[2bitencryption]

For those with an interest in this topic, but a disdain for "science news", I recommend checking out Sabine Hossenfelder's youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder

She's a theoretical physicist, and covers topics such as this from the point of view of a real expert, and doesn't "talk down" to the audience at all. (Though I must say, she does engage in clickbait-style video titles and thumbnails, but the video content is much better than that implies)

I guarantee she will have something to say about this topic in her next video :)

[ketralnis]

She's generally good but in addition to the clickbait she also has a habit of "it's so easy, it's just [controversial pet theory] and the rest of science disagrees because they are wrong".

I find that most physicists in educational roles shy away from interjecting with opinions and even mild speculation more than they should but she tends to overcorrect in the other direction. This tends to attract a particular type of fan as well, the kind that likes to feel like they're in on the secret knowledge and loudly have opinions about things they don't truly understand

[hn_throwaway_99]

> "it's so easy, it's just [controversial pet theory] and the rest of science disagrees because they are wrong".

That's probably the best description of her style of argument I've read, and it's honestly why I can't stand reading/watching her anymore. Much too much of it comes off to me as "What the physics establishment doesn't want you to know!!" type of stuff, so it then attracts the "yeah, she's speaking truth to power, I knew it was a conspiracy!" crowd.

I mean, there are plenty of folks that have expressed a ton of skepticism about string theory without the semi-conspiratorial angle.

[Beldin]

Hear, hear!

I appreciate someone challenging commonly held beliefs - science needs that. But I've grown accustomed to expecting her popular science output to present her point of view as the only valid one, and her the one sane person in physics. It has gone far beyond adding much-needed nuance, and has basically become contrarian-for-contrarian's-sake.

Which is a pity, because challenge to existing beliefs is valuable. But when someone mentions that she has a take on an exciting new physics result, I find myself able to predict the general direction (negative) and the tone (derisive) with high enough accuracy not to have to read it anymore.

[elorant]

You should read her book where she goes into greater detail about the shortcomings of modern science. While I also don't generally enjoy her style, there's a lot of valid points in her arguments.

[pfdietz]

She already panned it on twitter.

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1626113544339980291

[froeb]

Her criticism doesn't have much substance though, she says explicitly she can't follow one of the main arguments of the paper. I skimmed the paper myself, and it is quite esoteric, but it doesn't seem like nonsense to me. I wish she would react with more curiosity about it, and actually dig into it a little!

[raattgift]

> I wish she would react with more curiosity about it

Here's (the two biggest parts of) the firehose. Have a long drink. React with curiosity to all of them:

https://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/recent

https://arxiv.org/list/gr-qc/recent

> I wish she would ... actually dig into it a little!

You don't have to just wish.

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/p/talk-to-physicist_27.htm...

[AmericanOP]

Similarly I recommend the ‘History of the Universe’ channel for an understanding of cosmology:

https://youtube.com/@HistoryoftheUniverse