Tuesday, February 16, 2021
Science without the gobbledygook
New channel trailer in which I explain my motivation to produce videos.
19 comments:
COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG ARE PERMANENTLY CLOSED. You can join the discussion on Patreon.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI like the vintage tv. Good work on the production values - it's visually interesting. I'm not so sure about four popups that flashed up though.
ReplyDeleteI liked the trailer a lot. As reader of your blog for many years I wanted to ask, it seemed in the early years you didn't pay much attention to what image of yourself you used, and at some point later that changed; was that due to the book and PR people?
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you mean by "image". Do you literally mean "image", as in photo (and if so, which one), or metaphorically "image"?
DeleteYes, I meant the photo of yourself you use.
DeleteThe one in the header of the blog? That's been there for 5 years or so. The avatar I use on YouTube, that's a photo someone took for the book cover which I think is very well done. The one I use on twitter with the mask is a selfie I took during the first lockdown and it's there to make clear which side of the mask-debate I'm on.
DeleteI don't think I am paying more attention to what photos I use where now than I did previously, but due to a combination of having more and better cameras and having had quite a number of photo shoots I have a much larger selection of photos to chose from.
That answered my question, I thought perhaps because of the book PR people were influencing what pictures you used. If I'm remembering correctly I don't think you even wore makeup in the first picture I saw on the blog many years ago.
DeleteTo be clear this wasn't about looks at all, rather I was curious if as you become more of a public figure are others interested in your success trying to influence how you present yourself.
Well, I was 15 years younger.
DeleteGotta wonder how "gobbledygook" translates into German.
ReplyDeleteAh! You are a fellow camera buff? Or are you more of a content collector? Room for both. I ask because back in the day when we used silver emulsions (I think it was all what? Gelatin silver?), what was done afterwards in terms of chemicals and exposures was considered at least as important as the shot.
ReplyDeleteHi, I just want to share a quote from Penrose, because it reminds me of your 'Lost in Math': 'A beautiful idea has a much greater chance of being a correct idea than a ugly one. At least that has been my own experience, and similar sentiments have been expressed by others...'
ReplyDeleteAnd then he quotes other authors.
From Penrose's 'The Emperor's new mind' p. 544 (A poor book about the mind, but with good chapters about physics).
Greetings
Noble aims, much needed. But as one astronomer of many studying AGN, finding processes quite different to theorized, 'singularities' I hit a 'wall' in 'Lost in Maths' p182. You wrote; "astronomers have gathered overwhelming evidence for their existence!" There are still some who DON'T study AGN who still think that, but are not 'singularities' unphysical, so just mathematical Gobbledigook!? Sure there are mass concentrations at the tori, but the polar jet outflows end up putting MORE mass back into the IGM than disc matter accreted, so is it not about time we stopped perpetuating what now looks clearly like old nonsense??
ReplyDeleteThe sentence refers to evidence for black holes. Not sure why you think it refers to singularities.
DeleteBecause their conception was FOUNDED on singularities! If none, we have 'grey' or 'white' holes, but I agree to a divorce is now easier to sell than 'no black holes'. Is a big problem then not changing dictionary definitions; "nothing can escape a black hole". How is that done?
DeleteThat's just wrong. The defining property of black holes is the horizon. You call yourself an astronomer, but you don't seem to know basic GR, that seems odd to me. Where did you do your degree?
DeleteI agree (though thousands may not!) Yet the common spherical event horizon nothing can escape is ALSO shown badly wrong by observations. 'Hawking radiation' appears include whole galaxy main discs! 'Basic GR' also fails for space probes, needing on-board AI for regular course corrections as they're needed in real time. (Again; refs available). I studied at Canterbury and elsewhere, and for 40+ more years! with plenty of letters after my name. I'm surprised if that matters to you more than truth?
ReplyDeleteDo you know of a different mechanism for quasar jets than the wound toroidal acceleration then precession at the cusp the data suggest?
All existing observations of black holes fit with the standard GR black hole, including, of course, the event horizon. Hawking radiation has never been observed, there is no evidence that GR has ever failed everywhere.
DeleteI don't care at all whether you have a PhD, but your previous statement might mislead other people who are reading this.
Also, I don't have time to give private lessons in GR and will not publish further comments from you.
Dear Prof Sabine Hossenfelder,
ReplyDeleteLately, I found your posts on YouTube, then your blog...
They are much fun for me but I'm an ordinary non-physicist guy & I don't understand posts on LHC...
So can you please make a video about the issue for people like me ? by that I mean with some highschool knowledge of mathematics and physics, a video with three parts 1. basic mathematical idea about super symmetry thing 2. basic idea about physical particle supper symmetry , that why they are looking for it, in first place & how are these related to gravity 3. what is wrong about it ? and if there's another way ? and please consider your audience have basic concepts of physics, your channel is fine but it's like for at least college students, best regards. Qmarth.
Qmarth,
DeleteI understand your point and appreciate your feedback. But there are lots of videos about this already. It doesn't make sense for me to repeat what others have already said dozens of times. Also, you don't need to know how supersymmetry works to understand what I am saying. (And it's not related to gravity.)