, but precious few people in her audience are prepared to judge whether her critiques are fair.

I think she's identified (as many others have, for years) a very big problem in academia with regard to perverse incentives around publishing and funding. However, I have a feeling that's she's unfairly singling out theoretical physics for this, i.e. blaming the wrong people. The physicists didn't come up with this system of perverse incentives, MBAs infiltrating academia and potato-IQ politicians did.

What's problematic about her critiques is they get traction in the press with people who have a general anti-science stance in the first place, they will point to her content as evidence that science as a whole is a fraud and waste of money, which as I'm sure we'll agree here, it very much isn't. Science in the US is already under-funded and abused as it is, I don't think her screeds about theoretical physics will make any of the problems she's identified anything but worse.

 

[voodooless]

I'm actually pretty uncomfortable with that, because - let's be honest here - who among us is actually qualified to critique the contemporary practice of theoretical physics? I think she actually is, but precious few people in her audience are prepared to judge whether her critiques are fair.

I think she's identified (as many others have, for years) a very big problem in academia with regard to perverse incentives around publishing and funding. However, I have a feeling that's she's unfairly singling out theoretical physics for this, i.e. blaming the wrong people. The physicists didn't come up with this system of perverse incentives, MBAs infiltrating academia and potato-IQ politicians did.

What's problematic about her critiques is they get traction in the press with people who have a general anti-science stance in the first place, they will point to her content as evidence that science as a whole is a fraud and waste of money, which as I'm sure we'll agree here, it very much isn't. Science in the US is already under-funded and abused as it is, I don't think her screeds about theoretical physics will make any of the problems she's identified anything but worse.

So what’s your conclusion here: stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong?

And yes, her critiques are about theoretical physics. That’s here field of expertise and experience. Hardly a surprise.

 

[samsa]

So what’s your conclusion here: stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong?

And yes, her critiques are about theoretical physics. That’s here field of expertise and experience. Hardly a surprise.

I think you'll find that the professional theoretical physicists find her borderline crackpot. Of course, you might respond that that's self-serving on their part. So I'll link to computer scientist (and quantum computing expert) Scott Aaronson instead. See, e.g., here and here.

 

[voodooless]

I think you'll find that the professional theoretical physicists find her borderline crackpot.

Well, aren’t they all?

Of course, you might respond that that's self-serving on their part. So I'll link to computer scientist (and quantum computing expert) Scott Aaronson instead. See, e.g., here and here.

How is this not self serving? Both articles go a long way misrepresenting what she said, glossing over main criticism with a single dismissive line.

 

[JSmith]

borderline crackpot

JSmith

 

[kemmler3D]

Well, aren’t they all?

How is this not self serving? Both articles go a long way misrepresenting what she said, glossing over main criticism with a single dismissive line.

she then reassures the viewer that it’s no problem: superdeterministic conspiracies will only appear when quantum mechanics would’ve predicted a Bell inequality violation or the like. Crucially, she never explains the mechanism by which superdeterminism, once allowed into the universe (including into macroscopic devices like computers and random number generators), will stay confined to reproducing the specific predictions that quantum mechanics already told us were true, rather than enabling ESP or telepathy or other mischief. This is stipulated, never explained or derived.

Do you understand why this bit pretty clearly outlines why and how she's a crackpot? Her contention is functionally equivalent to saying that magic elves are interfering with our experiments to produce a certain result.

 

[voodooless]

Do you understand why this bit pretty clearly outlines why and how she's a crackpot? Her contention is functionally equivalent to saying that magic elves are interfering with our experiments to produce a certain result.

Like I said… misrepresentation. You can make anyone sound like a crackpot this way.

 

[krabapple]

it's fun two watch two 'outsiders' debating (though Sabine is less an outsider than Scott). But:

Here's Scott:

if a future circular collider were built, and if it indeed just found a desert, I think the balance would tilt pretty strongly toward Sabine’s position—that is, toward declining to build an even bigger and more expensive collider after that.

but what makes him thinks the high energy particle physics 'lobby' would agree? Wouldn't they just say it means , we need to go even BIGGER?

 

[egellings]

ASR is primarily a text-based site. Some videos, sure. Personally, I prefer reading over watching. For "science news without the bs", I recommend sciencenews.org. Actually, I've subscribed to the print version for decades, but visit the website when there is breaking news that I don't want to wait for.

Same for me with the magazine. Been a subscriber for over 50 years now.

 

[kemmler3D]

Like I said… misrepresentation. You can make anyone sound like a crackpot this way.

Here's a paper she wrote in favor of the idea.

Rethinking Superdeterminism

Quantum mechanics has irked physicists ever since its conception more than 100 years ago. While some of the misgivings, such as it being unintuitive, are merely aesthetic, quantum mechanics has one serious shortcoming: it lacks a physical description of the measurement process. This “measurement...

www.frontiersin.org

No, she doesn't actually talk about magic elves, but most people (rightly, in my opinion) view the idea as something like magic elves.

If one is, by contrast, willing to accept the consequences of realism, reductionism, and determinism, one is led to a theory in which the prepared state of an experiment is never independent of the detector settings.

Let's not mince words - the nobel prize in physics was most recently awarded to people who have proved this idea wrong. She is a crackpot. Her attacks on the field of theoretical physics are a pretty unsurprising reaction by someone who has been cast out by said field as a crackpot, much like the audiophools of the world attack Amir.

The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It

Elegant experiments with entangled light have laid bare a profound mystery at the heart of reality

www.scientificamerican.com

The structure of her argument is the same that creationists (calling themselves proponents of "intelligent design") use. They find something science has yet to explain, take this as proof that science will never explain it, and skydive into that logical gap with a parachute made of their own wild-ass, much less plausible theory.

 

[tomtoo]

Why is this world so fu....ing complicated?
I understand Einstein, you have to not love the quantum world. But...., its how it is. Dont panic!