Intellectually Inflated Theories

[Native]

"If you can´t explain your cosmological theories to a barmaid, you haven´t understood it yourself". (No offence barmaids)

And if you can´t, it most likely is because your intellect is inflated by unnatural and unexplainable ideas.
-------------
Did the universe inflate?

Sabine Hossenfelder abstract:
Most physicists currently believe that our universe expanded exponentially right after the big bang. This rapid phase of expansion is called "inflation". Its advocates argue that the theory of inflation has made correct predictions. Its critics say that inflation isn't even science. Who is right? They're both right and they're both wrong. In this video I lay out the argument for you.

0:00 Intro 0:53 The controversy 2:09 Did inflation make predictions? 5:47 Does inflation work like the standard model? 8:58 The argument from popularity 9:57 What does inflation explain? 11:34 Who is right now? 12:18 Sponsor message
------------------
David de Hilster: Article reference of "The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics" - by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Read my note too . . .
-------------------
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Lost in Math".

Abstract:
Join us for a virtual discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder, live-streamed direct from Frankfurt, Germany, about her concern that theoretical physicists have failed to make any major breakthroughs for more than four decades because they are obsessed with the goal that an accurate theory must be beautiful—at least to mathematicians. Hossenfelder argues that when this belief in beauty becomes too dogmatic, it conflicts with scientific objectivity, and so may be interfering with our ability to understand black holes or why relativity theory and quantum mechanics have issues with each other. It may also be encouraging the pursuit of untestable string theory and supersymmetry explanations beyond what is scientifically useful (but which is still mathematically intriguing). Hear why Hossenfelder is insisting, to the generation of theoreticians that preceded her, that progress will probably not be made until they conclude that physics isn’t math. It’s choosing the right math.

Note: Of course, the conventional scientists hates David de Hilster as he "undresses The Emperor". And according to Sabine Hossenfelder´s independent thinking, analysis, and critiques, I guess the "Conventionalists" also, deep inside themselves, hate Sabine Hossenfelder for the same and more reasons.

How anyone can believe in a Big Bang and that a single "Higgs Boson" can give weight/mass to the entire Universe, is beyond me. And the same goes for mathematicians who believe that the Universe has set everything in equations.

We humans - and all other living beings - are a result of universal energies which vibrates inside our brains too - and this is why our ancestors recognized the creation story and took it as an eternal and infinite state where everything undergoes eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation.

 

[ChristineM]

Sabines reputation precedes her.

 

[exchemist]

"If you can´t explain your cosmological theories to a barmaid, you haven´t understood it yourself". (No offence barmaids)

And if you can´t, it most likely is because your intellect is inflated by unnatural and unexplainable ideas.
-------------
Did the universe inflate?

Sabine Hossenfelder abstract:
Most physicists currently believe that our universe expanded exponentially right after the big bang. This rapid phase of expansion is called "inflation". Its advocates argue that the theory of inflation has made correct predictions. Its critics say that inflation isn't even science. Who is right? They're both right and they're both wrong. In this video I lay out the argument for you.

0:00 Intro 0:53 The controversy 2:09 Did inflation make predictions? 5:47 Does inflation work like the standard model? 8:58 The argument from popularity 9:57 What does inflation explain? 11:34 Who is right now? 12:18 Sponsor message
------------------
David de Hilster: Article reference of "The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics" - by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Read my note too . . .
-------------------
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Lost in Math".

Abstract:
Join us for a virtual discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder, live-streamed direct from Frankfurt, Germany, about her concern that theoretical physicists have failed to make any major breakthroughs for more than four decades because they are obsessed with the goal that an accurate theory must be beautiful—at least to mathematicians. Hossenfelder argues that when this belief in beauty becomes too dogmatic, it conflicts with scientific objectivity, and so may be interfering with our ability to understand black holes or why relativity theory and quantum mechanics have issues with each other. It may also be encouraging the pursuit of untestable string theory and supersymmetry explanations beyond what is scientifically useful (but which is still mathematically intriguing). Hear why Hossenfelder is insisting, to the generation of theoreticians that preceded her, that progress will probably not be made until they conclude that physics isn’t math. It’s choosing the right math.

Note: Of course, the conventional scientists hates David de Hilster as he "undresses The Emperor". And according to Sabine Hossenfelder´s independent thinking, analysis, and critiques, I guess the "Conventionalists" also, deep inside themselves, hate Sabine Hossenfelder for the same and more reasons.

How anyone can believe in a Big Bang and that a single "Higgs Boson" can give weight/mass to the entire Universe, is beyond me. And the same goes for mathematicians who believe that the Universe has set everything in equations.

We humans - and all other living beings - are a result of universal energies which vibrates inside our brains too - and this is why our ancestors recognized the creation story and took it as an eternal and infinite state where everything undergoes eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation.

But then, a lot of things in science are beyond you, apparently.

The apocryphal quote about the barmaid is attributed to Rutherford who, if he said it at all, did so before the development of quantum theory and relativity. It's a distinctly c.19th remark .

 

[icehorse]

"If you can´t explain your cosmological theories to a barmaid, you haven´t understood it yourself". (No offence barmaids)

And if you can´t, it most likely is because your intellect is inflated by unnatural and unexplainable ideas.

And, paraphrasing Einstein: When explaining something complex, make it as simple as possible, but no simpler

 

[Revoltingest]

Sabines reputation precedes her.

It's all above my pay grade.

 

[sun rise]

Cockamamie theories are easy to spin out - all it takes is a mouth and hand waving. Hard scientific proof? That's another matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Complex ideas take a longer time to explain than simple ones. Though given time, and a barmaid that wants to learn, I could probably explain how we know relativity and quantum mechanics to be correct. The problem is that most people do not have the patience to learn and some people appear to be afraid to learn.

 

[kaninchen]

And if you can´t, it most likely is because your intellect is inflated by unnatural and unexplainable ideas.

No, it's because Prof Jim Al-Khalili hasn't made a documentary about it yet.

 

[ChristineM]

No, it's because Prof Jim Al-Khalili hasn't made a documentary about it yet.

Funny you should say that, i recently watched this

 

[kaninchen]

Funny you should say that, i recently watched this

Science docs have always been something of a thing with me because, much to the annoyance of my scientist mother, I didn't take a science route at A Level (did lots and lots of sums instead) and my husband (who did) just gets too technical.

Jim Al-Khalili has a remarkable ability to explain - I like Michio Kaku too.

 

[exchemist]

And, paraphrasing Einstein: When explaining something complex, make it as simple as possible, but no simpler

...which is in essence a restatement of non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate , a common formulation of Ockham's Razor, but with the stress reversed, i.e. to point out that oversimplification is to be avoided.

 

[ChristineM]

Science docs have always been something of a thing with me because, much to the annoyance of my scientist mother, I didn't take a science route at A Level (did lots and lots of sums instead) and my husband (who did) just gets too technical.

Jim Al-Khalili has a remarkable ability to explain - I like Michio Kaku too.

Michio Kaku is a great educator but i think he has some weird ideas. Brian Cox is good too

 

[kaninchen]

Brian Cox is good too

I think he was good but recently - especially the Universe series - he's become a bit of a parody of himself.

 

[ChristineM]

I think he was good but recently - especially the Universe series - he's become a bit of a parody of himself.

I quite liked the universe series, there was some stuff in it that i didn't know, i count that as a winner.

 

[paarsurrey]

"If you can´t explain your cosmological theories to a barmaid, you haven´t understood it yourself". (No offence barmaids)

And if you can´t, it most likely is because your intellect is inflated by unnatural and unexplainable ideas.
-------------
Did the universe inflate?

Sabine Hossenfelder abstract:
Most physicists currently believe that our universe expanded exponentially right after the big bang. This rapid phase of expansion is called "inflation". Its advocates argue that the theory of inflation has made correct predictions. Its critics say that inflation isn't even science. Who is right? They're both right and they're both wrong. In this video I lay out the argument for you.

0:00 Intro 0:53 The controversy 2:09 Did inflation make predictions? 5:47 Does inflation work like the standard model? 8:58 The argument from popularity 9:57 What does inflation explain? 11:34 Who is right now? 12:18 Sponsor message
------------------
David de Hilster: Article reference of "The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics" - by Sabine Hossenfelder.

Read my note too . . .
-------------------
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Lost in Math".

Abstract:
Join us for a virtual discussion with Sabine Hossenfelder, live-streamed direct from Frankfurt, Germany, about her concern that theoretical physicists have failed to make any major breakthroughs for more than four decades because they are obsessed with the goal that an accurate theory must be beautiful—at least to mathematicians. Hossenfelder argues that when this belief in beauty becomes too dogmatic, it conflicts with scientific objectivity, and so may be interfering with our ability to understand black holes or why relativity theory and quantum mechanics have issues with each other. It may also be encouraging the pursuit of untestable string theory and supersymmetry explanations beyond what is scientifically useful (but which is still mathematically intriguing). Hear why Hossenfelder is insisting, to the generation of theoreticians that preceded her, that progress will probably not be made until they conclude that physics isn’t math. It’s choosing the right math.

Note: Of course, the conventional scientists hates David de Hilster as he "undresses The Emperor". And according to Sabine Hossenfelder´s independent thinking, analysis, and critiques, I guess the "Conventionalists" also, deep inside themselves, hate Sabine Hossenfelder for the same and more reasons.

How anyone can believe in a Big Bang and that a single "Higgs Boson" can give weight/mass to the entire Universe, is beyond me. And the same goes for mathematicians who believe that the Universe has set everything in equations.

We humans - and all other living beings - are a result of universal energies which vibrates inside our brains too - and this is why our ancestors recognized the creation story and took it as an eternal and infinite state where everything undergoes eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation.

Now
these days because of the tussle going on in the Europe, people are more if not most interested that (economic) "inflation" is somehow controlled than the inflation/deflation or entropy of the Universe, friend. Right?

Regards

 

[Native]

Is the notification practice in the RF still out of order? I haven´t got any notifications of the posted answers in my thread!?
I´ll return later to the posts.

 

[viole]

New "If you can´t explain your cosmological theories to a barmaid, you haven´t understood it yourself". (No offence barmaids)

Or he would not be a barmaid, if I could. No offense barmaids.

joking aside, I think it is a real challenge to explain modern physics in a sensible way to the layman. There are some more or less successful attempts, but they all result in pretty incorrect explanations that might be very easily misinterpreted. The problem is some of those theories are not even understood by the scientists without using math.

and to say they did not understand it because they cannot explain it, is a claim that is not entirely justified. I cannot, for instance, explain QM to anyone who does not have a good grasp in calculus and linear algebra. And that is because we totally lack a natural mathematically free intuition of that part of physics. For obvious evolutionary reasons that led to the structure of our brains. Not because I do not understand it, assuming anyone can.

and that does not affect only barmaids, but the very scientists who try to explain things. Who are in general very sloppy. For instance, it is utter absurdity to say the universe is expanding, even if inflation is true, and galaxies are all diverging from each other. Same thing as saying the universe began at the Big Bang. And if I told you the Universe is an eternal and unchanging thing, despite all the changes we observe in time, you might think I am crazy, while I was just being much more orthodox from a relativistic point of view.


Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Or he would not be a barmaid, if I could. No offense barmaids.

joking aside, I think it is a real challenge to explain modern physics in a sensible way to the layman. There are some more or less successful attempts, but they all result in pretty incorrect explanations that might be very easily misinterpreted. The problem is some of those theories are not even understood by the scientists without using math.

and to say they did not understand it because they cannot explain it, is a claim that is not entirely justified. I cannot, for instance, explain QM to anyone who does not have a good grasp in calculus and linear algebra. And that is because we totally lack a natural mathematically free intuition of that part of physics. For obvious evolutionary reasons that led to the structure of our brains. Not because I do not understand it, assuming anyone can.

and that does not affect only barmaids, but the very scientists who try to explain things. Who are in general very sloppy. For instance, it is utter absurdity to say the universe is expanding, even if inflation is true, and galaxies are all diverging from each other. Same thing as saying the universe began at the Big Bang. And if I told you the Universe is an eternal and unchanging thing, despite all the changes we observe in time, you might think I am crazy, while I was just being much more orthodox from a relativistic point of view.
Ciao
- viole

" some of those theories are not even understood by the scientists without using math. "

Does one mean that there is some or every possibility that there are fake self-assumed spokespersons of science, it is same as Paul faked a vision and self-assumed or faked being the spokesperson of Jesus, please? Right?

Regards