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

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more