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

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book
Post a Comment
Read more

The Genetic Book of the Dead: Richard Dawkins ****

When someone came up with the title for this book they were probably thinking deep cultural echoes - I suspect I'm not the only Robert Rankin fan in whom it raised a smile instead, thinking of The Suburban Book of the Dead . That aside, this is a glossy and engaging book showing how physical makeup (phenotype), behaviour and more tell us about the past, with the messenger being (inevitably, this being Richard Dawkins) the genes. Worthy of comment straight away are the illustrations - this is one of the best illustrated science books I've ever come across. Generally illustrations are either an afterthought, or the book is heavily illustrated and the text is really just an accompaniment to the pictures. Here the full colour images tie in directly to the text. They are not asides, but are 'read' with the text by placing them strategically so the picture is directly with the text that refers to it. Many are photographs, though some are effective paintings by Jana Lenzová. T
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on
Post a Comment
Read more