The Most Controversial Physics Theories with Sean Carroll

LINKS MENTIONED:

TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Become a YouTube Member Here:

SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):

Other Links:

#science #physics

[suj]

The next time you speak with Dr.Weinstein, please ask him why he has difficulty facing valid criticism of his work? Eric loves to jab at physicists like Brian Greene for not having read his work on geometric Unity so that he can attack string theory, score points against academia, pander to his core audience on social media and play victim. However, Dr.Timothy Nguyen has evaluated Eric’s work and has enumerated various issues with it, yet Eric runs away.

[LaserGuidedLoogie]

I can sympathize with Sean. I had a professor in college who once showed me a 2 inch thick pile of papers that he (via actual mail) got from people touting their various theories of the universe to him. He wasn't even famous or well known outside of the university, but people still pitch to him like some Hollywood producer getting scripts. I don't even have a PhD, but when people find out I have a BS degree in physics, I often start getting pitched these far out ideas. Honestly, someone of Carroll's prominence has to take the attitude that he does, otherwise he'd never get anything done.

[erinsmart]

I loved that he called Terrance Howard “people off the street” 😂😂

[physicsalmanac]

Regarding your 3 problems:
1. Most new and verified theories don't get a Nobel prize. That's not a good indicator. There have been plenty of verified new theories since the 90's. New theories need not turn the field upside down. Most of the time they are small modifications, incrementally adding a piece to the puzzle. Most of them have been small contributions in technological applications. Also a lot of advance in determining the early state of the universe has been made, as well as numerous astronomical phenomena, based off of new ideas that were experimentally verified. Also many advancements have been made to allow testing for theoretical phenomena that had never been verified. Some of which received a Nobel prize. The detection of gravitational waves is a major and most probably revolutionizing development in physics.

2. The schism exists because physics is a science. It relies on experimental evidence as its foundation. String theory is not, since it has yet made a single experimentally testable prediction (yet). So when Michio Kaku says "put up or shut up" he needs to look in the mirror and put up a testable theory. If it's not testable, then his theory is no better than saying "because God said so". Overwhelmingly people who support string theory are very mathematically minded. Mathematical beauty is not evidence. As of yet, that's the closest thing it has to evidence. Maybe that will change one day. You will find very few experimentalist who argue for string theory.

3. I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Go to every talk in any large physics department for 1 year and you will see many many new ideas, crazy ideas, ideas that put what we believe to be true into question, etc. At 16:19 you say, "both of these statements can't be true..." Of course they can. Physics is made up of many different people. The two seemingly contradictory critiques are being made by different people, with different viewpoints. And in both cases these problems have been cherry picked, while all the (far more numerous) times where neither criticism was levied are being ignored. Most of the time you are perfectly free to present your ideas. All these people with their supposedly unacceptable theories still have jobs in academia, and are still publishing papers. The fact that they occasionally run into sever disagreement is normal.

If you'd like to discuss it further, I'd be happy to come on your channel (I run a physics channel as well... check it out if you're curious).

[deanoh]

I am a normal “smo” and do not understand 98% of the detail of what is being discussed but, love your channel! Thank you very much for helping me to be understand your simple communication to very complexed opportunities for life

[kribbles]

This is absurd, not listening to someone isn't the same of silencing them.
You cannot owe everyone your attention. You don't need to respect everyone.
At the end of the day in the natural sciences truth exists and is irrefutable. Anyone with an alternative theory just needs to prove definitively that their theory is more productive. The responsibility for that is entirely on them and not the field.

[kerry]

I can’t stop thinking of Sean slapping the bass now😂🤘🏻

[xrn]

10:50 maybe there's not a general obligation for an individual to learn about the most recent developments, but if you're going to criticize another theory for a claimed shortcoming, and be wrong about it because you don't know what you're talking about, that is a problem.

[JB-ipvr]

Seems like the quality of your videos has gone up, nice length videos with interesting talks. I haven't always got 3 hours to watch a full one

[booJay]

I remember watching Sabine Hossenfelder just demolishing Eric Weinstein a couple of years ago during a live panel on Youtube. Somehow Sean Carroll briefly dismissing him as an amateur in this brief clip hit even harder.

[kylebushnell]

Curt J. Thank you for being open minded and gathering diverse perspectives! Your interview skills and general craft are seriously elevating as well! 😎

[tannercarden]

Why are yall taking Weinstein seriously?

[peterhall]

Physics has been in an entertainment phase for quite a while now. This interview is part of the genre.

[ANunes]

I think I get his point, but it's honestly kind of annoying hearing Dr. Carroll repeat that he doesn't care what your credentials are, but then says he won't waste his time unless you're already a published physics researcher.

Yeah. That's ... kind of the point. Terrence Howard? After you hear 5 seconds of his crackpottery you ask about credentials and get crickets. But I think Curt made a great point about Eric Weinstein having read about and understood the Standard Model of Particle Physics well enough to have some intelligent commentary about it. His entire "theory" (such as it is), is about generating the Standard Model from sets of symmetries on a somewhat esoteric but clearly "important" geometric arrangement of surfaces and spinors. Like... it's not absolute nonsense, at least.

Same with Penrose's consciousness thing. He's never published about biology before. He's applying his specialty, mathematics and quantum mechanics, to the problem of consciousness. No reason for a biologist or physiologist to read about it at all. Who's this guy, right? Has he read and understood [insert existing theory of cognition]?

Don't get me wrong. I'm like ... 75% sure that Weinstein's blowing smoke, and I'm not enough of an expert to truly explore what he's outlined of the theory so far and see if it works. But I'm 100% sure that nobody who IS an expert is even bothering to play around in that space for shigs. Or hell, to prove him wrong and shut him up.

[inpugnaveritaas]

The stagnation is a terrible idea. If the current theory is as accurate as it seems, this explains why there haven’t been new and novel descriptions of the physics of the universe. The low hanging fruit is gone, and the detail is really hard to get right.

[null_st]

It really is interesting how when I read spacetime and geometry it’s always in Sean’s voice! I find it helps with retention 😁

[radscorpion]

Please stop paying attention to people like Eric Weinstein, who seemingly commands attention merely for being a youtube celebrity and making bombastic claims. I'm really tired of making this backwards-first appeal to celebrities over real working physicists. If there are critiques to be made, I'd like to hear them from established physicists, from conference papers. I'd like to see a detailed article submitted to a journal with careful evidence. Not just another twitter post, or media appearance, by the Weinstein brothers. Thanks

[tedpetranoff]

I appreciate Sean Carroll’s lack of anxiety surrounding some of the uncertainty in contemporary physics, the impact of pseudoscience in and outside the academy, and academic authority. It helps me worry a little less about the conflict between science and society. What I really would like to know is whether Sean plugs the bass guitar in the background into the Fender Rumble amp and plays the thing really loud sometimes just to blow off steam. Please tell me it isn’t a green screen!

[justind]

This interview is so funny to me, having seen countless interviews with Sean Carroll. Here he seems to be giving, and pardon my french, no fucks, and telling it like it is, rather than sugar coating it like he sometime does. Love the confidence, love the no-bullshittery. And, as a first time viewer to you Curt, Amazing questions and interviewing skills.

[davedsilva]

How unscientific of critics to not complain about the leaf being too warm or wet for photosynthesis via quantum effects, but complain if it has to do with the brain.