She's a new kind of popular science presenter, with refreshing depth and command of the subject that's been lacking in this field for ages. She's popular and popular content is getting HN front page often. Add here the dynamics of social media engagement, meaning that more disputed/controversial topics get promoted and shared more.

As a physicist she does have certain opinions (would be strange if she didn't), they make for good material so naturally she brings it up. The disputed subjects however are a fraction of her content, which includes covering the well established basics.

I like her much more than Harald Lesch or MaiLab.

She makes a smart, but also down to earth impression.

The other science presenters are always so full of themselves that I can't watch them.

Her music videos are also awesome :)

Thanks for the tip.

Her current music video channel [0] and a playlist [1] of her older music videos on her science channel. Some of them are her own songs, others are covers. I’m currently enjoying "Cassandra (Prophet of the Dark)" [2]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPtRwW9i43BXbCRQa7BJaiA

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5ckD-v9Ux3T...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX0k0WfMSi0

Thank you for these, I just discovered her "Is Time Real?" video linked from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdL8CudJTcs and it was specifically on the topic I was on about in a recent comment, where my own question was whether time is just gravity, or an artifact thereof.

She also mentions Julian Barbour, who has apparently posited a theory about how time is not a necessary cosmological dimension as well. Quite a rabbit hole. I can see why people get into this.

I think it's probably fair to say most cosmologists would consider her views marginal, but she is certainly not a crank. My (limited) understanding is that ΛCDM fits cosmological observations extremely well; however, neither dark matter nor dark energy has actually been shown unambiguously to exist. 'Mainstream' cosmology invariably also includes inflation, which remains essentially a speculative idea unsupported by any hard observational evidence. Sabine Hossenfelder has become a popular commentator by drawing attention to discussions of these and other issues.

She might be right but, as of now, the evidence shows that she is probably not right.

But as with everything, contrarian point of view is always popular on the internet. And we all want be in the know (have some secret knowledge) thus posts like this are popular.

So if she is really right we will feel like winners - if not, who cares: it is internet.

Ya, it's so easy to point out something might not be exactly the way we thought, this position is probably the statistical more likely outcome anyways, we always refine our understanding of the universe year over year, it's unlikely we cracked the full extent of it yet. So if you just lived as a contrarian over time it be easy to always point out how we had one or more things "wrong", and make the claim you were thus right all along.

What I'd like to see more of is, alright smarty pants, what's your alternate theory and where is your superior evidence, and how is it more useful?

The love of contrarian views can be quite nauseating on hacker news. Post a somewhat mainstream, but interesting article, and prepare to watch it get nit-picked to death before commenters conclude it was only published due to reviewer friendships and p hacking. Meanwhile a contrarian article is immediately accepted as fact and the only reason scientists haven’t agreed is that they’re too stubborn.

I think she is a really credible voice, given her background in theoretical physics and her matter-of-fact demeanor, plus her tendency to express all the necessary caveats. As such, when you see a dissenting belief from her, you are more likely to have people actually believe there is something there and not just BS. I think this is a major factor - basically, dissenting opinions discussed by Sabine Hossenfelder carry more weight than others.

There are a bunch of people with similar thoughts. Just recently a blogpost by Peter Woidt showed up here [1]. While I'm only following this as a lay person I think you can say Woidt and Hossenfelder come from the same corner of "critics of contemporary physics" or however you want to call them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28325753

Careful there, you're standing on a Hacker News landmine. For whatever reason, whenever Woit's name is invoked here the downvote brigade is not far away.

Huh, is that so? Why?

Anyway, I haven't even said whether I agree with him or not (which tbh wouldn't be very relevant, as I know where my limits are, and judging debates in physics is definitely outside my area of expertise).

She's discussing findings that come from papers written by other scientists, so she is obviously not a lone wolf.

I also watch PBS spacetime series.

I think https://youtu.be/dsCjRjA4O7Y is relevant here.

I wonder if she heard about the Stationary Universe Model of Peter Ostermann [1]. He argues along similar lines reagarding the inference of dark energy from the supernovae data.

[1] http://www.peter-osterman.org/index.html

I have another error I'd like to discuss with her, but she charges to speak with one of her people. Sorry, I'm not paying for that :-)

She comes into the field from a mathematical background. In that sense she is an outsider.

That is so bizarre. And where would physics be without the mathematicians since Newton? Not a pretty picture would be my guess. But maybe I'm wrong, and all the experiments done in lieu of solving triple-intervals would have made a profound difference. (Einstein's best work came before he got bogged down in math.)

I love her so much. Everything she explains is so crystal clear.