Gravity Can Explain the Collapse of the Wavefunction (Sabine Hossenfelder)(arxiv.org)
arxiv.org
Gravity Can Explain the Collapse of the Wavefunction (Sabine Hossenfelder)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11037
59 comments
> but she has taken a hard turn into audience capture and speaking over-confidently far out of her area of expertise.
Sounds like she is doing Youtube to earn some bucks off it, then? Usually, you'll stir up a controversy or make bold claims to create engagement, which in turn pleases "the algorithm".
Sounds like she is doing Youtube to earn some bucks off it, then? Usually, you'll stir up a controversy or make bold claims to create engagement, which in turn pleases "the algorithm".
Kind of, but there's a difference between trying to stir up controversy by "just asking questions" as opposed to attacking the actual experts while overconfidently pushing competing theories, for example.
Lately she's been dabbling with soft support for well known grifters like Eric Weinstein, though last I heard she stopped short of actually endorsing his theories. I think there's just too many views to be had by courting that audience, so it becomes irresistible to engage with. The best thing a good physics communicator could do would be to completely ignore the well known physics grifters and focus on the quality content, but instead she has been leaning toward defensing Weinstein and others.
Lately she's been dabbling with soft support for well known grifters like Eric Weinstein, though last I heard she stopped short of actually endorsing his theories. I think there's just too many views to be had by courting that audience, so it becomes irresistible to engage with. The best thing a good physics communicator could do would be to completely ignore the well known physics grifters and focus on the quality content, but instead she has been leaning toward defensing Weinstein and others.
She makes really really good money. Angela Collier recently made a sad video about this.
Sabine makes a video with sponsorship included basically every day. With her subscription numbers, that's a LOT of money.
Basically, screaming that "They don't want you to hear THIS" is extremely profitable. She's a very well paid member of the anti-science ecosystem.
Sabine makes a video with sponsorship included basically every day. With her subscription numbers, that's a LOT of money.
Basically, screaming that "They don't want you to hear THIS" is extremely profitable. She's a very well paid member of the anti-science ecosystem.
With that kind of description, I'm surprised she hasn't been tapped to join POTUS' administration.
I mean, don't take my description for it, just scroll through her videos, watch some about things you understand, etc.
I am critical of her, but I would not put her on the level of Alex Jones or other really awful people. However, her blurb on the back of that "War on science" book is pretty gross.
Sabine absolutely is still capable of producing and understanding science. She chooses to make the content she does. She also clearly treats her youtube career as just business, making pretty good money from taking random science papers from random journals and using them as a reason to lambast all of science. Plenty of youtubers who do science, including people who post here like the guy from Applied Science, are pretty far from monetizing their content, sometimes to a fault, generally because they aren't looking to make crazy money, just cool stuff.
I actually hope she publishes more. This paper looks..... not good, but every good scientist has put out papers that are more like afternoon fun than rigorous work. That's fine by me. I would love for Sabine to produce real science, it's vastly more beneficial for humanity than her "Here's how science LIES TO YOU" slop. I tried to watch her in the beginning, but even then it was clear the kind of audience she was trying to cultivate. It feels gross.
I don't know if she truly believes what she says. Her complaints about being mistreated for being a woman seemed sincere, and not as trumped up as most of her videos, and there's plenty of sexism in science Academia, just like most places.
It's hard to criticize Youtubers for their thumbnails and titles, as the soulless youtube machine forces them, but there's definitely a pattern.
Basically, it's hard to look at people like NileRed, Explosions&Fire, Applied Science, Thought Emporium, etc who are literally running science labs through patreon funding and then Sabine says she's being silenced for her unorthodox views with over a million subscribers.
I'm tired of people claiming they are silenced while parrot literal mainstream talking points to an audience of millions.
Complaints about "The hubble tension shows we might not have everything right in our astrophysics models" is fine, dandy, I literally agree (I'm not a physicist), but complaining about string theory, which remember she's a physicist so she KNOWS nobody in physics actually spends any time, breath, or effort on string theory, and her claims that "Physics hasn't done anything in 50 years" is blatantly false and she is well equipped to KNOW this.
I am critical of her, but I would not put her on the level of Alex Jones or other really awful people. However, her blurb on the back of that "War on science" book is pretty gross.
Sabine absolutely is still capable of producing and understanding science. She chooses to make the content she does. She also clearly treats her youtube career as just business, making pretty good money from taking random science papers from random journals and using them as a reason to lambast all of science. Plenty of youtubers who do science, including people who post here like the guy from Applied Science, are pretty far from monetizing their content, sometimes to a fault, generally because they aren't looking to make crazy money, just cool stuff.
I actually hope she publishes more. This paper looks..... not good, but every good scientist has put out papers that are more like afternoon fun than rigorous work. That's fine by me. I would love for Sabine to produce real science, it's vastly more beneficial for humanity than her "Here's how science LIES TO YOU" slop. I tried to watch her in the beginning, but even then it was clear the kind of audience she was trying to cultivate. It feels gross.
I don't know if she truly believes what she says. Her complaints about being mistreated for being a woman seemed sincere, and not as trumped up as most of her videos, and there's plenty of sexism in science Academia, just like most places.
It's hard to criticize Youtubers for their thumbnails and titles, as the soulless youtube machine forces them, but there's definitely a pattern.
Basically, it's hard to look at people like NileRed, Explosions&Fire, Applied Science, Thought Emporium, etc who are literally running science labs through patreon funding and then Sabine says she's being silenced for her unorthodox views with over a million subscribers.
I'm tired of people claiming they are silenced while parrot literal mainstream talking points to an audience of millions.
Complaints about "The hubble tension shows we might not have everything right in our astrophysics models" is fine, dandy, I literally agree (I'm not a physicist), but complaining about string theory, which remember she's a physicist so she KNOWS nobody in physics actually spends any time, breath, or effort on string theory, and her claims that "Physics hasn't done anything in 50 years" is blatantly false and she is well equipped to KNOW this.
> making pretty good money
For context: if I did the napkin math correctly based on the Angel Collier video on this topic, it appeared to be easily over $2M/year. The grift pays very well.
For context: if I did the napkin math correctly based on the Angel Collier video on this topic, it appeared to be easily over $2M/year. The grift pays very well.
She isnt against science she is anti BS and calls out physics in general for well all of the BS. She is the one pointing out the problems of publish or perish and why it has resulted in a bunch of BS in academia and a bunch of scientists doing BS science just for the sake of writing papers. No new advancements, no new testable theories just a bunch of people making claims that can't be tested and screaming we need a larger collider.
> she is anti BS
The problem with influencers like this is the way their fans get a giant blind spot for “BS” that comes from their chosen anti-BS person.
Sabine fans will always cite problems with academia pushing BS papers, but Sabine has herself been embroiled in a lot of arguably “BS” content for the sake of YouTube views and advertising dollars.
You have to acknowledge the irony of thinking that an ad-supported YouTuber pushing clickbait headlines is the lone person saving you from the scientists and their misaligned incentives.
The problem with influencers like this is the way their fans get a giant blind spot for “BS” that comes from their chosen anti-BS person.
Sabine fans will always cite problems with academia pushing BS papers, but Sabine has herself been embroiled in a lot of arguably “BS” content for the sake of YouTube views and advertising dollars.
You have to acknowledge the irony of thinking that an ad-supported YouTuber pushing clickbait headlines is the lone person saving you from the scientists and their misaligned incentives.
I suspect you misunderstand either her videos, or have a misunderstanding of what science is.
This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind.
> the ChatGPT acknowledgement
She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, not for writing the paper (she explicitly emphasizes she wrote it herself), which you didn't make clear. Many researchers today probably use it similarly for literature research (rather than just Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, etc), and there is nothing wrong with that.
> I suppose not surprising coming from someone who built their career on YouTube.
Phrasing it like that seems misleading. She has a PhD and has worked in academia as a theoretical physicist for most of her career, she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel.
> the ChatGPT acknowledgement
She acknowledged to have used it for literature research, not for writing the paper (she explicitly emphasizes she wrote it herself), which you didn't make clear. Many researchers today probably use it similarly for literature research (rather than just Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, etc), and there is nothing wrong with that.
> I suppose not surprising coming from someone who built their career on YouTube.
Phrasing it like that seems misleading. She has a PhD and has worked in academia as a theoretical physicist for most of her career, she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel.
> This comment reads like you have a bot of an axe to grind.
I actually opened the paper and started reading and I’m commenting on that. It’s frustrating that anything less than glowing positivity about YouTube influencers draws accusations of having an “axe to grind”. I don’t have any relationship to this person.
> She acknowledged to have used it for literature research,
Right, that’s the problem I was pointing out.
Using ChatGPT for physics research (even if it’s just summarizing papers, though it’s not clear what she meant) is well known to be fraught with hallucinations.
> she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel.
This is fairly misleading as it’s not hard to see her YouTube channel has found a far larger audience than her physics blog or her academic posts at institutes like the the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy.
In the very beginning of the paper she says she’s seeking a new affiliation.
I actually opened the paper and started reading and I’m commenting on that. It’s frustrating that anything less than glowing positivity about YouTube influencers draws accusations of having an “axe to grind”. I don’t have any relationship to this person.
> She acknowledged to have used it for literature research,
Right, that’s the problem I was pointing out.
Using ChatGPT for physics research (even if it’s just summarizing papers, though it’s not clear what she meant) is well known to be fraught with hallucinations.
> she has published papers, and she has had a popular physics blog (with people like Peter Shor commenting) for much longer than her YouTube channel.
This is fairly misleading as it’s not hard to see her YouTube channel has found a far larger audience than her physics blog or her academic posts at institutes like the the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy.
In the very beginning of the paper she says she’s seeking a new affiliation.
Bro she's an entertainer on an infomercial platform. Pretty fair to call that out. Like if someone said back in the day they get their science from infomercials whatever they had to say would be instantly discredited. But somehow once infomercials moved to Youtube they are now high level thought.
Unrelated to the paper, the most satisfying (would-be) explanation of gravity I ever learned was from AdS/CFT correspondence. Basically, it says that a Conformal Field Theory in D dimension is equivalent to a theory with gravity in D+1 dimensions. In other words, the physics that describe the 2D boundary of a anti-de Sitter space corresponds to theories that describe gravity inside that 3D space. This would click well with the holographic universe theory and entirely eliminate the problem of needing to explain gravity since it would be an emergent force
But alas, our universe is more like dS space (positive curvature), not AdS (negative curvature).
But alas, our universe is more like dS space (positive curvature), not AdS (negative curvature).
> I acknowledge help from ChatGPT 5 for literature research
as well as checking this manuscript. I swear I actually wrote
it myself
Swearing in a research paper is new thing to me. Might pass arxiv pre-published stage but definitely not a peer-reviewed one. But I doubt this will ever get published.
Swearing in a research paper is new thing to me. Might pass arxiv pre-published stage but definitely not a peer-reviewed one. But I doubt this will ever get published.
Sabine has pretty much sworn off the Academy, so I very much doubts she cares.
I’ve seen things acknowledge cricket, people who bring them tea and I’ve seen people coauthor with a dead friend who appeared in a dream. Saying “I swear I wrote this myself” barely registers.
Why not? Dr. Hossenfelder has published a bunch of papers in well-known physics journals. Is this one lower quality?
This isn't a published paper nor is it associated with a journal. Given the atypically casual writing style I'm not sure it was ever intended for publishing in an academic journal or to be on par with her other papers.
Could someone explain this sentence?
> On the most trivial level, we can infer the mass and charge of a particle from its gravitational field.
How does gravity tell you the charge of a particle? I didn't even know it carries information about the sign of the charge, let alone the magnitude.
> On the most trivial level, we can infer the mass and charge of a particle from its gravitational field.
How does gravity tell you the charge of a particle? I didn't even know it carries information about the sign of the charge, let alone the magnitude.
I'm guessing the idea is that in GR, the solution for a black hole with charge looks different from one without. So in principle you could infer the charge of a black hole based on the curvature of spacetime.
And same logic applies to all masses, not only black holes. It’s just nearly impossible to calculate for anything besides a black hole, for a variety of reasons.
Also, the reference to “known links between the solutions of Yang-Mills theory and those of gravity” (Y-M equations describing charge and EM field) seems to speculatively imply that charge-related information is encoded in the geometry of spacetime, alongside gravitational effects
Also, the reference to “known links between the solutions of Yang-Mills theory and those of gravity” (Y-M equations describing charge and EM field) seems to speculatively imply that charge-related information is encoded in the geometry of spacetime, alongside gravitational effects
That's way over my head, sorry. How does the solution differ gravitationally, if the black hole isn't spinning? And how are positive and negative charges distinguished?
[deleted]
> How does gravity tell you the charge of a particle?
Perhaps you can just assume a radius where the electron self-repulsion energy equals its own mass, by m = E/(c^2).
Perhaps you can just assume a radius where the electron self-repulsion energy equals its own mass, by m = E/(c^2).
Even if you can, that doesn't tell you whether the self-repulsion is due to a positive charge repelling itself, or a negative one.
Yeah, wondering the same thing. And there quite a lot of other statements in the paper presented as "obvious" that are IMO everything but.
This is a creative synthesis of a few familiar ideas (Penrose–Diosi intuition, time-dependent variational principles, and superdeterminism). But as a model it doesn’t hang together.
If you interpret this as a story, say “approximate quantum gravity lives on a matter x geometry product manifold; when the Schrödinger flow wants to leave that manifold, pick the closest product-like pointer state, and bias the lottery to match |a|^2”, it’s internally tidy. As a theory that is local, parameter-free, and predictive, it’s not there:
- the state-space restriction is inconsistent with known gravitational DOFs
- the “derivation” of Born’s rule is circular
- the collapse is enforced by global endpoint selection rather than local dynamics
- and the one quantitative lever (the “Penrose phase”) depends on gauge/UV-sensitive self-potentials
Interesting essay; not yet a model you can falsify without importing the very knobs it claims to avoid.
If you interpret this as a story, say “approximate quantum gravity lives on a matter x geometry product manifold; when the Schrödinger flow wants to leave that manifold, pick the closest product-like pointer state, and bias the lottery to match |a|^2”, it’s internally tidy. As a theory that is local, parameter-free, and predictive, it’s not there:
- the state-space restriction is inconsistent with known gravitational DOFs
- the “derivation” of Born’s rule is circular
- the collapse is enforced by global endpoint selection rather than local dynamics
- and the one quantitative lever (the “Penrose phase”) depends on gauge/UV-sensitive self-potentials
Interesting essay; not yet a model you can falsify without importing the very knobs it claims to avoid.
Seems like a valid critique and I appreciate you offering it
Sabine recently wrote a back of the cover testimonial for "The War on Science"[0] which is a collection of whiny essays by sex pests and racists[1]. It seems like she started off with some fairly reasonable criticisms of academia but over the past few years she's been pushed deeper and deeper into quack territory. AFAICT she's academically much less of a joke than the theory of everything VC guy, she's a real physicist. I'm curious to see if she's proposing something novel/meaningful/reasonable here, skimming the paper I can see it's above my pay grade.
I don't really have a point here, shitty people can do good things, humanity sure runs the gamut huh?
[0]: https://youtu.be/miJbW3i9qQc?t=2794 [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyU5Xkk6TuE
I don't really have a point here, shitty people can do good things, humanity sure runs the gamut huh?
[0]: https://youtu.be/miJbW3i9qQc?t=2794 [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyU5Xkk6TuE
Your first quote criticising the book starts with "I didnt read this book".
Probably sums up what the book would be complaining about. No experience, didn't actually do any fact checking, makes claims we are supposed to just believe and call it science.
Second video doesnt seem to have any content from the book either.
Color me surprised.
Probably sums up what the book would be complaining about. No experience, didn't actually do any fact checking, makes claims we are supposed to just believe and call it science.
Second video doesnt seem to have any content from the book either.
Color me surprised.
So you dodn't watch the video but have things to say about it?
Glass houses heh?
And the book is a pile of trash
Glass houses heh?
And the book is a pile of trash
Why should i watch a video about a book when the person explaining the book starts by explaining they never read it?
Thats Sabines whole position about the attack on science (Ive not read her book, but have watched her videos)
Science doesn't care if the person making nuclear bombs is a sex pest.
Thats Sabines whole position about the attack on science (Ive not read her book, but have watched her videos)
Science doesn't care if the person making nuclear bombs is a sex pest.
Why do you share your opinion without having examined the information available?
And : Second video
First video seemingly was just to show she did indeed write for that book
And wait - you've not read the book? But you are here defending it ? Want to take a stwp back and think about what you're doing here? And second video moght be a good start.
And : Second video
First video seemingly was just to show she did indeed write for that book
And wait - you've not read the book? But you are here defending it ? Want to take a stwp back and think about what you're doing here? And second video moght be a good start.
I examined the information.
Im criticising the idea that scientific findings can be undermined with accusations of undesirable sexual preference.
They cant, to think they can and try to do so is stupidity of the highest order, I would have loked an actual review of the book, even though i didnt expect to find, nor did i find one in the sources.
The only reason I checked the sources was to confirm that stupidity continued in the sources and that they contained nothing of value.
Im criticising the idea that scientific findings can be undermined with accusations of undesirable sexual preference.
They cant, to think they can and try to do so is stupidity of the highest order, I would have loked an actual review of the book, even though i didnt expect to find, nor did i find one in the sources.
The only reason I checked the sources was to confirm that stupidity continued in the sources and that they contained nothing of value.
You didnt read a book and didnt watch 2 videos, and now have to share your take with the world. Thank you dearly.
So I did my bit
Could you clarify if you are saying there was anything other than a lot of logical falicies known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Or if the only criticisms of the book are logical falicies.
Could you clarify if you are saying there was anything other than a lot of logical falicies known as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Or if the only criticisms of the book are logical falicies.
Why would you ask me when you can watch the video itself instead of talking about it
Edit0: cant reply further somehow. This isnt a debate and the only supported claims you have done are that you didnt read the book or watch the videos - your claims are moot. I recommend the feeling of grass in the palm of the hand.
Edit0: cant reply further somehow. This isnt a debate and the only supported claims you have done are that you didnt read the book or watch the videos - your claims are moot. I recommend the feeling of grass in the palm of the hand.
I have made the claim the only criticisms of the book are logical fallacies. (That I have found)
Not 100% clear if you agree or disagree, but the way this works now, is short of any further criticism that isnt a logical fallacy, is just assume you agree with the book and have no valid criticism of it.
Thanks for the recommendation, think I'll grab a copy and read it for myself. Just about to finish deaths end and was wondering what to read next.
Not 100% clear if you agree or disagree, but the way this works now, is short of any further criticism that isnt a logical fallacy, is just assume you agree with the book and have no valid criticism of it.
Thanks for the recommendation, think I'll grab a copy and read it for myself. Just about to finish deaths end and was wondering what to read next.
And you didn't watch the 4 hour video detailing the contents of the book and the character of the authors lmao.
I jumped through the 4 hour video and at no point did i find any reference to the content of the book. Just 100% ad hominems.
Anyone that has to resort to ad hominems already lost the argument.
Anyone that has to resort to ad hominems already lost the argument.
It's important to note this is not a peer-reviewed publication, this is just some document that has been shared. While the author has a doctorate in theoretical physics, and has extensive experience in that field, their Wikipedia article also has the following line:
> Hossenfelder's more recent content has received criticism for her attacks on academic research[13][14] and for conspiracy theory-style portrayals of the physics community.
(The author recently had their affiliation end with the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and is not happy about it.)
I don't know remotely enough to comment on the author's statements or research, or on the contents of this document, but I would advise caution on getting too excited over significant developments that haven't yet been peer reviewed.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2304/
> Hossenfelder's more recent content has received criticism for her attacks on academic research[13][14] and for conspiracy theory-style portrayals of the physics community.
(The author recently had their affiliation end with the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and is not happy about it.)
I don't know remotely enough to comment on the author's statements or research, or on the contents of this document, but I would advise caution on getting too excited over significant developments that haven't yet been peer reviewed.
Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2304/
[deleted]
In this paper she presents a novel, testable theory. It doesn’t have to be peer reviewed to be reliable. It has to be tested.
It can be valid without being peer-reviewed, but it isn't automatically reliable. Regardless of whether it has been tested, it could be fundamentally invalid. I don't know that it is, I don't know enough about the field to understand what's being said, my point is that the standards to have a pre-print aren't high. They're meant to keep out garbage, not to make sure that something is reasonable.
XKCD is always so on point!
[deleted]
I would look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder before I took this too seriously
Ad hominem attacks are not part of the scientific method
>Ad hominem attacks are not part of the scientific method
Sure, but then again neither are arguments from authority. The thing is that we're not practicing the scientific method here on HN in general. Yes, from time to time on specific tech topics there have been cases we're posters have actually gone out right then and there and tried to replicate something or test an idea. But mostly we're a talk shop, not in a bad way but fact is most real world tests and experiments aren't conducive time-wise to the amount of time a typical discussion topic stays active. Actually practicing science for real is very expensive in both time and money and requires specific niche skills few possess. It's the work of a broad network of people over months, years an decades.
So we're left depending to a significant agree on evaluating authorities and what they're saying. Which is fun, but let's not confuse where we stand here. And while argument ad hominem is a fallacy against any stronger form of argument, it can be a perfectly logically reasonable argument against argument from authority. If someone says they are a licensed doctor practicing in a specific area of medicine, and that therefore the recommendation they're making about medicine in that area of expertise is worth paying more attention to, then it's very relevant whether they are telling the truth about their credentials or not, whether they seem to be reasonably sane, etc. We're left with proxy measures, but that can't be helped. We all have to economize and stand on each other's shoulders when it comes to advanced knowledge and technologies.
Sure, but then again neither are arguments from authority. The thing is that we're not practicing the scientific method here on HN in general. Yes, from time to time on specific tech topics there have been cases we're posters have actually gone out right then and there and tried to replicate something or test an idea. But mostly we're a talk shop, not in a bad way but fact is most real world tests and experiments aren't conducive time-wise to the amount of time a typical discussion topic stays active. Actually practicing science for real is very expensive in both time and money and requires specific niche skills few possess. It's the work of a broad network of people over months, years an decades.
So we're left depending to a significant agree on evaluating authorities and what they're saying. Which is fun, but let's not confuse where we stand here. And while argument ad hominem is a fallacy against any stronger form of argument, it can be a perfectly logically reasonable argument against argument from authority. If someone says they are a licensed doctor practicing in a specific area of medicine, and that therefore the recommendation they're making about medicine in that area of expertise is worth paying more attention to, then it's very relevant whether they are telling the truth about their credentials or not, whether they seem to be reasonably sane, etc. We're left with proxy measures, but that can't be helped. We all have to economize and stand on each other's shoulders when it comes to advanced knowledge and technologies.
That's true, it just also misses the point, like most invocations of ad hominem I come across.
People have lives outside of pursuing the scientific method. To decide to engage in that pursuit means taking away time and energy from other parts of life.
The argument here then is not that the paper is wrong because of who wrote it, but instead they insinuate that it probably is, and so it likely isn't even worth the time to try and evaluate whether it is.
This is a subtle but crucial difference, as this makes the core argument a speculation rather than a straight claim, let alone a scientific claim or refutation. And so for this, the identity of the author is a crucial bit, ad hominem cannot apply.
And this is if we make the ridiculous assumption that this was any more than just someone's informal opinion, like some sort of formal argument rather.
People have lives outside of pursuing the scientific method. To decide to engage in that pursuit means taking away time and energy from other parts of life.
The argument here then is not that the paper is wrong because of who wrote it, but instead they insinuate that it probably is, and so it likely isn't even worth the time to try and evaluate whether it is.
This is a subtle but crucial difference, as this makes the core argument a speculation rather than a straight claim, let alone a scientific claim or refutation. And so for this, the identity of the author is a crucial bit, ad hominem cannot apply.
And this is if we make the ridiculous assumption that this was any more than just someone's informal opinion, like some sort of formal argument rather.
Oh no she has opinions god forbid.
I did. It's not very damning. What's the big deal?
Personally, I dislike her from the path her videos have taken in recent years, but that Wikipedia article is tepid water.
Personally, I dislike her from the path her videos have taken in recent years, but that Wikipedia article is tepid water.
Everything appears normal. What am I looking for?
This doesn't suggest much of consequence, other than a vaguely-implied smear?
I've watched Hossenfelder's videos for years and whilst yes - she might perhaps be overly critical of a lot of things - I don't at all accept that she has weird, conspirational leanings.
I've watched Hossenfelder's videos for years and whilst yes - she might perhaps be overly critical of a lot of things - I don't at all accept that she has weird, conspirational leanings.
I guess you're pointing to:
"Hossenfelder's more recent content has received criticism for her attacks on academic research[13][14] and for conspiracy theory-style portrayals of the physics community."?
She's been leaning very hard into clickbait and the shitty science journalist tactic of titles that obfuscate the lack of credibility of a claim, which is certainly unbecoming of a "real" scientist (mostly why I don't follow her content the way I do, say, PBS Space Time), I don't know if I'd say that's a conspiracy theory style portrayal though.
She's been leaning very hard into clickbait and the shitty science journalist tactic of titles that obfuscate the lack of credibility of a claim, which is certainly unbecoming of a "real" scientist (mostly why I don't follow her content the way I do, say, PBS Space Time), I don't know if I'd say that's a conspiracy theory style portrayal though.
The author has become somewhat notorious in physics circles for groan-inducing takes. That's not to say everything she has produced is bad, because it's not, but she has taken a hard turn into audience capture and speaking over-confidently far out of her area of expertise. It will be interesting to see how the experts respond to this paper, if they do at all. Given the format I'm not sure it's actually designed to be submitted for publishing or if it's just formatted in academic paper style and uploaded to arXiv for some other reason. Note that virtually anyone can register for and upload a document to arXiv, so this being on arXiv.org doesn't imply anything specific.