3I/ATLAS: Probably NOT an alien interstellar probe

[pood]

Hossenfelder is another one like Loeb who traded science for clickbaitism. Guess they make money off it.

 

[pood]

. Has she found a lucrative niche outside academia and is exploiting that for financial gain? You bet! Welcome to the real world.

Yeah. Too bad.

 

[pood]

Misattributed the above quote, sorry.

 

[Swammerdami]

. Has she found a lucrative niche outside academia and is exploiting that for financial gain? You bet! Welcome to the real world.

Yeah. Too bad.

In one video she explained that she diverged because she was being ostracized. I don't remember details; her gender may have played a role.

 

[Shadowy Man]

When I first found her I really enjoyed her channel because I found it rare that actual scientists were discussing science. I could get stories and discussions with an insight that made sense to me given my level of education and experience with academic research. However, it seems that she must have found that she got more clicks from bashing science and scientists than reporting and discussing science and seems to follow that audience and its accompanying revenue stream. If you search on Professor Dave’s comments on Sabine then you’ll see some of the types of criticisms I have. Maybe she’s gotten better but I had gotten turned off and so tuned out.

Professor Hossenfelder is an award-winning theoretical physicist who knows far more about cosmology than anyone posting here at IIDB. She does an excellent job of acquainting laymen with advanced topics in theoretical physics. Has she found a lucrative niche outside academia and is exploiting that for financial gain? You bet! Welcome to the real world.

Many years ago, Peter Woit wrote a book about string theory titled Not Even Wrong. I see that this phrase, used to deprecate some physics speculations, was first coined by Wolfgang Pauli. It's wrong to say Hossenfelder "bashes science and scientists" but she is certainly willing to call out speculations that "aren't even wrong."

She posts her strong-minded views on a wide variety of topics and her views are not always correct. IIRC she once posted a flawed summary of the trade-offs of different electricity sources, but later posted a new video with revised opinions.

Please watch Professor Dave’s critiques of her and then we can discuss. If you don’t want to then I can see about rewatching them and bringing up his most salient points for discussion here.

She is also critiqued a little in a video by Angela Collier called “conspiracy physics and you” with points I also agree with.

 

[bilby]

Professor Hossenfelder is an award-winning theoretical physicist who knows far more about cosmology than anyone posting here at IIDB.

IIRC she once posted a flawed summary of the trade-offs of different electricity sources, but later posted a new video with revised opinions.

I am left wondering why a cosmologist would be a better source of information about the trade-offs of different electricity sources than an engineer who specialises in that field, or for that matter than any other random person with a YouTube channel and expertise in an unrelated scientific discipline.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am left wondering why a cosmologist would be a better source of information about the trade-offs of different electricity sources than an engineer who specialises in that field, or for that matter than any other random person with a YouTube channel and expertise in an unrelated scientific discipline.

She's an opinionated person not ashamed to discuss a variety of topics. If I refused to watch her, it would follow that I should ignore almost all the posters here at IIDB. And Sabine is much more fun than a vast majority of the posters here.

In fact she DOES do a good job of making recent discoveries and speculations in cosmology accessible to laymen.

The future of technologies like AI and quantum computing is of IMMENSE importance, even in the very near term. I listen to various opinions on these topics -- including Sabine's -- though without forming any definite conclusions.

 

[Swammerdami]

Please watch Professor Dave’s critiques of her and then we can discuss. If you don’t want to then I can see about rewatching them and bringing up his most salient points for discussion here.

She is also critiqued a little in a video by Angela Collier called “conspiracy physics and you” with points I also agree with.

If I promised to click would you take time off from your busy schedule to post link(s)?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Please watch Professor Dave’s critiques of her and then we can discuss. If you don’t want to then I can see about rewatching them and bringing up his most salient points for discussion here.

She is also critiqued a little in a video by Angela Collier called “conspiracy physics and you” with points I also agree with.

If I promised to click would you take time off from your busy schedule to post link(s)?

Here:

And here:

Here, too:

 

[robnisch]

MSN

I haven't seen a comet since the '70s.
We are in a rainy period right now.

 

[Swammerdami]

A main claim seems to be

However, it seems that she must have found that she got more clicks from bashing science and scientists than reporting and discussing science and seems to follow that audience and its accompanying revenue stream.

Seeking revenue has degraded content all over the Internet. I think we can all agree with that.

Generally scientists tend to be MUCH less likely than other people to pursue greed: They get their kicks from using their brains rather than from wealth.

Sabine once explained that she was somewhat ostracized from academia. The details seemed unimportant to me and I forgot them. (Did her gender play a role?) But that explains why she focuses on her YouTube channel rather than writing papers.

Her video about 3I/ATLAS was very brief, very factual and seemed like a good source for anyone, like myself, who wanted a very brief summary of 3I/ATLAS. THAT is why I posted it to this thread. It had zero crackpottery AFAICT. I'm sorry if mentioning her name provoked bad feelings.

Please watch Professor Dave’s critiques of her and then we can discuss. If you don’t want to then I can see about rewatching them and bringing up his most salient points for discussion here.

She is also critiqued a little in a video by Angela Collier called “conspiracy physics and you” with points I also agree with.

[Links truncated to avoid clutter.
Here: 70vYj1KPyT4[/MEDIA]

And here: 6P_tceoHUH4[/MEDIA]

Here, too: miJbW3i9qQc[/MEDIA]

I was very sincere, and intended to watch your linked videos to improve my understanding of Sabine. I find her a bit outlandish sometimes, devote minimal time^* to trying to learn physics, and watch her mainly because she's FUN!

(* - I HAVE devoted MANY hours to reading about quantum physics and cosmology, but remain confused and ignorant on the topic. I've hinted at my peculiar intuitions about temporal paradoxes in some discussions here. I still watch Veritasium, Mathologer and some other such YouTubes but I have lots of other priorities for my very limited time.)

The videos you link to total about two hours in length. Two with a T.

The first spends a while complimenting Sabine, and then complains that science deniers may twist her message and use it to support their wrong ideas. You're welcome to think I'm a science denier if you wish. Anyway life is short, and I didn't watch the remaining half-hour.

The 2nd Prof Dave video begins by complaining about real scientists who complained about the 1st video. IOW ... WHO is complaining about real physicists? Sabine? Or Dave? But it's not fair for me to comment on the entirety of his half-hour screed: After several minutes with Sabine UNMENTIONED. I clicked off.

The third video spent several minutes on meta-comments about string theory without mentioning Sabine. Click.

The underlying question is Which videos are worth the time spent? If you prefer the two hours of videos you pointed me to ... we can agree to disagree.

Thanks for your offer ("rewatching them and bringing up his most salient points for discussion here") but further debating of Sabine's efficacy is VERY low on my list of priorities.

 

[Shadowy Man]

No worries. I used to enjoy her videos too. When she sticks to discussing physics she was fine. I just didn’t get value from her hyperbolic discussions about how physics is dying because she personally had a bad experience with academia (and many, may do) and has an issue with string theory.

When I was in grad school, string theory was just something that a few people in our department did but it played zero role in my work and I and plenty of others were binding science and pursuing greater understanding of the universe. None of us were going to make great discoveries like Einstein but that didn’t mean we weren’t contributing to advancing science.

Anyway, I stopped watching her videos and only questioned her credibility because it seemed she was taking out her personal issues on the field and so I wasn’t sure i could trust her to give an unbiased analysis.

I also found that she sometimes misunderstood or misrepresented some aspects of science that weren’t her specialty, though I don’t recall exactly an example right now (something about either astronomy or earth science, at least it was a subject I likely know more about than she).

 

[bilby]

MSN

I haven't seen a comet since the '70s.
We are in a rainy period right now.

Finding Comet Lemmon in the sky requires no professional telescope, just clear weather, a dark sky, and a simple stargazing trick.
Before dawn or shortly after sunset on Sunday, October 19, locate the Big Dipper in the northwestern sky...

The Big Dipper cannot be seen from my location at any time, because the humans have left their planet in the way (again). Also, Sunday October 19 was yesterday. Now what?

 

[Shadowy Man]

MSN

I haven't seen a comet since the '70s.
We are in a rainy period right now.

Finding Comet Lemmon in the sky requires no professional telescope, just clear weather, a dark sky, and a simple stargazing trick.
Before dawn or shortly after sunset on Sunday, October 19, locate the Big Dipper in the northwestern sky...

The Big Dipper cannot be seen from my location at any time, because the humans have left their planet in the way (again). Also, Sunday October 19 was yesterday. Now what?

Unfortunately, you still won’t be able to see it after the 19th because it will still be in the vicinity of the Big Dipper. And the humans have not cleaned up their mess (yet).

 

[DBT]

MSN

I haven't seen a comet since the '70s.
We are in a rainy period right now.

Finding Comet Lemmon in the sky requires no professional telescope, just clear weather, a dark sky, and a simple stargazing trick.
Before dawn or shortly after sunset on Sunday, October 19, locate the Big Dipper in the northwestern sky...

The Big Dipper cannot be seen from my location at any time, because the humans have left their planet in the way (again). Also, Sunday October 19 was yesterday. Now what?

Never mind, anyway, we who live on the underside of the world only see things upside down.

 

[Swammerdami]

Never mind, anyway, we who live on the underside of the world only see things upside down.

Don't you sometimes see Orion's feet but not his hands? What about the peculiar dongle-shaped apparatus just below his midriff? Comets are boring but aren't you afraid of missing much of the exciting show when Betelgeuse explodes in the near future?

BTW, is it true that Australian aborigines were the first to note that Betelgeuse is a variable star?

 

[DBT]

Never mind, anyway, we who live on the underside of the world only see things upside down.

Don't you sometimes see Orion's feet but not his hands? What about the peculiar dongle-shaped apparatus just below his midriff? Comets are boring but aren't you afraid of missing much of the exciting show when Betelgeuse explodes in the near future?

BTW, is it true that Australian aborigines were the first to note that Betelgeuse is a variable star?

Exciting times ahead....so exciting that I may have to take a sedative.

I've heard about the Aboriginal/Betelgeuse story but don't know enough to make a comment.

 

[Swammerdami]

Never mind, anyway, we who live on the underside of the world only see things upside down.

Don't you sometimes see Orion's feet but not his hands? What about the peculiar dongle-shaped apparatus just below his midriff? Comets are boring but aren't you afraid of missing much of the exciting show when Betelgeuse explodes in the near future?

Exciting times ahead....so exciting that I may have to take a sedative.

I take a tiny dose of atenolol when I anticipate special thrills.

The 'Net has diminished my optimism about a nearby supernova in our lifetimes. "We" think Betelgeuse in still in Stage 1.

Betelgeuse is a red supergiant, meaning it has already exhausted hydrogen in its core and is now burning heavier elements in nested shells.

There are several possible stages in the late evolution of a massive star like Betelgeuse (≈ 15–20 solar masses):

Stage Core fuel Duration Observable change
Helium burning Helium → Carbon, Oxygen ~100,000 years Star stable as red supergiant
Carbon burning Carbon → Neon, Magnesium ~1,000 years Star slightly hotter, more unstable
Neon burning Neon → Oxygen, Magnesium ~1 year Rapid variability, intense neutrino flux
Oxygen burning Oxygen → Silicon, Sulfur ~6 months Internal changes invisible from outside
Silicon burning Silicon → Iron ~1–2 days Ends in core collapse supernova

We think Betelgeuse is still in Stage 1 (helium burning) — possibly just entering Stage 2 — based on its pulsation rate, temperature, and spectrum.

Roughly speaking, the chance that Betelgeuse will explode in my lifetime appears to be significantly greater than the chance that Adriana Lima will call and invite me on a date, but significantly less than the chance Kristi Noem will send a special platoon of brownshirts to the Kingdom just to handcuff and take me away.

 

[Elixir]

If a civilization stays around their star I would agree with your analysis.

I think that “there’s no place like home” is a powerful “grounding” force.

Having the inclination and the means to depart one’s home star system would seem a very unlikely development to me. It would have to be a dying star, and involve millennia of concerted technological effort.

 

[Elixir]

The question is whether we can "tag" an interstellar rock like this one on its way through with something that can soak up enough energy somewhere along its pathway to activate and hijack it, ride that out of the star's gravity well, and then when in a relatively gravitationally neutral environment, select a nearby destination somewhere in the cone of deflection given the previously collected energy, and then give the rock a bit of a kick, and doing some math/observation on the way to determine fine tuning on trajectory to get info, and maybe make a gravity acceleration or get more energy from the star.

That’s a QUESTION?
If so, the answer is “NO”. We cannot.
We are not currently able to do that.