A German theoretical physicist named S abine Hossenfelder runs a YouTube channel called Science Without the Gobbledygook and writes books. She studied mathematics at the Goethe Universitt and went on to study particle physics at the PhD level. She leads a group of people studying quantum gravity. Her second book, Existential physics: A scientist's guide to life's biggest questions, came out in August.
In the book, you ask the physicists if they are religious. I tried to be religious when I was young. I went to church with my friends even though my parents were not Christians. The singing, the social events were enjoyable for me. I couldn't believe that God existed.
At school, you didn't like physics. The way it was taught was what made it possible. We were supposed to do a sloppy reconstruction of an experiment that had been done before by other people. I didn't think it was very interesting. When I learned how differential equations work, I was fascinated by physics. I came to physics because I was trying to figure out how much you can do with math to understand nature. I don't fit into any specific area of physics because I have this overview attitude. I don't know what the benefits of mathematics are.
It’s very niche, this whole multiverse thing. Those people are really confused about what science can actually do
The main message I wanted to convey was that we are painting a very one-sided picture of physics in our education and in the popular science press. How does the universe work is a big question. How did things start? What do we make of this world?
Religion masquerading as science under the guise of mathematics is the subject of a lot of research in physics. There are a few areas where the foundations of physics blur into religion, but physicists don't notice because they're not paying attention The philosophy of science is lacking in education. For example, the most commonly accepted story about the beginning of the universe is the big bang, and to some extent this is just the simplest way to add inflation, which is an exponential phase of expansion. It could have been a big bounce or it could have been a collision of the two. All of these ideas are compatible with what we have. The kind of idea that evidence doesn't say anything for or against is called a scientific idea.
It is difficult to say that God created the universe. The theories that physicists work with are mathematical in nature while the God hypothesis is not.
You don't have a lot of time for it. Another one of those ideas is why not. If you want to believe that there are infinite copies of you with small alterations, you can do so if you want. It's a waste of time if you want to make progress in understanding natural law because you can't test it
I can't ask Stephen how he came to believe we are in a multiverse. The popular science press exaggerates the number of people in the foundations of physics because they are very prominent. This is a very niche thing. People are confused about what science can do The multiverse must exist because they have a theory that predicts some things that agree with what we observe. The conclusion is that all the mathematics that appears in this theory has to exist in some way. This isn't how it happens. Reality has been assigned to some mathematical expressions. You can't back it up with a scientific argument.
I would like to know which physicists you hold in the highest regard, because you are very strict when assessing other scientists' work. Everyone else will dislike me if you print this. Roger Penrose has done a lot of amazing things and I admire him. He has criticized some of the trends in the foundations of physics. He puts forward some ideas that are fairly out-there, like the idea that consciousness plays a role in the human brain, or the idea that the collapse of the universe is caused by a phenomenon called gravity. All of it is very original.
Elon Musk is trying out new things, and that’s good. I just wish he would do it a little less destructively
You wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian in September about physicists inventing new particles that provoked a lot of debate, and your argument was that it's a really bad scientific strategy to just invent some mathematics, then proclaim we have to go and test it when there's no reason it should It's not working because there are so many particles. In the past 40 years, what has come out of it? It is not a bad amount. Think about something better. I worry that we always talk about how science is self-correcting, but it doesn't seem to be happening They are attempting the same thing over and over again.
One reader said that even though there was no low-hanging fruit, there was still fruit to be found. It is1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556 is1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556 If you look at the evidence, it seems like it agrees with me. It doesn't work. I don't make very high demands. Please use your brain.
You follow a lot of people on the social networking site. If it were to die, what would be lost? I have made friends on the site and it would be a shame if it were to die. This is how it happens with internet startup. I think that Musk is experimenting with new things and that is good. I wish he would be a little slower and a little more careful. He doesn't seem to be the kind of person to be careful.
I usually use it to clear out my head when I'm stuck with something. I have to focus on something else. Everyone needs something to do.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
