91–100 of 109 posts
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be true if young scientists wouldn’t continuously make successful predictions based on cosmological principle among other observable effects of the general relativity and standard model. Make observable prediction, coherent thesis, then we’ll talk. Of course our models are not perfect, but it is best we have. Physics so far never dealt in “fundamental truths”, just good enough models. So far, this is best…
I'd argue that Einstein in particular cared a lot about "fundamental truths". Not everyone can be Einstein, but I'm glad some people care about asking deeper questions.
“ all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
The best we can ever say about science is that it is useful, that’s what truth means in science, that it produces accurate predictions. Truth in any deeper sense is a matter for philosophers.
The fun question is then: is the throat of the black hole that contains our universe also in our universe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also call things polintelcom and codenames like eschelon and prism, doesnt mean it’s great practice for us Btw ESCHELON and Five Eyes coordination existed for so long and people only woke up when Snowden revealed prism
the name is echelon
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Einstein in particular cared a lot about "fundamental truths". Not everyone can be Einstein, but I'm glad some people care about asking deeper questions.
He cared about fundamental truths, but he didn’t think we had them. “ all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” The best we can ever say about science is that it is useful, that’s what truth means in science, that it produces accurate predictions. Truth in any deeper sense is a matter for philosophers.
If you look at what he did, he wanted to figure out what is true. General relativity answered Newton's "metaphysical" question about how gravity could act on bodies at a distance.
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
She might be right but, as of now, the evidence shows that she is probably not right. But as with everything, contrarian point of view is always popular on the internet. And we all want be in the know (have some secret knowledge) thus posts like this are popular. So if she is really right we will feel like winners - if not, who cares: it is internet.
What I'd like to see more of is, alright smarty pants, what's your alternate theory and where is your superior evidence, and how is it more useful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Her music videos are also awesome :)
Thanks for the tip. Her current music video channel [0] and a playlist [1] of her older music videos on her science channel. Some of them are her own songs, others are covers. I’m currently enjoying "Cassandra (Prophet of the Dark)" [2] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPtRwW9i43BXbCRQa7BJaiA [1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5ckD-v9Ux3T... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0k0WfMSi0
She also mentions Julian Barbour, who has apparently posited a theory about how time is not a necessary cosmological dimension as well. Quite a rabbit hole. I can see why people get into this.
> Two years ago, I told you about a paper by Subir Sarkar and his colleagues, that showed if one analyses the supernovae data correctly, without assuming that the cosmological principle holds on too short distances, then the evidence for dark energy disappears. That paper has been almost entirely ignored by other scientists. Is this a case of science advancing one funeral at a time? We have to wait for the dark energ…
I think this is an aside to what you're asking, but "science advances one funeral at a time" was a clever slogan and not an empirically tested hypothesis.
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
She comes into the field from a mathematical background. In that sense she is an outsider.
Any time dissenting physics/astronomy opinions show up on here, it's always Sabine Hossenfelder. Is she a lone wolf or the face of a larger community?
She might be right but, as of now, the evidence shows that she is probably not right. But as with everything, contrarian point of view is always popular on the internet. And we all want be in the know (have some secret knowledge) thus posts like this are popular. So if she is really right we will feel like winners - if not, who cares: it is internet.