@Greg Jacques You are so clueless it is scary. Never heard mirror symmetry, higher gauge theory or homotopy algebras? infinity-Chern-Weil theory? Gromov-Witten invariants ? Donaldson invariants. K-theory ? Floer homology? Higher category theory? These are all fields in math developed by string theorists. Ah probably one you heard of : Ricci Flow. Perelman used it to prove the Millenium Problem in math. The Ricci flow is the renomalization group flow of a two-dimensional sigma model in steing theory. People like u are embarresing. Just reproduce some bullshit they heard from other clueless individuals.
@Greg Jacques I assume you did read this off of Wikipedia, because it makes absolutely no fking sense. People like you are funny. I bring the discussion down into a field you might know one or two things about. Classical mechanics : You heard of the Standard-Model right? It is basicly a non-abelian gauge theory or Yang-Mills theory. As an aside: Yang aand Mills were mathematicans. These theories live on fibre bundles. On principial g-bundles to be precise. You think you live in a four-dimensional world dipshit? You are wrong. Guess what? The phase space of the real world in classical mechanics is a cotangent bundle with dimension 8. Particles you made of do not live in for dimensions, they also have a four-dimensional momentum. They experince a eight-dimensional enviroment. Maybe you heard of Edward Witten he recieved the fields medal for his findings in knot theory but works in string theory. What idiots these mathematicans must be. Don't they know string theory is bullshit? Nevertheless, this guy also developed a topological twist of a nonlinear sigma model. There are two ways of twisting this theory known as A and B-model. The critical dimension of these topological string theories is 6. And it happens that they reduce to Chern-Simons thoery (both mathematicans btw.) on the cotangent bundle of a 3-sphere, which is a Calabi-Yau manifold with the funny name: deformed conifold. Kontsevich (Fields medal winner) later showed that, including other things, A and B model are related by mirror symmetry, for which actually recieved the medal for. Stupid mathematicans again I guess hue?
38:29 "What I've said so far doesn't guarantee anything about the existence of a limit where Newton's constant is actually infinity, but nevertheless, that limit may exist. If the limit exists, the limiting theory is a theory in 11 dimensions; it'll be a supersymmetric relativistic theory in 11 dimensions, with 11-dimensional supergravity as its low-energy limit, and depending on no dimensionless parameters. Does it exist? I haven't the faintest idea." Damn.
Perhaps because with the intrinsic binding energy of a photon string one has to take the integral of all of the mathematical point particles that make up the open string with it's Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries.
Yo... this only shows why just an small group of humans on earth are evolved enough in order to appreciate something like this. A breakthrough in human history with only 529 likes????
@@andrewg3196 decades ago a lot of people thought the same about Eisntein's Relativity o Schrodinger Quantum Theory decades later we have engineering aplications
@Abhisheka Patro 18010 Eh, I'm just a grad student who doesn't even have a Master's degree yet, who's so far only taken an introductory course in string theory, and I still got like, 65-70% of it. I definitely can't understand the paper yet, but I know enough to appreciate what he's saying.
4-5 years would probably be bare minimum after an equivalent of a 4 year undergrad in physics/maths to really get to this level so probably 8-9 years if you're starting from scratch.
The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
The usual way is to have both a paper and a conference talk (like this one) that summarizes and promotes the paper. I think in this case the conference was in March 1995 and the paper was published in June 1995 (Nuclear Physics B 443 (1995) 85-126 ).
Never in the history of science was a bag of hopes, assumptions and speculations about a theory that wasn't even a real theory, so unquestionably accepted and adopted by its devotees. The problem is one of jargon, namely the use of the word 'a theory' by particle physicists for a specific Lagrangian. So if you mix the terms String Theory, M Theory, etc, are these theories of theories or theories about the theory of theories? And why should they 'live' (or die) in a space of integer dimension?
Good point, you see the subtle connection. David Grusch's testified that the ET craft use General Relativity and the Holographic Principle to get here. That is essentially tied to a version of string theory called AdS CFT which describes quantum gravity near black holes. In the ET case, that would be wormholes that are stable so the craft can travel through spacetime non locally. I would not be surprised if people like Witten are subconsciously entangled to the mathematical knowledge of super advanced beings in the universe. We are reverse engineering ourselves from the future. Wormholes are closed timelike loops. The stuff gets pretty crazy the more one connects the physics..
QUESTION: Does anyone know or maybe would be able to ask Edward Witten or other more advanced mathematical physicists: If we have 11-dimensions of space-time in M-Theory, can we take this as 3 "real space dimensions" + the remaining 8 would be one octonionic time dimension or 1 "real time dimension" with 7 "imaginary time dimensions..." since any imaginary time dimensions would be at right angle or 90 degrees to the real dimension, technically an imaginary time dimension could be considered as a hidden space dimension as well, since in Einstein-Minkowski space-time the 4th dimension, which is at right angle or 90 degrees to the 3 real space dimensions is time. REAL (1D) --> COMPLEX (2D) --> QUATERNION (4D) --> OCTONION (8D) So wouldn't it make more sense to think of time as an OCTONION in an otherwise Minkowski-Einstein (3+1) Dimensional Space Time? 8+3 = 11
I would say that you have to specify a manifold and not an algebra for a compactification. The manifolds that I am aware of that are used are Calabi-Yau- and G2 manifolds. The latter is related to the octonions. See also: arxiv.org/abs/1810.12659
@@NomenNominandum Thanks. What about the idea of fractal geometry? Is it possible or is anyone looking at the possibility that the extra or "imaginary" dimensions have a fractal structure? I've seen some mathematics papers on "fractal strings." Can there be "fractal branes?"
@@nitaigaura4634 I don't really know, but I have some doubts. Firstly, it is not clear to me why the "wrapped up dimensions" should be fractal whereas the other 4 dimensions remain non-fractal (at least that is how they appear to us at the large scale). Secondly, fractal spaces in general have a non-integer dimension (fractal dimension). But in order for string theory to work, anomalies must cancel and as far as I know this is only the case for a few spacetimes with an integer dimension.
Neither. It’s not testable in the sense Newtonian physics was. Neither is it ‘playing mind games’. Physics surpassed intuition a long time ago, never mind easy experimentation.
Never knew this was recorded until now. What an invaluable resource and piece of history.
And this talk led to the 2nd superstring revolution.
THank you wikipedia
Swapnil Das no it didn’t
The talk that changed string theory
@Greg Jacques The hell you dumbfuck talking about? If you think string theory is useless you think math itself is useless. Get back into your hole.
@Greg Jacques You are so clueless it is scary. Never heard mirror symmetry, higher gauge theory or homotopy algebras? infinity-Chern-Weil theory? Gromov-Witten invariants ? Donaldson invariants. K-theory ? Floer homology? Higher category theory? These are all fields in math developed by string theorists. Ah probably one you heard of : Ricci Flow. Perelman used it to prove the Millenium Problem in math. The Ricci flow is the renomalization group flow of a two-dimensional sigma model in steing theory. People like u are embarresing. Just reproduce some bullshit they heard from other clueless individuals.
@Greg Jacques I assume you did read this off of Wikipedia, because it makes absolutely no fking sense. People like you are funny. I bring the discussion down into a field you might know one or two things about. Classical mechanics : You heard of the Standard-Model right? It is basicly a non-abelian gauge theory or Yang-Mills theory. As an aside: Yang aand Mills were mathematicans. These theories live on fibre bundles. On principial g-bundles to be precise. You think you live in a four-dimensional world dipshit? You are wrong. Guess what? The phase space of the real world in classical mechanics is a cotangent bundle with dimension 8. Particles you made of do not live in for dimensions, they also have a four-dimensional momentum. They experince a eight-dimensional enviroment. Maybe you heard of Edward Witten he recieved the fields medal for his findings in knot theory but works in string theory. What idiots these mathematicans must be. Don't they know string theory is bullshit? Nevertheless, this guy also developed a topological twist of a nonlinear sigma model. There are two ways of twisting this theory known as A and B-model. The critical dimension of these topological string theories is 6. And it happens that they reduce to Chern-Simons thoery (both mathematicans btw.) on the cotangent bundle of a 3-sphere, which is a Calabi-Yau manifold with the funny name: deformed conifold. Kontsevich (Fields medal winner) later showed that, including other things, A and B model are related by mirror symmetry, for which actually recieved the medal for. Stupid mathematicans again I guess hue?
38:29
"What I've said so far doesn't guarantee anything about the existence of a limit where Newton's constant is actually infinity, but nevertheless, that limit may exist. If the limit exists, the limiting theory is a theory in 11 dimensions; it'll be a supersymmetric relativistic theory in 11 dimensions, with 11-dimensional supergravity as its low-energy limit, and depending on no dimensionless parameters.
Does it exist? I haven't the faintest idea."
Damn.
What a savage guy. Didn't even hesitate.
Thanks Ed, I was gonna say the same thing
A precious piece of history in theoretical physics
Thank you Edward!
I'm so glad I found this video
It really does all seem to point to the fact that “well if there was nothing, there’d be nothing to stop that rule being broken.”
finally
wait that is Yang 26:49 ? and he seems to take notes. Goes to show the respect he had already for young Ed Witten.
N-Theory is dropping very soon...
I-Theory is gonna blow minds
13:51 "We've got infinitely many light particles - that already can hardly be a local field theory"
Can anyone explain why not?
Oh, cause you'd get a naked singularity as he said earlier.
there’s infinity particles which means it’s not constrained maybe
Perhaps because with the intrinsic binding energy of a photon string one has to take the integral of all of the mathematical point particles that make up the open string with it's Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries.
Yo... this only shows why just an small group of humans on earth are evolved enough in order to appreciate something like this. A breakthrough in human history with only 529 likes????
Ah yes my favorite breakthrough in human history that is purely hypothetical, untestable, and has no practical applications. Game changer!
@@andrewg3196 decades ago a lot of people thought the same about Eisntein's Relativity o Schrodinger Quantum Theory decades later we have engineering aplications
At time point 26:48 one sees Prof C N Yang in the audience.
and Prof P van Nieuwenhuizen at 41:35?
How many years of specialized physics education either formal or self-study do I need to understand this?
@Abhisheka Patro 18010 Eh, I'm just a grad student who doesn't even have a Master's degree yet, who's so far only taken an introductory course in string theory, and I still got like, 65-70% of it. I definitely can't understand the paper yet, but I know enough to appreciate what he's saying.
4-5 years would probably be bare minimum after an equivalent of a 4 year undergrad in physics/maths to really get to this level so probably 8-9 years if you're starting from scratch.
7-8 years if you have nothing else to do
5-6 if you are really smart. Infinite if you are an average Joe
Not only physics you would need to know a lot of math too.
The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
Duality Times
Full-Reptend Primes: 7, 17, 19, 23, 29, 47, 59, 61, 97, 109, 113, 131, 149, 167,
💚❤ Brian Greene where are you?! ❤💚
ruclips.net/video/2UQ8teAebcg/видео.htmlfeature=shared
Movement in space-time causes gravity. Those Vibrations create the fundamental particles.
is it normal to publish something like this in a lecture?
The usual way is to have both a paper and a conference talk (like this one) that summarizes and promotes the paper. I think in this case the conference was in March 1995 and the paper was published in June 1995 (Nuclear Physics B 443 (1995) 85-126 ).
Never in the history of science was a bag of hopes, assumptions and speculations about a theory that wasn't even a real theory, so unquestionably accepted and adopted by its devotees. The problem is one of jargon, namely the use of the word 'a theory' by particle physicists for a specific Lagrangian. So if you mix the terms String Theory, M Theory, etc, are these theories of theories or theories about the theory of theories? And why should they 'live' (or die) in a space of integer dimension?
Brilliant
And to think it only took a person from another planet, who comes to work in a flying saucer to develop this ;-). Peace.
Good point, you see the subtle connection. David Grusch's testified that the ET craft use General Relativity and the Holographic Principle to get here. That is essentially tied to a version of string theory called AdS CFT which describes quantum gravity near black holes. In the ET case, that would be wormholes that are stable so the craft can travel through spacetime non locally. I would not be surprised if people like Witten are subconsciously entangled to the mathematical knowledge of super advanced beings in the universe. We are reverse engineering ourselves from the future. Wormholes are closed timelike loops. The stuff gets pretty crazy the more one connects the physics..
QUESTION: Does anyone know or maybe would be able to ask Edward Witten or other more advanced mathematical physicists:
If we have 11-dimensions of space-time in M-Theory, can we take this as 3 "real space dimensions" + the remaining 8 would be one octonionic time dimension or 1 "real time dimension" with 7 "imaginary time dimensions..." since any imaginary time dimensions would be at right angle or 90 degrees to the real dimension, technically an imaginary time dimension could be considered as a hidden space dimension as well, since in Einstein-Minkowski space-time the 4th dimension, which is at right angle or 90 degrees to the 3 real space dimensions is time.
REAL (1D) --> COMPLEX (2D) --> QUATERNION (4D) --> OCTONION (8D)
So wouldn't it make more sense to think of time as an OCTONION in an otherwise Minkowski-Einstein (3+1) Dimensional Space Time?
8+3 = 11
I would say that you have to specify a manifold and not an algebra for a compactification. The manifolds that I am aware of that are used are Calabi-Yau- and G2 manifolds. The latter is related to the octonions.
See also: arxiv.org/abs/1810.12659
@@NomenNominandum Thanks. What about the idea of fractal geometry? Is it possible or is anyone looking at the possibility that the extra or "imaginary" dimensions have a fractal structure? I've seen some mathematics papers on "fractal strings." Can there be "fractal branes?"
@@nitaigaura4634 I don't really know, but I have some doubts. Firstly, it is not clear to me why the "wrapped up dimensions" should be fractal whereas the other 4 dimensions remain non-fractal (at least that is how they appear to us at the large scale). Secondly, fractal spaces in general have a non-integer dimension (fractal dimension). But in order for string theory to work, anomalies must cancel and as far as I know this is only the case for a few spacetimes with an integer dimension.
But can this theory be tested in the real world??? Or are humans only playing mind games using maths manipulations?
How the ET craft get to our solar system is the proof
Neither. It’s not testable in the sense Newtonian physics was. Neither is it ‘playing mind games’. Physics surpassed intuition a long time ago, never mind easy experimentation.
Not all numbers are equal. Certain numbers have special qualities.
This what happens when Physicists let mathematicians take control of the field.
I know, we should do this more often!
Deal with it
Every blackhole creates a new Universe. Inflationary Cosmology and blackhole baby Universe theory are 100% CORRECT.
Hartle-Hawking Theory
p = gG mc2 / 2pi