Is science about to end? | Sabine Hossenfelder

Is science close to explaining everything about our universe? Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder reacts.

In his 1996 book "The End of Science", John Horgan argued that scientists were close to answering nearly all of the big questions about our Universe. Was he right?

The theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't think so. As she points out, the Standard Model of physics, which describes the behavior of particles and their interactions, is still incomplete as it does not include gravity. What's more, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics remains unsolved, and understanding this could lead to significant technological advancements.

Ultimately, Hossenfelder is optimistic that progress will be made in the next two decades, given the current technological advancements in quantum technologies and quantum computing.

0:00 The end of science
1:33 The ‘Theory of everything’
3:11 The measurement crisis
4:29 Our quantum future

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Sabine Hossenfelder:
Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist, author, and creator of "Science Without the Gobbledygook". She currently works at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more of our stories on a theory of everything:
The dream of string theory is an unlikely broken box
A “Theory of Everything” doesn’t make sense
Can science ever discover the absolute truth about reality?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Want more Big Think?

[quantizemusicproductions]

Science will NEVER end, there will always be a layer above, no matter how much you peel back. Once you say we’ve “discovered” everything then whats the point to look for something more than what is…

[jeff]

The more I get old, the more I realize I don't know. I think our next breakthrough in science will be something we haven't even conceptualized.

[frecio]

I think that in Futurama they put it the best, when the Professor says that there are no more questions to be answered, and fry simply says "but why is it like this in the first way?" and the Professor has to start science all over again ( not the exact words from the characters, but the idea is that).

[raystaar]

An early 20th century astronomer once posed the same question shortly before Albert Einstein published his paper on special relativity.

[aliensoup]

After the last 3000 years of thought, it seems blind and arrogant to even suggest that we have reached the end of knowledge and inquiry. So far it has been a perpetually increasing target as the more we know, the more we discover we don't know.

[lukemedcalf]

Mrs. Hossenfinder, thank you so much for your wonderful videos! I love learning all about quantum mechanics and ridiculously awesome stuff. You do a great job explaining complex terms in a simple fashion. I can't wait to watch more of your videos when I am working on Quantum Chemistry problems in the future!

[lukemedcalf]

Honestly, I don't ever think we will ever have a flawless theory of everything. Even our most coherent and best theories have a level of incompleteness and unknown to them.

[sherazade]

To further refine her final conclusion, the areas she mentions is where there is big money to be found and made. Which normally helps ensure there will be rapid progress. Hopefully we will make that breakthrough eventually.

[Oenloveslife]

And we are discovering SO much about the ways organisms interact. Trees and mycelia, microbiomes in our guts, deeper understandings of mitochondria, etc. There is no end to what we're going to come to understand, but as far as unified field theory, I agree, we have a long way to go.

[mikekolokowsky]

About 125-130 years ago, some physicists were saying everything had been discovered, and they only needed to get more precise measurements. Then quantum physics appeared, and the physicists realized they had no idea what was going on.

After a Grand Unified Theory, there will be new questions, like always.

[clwho]

It is very short sighted to think we would have a theory of everything. It ignores a a major question, what have we yet to detect? There can be more to the universe that is currently undetectable and when we do find something that was previously undetectable then the theories and models have to change to account for it. And that may take a long time to figure out.

[igoromelchenko]

If a scientist think that there is an end of some science branch — there is a breakthrough nearby 😊

[RWin-fpjn]

Sabine rocks! She makes many good points. Yet, the issue of the ToE is not one we can solve when we keep doing what we do. In order to come to a ToE, we first need to clearly state what the Question of Everything (QoE) is. Ask 10 physicians and you will get 10 different versions of this question of everything, mostly biased from their individual specialisms. Also we must not formulate this question in terms of parts of physics we already know (Like 'forces' or 'the standard model'). Why not you may ask? Well take the analogy of a car; We quickly learn that hitting the accelerator pedal means a force appears that speeds up the car and when we slam the break pedal means we slow it down. Intrigued, we now want to know the full automotive theory of everything, but we insist it must expressed in terms of both the acceleration and breaking pedal, because we know for sure these concepts work. needless to say that if you insist expressing it in terms of known pedals, we will NEVER figure out the underlying secret has to to with a combustion engine burning fuel. So then, how should physicists reframe the central question? Lets take a very ancient old neutral formulation; The central question is: '..How can all have come from nothing..?' So we need to treat the theory of everything as an answer to this specific ‘architectural functional requirement’. As such we may start by first establishing that the ToE is also the Theory of Nothing. Now we see that the shape of physics needs to be symmetric, and internally compensating via duality. We need a dual setup not just of matter and antimatter but also of functions and measures to compensate any change of either. We already got a hint of this via the dual formalisation we discovered : QP and GR, describing the reality in two orthogonal frameworks. So I hope physicists first start contemplating what the Theory of Nothing would entail…It is not complicated. Get the question right and the answer ToE is a given.

[StephenJohnson-jbxe]

I think that one day, we will understand how the forces interact with each other, and we will understand more completely the most baffling parts of quantum physics and cosmology, but I don't think it will be a nice neat little equation like E=Mc². It will more likely be a very complex set of equations requiring people to specialise in subsets of the overall theory. My alternative thought is that there is actually things that we will never have ways of measuring at work, and we only know of them because of the behaviour of the things we can measure. Also, Sabine is awesome, and her channel is very informative.

[agnediciuniene]

The only thing limiting us in science is our limited brain and bodies.
So we either reach our physiological limit and think that "that's it" or the possibilities are endless.

[burnyizland]

I've been told since I was in elementary school that there's nothing left to discover (great messaging, teachers... NOT!). What arrogance and short sightedness to think we have even come close to peaking under the cover of nature's mysteries. How much of our oceans have we discovered? How much of earth's depths? How much of the cosmos? We haven't even filled out the periodic table yet. We don't know how our brains work or have a real understanding of what forms our personalities. We don't have a non-polluting, safe energy source or a material to replace plastic that is as tough but breaks down or recycles easily. We haven't cured cancer or Alzheimer's and we will don't have lab-grown parts we can exchange for those we wear out. There is so much left to discover.

[janeknox]

Yay Sabine! Im always happy to see you featured in different shows.

[DekarNL]

Dr Hossenfelder has written some great books. Highly recommend them.

[trombone]

I agree. It's like saying in 1850,
"Of course, since man will never fly, all that remains is improving steam power and its related cams and gears.
Oh and that kooky little parlor trick, what do you call it ?
Electricity ? Good luck with all that."

[Mathzak]

Science will never end, because we are incapable of quantifying every variable within existence. This also means science will always be inherently “wrong” in some way, because it will always be based on incomplete variables.