Should we abandon the multiverse theory? | Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose, Michio Kaku
What is driving the mulitverse theory? Are the multiverse stories only a sticky-plaster solution to the Big Bang theory problem? Leading thinkers Sabine Hossenfelder, Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku debate.
00:00 Introduction
02:22 Michio Kaku | Multiverse theory has now dominating cosmology; it is unavoidable.
06:03 Sabine Hossenfelder | Believing in the multiverse is the logical equivalent to believing in God.
07:57 Roger Penrose | Universes are sequential and so are not independent worlds.
16:36 Theme 1 | Do scientifc theories need to be testable?
28:45 Theme 2 | Are tales of the multiverse solutions to the Big Bang theory in trouble?
42:49 Theme 3 | Will theories of the universe always be bound by untestable elements?
Multiverses are everywhere. Or at least the theory is. Everyone from physicists Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene to Marvel superheroes have shown their support for the idea. But critics argue that not only is the multiverse improbable, it is also fantasy and fundamentally unscientific as the theory can never be tested - a requirement that has defined science from its outset.
Should we reject the grand claims and leave multiverse theories to the pages of comic books? Are tales of the multiverse really sticking-plaster solutions for Big Bang theory in trouble? Or should we take multiverse theory as seriously as its proponents, and accept that modern science has moved beyond the bounds of experiment and into that of imagination?
Watch our latest scientific debate on what the universe is made of here iai.tv/video/what-the-world-i...
#TheMultiverseFantasy #BigBangTheoryProblem #SpaceTimeContinuum
Michio Kaku is the co-founder of string field theory and the author of several books including several New York Times best sellers such as ‘The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything became.’ He is also professor of theoretical physics in the City College of New York and CUNY Graduate Center.
Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist who specializes in the foundations of physics. She is a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies where she leads the group on Superfluid Dark Matter.
Roger Penrose is a world-renowned mathematician and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is best known for his work on general relativity and sharing the Wolf Prize for Physics with Stephen Hawking for his work on black holes.
Hilary Lawson hosts.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Want to learn more about the theory behind the multiverse? Check out our newest Big Idea video with multiverse specialist Laura Mersini-Houghton! kzhead.info/sun/ntZsYJWQp3p-enk/bejne.html&ab_channel=TheInstituteofArtandIdeas
Warum es kein weiteres Universum als ein Paralleluniversum geben kann? Die Hypothese über ein Paralleluniversum basiert auf der falschen Annahme, dass unser Gedanke, Geist, Seele oder Selbstbewusstsein eine Trennung vom Universum unterliegt. Daher können weder ein Paralleluniversum noch ein Jenseits existieren, da wir ohne eine Verbindung zwischen beiden niemals auf diese Idee kommen könnten. Deshalb führt die Kontinuität zwangsläufig zu einem Einheituniversum. Daraus folgt, dass eine Grenze nur dann als solche definierbar ist, wenn sie diffus und offen für eine Verbindung ist. Außerdem ist der Begriff Universum nicht mit Begriffen wie Erde, Stern, Galaxien vergleichbar, da Universum alles übertrifft, was wir uns vorstellen können, und auch unser Bewusstsein umfasst. Daran sollten wir immer denken! Ich zitiere an dieser Stelle von Emanuel Kant: "Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung und Ehrfurcht, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt; der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir; beide darf ich nicht als in Dunkelheiten verhüllt oder in überschwänglich außer meinem Gesichtkreises suchen und bloß vermuten; ich sehe sie vor mir und verknüpfte sie unmittelbar mit dem Bewusstsein meiner Existenz!" Was heißt das eigentlich, wenn wir von einem Paralleluniversum sprechen? Um diese Frage zu beantworten, müssen wir einige Voraussetzungen festlegen: Parallel bedeutet, dass zwei Mengen keine Schnittstelle haben und keine Elemente voneinander besitzen. Oder anders ausgedrückt: Die Mengen A und B sind nicht parallel, wenn es mindestens ein Element gibt, das Teilmenge von A und B ist und somit eine Schnittmenge zwischen beiden Mengen gibt. Wenn wir jedes Universum als eine geschlossene Menge betrachten, dann sind zum Beispiel zwei Universen U und U' nur dann parallel, wenn kein Element von U oder U' existiert, das Teilmenge von beiden wäre. Es gilt: Wenn U:={ x |∀ x∈U ∧ x∉U' } ∧ U':={ x' |∀ x'∈U' ∧ x'∉U } ⇔ U ist echt parallel zu U'. Allein die Tatsache, dass wir uns vorstellen können, dass es ein Paralleluniversum gibt, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass es mindestens eine Schnittstelle zwischen unser Universum und dem gedachten Universum in unserem Bewusstsein gibt. Ansonsten hätten wir nie auf die Idee kommen können, dass es ein zweites Universum geben könnte. Die Idee eines Paralleluniversums ist zwar reizvoll, aber letztendlich nur eine Illusion. Dies würde nur dann der Fall sein, wenn man den kartesischen Dualismus annimmt, wonach Bewusstsein und Welt/Materie getrennt sind. Doch bevor man dies annehmen kann, müsste man erst beweisen, dass diese Annahme richtig ist, doch stattdessen führt es in jedem Fall zum Absurdum. Es ist eine unumstößliche Tatsache, dass wir in dieser Welt leben und unser Bewusstsein nicht ohne unseren Körper existieren kann. Es ist also unmöglich, einen Beweis für die Existenz eines vom Körper getrennten Geistes zu liefern! Es bleibt wie J.W. Von Goethe sagte: "Was wär ein Gott, der nur von außen stieße, Im Kreis das All am Finger laufen ließe. Ihm ziemt's die Welt im Innern zu bewegen. Natur in sich, sich in Natur zu hegen. So dass was in Ihm lebt und webt und ist, Nie seine Kraft, nie seinen Geist vermisst."
The next step for the scientific community is psychedelics.
Why bring Michio Kaku to a serious discussion? Was it just for fun or something?
Michio Kaku is stupid compared to Roger Penrose. Embarrassing to listen to !
Pron
Sabine Hossenfelder is as usual the anchor of reason, Roger Pennrose the symbol of intelligence, and Michio Kaku, the representative of Hollywood.
This is exactly what it is!
Nailed it. I got wayyyyyy too much pleasure out of Sabine calling michio out for making claims that are completely unfounded/non-scientific
bit ruff id say machio is a real scientist has achieved alot and are u saying hes here to represent actors? i don't think that is what he is trying to do.
@@jasonmckay8793 "is a real scientist has achieved alot" ? What would that be?
@@sergiomanzetti1021 well he is a link for alot people to the scientific world, he worked on quantum mechanics helped further that research and he is willing to push against the status quo all useful things.
Roger Penrose has a sharper mind at the age of 91 than I have had at any point in my life.
Lol
Give yourself some more credit... I'm assuming you're not yet 91 😀
Bet 😅😂
Of course he has. He is Roger Penrose. And you are a nobody. There's no comparison.
He is remarkable. It shows the potential in humanity that is so rarely realised. I love listening to him talk, he will always make you think about stuff in new and interesting ways…
31:20 I absolutely love and respect how Dr. Penrose doesn't mind saying "I'm confused" and using that as an argument against the gobbledygook that Kaku is putting forth.
It's not an argument, and I was quite disappointed in him for doing that.
@@carmensavu5122 I respectfully disagree, Carmen. As Pauli said, "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
how so?
@@carmensavu5122 Then translate 4:55. I don’t understand it, but it is embarrassing. It is kindness to let that slip with the phrase “I am confused”.
I truely beleive he means it but.... if penrose says he doesn't understand and he is confused, that just ends up meaning whats been told is gobbledygook.
I knew Sabine when we started to study physics. She always was extremely intelligent. It is interesting to see her becoming a public figure.
@@moonshine.squatter Really? Be more specific what do you want to say? If she is nothing you are probably less than nothing.
@@karstenschuhmann8334 What is nothing? I am Robert Lawrence Kuhn.
@@TactileTherapy Had to look him up. I do not really see him as more prominent. But even more, I strongly doubt that is you.
I get a feeling she is no fan of Michio
@@myhandlehasbeenmishandled She and Pentrose seem to agree. Michio seemed out of his out of his depth in this discussion. I know Sabine did her diploma thesis about extradimensions.
That Sir Roger Penrose is still doing serious scientific research at his age is astounding. Long may he last!
Yeah, really impressive. I went to a lecture of his a few months back and he was so sharp you would think by listening to him that he is 30 or 40 years younger than he actually is.
Of course, why would he quit doing something he loves.
@@holliswilliams8426 Great genetics with constant brain stimulus will do that for you.
If I were him, I would hope the universe would repeat.
Sir Roger came up with a way to tile a floor the size of the Universe, with a pattern that never repeats itself and has no gaps using only two tile shapes. That's pretty crazy if you think about it.
Was a fan of Kaku in my youth. Now see him as a Steven Seagal of cosmology.
Same here. I used to eat up pretty much everything he said when I was younger, then I went to university and learned to think more critically. Now I cringe whenever he speaks, half due to his wrongness and half due to embarrassment that I used to believe it.
That's a really excellent and apt characterisation.
Ah ah!
oh my god how accurate. Neil Tyson seems like an absolute clown to me now. Star Talk is an abomination. Sabine is all!!!!
😆😆😆😆steven segal...😆😆 segal is more entertaining.
It's embarrassing to see Penrose and Hossenfelder have to reply to Kaku directly. Flashbacks to teachers having to deal with freshman or sophomore year students who think they found some breakthrough idea and get high on their own supply. The number of jumps in conclusions, fallacies and other logical missteps are so blatant you can't but see the teacher get a depression inducing combination of decision paralysis on what to correct first as well as the struggle to not just make it for the door and go do something better with their time.
yep
Sir Roger Penrose is so quietly and confidently dominating, it's a joy to watch.
My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995 Ed & Frances Walters succeeded in real shots of Stern spaceships with the gray occupants. - Billy Meier had made excellent recordings of star spaceships (beam ships) with extraterrestrial people. Johann Zdebor discoverer extraterrestrials on 01/17/95.
Well, being a Nobel prize winner, having the "Sir" title and a British accent certainly confers authority.
@@alexanderpeca7080Naah... Nobel prize is being steadily demoted to a mere propaganda tool, a title of Sir was recently awarded to a man of very questionable integrity, and I've seen during my life too many people with British accent rolling in mud, blind drunk, or worse. Sir Roger had it all way back in the days when it really meant something.
What do you mean by dominating?! I think he is quite the opposite he is just humble and calm. As a good Physist and mathematician should be 😌
@@3dgar7eandroBro, may I assume you are an American? Am I right? In any case, trust me, there are other types of domination, other than guns blazing and bombs away.
Props to Hossenfelder and Penrose for their clarity and rationality, and Kaku for selling books.
Michio looks like Karl Pilkington next to these other two 😄
@@DeadeyeDaily Karl Pilkington would blow all three out of the water 😀
@@cookymonstr7918 😂😂 how does string theory work, Michio? "There's a button for that, in'nit."
Gregory spot on my man!
He's just returned from the cheesey dialogue universe.
I remember when Michio was one of the science educators who inspired me to learn more about the universe. Now he sounds like he’s trying to sell me a book or something.
YES that's precisely my impression during this debate! I used to look up to him, but now it's just a bunch of unintelligible science speech hemmed up with "...sioadn ds ksjdasQuantum theory, take that spiderman" Hosselfelder makes him look like an AI generated version of himself. Shes cut and clear, and her words make sense together into a thought.
I just hope he's Japanese, and not Korean, because "michyo" literally means "to be crazy" in Korean lol
How can computers run on quantum theory and then everyone else says it is nonsense.
Did you expect anything less from someone who calls themselves a "Futurist"?
I felt off about this guy from the beginning but couldnt explain why. he does feel like a car salesman, its really obnoxious and patronizing
If Sir Penrose was my grandfather I would visit him every day just to talk more about theories and scientific findings. For Sabine I can’t wait for her next books, I wish I could read her ideas about new findings, new understandings for a long time.
she has a YT channel now
Sir ROGER!
what about kaku
The only problem is people like him rarely reproduce and therefore the probability of a random person being a grandson of someone like him is very low 😂
24:10 what a jab. I know a lot of "serious" string theorists.
that was brutal 😂
Check mate!
Hahahaha, shiii how come I didn't realize that quick correction, "serious" lolol
Michio thought this was about string theory, Roger thought he'd been invited to talk about cosmology, and Sabine thought they were going to be talking about quantum mechanics... Penrose was clearly annoyed, Sabine tried to salvage it, and neither Michio nor the host seemed to understand that multiverse means different things to different scientists. This was really painful to watch.
Yep, agreed....the problem with modern science is that there is a tendency to compartmentalize, to break apart into divisions when Newton himself said we are only beginning to realize that how small we are "now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me". The problem is these scientists distance themselves from integrating spirituality and the so-called "supernatural" when far advanced civilisations of our past integrate metaphysics, spirituality and so on...I remember my grandpa told me what was taught to Adam was alchemy (the pure sciences at microlevel-lower) and astrology (incldg astronomy- the sciences of the higher levels and of higher dimensions, not withstanding the conflict modern science has about multiverses...disregarding the souls, God, consciousness etc...)
Exactly. But its was pretty fun though.
I don't see this. First of all, string theory and quantum mechanics are related. And Penrose was not talking about cosmology. The background knowledge for this is that Newtonian physics works and makes accurate predictions, and quantum physics works and makes accurate predictions, but they describe the universe very differently to the point that you'd think they're describing different universes. Some scientists have come up with a mathematical untestable theory called string theory which theoretically unites both spheres of physics, and in the process predicts the existence of multiverses. Where they mainly differ is in substance and presentation. Someone like Michio Kaku is a very enthusiastic popularizer of science, and tends to gloss over a lot of details to make the science accessible, where Sabine Hossenfelder is a critic of the muddled views that emerge from such enthusiastic simplification. Roger Penrose is talking about the multiverse in general, and is wondering why they are talking about string theory as if it's the only theory that predicts multiverses - since he doesn't think string theory is very coherent at all. They're not talking at cross purposes.
Now I really want to listen! 😂
The thing is that all these scientists should not latch onto a favorite theory but keep everything, all options wide open. Pure math has made real predictions , as in the positron. Also not using math and only experiments have discovered most things. So all lines of pursuit should be followed up on. Scientists in all areas do this and latch onto their favorite. I don't like it.
It's pretty clear what Sabine and Penrose think of Michio in this, despite how diplomatic they were, lol.
He’s a grifter and an egomaniac who lives for the fawning of the mathematically illiterate public
They're serious scientists where Kaku is more of a marketing person.
Well said! Katu is a PR person and stuck in documentary mode, not a serious scientist at all.
@@eliteextremophile8895 You don't even know what they do on a day by day basis. Did you not listen to a word he said? String theory is more than marketing, I think you watch too much TV and never had advanced physics beyond you tube videos.
@@Physics072 I am rewatching this and it really does appear that Michio Kaku's ideas aren't very accurate/his ideas do not map to our current understanding of physics: Source: 24:15 26:28 38:17 40:14 52:10
24:17 "I know lot of string theorists... serious string theorists" SHEESH 💀
jjahahahaha
I was looking for this comment
That was sublime…😂
Thank you Sabine Hossenfelder for staying on topic and succinctly stating your postion, that ontological realness of mathematical implications should not be automatically ascribed.
I think the point that was made that the math doesn't always correspond to reality ontologically, and even if it does correspond to experimental results on many fronts, like quantum theory, then the inherent contradictions such a theory presents as Penrose pointed out, is contrary to the law of noncontradiction in logic which is the basis for the mathematical rigor that the epistemology of philosophy demands and that science has adopted. How can science which is based on inductive reasoning ever prove the theory of everything for every possible claim of the theory if not every claim is testable? That seems to me to be one of the great shortcomings of the scientific method. And even if the mathematics of a theory claims much more than can actually be proven experimentally, you have Goedel's Incompleteness proof to contend with. So we all have to admit at some point, that we cannot know everything. Certain things will forever remain conjecture, if not a mystery. And that is the real issue of this debate, IMO. Occam's razor is no more provable than anything else that science assumes, such as physical laws and even so-called constants (e.g. the cosmological constant) being immutable. That being the case, we are back to Descartes dilemma, to find the one premise that is absolutely certain. Time to revisit Goedel's ontological proof of God.
I like how Penrose just calls out the whole thing "Are we talking about String Theory or the Multiverse Theory here?".
Exactly! Kaku is relying on experiments that may mathematically indicate string theory to then suggest that the multiverse theory is correct. That's not a logical jump.
Do you guys want a productive conversation about what might be or not? 😂
@@lawanbrown16 A productive conversation would require creating a list of possibilities, each mutually contrary to each other in some way, ranking from most likely to least likely relative to the available evidence. Speculation about only one possibility, other than making for fun imagination, is not productive because you then close yourself to the other possibilities which have not yet been discounted. Kaku spends an awful lot of time speculating about one and ONLY one possibility, which hasn't been proven. He has lost balance to his perspective, making him unscientific in his approach, even if he has the knowledge and degrees to support his argument from his perspective.
why believe these lies? they want people not to use the power of faith to work miracles, so it's just technology and bad people to do things.
@@HM-rz8nv Kaku is an american showman and also asian/superficial.
I love how Sabine and Roger so beautifully call out Michio and the other string theorists on their rubbish. Roger does it in such a classy British way. Sabine does it in an in-your-face German way. In both cases it's delightful to watch.
Ah cool, that's basically all I was really interested in: what side does Penrose end up between Sabine and Kaku. None of the details were ever going to be novel in this type of venue. Having to stomach listening to a floundering Kaku is more than I'm able to handle. Thanks for the summary of the relevant detail 🙂
I think my favorite takedown was this line, from Sabine: "I know a lot of string theorists, serious string theorists..."
You do understand that neither Sabine nor Roger have evidence that string theory is rubbish, nor that the multiverse doesn't exist. They're attacking these ideas based on philosophical approaches, not science. Science requires evidence, which they don't possess. They're skeptics, which science needs. But their opinion are still just opinions.
@@commodoor6549 I'd like to see Maldacena folks get some people on stage for this stringy discussion. Also there is some wacky progress on ER = EPR.
@@nmarbletoe8210 Yes, exactly .Kaku pointed out correctly that science technology has a history of getting to the dance late, and that just because there is no direct evidence for a phenomenon, that doesn't negate an idea. Naysayers like Sabine supplement their income knocking ideas in their nascent stages, which are going to take more evidence to support. Einstein also doubted the concept of black holes, and he was wrong, partly because he, while brilliant, could not see past his own ideas. Science struggles to progress with regressive thinkers like Sabine, who harshly mocks these ideas yet has no alternative ideas of her own. And Penrose, is stuck in the past, and finding it difficult to even fathom anything other than his personal experiences.
I wasn't expecting to watch a comedy sketch, but this was ridiculously funny. I can't get over the increasingly perplexed/disappointed/incredulous expressions on Sir Roger's and Sabine's faces
Michio Kaku's theory explanation can be summed up by "just you wait and see"
Religious fervor.
A long life to Sir Roger Penrose! What a legend, at 91 years of age his mind is more agile than that of most teenagers and young adults alive today!
granted the human brain doesn't fully mature until approx.25 lol.
He doesn't even look 90. He doesn't even look 80...maybe he is the multiverse in person, lol. No, he'd not like that 🤣
Most? Probably, virtually all.
Roger Pensrose have found the tech for eternal life and doesn't share it.
For real!! What the 92!!!!
This sounded like it ought to be interesting but, unfortunately it sounded like Michio had his selling hat on, Sabina was desparately trying to find out what it was he was actually selling and Roger decided what ever it was he wasn't buying.
I like Sabina approach because unless they keep calling him out and putting him to the corner, he won’t stop.
I was wondering why this "debate" was so bizarre. Based on a few things Michio has said in the past, I've jumped to the conclusion that Michio is try to sell science to the American public and Congress to secure funding. He once mentioned that scientists had to call the Higgs Boson the "God particle" to secure funding from Congress. If theres no sex appeal, there's no funding. Sabine is German, and I imagine things happen differently in Europe.
@@MrEricW2008 Funding is not that different in Europe from the US, it's just the source, that is different. Scientific Reseach generally gets funding from Governments, through the Horizon project, or private investment. It's also pretty well accepted in europe that 95% of scientist and the intelligencia don't believe in God, so there is no pretence. Unfortunately the intelligencia doesn't include the majority of politicians and rulemakers or the majority of people in general. As such there exists a whole raft of restrictions from an ethics committee which effectively bans certain areas of research. This seems to be not the case with the chinese for example who have no such restrictions and are currently one of the fastest growing nations in technology. Basing one's ethics and Laws on religious values isn't going to progress scientific discovery and human knowledge. Considering most of the earliest scientific discoveries and technological advances came from the middle east. Nothing has come from that region for 1400 years I leave you to decide why that is. As for Kaku. I think he is, or at least was, a great science communicator. Unfortunately he appears to have boarded the wrong boat "SS Stringtheory" is sailing in icy waters like the Titanic. Everybody except the string theorist have got the memo about the iceberg.
@@MrEricW2008 Why did you delete you post?
@@Lamster66 I'm glad that there are strong ethical restrictions. You don't need to have religious values to have morality, and I'm in agreement that the scientific community needs certain limitations so people's lives don't get messed up. Without those restrictions, you can end up with a technological dystopian world. What differentiates the USA from Europe is the more than the ethical considerations. In Germany, Ph.ds are respected. In the USA, it's very divided based on state. Some states have high standards of education and produce well educated leaders. Other states....do not. Some states, maybe like Texas, occupy this strange middle ground. I think Kaku is appealing to the middle ground.
Starting with Prof. Michio Kaku comment that quantum mechanics predicts particles can exist in two places, its clear he is not speaking about scientific prediction but only for popularizing things. Amazing to listen to clear statements of Sir Roger Penrose.
Just because I don't have a better idea doesn't means that yours is a good one.
It is a little embarasing indeed, that Michio Kaku tries to defend the theories he proposes to be true and useful with illogical arguments that focus on aspects that go besides the questions that are given to him.
Yes, while I was saying to the screen several times, " *That* is your argument???", I can only assume that Sabine & Penrose were rolling their figurative eyes and telling themselves, "This guy is a clown, not a scientist." Michio's entire presentation boils down to this: "My theory will be proved someday, therefore (a) it's a good theory, and (b) you can't argue against it now."
30:11 - Lawson: Do you agree? - Penrose: no. 🤣
😎
The faces of Hossenfelder + Penrose while Kaku speaks. Priceless.
Kaku is still smarter than you. He's had a great career in science while you are just a nobody
@S'probablyCancr: Kaku is still smarter than you. He's had a great career in science while you are just a nobody
@@TheMercury79 Mic drop.
Kaku so out of his depth it's funny
What a Legend Sir. Penrose is. He is one of the few living Legends of 20th century science.
I believe that Michio or those like him (ie: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Avi Loeb) actually need to be condemned in our new internet world of disinformation and the dangerous unmooring from reality we see out in the world at accelerating rates. It’s really unacceptable to have these types of figures maintaining memberships with otherwise credible institutions and being given just enough respect to get by grifting and selling books.
I think Brian Greene would be a more appropriate inclusion in that list than Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Sir Roger is a world treasure. He is over ninety and still doing mathematical physics.
why believe these lies? they want people not to use the power of faith to work miracles, so it's just technology and bad people to do things.
Sir Roger is a true polymath, which is exceedingly rare in modern times. He's a profound physicist, an accomplished artist, and world-class philosopher. He's able to do the far-out mathematics and understand the edge-of-science extrapolations, and then come back and ask "but does all this make any sense?" That's what I love about him.
well hes definitely doing some real gibberish lol
@@nellateea3238 Yeah, that's the thing. He's your classic elderly absent-minded genius. But if you can parse through that, or maybe watch some other science communicators explaining what he has actually done in his life, you'll see that he totally deserved being knighted by the Queen. Remember, he was Stephen Hawking's PhD advisor, so the guy is definitely no slouch.
@@YogiMcCaw hes selling his books here
Great to see Roger and Sabine on the stage.
You forgot the clown on the monitor ...
@@melvinpjotr9883 lol
@@melvinpjotr9883 i agree
The interaction was great! Sabine is awesome, she has minimal belief, is consistent and complete, and probably questions her very fingers existence daily while Roger is very clever with large picture reasoning and has what are at least plausible areas of investigation for a better universal model. Michio is a bit out there with his confidence in extending a universal mathematical model - it’s like our universe is a building we’ve been in forever : Michio saying if we could simply stand outside we would see buildings forever, while roger is convinced it’s the same building just at different points in time while Sabine is saying the whole thing is pointless because no one’s going outside anytime soon.
@@melvinpjotr9883 I tend not to like him either, but there's no point in being mean to him. At least he's qualified to be a science communicator (unlike some others).
Day by day I'm more in admiration of Sabine Hossenfelder. What a mind she has! An excellent example of clear-mindedness!
Were you paid to say that? Sabine is just a KZheadr and a PhD doesn't make you brilliant. She bought a Wikipedia page for herself and filled it with silly things like math cannot explain the universe. 😅
@@y0k0z00na our sweet little Babsi :-)
@@axisskin What's a sweet little Babsi?
@@y0k0z00na a PhD in theoretical physics certainly does say something…and considering her background, her opinion is definitely more qualified than yours…
Thank you for making such an intriguing conversation public. In science, disagreements produce innovations and insights.
This debate was a bit of a confused disaster but kind of amazing to watch as a result. It's great to watch Sabine tackle Michio and put directly to him criticisms that everyone's been thinking for the past ten years.
German directness. Blitzkrieg
So...this was a "Michio Kaku" is a fraud debate? I mean, Sabine is says she knows "serious string theorists" which suggests she thinks Michio isn't. Michio Kaku brings science to the masses and has a terrific education and work background. Why not just appreciate him for who he is? Why does this debate even matter? Michio can do whatever he wants. Sabine can do whatever she wants. However, Michio is just doing his usual simplified explanations while Roger disagrees, which is fine, and Sabine sounds a bit petty. If it's not jealously, then what is it with Sabine? Is Michio negatively impacting her in some way and she feels the need to put him in his place? And the host seems to be against the multiverse theory also which is odd for what I thought was a moderator. This whole interview was awkward and I can't understand its point. Oh well. Moving on.
@@mthedu Michio Kaku has permanently damaged science communication and the public's faith in science by pushing what seems to have been an unfounded theory for 10+ years. I'm sure he's a thousand times smarter than me, but his actions have negatively impacted science in general.
@@someguy4405 "Permanently damaged science communication". Haha. Okay. You do you. Take care of yourself.
@@mthedu Science is made with money. And if funding is diverted to FRUITLESS endeavours, good science you could be making instead isn´t done. This is Sabine's main point of contention. It is about String Theory not showing any good evidence for more than 40 years and still funding going there as well as time that could be spent on other research, more scientific, in her view.
"I know a lot of string theorists, serious string theorists..." 🙂 Sabine just made my day. Wish we all had a good moderator during meetings.
I dont know if she meant to phrase it like that but what a thing to say!
@@LordOfFlies She knew exactly what she was doing
@@LordOfFlies Just look at her face when she says it. And the context of that quote is that those "serious string theorists" would say Michio is wrong. So, 100% she was insulting Michio.
I thought it very rude to ask a question and then interrupt a panelist before she can finish her very interesting answer.
If that was her full intent and she really meant to phrase it that way I think it was needlessly rude. Everyone gets the point, Kaku is apparently sensational and poppy, that isn't really a crime worthy of actual derision though
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 02:33 🌌 Multiverse Theories - Discussion on the existence of the Multiverse theory. - Different perspectives on the Multiverse, with a focus on scientific testability. 08:13 🤔 The Testability of Multiverse Theories - A debate on whether scientific theories, including the Multiverse, must be testable. - Arguments about the testability of theories, with examples related to String Theory and deviations from the inverse square law. 23:47 📡 Indirect Evidence and String Theory - The mention of indirect evidence in supporting theories like String Theory. - Clarification that observations, even if they were made, would not necessarily provide direct evidence for String Theory. 00:00 📽️ Introduction - The panel discusses the topic of the Multiverse theory and its implications. - The question of whether the Multiverse theory can be tested and its popularity is raised. 02:47 🤔 Sabine Hossenfelder's Perspective - Sabine Hossenfelder highlights the importance of empirical evidence in physics. - She argues that the Multiverse theory currently lacks empirical support. - Discusses the role of string theory and the challenge of verifying the Multiverse theory. 09:29 🤯 Michio Kaku's Perspective - Michio Kaku explains the concept of the Multiverse and its connection to quantum mechanics. - He defends the Multiverse theory as a legitimate interpretation of quantum mechanics. - Kaku emphasizes the need for further experiments and observations to provide evidence for the Multiverse. 14:25 🕳️ Roger Penrose's Perspective - Roger Penrose expresses his skepticism towards the Multiverse theory, particularly its relationship to string theory. - He questions the lack of experimental support and the complexity of the Multiverse concept. - Penrose suggests that the Multiverse idea may not be scientifically fruitful. 21:03 🌌 The Multiverse and Cosmology - The panel discusses the connection between the Multiverse theory and cosmology. - The idea that a Multiverse could explain the fundamental constants and the role of experimental evidence is debated. 24:36 🌠 Possibility of Unverifiable Theories - The discussion centers on whether certain scientific theories will always contain unverifiable or untestable elements. - Examples of untested concepts like proton decay and the cosmological constant are mentioned. - The panel considers the inherent uncertainty in scientific theories. 27:24 🤨 Popularity and Fiction - The panel addresses the popularity of the Multiverse theory among the general public. - The appeal of parallel universes in science fiction and the distinction between fiction and scientific theory are discussed. 30:06 🧠 The Challenge of Uncertainty - The concept that science is limited by human inference and the possibility of the universe's laws changing are explored. - The uncertainty underlying scientific methods and theories is acknowledged. 48:54 🌌 Proposing Theories Beyond Testability - The discussion delves into the purpose of proposing theories that lack empirical evidence or are untestable. - Roger Penrose suggests that it's valuable to contemplate such theories as long as they simplify the overall picture without contradicting known data. - The limits of scientific understanding are acknowledged, particularly concerning the Planck energy. 50:16 🤔 The Mystery of Unexplained Phenomena - The panel addresses the notion that there may always be certain unexplained or untestable aspects in science. - Michio Kaku discusses the Planck energy as a point where known laws of physics break down and become challenging to describe. - Roger Penrose distinguishes between singularities in black holes and the Big Bang, noting that not all unexplained phenomena should be taken equally seriously. Made with HARPA AI
Thank you!!
Prefer to watch it myself thanks.
I love how it started as a question about the possibility of multiverse but eventually was about Mr. Maku trying to defend his theory is real thing.
"Physicists who come to believe that the mathematics they deal with is actually real." Hossenfelder just became one of my favorite people.
who?
@@unfortunatebeam the woman on the panel
She is my favorite scientist, full stop. Her skeptical mind is exactly what every scientist should aspire to.
I agree with Hossenfelder and Penrose as well but this is going to be a long up hill fight. So many physics have staked their reputations (and in the case of Kaku, their bank accounts) on these ideas.
I’ve asked myself many times “Where has she been my entire KZhead life?❤😂
I am glad there still physicists like sir Penrose and Sabina
*Sabine
Sir Roger.
I'm a cosmologist and most people in my field are like that, fringe phycisists exist but are rarer than pop science would suggest.
I am glad there are both types. Science does not progress by everybody agreeing with everybody.
@@marcag9810 Like what? Cosmologist how? Another goddam applied mathematician? Sounds like you are pretending.
I do t really understand a whole lot about phywics but i find it very interesting. This interview really does show to me that there is theoretical and practical
I wish everyone involved in a talk or debate would actually be there in person. The freezing on the internet connection made it frustrating to listen to and would have been so much better in person.
As a layman, it seems like what Michio, and string theorists in general, have done, is, they develop a theory that then runs into a problem, and they theorize about what could solve this apparent problem, and then keep going. Its literally Theoretical Physicist Fan Fic
Yes, but writing fan fiction is fun! And in the case of String Theory, I think physicists getting attracted by the elegance of creating more general theories, even if the implications of those theories can't be tested or even specified... While String Theory definitely is fun, I agree with Sabine that _most_ of our efforts shouldn't be in dreaming up new and more beautiful theories, but we should be resolving inconsistencies in the theories we currently have.
That approach might be workable, if the original theory had some clear evidence to support its hypotheses, such that refining the theory to account for new data would make sense. But just dreaming up some theory that has no scientific basis and then changing it every time evidence appears that contradicts it, just seems like a bait and switch to make sure your books on the theory don't stop selling. Imagination clearly has a place even in science, if it leads you to something that actually relates to the reality that your theory is meant to explain. But imagination that only produces wild speculation shouldn't be conflated with science, as Sabine put it so well. And it can even damage the perceived integrity of science when this is the approach taken by someone who has scientific credentials and put the mark of their imprimatur on it.
@@NondescriptMammal they are doing that with a lot of stuff in today's science. A lot more theories than discoveries.
so was AI in the AI winter and now with ChatGPT we are in AGI game!
Human dilemma
It's thrilling seeing Dr.Penrose and Dr.Sabine H. on the same stage!
penrose non la maga cosmica!
And I come across it when my device is at 28% and we have a power outage. I bet Sabine could give me a solution, " Turns- off your device and watch tomorrow. "
This was a great debate.
Uncle Roger ! National Treasure if there ever was one !
Penrose is the real deal the other two are not even close to his level of achievement.
Before exploring multi verses we should maybe get better sound quality from a giant television
Michou mentions baby universe and at the same time you hear a baby crying 😂
This ranks right up there with the debate over whether we should abandon the theory that the outside of the universe is green.
Penrose is always the brightest bulb in the room because his ego allows him to say "I don't know"
His ego or absence of ego ?
@@dodge9600 There's no escaping ego as it's an essential part of what you are. The question is "what type of ego"?
He's not overly informed by an outsized ego, like the zoomed image on the stage. Nor does he rely on embarrassing sci-fi hyperbole like Kaku.
Sabine is great ❤ love her down to earth approach
@@Anax100 but saying "I don't know" is not ego. It's the absence of ego to be actual.
I could hear Sir Penrose speak all day. He is incredibly intelligent, articulate and humble.
He is not humble at all. He's just deliciously soft-spoken.
He takes time, listens then think before responding. This is a quality we all should develop in ourselves. It’s very easy to be impulsive.
@@alexdrudigmail just bc he doesnt say "ugh oh maybe idk, ugh yeah maybe im wrong hshs idk" ?
His is the voice of authority. He’s proved it time & again
This was such a waste of everybody's time. Michio Kaku was already told many times that he is full of kaka. Why calling sir Penrose to do that?
I must be missing the importance of the question because we're only sure of our cosmic horizon. Meaning: The understanding of the size of the universe (and its constituents) is immensely more important to comprehend than asking a question about something where we possess even less data.
Thanks to Host this debate...facinating,❤🎉
Thrilled to see Sabine on the panel 😁
Her German directness is refreshing in this context.
Sabine can get it.
aboslute queen
Penrose is a living legend !
Long living legend. I hope +100years for him. Great mind!
Thank you… It is wonderful that they can apprehend, analyse, criticise, and … each other perfectly… even though they oppose … Brain is amazing… Waves and Electrons over nerves…
This wasn't a debate it was a beatdown
24:14 Sabine: "I know a lot of string theorists...ah, serious string theorists ..." Michio: 🥲
'Shots fired', as they say.
He literally helped invent the theory...
@@Areaninetyone that's not an argument in his favor
@@ferretappreciator I have no sides here but the argument you are replying to is not really in Sabine's favor either. Pretty dumb thing to utter in a public scientific talk. She is leading us, the viewers who probably have a lesser understanding of the matter, by directly assaulting the guy, and she does this with the great KZhead audience she has. The comments are full of Sabine lovers. Why are you more interested in a person in there rather than the topic itself? Pretty weird. Whatever... it's not what I'm looking for in a scientific debate.
@@adram3lech The reason so many people love Sabine is that she is a breath of fresh air, who on an almost daily basis is showing that publicity whores like Kaku are emperors without clothes in a way that is almost unique right now: an actual scientist stepping into the role of science explanation (not some media personality like Verasitum - not a bad thing, but it still sits at a distance from the actual science as their not infrequent gaffes demonstrate) who is not afraid to state harsh truth impolitely, or, as most of us would describe it: truthfully. She also has a wicked sense of humour and there is nothing bad about bringing pompous, pretentious blowhards like Kaku or Tyson down a peg or two. Their distortions of what scientific thinking to the lay public is in dire need of some counterweight and Sabine is our champion. That's why there are all these Sabine lovers here; all people with a passion for both science and science communication.
I find Sabine an absolute breath of fresh air
She's brutally honest
She's fine. She's infinitely smarter than myself. But I did find some of her KZhead content from a while ago a little patronising of Penrose. Everyone's making fun of Michio for selling books, but she monetises as well. Nothing against her, I'm not terribly keen on the multiverse idea either, but I take her with the same grain of salt.
Most uneducated people do. She is the Christopher Hitchens of Science. Making baseless attacks gets you attention and that is how she has made a living this past decade...attacking the very foundation of science...theories...where 100% of scientific advances comes from. A theory is unproven until it is, that does not mean it is not science. She herself has done nothing to advance science and has when she actually worked in the field, worked on other peoples ideas. She has created none herself. She is however a decent popular scientist and has a great channel when she explains known topics but she has a habit of backhanding theories as if an unproven one has no value. Its as if she does not understand where new ideas even come from or how knowledge is advanced.
She manages to impress some people, although she does not know what she is talking about. 😂
@@guillermotell2327 your laughing emoji makes your point correct
Seems to me that unless there is proper evidence for the multiverse, we can just approach it as phenomenon in our "uni" verse, not separate from it but a part of the one we know.
I am not at al intelligent like most of you here who are watching this . Actually im just a master builder . Yet I find myself watching everything about Sir Roger Penrose and I just am blown away by his sheer GENIUS . I have no understanding of most of this , yet I find when he talks I like get it a bit . This man is a gift to humanity and unlike these ridiculous celebrities who the world admires . Children should be shown this marvelous man .
Sir Roger is one of the greatest minds of his generation! Love listening to him speak. Sabine is a legit scientist too. Kaku is a joke and doesn't belong one stage with Roger and Sabine.
24:18 "... I know a lot of string theorists, uh, serious string theorists ..." Priceless again! This is Sabine being agreeable the German way.
Yes, that was a burn right there 😂.
😂
Everyone loves slights
I was surprised she burned him so directly at that point. I was a little disappointed
Being rude and unpleasant is not a proof of intelligence. Sabine could smile for a change. SMILE.
Michio Kaku is more like a cheerleader for Team Multiverse than a scientist. Anything that raises questions about his pet theories is motivation for more research to raise more questions about the unresolved questions that he's raising.
It sure guarantees a life time of paychecks while proving little to nothing for the work.
I mean, I am a phycisist and I tend to align more with Sabine's skepticism and outright rejection of fringe physics theories BUT I find that there is value in and a necessity for strange theories that push our boundaries and fight back the criticism. That's a healthy scientific environment in my opinion, even though it is not very healthy for science communication to focus on fringe science almost exclusively.
More like embarrassing !
You have to be a scientist of at least equal value to him to even spell such things, and this is measurable.
I believe that it’s simply reflected on his solid contributions in real scientific publications (quite poor considering his career stage!). Of course, for this, we have to put aside his heavily sensationalist material to catch general public’s desire for fantasy - just to earn his fortune and inflate his own name. It’s hard to look at him as a serious scientist in any sort of way…just one more canned Hollywood source of misinformation haha
Probably you have to go with Kant's critic: The 'pure thing' is not possible to know, to realize only the appearance of the phenomenon - in your mind.
BRILLIANT.......I have absolutely no idea what's going on.
great discussion, I really like how Roger And Sabine are so respectful when they are against an argument. I am not really familiar with Michio Kaku, but he seems to spread his argumentation a little all over the place without really making any real point.
Michio is great at producing enthusiastic rhetoric but pretty terrible at logic.
Indeed, I feel that one could, after watching this video, make the same conclusion, even if one couldn't understand Physics or English. In other words, you could tell from their tone of voice alone who is a deep thinker and who is a shallow one.
@@TheNameOfJesus that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
He's pretty good at that, yes. But he's a marketing genius, if it counts for something.
In a way, Kaku hijacked the conversation away from the proposed topic (as was constantly pointed out by Penrose). Kaku seems to believe that his version of string theory will eventually be proven to be that holy grail of physics: the theory of everything. But let's break down just one of his arguments: Democritus' atomic theory. Democritus believed the atom was the smallest possible unit of matter, indivisible (hence, atomos). But what have we shown over the past 2K years? Atoms exist, but most of the mass is concentrated in the nucleus with a cloud of electrons. Then we discovered nuclear fission: the nucleus is not an indivisible unit of matter either. But wait, there's more! It turns out protons and neutrons aren't indivisible either - they consist of quarks. What started with Democritus and Leucippus evolved into the Standard Model: 6 quarks, 6 leptons, 4 bosons, and a Higgs. Democritus wasn't wrong, but he wasn't exactly right either. If we're honest, science does have assumptions that are untestable: natural processes are governed by laws that can be expressed mathematically and that these laws are consistent across space and time. This assumption is baked into the scientific method in terms of reproducibility. But mathematics isn't reality - it's a model of reality that is useful to describe our experience. But as I've often said, I can create any arithmetically valid equation you like - but it may not be measuring what you think it does.
I think you could still argue that an atom is indivisible because if you were to divide one, it would no longer act as the same atom. Eg, dividing a group of two neon atoms into two groups of one is a very different thing than fissioning a single neon atom.
@@GalaxyPedlar wouldnt anything by indivisible by that reasoning? A ball doesnt act the same once you cut it in half.
@@nemdenemam9753 The idea behind an atom is that if you keep dividing a substance, you eventually reach a point where you cannot divide it any more. So if you have a kilo of iron and cut it, you now have two separate pieces of iron. This stops working when you get to atom, because if you divide the atom, it is no longer iron.
@@GalaxyPedlarJust to be on the same page, this was my understanding of the point you were making: division != separating it into smaller pieces but division = separating it into pieces where the pieces don't behave the same as the whole Is that an incorrect understanding of your first comment? If it isn't then I don't see how that's an answer to my objection. If you cut a ball in half it's not a ball anymore. If it is incorrect then can you give a definition of 'division' how you mean it?
@@nemdenemam9753 Democratos proposed that every substance has a smallest particle which cannot be subdivided. Some people say it can, because atoms can be decomposed into subatomic particles. My point is that Democratos is still right because subatomic particles cannot be described as a particle of the original substance.
The difference between Kaku and Penrose is mind boggling.
GREAT CONVERSATION! I absolutely do not like string theory, so I found this delightful
I'm not a scientist, but seeing theory just does not sit with me. Just a huge distraction, in my opinion.
When Penrose says he's confused, he actually means he's hearing total BS :)
I think he's just being polite.
Wow that's quite an emotional response, way?
@@mentalslave8451 Sabine and Penrose both take a lot of shots at Michio, politely but often not subtly. Penrose dismisses Michio conflating a bunch of different multiverse ideas as one but also argues that they are not relevant to describing our universe. Sabine basically says Michio is a quack physicist and serious string theorists don't believe any of the things he says would prove string theory actually would.
Because Penrose knows absolutely everything, right?
his skepticism is much appreciated
Love it when Sabine counters some of the "pop-science" which is going around quite frequently. Smart and pragmatic. Great!
THANK you for targeting the CORRECT target: POP science. NOT actual working scientists & public education.
She never lets the narrative magic of fictions like ST or "cold fusion" distract her from actual facts and experimental data. And that's actually, sadly, pretty rare, isn't it?
@Greg Mark I found her latest video on cold fusion to be a selective narrative. Interesting but selective.
@@gregmark1688 what's st again?
Smart and pragmatic, good description
Regarding Occam's razor, we must be aware that it really represents a short-tail probability distribution approximation. As a simple example. Supposing I only have two ways to explain an actual event. One involve 2 elements, the probability of which are each 1 in 10. The alternative requires 3 such elements. Well, we would, a priori say the chances of the first occurence is 1 in 100, the second, 1 in 1,000. If we say that one of these had to have happened given the actual event, then given the 2 element possibility is 10 times more likely than the 3 element one -- logic dictates that this is the one we should assume. This is Occum's razor in a nutshell. However, what if introducing 3 such elements doesn't provide us with one additional possibility -- but rather 100 additional possibilities. Now it is not a 1/100 2-element possibility vs. a 1/1000 3-element possibility, but rather one hundred independent versions of the latter. Comparing the single 2-element possibility with the entire group of 3-element possibilities as a whole, the single 2-element solution possbility is still 1/100, but the 3-element possibility category represents a 1 - (0,999)^100 = 0.0952 ~ 1/10 a priori probability. Hence "a" rather than "the" more complex theory is not ten time less likely, but rather ten time MORE likely -- a complete inversion of Occam's razor. William of Ockham or Occam, was an early 14th century English Franciscan friar. His qualitative common sense concept applies well in daily life but not necessarily in scientific theorization save where the power of symmetry can reall be brought into play. So if boundary conditions imposed by existential reality permit the simpler theory and a sufficiently higher volume of more complex theories -- the weight of probability is with one of the more complex theories being correct.
Excelente charla.👍👏👏
I died a little inside when Dr. Hossenfelder stressed, "I know *serious* string theorists..."
Her little dead pan quips are easily missed. Her youtube channel is full of it. I'm sure there is a heap of snippets I'm not getting.
infatti dice cose non galileiane
Dissing Kaku - The Movie
I think she says "why doofuses do what they do..." around 31 min mark lol
Yep, that attack actually undermined her credibility because Kaku not only won awards for his work but has far more papers accredited than she will have.
Sabine is an amazing scientist. Her rationality and love for fundamental science is refreshing and necessary. She is also incredibly talented in explaining complicated science.
I think of her as more of an _Influencer_
@@DSAK55she is a youtuber and influencer but also as academic accomplished as any of the other casts
@@yasser9350 She's brilliant, understands the material very well and is one of my favourite science communicators, but she hasn't contributed to science as much as Penrose has.
Seems half insane on her own channel
@@WiseOwl_1408 That's just her German sense of humour.
Whenever Michiu Kaku speaks via video link we can hear the entire New York soundscape in the background
Please, Hilary! Why did you let the superficial Kaku whittle on and on, grabbing the lion's share of the debate, instead of allowing us to hear far more from the serious professionals, Penrose and Hossenfelder? You can see what the latter two think of Kaku's inanities by the looks on their faces.
Sabina and Roger rocked this conversation. I think Kaku thought he was filming an episode of Universe with Tyson and Alex Plippinpinko.
Kitty history
👍😄😄😄
I think it's funny how Michio Kaku over dramatizes his discussions by adding too many catch phrases like, "and all of a sudden". Almost nothing in cosmology happens 'all of a sudden', and I'm pretty turned off by his approach to science communicating. Like Neil Tyson and his loud mouth and huge ego, I suspect that their lack of humility has scared plenty of common folk away from cosmology and science in general. Science to me has been life changing and humbling to the core of my being and has given me real spirituality that I could never get from philosophy or any religion. How we communicate science is as important as the science itself and there's no place in it for vanity or ego. I often wonder if Carl Sagan would cringe at the behavior of some of the people he mentored who seem to have forgotten how important humility is as a tool for communicating. Especially science.
@@cosmoscarl4332 it's because it appeals to normies in America. Having a big ego in America is important for fitting in unfortunately...
😄😄😄😄
I love how Sabine and Roger are in the same panel, and also how Sabine explains why physics has been stuck for decades because of using the "God of the gaps" strategy, then immediately Michio demonstrates himself as a live example doing in real time. Now, that's what I call direct evidence lol In a scientific discussion, especially when people's theories are being questioned, I don't tend to lend weight to those, like Michio, whose responses are 80-90% metaphors, storytelling, and redefining words and meanings, but I lend more weight to those, like Roger and Sabine, who are referencing measurements, tested theories, and testable hypotheses. I also find it funny noticing Sabine and Roger are wearing casual clothes, but Michio is wearing a suit that reminds me of a pastor preaching to a Sunday church gathering
You have just shown why even atheists can be very religious like. Clinging to the idea that fits your worldview very blindly. Sabine did not prove her point, she stated it. God of the gaps is a theory. God of the gaps is wrong and caused the problem is also a theory. Your statement shows you drank some kool-aid enough so to try to demonize what doesnt fit your view like someone with some kind of moral high ground. You are pathetic.
The most ridiculous part was when Michio explained that multiverse is more simple than wave collapse of quantum physics and "solve it". Then Dr Penrose answer was magistral, but he politely said that this is pure bullshit and doesnt solve what happens in our universe. Saying that it existe another universe which is miraculously "intricated" with ours, were the wave collapse ended with the other possible solution solves nothing about understanding wave collapse in our universe.....
@@Ilestun Thing is, a "wave" has never been proven to exist. Not even close. They assume a wave exists because they shoot photons at a detector, and they land with a wave like distribution. But when they hit the detector, it's a single photon doing the hitting. That doesn't mean a literal wave is moving through spacetime. But it could be. But they all act like it's a proven fact. It's not proven until they actually detect that wave. And our technology isn't even close. We've measured down to 13 places to the right of the decimal, and haven't seen the electron...... But they know the electron exists, because while they can't see it, they can measure its different properties. No one has measured the properties of that wave, if it exists.
I thought i was the only one. penrose and sabine were just class in this discussion.
I agree! I thought, "surely I'll be ridiculed if I share with a science enthusiast that I dislike Michio Kaku." Good to see that there are others who seem to agree that his fantastical musings tend to contradict the spirit of science... Our understanding of the world should stem, as ever, from our tested experience. Not from mental gymnastics and the question "but what if we shot even more machines (like NASA's LISA) out into orbit?"
It looks like a nice bar they are sitting in. Getting on site early would have it's advantages. It appears it's free pour make your own! I've noticed so many interviews, one on one talks that were done in bars.
Feels almost like multiverse theory takes seriously Aristotlean Great Divide, the idea that potential is itself real. I'd like to hear Sabine expand on her idea of how some physicists are somewhat prone to "believe the math is real" rather than the observance the math describes ..
Plato or Whitehead would be more apt comparison i think. The multiverse just seems to confuse actuality and possibility. It just thinks of possibility as an alternate but parallel actuality. Kind of silly. But the idea that math is distinct but no less real ontological realm on par with possibility is i think what Plato implies with his theory of forms. Whitehead calls these "eternal objects" which is the existence of all the possible states of the universe. Surely in some sense this exists. But not in the same way as a cat that is actually alive and dead at once in two separate but equal universes.
All I'm going to say is "infinity".. Sabine has a video on what you seek on her channel.
@@NotASeriousMoose you just blew my mind. INfinTy you say?! How about Zero? Does Sabine have a take on the ontology of an empty set? I'm sure she does. People, scientists specifically, need to drop the aragonce of thinking they don't need philosophy. Because that just leads to bad philosophy.
It would have been nice to hear more from Roger and Sabine.
I kept having to skip that other charlatan
Kaku: **Starts telling Penrose (who literally first theorised the concept of a singularity black hole) about singularities in black holes being similar to the birth of the universe.** Penrose: *Do not cite the deep magic to me, I was there when it was written.*
I hope the entirety of tomorrow is as full of joy for you as the last roughly 45 seconds were for me. Thanks for commenting.
Kaku said they're similar in that they operate at the Planck energy and that's where our laws break down, nothing else - he was answering the question of testability. Penrose replied with a non-sequitur to get a final jab at him. You have to be totally biased to not see that.
The first black hole proposer was Oppenheimer.
🤣nice segway
@@trtnec no you're totally biased for not seeing the awful way he conducted himself the entire debate, completely derailing the topic etc. I'd say he absolutely deserved it, and Penrose had definitely given up on having any sort of intelligible conversation with him at that point.
If we detect other waves in the beginning of our universe that seem to come from other blasts, other ripples that we can then trace forward? We may be able to detect the energy signatures of other universes, and the possible laws that then differ. Our own physics could just be a conglomerate of different laws from different universes that collide and coalesce into what we know as our own laws. Just ore from different countries can differ, so too can the material of different universes. Not just laws, but the matter itself could have a whole different configuration than ours.
One is also always fascinated by science's difficulty in dealing with true (not calculus limit) infinity. This goes back to the terror faced by the Greek philosophers concerning the subject (save perhaps Paramenides and Zeno, though not really...). The issue also coincides with the inifinite regression implicit in true consciousness -- that is, the seat of the observer. In the present case, Prof. Penrose expresses that an infinite mass singularity doesn't sit well scientifically and couldn't really be true -- it just shows the breakdown of an overly simplistic model. However, then we hear of infinities and zeros (inverse infinities or "the infinitely small" per the language of David Hilbert to avoid paradoxes with Cantor's transfinites -- or he would have needed to talk about "orders of zero") -- and eternity, concerning photons and universes. By his own words, he has another simplistic model that too must (not might -- MUST -- there is no such thing a probability of absolute zero) break down even if approximatly true over a certain region. Again, as implied in my earlier comment about Occam's razor -- ever greater complexity will not be denied (or higher symmetry if you like -- two sides of a coin). Of course, this implies an infinite, so I'm not only ultimately right -- but ultimately wrong too! -- Ah, sweet paradox of infinity, the terro of philosophy and science for millenia. [Hilbert Hotel tennis, anyone? -- that too can be shredded, BTW... 🙂] On that, yes, consciousness and the observer. So we have the interesting inanities often offered in science (Donald Hoffman, to an extent, Roger Penrose himself with Stuart Hameroff, and a few others, are noteworthy, refreshing exceptions). For example we are often told that "consciousness is an illusion." -- Really and just who is observing and being fooled by this "illusion" as illusions don't observe themselves.. It has been compared, by no less that the late Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann, to a focusing spotlight. -- Who, praytell is observing this "spotlight" as spotlights don't observe themselves either. When does causality turn to "option," arithmetic to "flexibility"? -- "at" Infinity. [Yes, quantum mechanics and all -- and when does that leave the realm of definite probability distribution? -- yep, Infinity. Paradox and the end of causality and probability distribution -- where consciousness and free choice could root. What of absolute freewill? -- We daren't go further, but that's fine. Science has no tools, nor the finite brain the room -- certainly not for that and human ego...
"Quantum mechanics, the most wonderful theory we've ever had - or something" 😂☠️🤣 Sir Roger is killing it with every beautifully crafted, yet spontaneous sentence 38:17
yeessss I love him lol
And that's Roger.
The problem is : You know the inputs, you can compute the outputs, but the inside is a black box. And we would sooo dearly love to know what is really going on inside of the black box, which we currently can't pry open. As Feynman already said : Shut up and compute.
@@jfverboom7973 As I understand, he never said that.
Einstein believed that all times exist simultaneously. He believed that you are being born and dying today, such that all times of your life, that all past and future exist now, we just can't reach there from here. This is not testable yet, people like Sabine believe it... you know, because Einstein said it's so. Cherry picking ideas to scrutinize is not science either. There's nothing beautiful in Sabine and Roger's thinking when they are critical of quantum mechanics yet put aside other ideas that cannot be tested.
host: hi Michio can you explain newton's first law to the audience in simple terms ? michio: Yeah sure, In string theory we ...
Ha aH Classic..
At this point Kaku is just sabotaging scientific progress
He always just gives rehearsed answers. Have you not heard him on other social media interviews? I would guess these "events" mean very little to him at all.
@@mthedu i noticed it too I have read some of his books and every interview he had he was just recycling and repeating same things from the books back theni didn't knew but now I realised
I wish i could've met Michio back when he was early in his career, just a curious scientist. I found anything genuine or helpful with any of his responses
Sabine is the bomb here, incredible intellect. Roger is so refreshing to listen to, for classic science
I like Sabine's point of view that just because mathematics describes part of nature doesn't make that mathematics as real as nature. It's goal is to predict the outcome of experiments not to be considered the ground of reality.
Agree!
Yep. Ultimately, math is a Theory of reality. The most fundamental, perhaps, but ultimately a model that replicates aspects of it, but isn't IT.
My experiment via modelling to validate a theory is to fire neutrinos into a hyper-viscous charge_fluid droplet to spin off perfectly opposite pairs of electron-positrons assuming the charge droplet is neutral whole creating the monopoles we observe. Then, once in hand to see if the energy lost by the neutrino equals the energy_of_annihilation of a pair. That's the experiment. The resources to model it needed beyond my reach. Fun stuff 🍺
@@alexalcan NOT a theory, a means to describe reality
Sabine is so good!
What I find refreshing is the civility of the discussion of very different opinions. I just wished scientists were politicians. Without the BS, without the ego, and with pragmatic experimentation of the most efficient administration.
I thought the Anthropic principle is the main factor that brought up the idea of multiverse. How else can we explain the fine tuning of physical laws to creation of organic life? Why no one of invented scientists mentioned it?
While Kaku spoke about how close to confirmation String Theory already is, I could clearly see a quantum facepalm superpositioning over Sabines face. It didn't quite manifest in this part of the multiverse though, but certainly in many others.
To be entirely fair she's appealing to intuition as much as anyone. Her camps answer to many worlds is superdeterminism, which is equally speculative. Yet she makes no qualms about taking a stand on that, presumably because that's what her particular biases allow her. There's quite a few prolific thinkers who would do more good admitting when a topic is far beyond our current understanding, and that it's pointless to engage in inflamed debate about it. In all this madness that is the world, surely Hossenfelder could do better than to reintroduce provocation as a legitimate way of communicating science... It's done enough damage already.
@@lemiureelemiur3997 At least Sabine has Einstein in her camp.
@@lemiureelemiur3997 Except that she doesn't fanfare superdeterminism as a scientifically proven theory, but merely a conjecture that coincidentally solves a lot of the bullshit in quantum physics. Nice try, tho.
@@WillemDemmers that she does. She also has his face on the sweaters she sells here on youtube.
@@StevXtreme you're being facetious. You shouldn't be given that far more quantifiable experiments have been successful in sowing doubt about the premise of superdeterminism than Hossenfelder can muster to her defense. I. E she's the one behind the times on this question, given that her critics base their opinions on the latest real world experiments and she bases hers on what is comparatively speaking fairy tales. Local hidden variables were disproven in the 80's, which means Einstein was wrong...
Michio Kaku is actually inspiring for young teenagers who don't yet know physics, he was for me. But he is very cringe once you know a couple things about quantum mechanics etc., it is uncomfortable listening to him recite his rehearsed analogies that sell books.
I fully agree. Penrose is the opposite. And I also like Sabine
Same the first books I read that set me on my path, which didnt lead me to theoretical physics, but ultimately into engineering were "A Brief History of Time" and Kaku's book Hyperspace, but I agree its been hard to hear him on these kinds of debate/discussion stages lately.
> Kaku explores the history of unification theories of physics starting with Newton's law of universal > gravitation which unified our experience of gravity on Earth and the motions of the celestial bodies > to Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics and the Standard Model. Kaku dubs the > final Grand Unified Theory of relativity and quantum gravity The God Equation with an > 11-dimensional string theory as the only self-consistent theory that seems to fit the bill. This is a quote from Wikipedia about his 2021 book The God Equation. He is promoting his book in hardcore mode.
@@lesliespeaker668 Wow, I haven't heard of his new book. The topic is right on point. Thank you, I must read it right now!
My first shudder came with his "how do we prove that?''. Scientists don't prove. They model, observe, and disprove previous models.
It's amazing to me that penrose looks like hes on the brink of unconsciousness at every second but actually absorbs all the information around him at all times, ready to inject his how ideas at all times, I hope I'm that sharp at that age
IDIOTS? - My revolution in physics has been valid for 28 years because I discovered aliens and realized that we live in the parallel universe, light years are just fairy tale lies because they don't exist. Johann Zdebor January 17, 1995 Ed & Frances Walters succeeded in real shots of Stern spaceships with the gray occupants. - Billy Meier had made excellent recordings of star spaceships (beam ships) with extraterrestrial people. Johann Zdebor discoverer extraterrestrials on 01/17/95.
I'm not 60 yet ( but close😊), but I would love to be a tenth as sharp right now.
Now on the whole, I feel like this was very entertaining and comedic! However, as far as how much progress we gained on progressing science, understanding ANY of : String theory, quantum mechanics, black holes, big bang, this was not the workshop for that AT ALL, this was the workshop for amusing an ordinary public audience. The black hole being unrelated to big bang is very believable. Quantum mechanics holds though.
I am amazed at how differently these thinkers appear in this discussion. Sabine and Roger appear serious, contemplative, and open to evidence based extensions of our understanding or this universe. Michio comes off as if selling a bridge. I'd have a beer with him, but I sure wouldn't buy a used car from him. Sabine, you demonstrate amazing patience in the face of a barrage glib, well rehearsed, clearly well-informed, and more than a little kooky presenter-speak.
This is such a great description of Michio Kaku. I've been feeling exact that about him for the better part of two decades. I enjoyed his books as a teenager; they got me interested in the science in the first place so I'll always be grateful. But early on in my research I came to see him as a salesperson for physics, just as you describe so well here.
as for the science Mishio is a crook. He -is- was good for entry level astrophysics and thats it
@@ilicdjo Exactly. He looks good on camera, but with regards to cutting edge science he is a blunt cudgel.
Thank goodness. I'm not the only one who thinks Michio is the Deepak Chopra of string theory. And thank goodness for Sabine and Roger as fine examples of theoretical physicists.
Because he has worked on a unified theory his whole life & is excited that it is holding up so good so far & looking forward. The others are outside critics who review his unified theory & is not satisfied because he hasn't proven it definitively.
In some universes we have already abandoned the multiverse theory.
Mind blown
Definitely a physicist joke
It is both rejected and not rejected at the same time, until we look carefully, at which point things collapse.
Lol, you made my day!
This is way too entertaining to see. Thank you. The more I watch the more I want to see Mr. Penrose and Madam Sabine roasting String theory. I don't know if people undestood what happened here.
You want to see a prevailing theory that forwards human knowledge, roasted? What are you 11 years old?
are you fool??
@@TactileTherapy it is not a theory is a hypothesis
There is now evidence of remnants of stars older than the big bang which could mean there was something prior to the big bang. Also, consciousness is a key factor in how we perceive reality and strongly believe more research is needed to understand how the observer impacts the observed, objective reality. Sir Roger Penrose himself has admitted to this. In general, thoughts come first, then actions and thoughts arise due to consciousness so one has to understand consciousness to understand the physical reality.
Kaku seems completely unable to get away from the same 4 lines of text he's been repeating for years now. Sabine and Roger achieved a very coherent conversation
Love Sabine. Feet on the ground. A real scientist.
More of a science educator than scientist. I mean, what are her actual achievements in science? The fact that she's a woman in a field heavily dominated by men makes her stand out.
@@thealexanderbond Undergard degree in Maths, and Phd in pyhsics, thesis was " Black holes in Large Extra Demensions. I think you are splitting hairs.
@@nearlyzero9849 I'm not questioning her qualifications, but they are no better than thousands of others. However, it's obvious that being an extremely rare women in this field gets her invited onto a lot of these panels. That's not a bad thing, but there's a hell of a lot of comments here praising her like she's actually made some important contribution to physics. I'm guessing you are all fans of her KZhead channel.
@@thealexanderbond I am a fan of no one, and I don't care a jott that she is a woman. It has no relevance. she is widley respected in her field, and not becuase she is a woman.
@@thealexanderbond she is an exceptional pontificator and representative of standard and also generally enlightening thoughts within the "scientific community".
When the discussion was reaching its conclusion and moved to whether there needed to be any scientific evidence to support a theory, my mind moved to the theory of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). How many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Does string theory wear any clothes at all?
Shutter Mass Theory ®️ basically the speed of something causes wake in reality depending on the force used to transition from frame to frame. Quantum particles aren’t in superposition, but are rather bouncing between positions before settling on one side - or the other. We can’t currently measure that shutter speed, and I argue that all things teleport from frame to frame at various speeds, that cause different wakes within the fabric of reality. Like a coin drop in which you can see both sides of a coin both in air, and touching the table, until at rest.