[tobiasSoftware]

I have substantial layman's expertise in quantum physics and while she correctly points out many mistakes that are even in textbooks, she also follows the very niche Superdeterimistic viewpoint and then presents hypotheses that follow from that viewpoint (Hidden Variables and Einstein's gloves) as if they are facts. For a science educator, this is a massive problem, and so she's become my least popular quantum physics educator even though she explains many quantum physics concepts very well.

[rationalthug]

Can you be more specific about how how her viewpoints create problems for you as a science educator? (I am speaking specifically about her content relevant to physics/particle physics/cosmology.)

Generally, she is careful to point out when she is voicing views based on her own preferences, speculating about things that have no observational data to back them up or giving personal hot-takes on various topics.

For everything else, aka, the things she accepts provisionally as true, she appears to favor the least speculative among current solutions/theories/approaches in physics. Much of her popular work is focused on critiques of the many speculative musings of physicists who, in her opinion, have moved into a kind of post-science research program.

Her acceptance/popularizing of the standard model and of general relativity as humanity's current best models of the universe indicate that her viewpoints tend to be highly conservative and evidence-based.

Again, most (all?) of her musings about things that might be true or things that might be interesting directions for research are clearly called out as such.

[tobiasSoftware]

Looking around, it does look like she's explained things better in other videos than the one I saw, so maybe I was too harsh.

The video I saw at the time is "Why is quantum mechanics weird? The bomb experiment" where she describes entanglement as a photo being torn in half and then sent apart, and then vaguely says that it is a "stronger" correlation than that.

On looking for that video though, I watched "What did Einstein mean by “Spooky Action at a Distance"?", where she describes things a bit more thoroughly with socks, where she explains that the correlations were created locally but when you measure the one particle on one side the other particle's wave function changes. She then goes on to actually explain that the sock explanation does not work as it does not sufficiently create strong correlations, which I think is a much better explanation

Looking back, I think I've learned a lot more about quantum physics since I last watched her videos. Back then, I think I saw her repeated use of explaining entanglement as a "stronger correlation" to be a cop out. Now that I've dove into the actual Bell Inequality experiment and understand how it works, I actually quite like that description as a placeholder for a very strange phenomenon that none of us really understand yet. Still, I do think she should have clarified just a bit better on the first video I mentioned, but I guess when you make lots of videos on one of the most complicated topics of all time it's rather easy to omit a crucial detail here or there.

[mayd]

Then I suppose it's a good thing that Einstein did not live long enough to have his own Physics Youtube channel.

[runarberg]

A canary in the coalmine, Einstein did not stay silent on social issues, and did use his fame to write social commentary. Unlike most of his peers, however, his position was that of empathy and solidarity:

https://onbeing.org/blog/albert-einsteins-essay-on-racial-bi...

[jiggawatts]

You’re right, we should continue to teach the Copenhagen interpretation forever just to make life easier for educators. Let’s also talk about free will to make sure physics has a hint of the spiritual in it. Otherwise how would we ever find God through then study of his marvellous creation!?