Yes, that was a nice example of Hossenfelder's MANY throw-away one-liners! The effect of her swift, deadpan delivery is deliciously close to that of Sally Phillips who plays Minna Häkkinen, the "Prime Minister of Finland," on the show called VEEP (granted that what we hear in this case is technically a very mild and pleasant German accent, instead of a faux-Finnish accent).
Trees getting old like humans, #WithOrWithoutYou fertilizing. Too much fertilizers can even kill plants, as I had to observe planting a chestnut in a pot, adding quite many white small balls gotten from father's farm. Was lill boy back then. Also, trees rott at some point of time; recently killing a 2-year old girl in Germany. Mother buried, too, but survived. Therefore : Don't urinstate you mark, if already done by others.
As a very recent subscriber, I'm on catch-up with your posts and only came across this one today. I find it incredibly useful, though not for use in understanding science, for I'm not a scientist, I'm an architect and architectural writer. I'll explain. I've been trying for some time to find an explanation of the processes that certain architects employ in designing buildings whereby they are disinclined to examine those processes theoretically. The usual reason they give for this is that to do so risks the exposure of the muse and its immediate departure. Consequently, they rely on iterative practice to possibly refine their work rather than through analysis of that practice to arrive more certainly at refinement and improvement. I've always wanted challenge this but never quite had the argumentation. Now I understand that what those silent architects are doing is first, applying the the meta-inductive argument; second, the no alternative argument; and third, taking advantage of the serendipitous unexpected explanatory coherence. My thanks (as an architect) for your putting it graphically and clearly.
Your right and left brain functions are so evenly balanced that I have to wonder if you're even human ... everything that you have made available for us earthlings to understand better is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. You are a rarity in this world of science vs nonsense (I was going to say non-science but auto correct got it right for a change).
Brilliant analysis. It strikes me that Occam's Razor also belongs on this list (unless that is logically entailed by something already on your list--I didn't try to work that out).
The theory stated in 3:04 is only not self-consistent if you keep it to 2 dimensions... if you find a 3rd to express it, perhaps they don't overlap & they spiral upward
Thanks for sparing me the headache ;) I much appreciating the social dynamics and fashions in the filtering of consideration-worthy ideas, and the mathematically-based limit of consideration particular to physics. The unification of quantum and the relative you seek is not an essentially mathematical theory. It is a conceptual description which explains the context in which the energies of existence express, giving rise to phenomena which behave in accordance with both those mathematical approaches, and even some of string theory. From that description, observational discrepancies with the fine points of those theories, the dark matter and energy conundrum, the arrow of time and other puzzles could develop good (reality-testing) experiments from a base of understanding. If the modern (social and philosophical) science had been in play back in the days of epicyclic maths of planetary motion, we would be claiming epicyclic maths as a "successful theory" as we added circles to tweak for observations. The physical-mechanical explanation of orbits was the useful thing. Not more and more accurate maths. A simple physical-mechanical explanation which does not offend true philosophical basics (somewhat distant and different from what passes for philosophy in the modern west) or experiments thus far … has been staring you physicists in the face for some time now. Some recent papers have even made me suspicious that some of you know, but are embarrassed to mention it for those social reasons. From what you say, it does look like an idea far simpler than orbits, which explains orbits, clarifies stringy maths and predicts probabilistic particle behaviours will be staring physicists in the face for a long time yet ;)
Curious what role, if any, do Noether's theorem(s), which binds the ( foundational?) conservation laws to symmetries, contribute to the symmetry/beauty fetish in the foundation of physics the last 40 years or so?
Thanks for this excellent presentation. I have paid attention to your comments, in other videos, on the limitations on the effectiveness of science is being done today. So your opinions here are familiar. One thing I noticed in your slides on how theories are improved by taking into account facts that are not explained by theories and how that leads to adjusting the theories to fit more facts. This reminds me of the pitfalls of attempting to create interpolation equations. If you fit a curve to a third order equation, you get good results, but if you try a 4th or 5th order equation, you get a mess of wildly flowing loops between your sample data from the original curve. Does not theory creation just go off in the weeds quickly by tacking on more fixes?
13:29 - concerning question "Why ... should we rely on it?". There are purely statistical methods for assessing confidence that some function that fit known observations will work well with new observations. These methods were originally developed as a mathematical foundation for machine learning. And the conclusion is that the more existing ovservations our function fits well (meaning the larger the training sample), the greater our confidence is. But the more complex our theory, the less confidence we have.
It is so generous of you to conduct a formal and clear analisys of a somewhat convoluted - and partially subjective - description of the scientific methodologies, as found in the book you reviewed. I believe there are two main different types of philosophers around. The first type, will use words, and only words, to communicate his/her thoughts, while considering the use of math as an unnecessary and elitist sophism. The second type, are the philosophers (not many) who learned that words - in any combination - can only express a very limited percentage of Nature phenomenons and properties, and can only describe a minuscule range of all nuances of human thoughts. It starts with the formal analisys of language, and ends with the phylosopher learning to use the necessary high level mathematics. You may know the hardest task of all - to express one and one only meaning with the use of words. I can play thoughts of deductions, inferences and meta analisys but - it will add exactly nothing to the phylosophical discourse. For the chronicles, for how fascinating string theory may seem, I don't believe it is bringing much to the field of physics, as I see it as more of a mathematical tool to analyse some profound hypotheses in the sector of quantum physics. Regards - by a phylosopher.
@@georgeholloway3981 Mathematics and formal logic are two separate things. All respectable Phylosophers have good knowledge of logic - which is yes complex, but it is set in stone matter. Logic can explain the use of commutative and antiriflessive properties used in reasoning - when you add one number to another, as an example. Things have changed lately. A phylosopher today must have working knowledge of QM and GR if we have to deal with their effects in the field of human knowledge.
Dr. Hossenfelder, please select a few of your growing legion of followers and have them clean up the subtitles that appear along with your very valuable and interesting talks. The errors in the subtitles are distracting. This is a wonderful series!
Leaving aside the cost in headaches, I found that this much referenced book on Amazon would cost me quite some Big $$... kind of a problem for hesitant laypersons who no longer have ready access to a great university library. Perhaps this is understandable looking at the big picture, but it might be good to see a competently executed 'Dawid for Dummies' in popular trade paperback or eBook form, not that I'm holding my breath in anticipation of this one! Nice ring to that, anyway. Maybe 'Lost in Math' will fill the bill nicely... and then some??
Couple of books that you may find interesting - not necessarily covering the ground precisely, but... "The trouble with physics" by Lee Smolin and "Popper vs. Kuhn" by Steve Fuller. Both cheap and interesting reading (at least for me they were). Enjoy! BTW - there is now a softcover edition of Dawid's book going for ~$30. Not super-cheap, but perhaps affordable?
Another great video. I like the use of theory-space. This subject gets to the heart of scientific development(scientific method). We live in the age of information(and discovery). So why would there not be a great single resource for dealing with scientific development. Maybe a website that that offers it's users a way to know what is scientifically accepted as truths, what is and is not proven, a way to share and refine theories and tools for modeling theories.
Based on Dyson’s argument, what if rather than there is one theory, there is a composite of theories of everything that are not simply unresolved but unresolvable?
Hypothesis pre-selection? I'm a retired biologist(Ma)/engineer(BS), worked in aerospace my whole career designing life support and space station experiments. We worked in the real world doing real things. At UC Riverside I took as prerequisites Philosophy 101 and 102. I cannot fully explain how these classes should be required for all BS, MS. or Phds candidates. Einstein said it best when he described the new generation of science students and scientists as people who have studied thousands of trees and have never seen a forest in its fullness.
It's probably true of many other things - the times when a very knowledgeable person could have assimilated and understood pretty much "everything known" are long gone (and in any case were only ever there in restricted geographical areas - the Europeans knew little of India or China, and viceversa - never mind the Americas or Australasia).
I'm not an expert in philsci but it seems to me "meta-inductive inference" is already covered by the scientific method, it is a type of parsimony principle, which can be given a foundation in Bayesian statistics. Elliot Sober is a world expert on this. sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers
ML is just linear least squares on steroids. It will never give one any deep insight, since it is not at all based on the discovery of principles. One good fit is as good as another, but one principle is not as good as another.
Interesting. Perhaps such a meta-science can be useful to manage more efficiently the available scientific capital (in money and intelligence). A few comments: 1. How serious is it when two successful theories are inconsistent in regions beyond the reach of scientific testing? If one is an antirealist it doesn’t matter; perhaps physical phenomenology is less elegant than one would like. On the other hand making the effort and finding hypotheses which integrate the two theories may suggest experimental tests one had not thought of before. 2. Testing is not the only way for accepting a new hypothesis as an improvement. Past tests provide as with a set of data points. A hypothesis (a mathematical model) which compresses the data set more than a previous theory is an improvement for it captures a deeper order present in those data points. It is in this sense a “simpler” theory, even though perhaps more complex in its mathematical structure. And, again, the new improved hypothesis may suggest experimental tests one had not thought of before. 3. I often wonder whether one can use AI to advance fundamental physics: Using known techniques ask the AI to search the theory space and find mathematical structures which compress (i.e. model) a given set of test data. In principle it should be possible to start with, say, a data set about gravitational phenomena and observe the AI discover Newtonian mechanics as one possible solution, and then discover GR as a better one, and then perhaps GX as a better solution then GR (better in the sense of #2). Or perhaps discover G1, G2, G3 as alternative solutions as good as GR. Do the same for a set of quantum data to get Q1, Q2, Q3 theories. (Imagine the G’s and Q’s as different curves in your graphs which overlap in the regions of the data points. At this stage it would be interesting to compare how productive the two data sets are in producing good solutions.) Now, assuming that many equivalent theories are found, check how well they combine. Thus if Gi is consistent with Qj then you have a theory of quantum gravity, albeit without a unified mathematical paradigm. Alternatively one can of course combine the two data sets (for gravitational and quantum phenomena respectively) and see whether the AI can find an integrated solution. In short, #3 suggests an alternative research program for fundamental physics. It will still be hard work to program the AI appropriately (the algorithmic space for AI is even more open than the theory space for physics). And one would have to decide what mathematical tools to feed the AI with - or perhaps have the AI do mathematical research also (we know from history that pure math has often found application in physics). I have the feeling that this is the way forward.
Hossenfelder: That's my summay of David's book and now I have some comments on this. Back country empiricist: I have now piled up all these fuel cans and we're now going to fire it up
The leftover - “Meta-inductive argument: It has worked previously” - should be scientifically valid if possible to test, and strengthened if it consistently gives the same result - no matter if understood or not. (The apple tends to hit my head). However, if the room for it to be a result is at the same time expanded, it’s not. This is at least my problem with string theory, that randomness one should have a statistically probability grip on, is lost in expansions.
Sorry for my words but I do have to say that that is a bloody brilliant exposure of the numptyness of philosophy. I think String Theorists and Philosophers were made for each other, in their ever continuing nonsense. That is not to say that a Philosopher doesn't write a decent book once in a while, nor does it mean that transforming a mathematical physical problem into its 'Dual' in string theory and utilising their methods does not bring unforeseen easier solutions. I am just saying that both have minor successes.
Well then, I guess it's too bad that the whole of physics rests upon this thing called the 'scientific method', which on its turn is based off this set of ideas called 'empiricism', which in turn is philosophy. Physicists may not call themselves 'natural philosophers' nowadays, but what apparently they don't teach at schools anymore is that the reasons for that have got more to do with marketing than epistemology
@@alphalunamare Nope - but apparently that's what you're doing in your OP. Sorting what is and is not relevant within a given scientific context is in itself a philosophical exercise - like the multiverse with its 'probability measure problem', which betrays the illiteracy of the proponents who push for grants in order to 'solve' it...
If I had to make a choice between a) a theory that is true and b) a theory that works, I'm gonna choose b every time (and twice on Sundays, unless it's football season, then I'll be watching football on Sunday). In the end, it doesn't matter if string theory is true or not, if it doesn't work.
What do you think it means for something to be true? For something to be true it must predict a measurement. Your senses are instruments of measurement too. There is no such thing as a philosophical meaning of real. The only way you can determine something is real is through the same process science uses. Patterns in measurements that predict new measurements. That is the only real that exists. a) and b) are identical.
Sabine I know You will not answer this or all you Scientist , but what do you think about Bob Lazor ???? Me myself I know that his mechanics on the device [UFO] ship are correct to everything way I know. ?
Unexpected explanatory coherence may not be social in nature or just luck. It may be the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' at work. A deeper truth uncovered like theorems following from axioms.
A great review. Before I retired, I did research in AI, and in the early days, philosophers would line up to say they could prove AI is impossible - and even wrote books about that. They had read about Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and from it they concluded since AI is based upon logic and logical reasoning, AI had to be incomplete and inconsistent. Hence, AI is not possible. (Forgetting that Gödel’s result applies to the whole of mathematics and computing.) Of course, there is more to AI than pure logic (probability theory, for example, and computer vision is based on calculation more than logic). The philosophers had set up a straw man to knock down. And if their arguments held for AI, they would also hold for Natural Intelligence. I doubt whether NI is either complete or consistent. 😄 Subsequently, I have always been very skeptical of philosophical pronouncements.
Why do you think probability and calculations are different than logic? Logic is a subsystem of any system. When you calculate probability, and then you explain it, people can understand it because it has logic ( or complex logic ). You can play with semantics, but logic is not something different than those.
I have a problem on the assesment of ideas to get theories. To me the process is somewhat flawed today as the major understanding how universe works is based on a boogieman theory. When observations do not follow the theory it is not customary to fudge a boogieman into the theory to get the observation to follow the theory. But cosmology has come up with two boogiemans: dark matter and energy. When someone gets an idea that removes those boogiemans from the theory it is never accepted as these boogiemans are sacred.
I wish this type of cultural analysis wasn't referred to as "philosophy". Just the word raises my hackles expecting unscientific magical thinking. Fascinating questions in the end.
Seems that the foundamental problem lies in the ego of the scientist and people around them... Maybe lessons on how manage their emotions and be free from ego issues could be helpful?
Unless you can do better your judgement on the whole scientific community is very hypocritical. You know, it's very annoying when laypeople (you most probably are one) dip their noses in things they know nothing about. Really, just try to do at least as good as science is doing right now, and then talk.
@@zoltankurti Science is my job, and you made yourselves an example of your point. See: scientists are human beings, nor better nor worse than anyone else. I know because I experience it directly. You would be flabberghasted to know how much bad science there is today, and also how much good science there is that is just money starved out the system. It is called misallocation of resources, and this particular problem is hard to solve because it is mostly driven by politics, so ultimately by human nature. But science will progress, eventually, maybe not as fast as it could ;)
@@pierluigidipietro8097 the criticism presented in this channel is only a concern for the minority of the physics community. If you are some kind of a scientist, you know that the physicists working on quantum gravity/cosmology and similar topics is just a minority. And this rally in the comment sections of this channel never mentiones the non controversial work done by physicists. I think my point stands. What is your research field?
@@pierluigidipietro8097 right. So you must know that for example in your field the main new ideas are not unfalsifiable. Take for example the earths magnetic field, the details of how it forms and how it changes are not entirely clear yet. But you have experiments testing how currents behave in big spinning bodies of conducting fluids, so you can compare new ideas with experiments, and also you can get quite a lot of information about the flows in earth when observing earth quakes.
Aren't some philosophical concerns, esp. induction, obviated by thinking in Bayesian terms? I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow but I'm betting on it. We can debate how much credence past success should impart to a theory but spilling ink over "justifying" the theory seems silly.
Very good. My friends have heard me complain about physicists for years. Everyone else in the midst of renaissance: cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, computer science, etc... Physics/QM? Dead my entire lifetime and they believe things worse than religion. Something needs to change with the dogma in QM.
I heard about thousands of papers that we munch through... and Select! I’m perhaps the one that you need. I’m about as Educated by MORE others than just about anyone. Thousand PhDs taught me by hand. It’s just True! I’m interested in having a go at it. Others will want the job, if I fail, or fail to care. I’m trying to get there and help you. Duane Gruber
Science has to be a systematic attempt to not fool oneself. Testing theory against observation seems like a reasonable plan, considering theories are supposed to model the observations and hopefully make useful predictions. Aristotle was very good at coming up with convincing ideas, so much so that he may have set science back 500 years, because the community was not ready to accept anything that contradicted his models. That took the power of experimental contradictions to get past. I cannot see it every being possible to make a system that churns out new, correct, theorys. Someone will have to think of a new hypothesis, and test it, preferably against reality, as opposed to agreement. That said no matter what their will always be a few that will hold on to a position that is in direct contradiction to new results. Sometimes a field progresses by the old authorities dying off.
The difference between 2+2 , 2times2, and 2^2, is that they all equal 4. Real science is about observation, About questioning observations, and then finding out how to get rich from it while at the same time sending everyone on a wild goose chaise with false information. Math.
Hello :-D QEDqubit from the Deslyxian Dystopia of CyberChaos here ;-) ! Nice talk about Thruth & how (not) to find it Sabine ! "Science" defines (&limits) itself, where it complies to the deal that was made between Descartes & the Church. --only that which is 'physical', "things" we can touch, physicists may discuss, but everthing else, the "spiritual" is left to the church. The difference between 2 Physical Things is NOT itself a physical thing, and thus by definition & for lack of a better word 'spiritual'... (OR is that word 'Energy" or 'Force'?) How can they expect to find a COMPLETE Unification Theory, if they principly exclude HALF ? ...and is Energy in Motion 'Emotion' ? Academic Minds using Tenure and Reputation to Uphold the Principles of the "Scientific Method" .... myeah... did anyone notice that Universities Diversify people instead of Uniting them ? The Scientific Method only work as well as the Academic Minds 'allow' people to think along it's guide-lines. example: Pi vs Tau ... a 'diameter' is used as the Fundamental Basis for a value of One, in the Definition of the CircleConstante. It is not a UNIT.... the UnitVector on a UnitCircle where sqr(x^2+y^2)=1 is (the) ONE in set theory and Numbertheory. Think about it : the TOOL Mechanics use to measure Diameters, do not have 'twillimeter' of 'twinch' scales, just metrics on the UNIT-system. a 'diameter' is a value that measures 2 Units on a UnitCircle, -which is where ALL measured Values get registered on. when Pi is used i n a formula, all UNITS get multiplied by this DIversifying value that is also called one, but measures twice as big. Another ONE that is NOT one, but TWO(2) ! how super intelligent :-s :-p >-< This is where we were Warned NOT to add apples &oranges without making them the same terms. yet when mathematicians do; it's okay. THEN the issue where journalist Jim Holt asked Dawkins & Krauss about the assumed Laws of Physics BEFORE EXISTENCE. UNLESS these LOGIC FLAWS that idiots like me adress to the respectable tenure of Academics, get taken into account, science is a belief-system indoctrinating wrong beliefs, just like any RELIGION does. intelligence should get to the bottom regardless of 'respect'
What it rather than we do not have all the data-that there simply is not a single, but a composite of theories of everything that are not to be resolvable to a single theory
Even if you do not know everything you could have a theory of everything at some point...that is if matter is all there is. But if that was the case we would had a theory of everything a long time ago since creation would be a rather simple construct.
@@fortynine3225 Humans try to use their modes of thinking to wrap up the universe in a neat package using the concepts and ideas that make sense to them.
The Scientific Method is somewhat comparable to the Capitalist political model: It may not be perfect, but of all the alternatives we have tried, it is the best one!
Dr. @Hossenfelder: I have a few questions/comments: While an actual Theory Space would consist of single points for each potential theory (and regions for theories with tweak-able parameters), when you started showing the silver/grey cylinders-representing empirical (observational and/or experimental constraints)-and curves (trajectories) for predictions of a given theory, you, apparently, shifted into a different space, perhaps more appropriately referred to a an Hypothesis Space (configuration→outcome, or “input”→”output” space). The “No Alternative” argument is a fallacious argument: a form of the argument from ignorance type of fallacy. It’s not that there is a “proof” that there is no alternative. It’s only that no alternative is known (or, even, just not considered). Additionally, the “Hypothesis”⇔”Test” form representing the so-called Scientific Method (or Methodology of Science) is extraordinarily oversimplified. However, it does succeed at providing for the “Theory”/“Empirical”(both Observational and Experimental) dichotomy of the scientific process. As I see it, the self-consistency requirement of Theories is, indeed, a part of the methodology of science. Yes, it is a non-empirical part, but, just as reproducibility is an important part of the empirical side of science, I see self-consistency as an important part of the theoretical side.
And that, girls and boys, is how you become a flatard by applying meta-inductive and non alternative arguments, along with unexpected explanatory coherence, whilst not shaving your mental excrecences with Occam's razor...
The possibility of indeterminate chaotic conditions such as Heisenberg Uncertainty would answer the incompatibility, however, possibly setting instance bounds to the trajectory. In the real world, it could model as a car operating with normal functionality on a road, until it leaves the road and hits a tree, or collides with another car. In that general model, an outside vector disturbs the stasis: in the Heisenberg case, a decision. This exposes a fallicy of scientific modelling, the bistable true-false. In reality, we also have a vast domain of ignorance, and the metahypothesis that theory is universal is actually belied by mathematics in its proof of irs own boundedness: there are two sides to a bound, in that case order and dysfunction. The theologian answers that equally empirically in pointing to the rules of nature as evidence of intelligent design. Personally, I've handled sufficient empirical intervention to know that to be true - Einstein's comments apply. We therefore have subclasses to dysfunction: unobserved, undefined, complex (Fourier logic), and anarchic.
. is this the worlds only triple major class? so hilarious advanced accounting, creative writing, physics numpty while the world needs a baker, metallurgist, poet, artist, visionary, animal whisperer, hyperemotional, riddle solver, ideation nova, optimization wizard, did you forget tarot cards and LUCK? Crystal attunement, harmonics sensitive? Power of positive thinking and karmic chakras tired class over. see you tomorrow let's hope. 14:47 bookmark, i wish i had timetraveling clone drone minions
Community Standards are the reason why I kept physics only as a hobby after school and never really tried following a physicist career. It is frustrating to get bad grades or argue with professors for hours or weeks and having to wait 10-20 years until some discovery proves you had been right all along. Some theories are also categorically rejected from the start, because most cannot recognise their phenomenological equivalism with already existing theories and their counter arguments are not thought through or stuck in / derived from the old theories. If teachers, professors or physics graduees are unable to recognize simple isomorphism just because it doesnt fit into their established thought patterns, every hope for cooperating on developing a new theory is already lost before you even try. It's also quiet commonn for people to 'prove' new theory B as wrong, while using arguments C from theory A, which actually never really originate in B and are not even contained there as a derivative. The problem of being unable to advance in physics is not needing more time or decades. It is mostly the fellow scientists hindering the progress or the average low IQ humans have in general. Even the smartest of our race can only guess the sillhouette of the giant mountain towering in front of them, most others are still below believing they are just close to reaching the top. I always considered myself averagely intelligent, but I can guess how most people feel which are a lot smarter than me.
Simple!! stop makinng theories and see the truth you dont know, so use ur reverse engineering technics now we only use one dimesion mathematics not 3d msthamatics which is needed to form the correct result so evolve and seeeeeee
Sabine is a master of understated humor!
Aka German humor... much underrated!
@@sstolarik exactly what i was thinking.
"many people are peeing at the same tree" - that is a phrase worth remembering
Yes, that was a nice example of Hossenfelder's MANY throw-away one-liners!
The effect of her swift, deadpan delivery is deliciously close to that of Sally Phillips who plays Minna Häkkinen, the "Prime Minister of Finland," on the show called VEEP (granted that what we hear in this case is technically a very mild and pleasant German accent, instead of a faux-Finnish accent).
The tree of discovery is not being refreshed by the pee of conformists and bad theorists.
Trees getting old like humans,
#WithOrWithoutYou fertilizing.
Too much fertilizers can even kill
plants, as I had to observe planting a chestnut in a pot,
adding quite many white small balls gotten from father's farm.
Was lill boy back then.
Also, trees rott at some point of time; recently killing a 2-year old girl in Germany. Mother buried, too, but survived.
Therefore : Don't urinstate you mark, if already done by others.
I once heard someone say "This is the popsicle that everyone is licking so this is the one you should lick" lmao
As a very recent subscriber, I'm on catch-up with your posts and only came across this one today. I find it incredibly useful, though not for use in understanding science, for I'm not a scientist, I'm an architect and architectural writer. I'll explain. I've been trying for some time to find an explanation of the processes that certain architects employ in designing buildings whereby they are disinclined to examine those processes theoretically. The usual reason they give for this is that to do so risks the exposure of the muse and its immediate departure. Consequently, they rely on iterative practice to possibly refine their work rather than through analysis of that practice to arrive more certainly at refinement and improvement. I've always wanted challenge this but never quite had the argumentation. Now I understand that what those silent architects are doing is first, applying the the meta-inductive argument; second, the no alternative argument; and third, taking advantage of the serendipitous unexpected explanatory coherence. My thanks (as an architect) for your putting it graphically and clearly.
Your right and left brain functions are so evenly balanced that I have to wonder if you're even human ... everything that you have made available for us earthlings to understand better is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. You are a rarity in this world of science vs nonsense (I was going to say non-science but auto correct got it right for a change).
Thank you for your ongoing integrity.
Christ man!
Hows slavery for integrity.
No democracy.
@@heaven4247 Ask: Who does a person of integrity threaten?
Brilliant analysis. It strikes me that Occam's Razor also belongs on this list (unless that is logically entailed by something already on your list--I didn't try to work that out).
If we accept the No Alternatives Argument we'll stop all progress in science. The last time it was used it was about the teachings of Aristotle.
We will stop all progress in science anyway if it's not possible to test predictions. That argument isn't being made for no reason.
The theory stated in 3:04 is only not self-consistent if you keep it to 2 dimensions... if you find a 3rd to express it, perhaps they don't overlap & they spiral upward
Thanks for sparing me the headache ;)
I much appreciating the social dynamics and fashions in the filtering of consideration-worthy ideas, and the mathematically-based limit of consideration particular to physics.
The unification of quantum and the relative you seek is not an essentially mathematical theory.
It is a conceptual description which explains the context in which the energies of existence express, giving rise to phenomena which behave in accordance with both those mathematical approaches, and even some of string theory.
From that description, observational discrepancies with the fine points of those theories, the dark matter and energy conundrum, the arrow of time and other puzzles could develop good (reality-testing) experiments from a base of understanding.
If the modern (social and philosophical) science had been in play back in the days of epicyclic maths of planetary motion, we would be claiming epicyclic maths as a "successful theory" as we added circles to tweak for observations.
The physical-mechanical explanation of orbits was the useful thing. Not more and more accurate maths.
A simple physical-mechanical explanation which does not offend true philosophical basics (somewhat distant and different from what passes for philosophy in the modern west) or experiments thus far … has been staring you physicists in the face for some time now.
Some recent papers have even made me suspicious that some of you know, but are embarrassed to mention it for those social reasons.
From what you say, it does look like an idea far simpler than orbits, which explains orbits, clarifies stringy maths and predicts probabilistic particle behaviours will be staring physicists in the face for a long time yet ;)
Curious what role, if any, do Noether's theorem(s), which binds the ( foundational?) conservation laws to symmetries, contribute to the symmetry/beauty fetish in the foundation of physics the last 40 years or so?
Thanks for this excellent presentation. I have paid attention to your comments, in other videos, on the limitations on the effectiveness of science is being done today. So your opinions here are familiar. One thing I noticed in your slides on how theories are improved by taking into account facts that are not explained by theories and how that leads to adjusting the theories to fit more facts. This reminds me of the pitfalls of attempting to create interpolation equations. If you fit a curve to a third order equation, you get good results, but if you try a 4th or 5th order equation, you get a mess of wildly flowing loops between your sample data from the original curve. Does not theory creation just go off in the weeds quickly by tacking on more fixes?
13:29 - concerning question "Why ... should we rely on it?". There are purely statistical methods for assessing confidence that some function that fit known observations will work well with new observations. These methods were originally developed as a mathematical foundation for machine learning. And the conclusion is that the more existing ovservations our function fits well (meaning the larger the training sample), the greater our confidence is. But the more complex our theory, the less confidence we have.
It is so generous of you to conduct a formal and clear analisys of a somewhat convoluted - and partially subjective - description of the scientific methodologies, as found in the book you reviewed.
I believe there are two main different types of philosophers around. The first type, will use words, and only words, to communicate his/her thoughts, while considering the use of math as an unnecessary and elitist sophism.
The second type, are the philosophers (not many) who learned that words - in any combination - can only express a very limited percentage of Nature phenomenons and properties, and can only describe a minuscule range of all nuances of human thoughts.
It starts with the formal analisys of language, and ends with the phylosopher learning to use the necessary high level mathematics.
You may know the hardest task of all - to express one and one only meaning with the use of words.
I can play thoughts of deductions, inferences and meta analisys but - it will add exactly nothing to the phylosophical discourse.
For the chronicles, for how fascinating string theory may seem, I don't believe it is bringing much to the field of physics, as I see it as more of a mathematical tool to analyse some profound hypotheses in the sector of quantum physics.
Regards - by a phylosopher.
Philosophers who use mathematics: aren't they logicians? Is Phylosophy the study of plant wisdom by any chance? 😉
@@georgeholloway3981 Mathematics and formal logic are two separate things. All respectable Phylosophers have good knowledge of logic - which is yes complex, but it is set in stone matter. Logic can explain the use of commutative and antiriflessive properties used in reasoning - when you add one number to another, as an example.
Things have changed lately. A phylosopher today must have working knowledge of QM and GR if we have to deal with their effects in the field of human knowledge.
Are there mathematical symbols which have no verbal name or explanation?
Why do I suddenly want Lasagna ? 😺
Cudos, really good video :)
Dr. Hossenfelder, please select a few of your growing legion of followers and have them clean up the subtitles that appear along with your very valuable and interesting talks. The errors in the subtitles are distracting. This is a wonderful series!
Leaving aside the cost in headaches, I found that this much referenced book on Amazon would cost me quite some Big $$... kind of a problem for hesitant laypersons who no longer have ready access to a great university library. Perhaps this is understandable looking at the big picture, but it might be good to see a competently executed 'Dawid for Dummies' in popular trade paperback or eBook form, not that I'm holding my breath in anticipation of this one! Nice ring to that, anyway. Maybe 'Lost in Math' will fill the bill nicely... and then some??
Couple of books that you may find interesting - not necessarily covering the ground precisely, but... "The trouble with physics" by Lee Smolin and "Popper vs. Kuhn" by Steve Fuller. Both cheap and interesting reading (at least for me they were). Enjoy!
BTW - there is now a softcover edition of Dawid's book going for ~$30. Not super-cheap, but perhaps affordable?
Another great video. I like the use of theory-space. This subject gets to the heart of scientific development(scientific method). We live in the age of information(and discovery). So why would there not be a great single resource for dealing with scientific development. Maybe a website that that offers it's users a way to know what is scientifically accepted as truths, what is and is not proven, a way to share and refine theories and tools for modeling theories.
What good are new discoveries Christian government will only hide it
@@heaven4247 Christian government? WTF?!
One problem there not telling.
@@heaven4247 Sure...
Yaa,It's called Singularity join us.
Good video, and also I love Odie saying "It works, bitches!" :)
Based on Dyson’s argument, what if rather than there is one theory, there is a composite of theories of everything that are not simply unresolved but unresolvable?
Hypothesis pre-selection? I'm a retired biologist(Ma)/engineer(BS), worked in aerospace my whole career designing life support and space station experiments. We worked in the real world doing real things. At UC Riverside I took as prerequisites Philosophy 101 and 102. I cannot fully explain how these classes should be required for all BS, MS. or Phds candidates. Einstein said it best when he described the new generation of science students and scientists as people who have studied thousands of trees and have never seen a forest in its fullness.
It's probably true of many other things - the times when a very knowledgeable person could have assimilated and understood pretty much "everything known" are long gone (and in any case were only ever there in restricted geographical areas - the Europeans knew little of India or China, and viceversa - never mind the Americas or Australasia).
To see or not to see the forest, because of all those many trees.
(Den Wald vor lauter Bäumen nicht sehen können. German saying)
I'm not an expert in philsci but it seems to me "meta-inductive inference" is already covered by the scientific method, it is a type of parsimony principle, which can be given a foundation in Bayesian statistics. Elliot Sober is a world expert on this. sober.philosophy.wisc.edu/selected-papers
Das ist ja eine Hammer gute Analyse - Klau ich für Philosophie of science Seminar
Would love to hear your thoughts on how machine learning has allegedly made the traditional scientific method obsolete.
ML is just linear least squares on steroids. It will never give one any deep insight, since it is not at all based on the discovery of principles. One good fit is as good as another, but one principle is not as good as another.
This is a wonderful explication. Would you recommend the book?
Excellent
Interesting. Perhaps such a meta-science can be useful to manage more efficiently the available scientific capital (in money and intelligence). A few comments:
1. How serious is it when two successful theories are inconsistent in regions beyond the reach of scientific testing? If one is an antirealist it doesn’t matter; perhaps physical phenomenology is less elegant than one would like. On the other hand making the effort and finding hypotheses which integrate the two theories may suggest experimental tests one had not thought of before.
2. Testing is not the only way for accepting a new hypothesis as an improvement. Past tests provide as with a set of data points. A hypothesis (a mathematical model) which compresses the data set more than a previous theory is an improvement for it captures a deeper order present in those data points. It is in this sense a “simpler” theory, even though perhaps more complex in its mathematical structure. And, again, the new improved hypothesis may suggest experimental tests one had not thought of before.
3. I often wonder whether one can use AI to advance fundamental physics: Using known techniques ask the AI to search the theory space and find mathematical structures which compress (i.e. model) a given set of test data. In principle it should be possible to start with, say, a data set about gravitational phenomena and observe the AI discover Newtonian mechanics as one possible solution, and then discover GR as a better one, and then perhaps GX as a better solution then GR (better in the sense of #2). Or perhaps discover G1, G2, G3 as alternative solutions as good as GR. Do the same for a set of quantum data to get Q1, Q2, Q3 theories. (Imagine the G’s and Q’s as different curves in your graphs which overlap in the regions of the data points. At this stage it would be interesting to compare how productive the two data sets are in producing good solutions.) Now, assuming that many equivalent theories are found, check how well they combine. Thus if Gi is consistent with Qj then you have a theory of quantum gravity, albeit without a unified mathematical paradigm. Alternatively one can of course combine the two data sets (for gravitational and quantum phenomena respectively) and see whether the AI can find an integrated solution.
In short, #3 suggests an alternative research program for fundamental physics. It will still be hard work to program the AI appropriately (the algorithmic space for AI is even more open than the theory space for physics). And one would have to decide what mathematical tools to feed the AI with - or perhaps have the AI do mathematical research also (we know from history that pure math has often found application in physics). I have the feeling that this is the way forward.
Saw that movie, the good the bad and the undesirable hahaha
There doing ,done all that ,there way ahead . Russia's winning . Because there the good guys now, America
No going to be around.I gus's I won't ether.
Am I the only one who can't close the ad on the screen? Or access the screen size controls etc.?
"Peeing at the same tree..." Oh, I'm using that!
Sweet!
"It works, bitches"
Nothing can ever prepare me for a Sabine video I haven't seen before
Her tone of voice says it all.
She's tired of them fools.
Hossenfelder: That's my summay of David's book and now I have some comments on this.
Back country empiricist: I have now piled up all these fuel cans and we're now going to fire it up
The leftover - “Meta-inductive argument: It has worked previously” - should be scientifically valid if possible to test, and strengthened if it consistently gives the same result - no matter if understood or not. (The apple tends to hit my head). However, if the room for it to be a result is at the same time expanded, it’s not. This is at least my problem with string theory, that randomness one should have a statistically probability grip on, is lost in expansions.
Sorry for my words but I do have to say that that is a bloody brilliant exposure of the numptyness of philosophy. I think String Theorists and Philosophers were made for each other, in their ever continuing nonsense. That is not to say that a Philosopher doesn't write a decent book once in a while, nor does it mean that transforming a mathematical physical problem into its 'Dual' in string theory and utilising their methods does not bring unforeseen easier solutions. I am just saying that both have minor successes.
Well then, I guess it's too bad that the whole of physics rests upon this thing called the 'scientific method', which on its turn is based off this set of ideas called 'empiricism', which in turn is philosophy. Physicists may not call themselves 'natural philosophers' nowadays, but what apparently they don't teach at schools anymore is that the reasons for that have got more to do with marketing than epistemology
@@thstroyur Can you deny that philosophical musings have been fellow travellers to theories of physics in the real world?
@@alphalunamare Nope - but apparently that's what you're doing in your OP. Sorting what is and is not relevant within a given scientific context is in itself a philosophical exercise - like the multiverse with its 'probability measure problem', which betrays the illiteracy of the proponents who push for grants in order to 'solve' it...
@@thstroyur I guess we agree that String Theory is a pile of poop? Let's have a beer before we go head to head -)
@@alphalunamare Oh, hell yeah; fuck SSST 🍺
If I had to make a choice between a) a theory that is true and b) a theory that works, I'm gonna choose b every time (and twice on Sundays, unless it's football season, then I'll be watching football on Sunday). In the end, it doesn't matter if string theory is true or not, if it doesn't work.
What do you think it means for something to be true? For something to be true it must predict a measurement. Your senses are instruments of measurement too. There is no such thing as a philosophical meaning of real. The only way you can determine something is real is through the same process science uses. Patterns in measurements that predict new measurements. That is the only real that exists. a) and b) are identical.
Sabine I know You will not answer this or all you Scientist , but what do you think about Bob Lazor ???? Me myself I know that his mechanics on the device [UFO] ship are correct to everything way I know.
?
Unexpected explanatory coherence may not be social in nature or just luck. It may be the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics' at work. A deeper truth uncovered like theorems following from axioms.
A great review.
Before I retired, I did research in AI, and in the early days, philosophers would line up to say they could prove AI is impossible - and even wrote books about that.
They had read about Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and from it they concluded since AI is based upon logic and logical reasoning, AI had to be incomplete and inconsistent. Hence, AI is not possible. (Forgetting that Gödel’s result applies to the whole of mathematics and computing.)
Of course, there is more to AI than pure logic (probability theory, for example, and computer vision is based on calculation more than logic).
The philosophers had set up a straw man to knock down. And if their arguments held for AI, they would also hold for Natural Intelligence.
I doubt whether NI is either complete or consistent. 😄
Subsequently, I have always been very skeptical of philosophical pronouncements.
Why do you think probability and calculations are different than logic? Logic is a subsystem of any system. When you calculate probability, and then you explain it, people can understand it because it has logic ( or complex logic ). You can play with semantics, but logic is not something different than those.
When you shine a light on something, you send energy into the system you contaminate it. No need for complex theories.
I have a problem on the assesment of ideas to get theories. To me the process is somewhat flawed today as the major understanding how universe works is based on a boogieman theory. When observations do not follow the theory it is not customary to fudge a boogieman into the theory to get the observation to follow the theory. But cosmology has come up with two boogiemans: dark matter and energy. When someone gets an idea that removes those boogiemans from the theory it is never accepted as these boogiemans are sacred.
I wish this type of cultural analysis wasn't referred to as "philosophy". Just the word raises my hackles expecting unscientific magical thinking. Fascinating questions in the end.
That's on you and on you only
I think that most scientists are craving for unexpected explanations, inlcuding...
Seems that the foundamental problem lies in the ego of the scientist and people around them... Maybe lessons on how manage their emotions and be free from ego issues could be helpful?
Unless you can do better your judgement on the whole scientific community is very hypocritical. You know, it's very annoying when laypeople (you most probably are one) dip their noses in things they know nothing about. Really, just try to do at least as good as science is doing right now, and then talk.
@@zoltankurti Science is my job, and you made yourselves an example of your point.
See: scientists are human beings, nor better nor worse than anyone else. I know because I experience it directly. You would be flabberghasted to know how much bad science there is today, and also how much good science there is that is just money starved out the system. It is called misallocation of resources, and this particular problem is hard to solve because it is mostly driven by politics, so ultimately by human nature. But science will progress, eventually, maybe not as fast as it could ;)
@@pierluigidipietro8097 the criticism presented in this channel is only a concern for the minority of the physics community. If you are some kind of a scientist, you know that the physicists working on quantum gravity/cosmology and similar topics is just a minority. And this rally in the comment sections of this channel never mentiones the non controversial work done by physicists. I think my point stands. What is your research field?
@@zoltankurti Geophysics
@@pierluigidipietro8097 right. So you must know that for example in your field the main new ideas are not unfalsifiable. Take for example the earths magnetic field, the details of how it forms and how it changes are not entirely clear yet. But you have experiments testing how currents behave in big spinning bodies of conducting fluids, so you can compare new ideas with experiments, and also you can get quite a lot of information about the flows in earth when observing earth quakes.
Where is 2 plus 2. Dang if I’d stew with that noodle string
Aren't some philosophical concerns, esp. induction, obviated by thinking in Bayesian terms? I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow but I'm betting on it. We can debate how much credence past success should impart to a theory but spilling ink over "justifying" the theory seems silly.
Very good. My friends have heard me complain about physicists for years.
Everyone else in the midst of renaissance: cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, computer science, etc...
Physics/QM? Dead my entire lifetime and they believe things worse than religion.
Something needs to change with the dogma in QM.
The new physics IS the new religion.
I heard about thousands of papers that we munch through... and Select!
I’m perhaps the one that you need. I’m about as Educated by MORE others than just about anyone. Thousand PhDs taught me by hand. It’s just True!
I’m interested in having a go at it.
Others will want the job, if I fail, or fail to care. I’m trying to get there and help you.
Duane Gruber
What are you even on about?
@@honestexpression6393 I just want to know what he's on.
Science has to be a systematic attempt to not fool oneself. Testing theory against observation seems like a reasonable plan, considering theories are supposed to model the observations and hopefully make useful predictions.
Aristotle was very good at coming up with convincing ideas, so much so that he may have set science back 500 years, because the community was not ready to accept anything that contradicted his models. That took the power of experimental contradictions to get past. I cannot see it every being possible to make a system that churns out new, correct, theorys. Someone will have to think of a new hypothesis, and test it, preferably against reality, as opposed to agreement.
That said no matter what their will always be a few that will hold on to a position that is in direct contradiction to new results. Sometimes a field progresses by the old authorities dying off.
E.g the law of averages's
The difference between 2+2 , 2times2, and 2^2, is that they all equal 4. Real science is about observation, About questioning observations, and then finding out how to get rich from it while at the same time sending everyone on a wild goose chaise with false information. Math.
Hello :-D QEDqubit from the Deslyxian Dystopia of CyberChaos here ;-) ! Nice talk about Thruth & how (not) to find it Sabine !
"Science" defines (&limits) itself, where it complies to the deal that was made between Descartes & the Church.
--only that which is 'physical', "things" we can touch, physicists may discuss, but everthing else, the "spiritual" is left to the church.
The difference between 2 Physical Things is NOT itself a physical thing, and thus by definition & for lack of a better word 'spiritual'... (OR is that word 'Energy" or 'Force'?)
How can they expect to find a COMPLETE Unification Theory, if they principly exclude HALF ? ...and is Energy in Motion 'Emotion' ?
Academic Minds using Tenure and Reputation to Uphold the Principles of the "Scientific Method" .... myeah... did anyone notice that Universities Diversify people instead of Uniting them ?
The Scientific Method only work as well as the Academic Minds 'allow' people to think along it's guide-lines.
example: Pi vs Tau ... a 'diameter' is used as the Fundamental Basis for a value of One, in the Definition of the CircleConstante.
It is not a UNIT.... the UnitVector on a UnitCircle where sqr(x^2+y^2)=1 is (the) ONE in set theory and Numbertheory.
Think about it : the TOOL Mechanics use to measure Diameters, do not have 'twillimeter' of 'twinch' scales, just metrics on the UNIT-system.
a 'diameter' is a value that measures 2 Units on a UnitCircle, -which is where ALL measured Values get registered on.
when Pi is used i n a formula, all UNITS get multiplied by this DIversifying value that is also called one, but measures twice as big.
Another ONE that is NOT one, but TWO(2) ! how super intelligent :-s :-p >-<
This is where we were Warned NOT to add apples &oranges without making them the same terms.
yet when mathematicians do; it's okay.
THEN the issue where journalist Jim Holt asked Dawkins & Krauss about the assumed Laws of Physics BEFORE EXISTENCE.
UNLESS these LOGIC FLAWS that idiots like me adress to the respectable tenure of Academics, get taken into account,
science is a belief-system indoctrinating wrong beliefs, just like any RELIGION does.
intelligence should get to the bottom regardless of 'respect'
Theoryspace is blue?
A rather strong claim!
Can you actually prove it?
I think it's unlikely that there is a theory of everything that will unite all of physics. For one we don't yet know everything.
What it rather than we do not have all the data-that there simply is not a single, but a composite of theories of everything that are not to be resolvable to a single theory
Haven't I seen you in some Leela chess videos?
@@guepardiez yes
Even if you do not know everything you could have a theory of everything at some point...that is if matter is all there is. But if that was the case we would had a theory of everything a long time ago since creation would be a rather simple construct.
@@fortynine3225 Humans try to use their modes of thinking to wrap up the universe in a neat package using the concepts and ideas that make sense to them.
based
The maass knows
That's because the spaace told it about it.
x
did not leave a direct 👍 here...
840 do just fine, I think (8)
The Scientific Method is somewhat comparable to the Capitalist political model: It may not be perfect, but of all the alternatives we have tried, it is the best one!
"We haven't yet found anything better" is the main driver for the theory of evolution.
It's more "We haven't yet found anything else at all."
no, you're just deluded
Hypo-Testo-Pointy. What does it mean? Who knows but yup, it's fun to make up words. :P
Anyone have others?
Hyper maybe hyperthesis
Dr. @Hossenfelder:
I have a few questions/comments:
While an actual Theory Space would consist of single points for each potential theory (and regions for theories with tweak-able parameters), when you started showing the silver/grey cylinders-representing empirical (observational and/or experimental constraints)-and curves (trajectories) for predictions of a given theory, you, apparently, shifted into a different space, perhaps more appropriately referred to a an Hypothesis Space (configuration→outcome, or “input”→”output” space).
The “No Alternative” argument is a fallacious argument: a form of the argument from ignorance type of fallacy. It’s not that there is a “proof” that there is no alternative. It’s only that no alternative is known (or, even, just not considered).
Additionally, the “Hypothesis”⇔”Test” form representing the so-called Scientific Method (or Methodology of Science) is extraordinarily oversimplified. However, it does succeed at providing for the “Theory”/“Empirical”(both Observational and Experimental) dichotomy of the scientific process.
As I see it, the self-consistency requirement of Theories is, indeed, a part of the methodology of science. Yes, it is a non-empirical part, but, just as reproducibility is an important part of the empirical side of science, I see self-consistency as an important part of the theoretical side.
Bless being a no body. My goodness Blessed are those who go in ⭕️ circles. They shall be known as big wheels.
When what you're doing isn't science, but you want to be called a scientist, so you try to change the definition. Oof.
And that, girls and boys, is how you become a flatard by applying meta-inductive and non alternative arguments, along with unexpected explanatory coherence, whilst not shaving your mental excrecences with Occam's razor...
The possibility of indeterminate chaotic conditions such as Heisenberg Uncertainty would answer the incompatibility, however, possibly setting instance bounds to the trajectory. In the real world, it could model as a car operating with normal functionality on a road, until it leaves the road and hits a tree, or collides with another car. In that general model, an outside vector disturbs the stasis: in the Heisenberg case, a decision.
This exposes a fallicy of scientific modelling, the bistable true-false. In reality, we also have a vast domain of ignorance, and the metahypothesis that theory is universal is actually belied by mathematics in its proof of irs own boundedness: there are two sides to a bound, in that case order and dysfunction. The theologian answers that equally empirically in pointing to the rules of nature as evidence of intelligent design. Personally, I've handled sufficient empirical intervention to know that to be true - Einstein's comments apply. We therefore have subclasses to dysfunction: unobserved, undefined, complex (Fourier logic), and anarchic.
. is this the worlds only triple major class? so hilarious advanced accounting, creative writing, physics numpty while the world needs a baker, metallurgist, poet, artist, visionary, animal whisperer, hyperemotional, riddle solver, ideation nova, optimization wizard, did you forget tarot cards and LUCK? Crystal attunement, harmonics sensitive? Power of positive thinking and karmic chakras
tired class over. see you tomorrow let's hope. 14:47 bookmark, i wish i had timetraveling clone drone minions
y'all are really down bad huh
I see you like dogs and dislike cats.
Don't tell me you like dogs more than cats!
a dog will never call you slave, every cat i know does
"Hey, why don't scientists like philosophers as of recent?"
*Watch this video*
"Oh, that's why"
Community Standards are the reason why I kept physics only as a hobby after school and never really tried following a physicist career. It is frustrating to get bad grades or argue with professors for hours or weeks and having to wait 10-20 years until some discovery proves you had been right all along.
Some theories are also categorically rejected from the start, because most cannot recognise their phenomenological equivalism with already existing theories and their counter arguments are not thought through or stuck in / derived from the old theories. If teachers, professors or physics graduees are unable to recognize simple isomorphism just because it doesnt fit into their established thought patterns, every hope for cooperating on developing a new theory is already lost before you even try.
It's also quiet commonn for people to 'prove' new theory B as wrong, while using arguments C from theory A, which actually never really originate in B and are not even contained there as a derivative.
The problem of being unable to advance in physics is not needing more time or decades. It is mostly the fellow scientists hindering the progress or the average low IQ humans have in general. Even the smartest of our race can only guess the sillhouette of the giant mountain towering in front of them, most others are still below believing they are just close to reaching the top. I always considered myself averagely intelligent, but I can guess how most people feel which are a lot smarter than me.
Simple!! stop makinng theories and see the truth you dont know, so use ur reverse engineering technics now we only use one dimesion mathematics not 3d msthamatics which is needed to form the correct result so evolve and seeeeeee
I could have sworn we already have mathematics for N dimensional equations...
@@williamforbes6919 BORE showed Einstein wrong but not until this day and age