One of my early supervisors gave me this piece of wisdom, "Don't fall in love with your model. Your model isn't real."

I used to live within a kilometre of the Natural History Museum, so I cannot share Sabine's disappointment at dinosaur bones not going supernova. It would have been a significant annoyance

There are even astrophysicists that shouldn't exist. Which is in itself a dark matter.

It's almost like the universe is unaware of our models.

They keep finding things that "shouldn't exist" because the popular science media need headlines. The actual papers never say that - they're finding things that don't fit with current models for various phenomena, but it's not a series of massive mysteries that people are stumbling upon.

‘But galaxies aren't elementary particles.’ Citation needed.

That shot of the person holding the mouse by its tail, watching it squirm, and then smiling was disturbing.

Thank you for saying this!!! I HATE it when they say “shouldn’t exist” !! More like your theories shouldn’t exist!!

Sabine's observations are right on target. They are especially important in all the social sciences like counseling psychology, where I've worked for more than 30 years. The proliferation of nonsense in my field is staggering. Much of psychology is suffering from the corrosive effects of career-building and funding. There's no future in corroborating old wisdom. If it's not new, it's not relevant.

In my field there is this over used quote. "All models are wrong, but some are useful." And another saying also related to the data or assumptions in the models we simulate: "Garbage in, garbage out."

It takes bravery to admit ignorance. Elaborating on how ignorant we are takes courage. Respect to you Sabine

Thomas A. Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes well the main risk of dominant paradigm science: ''Science is not objective nor cumulative: it is influenced by social, historical and psychological factors which affect the choice and evaluation of paradigms. Science does not necessarily come closer to the truth, but rather follows a contingent and discontinuous evolution.'' Physicists should always work with several general scenarios and models. The search of thruth should always be their ideal.

In my field, which is mostly the study of neurodegenerative disorders with a minor in the neurobiology of depression, it's amazing how sticky popular theories have been. Even after they are repeatedly unable to explain disconfirming results, the general approach is to look at the probe of the hypothesis as inadequate. Which it may be of course. The most famous example of a sticky hypothesis in that area, of course, is the amyloid hypothesis. It's not so much that it's wrong in other words amyloid particularly as oligomers has a number of undesirable properties it's more that it's seriously incomplete. . Instead of single factors I think the science supports the idea of a recursion between multiple factors including amyloidosis but not by itself. And of course even if protein deposition were a single prime mover, it would just raise the questions about why proteostasis is failing so the single Factor notion just doesn't hold any water. In any case, I'm not entirely sure why we so love single factor theories. It's almost as though we want to reduce everything down to buzzwords and once we have a buzzword that we're confident in, we become arrogantly confident that we now really truly understand things.

The think the most exciting possibility that the current upheaval in Astrophysics is suggesting is that some fundamental concepts may be wrong, such as how we interpret red shifts and the nature of the speed of light. Particle physics is involved with this as well: a lot of assumptions about fundamental matter go directly into astrophysics predictions. So this upheaval in astrophysics affects particle physics ideas just as much.

Thank you for this video Bee, this is precisely why I could not get into astrophysics and cosmology and ended doing (cough, cough) particle physics lol. And I know, there are a lot of problems here that we need to address rather than seeking more funding for the “next biggest particle accelerator.” One problem that I find to be slowly developing is that we’re so specialized in our research and this causes confusion and tension even amongst ourselves as researchers. Which is why we need more people like you who have good foresight and experience in the many different research fields and topics to be able to constructively inform the be public what the “current state in physics is,” if there is such a thing. Thank you 🙏

Your interswitching of the two burger pictures that are used for an "Expectation" and "Reality" meme was HILARIOUS! On a serious note, though, I have often wondered about statements to the effect that certain multi-galactic structures are "too big to exist." Can't we think of the Universe as a whole as containing or being one big structure (even if logically trivial)?

I've suggested for years that there is an uneasy relationship between theory and computer simulations: the simulations can be no more accurate or reflective of reality than that of the theory that goes into the decision process which guides not only the selection of the parameters of the model simulated, but also the ways in which the parameters are both free and constrained in their interactions with One and Other. If the theory can't account for this or that and/or if our theory is absent this or that when it ought to be present, then no model simulated on a computer that's created based on lacking or misunderstood parameters can yield simulations that adequately represent reality. Both the theory and the simulation are necessarily interrelated and are in a feedback loop of self-reinforcement. Our simulations will not shock us with new insights if the theory that guides them can't even produce those insights. Another problem, as you point towards, Sabine, is that some (many) astrophysicists seem fixated on a particular theory--and even interpretation of that theory--and hold it so dogmatically that they might as well be preaching it like Gospel. I'm not going to name any names today, but some entirely capable and otherwise seemingly intelligent people hold onto their theory--and promote/communicate it to others--as if it were the absolutely established and impossible to be otherwise truth--as if it was somehow revealed by divinity or something. It often seems to me less like science and more like creation stories with calculations and formulas. I grew up a believer in the Big Bang, for example, until I was old enough to start realizing that, hey, wait a minute, maybe these mounting anomalies and ongoing need for ad hoc tuning of some untestable components of the theory (ahem--inflation--cough cough) could suggest that there is more to the story than we can currently tell or even comprehend--so perhaps that story isn't the right story. But when we don't have a career, funding, and a reputation staked out on our ongoing investigation of a single story/theory and its implications, then I suppose it might be easier for us to have a more open mind about looking at the theory sideways instead of all the other components for the source of these anomalies. And the obvious result of dogma, as you recognize, is the curtailing of progress. Novel explanations of anomalous data will often not have the grounds on which to be founded when limited by unquestioning obedience to some necessarily limited pre-established set of idealized assumptions.

Astronomers: Galaxies are all unique. Galaxies: We're all unique! Milky Way: I'm not.

In 1976 or 7 I was at lunch at Uni, and an astrophysicist came in late, happy, even chuckling, because "The sun is being naughty, not doing what it is supposed to!" That was part of the University experience - experience which repeatedly which showed me scientists loving the challenge of designing/assessing studies which challenge accepted theories, or test proposed ones. Astrophysics seems to be like Psychology, like the 18th Century Chemistry and Physics: in the early days of understanding complex and currently hard-to-measure phenomena.

I stumbled onto your channel quite by accident. I was impressed by your style as much as your obvious brilliance. I found the content more thought provoking than anything I've come across recently. I feel like my brain is getting some much needed exercise. Thank you!

1:22 I love the subtle burger humor.

The AI running our simulation: "Crap, they weren't supposed to look at stuff outside the solar system."

Great reasoning as usual. I am a fan. I think "interpretations" and "previous experiences" are part of the problem you are trying to describe. Keep it up! Thanks!

Very interesting. Thanks, Sabine! Another good video.

Disappointing to know that even if I had all of Sabine's protons, I wouldn't be any smarter. Oh well, I still have her videos to help me get more informed if not any smarter. Thanks, Sabine!

One thing to take into account is that these stories come from the Public Outreach department, not directly from the scientists doing the observations. These releases like to use catchy, click-baity phrases which I think do a disservice to the public.

I will be using this argument and video if needed. Thank you.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reporting.

They are Big Bangers living in plasma universe. It makes things rather difficult.

Of course if you work in an area with a lot of unknowns and frequent discoveries, there will be frequent times where existing theories are challenged. The publication of these events serves science and should be encouraged!

Thanks for the explanation. I have also wondered about this.

The assumption that time had a beginning might be the problem. Or perhaps the idea that the unverse began with a BIG BANG might be the problem in cosmology.

Astrophysics seems to be the perfect example of "The more you know, the more aware you become of how much you do not know..."

How does Sabine get so much stuff done? Sabine's protons are better than our protons!

Being wrong is a core part of scientific discovery. Being right is boring. Learning new things and having to change models is what makes it fun and interesting.

Thank you so much, Sabine. I've seen hordes of videos on KZfaq talking about this, but so far every single one of them was "fringe fluff stuff." I'd given up on trying to find some REAL coverage of it.

Every day on social media I discover new things that should not exist.

We would choke upon our own hubris if we think we've learned all their is to know. That's science, whoever claimed 'science is dead' was a tab premature...

Sabine lays the BOOT into models in . Then kicks the nuts out of the underlying theories. Outstanding!

The problem is that we're effectively looking at Rome from New York - through a drinking straw - without ever being able to travel, meet a traveller, or even meet someone who's met a traveller. So much of what is "known" is based on calculations based on models based on theories and conjectures. The amount of new discoveries that force (or should force) re-evaluations of models and theories is not nearly as surprising as the confidence with which those theories and models were proclaimed prior to the new discoveries.

The present situation in Astrophysics reminds me that of particle physics back in the 1970s, before the standard model was established. It looked like chaos, and suddenly, everything seemed to make sense.

If something is proven to exist which supposedly “shouldn’t” it means that there must be at least one preexisting assumption that must be incorrect.

I have become a fan of your analysing perspective to difficult issues of science and life that what differs where.

So Alfred N. Whitehead was right when he described the cosmos likewise, as a society of events

I believe that this is more a" science communication" problem than a "science" problem.

Love affairs with theories are tough to end. Kuhn said something like that too.

It seems most are so almost 100% entrenched in a belief system they see as fact. It seems nothing will move them. Hence even if the big bang did not happen, to most, it did & anyone that even tries to disagree is alienated. "Keeping an open mind" seems a very rare thing. It feels worse than ever but probably isn't.

This reminds me of the discovery of pulsars. "Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me: „Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow". I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars.“ → Thomas Gold: New Ideas in Science. In: Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1989, Band 3, Nr. 2, p. 103-112.

"The problem with science is science follows the money." ~Russell Brand

Sabine, I'm glad you have raised this issue. I have a lot of misgivings about so-called standard cosmological models. Mainly because they are based on a sort of tower of theories that are often far from certain. I have serious misgivings, and have had for a long time, about things like the age of the universe, the big bang itself, distance to far objects, the reliability of the "distance ladder", the cause of redshift, the emptiness of interstellar and intergalactic space, the idea that dark matter can only be undiscovered particles or a problem with gravity (and disregard other possibilities), the source of the microwave background and the existence of the Oort cloud. The last in this list I seriously doubt exists at all for several reasons that I won't go into here, but is constantly talked about as though it is certain. If something low down in a tower of theories is significantly wrong, then everything built on it can collapse. It's not a problem that things are in doubt. Only that cosmologists have too much confidence in theories that are on uncertain foundations and regard and talk about them as a given. Clearly something or several thigs are wrong with standard cosmology.

There are also a bunch of farm channels that make daily space science videos that have made up headlines and they get a lot of views but only have generic content.

Fantastic teaching as always

Actually, we shouldn't exist either.

"What's wrong with Sabine's new click bait Thumbnails?"

@Sabine Please make a video reviewing Halton Arps intrinsic redshift ideas. I wonder how much of the James Webb "impossible" galaxies can be explained by intrinsic redshift

Simple reasoning. If it exists one cannot say, "It shouldn't exist." The term should be, "This thing does not match our predictions. Therefore, there must be something wrong with our predictions."

I can't wait to Dr. Becky's reaction to your comparison of Astrophysics with Sociology. 😅 I've always thought astrophysicists have too much imagination, and that's a field I wouldn't find comfortable to work on, but I also believe it's fascinating how they make out something useful from their observations. On the technological side, I also find it awesome the advancements they have made in the past few years, which produce spin-offs to practical applications. Space science, which restricts itself to the Solar System, is even better, since they can make more detailed observations, and may shed light on some astrophysical events.

Pretty much all the surprising results can be explained by 1. the universe is significantly older than we currently think and 2. we are not accurately gauging distances from us properly.

excellent sabina❤

Thank you for your knowledge

Same as the climate change theories then.

4:09 That mouse stock footage was brutal and hilarious :D

I feel the same way. Every time astrophysicists draw conclusions with very limited data, like a few pixels, I wonder if they should really be doing that. It feels like 99% guessing.

Excellent video

I feel relief that it isn’t solely to economics, but it happens in any other science.

Another interview with subir sarkar would be fantastic. Those old interview videos during your trip to Oxford are some of my favourite that you have made.

The basics have been provided by maths and not observation. The BBT, CMBR, Red Shift, Expansion etc all need to be revisited without preconceptions.

Can you please do a video on the Hyper-Kamiokande ? Such a cool structure! I would love to know more about the experiment and have a comprehensive overview of its history and technical details, and the theory behind neutrinos and what the want to observe. Thanks!

One of my lecturers on my AP degree joked that in AP, if your result is out by a factor of two either way, you're doing well. I think he was only half joking.

Eric Learner's book , "The Big Bang Never Happen", does shows how experiments are used to tell us about astrophysicists.

I'm fortunate to use mostly model-independent methods for my data analysis of galaxies (Graph Theory and clustering analysis), which are instead based on similarity of the features between their signals. But you can never completely escape theoretical assumptions, as those are ALWAYS necessary for interpreting the physical meaning of the analysis results. What is paramount (as in all areas of science) is understanding: 1) the limitations of your methods, 2) the limitations/biases created from your data sample and data collection.

Philosophically the best model of a thing is the thing it’s self. Models derivative from the object are simply abstracted and thus altered from reality. Also, love your content and your humor. Thank you.

6:39 I see it from the other end. It's good because it gives us what is akin to noise data. It's better to not know how than it is to not know what.

Fantastic channel

It really is like sociology, I studied sociology and when she started talking about how you cant do experiments properly, it really struck me as similar to the methodological issues in social research and experimental social psychology.

I can listen to this woman all day!😅😊

I would say that building a new telescope and observing the sky is an experiment. The difference to other experiments is that you are quite limited in setting the conditions. You have to work with what you get. So yes, launching JWST was a start to a series of new experiments with new instruments to gather data, and of course, some results will confirm previous predictions, and others won't. That was the whole point in launching JWST to begin with.

If I recall correctly, a couple of decades ago, before the first observation of an actual supernova explosion, astrophysicists had talked of type A and type B supernovae. Then, after the first supernova observation, they concluded to have observed a supernova of type C . „Type C should not exist“…

"Dinosaur bones tend not to go supernova, which is a shame really". Finally... finally someone had the stones to come out and say it. Take that scienticians!

I really think that the main problem with Astrophysics is that our understanding is truly lacking. Many of the things we thought we knew we have found to be in error and areas across astrophysics have clearly shown us our true lack of knowledge so much so that Astrophysics will soon have to be broke into subclasses for us to even attempt to gain some clarity to the various aspects of it.

A big disadvantage for astrophysicists, apart from being unable to conduct experiments, is when they are observing large slowly evolving structures like galaxies for example. It is not possible to see how a particular galaxy has evolved. In terms of astronomical time they only get a 'snapshot'.

With regards to models of reality, Alan Watts succinctly said 'The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal'. I can't think of anything more lucid than that to explain the utter fallacy of constructing models for understanding the universe.

The general trend toward finding out we were wrong about something may be a function of an increase in the body of knowledge that we can never _completely_ know. IOW, the more we think we know, the more we are necessarily wrong about, and the more we discover we do not know.

Proof written to perfection, spot on humor

I think that you got it fairly right this time.

I sometimes think this doesnt feel like they find new things. More like lifting the veil. Slowly. Just a feeling.

Announcing that something breaks physics is a lot more attention-grabbing than saying "We've seen something we didn't expect to see, bear with us while we look at the possible reasons why". It's how we got faster than light neutrinos.

I find it intriguing that this is almost the exact opposite of the problem she was talking about with particle physics. This has data to challenge models that want to be kept, and particle physics wants to change models of which there is no new data to justify a change. Considdering astrophysics and particle physics are so closely related, this is quite intriguing. I would like to note the differences between particle physics and quantum mechanics. The former being a subset of the much broader field of quantum mechanics. And there does seem to be a lot of upheaval in quantum mechanics lately too. I'm about to make the same comment on the particle physics video too haha

In my team we can that the ''my baby effect''. We work on electrical engineering which is a very applied field. There are a lot of folks out there who clearly think their idea, device or experimental setup is just perfect. These scientist love science as long as it does not question their beliefs.

I really like the 'Kuhn' comment. It is encouraging to know that you have read his works.

So the JWST, or whatever these observations are seen by, is revealing the various holes that exist in the theory, some of which are very large. We just didn't realize how Swiss cheese-like it was until we created something sophisticated enough to perceive the holes. Interesting.

A French Philosopher called Jean Baudrillard wrote a book on this in 1988: Simulacra and Simulation. They argued that postmodern culture had become so reliant on representations of reality that it had lost contact with the real world. Quote: "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is …. the map that precedes the territory…that engenders the territory”. “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real”.

Thoughts on the channel Thunderbolts idea of the electric universe?

LG actually had this production and was going to roll it out in 2021.

In well-designed sociological surveys or in vivo studies you always include control groups to limit the amount of parameters which could have an influence on the result. We however have no control universe, that would come handy.

"Dinosaur bones don't go supernova, which is a pity" must be my new favorite quote! Could have been Douglas Adams.

An American master of the obvious once said "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." Parameters are hard.

Spot on. A pressing problem with modern science: mistaking the map for the terrain. Or model for reality.

Absolutely agreed Sabine

Years ago I read in a book of readings on Astrophysics, "The Universe is almost certainly more complex than the human mind can comprehend, much less understand." Sort of my teleology.