Existential Physics: Why Physics is Important for You

Existential Physics opens with an anecdote about a difficult question a young man posed the author during outreach: because of quantum physics, his deceased grandmother isn’t really dead, is she? “Physicists are really good at answering questions,” author Sabine Hossenfelder quips, “but really bad at explaining why anyone should care about their answers.” And from my own experiences, I do agree. In the biological sciences, it’s really easy for people to care about the science. Or even if it’s a topic that’s dense, we can usually connect it to some disease that terrifies you to attention. The mechanisms of biology are intimately embedded in our own flesh and blood. No matter how you feel about the Krebs Cycle or the structure of insulin receptors, it’s easy to understand why these are crucial to understand. On the other hand, the sweeping conclusions in physics about the universe feel less universal.

If you’re going to read this book, definitely go with an ebook or a physical copy. I listened to the audiobook, and I found myself rewinding a lot to go back to a definition or an explanation that I missed. There’s also a handy dandy PDF of diagrams that goes along with the book, and I think that would be really helpful for anyone really trying to absorb this information.

As expected, this novel covers a ton of topics: gravity, relativity, black holes, time, aging stars, and even the beginning and ending of the world. Along the way, Dr. Hossenfelder debunks various pseudoscientific physics myths (i.e., people can’t use quantum leaps to travel through time and space). It also encourages us to think critically about these theories, which the doctor admits can sound ridiculous. As a neuroscience major, I really liked the explanation of Boltzmann brains, the product of a theoretical thought experiment where the tiniest chance of atoms colliding in space makes a brain form spontaneously from the element soup. That brain has maybe half a thought before its parts collapse back into the mush.

Honestly, as the book gets deeper, I felt like that brain: briefly having a moment of insight before falling into an ocean of mild confusion. Don’t get me wrong, it was incredibly fun, but I feel like I may have only absorbed about 60% of the information. Don’t underestimate the “Existential” half of Existential Physics. This book not only introduces uncertainty, but it revels in it. Why do we do science at all if the laws of science, just like everything else, might stop working tomorrow? Does anything actually exist or is it just our perception as “brains in a vat”? Where did we come from and how will the world end? Does free will exist?

Still, the prose of this title brings things back to a more understandable state. At the end of each chapter, the professor gives the main takeaway in a sentence or two. So even if we don’t completely know what’s going on, we can get the big idea. Even more, she interviews other physicists about their own views on the theoretical physics theories of the day. These sections, written in a more direct and casual way, helped me understand the concepts in context. It also has some entertainment value, the same way someone would watch an Actors on Actors video interview.

This book is quite unique in that it covers very dense, deep content, but it never feels stifling. Dr. Hossenfelder’s tone, aimed at older teenagers and adults, doesn’t talk down to the audience. She doesn’t mistake oversimplification with approachability, which is something I find really refreshing about this book. I’ve noticed that while short form internet content (Instagram Reels, Youtube Shorts, TikToks) can give people bite sized pieces of information, it also dumbs things down to fit the time limit of the posts. Because of the format, this book is able to really delve into different topics, and the result is a complete, enriching experience. If you want to learn more about how the big physics questions can help you recontextualize your own life, give it a chance.

Image Source: https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/existential-physics-scientists-guide-lifes-biggest-questions-bookbite/36201/

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.