I love watching SpaceTime on youtube! If you watch it, it will give you a surprisingly deep understanding of the state of the art on physics, but is the kind of show that if you don't have a massive background in physics, you either need to be extremely focused to understand it, or blazed out of your mind.
One of my absolute favourite YouTube channels of all time. Very well presented, truly fascinating topics, and explained in a way even a pleb like me can understand (at least enough to know that I don’t understand shit about the universe, but am still endlessly fascinated by it all).
I like them, Matt doesn't like to make everything sound like a mystery, but instead explain it to the point and not dumb it down too much. I also like watching Sabine Hossenfelder for physics topics.
Spacetime is nice because they / Matt often acknowledge uncertainty (indeed, gaps being found or closed in current understanding are probably one of the most common themes of the show), unlike many others which tend to present theories as facts (e.g. kurzgesagt often does this). Likewise, they don't shy away from making relatively complex explanations instead of leaning all to heavily into bogus analogies. They made a well-regarded by physicists (as far as I can tell) series on relativity, for example.
I think acknowledging uncertainty is one of the most important jobs of science communicators. It’s important that they say, “…but we really don’t know for sure” and emphasize when something is theoretical, a best guess, or a rough model. I think Matt and team do this very well.
Unfortunately, there are people that take that "we really don't know for sure" comment as a negative as "proof" of whatever thing they are pushing instead. The internet is full of them.
I still think it's important that scientists be factual about the uncertainty, though. The alternative whacko theories also have uncertainty, so if we hold ourselves to that standard, we can also rationally hold them to their even greater degrees of uncertainty. When we try to pretend that a current theory is 100% certain and factual just to win an argument with idiots, it invites obvious and IMHO reasonable criticism of all of science.
Science is not a set of facts caved in stone. Science is a process; a way of thinking critically and exploring the boundaries of reality in a way that makes a best effort at getting closer and closer to the boundaries of the knowable in a rational and reasonably-objective way. It often makes missteps and corrections along the way, and we can acknowledge that openly while also contrasting it to non-science junk that isn't even on the right track.
I've come to somewhat randomly expose a few of my major biases and preconceptions in the last couple months, which has been very interesting. This video hits the nail on the head for science communication (the 2nd half is the meta portion, the 1st half addresses a specific issue): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpIsjgapAk
I took a philosophy class one where several of the participants were getting upset that there weren’t just facts to learn because up to that point they had not been exposed to any kind of uncertainty. These were mostly students in the sciences too.
Kurzgesagt has acknowledged this was a problem with some of their earlier videos, but they're trying to do better with presenting any uncertainty around the topics they cover from now on.
I believe they did it on this video called "Can You Trust Kurzgesagt?". They also removed a few of their older videos at the time because they had this exact issue of presenting as fact some things that were not at all certain.
> because they / Matt often acknowledge uncertainty
Great pun! :D
They also will present the strengths and weaknesses of various 'competing' theories. For ones that have been shown to be incorrect, they still present them accurately and well and explain how those theories led to our current, more correct understanding. For ones that are still being considered they will tell you evidence for and against.
I think this show is what made me realize that physics isn't one unified whole, but rather a lot of different models that are all somehow wrong (but still better than what they were built on!), and that there's conflicting evidence for each of them.
The way a lot of so-called science channels make the mistake of presenting theories as facts is why I've dropped most of them. Spacetime has been the only show I've never had that complaint with. Kurzegesagt was an especially big offender in that manner.
SpaceTime is an amazing channel, if you enjoy the in depth videos then I'd also highly recommend ScienceClic (no K at the end) and History of the Universe, both channels similarly go in deep on a lot of physics, and have really great visuals.
If you enjoy Matt @ Spacetime, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Kurzgesagt, and are into astrophysics, I would highly recommend Anton Petrov’s YouTube channel:
Physics degrees were the gateway into data science before there was such a thing as a data science degree. So it's possible that he works as a data scientist but was trained as a physicist.
I started off really liking Kurzgesagt but got tired with how often they started with conclusions and then constructed narratives to justify it, rather than starting with observations. It's just the wrong way to think and present things.
One of my favorite channels on YT. There are many channels who try to explain similar topics, but PBS Spacetime is among the top 3 in how it engages the viewer and keeps them interested while explaining in (relatively (no pun intended)) simple terms.
Matt and his team are doing such a great job.The visuals are great and the music is alway on point! Also, when I'm stressed out, I can watch an episode and my mind calms down again. Thank you guys!
A channel worth subscribing. Matt (and team?) manages successfully to walk the fine line between managing the complexity of the topics they discuss (which are sometimes extremely dense), making it consumable for the population that's interested in science and physics, but doesn't pursue it on a daily basis. At the same time, they don't fall for the trap of dumbing it down to the point where the audience develops misconceptions and starts believing in pseudo scientific claims.
There are some series they sometimes do, which are entertaining to follow. I also enjoy things like Journal club, where they pick a paper and deep dive into it. The audience also participates, in a way, where they pick the questions/comments from the previous video and answer them.
However, it's not all academic either. There are some running jokes etc, which keep the content entertaining, while being informative, a format that I see common in some of the best Youtube channels.
>making it consumable for the population that's interested in science and physics, but doesn't pursue it on a daily basis.
While I love the channel, it seems like they're more targeted to someone with a lot of physics education, more so than lay people. This is the only channel I've ever watched and genuinely felt dumb on a regular basis.
There's definitely a lot of material that, I have to accept that "I don't have the math for it"[0].
But Matt does a pretty good job of breaking things down conceptually, so that even though you don't know the specifics, the broader picture is at least vaguely understandable. Even if it means you need to watch previous episodes to get the gist of other discussed concepts.
[0] Harry Wilson, from John Scalzi's "Old Man's War"
I think that's the key. Without a somewhat rigorous treatment, most interesting physics just doesn't work. The magic is that a well made resource is still consumable without quite understanding the complicated stuff. Then, if you come across something else later, maybe the commonalities make something click.
As someone with zero formal education in physics, I’ve always felt like they do a pretty good job. While there might be some parts that I have to dig into to understand or just accept going over my head, for the most part I come away from each video feeling like I understand both what they were talking about and what parts of what they were talking about were just surface level explanations.
Hah. I agree, but I'll add that his style is more like it's easy to follow for a while, then suddenly the car drives off a cliff and you need upper division college physics to understand.
I really love Anton. He has a way to ELI5 that's really effective and really genuine.
Yeup, I took several 100 level physics in college, 400 level physical chemistry which involved quantum mechanics and got good grades on them. I can't understand the show.
When we first started the show we were doing way dumber more youtube-y content (largely due to the interests of the producers, not PBS — look up the Majora's mask or farting in space episode). We got a ton of initial feedback early on that people wanted more actual science stuff, and it seemed like there was effectively no upper bound for what people would "tolerate" in terms of actual science vs. IFLS-core content. I think people honestly just like the challenge of understanding the show.
I've watched random videos from it until I decided to watch them all chronologically. I must say, they do build on previous episodes, even more heavily as time goes on
Yes! If you watch more than 5 physics docs that run on TV, you quickly get tired of hearing "Black holes are so massive that not even light can escape it!".
I have enjoyed them for years, I can recommend their merch and also give a slightly embarassing advice for insomniacs.
If you have insomnia, find a subject that you are genuinely interested in (but not too much) and watch videos on it while in bed. After a while, your brain slowly drifts off. After even more awhile, you learn to do this without a video.
PBS Spacetime, Sabine Hossenfelder, Isaac Arthur cured my insomnia, for which I am infinitely grateful.
I was wondering if I was the only one and glad to find out I’m not. I was a bit embarrassed because I absolutely love the videos (and have done so for years) but if I watch them in bed they put me to sleep in < 10 minutes.
Great quality and content. I recommend this channel for anyone interested in space and physics in general.
I got the best stuff ever for you: In depth chess videos. I once had bought a chess game (not sure if it was the chess master series) and it contained a whole bunch of annotated games by a GM.
It was interesting but also tired my brain so quickly, that it was the best sleep tool ever.
Doesn't work for me since I am interested in physics. Can recommend Elden Ring lore channels, for very smooth tone of voice and little variations, really put me to sleep.
The only way I can pay on the net, is by using a wallet code (like with amazon). Namely, I need a monetary account I can fuel with wallet codes I will buy at my local monetary outlet. Then upon payment at pbs, I would log to this "wallet code" service where I would validate (one time code receive via email, sms, etc) that payment.
All that must be possible with noscript/basic (x)html browsers.
PBS SpaceTime has been running for quite some time already. Beyond the obvious space/time and physics aspect, it's also a good example of a fact-based show that shows scientific method and critical thinking in action, without unnecessary drama or exaggerated sensationalist style; it strikes a perfect balance between science and narrative, serious and not-so-serious, in-depth and manageable chunk size. The graphics help to understand some of the material for us non-physicists or math geniuses, and Matt O'Dowd calm voice and wit create an environment suitable both for deep learning and deep relaxation, occasionally battling insomnia.
I've never seen it on my local PBS station. Is it actually aired anywhere?
It is streamable on the PBS website, and via the PBS apps on iOS, Android, Roku, Samsung TVs, Amazon Fire TV and others, but YouTube is still better.
As far as I've seen the PBS streams just include the episode itself, compared to the YouTube version which included the episode itself plus replies to points raised in the comments to the previous episode or two.
Also the PBS apps on some of those devices are buggy or have serious interface annoyances.
If you watch on the web on a platform where your browser can run an ad blocker, YouTube beats the PBS website because of the comment replies.
If you watch on the YouTube apps on a device such as a FireTV where you cannot block ads, I'd say YouTube still beats using the PBS on the device. The PBS apps often have 30 to 60 second promos for other PBS series. These aren't as annoying as YouTube ads, but can get pretty annoying after a while because there is a much more limited set. The Space Time episodes are short enough that most of the time you will only get YouTube ads up front, and those tend to be shorter than the promos in the PBS app, and often let you skip after 5 seconds.
Even if the ads in the YouTube ad are more annoying than the promos in the PBS app, I think for most people they won't be more annoying enough to counter the YouTube app being less buggy and having a better interface and including the comment reply segments.
Hmm, have rarely found youtube comments to be worthwhile, and on average terrible. However use of yt-dl or similar might be the best of both worlds. Newpipe can make that easier.
Just to be clear I'm not saying that an advantage of watching on YouTube is that you can read the YouTube comments.
The Space Time staff read the YouTube comments, pick a few of the best, and then at the end of a later video (usually the next one or the one after that) they present those comments and respond. These comment responses often answer questions that I had when watching the earlier episode.
The videos on the PBS website or in the PBS apps just have the episode.
I rarely comment but PBS Spacetime is an amazing channel and Matt a great host. Even though they don't (hell, I don't) understand it all, I love watching it with my kids and see their eyes get huge when they see the excellent graphics and concepts.
I like it because they go one step further than other science outreach channels, and they don’t renounce on accuracy while simplifying obviously complex physics topics.
148 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 232 ms ] threadScience is not a set of facts caved in stone. Science is a process; a way of thinking critically and exploring the boundaries of reality in a way that makes a best effort at getting closer and closer to the boundaries of the knowable in a rational and reasonably-objective way. It often makes missteps and corrections along the way, and we can acknowledge that openly while also contrasting it to non-science junk that isn't even on the right track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUAAXe_0VI
Great pun! :D
They also will present the strengths and weaknesses of various 'competing' theories. For ones that have been shown to be incorrect, they still present them accurately and well and explain how those theories led to our current, more correct understanding. For ones that are still being considered they will tell you evidence for and against.
I think this show is what made me realize that physics isn't one unified whole, but rather a lot of different models that are all somehow wrong (but still better than what they were built on!), and that there's conflicting evidence for each of them.
https://m.youtube.com/c/whatdamath
I'd also recommend his podcast, Mindscape.
[0]https://m.youtube.com/results?search_query=anton+petrov+comp...
https://www.youtube.com/c/ChristianReady
There are some series they sometimes do, which are entertaining to follow. I also enjoy things like Journal club, where they pick a paper and deep dive into it. The audience also participates, in a way, where they pick the questions/comments from the previous video and answer them.
However, it's not all academic either. There are some running jokes etc, which keep the content entertaining, while being informative, a format that I see common in some of the best Youtube channels.
While I love the channel, it seems like they're more targeted to someone with a lot of physics education, more so than lay people. This is the only channel I've ever watched and genuinely felt dumb on a regular basis.
But Matt does a pretty good job of breaking things down conceptually, so that even though you don't know the specifics, the broader picture is at least vaguely understandable. Even if it means you need to watch previous episodes to get the gist of other discussed concepts.
[0] Harry Wilson, from John Scalzi's "Old Man's War"
I really love Anton. He has a way to ELI5 that's really effective and really genuine.
I have an undergraduate degree in physics and sometimes I don’t understand the things they are talking about.
I still find it interesting and valuable though.
History Of The Universe is more consumable at my level
If you have insomnia, find a subject that you are genuinely interested in (but not too much) and watch videos on it while in bed. After a while, your brain slowly drifts off. After even more awhile, you learn to do this without a video.
PBS Spacetime, Sabine Hossenfelder, Isaac Arthur cured my insomnia, for which I am infinitely grateful.
Great quality and content. I recommend this channel for anyone interested in space and physics in general.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/SEAmedia
[2] Space Sleep playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkoaIad9k4NIlsG6g-alm...
It was interesting but also tired my brain so quickly, that it was the best sleep tool ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDs_Inzkz4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXN1oi4BmxQ
Ironically the guy running the channel used to joke about how many people used his videos to fall asleep to.
This is one of the gems of Youtube for sure.
It is streamable on the PBS website, and via the PBS apps on iOS, Android, Roku, Samsung TVs, Amazon Fire TV and others, but YouTube is still better.
As far as I've seen the PBS streams just include the episode itself, compared to the YouTube version which included the episode itself plus replies to points raised in the comments to the previous episode or two.
Also the PBS apps on some of those devices are buggy or have serious interface annoyances.
If you watch on the web on a platform where your browser can run an ad blocker, YouTube beats the PBS website because of the comment replies.
If you watch on the YouTube apps on a device such as a FireTV where you cannot block ads, I'd say YouTube still beats using the PBS on the device. The PBS apps often have 30 to 60 second promos for other PBS series. These aren't as annoying as YouTube ads, but can get pretty annoying after a while because there is a much more limited set. The Space Time episodes are short enough that most of the time you will only get YouTube ads up front, and those tend to be shorter than the promos in the PBS app, and often let you skip after 5 seconds.
Even if the ads in the YouTube ad are more annoying than the promos in the PBS app, I think for most people they won't be more annoying enough to counter the YouTube app being less buggy and having a better interface and including the comment reply segments.
The Space Time staff read the YouTube comments, pick a few of the best, and then at the end of a later video (usually the next one or the one after that) they present those comments and respond. These comment responses often answer questions that I had when watching the earlier episode.
The videos on the PBS website or in the PBS apps just have the episode.