Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder explains why, in a fundamental sense, those we’ve lost still exist. By looking at the core laws of nature, she reveals that the universe doesn’t actually destroy information; it only rearranges it. Because the laws of physics are reversible, every piece of matter and radiation carries... show more

Cosmos Archive

8,643 subscribers

53,686 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Could a "demon" break one of the most fundamental laws of physics? 😈⁠Physicist John Goold explains what the paradox of Maxwell's demon reveals about the relationship between entropy, measurement and the quantum world.⁠ Watch the full video:

Could a "demon" break one of the most fundamental laws of physics? 😈⁠Physicist John Goold explains what the paradox of Maxwell's demon reveals about the relationship between entropy, measurement and the quantum world.⁠ Watch the full video:

New Scientist

23,986 views • 1 month ago

Will we ever know how the universe began? Acclaimed theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder argues that not only is discovering the universe’s origins an impossible task, but one that she doesn't consider worth pursuing at all. Instead, theories for the beginning of the universe are merely stories we tell ourselves. In this debate, she joins theoretical quantum physicist Ivette Fuentes and philosopher of science James Ladyman to explore the various lenses through which we perceive and study the cosmological world of the universe. Click the link to watch more.

Will we ever know how the universe began? Acclaimed theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder argues that not only is discovering the universe’s origins an impossible task, but one that she doesn't consider worth pursuing at all. Instead, theories for the beginning of the universe are merely stories we tell ourselves. In this debate, she joins theoretical quantum physicist Ivette Fuentes and philosopher of science James Ladyman to explore the various lenses through which we perceive and study the cosmological world of the universe. Click the link to watch more.

Institute of Art and Ideas

74,814 views • 7 months ago

Every time you look at the stars, you are literally looking back in time. As Professor Brian Cox explains, because light takes time to travel through the vastness of space, we see the Andromeda Galaxy not as it is today, but as it was 2 million years ago. This means that if we look deep enough into the cosmos, we can actually see the oldest light in existence—the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation—a glowing echo that began its journey 13.8 billion years ago, right at the very dawn of the universe.

Every time you look at the stars, you are literally looking back in time. As Professor Brian Cox explains, because light takes time to travel through the vastness of space, we see the Andromeda Galaxy not as it is today, but as it was 2 million years ago. This means that if we look deep enough into the cosmos, we can actually see the oldest light in existence—the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation—a glowing echo that began its journey 13.8 billion years ago, right at the very dawn of the universe.

Cosmos Archive

21,599 views • 5 months ago

Einstein thought quantum theory was ‘silly.’ Heisenberg believed reality is nothing but possibilities. As Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder explains, the real challenge is still ahead: reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Can we ever unite the two pillars of physics? Tap the link below to watch the full debate with Roger Penrose and Slavoj Žižek as they explore the mysteries of an unknowable universe.

Einstein thought quantum theory was ‘silly.’ Heisenberg believed reality is nothing but possibilities. As Sabine Hossenfelder Sabine Hossenfelder explains, the real challenge is still ahead: reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity. Can we ever unite the two pillars of physics? Tap the link below to watch the full debate with Roger Penrose and Slavoj Žižek as they explore the mysteries of an unknowable universe.

Institute of Art and Ideas

39,421 views • 1 year ago

Is entropy subjective? Entropy is core to the laws of thermodynamics and the arrow of time. And yet, some physicists argue that entropy actually depends on who is measuring it. Could it really be the case that such a fundamental aspect of the laws of physics is subjective?! I addressed this question in my talk at the Rationalist Festival (Rat Fest) 2025, organised by Conjecture Institute. Watch here or on the YouTube link below!

Is entropy subjective? Entropy is core to the laws of thermodynamics and the arrow of time. And yet, some physicists argue that entropy actually depends on who is measuring it. Could it really be the case that such a fundamental aspect of the laws of physics is subjective?! I addressed this question in my talk at the Rationalist Festival (Rat Fest) 2025, organised by Conjecture Institute. Watch here or on the YouTube link below!

Dr Maria Violaris

54,941 views • 8 months ago

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

“The theory of intelligent design holds that there are certain features of life in the universe that are best explained as a product of a creative intelligence.” “The digital code that’s stored in the DNA.” “Patterns in the fossil record.” “The presence of nanomachinery inside life.” Stephen C. Meyer just sat down with me to break down the theory of intelligent design: This theory holds that certain features of life appear to be the “product of a creative intelligence, rather than a strictly undirected physical or material process, such as, in the biological realm, natural selection acting on random mutations.” “All these things are things that we think are best explained because a creative intelligence has played a role in the origin and history of life.” “We have phenomena like the fine-tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe and the fine-tuning of the laws and constants of physics.” “The basic parameters of physics fall within very narrow ranges or tolerances outside of which, not only life, but even basic chemistry, would be impossible.” Meyer’s new documentary, The Story of Everything, explored the evidence that humanity and our universe are not the product of random evolution, but that we were created by a designer. “We look at the evidence for the beginning of the universe, and with it, the very real possibility that we’re looking at evidence of a creation event.” “We also look at the discovery of fine-tuning.” “And we look at the interior of the cell and the discoveries of the miniature machinery and the digital code that makes the proteins that make the machines and make everything else inside living cells.” Stephen C. Meyer

Jan Jekielek

19,015 views • 5 months ago

If space is expanding, then everything was closer together in the past! Professor Brian Cox explains how the universe isn't just growing, but accelerating in its expansion. By taking Einstein’s theory of general relativity and applying it to the fabric of spacetime, we can trace the cosmic history back to a "day without a yesterday." Georges Lemaître, a priest and physicist, first saw this in the mathematics; the idea that space itself stretches, and that everything began in the ultimate explosion: the Big Bang. Credit: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

If space is expanding, then everything was closer together in the past! Professor Brian Cox explains how the universe isn't just growing, but accelerating in its expansion. By taking Einstein’s theory of general relativity and applying it to the fabric of spacetime, we can trace the cosmic history back to a "day without a yesterday." Georges Lemaître, a priest and physicist, first saw this in the mathematics; the idea that space itself stretches, and that everything began in the ultimate explosion: the Big Bang. Credit: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

Cosmos Archive

19,701 views • 7 months ago

It was a moment described as "the Olympics of particle physics," Peter Higgs's theory on how the most basic building blocks of the universe acquire mass was proven correct.

It was a moment described as "the Olympics of particle physics," Peter Higgs's theory on how the most basic building blocks of the universe acquire mass was proven correct.

Philosophy Of Physics

16,074 views • 7 months ago

"Energy can't be created or destroyed. Actually, we've discovered that's not true." CERN physicist Daniel Whiteson (Daniel Whiteson) explains why one of the most basic laws in science only works in a universe that isn't ours:

"Energy can't be created or destroyed. Actually, we've discovered that's not true." CERN physicist Daniel Whiteson (Daniel Whiteson) explains why one of the most basic laws in science only works in a universe that isn't ours:

Danny Jones

138,147 views • 1 month ago

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Elon Musk said the most important thing anyone has said this century. Musk: “I think we need to assume that life and consciousness is extremely rare, and it might only be us.” 13.8 billion years. Trillions of galaxies. Billions of trillions of stars. Not one signal from any of them. That silence is the loudest data point in human history. Musk: “The image in my mind is of a tiny candle in a vast darkness. A tiny candle of consciousness that could easily go out.” That is not poetry. That is a threat assessment from the only person on Earth building the response. Stars don’t know they burn. Black holes don’t know they consume. The universe has been running for 13.8 billion years with no awareness of itself. We are the only known point in all of that time and all of that space where matter woke up and understood what it was looking at. Every law of nature ran in complete silence for billions of years. Gravity pulled. Light traveled. Elements fused. None of it meant anything. Because meaning requires a mind. And there might only be one. Musk is not building rockets because he likes engineering. He is building an escape route for the only thing in the universe that knows the universe exists. If consciousness disappears, the stars keep burning. The physics keeps running. But the universe is no longer a universe. It is just matter moving through space with nothing to call it that. The most profound thing Musk said is not that the candle is small. It is that without the candle, there is no such thing as light or darkness. Just physics performing to an empty room for the rest of eternity. One man looked at that and said no.

Dustin

61,326 views • 3 months ago

Sam Altman just exposed the greatest delusion in the tech sector. We didn’t invent artificial intelligence. We discovered it. Altman: “I think the discovery of deep learning is closer to discovering an element or a fundamental property of physics than it is a secret technology.” This distinction is everything. If intelligence were just human invention, it would be bound by human limits. Fragile code. Endless debugging. But deep learning as a fundamental property of physics means intelligence is an emergent thermodynamic result. Organize silicon in the right pattern, pump enough energy through it, and cognition mathematically materializes. We’re not writing software anymore. We’re mining the raw physics of intelligence. Altman: “There was such a measurable, beautiful correlation between the resources that go into a model and the intelligence of that model that there was just something fundamental going on here as a scientific principle.” When OpenAI published the scaling laws, they proved something brutal about the nature of the universe itself. Synthetic intelligence is directly proportional to compute. Clean, predictable extraction. Tech monopolies are spending hundreds of billions on physical infrastructure right now because they aren’t guessing. The scaling laws proved you don’t need a million genius engineers to hand-code an artificial brain. Just feed the mathematical principle with more energy. The outcome is already hardcoded into the system. Altman: “Like other scientific frontiers, it is simplifying and becoming more clear over time. And eventually, this recipe will be well understood as a scientific principle.” Right now, training a frontier model looks like highly classified black magic restricted to a handful of apex organizations. But physical laws always trend toward simplification. We’re watching the transition from alchemy to chemistry in real time. Once the core scientific principle of intelligence is fully understood, it no longer requires a trillion-dollar monopoly to execute. The foundational recipe for creating a cognitive agent becomes as widely understood and standardized as the laws of thermodynamics. And when that happens, the barrier to creating intelligence doesn’t just drop. It ceases to exist.

Sam Altman just exposed the greatest delusion in the tech sector. We didn’t invent artificial intelligence. We discovered it. Altman: “I think the discovery of deep learning is closer to discovering an element or a fundamental property of physics than it is a secret technology.” This distinction is everything. If intelligence were just human invention, it would be bound by human limits. Fragile code. Endless debugging. But deep learning as a fundamental property of physics means intelligence is an emergent thermodynamic result. Organize silicon in the right pattern, pump enough energy through it, and cognition mathematically materializes. We’re not writing software anymore. We’re mining the raw physics of intelligence. Altman: “There was such a measurable, beautiful correlation between the resources that go into a model and the intelligence of that model that there was just something fundamental going on here as a scientific principle.” When OpenAI published the scaling laws, they proved something brutal about the nature of the universe itself. Synthetic intelligence is directly proportional to compute. Clean, predictable extraction. Tech monopolies are spending hundreds of billions on physical infrastructure right now because they aren’t guessing. The scaling laws proved you don’t need a million genius engineers to hand-code an artificial brain. Just feed the mathematical principle with more energy. The outcome is already hardcoded into the system. Altman: “Like other scientific frontiers, it is simplifying and becoming more clear over time. And eventually, this recipe will be well understood as a scientific principle.” Right now, training a frontier model looks like highly classified black magic restricted to a handful of apex organizations. But physical laws always trend toward simplification. We’re watching the transition from alchemy to chemistry in real time. Once the core scientific principle of intelligence is fully understood, it no longer requires a trillion-dollar monopoly to execute. The foundational recipe for creating a cognitive agent becomes as widely understood and standardized as the laws of thermodynamics. And when that happens, the barrier to creating intelligence doesn’t just drop. It ceases to exist.

Dustin

38,368 views • 7 months ago

Nothing in physics may be truly fundamental. Questions whether the idea of “building blocks” in nature are increasingly outliving its usefulness, suggesting that our most basic concepts reflect the limits of human understanding rather than the structure of reality itself. Here Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (Sabine Hossenfelder) argues that mathematics isn't real, and rather a tool we use to describe the world. If that’s the case, what would a coherent picture of the world even look like? And can physics progress without appealing to particles, things, or foundations? Watch the full debate via the link, also featuring critic of realism Hilary Lawson and celebrated philosopher of science Tim Maudlin:

Nothing in physics may be truly fundamental. Questions whether the idea of “building blocks” in nature are increasingly outliving its usefulness, suggesting that our most basic concepts reflect the limits of human understanding rather than the structure of reality itself. Here Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (Sabine Hossenfelder) argues that mathematics isn't real, and rather a tool we use to describe the world. If that’s the case, what would a coherent picture of the world even look like? And can physics progress without appealing to particles, things, or foundations? Watch the full debate via the link, also featuring critic of realism Hilary Lawson and celebrated philosopher of science Tim Maudlin:

Institute of Art and Ideas

57,185 views • 9 months ago

Steven Sinofsky says the culture of a big company is as fixed as a law of physics, and that's why they don't crush startups: "It's weird that they teach disruption as a theory in the business school, when really it should just be a fact in the physics department." "You always think, 'Oh my God, we're just gonna crush all of these little companies.' You always think that when you're at the big company, and then you realize they never get crushed." "The startups don't aim straight at the incumbents. And the incumbents just don't pay attention... Microsoft is worried way more about what Amazon and Google are doing." "The elements of disruption that matter are the cultural ones of being a big company, and those are constant. Those are the laws of physics." "We're at a magic moment... you don't have to go build a data center and build your own egress and call AT&T. Now you're up and running in the first hours of your first dinner." Steven Sinofsky

Steven Sinofsky says the culture of a big company is as fixed as a law of physics, and that's why they don't crush startups: "It's weird that they teach disruption as a theory in the business school, when really it should just be a fact in the physics department." "You always think, 'Oh my God, we're just gonna crush all of these little companies.' You always think that when you're at the big company, and then you realize they never get crushed." "The startups don't aim straight at the incumbents. And the incumbents just don't pay attention... Microsoft is worried way more about what Amazon and Google are doing." "The elements of disruption that matter are the cultural ones of being a big company, and those are constant. Those are the laws of physics." "We're at a magic moment... you don't have to go build a data center and build your own egress and call AT&T. Now you're up and running in the first hours of your first dinner." Steven Sinofsky

a16z

44,093 views • 1 month ago

🧵 I watched the 1974 Land of the Lost when I was a kid, but I only understood the basics of it, on the surface it seemed like a silly children’s show. I had no understanding of the deep physics involved. This frankly blew me away. The scene in this thread explains the Law of Conservation of Mass in a closed system, Schrödinger’s Box theory, as well as Hawking Radiation and particles at the event horizon of a black hole, one set escaping, one being sacrificed.

🧵 I watched the 1974 Land of the Lost when I was a kid, but I only understood the basics of it, on the surface it seemed like a silly children’s show. I had no understanding of the deep physics involved. This frankly blew me away. The scene in this thread explains the Law of Conservation of Mass in a closed system, Schrödinger’s Box theory, as well as Hawking Radiation and particles at the event horizon of a black hole, one set escaping, one being sacrificed.

JenOakie42💫

326,557 views • 1 year ago

Everyone assumed string theory was finally dying. It's not dying. It's worse. Physicists have written more papers on string theory than on any other idea in the field's history. Fifty years of work. It has never once produced a testable prediction. Last week an essay asked the question directly: is string theory still our best hope for a theory of everything? The answer given was yes. Here's the actual argument behind that yes. String theory is "inevitable" — as long as you first assume a universe that doesn't exist. That's not a rebuttal to the critics. That's the entire case for the defense. 50 years. 100,000+ papers. Entire careers built on a framework nobody has ever tested, defended by physicists who now have to assume a fictional universe just to keep it alive. Is this still physics, or is it the most expensive tautology in the history of science?

Everyone assumed string theory was finally dying. It's not dying. It's worse. Physicists have written more papers on string theory than on any other idea in the field's history. Fifty years of work. It has never once produced a testable prediction. Last week an essay asked the question directly: is string theory still our best hope for a theory of everything? The answer given was yes. Here's the actual argument behind that yes. String theory is "inevitable" — as long as you first assume a universe that doesn't exist. That's not a rebuttal to the critics. That's the entire case for the defense. 50 years. 100,000+ papers. Entire careers built on a framework nobody has ever tested, defended by physicists who now have to assume a fictional universe just to keep it alive. Is this still physics, or is it the most expensive tautology in the history of science?

Alex Carten

38,340 views • 1 month ago

VP HARRIS: "I think it's very important [...] for us at every moment in time & certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist & are present & to be able to contextualize it — to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment — as it relates not only to the past but the future."

VP HARRIS: "I think it's very important [...] for us at every moment in time & certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist & are present & to be able to contextualize it — to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment — as it relates not only to the past but the future."

Breaking911

7,733,886 views • 3 years ago

What is the universe made of, besides stars, planets and us? On the ALLATRA Podcast, Fermilab & CERN physicist Dr. Michael Albrow explains that all this is only about 5% of it. He also explains why dark matter and dark energy remain a mystery. Watch the full conversation.

What is the universe made of, besides stars, planets and us? On the ALLATRA Podcast, Fermilab & CERN physicist Dr. Michael Albrow explains that all this is only about 5% of it. He also explains why dark matter and dark energy remain a mystery. Watch the full conversation.

ALLATRA

293,116 views • 14 days ago

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

.Naval: Every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species. One of the things that you really learn when you read David Deutsch’s theories and you authenticate them for yourself is you realize humans are universal explainers. That means everything that we know in the universe follows the laws of physics, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise. If you think otherwise, then please present your better theory that explains the world. If you can’t do that, then you have to go with the laws of physics. Well, the laws of physics are completely computable. They can fit inside a Turing machine or computer, and a computer can simulate the laws of physics with arbitrary accuracy, limited only by the specific power of that computer. If you increase the power of that computer, you can simulate them more accurately. So humans already simulate—in our minds we simulate—and through our computers we simulate the weather, we simulate quasars, we even simulate human systems. We simulate the economy. We simulate all kinds of things. So anything that can be understood, we can understand in our minds. This is something the AGI people get wrong when they talk about superintelligence. There is nothing out there that can understand something fundamentally that we can’t understand. It might be faster at it, it might have more compute, it might have more memory, but there’s no concept that it can understand that we can’t ourselves understand. So we are maximal universal explainers. That means every human is capable of unbounded creativity. Anyone could be the next Einstein or Fermi or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Jonas Salk or whatever. So we can create anything. And if we can create anything, every human is a lottery ticket bet on the future of the species.

Arjun Khemani

33,110 views • 1 year ago