I've caught your edit! The animation is a flight through millions of galaxies mapped using coordinate data from DESI.
Sabine certainly opens her heart to us in that video!
She says she never intended to be offensive to the particle physics community, "I just explained why thinking up new particles isn't a good strategy for progress in physics."
However, particle physicists weren't interested in what she had to say. Sabine explains they require to write papers on new particles and other weird ideas because it results in grants to write more papers, and round and round it goes.
P.S. Did you count how many times she said "bullsh*t"?
She says she never intended to be offensive to the particle physics community, "I just explained why thinking up new particles isn't a good strategy for progress in physics."
However, particle physicists weren't interested in what she had to say. Sabine explains they require to write papers on new particles and other weird ideas because it results in grants to write more papers, and round and round it goes.
P.S. Did you count how many times she said "bullsh*t"?
The reddit mentions Brian Keating - I've seen maybe one of his videos but don't remember what it was about. I saw the title of one or something where he had Avi Loeb as a guest, a pro-UFO guy whose name I saw in a lot of Youtube videos maybe a year or two ago (and have taken great pains to avoid), and that turned me off to Keating. Maybe he had him on solely for the ratings, and I should give him another chance, but I dunno ...
I don't know about "me against the world", but the quality of her vids has gone down. The physics ones have become more inclined to be "I'm right" which is not how any physicist I know behaves. They have their preferred ideas but are very open to the reality of other ideas. And her videos on non phys topics that I looked at were poorly researched and oversimplified at best.
None of that is a problem - she's clearly churning stuff out as fast as she can as she's making good money off of it. Good luck to her!
It just makes her far less interesting from a real science perspective.
None of that is a problem - she's clearly churning stuff out as fast as she can as she's making good money off of it. Good luck to her!
It just makes her far less interesting from a real science perspective.
Science does not progress when everyone agrees. So, the chaps all kicking back on Reddit over SH don’t surprise me*. What do they want her to say? ‘Oh, what wonderful research! What a breakthrough!’
There’s lots of historical precedents where scientists disagreed with each other until evidence came up that allowed one view to prevail over another. I think SH has drifted off her originally very good physics videos, but other than that, I don’t have a problem with her dissing string theory or quantum loop gravity or whatever she takes aim at. She has not, to my knowledge dissed Einstein and that’s simply because for the most part he was right, his stuff was testable and it made accurate predictions, expansion of the universe and galaxy angular momentum anomalies notwithstanding. But this is exactly how things advance: a paper comes out and ties all sorts of things together, everyone says ‘aha!’ and it’s mainstream until some new discoveries are made that said paper cannot explain, and we go through perhaps decades or centuries looking for further scientific insight. SH is right to take aim at how and why papers are written, and the misogyny in science (the Nobel being a great example - they finally found it in themselves to start awarding female scientists over the last few years). When last was a truly breakthrough paper written that took theoretical physics forward and tied a whole bunch of loose ends together? My guess is during the first 35 years of the 20th century - Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg et al.
*I was thrown out of a Reddit group for respectfully correcting a claim made by a poster over a historical event, pointing them to a wiki article on the subject. I decided after that Reddit was a place that was just as rotten as Twitter was, which I left a few months after Musky took over.
There’s lots of historical precedents where scientists disagreed with each other until evidence came up that allowed one view to prevail over another. I think SH has drifted off her originally very good physics videos, but other than that, I don’t have a problem with her dissing string theory or quantum loop gravity or whatever she takes aim at. She has not, to my knowledge dissed Einstein and that’s simply because for the most part he was right, his stuff was testable and it made accurate predictions, expansion of the universe and galaxy angular momentum anomalies notwithstanding. But this is exactly how things advance: a paper comes out and ties all sorts of things together, everyone says ‘aha!’ and it’s mainstream until some new discoveries are made that said paper cannot explain, and we go through perhaps decades or centuries looking for further scientific insight. SH is right to take aim at how and why papers are written, and the misogyny in science (the Nobel being a great example - they finally found it in themselves to start awarding female scientists over the last few years). When last was a truly breakthrough paper written that took theoretical physics forward and tied a whole bunch of loose ends together? My guess is during the first 35 years of the 20th century - Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg et al.
*I was thrown out of a Reddit group for respectfully correcting a claim made by a poster over a historical event, pointing them to a wiki article on the subject. I decided after that Reddit was a place that was just as rotten as Twitter was, which I left a few months after Musky took over.
When it comes to astrophysics communication, Dr. Becky strikes the correct balance.
You may be published and have great research, but the thing that makes her stand out is her YouTube channel.
Becky Smethurst says she wants huge numbers of academics to get involved on social media:
"We need to normalise science to show that it is not done by Einsteins and gods - that normal people can do science. It's important to flood social media with academics who actually know what they're talking about, so that you drown out all the conspiracy theorists. When someone logs onto YouTube and searches for astronomy or space, we do not want to see flat earth style videos. We can change this."
Read more about her dual career here: https://thebrilliant.com/case-studies/how-one-astrophysicist-conquered-youtube-and-you-can-too/
You may be published and have great research, but the thing that makes her stand out is her YouTube channel.
Becky Smethurst says she wants huge numbers of academics to get involved on social media:
"We need to normalise science to show that it is not done by Einsteins and gods - that normal people can do science. It's important to flood social media with academics who actually know what they're talking about, so that you drown out all the conspiracy theorists. When someone logs onto YouTube and searches for astronomy or space, we do not want to see flat earth style videos. We can change this."
Read more about her dual career here: https://thebrilliant.com/case-studies/how-one-astrophysicist-conquered-youtube-and-you-can-too/
Last edited:
I was reading a Dorothy Sayers novel yesterday where a husband & wife in 1928 were arguing whether general relativity was proven true or not. Husband said Einstein was a faker. Wife repeated newpaper reports that Arthur Eddington proved the sun bent light consistant with general relativity.. It is forgotten that the eclipse experiment in 1919 that "proved" the sun bent starlight was still under review on 1928. Arthur Eddington observation of a star out of position near the eclipsed sun were consistent with Einstein predictions. Another group observing in Brazil got much less displacement of the star in the eclipse, perhaps explainable by solar atmospheric refraction or something. After 1928 it was proved the Brazil group's telescope had problems, and Eddington's did not.
My summer camp is 15 miles from 30 seconds of totality. Scottsburg, IN. I could ride up there on a bicycle! Have acquired eclipse glasses, from a source (Meijers) recommended by AmericanAstronomicalAssociation. Have noted Nova warning to NOT use binoculars in front of the solar glasses. Thin high clouds are predicted with 30% probability, but this might not obscure the view. If I have use of a car, I may drive further north. I have never seen a total eclipse, nor have I ever been notified of a place to buy authentic solar view glasses before. ISO 12312-2. Wavg news reported UofL library issued an urgent recall of their giveaway glasses, which they have announced are fake.
Big deal!
At least I can always watch the live coverage of the total solar eclipse on the BBC website!As a wee boy, I was walking home alone on a sunny day when I noticed with surprise that the Sun was going dim.
I had heard no mention of an impending partial eclipse. Always intent on being out playing I suppose!
Which it would be fair to say Einstein made rather popular and has had some results for a few others.
That reminds me of a climate change denier argument. Say some one wants to study newts in Scottish lakes. Little chance of a grant. Add the term the effects of climate change. Hot topic so along comes the grant. There could be another effect as well. Some field, not that popular that hasn't shown any results of use may get a grant in case it does.
Don't know why that makes me think of string theory,
I've never found anything useful on reddit. Not to mention recent developments there - IPO, selling user data etc as you say. And yes, it's a cesspool like twitter, and tiktok...
Places like this - well moderated and sane - are the true social media. Excepy no one makes $$$ out of it...
SH has a tendency to paint things black and white, or be rather "I'm right!" rather than encouraging discussion.
As Galu quotes : "I just explained why thinking up new particles isn't a good strategy for progress in physics." -- that is her opinion, it's not necessarily correct.
What she says about how and why papers are written isn't new, it's been that way for decades. The reason for it is not academia per se, it's the people who fund it. Which is ultimately the short termism of stock markets and politics.
But I still think, overall, what SH is doing is what many influencers and social media pundits are doing - pushing for more viewers, for more money, and less concern about science in her case.
She's welcome to do that, but that's even more of a sell out than academia being driven by money in some ways...
On the other hand, for real life dangerous stupidity...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/...es-through-face-recognition-tornado-bad-ideas
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/...es-through-face-recognition-tornado-bad-ideas
Sadly the weather looks like it won't help....
I saw the 1999 UK visible eclipse. I'd known it was coming since I was a wee boy, so I managed to get on a flight to see it. So got perfect clear sky views, and for longer than if we'd been on the ground! It was beautiful....