15/17, thought I was smarter, but I managed being member now, so there´s still a chance.

@@Thomas-gk42So did i.

Can't get energy from nothing. But what about space

The magnetic and diamagnetic 2 at once.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obyThbZy29SzpXU.htmlsi=xSd2z59D4yCNl0p-

She learned that KZfaq videos are more lucrative.

She did talk about it in another video, but at this point she has so many that I'm not about to go looking for it. :| I forget the takeaway, but IIR it was a synthesis of "this may be a dead end," "funding is hard to get for things that lack charisma," and "the field is full of people who are just chasing things with charisma, even if they aren't scientifically sound."

I would too.

She probably offended the string theory professor?😅

Me too

Sounds like the metaphorical God before the Big Bang. Now I understand why God had to sacrifice himself. He was overwhelmed and couldn't take it anymore.

And gravity exists, so if you are a man, you can enjoy your testes nicely hanging down, and if you are a woman, you can enjoy your titties nicely sagging down. Tell me you've never heard of gravity defined in such human terms.

@@meenki347 Bored out of his mind, I would think. I mean, imagine knowing everything. Never being surprised, challenged . . .

Time exists because there is motion. Without it time is meaningless

If God was everywhere and everything, then there couldn't be any motion, and therefore no time to lose.

According to my memories of school it's physics if it's working and not working at the same time leaving the teacher confused in both cases and pupils amused. It's chemistry if something is stinking annoyingly at best and it's getting extremely loud at worst.

I try to pride myself on teaching lab so that experiments never just outright fail. On two occasions, the lab for electrostatic induction failed due to the humidity in the room causing the electric field detectors to not stay calibrated. Physics has the most sensitive experiments. That makes it so great, but it also makes it hard to teach because you have to be extremely careful.

none of it works the way we are told,. It tells me to find out the truths for myself, ask questions and don't take bullshit answers as truths!

@@jmcsquared18 it's actually experiments about electrostatics which I remember being particularly tricky. Vacuum can be similarly difficult. To be honest most other experiments were working fine.

@@pittbullv5 I'm wondering how you would try to find out truths for yourself about eg. nuclear reactions or superconductivity. Apart from studying physics at university or working in a research lab I mean. On "none of it works the way we are told". At least the stuff thought at school has been confirmed often enough to be assumed to be essentially true. And the success of an experiment critically depends on the quality of its preparation and the stability of the conditions of its surroundings. That's actually a similar situation as in high tech areas like eg. semiconductor microchips for electronic memory and computer processors.

Surprise!

The surprise is if it had stopped, rain in England in February 😮

​@SabineHossenfelder have u done the dishes?

​@PPP-on3vl have you wiped your ass today? You should get on it.

It didn't rain yesterday!

Seattle -Bridge entanglement 🤣🤣❤️

and Melbourne

I thought I wasn't there to observe it it wouldn't happen. Hope the roof has held up.

*then

You still need to define in which Bell State though!

When people said quantum gravity is about cheating gravity as particles called gravitons, I could not fully understand. Now she said quantum gravity needs to explain how one particle can be at two places at the same time, it is a more clear description

It is fun to pull neo magnets on the refrigerator just hard enough that they separate from the metal surface but not leave the field.

@@starventurealways did this at a kid since they taught us in elementary school how magnets worked. It was great

Sometimes when I'm sitting outside with my dogs I just have a couple magnets in my pocket and make it move and repel and the dogs just think it's wonderful as just like me and others. 😊.

I thought that was a clever way to explain the absolutely massive difference in the forces. Bloody Bravo as always. Sabine's a God damn beacon of photon-flinging, wave-particle duality unfurling across the cosmos in an electromagnetic echoic dance of information. Sabine ❤

Sometimes I just eat magnets... 🤔

no she really isn't. I'll point you to Feyman, to Sidney Coleman, to Hawking, to Lenny Susskind, to Brian Greene, to Sean Carroll, and there are many many others. What do you mean by 'already' anyway? already since the dawn of time? or maybe already since 9am this morning? Even Rovelli is a better communicator than her and he speaks appalling English and is a total loon spouting wishy washy nebulous shite and claiming legitimacy for LQG. Dear oh dear.

BlueMarbleScience did exactly that and anyone can watch the recording of when he did it live.

This could be beyond my understanding but wouldn't the weight of gravity be the weight of the object itself. And wouldn't that depend on what that object is.

@@mr.e7541 I was impressed myself to measure the attraction between a ball of lead and a small ball of brass.. I knew that the Earth attracts every object, but to see it myself that two small objects attract one snd another was awesome the experiment had to be repeated because ship on a nearby canal in Amsterdam ruined some tries...

@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 interesting I'll have to look more into it. I don't quite understand it at this point.

​@@mr.e7541I feel the same! But very intrigued by it.

Yes me to. Because I am almost certain they find it. it will prove my own theory and thoughts to.

It is very wet here at the moment

"...One of the driest places in Britain." Oh, dear. Damned by faint praise.

There is a difference between how MUCH it rains and how LONG it rains. If you've ever visited Florida, you would get it.

​@@ejpoleiican attest to that from Bengal, Eastern India.

Very well said. Some simple statistics would show that but Hossenfelder thinks she knows better in her arrogance. God she's so full of shit.

google for lock in amplifier

Phhf That is just solidified rain. 😆

1) If GQ is a QFT it would have a particle density, number of gravitons in an area. 2) Yes a graviton would have a frequency. 3) Likely not by energies accessible to humans. 4) Same as above. 5) The graviton would likely be massless since it would not couple to the higgs field, as far as we know.

strange,... but true ?

utter word salad!

@@philcowdall9399 Reality implies the unreal but the flow makes all real and unreal so it’s not useful in my understanding and can actually hinder you. So everything is not current but we can bring the difference into our current. I mean current as the flow of integrated differences that is the universe. Think of how Nikolai Tesla said to think in 3 6 9, a binary view is leaving out the middle. Now you see the integration and what wave collapse is. It’s when the eye gets hit but the differences of light and since its differences are crashed into like a wave the nervous system feels the wave through its integrated dif and goes to alter the neuron but it’s still a neuron and connected to the others and can share the difference with the senses. It’s pretty cool to think about and to watch what happens. It’s like pulling on a thread and seeing the web and then seeing what’s between and what’s between us seen as unreal but it’s just not current. So the reason it’s so fast is because of its self and its relations. Superposition is the same as how the neuron is altered and connected and disconnected by difference but still entangled and sharing through each other and revealing stuff

Ultimately, yes, it will get rid of that property, but that doesn't mean you can't measure that it must have been there previously. Think about the double slit. Yes, we measure a dot on the screen and that gets rid of the "here and there", but we can still infer that it must have been in two places at once previously.

i don't think it automatically would: the reason it always happens is because the measuring methods themselves always distrib the system in skme way, butbif you can find a truly passive way to make measurements, then that shouldn't be a problem

@@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447 the term measurement itself disallows it from being passive also this "passive measurement" is literally just infering that the result you measured must have come from quantum effects that one can't observe but that must have happened, otherwise the result does not make sense you can't make solutions up that are not grounded in reality. There is no evidence for any measurement that doesn't collapse a wave function.

Even if it’s a wave spread out into infinity there will be a first point of contact with the detector right? How sensitive is the detector sensor? Our measurement will always give a point locality in that sense surely?

Perhaps it is not particles that have multiple positions but it is space itself that has multiple positions and measuring a particle brings space into focus so to speak.

Unsolicited, yes. Interesting points... YES! Good stuff actually. Ty

Well someone up there is listening. Since originally making this comment the keying has improved loads. Still excellent content, now with excellent chroma-keying.

As an enthusiast editor. I get it. But I would image that is probably the least if the editors issues... Sabine is PROLIFIC!!!! How the heck do you keep pace with her videos? To be honest her hair is SO iconic, Einstein would be blushing. It's endearing. And come on she's a cutie! It adds to her pizzazz! Lol

gravity is a property of mass itself, regardless of the form that mass takes.

Something something Higgs field An expert by no means, I think it is safe to say that arrangements matter when speaking of gravity as spacetime curvature because "arrangement" is already a spatial property. When it comes to "net-gravity" as if it is a force that warps spacetime by some cumulative measure, then we are well outside of my knowledge. It might even require quantized gravity such that there could be a "sum." Perhaps indirectly relevant is the three-body problem of physics (not the book or series) in which there is no closed-form solution (classic formula) for the time evolution of 3 gravitational bodies.

not a stupid question at all

Yes, it makes no difference the form it takes. Actually since the mass is equivalent to energy, we should really talk about forms of energy. And therefore it's actually the same between all forms of energy. That is, an amount of energy in the form of the mass of particles has the same effect on the curvature of spacetime as the potential energy stored in a spring.

If you found something that had different "gravity" despite having the same "mass", you would have discovered a new force that was no longer gravity. The essence of gravity is that it treats all "masses" the same. That said, I wonder if gravity is like pressure, an emergent property that only makes sense when you have a macroscopic system.

No it is still one particle, albeit a fuzzy one. The question is how gravity works when the particle is delocalized in this way. Nobody knows. There are countless theories but experiments are needed to put bounds on the matter. I think 20 orders of magnitude of additional precision would be needed to get somewhat closer to an answer.

The problem is simply that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. Our usual method of renormalisation (redefining mass and charge in order to explain different energy ranges) that we did for particle physics doesn't work for gravity. There are methods to naively "quantum-ify" gravity though, for example, making the stress-energy tensor that appears in Einstein's equations the expectation value of the state.

No, mathematically that's not the problem because you can get non-linear behaviour from the self-coupling of quantum particles (you just don't get it in the Schroedinger-eq). The issue is loosely speaking that in GR you have nothing like the uncertainty principle or, if you want to make it more technical, nothing like the non-commutativity of observables. In GR, all observables commute. In QM, they don't. It's just not mathematically the same, and yet somehow it has to work.

​@@SabineHossenfelder I don't know why physicists aren't using Cayley-Dickson Constructions to marry the mathematics of GR with QM & The Standard Model.

@@SabineHossenfelder But why it has to work? A quantum computer can do endless calculations and execute algorithms without the commute or being forced to interact with the environment and cause random noise that will eventually affect its state, aka qubit state. The mind, as a blank slate apparatus embedded in the fabric of Spacetime of an infinite cosmos interpret that perfect resolution of repeated observations/measurements are unattainable in principle. Because the changes are too small to detect or see, which indicates there are no changes at all!! It’s like you are not even measuring anything from the start! 😅 However, you’re still observing ‘a change’!! This transforms into a non-real or non-existent realm of reality. It is a single wave function (of probabilities) for the entire universe. Source of gravity (momentum, mass, energy) are all finite and created from nothing. The path taken in physical space is being deflected by gravity. Gravity doesn’t know anything about quantum properties. It is separate. Just like how the conscious subjective mind is separate and irreducible, cannot be reduced to the physical brain. Therefore, the problem lies at the heart of quantum theory. The solution is try to understand GR in a totally new perspective and look for additional degrees of freedom within the same framework. So, reframe the idea of gravity and revolutionize quantum physics. There has to be an underlying comprehensive solution to solve the deepest mysteries in physics. Since our mind is a thinking computational apparatus, we could visualize an altered state of mind or consciousness of altered realities where you ‘you don’t even need to think to begin with’ or quantize!!! There could be an element of reality that we humans are completely missing, it is beyond locality, determinism, computational irreducibility and the conventional rules of QM. I could be mistaken but at the very least this is how my brain understands quantum physics. 😅

This is the longest reply and it says absolutely nothing helpful. Everyone that reads this is now more confused than they were before this comment. May God have mercy on your soul 😂 jk​@yasminegannam1989

troll?

In case you don't know, ceteris paribus means all things being equal and doesn't refer to repetition.

Being no scientist myself, this is only my opinion. What you said at first was that there were too many greater forces greater messing up the testing. Then you went on to say weigh it in aggregate. To me there's a contradiction there. How can you control for specific variables if you are testing in aggregate. That IS where you would run into contamination as it would be impossible to test for exactly what you want. That's why these tests are so hard. To be able to have a device so fine it could isolate and measure atomic gravity is still science fiction... for now. We WILL get there but this is not like simply scaling down a kitchen scale. The forces at that scale are still quantum and those quanta must be accounted for.

in case you don't know, it's 'ball park', not 'bulk park'

Can we simulate true empty space? I guess we need that to measure any newtonian force greater than nothing with a good baseline to start from. If we can't do that than we end up with occupied space and things that might interfere with the newtonian force. Cause clearly electromagnetism etc can screw with it. Did you spot the paradox?

You're given the label of ‘nonfunctional' because you're a crank

Curvature can be defined in any dimension. It's difficult to visualize. The easiest might be to think of it as curvature on 2-dimensional slices of the higher dimensional space. Strictly speaking it's not just "curvature" but a "curvature tensor" which entries for all combinations of directions. Difficult thing to work with...

It's an example from highschool textbook. At least my highschool text book had it.

@miurrahman6365 explain your associated lab experiment please. I was maybe a bit older, 1974 I was on an Aircraft carrier in a helicopter squadron before college and the U

@@aniksamiurrahman6365please explain your lab experiment.