I'm a physicist much like a mineral is a geologist, so I have zero serious knowledge of the field and everything I say must be taken with a pinch of salt. That in mind, Hossenfelder seems to blow up regularly in HN with clickbait and catnip topics for laymen who self-identify as "pretty smart", so the whole email from an insider who "says what everyone is actually thinking" and aligns with Hossenfelder's ideas seems kinda suspect.<p>She makes daily videos mostly of "current happenings" not related to physics. I feel that she wants to keep the image of a full time academic speaking authoritatively, while being a science communicator that simplifies the works of others for non-Physicists like Neil deGrasse Tyson.<p>It doesn't even make sense for someone who's paranoid of their employer to the level that they use an alternate email when the exchange is supposedly gonna be confidential. They believe IT is manually reading their emails? An alert rule for outgoing mail to Hossenfelder? While at the same time have enough trust to use their full name and mention authorship in the email to a Youtuber with 1.6 million subscribers? One would expect that they would ask for their info to be redacted, which is exactly is what happened, but then you don't have an excellent clickbait title. Also, in the case that email is real, what she did is incredible shitty and only for clicks.
For anyone not wanting to watch the 9min video:<p>this is about an email she received 7 years ago from a fellow physicist who admits that things / models he and other scientists have been working on are pure BS.<p>And that they only maintain them to continue to get the funding and their comfortable lives.
Sabine's Doge arc. Very interesting timing. But I guess it makes sense. Now is the best time to air this when the government is more likely to be sympathetic to her argument.
On the one hand, I disagree with her, because I believe that 99.99% of people with purse string control are dumb a/f, and that "real work" will happen in the cloud of VC/Politician-stroking. That's the way it works. (And how much money did earlier scientists pump from kings in order to study transmutation?)<p>On the other hand, I agree with her, and it would be great if this didn't have to happen.<p>Should I be a purist or a realist?<p>I can't tell.
I'm not a physicist (I'm a biologist), but I still find this email highly suspicious.<p>Basically, the message boils down to:<p>« Don’t criticize our field. We at academia need taxpayer’s money to do useless research. But keep this confidential ».<p>I can’t see how such a message could exist.
The content repeats what she has been saying almost point for point, is highly damaging to scientific research in general, yet the email's author (a researcher) would have asked Sabine (a YouTuber) to keep it confidential. This makes no sense. But it is very convenient as Sabine wouldn’t have to provide any evidence for the message’s legitimacy.<p>Despite the author sharing Sabine’s views, they would at the same time criticize her for having written an opinion paper about it (in Nature Physics). This also doesn’t make sense. If the goal of the email was to make Sabine aware of the damage she’s done to the field, why include content that is even more damaging? A legit email would have at best included phrases like « I know there are issues in our field, but... ».
Describe your own research as "crap" in an email you ask to keep confidential? Give me a break. I don't know any researcher thinking what they do is "crap". In research, you believe in what you do.
The email also says that the problem exists in "all other areas". Yeah sure. And how would the emailer know about "all other areas"? Incidentally, this is exactly the idea Sabine tries to convey.<p>Another inconsistency: the author says they're sorry for being harsh. Why apologize to Sabine for stating what she believes? For me, this is Sabine speaking to her audience right here.
Is there any YT video summarizing AI yet, or not yet? Do I still have to manually copy-paste the transcript into an LLM? Even Google's Gemini can't do it if given a YT link. Oh well, below is the copy-pasted transcript summary for this one.<p>---<p>SUMMARY:<p>This video transcript, apparently from Sabine Hossenfelder, expresses deep concerns about the state of academic research in theoretical physics, particularly in high-energy physics (HEP). The email she reads—whether real or fabricated—illustrates the cynicism and structural issues in academic funding and research priorities. Here are the main takeaways:<p>1. Critique of Research Culture: The email suggests that much of modern theoretical physics, especially beyond the Standard Model (BSM) physics, is a self-sustaining bubble. Researchers publish minor variations of existing models to keep the funding cycle going, despite knowing that these models are unlikely to lead to groundbreaking discoveries.<p>2. Funding Misallocation: There is a strong argument that public funds are being wasted on projects that promise revolutionary insights (e.g., the DUNE experiment, new particle colliders) but are unlikely to deliver anything truly transformative.<p>3. Academic Survival vs. Scientific Integrity: The email implies that many researchers stay in academia because they have no alternative career paths, rather than out of genuine scientific curiosity. The system, it suggests, favors those who conform rather than those who challenge prevailing narratives.<p>4. Cynicism Toward Taxpayers: The author of the email exhibits a condescending attitude toward the public, implying that taxpayers don’t understand physics and are being manipulated into funding what amounts to academic job security.<p>5. Impending Collapse: Hossenfelder warns that this unsustainable system will eventually implode when funding dries up or the public demands accountability. She also seems to believe that real scientific progress is being stifled by the prioritization of institutional stability over bold new ideas.<p>6. Ethical Dilemma: The video raises an important question: Should scientific research be judged solely by its theoretical promise, or should it be held to stricter standards of practical utility and accountability?<p>While her perspective is undoubtedly controversial, it does highlight a fundamental problem in academia—publish-or-perish incentives, grant-driven research, and the reluctance to challenge established paradigms. Whether or not one agrees with her, the broader debate about scientific integrity and funding allocation remains crucial.
If we had a crystal ball that would tell us which piece of fundamental research will pan out, that would be great. But we don't. So we fund research with the understanding that a very high percentage of it will not directly lead us anywhere. Yes, maybe it's bullshit, but we'd learn why, rather than taking someone's word for it. The alternative is to fund no research, and guarantee we get nowhere.
You want to talk about the need to perpetuate fraudulent and conspiratorial science for profit, look no further than "Climate Change".
I rest my case!