Enjoy this remastered version of my conversation with Sabine - commercial free. If you like it Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 and leave a comment

I love Sabines attitude, sober mindset and effortless honesty. She's truly a joy to listen to.

Sabine is quite amazing. She has an ability to stand back and see the flaws in theories in a rational way backed by her own work in the field and the value of the scientific method. Listening to her is like turning on a tap but instead of water flowing out it is common sense.

Wow, the look on Brian's face when you were shooting down the multiverse theory is priceless. Like he was just standing by helpless while you were kicking his dog over and over again.

Pure physicist. This woman deserves great respect. She separates science from philosophy, physics from mathematics so clearly... She does not allow any speculative hypothesis or theory. She gives short and concise answers to questions. When we can seek answers with new theories that are simpler and more understandable than the available data and observations to solve big problems in physics, why should we trust explanations that go beyond more complex and difficult physics, she says... My respects to you Sabine Hossenfelder... 🙏🏻 🙏🏻

I personally feel that - Imagination - is critical to the Discipline of Science. Without Imagination, there is no curiosity. Without curiosity there is no exploration, no theorizing, no research. But is imagination and inspiration. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Sabine, replies, "Well, we don't actually have any evidence that life exists elsewhere." Yet, then she admits that she really hasn't looked into the topic....

Adore Sabine. She is the much needed heretic in our Church of Theoretical Frameworks.

You don't come at Sabina with some nonsense, you will be exposed immediately. But you can survive Sabine if you answer her questions about your theory and if arguments and evidence is sufficient, you are free to continue. Sabine The judge of the science.

I love this woman. She skips the double-talk, and tells us the way she really thinks it is - which is probably pretty close to the best way to think about it. Scientific illiteracy, it seems to me, is due in large part to scientists' unwillingness to try to couch things in everyday language, and engage the public. IMHO, there aren't enough like her.

10:35 Sabine's point about social engagement is very poignant, although podcasts such as her own, Brian's, Lawrence's, and Neil's are a great bridge towards that engagement. 15:30 Don't pretend it's science, beautiful. Always a great interview with Sabine Hossenfelder, thank you very much Brian.

I have been listening to Sabine for several months on yt. I really like her presentation, her pleasant attitude, the science and her humor. When she said on one of her videos that I should visit your channel I did. I am very happy I did.

I think this interviewer really prefers to interview himself. Now I’ll find another video.

Rejecting a religion vs rejecting the existence of gods vs rejecting any notion of divinity vs saying there is no clear evidence for any of this one way or another. These are four different things that don't nearly exhaust the range of possible stances.

If you don't know the song lyrics, title of "More Than This" may suggest "There is more than this" as Sabine explains her reasoning for her title choice but chorus lyrics are in fact perfect expression of pure physicalism :) "More than this You know there's nothing More than this Tell me one thing More than this Ooh, there's nothing"

Thanks for taking the time to correct the audio. Makes a big difference! You've earned a sub.

She and Eric are my fav atm. Not scared to challenge and ask the right questions and take a different approach. I’ve been watching her videos for quite some time now and I love her semi-not serious but serious delivery. Her small skit style is awesome too! Thanks for this one! Great interview as always!

RE: Science and religion have the same roots. A modern day Buddhist, Daisaku Ikeda, once said that someday science will catch up with Buddhism! Indeed, Buddhism presents some of the most mind boggling concepts yet claims to be rooted in common sense. Moreover, Shakyamuni (Gautama) Buddha speaks of the "other major world systems". How did humans living 3000 years ago know about other world systems and the 10 directions of the universe when the telescope hadn't been invented yet? Thank you, Dr. Keating and Dr. Hossenfelder for this compelling dialogue. I've signed up for your mailing list, as a result.

I have long maintained that the biggest downside of being an atheist is the lack of potluck dinners. I'm glad I'm in good company with Sabine Hossenfelder.

Another interviewer who likes to hear himself talk.

20:50 I know we're meant to be waaay beyond this now, but it genuinely astounds me that anyone beyond an excitable 12 year old takes the "Simulation Hypothesis" seriously *at all* It's just another version of, "You could just be a brain in a jar on a shelf in a lab." And it's not even a good version of that. What am I missing?

Brilliant episode! Sabine is B A S E D.

Ah, I already loved Sabine but when she said her original title for the book was from a Roxy Music song (More Than This)… now I only love her even more!

My view is that in our hubris we assume that we _can_ formulate human-understandable equations that completely describe the laws of nature. What if such a formulation requires a much higher level of understanding than _we_ can attain?

I love Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder! I just got her new book!

Life on Earth is all the evidence I need to convince me that life exists in the universe.

What do you say to the argument that based on a statistical analysis of complex molecules and systems, they're simply isn't enough time in the accepted big bang model for such complex entities and systems to have evolved without the involvement and direction of a superior intelligence and control. Not not saying God necessarily, but surely something superior to what we can understand. In other words, based on a purely objective analysis of the reality we see, the complex systems and molecules - such as DNA and RNA - and then looking at the time that they have had to evolve, the faith required to accept that chaos could have resulted in such sublimely coordinated systems is a faith that is even stronger than what most religious people would profess.

When you brought up Einstein, I almost expected Sabine to say “Yes, that guy again” 😂

Can we all agree that we don't want the physics community to come up with better theories to explain better data. We want the physics community to figure out how to build a warp drive.

I never knew about the issues between physicists. These huge brains fight a lot. Its nice. Science is so beautiful

I wish more physicists were purely logical and not just “replacing” religion.

It's not right though, everything is not "made" of particles, its this basic error that is the source of all the problems when you get to the higher level issues in physics. You have fields, standing waves, resonance patterns, creations of particles out of nothing, anti-particles. These things do not suggest anything like the atomism of democritus of atoms or particles in the void, moved by external forces. For one thing we realise there is no true void anymore in the first place, and force is done in QED with these strange exchanges of virtual particles, which lends itself to informational accounts, and so is not an external force in the old manner. Thirdly, the supposed atoms/particles themselves, what are they? The Protons, electrons, photons, the Quarks or the gluons, Are Bosons more fundamental or the other? If not you have two or more "fundamental" particles that are different, yet the fundamental atom was supposed to be not not constituted of anything and so completely indiscriminate in its quality. So the concept of atomism has been falsified by 20th century science yet for some reason this is still being ignored in the mainstream, and not just ignored, the exact opposite of this is being claimed to be true. Very bizarre

Everything is not made of particles. Fields is closer to the apt description. Observed interactions are given the name 'particles'. Let's not keep misunderstanding QM through incoherent conceptualizations.

She is so right about the simulation hypothesis.

Sabine, destroyer of dreams. 😊 ❤

Sabine is my favorite physicist on KZfaq but the delay of this interview is giving me a headache! I wish Sabine was given a better format ... more appropriate for a person of her stature!

I really like Sabine. I just discovered her but she seems very intuitive and diligent. I actually lean towards electric/plasma universe theory . I’m not sure where she stands on that but she does ask the right questions about physics.

Great podcast..just heard it on Apple podcasts, Sabine rocks! Keep it coming Brian!

I would really like to see less latency in these conversations. You deal with it quite well but its so bad that even with good management it gets awkward quite frequently. If you really care about high quality audio and video on both sides just record each side locally and stitch them together in post but have the actual conversation though some other service like discord or skype where you get below 1 second latency even across the globe.

I only recently discovered Sabine, and science isn’t my strong suit. That said, she has my attention. Her “I’m not impressed by your theories” (if that’s as far as they’re ever gonna go), is just the pinch of salt needed to give the scientific endeavor the practical flavor it has a tendency to lose. (Sort of like the way mechanics will tell engineers that something may work fine on paper but it’s not doing so in the maintenance shop!)

I’m late to this interview but I cannot stress how important our foundational advancement is in regard to one concept: “What is going on with imaginary numbers?”

I've got a huge backlog of books to get through but I am going to buy Sabine Hossenfelder's and allow it to jump the queue!

When you ask a question that contains three questions and a story don't expect an answer and you'll never be disappointed.

When I speak of the observer as a program, I don't hint at a simulation universe. In fact, it has got nothing to do with the simulation theory which is not a workable hypothesis.

A true iconoclast knows how to destroy a theory without shaming the imagination.

I only focus on one aspect of physics, one I have studied since high school, when I detected an error in modern physics. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. So consider a clock in a flying airplane and a clock on the ground. Einstein's Special Theory says the clock in the airplane will be slower than the one on the ground. So I thought I understood Einstein's Theory. I could see that if the pilot of the airplane had a slower clock than an observer on the ground, the pilot would get a faster speed for the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that the equations he used show that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. Since that time I have not had a high opinion of scientists. I have attempted to discuss this with scientists for decades. They will not discuss it. Eventually, I decided that scientists are running a scam and are completely aware it is a scam. Watch how many scientists and science worshippers answer this post.

I'm such a fan of you both. Thank you for this collaboration.

this thumbnail looks like a revenge for 'Loosing the Nobel Prize' review

In the Entertainment industry a multiverse is an excuse for bad writing and bad lore management in a franchise

Kepler's idea wasn't "wrong" because ALL reference points are equally valid. The fact that he based his reference point on the Earth verses the Sun doesn't make his ideas wrong, it is true that everything revolves around the Earth exactly as he described, well except for the procession of Mercury due to relativistic effects, it's just a matter of reference points, again, all of which are equally valid.

It's important to note that there are infinite universes in which Sabine believes in both the multiverse and simulation-theory, that happen to, ironically, exist within a simulation themselves. A simulation within a simulated multiverse to be exact.

You know sometimes it's just fun to go back and watch your previous interviews. Although the information changes, the questions mostly remain the same, and I guess they will , until we find the answers. So here's to another Journey Into The Impossible.

I love Sabine. Brilliant mind. Cute. Spunky. A great communicator for science.

How can we know if people 100 years ago really believed when saying they don’t believe in God could put them and their families in danger or at least ostracize them?

If the multiverse is falsifiable then it is a scientific question.

Falsafiability can not be a virtue. It's a requirement for science.

I hope that, at some point in the future, we look back on our discomfort with "the square root of negative one" the same way we view Pythagoras' treatment of the square root of two.

My Quantum Mechanics part II teacher in grad school said that the fact that p and q don't commute has to do with tunneling. I don't recall the argument. Maybe it's in my notebook somewhere. I'll post it if I ever find it.

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

Terrence states that Carbon is bisexual. Terrence is made of carbon, so yes, this makes sense.

Physics as it is doesn’t tell us whether our existence continues after death, or not. The personal dispositions of our physicists, are just that. Despite the immense amount of funding, this important question itself is never seriously addressed in academia. There exist covert military programs which have looked further into this matter, collating information across many disciplines, and have come to a much more definitive conclusion about the ‘quantum fluid dynamic’ that is the human “soul”, and how it can be manipulated or “transferred through the use of magnetic patterns, inducing a current of superfluidity from one vessel, into another.”

Eric Weinstein has to be one of the most self absorbed people ever. To say you have the theory to everything without peer review and without actually explaining it at all is ridiculous

The literal interpretation of the Bible is only a problem if you are a. processing it within your current temporal context. It should be read in context with the beliefs/ philosophy of 6000 b.c -100 ad writers. Reading the book as a whole, it is a remarkably integrated "worldview," pasted together through history, poetry, songs, etc. and b. You're expecting it to be logical, scientific and entirely accurate. It was never meant to be any of those things. Our "genre" are not equivalent to their "genre." For example, in a Hellenistic culture biography and history didn't need to be accurate, linear, witnessed, or original. The story that doesn't make sense is a "type." It's meant to be understood as both a literal story and as a " type," of event; through repetition, imagery, parallelism, reversals or polemics

A really Interesting question in the video. Why we are using real numbers to describe or measure relative word? Do we thereby introduce infinities because of that?

This becomes debate on species of fiction. Genres. It is heuristic, all of "it". Art and Music and Architecture bridge to tactile evidence but in human scale. We cannot see what we cannot get an angle on. A bead on the prey tell?sic

I have had a lifelong interest in maverick scientific observations and topics. One old school author I hold in great admiration is the late Frank Edwards, formerly of the long defunct Mutual Broadcasting Network. In his classic book, STRANGE WORLD, he made mention of a bizarre discovery, wherein a communications satellite, which was retrieved from orbit and subsequently placed on a weight scale had lost almost fifty percent of it's original mass! Yet, this odd effect is not mentioned in contemporaneous scientific circles or anywhere in physics textbooks! I have to wonder just why and whether unsettling observations would be widely acknowledged or simply suppressed from scrutiny. How can science advance when new data are swept under the rug and kept away from prying eyes?

I have been waiting for years for someone to tell the emperor has no clothes on.

I am not religious but I am an open-minded agnostic. but if anything convinces me that there could be life after death, it's NDE's. I've been looking up brilliant accounts, many of which are truly inexplicable....and often experienced by once hardened atheists. One case describes a blind woman (blind from birth) who floated out of her body and became fully-sighted just before she was resuscitated, another bed-ridden person said that her spirit drifted out of a closed window and soared above the hospital, where she saw a random trainer on the roof. But upon hearing this patients weird account, a sceptical nurse then ascended to the highest part of the hospital and actually found the random trainer by peeking out of a rarely used window. The trainer was impossible to see from standard viewpoints and the patient had never even been to the hospital prior to her admission. These strange experiences hint at something ''else'', and they are worth investigating by the scientific community. But I think scientists fear being judged by their peers, or castigated and devalued if they dabble in such ''spooky' areas.

As if I wasn't already sure I love Sabine Hossenfelder, she said her original title idea was a quote from a Peter Gabriel song! Yes there is so much more than this, (our current understanding of the universe). There is something out there, and in there.

She is the best!!!!!!!!!!! Hands down

Dr Keating seems to have a limited understanding of what a hypothisis and theory(old school law) actualy means. A hypothesis is simply an idea regarding reality that might fit testing. A theory is a model that fits the facts that are known until it doesn't. Taken that way Kepler's model worked for the facts as was know at the time. Religion, multiverses, astrology at best are hypotheses and unproven or at worse failed hypotheses.

I'm commenting from another simulated universe where, in an interview with Brian Keating, Sabine Hossenfelder mounts a passionate defense of the multiverse.

I'm not a physicist, I am an engineer, but my answer is a resounding NO. Belief in God is an irrational state of mind.

Speaking of God, knowing the future, one would drop dead of boredom surely and I find that comforting, we'll discover the future together with our creator. Knowing it would be indistinguishable from being stuck in the past while powerless to change anything

I hate the multiverse theory. I'm not having it. Just no - If it's ever proved I'll be curled up in the corner pretending the world is flat and wearing my tin foil hat.

Sabine is so great. I've learned so much from her it blows my mind. 😂

I don't believe in unicorns because none of my sensory experiences lead me to believe in them, and I don't see any evidence of their existence. The same reasoning applies to God. However, I'll keep an open mind and be willing to weigh any evidence that supports the belief.

the great thing about not paying attention is you can enjoy some things more than once, i've lost count of the number of times i've read "a canticle for leibowitz" and still can't remember what the story is about, anyway, i always enjoy a good hossenfeld. i will however never forget the time i also tried to bite the cap off a tube of superglue and stuck my teeth together. great talk.

Panspermia and finding life: it might be fruitful to look at star systems that where near the sun back in time, as they might have received life from earth. It would narrow down the search quite a bit compared to randomly looking for star-systems everywhere that might have life.

Keating has mastered the art of the never ending question.

The biggest problem between faith and science is that people think they should be in conflict. Get by that and you might come back to faith because science is part of faith.

Logical mental visualization philosophy can be very enlightening. Especially concerning the Multiverse potential. Mental visualization of actual phenomenon using simple logic may even be more powerful than mathematical modeling in solving some physical mysteries that mathematics can't touch. I suspect it is the only way we will find a way to traverse the stars or galaxies because physicist's current models of physics won't ever get us there because our models are too limiting. The great leap many of us would like to make will require a radical new way of modeling everything. Something academic and career physicist can't afford to pursue or entertain. Wild ideas require wild experimentation. We can figure out the math behind it when an experiment finds something useful. Infinite repeatable scales is an interesting philosophical type of multiverse. If our Universe is inside a sub--atomic particle of another Universe at a much greater repeating scale of manifestation then at some scale our consciousness is inside another conscious being. Perhaps even in an alternate version of ourselves in some of the larger scale multiverses. Our consciousness may be connected or quantum entangled despite being separated by these vastly different scales of being. Matter of fact visualizing infinite consciously connected scales of layered being introduces some amazing new potentials. Perhaps our consciousness is in multiple universes at the same time but we seldom if ever notice this without conscious experimentation on this potential. Perhaps visualizing and discovering new potentials has the ability to relocate the centering of your consciousness in another universe in the multiverse where these new potentials are becoming. Perhaps we are multidimensional and existing in many multi-universe already but few of us ever pay attention closely enough to notice and experiment with this new potential. It's all very logical and I've seen possible evidence in my own life that it may indeed be so. Conscious jumping may be a thing. Growing your consciousness by learning of new potentials may shift you to the multiverse who's time for discovering and exercising this new potential has come.

The thumbnail made it look like we were getting 'evil' Sabine, but no just normal Sabine.

I would love to see Dr. Hugh Ross on your show. He has quite a unique perspective on astrophysics and the fine tuned universe. Are you open enough to have him on?

The multiverse is quite similar to the idea of the thousands of radio signals that are received by your radio antenna. But the radio can selectively tune one of them out for us because it was created by humans for that purpose. The Schrödinger's equation was created by nature, so we are stuck seeing this one slice of reality and can't see waves that are right here with us, but go right through our reality. It makes the most sense to explain the universe. The whole thing has to be quantum through and through, and we only see the thinnest slice of it. Your graphic of the multiverse represents it incorrectly as though the other worlds are somewhere else. They are right beside us and in us, it's just that reality is not what it appears to be, as usual.

I love Sabine! No gobbledygook!

Love her channel. The very first episode I saw, on retro-causality, she stuck out as such an interesting and uniquely funny person

Sabine is a beautiful mind ❣️

Before talking about the meaning of complex numbers (root of -1) we must clarify the particle physical meaning of negative numbers themselves. There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about assigning negative and positive directions to the 3 axes of the Cartesian coordinates. Applying the Cartesian coordinates to the center of the earth what physical meanig can one associate to calling north, east and midday axes (axises, axii?) as positve and the corresponding other 3 as negative, in addition to the inconsistency in equating "+" as positive and "-" as negative without any physical meaning. Increasing diseases or violence are not "positive" nor their decreases "negative". Charges assigned to protons and electrons in atoms too lack any physical meaning other than that the formulae work in practice. That Newton's formula works for calculations of falling objects doesn't prove his explanation was correct. The same applies to spooky charges and the cartesian negative and positve axial directions too. So long as we continue accepting such "word jugglery" in our most fundamental concepts, thinking of unifying all knowledge is the absurdest thing one could imagine ~ that would certainly remain a pipe dream until we change these absurd fundamentals. There is absolutely nothing PHYSICAL about negative and positive "directions" in space nor in the "charges" of particles ~ both are mere word jugglery.

There is no religion, There is only FAITH which is PERSONAL. Each to their own. In my view ( which is open to argument) We are all made up of energy and will ultimately return to the universal energy matrix. Up until then we as individual conscious entities are in existence to increase the experience of the universal conscience. Parallel universes etc. I only believe I have a open perspective and am open to someone who can PROVE me wrong.

Really enjoy Sabrina and yourself and what both of you stated is the most fundamental statement regarding " science " and " no beliefs " ....this was our standard throughout school ( elementary throughout highschool) and has slowly been corrupted with belief and quenching of the etheric discovery that has for lack of word downloaded discovery into the pupils of history that themselves held astonish as to the downloaded information....Tesla Einstein ect DNA dudes ect ect

Your interviewees are always interesting and, frankly, awesome. Tha k you for your channel and podcasts ❤ Sabine is amazing, I am in love with her mind...😊

this was wonderful. thank u for re sharing

13:35 - Agreed. Christianity has a tenant said by Jesus himself, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Religious belief is critical to the functioning of a society, as it's part of who we are, unifies our sense of place in the universe, and is the only thing that can tell us how to _be._ Science only tells us how stuff works, and separating the two (see prior quote) is something we're going to have to keep at the fore.

Just what every complex and nuanced conversation needs, a firebrand who doesn't listen and assumes they are 100% correct and it's just that simple. Sure that will help clarify things!

I like Sabine's sober skepticism.

If you remove the gobbledegook, you’re left with electrified space.

Sabine brought me here. Great channel and great content! happy subscriber now... 😊

Lovely interview, but it ended on such an awkward note. Danke, Shane! 🤣🤣🤣 Her face. At least you tried! I think the ‘u’ in ‘run’ is the closest English equivalent to ‘ö’.

Of the many terrific stuff about Sabine I just totally dig her warmth.

Why such huge audio delay between you two ? Weirdly, in video there is no delay in audio, but there seems to be delay between you, causing awkward delays and mismatching replies/reactions.