6 ms·

I really like Hossenfelder's physics videos. However, once she leaves her area of expertise, the quality drops off a cliff. Most of these videos are just summar

by fsh 3y ago

I really like Hossenfelder's physics videos. However, once she leaves her area of expertise, the quality drops off a cliff. Most of these videos are just summaries of random articles with no critical thought.

hkwerf 3y ago
... and bad stock photos, like the one about microchips, where for a long time all the imagery is photos of PCBs, sometimes without any component that would resemble an integrated circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFO_SXOcYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFO_SXOcYM.
timmytokyo 3y ago
I agree. I enjoy anything she produces that is physics-related but the social commentary and science topics outside her area of expertise are hit-or-miss. I also think she opens herself up to audience capture, especially now that she's being funded directly by viewers, and that concerns me.
- Retric 3y ago
  She also made some significant errors in physics videos. One example is she calculated the power output of fusion reactions as energy created by fusion * heat to electricity conversion efficiency. However, energy that’s heating the plasma should also recoverable at the same conversion efficiency. Largely irrelevant a Q=1,000 but it plays a major role in what Q is breakeven and what Q is economically useful. Not on the surface such a big deal, but a sign she should reach out more to actual experts in these fields.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    So… she’s correct in the industrial regime that matters, but technically incorrect in the experimental regime where the energy is not recovered?
    - Retric 3y ago
      If she was talking about very high Q then it wouldn’t be a major issue, but she was specifically referring to the regimes where it was important. Aka energy breakeven and minimum economic viability. It also explains why Q is formulated in terms of energy added to the plasma vs energy gained from fusion which she didn’t understand. This formula for Q ends up being a term in the equation for economic viability, but she attacked it as if such a formulation was misleading. Basically the total energy spent on the facility including cryogenic cooling, pumps, etc matters + Q as defined by fusion experts + fusion output energy + conversion energy lets you find the total net energy gain which you then compare with the cost of the facility to find economic viability. Roughly, [ (Fusion energy) * (1 + 1/Q) * (conversion efficiency) - (Total energy use by facility) ] / (cost per hour of operation) = energy per dollar. There are other ways you can calculate that same number, but they require a lot more details.
Lemmi 3y ago
Any examples? Because she still gives good statistical overviews/analysis.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  Her "capitalism is good" video is remarkably bad. I noticed that takedowns of it were making the rounds in left-ish online spaces recently, and figured it would be one of her worse videos, but even with that bias I was shocked at how bad it is. Hardly any real-world history or economics, and zero engagement with actual critiques of capitalism. She name-drops Adam Smith and Karl Marx, but doesn't really quote or integrate the ideas of either. Overall, it's a disorganized mess of pro-capitalism cliches, hypothetical examples, and eliding discussion of key issues with phrases like "that's another story". I'd honestly expect better from PragerU, let alone someone whose tagline is "science without the gobbledygook".
  - Lemmi 3y ago
    I have the feeling this might be a video were she gives more of some type of overview with her view without imposing a too strong opinion. But I could be wrong this particular video I haven't seen yet.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    She provides a basic description of fiat money and the process by which capitalists allocate resources, taking on risk in the hopes that their investment produces goods/services that consumers value more than the price to produce them. It should be uncontroversial to state that that arrangement has facilitated extraordinary increases in global prosperity. The many "that's another story" caveats are important because there are many ways in which the interaction between markets and governments can cause bad outcomes; far too many to be covered in a 20 minute video. I'd like to hear just one example of a society which does not have capitalism (as defined by the ability to risk capital in hopes of future profits) which is a nice place to live.
    - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
gandalfgeek 3y ago
Hossenfelder is a technical person able to read technical literature, follow chains of argument and decipher statistical analysis. If such a person reads the literature in a field new to her, summarizes it, and then you disagree with it (oh but the papers really meant something else), then the problem is with the literature, not the reader.
- kortilla 3y ago
  Every field is filled with technical literature that is complete bullshit. The entire point of consulting an expert who has been in the field is they have spent enough time to sift through that. There is significant literature on functioning perpetual motion machines in physics as well. If you were to read it and report on it, that would make your reporting shit.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  Or it's because she is often fishing for a contrarian position to take. I can't remember the specifics but when discussing electric cars for example she just comes across as whinging to own the eco people.
  - yawaramin 3y ago
    You only need a few minutes of thought to understand why electric vehicles will never be able to replace internal combustion engines as things stand today. They are little more than a way for rich people to demonstrate how green they are.
    - scubbo 3y ago
      > You only need a few minutes of thought to understand why electric vehicles will never be able to replace internal combustion engines as things stand today. Well, no, you absolutely need some data, axioms, or facts to support your thoughts, too. Pure thought only works for mathematics and some areas of philosophy. So, please - what are some of the facts from which that few minutes thought would proceed? Is it the case that there is a hard upper-limit on the range (imposed by constraints in battery technology), or that some road surfaces are unsuitable for EVs, or that electric engines are unsuitable for some chassis types (e.g. heavy haulage), or...?
tobiasSoftware 3y ago
Unfortunately, her physics videos are worse than people realize too, at least the quantum physics ones. I've been learning a lot of quantum physics and she's a mixed bag. On the one hand, most people's (and even textbooks') understanding of quantum observation and the quantum eraser experiment are incorrect, and Sabine is one of the few voices on Youtube that calls them out instead of joins them, which is why I suspect why she is so popular. On the other hand, she embraces the very niche superdeterminism hypothesis. This hypothesis basically says that cause and effect and reversed for any Bell's Inequality related experiment in that using uncorrelated data as inputs into the experiment causes them to become correlated because you used them for the experiment. In other words, she believes that the universe is puppeteering Bell's Inequality experiments so that we can't trust results from those experiments. This has serious issues related to non-falsifiability, where we could technically do this with any experiment we don't like the results of. However, that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is that she does not explain her niche viewpoints in her videos. If any of the more popular hypotheses about entanglement are correct, then Einstein's hidden variables hypothesis where entanglement acts like a pair of gloves will be disproven. However, in her videos about entanglement, she constantly refers to entanglement acting like a pair of gloves like it is a fact, because her niche viewpoint is the single viewpoint where it is not disproven.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  We have enough physicists that teach the Copenhagen interpretation as fact to layman and college students. Why the double standard?
- nimish 3y ago
  Super determinism is a perfectly valid interpretation of quantum mechanics no less valid than Copenhagen. It's a bigger shame most students aren't taught that Copenhagen is not the only interpretation consistent with experiment and are often thought it as absolute truth. Let's not get into the compatibility with free will philosophical issues, because that'd need physics to recognize metaphysics once more.
  - woopsn 3y ago

by fsh 3y ago

hkwerf 3y ago

... and bad stock photos, like the one about microchips, where for a long time all the imagery is photos of PCBs, sometimes without any component that would resemble an integrated circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFO_SXOcYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QFO_SXOcYM.

timmytokyo 3y ago

I agree. I enjoy anything she produces that is physics-related but the social commentary and science topics outside her area of expertise are hit-or-miss. I also think she opens herself up to audience capture, especially now that she's being funded directly by viewers, and that concerns me.

Retric 3y ago
She also made some significant errors in physics videos. One example is she calculated the power output of fusion reactions as energy created by fusion * heat to electricity conversion efficiency. However, energy that’s heating the plasma should also recoverable at the same conversion efficiency. Largely irrelevant a Q=1,000 but it plays a major role in what Q is breakeven and what Q is economically useful. Not on the surface such a big deal, but a sign she should reach out more to actual experts in these fields.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  So… she’s correct in the industrial regime that matters, but technically incorrect in the experimental regime where the energy is not recovered?
  - Retric 3y ago
    If she was talking about very high Q then it wouldn’t be a major issue, but she was specifically referring to the regimes where it was important. Aka energy breakeven and minimum economic viability. It also explains why Q is formulated in terms of energy added to the plasma vs energy gained from fusion which she didn’t understand. This formula for Q ends up being a term in the equation for economic viability, but she attacked it as if such a formulation was misleading. Basically the total energy spent on the facility including cryogenic cooling, pumps, etc matters + Q as defined by fusion experts + fusion output energy + conversion energy lets you find the total net energy gain which you then compare with the cost of the facility to find economic viability. Roughly, [ (Fusion energy) * (1 + 1/Q) * (conversion efficiency) - (Total energy use by facility) ] / (cost per hour of operation) = energy per dollar. There are other ways you can calculate that same number, but they require a lot more details.

Lemmi 3y ago

Any examples? Because she still gives good statistical overviews/analysis.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
Her "capitalism is good" video is remarkably bad. I noticed that takedowns of it were making the rounds in left-ish online spaces recently, and figured it would be one of her worse videos, but even with that bias I was shocked at how bad it is. Hardly any real-world history or economics, and zero engagement with actual critiques of capitalism. She name-drops Adam Smith and Karl Marx, but doesn't really quote or integrate the ideas of either. Overall, it's a disorganized mess of pro-capitalism cliches, hypothetical examples, and eliding discussion of key issues with phrases like "that's another story". I'd honestly expect better from PragerU, let alone someone whose tagline is "science without the gobbledygook".
- Lemmi 3y ago
  I have the feeling this might be a video were she gives more of some type of overview with her view without imposing a too strong opinion. But I could be wrong this particular video I haven't seen yet.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  She provides a basic description of fiat money and the process by which capitalists allocate resources, taking on risk in the hopes that their investment produces goods/services that consumers value more than the price to produce them. It should be uncontroversial to state that that arrangement has facilitated extraordinary increases in global prosperity. The many "that's another story" caveats are important because there are many ways in which the interaction between markets and governments can cause bad outcomes; far too many to be covered in a 20 minute video. I'd like to hear just one example of a society which does not have capitalism (as defined by the ability to risk capital in hopes of future profits) which is a nice place to live.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago

gandalfgeek 3y ago

Hossenfelder is a technical person able to read technical literature, follow chains of argument and decipher statistical analysis. If such a person reads the literature in a field new to her, summarizes it, and then you disagree with it (oh but the papers really meant something else), then the problem is with the literature, not the reader.

kortilla 3y ago
Every field is filled with technical literature that is complete bullshit. The entire point of consulting an expert who has been in the field is they have spent enough time to sift through that. There is significant literature on functioning perpetual motion machines in physics as well. If you were to read it and report on it, that would make your reporting shit.
mhh__ 3y ago
Or it's because she is often fishing for a contrarian position to take. I can't remember the specifics but when discussing electric cars for example she just comes across as whinging to own the eco people.
- yawaramin 3y ago
  You only need a few minutes of thought to understand why electric vehicles will never be able to replace internal combustion engines as things stand today. They are little more than a way for rich people to demonstrate how green they are.
  - scubbo 3y ago
    > You only need a few minutes of thought to understand why electric vehicles will never be able to replace internal combustion engines as things stand today. Well, no, you absolutely need some data, axioms, or facts to support your thoughts, too. Pure thought only works for mathematics and some areas of philosophy. So, please - what are some of the facts from which that few minutes thought would proceed? Is it the case that there is a hard upper-limit on the range (imposed by constraints in battery technology), or that some road surfaces are unsuitable for EVs, or that electric engines are unsuitable for some chassis types (e.g. heavy haulage), or...?

tobiasSoftware 3y ago

Unfortunately, her physics videos are worse than people realize too, at least the quantum physics ones. I've been learning a lot of quantum physics and she's a mixed bag. On the one hand, most people's (and even textbooks') understanding of quantum observation and the quantum eraser experiment are incorrect, and Sabine is one of the few voices on Youtube that calls them out instead of joins them, which is why I suspect why she is so popular. On the other hand, she embraces the very niche superdeterminism hypothesis. This hypothesis basically says that cause and effect and reversed for any Bell's Inequality related experiment in that using uncorrelated data as inputs into the experiment causes them to become correlated because you used them for the experiment. In other words, she believes that the universe is puppeteering Bell's Inequality experiments so that we can't trust results from those experiments. This has serious issues related to non-falsifiability, where we could technically do this with any experiment we don't like the results of. However, that's not even the worst part of it. The worst part is that she does not explain her niche viewpoints in her videos. If any of the more popular hypotheses about entanglement are correct, then Einstein's hidden variables hypothesis where entanglement acts like a pair of gloves will be disproven. However, in her videos about entanglement, she constantly refers to entanglement acting like a pair of gloves like it is a fact, because her niche viewpoint is the single viewpoint where it is not disproven.

nobodyandproud 3y ago
We have enough physicists that teach the Copenhagen interpretation as fact to layman and college students. Why the double standard?
nimish 3y ago
Super determinism is a perfectly valid interpretation of quantum mechanics no less valid than Copenhagen. It's a bigger shame most students aren't taught that Copenhagen is not the only interpretation consistent with experiment and are often thought it as absolute truth. Let's not get into the compatibility with free will philosophical issues, because that'd need physics to recognize metaphysics once more.
- woopsn 3y ago