Skip to main content

Sabine Hossenfelder - Five Way Interview

Image © Joerg Steinmetz
Sabine Hossenfelder grew up in Frankfurt, Germany. She has a PhD in physics and is presently a Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies. Her current work is mostly in the foundation of physics. She has written over 80 research papers on topics ranging from quantum gravity to particle physics, cosmology, astrophysics, statistical mechanics, and quantum foundations. 

Sabine is creator of the popular YouTube channel Science without the gobbledygook. Her first book Lost in Math was published by Basic Books in June 2018. Her writing has been published, amongst others, in Scientific American, New Scientist, The Guardian, Aeon, Nautilus, and the New York Times. Her latest book is Existential Physics: A Scientist's Guide to Life's Biggest Questions.

Why Science?

Because I’m a curious person and science constantly teaches me new things. 

Why this book?

Physics taught us some deep lessons about the nature of time and reality and the limits of science that I think physicists don’t talk about enough. I wanted to tell people what we have learned, but also tell them where physics crosses over into pure speculation. So my book basically demarks the boundary between physics and religion and philosophy.

Why is the distinction between unscientific and ascientific important?

It’s like the distinction between atheist and agnostic. An atheist does not believe that god exists, an agnostic has no opinion about whether god exists or not – it’s a neutral position. We call something unscientific when it does not follow scientific methodology. By ascientific I mean something that science says nothing about. For example, planning your day based on what the horoscope says is unscientific. The idea that other universes exist that we cannot interact with is ascientific. Science can’t tell us whether they exist, but it also can’t tell us that they don’t exist. It’s not unscientific to believe in those other universes.

The distinction matters to me because ascientific ideas I think should have a place in our lives, and brains, and hearts. They should not be thrown out with those ideas that go against science just because our vocabulary doesn’t distinguish the two. 

What's next?

I am planning to have a weekly “Science News” show on my YouTube channel “Science Without the Gobbledygook”. As you can probably guess, I spend a lot of time reading science news, but not everyone has the time. So, once a week, I want to summarize the biggest science news for busy people, and hopefully have some interesting conversations about them! We’ll start this in a 10 week trial in early October. 

What's exciting you at the moment?

Like all astrophysicists, I am excited about the results from the Webb telescope. The data from early galaxies could really shake things up, and finally convince the community that the dark matter hypothesis has severe shortcomings. 

Interview by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a digest free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more