We critically analyze the rationale of arguments from finetuning and naturalness in particle physics and cosmology, notably the small values of the mass of the Higgs-boson and the cosmological constant. We identify several new reasons why these arguments are not scientifically relevant. Besides laying out why the necessity to define a probability distribution renders arguments from naturalness internally contradictory, it is also explained why it is conceptually questionable to single out assumptions about dimensionless parameters from among a host of other (...) assumptions. Some other numerological coincidences and their problems are also discussed. (shrink)

A contrarian scientist wrestles with the big questions that modern physics raises, and what physics says about the human condition Not only can we not currently explain the origin of the universe, it is questionable we will ever be able to explain it. The notion that there are universes within particles, or that particles are conscious, is ascientific, as is the hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation. On the other hand, the idea that the universe itself is conscious (...) is difficult to rule out entirely. According to Sabine Hossenfelder, it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers, or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics. Science and religion have the same roots, and they still tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics. Over the last century, physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature. Not always, though, have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate. In this lively, thought-provoking book, Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in physics: Does the past still exist? Do particles think? Was the universe made for us? Has physics ruled out free will? Will we ever have a theory of everything? She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions, where the current limits are, and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever. Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence, and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know-and what we don't know. (shrink)

In quantum mechanics, the wavefunction predicts probabilities of possible measurement outcomes, but not which individual outcome is realised in each run of an experiment. This suggests that it describes an ensemble of states with different values of a hidden variable. Here, we analyse this idea with reference to currently known theorems and experiments. We argue that the ψ-ontic/epistemic distinction fails to properly identify ensemble interpretations and propose a more useful definition. We then show that all local ψ-ensemble interpretations which reproduce (...) quantum mechanics violate Statistical Independence. Theories with this property are commonly referred to as superdeterministic or retrocausal. Finally, we explain how this interpretation helps make sense of some otherwise puzzling phenomena in quantum mechanics, such as the delayed choice experiment, the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb detector, and the Extended Wigner's Friends Scenario. (shrink)

Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables. Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at (...) worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings. (shrink)

As everyone knows, physicists have proved that free will doesn’t exist. That’s because we are made of tiny particles which follow strict laws, and human behavior is really just a consequence of these particles’ laws. At least that’s what I used to think. But some years ago I stumbled over a gap in this argument. In this essay I want to tell you what made me rethink and why you should rethink, too.

We propose to experimentally test non-deterministic time evolution in quantum mechanics by consecutive measurements of non-commuting observables on the same prepared state. While in the standard theory the measurement outcomes are uncorrelated, in a super-deterministic hidden variables theory the measurements would be correlated. We estimate that for macroscopic experiments the correlation time is too short to have been noticed yet, but that it may be possible with a suitably designed microscopic experiment to reach a parameter range where one would expect (...) a super-deterministic modification of quantum mechanics to become relevant. (shrink)

A contrarian scientist wrestles with the big questions that modern physics raises, and what physics says about the human condition Not only can we not currently explain the origin of the universe, it is questionable we will ever be able to explain it. The notion that there are universes within particles, or that particles are conscious, is ascientific, as is the hypothesis that our universe is a computer simulation. On the other hand, the idea that the universe itself is conscious (...) is difficult to rule out entirely. According to Sabine Hossenfelder, it is not a coincidence that quantum entanglement and vacuum energy have become the go-to explanations of alternative healers, or that people believe their deceased grandmother is still alive because of quantum mechanics. Science and religion have the same roots, and they still tackle some of the same questions: Where do we come from? Where do we go to? How much can we know? The area of science that is closest to answering these questions is physics. Over the last century, physicists have learned a lot about which spiritual ideas are still compatible with the laws of nature. Not always, though, have they stayed on the scientific side of the debate. In this lively, thought-provoking book, Hossenfelder takes on the biggest questions in physics: Does the past still exist? Do particles think? Was the universe made for us? Has physics ruled out free will? Will we ever have a theory of everything? She lays out how far physicists are on the way to answering these questions, where the current limits are, and what questions might well remain unanswerable forever. Her book offers a no-nonsense yet entertaining take on some of the toughest riddles in existence, and will give the reader a solid grasp on what we know-and what we don't know. (shrink)

While it has often been proposed that, fundamentally, Lorentz-invariance is not respected in a quantum theory of gravity, it has been difficult to reconcile deviations from Lorentz-invariance with quantum field theory. The most commonly used mechanisms either break Lorentz-invariance explicitly or deform it at high energies. However, the former option is very tightly constrained by experiment already, the latter generically leads to problems with locality. We show here that there exists a third way to integrate deviations from Lorentz-invariance into quantum (...) field theory that circumvents the problems of the other approaches. The way this is achieved is an extension of the standard model in which photons can have different speeds without singling out a preferred restframe, but only as long as they are in a quantum superposition. Once a measurement has been made, observables are subject to the laws of special relativity, and the process of measurement introduces a preferred frame. The speed of light can take on different values, both superluminal and subluminal (with respect to the usual value of the speed of light), without the need for Lorentz-invariance violating operators and without tachyons. We briefly discuss the relation to deformations of special relativity and phenomenological consequences. (shrink)

It is demonstrated that Maxwell’s demon can be used to allow a machine to extract energy from a heat bath by use of information that is processed by the demon at a remote location. The model proposed here effectively replaces transmission of energy by transmission of information. For that we use a feedback protocol that enables a net gain by stimulating emission in selected fluctuations around thermal equilibrium. We estimate the down conversion rate and the efficiency of energy extraction from (...) the heat bath. (shrink)