A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close. Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .---
This is not enough. To know string theory, as it is usually presented in modern, is not to really know anything. You need to learn the historical literature, which is next to impossible, because it is so dated.
@@gamerdio2503 Haha! I know it was a joke, but I also know people will start to learn string theory after reading the comments here, and I have to warn them about the issues! The issue is that the boostrap ideas are missing. To learn those, you need to go WAY back in time.
alternative title: origin story of how Andrew Dotson discovered a Theory of Everything. in all seriousness though, i respect you're doing this. String theory was one of the first things I heard about when I got interested in physics and astronomy, and I was so enthusiastic and fascinated about the topic. that was years ago, and now these days im constantly stressed with classes, research, etc. and miss feeling that joy. I think you just motivated me to start learning it again for fun, as a side hobby.
Alternative title: conquering my biggest academic comedy. Jokes aside, your videos have been very inspiring and please keep producing these quality contents.
Just found out that I've got into university to study physics and philosophy in October at the University of Oxford. Thanks for all your videos for encouraging me to apply!!
There is a saying. "String theory is the beginning of the end, it means giving up.". I am only kidding of course, respect to those who attempt it, and in your case, luckily there is plenty beard there to pull on when needed. :)
Well, String Theory has its origins in nuclear physics, since it started as a possible description of the strong interaction (but QCD turned out better). In addition, in the area of heavy ion collisions, there is some interest in the use of holography, AdS-CFT correspondence and other stuff, to develop phenomenological models. Therefore, if you're a nuclear/particle physicist, ST is not as disconnected as you might think. So do it!
Love it!! I first heard of string theory through Brian Greene's series, The Elegant Universe, about 15 years ago (which means I must have been about 7 😅). Fast forward to now, I'm nearly done my undergrad in physics and astronomy, with a little GR and a little particle physics under my belt. Looking forward to your videos on string theory!!
@@babyyoda9943 no one has math skills, no one was born knowing algebra, even einstien or newton, they all had to learn it, and you can too!! math is actually a lot like a physical skill like idk football or basket ball, the more you do it, the better you get at it. and your problem solving skills are like lifting weights, the more you lift weights, the heavier the weights you can lift like that the more problems you think about and solve, the harder the problems you can solve. the people who are really good at math are just normal people who really enjoy mathematics, because the more you enjoy something, the more you do it, and the more you do it, the better you get at it. it's actually not that difficult to enjoy and love math, math is beautiful. i like this line from the movie good will hunting "most people never get to see how brilliant they can be, they dont find teachers that believe in them, so they get convinced that they're stupid" so you just need to realize the beauty of math and you'll start to realize that math is actually fun! and you'll start to do it more and more and before you know it you'll be amazing at mathematics. also who knows? you might be the one to finally solve quantum gravity ;) also btw the stuff you learn at highschool is really really different from actual mathematics, actual math is super fun and really cool, also schools really dont do a good job at teaching math so dont it's not your fault.
Can you make a video about those situations where GR and QM `conflicts'? I'm not trained in physics so the only material/media I consume about GR+QM are targeted for laypersons. Those media often mention that in cases where you're dealing with (small) scales where QM is applied but you're also dealing with objects with lots of mass (where GR is applied), QM and GR conflicts. Those media won't go into the details of those situations and how exactly does QM conflicts with GR in those situations.
Sean Carroll has a bunch of videos on and talked about it a million times on his podcast. Also there on many popular books on the subject. There is a link to the book resources in my channel description
This is great man. I still remember being a young teen attending an interview with a physicist (carlo rovelli), asking about the difference between string theory and loop quantum gravity (as if i knew anything about either one), and having the whole crowd laugh as my question was read out loud. I guess there’s no time limit to learn anything. I’m finally starting my journey as a phys major this fall and im looking forward to it all - def gonna have to binge your channel.
I was the 1st comment…but I took too long to post. So now I’m 2nd 😩. No longer in the basement! ~ Love, Mom 💕 **correction - I took so long I was 13th**
@@annaclarafenyo8185 There kinda is. Non-critical strings, most notably linear-dilaton backgrounds and large-genus hyperbolic compactifications, are good examples.
@@Rubbergnome Yes, this is true. The interpretation of these is that they are highly constrained fundamental strings on crazy background. The fundamental sort of gravity strings are 10d. There are also the 6d mysterious little strings, which nobody understands, and they don't even have gravity.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 I tought I had replied yesterday, weird. I wouldn't call them "crazy", since the large-genus expansion seems to have a semblance of control and the linear-dilaton backgrounds have a flat spacetime geometry... my point is that non-critical strings are certainly much less understood, but not necessarily less "fundamental" - the theory is not mature enough for us to tell. Some strong researchers, like Eva Silverstein, are actively interested in this these matters. We'll see!
@@Rubbergnome Haha. RUclips has an auto-delete AI driven algorithm which probably detected the word 'crazy' and decided you wrote a hostile comment worthy of deletion! Watch out for that. The Dilaton is geometric, it's a Kaluza Klein scalar (I mean, we know that today, past 1996), it measures the size of the 11th M-theory dimension. The noncritical strings are not fundamental gravitationally, they are interesting mathematically. We do understand the flat space constant coupling backgrounds, ST is mature enough for that. The issue I am addressing is the idea that you can do what you want in string models. That's just not true, they're horribly constrained. Too constrained. It's really annoying to deal with this when you are trying to use strings phenomenologically, like in QCD, and you can't use gravitational strings. There are plenty of 'dumb string models' that aren't holographic and that don't look anything like fundamental string theory strings.
You just have excuses, I want to learn quantum field theory and general relativity... Well dude just learn those, too many smart people went into the dead end that is string theory. Wasting their mental power on a theory without even one experiment or some evidence. I am not looking forward the content.
Yessssssss! Man, this is going to be great. I'm finishing up my masters in mathematics and thinking about doing a PhD (I'm a student at IMPA, so under normal circumstances this is a natural progression). The only catch is that I'd like to study and do research in theoretical physics, not math! I've always wondered how much of string theory I could pick up with 0 knowledge of physics, but a decently strong foundation in math (big fan of Riemannian Geometry, of course). This has me really excited! Awesome, truly so! btw, name's André, which is just Andrew in Portuguese, so hi
Few things are more annoying to me than people who do not understand any kind of mathematics, pretending that String Theory is "outdated" or "useless", or that they "despise" the community of string theorists. They haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. I don't know how it became trendy to hate on string theory, but it's rather tragic, in my opinion. I'm glad you aren't so closed-minded.
That is just plain I am smarter than thou thinking. If string theorist would only pursue string theory on their own time like I don't know Lord of the rings fans, nobody would be mad. But if they are getting grants they better have something to show. And if you are like me and follow people like Sabine Hossenfelder, and Peter Woit at least I get the impression that yes it has been a monumental waste of time.
@@tomasmatias4109 It has literally nothing to do with thinking I am smarter than anyone. On the contrary. It's about understanding your own ignorance. Do you really think any of the people that appeared on the screen have a formal mathematical understanding of what string theory is? No. They get their opinions from their favourite physics YT'er and then regurgitate it.
@@quaereverum3871 I agree with your second comment. About not knowing what the formal mathematical understanding of string theory is, given that Peter Woit seems to make the case that there is no formal mathematical theory of what string theory is, but I digress. That is me regurgitating my favorite blogger and probably doing him a diservice I apologize. But on your first statement you clearly talk about people not having "any" understanding of mathematics. Which is clearly derogatory given that I think I saw a title that it was demonstrated that crows can count and use the number 0, which is "some" understanding of mathematics.
@@tomasmatias4109 I thought it was self-evident that I am talking about the rather more intricate mathematics that are novel to string theory. For example: what is a Calabi-Yau manifold? What is homological mirror symmetry? What are the Gromov-Witten invariants? It isn't derision to point out that people know far too little about string theory, for their opinion to mean something. It's being realistic.
I am currently taking up a course on diff. geo. and topology, and have covered up bosonic strings. What I've followed so far: QFT: 1. A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Michele Maggiore (MM) (primary) 2. Peskin's QFT (reference) 3. Schwartz's book on QFT and SM (reference) 3. Might follow Weinberg and Langacker once I'm done with MM's book which is probably going to be never because I'm procrastinating. Strings: 1. A first course in string theory by Barton Zwiebach (primary) 2. Might read Polchinski and SGW next semester if I can get the pre-reqs settled. GR: 1. Initially B. Schutz first course on GR. 2. Then lectures on GTR by Emil Akhmedov. 3. Have referred to Weinberg before but will read it properly someday. 4. The famous 'Large-scale structure of spacetime' is in list lol (big talks from a small nut like me). Differential Geometry and Topology: 1. Lectures on advanced mathematical methods for Physicists by Mukhi and Mukunda (primary). 2. Nakahara (reference). 3. Some other books are in list might read if I survive masters. Additionally you might need some stuff on conformal field theory, for which there's Rastelli in Stonybrook who's lecture notes can be used. You can refer initially to Polchinski who discusses CFT to some extent. Some idea of complex manifolds might be required? B. Greene's 1997 lecture on YC manifolds can be referred to. But then if you just google up complex manifolds a lot of modern lecture notes can be easily found out. In case you're looking for application of strings to nuclear physics, look up AdS/QCD correspondence. Coincidentally my masters thesis is on this topic :) Also I'm really excited with the possibility of getting a strings lecture from you!
Been watching for awhile now, seeing your progression from an undergrad student to now learning arguably the most complex thing known to man really inspires me to pursue physics myself at uni. Keep up the amazing content🤜
Wow nice , My research is actually string theory and GOD models , If you wanna look up in youtube , Barton Zwiebach String theory MIT opencourseware AdS/CFT duality and string theory David Giatto String theory John Schwarz introduction to Superstring theory . also Ed witten textbook for really advanced and details is great : Edward Witten : Superstring theory .
Good luck! I have two recommendations if you’re interested. 1. Study S-matrix theory. This is the origin of string theory. Gribov’s The theory of complex angular momentum and the Analytic S-matrix by Olive et al are great resources. This should give you the intuition for string theory. It’s ultimately an S-matrix theory and not a quantum field theory. 2. How string theory is defined however is by a 2D conformal field theory. This remains the pillar for calculation for perturbative string theory. So you should study 2D CFT. The yellow book of conformal field theory is the main resource. It’s massive so you only need parts of it.
Clark video: ruclips.net/video/wDI9WTvSUwI/видео.html Bonus quote: '"Much of what goes as “string theory” today has nothing to do with the original idea of unifying all the forces. Instead, string theorists apply certain limits of their theory in an attempt to describe condensed matter systems. Now, in my opinion, string theorists vastly overstate the success of this method. But the research program is progressing and working towards empirical predictions." -- Sabine Hossenfelder
Learning String Theory aka working through Polchinski for a few years as an initiation rite followed by "research" on something completely different which is even less connected to physics, the experimental science.
In beta minus decay process is mass of neutron (before it's decay) greater than mass of proton and w- boson ??(bcoz some of it's mass is convereted inti energy right??)
You won't be able to have an objective opinion based on tong's courses alone. Tong's course is very nice but it's just a sliver of the tip of the iceberg. You can have a more objective opinion by looking at the Kiritsis book after and seeing how much you still don't know.
THIS guy ( of whom you want a load) suggests to feed your hostage who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome and when you come back to the old basement release me from there
Yay! Glad to see you are learning this amazing subject, especially considering the bad press it often (and frequently misguidedly) receives. For me string dualities blew my mind in particular, so I hope you find them as awesome as I did. Also, as I mentioned in the comments of the community post, the offer is always open if you want a chat with someone who has been there before :-)
Curious as to the difficulty this man has walking around on a daily basis due to the sheers size of his balls Seriously though I hope you enjoy it man, your content is always great
Have you considered making a video about the science of God? I think it would be really interesting to see a video talking about the evidence for and against a creator using the scientific method.
Ohhhhh so that’s what string theory is! Finally, someone explains it in layman’s terms. Math major here, and I just want to wish you the best of luck going into a very hard branch of studies! Have fun!
As a researcher in string theory and a huge fan of your channel I would be stoked to have a chat about it if you want :D but it's awesome that David gave you the thumbs up! I admire him so much.
@@unbiunium I work on string theory with broken supersymmetry. There are many novel features that show up and it appears to be a necessary step to connect the theory with more realistic phenomenology! I'm almost done writing a paper where I describe how the theory seems to recover consistency despite instabilities of the vacuum (nice username, btw) :)
@@mastershooter64 some people are, but it only works for a very small fraction of the theory. For the most part the theory is still in its infancy, in the sense that there are a number of partial formulations that are (or can be made) perfectly rigorous, but don't cover the whole physics. A fully complete, global picture of string theory is not yet within reach with respect to any standard of rigour, but the progress that has been made is impressive compared to the expectations that I would've had personally.
@@Rubbergnome "the theory is still in it's infancy" that's reassuring, that means with more work we'll finally crack quantum gravity! I'm super interested in quantum gravtiy in general and string theory specifically, (plus i enjoy mathematics lol) what math is used in string theory that's already not used in GR and QFT?
This happens with most theoretical particle physicists I know. And I’m the end they either work on GUTs or research against a wall for several decades. It’s a trap, don’t do it. Go into condensed matter. It’s way more forgiving and interesting since effects can be verified in 10 years most of the time.
@@unbiunium That’s the reason I’m in theory haha. Also, I actually do many body systems with strong correlations which is not bound by any material per se. But for real, CM and optics is rn the best thing to do (if not rigorous model building in mathematical physics). But Particle Physics (as much as I love it in the past), is really not in a good position rn
Resource recommendation: Gribov , The Theory of Complex Angular Momentum (1969) , along with any 1960s book on Regge pole Hadron phenomenology. The theory can't be understood without the bootstrap, really. You need to learn S-matrix ideas. Without that, you won't get anything straight.
Tongs notes are good, but you barely scratch the surface with them. If you want to have good basic understanding you should go through Elias Kritsis book on string theory.
Cool stuff! I definitely want to give the topic the time of day as well, I'm just a couple years behind you so I haven't taken QFT and GR yet.... But I will! One question I have is I assume working on your PhD thesis is more or less a totally full time deal, so I'm wondering how much time do you think you'll be devoting (say weekly) to string theory? It would seem that unless you can receive credit for it as either a full course like at some universities or as independent study, you might not have the time, given how advanced the topic is.
Hello, wondered what source was used for graduate GR? Have done undergrad and a project in black holes for masters but struggled to find a good GR source. All of David Tongs notes seem to be great!
It's hard to ignore CFT in string theory (I've tried!). It's maybe a bit easier learning CFT via string theory as you are always working with a specific example: d free scalar fields (+ d fermions for the superstring) in 2 dimensions. If you want to learn the basics, I followed a course this year where the lecture notes were pretty good. The notes can be found here: courses-archive(dot)maths(dot)ox(dot)ac(dot)uk/node/51295/materials . The author is also one of the world leaders in CFT. Another good source is the lectures by Tobias Osborne.
@@Airsofter4692 I never thought to check Tobias' stuff. I learned a bit of PI from him! I need cft for topological edge states and bosonization but it seems strings is a nice inclusive intro.
You learned physics while washing dishes in an Italian restaurant too? It was great until they moved me up to a server and I couldn't have my headphones on anymore.
Kudos for the good motivation. I've only recently tried, as a layman, to get a basic understanding of the status of string theory in the academic community, and most people's arguments (whether for or against) seem little more than a sea of unsubstantiated opinions and vague gestures towards the AdS/CFT correspondence. I hope your studies are fruitful!
I'm interested in string theory for the mathematics involved. I'm an undergrad student studying engineering and physics with gravity, spacetime, energy, matter, and the transference of momentum at the core of my studies. Getting an understanding of the mathematics that's existed since the release of Star Wars might provide some insight into my own research.
Hey this video came just as i just began studying conformal fied theory! Good luck and have fun and dont worry if you dont get it the first time, this is my (alot)th time revisiting CFT and i finally understood the basics. You might be keen in CFT too since its closely related, and i am also thinking of making some videos on cft soon :D
Mathematical Physics graduate student here. I think learning string theory is important to complete one's point of view on it - I took an introductory course on it which clarified a few misconceptions. That being said I must say string theory still comes to me as a mathematical theory rather than a physical one since it's unfalsifiable and seemingly always will be; however, I think it's great to learn because of the new tools from there that you can use outside of the scope of string theory. Working on quantum Riemannian geometry and other alternatives to quantum gravity like LQG, I think we can all learn from the various approaches to different kinds of problems. All in all, I think you'll really enjoy string theory - if not because it's useful for your research, just because it's nice to see different kinds of problem-solving approaches. Can't wait to follow the series of videos you'll make on it :)
Calling something "unfalsifiable" sounds a little strong for something which _does_ make several testable predictions which are only out of reach of current experimental technology. Even then, just of the top of my head, AdS/QCD predicts properties of quark-gluon plasma correctly; an often overlooked result of string theory is that it proves that there are no continuous spin representations in Wigner's classification for massless particles (which has to be posited independently in QFT), etc.
@@twistedsector from what ik it does make predictions of the existence of SUSY particles but makes zero predictions about how they will be like ie how much energy they will have (I think that has to do with the fact that 10^150 possible calabi yau manifolds may represent the curled up dimensions and we have no way of knowing which one is our universe- which is MOSNTROUSLY bigger than the number of atoms in our universe which is 10^73 so I am not sure if this problem can even be solved) So if we haven't found a particle yet we could just say that we aren't looking at high enough energies yet. Hence unfalsifiable.
@@twistedsectorString theory does make testable predictions, just like SUSY does - but one can always shift parameter space and go to higher energies, which makes it unfalsifiable Testable does not mean falsifiable ;)
@@sionae1967 There's a limit to how high you can shift particles. With a Planck energy accelerator, you can't help but verify or falsify string theory. It's totally verifiable/testable, it's just out of reach of any practical experiment today.
Learning something new is great! but I must admit that there are so many new things to learn in Quantum Field Theory that are as exciting as String Theory. It takes decades to be an expert in QFT and as a Ph.D. student who works on QFT models, I learn new stuff every single day, not just "boring" technicalities but also exciting ideas about nature. There are so many things that are not taught in class that are worth reading. I can give you a list of topics, and I think all will be worthy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should not learn String Theory, but I would suggest you stick with the basics and focus on QFT, because it is not worth the time (in my opinion). Not that it is not interesting, it is just what will be more useful for you in general. As probably mentioned, to learn String Theory you need to know CFT, Supersymmetry, and other ideas under the umbrella of QFT.
You made my day with a fresh Andrew Dotson video😃 Yes I think your reasoning behind starting with string theory is ideal and well justified. I wish I can be someone of your intellect, reasoning and level of personality some day.😁
There's also a sort of introduction to string theory by Lenoard Susskind, which is a great lecture series on the substance of the topic. Looking forward to watching you (and also hopefully me) learning the topic.
“Some people are just full of shit and talk out of their ass”. The image created by that is as disgusting as it is accurate. Source: *Personal experience*
QFT in curved space usually just treats gravity as a classical background that the quantum fields interact with. You aren't quantizing gravity there as opposed to true quantum gravity.
Disappointed that you aren't learning it to understand the memes better. Keeping that aside, all the best! Will follow this series hoping to learn a thing or two.
the only thing you need to remember is that 6D N=(2,0) SCFT is dual to M theory on AdS7 x S^4 :). Oh and it has no quantum lagrangian description. Just saying. Good luck boi.
"Why do I want to learn string theory"
- Andrew Dotson, expert in masochism and also a physicist
insert masochism and being a physicist are the same thing meme here
max level phyics is string or theory of everything interesting
There is a book if you are curious that is called 'M-theory and String theory'
Lol
A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.---
Me to my professor after first lecture on newton's laws:
Wait, since when do you have a camera?
lol
Hi Papa😘😘😘😘
Nah it’s shot on iPhone
I built it from all of my happy meal prizes.
@@AndrewDotsonvideos nice.
Why I want to learn string theory: to flex to others that I know string theory
The Arch Linux users of Physics.
This is not enough. To know string theory, as it is usually presented in modern, is not to really know anything. You need to learn the historical literature, which is next to impossible, because it is so dated.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Dont read too deep into my joke lol
@@gamerdio2503 Haha! I know it was a joke, but I also know people will start to learn string theory after reading the comments here, and I have to warn them about the issues! The issue is that the boostrap ideas are missing. To learn those, you need to go WAY back in time.
@@leonardodavinci1329 I'd rather write my own kernel 😅
Why do I want to learn String Theory: Because I am an experimentalist with low job requirements
Best source of learning string theory is reading live chat on Brian Greene's live streams
I doubt it. It’s so complex you can’t study it without working on topic-related problems in a university seminar.
@@Z-Diode that’s the joke dude
"Why I want to learn string theory"-
To unify physics obviously ,duh!!
thats impossible lmao
"Why do I want to learn string theory"
Andrew - "Because I want to write popular science books"
He got a thumbs up from David Tong, that's pretty much like Gods approval
alternative title: origin story of how Andrew Dotson discovered a Theory of Everything.
in all seriousness though, i respect you're doing this. String theory was one of the first things I heard about when I got interested in physics and astronomy, and I was so enthusiastic and fascinated about the topic. that was years ago, and now these days im constantly stressed with classes, research, etc. and miss feeling that joy. I think you just motivated me to start learning it again for fun, as a side hobby.
Haven't seen you comment in a while!
Alternative title: conquering my biggest academic comedy. Jokes aside, your videos have been very inspiring and please keep producing these quality contents.
Why though?
Hi papa
Just found out that I've got into university to study physics and philosophy in October at the University of Oxford. Thanks for all your videos for encouraging me to apply!!
That's awesome, congratulations! Good luck!
gz!
There is a saying. "String theory is the beginning of the end, it means giving up.".
I am only kidding of course, respect to those who attempt it, and in your case, luckily there is plenty beard there to pull on when needed. :)
Well, String Theory has its origins in nuclear physics, since it started as a possible description of the strong interaction (but QCD turned out better). In addition, in the area of heavy ion collisions, there is some interest in the use of holography, AdS-CFT correspondence and other stuff, to develop phenomenological models. Therefore, if you're a nuclear/particle physicist, ST is not as disconnected as you might think. So do it!
Love it!! I first heard of string theory through Brian Greene's series, The Elegant Universe, about 15 years ago (which means I must have been about 7 😅). Fast forward to now, I'm nearly done my undergrad in physics and astronomy, with a little GR and a little particle physics under my belt. Looking forward to your videos on string theory!!
I want to do physics but i dont think i have the maths skills :(
@@babyyoda9943 no one has math skills, no one was born knowing algebra, even einstien or newton, they all had to learn it, and you can too!! math is actually a lot like a physical skill like idk football or basket ball, the more you do it, the better you get at it.
and your problem solving skills are like lifting weights, the more you lift weights, the heavier the weights you can lift like that the more problems you think about and solve, the harder the problems you can solve.
the people who are really good at math are just normal people who really enjoy mathematics, because the more you enjoy something, the more you do it, and the more you do it, the better you get at it. it's actually not that difficult to enjoy and love math, math is beautiful.
i like this line from the movie good will hunting "most people never get to see how brilliant they can be, they dont find teachers that believe in them, so they get convinced that they're stupid" so you just need to realize the beauty of math and you'll start to realize that math is actually fun! and you'll start to do it more and more and before you know it you'll be amazing at mathematics. also who knows? you might be the one to finally solve quantum gravity ;)
also btw the stuff you learn at highschool is really really different from actual mathematics, actual math is super fun and really cool, also schools really dont do a good job at teaching math so dont it's not your fault.
@@mastershooter64 thank you so much, that really helped! Ive been practicing lots of maths and physics and im getting so much better!
Can you make a video about those situations where GR and QM `conflicts'? I'm not trained in physics so the only material/media I consume about GR+QM are targeted for laypersons. Those media often mention that in cases where you're dealing with (small) scales where QM is applied but you're also dealing with objects with lots of mass (where GR is applied), QM and GR conflicts. Those media won't go into the details of those situations and how exactly does QM conflicts with GR in those situations.
Sean Carroll has a bunch of videos on and talked about it a million times on his podcast. Also there on many popular books on the subject. There is a link to the book resources in my channel description
I would rather knot
3rd reason: You are just interested in learning String Theory.
Andrew Dotson, Ph.D in BDSM Physics, Mathematical Sadism and Painful Relativity.
This is great man. I still remember being a young teen attending an interview with a physicist (carlo rovelli), asking about the difference between string theory and loop quantum gravity (as if i knew anything about either one), and having the whole crowd laugh as my question was read out loud. I guess there’s no time limit to learn anything. I’m finally starting my journey as a phys major this fall and im looking forward to it all - def gonna have to binge your channel.
Make a react video on INDIA'S jee advanced physics plzz I want to know how's ur opinion on it
Check out the new song 'Strings from an Italian Restaurant' by Andrew Dotson
Bottle of red bull, bottle of caffeine pills, it all depends on the night.
I was the 1st comment…but I took too long to post. So now I’m 2nd 😩. No longer in the basement! ~ Love, Mom 💕
**correction - I took so long I was 13th**
😂😂😂😂
Now he is in his own wooden cabin
I took so long my wife was already sleeping
Lmao why is the title “Why I want to learn string theory” like it’s some kind of coding software
Now I'm expecting Jens Flameboi to make make video titled: "Why I want learn Interuniversal Teichmüller Theory"
HAH! Hey maybe he’ll be the one to finally understand it?
@@yugiohsc and explain it.
@@tomasmatias4109 (in Japanese)
just study n-dimensional string theory and set n = 3 boom you just unified GR and QFT
now where's my noble and fields medal?
Funny, but there is no n dimensional string theory.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 There kinda is. Non-critical strings, most notably linear-dilaton backgrounds and large-genus hyperbolic compactifications, are good examples.
@@Rubbergnome Yes, this is true. The interpretation of these is that they are highly constrained fundamental strings on crazy background. The fundamental sort of gravity strings are 10d. There are also the 6d mysterious little strings, which nobody understands, and they don't even have gravity.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 I tought I had replied yesterday, weird. I wouldn't call them "crazy", since the large-genus expansion seems to have a semblance of control and the linear-dilaton backgrounds have a flat spacetime geometry... my point is that non-critical strings are certainly much less understood, but not necessarily less "fundamental" - the theory is not mature enough for us to tell. Some strong researchers, like Eva Silverstein, are actively interested in this these matters. We'll see!
@@Rubbergnome Haha. RUclips has an auto-delete AI driven algorithm which probably detected the word 'crazy' and decided you wrote a hostile comment worthy of deletion! Watch out for that.
The Dilaton is geometric, it's a Kaluza Klein scalar (I mean, we know that today, past 1996), it measures the size of the 11th M-theory dimension. The noncritical strings are not fundamental gravitationally, they are interesting mathematically. We do understand the flat space constant coupling backgrounds, ST is mature enough for that.
The issue I am addressing is the idea that you can do what you want in string models. That's just not true, they're horribly constrained. Too constrained. It's really annoying to deal with this when you are trying to use strings phenomenologically, like in QCD, and you can't use gravitational strings.
There are plenty of 'dumb string models' that aren't holographic and that don't look anything like fundamental string theory strings.
You just have excuses, I want to learn quantum field theory and general relativity... Well dude just learn those, too many smart people went into the dead end that is string theory. Wasting their mental power on a theory without even one experiment or some evidence. I am not looking forward the content.
Sabine Hossenfeider has entered the chat.
Jokes aside I wish you best wishes and a rabbit's foot for luck in your long journey to come.
god, i love her videos lol
Wait, you left Papa Flammy's basement???
First video from the wood cabin hopefully he doesn’t burn it down
Yessssssss!
Man, this is going to be great. I'm finishing up my masters in mathematics and thinking about doing a PhD (I'm a student at IMPA, so under normal circumstances this is a natural progression). The only catch is that I'd like to study and do research in theoretical physics, not math!
I've always wondered how much of string theory I could pick up with 0 knowledge of physics, but a decently strong foundation in math (big fan of Riemannian Geometry, of course). This has me really excited! Awesome, truly so!
btw, name's André, which is just Andrew in Portuguese, so hi
Few things are more annoying to me than people who do not understand any kind of mathematics, pretending that String Theory is "outdated" or "useless", or that they "despise" the community of string theorists. They haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. I don't know how it became trendy to hate on string theory, but it's rather tragic, in my opinion. I'm glad you aren't so closed-minded.
That is just plain I am smarter than thou thinking. If string theorist would only pursue string theory on their own time like I don't know Lord of the rings fans, nobody would be mad. But if they are getting grants they better have something to show. And if you are like me and follow people like Sabine Hossenfelder, and Peter Woit at least I get the impression that yes it has been a monumental waste of time.
@@tomasmatias4109 It has literally nothing to do with thinking I am smarter than anyone. On the contrary. It's about understanding your own ignorance. Do you really think any of the people that appeared on the screen have a formal mathematical understanding of what string theory is? No. They get their opinions from their favourite physics YT'er and then regurgitate it.
@@quaereverum3871 I agree with your second comment. About not knowing what the formal mathematical understanding of string theory is, given that Peter Woit seems to make the case that there is no formal mathematical theory of what string theory is, but I digress. That is me regurgitating my favorite blogger and probably doing him a diservice I apologize.
But on your first statement you clearly talk about people not having "any" understanding of mathematics. Which is clearly derogatory given that I think I saw a title that it was demonstrated that crows can count and use the number 0, which is "some" understanding of mathematics.
@@tomasmatias4109 I thought it was self-evident that I am talking about the rather more intricate mathematics that are novel to string theory. For example: what is a Calabi-Yau manifold? What is homological mirror symmetry? What are the Gromov-Witten invariants? It isn't derision to point out that people know far too little about string theory, for their opinion to mean something. It's being realistic.
@@quaereverum3871 as already stated in the video, you don't need to know the intricacies of a machinery to be able to judge the output.
I am currently taking up a course on diff. geo. and topology, and have covered up bosonic strings. What I've followed so far:
QFT:
1. A Modern Introduction to Quantum Field Theory by Michele Maggiore (MM) (primary)
2. Peskin's QFT (reference)
3. Schwartz's book on QFT and SM (reference)
3. Might follow Weinberg and Langacker once I'm done with MM's book which is probably going to be never because I'm procrastinating.
Strings:
1. A first course in string theory by Barton Zwiebach (primary)
2. Might read Polchinski and SGW next semester if I can get the pre-reqs settled.
GR:
1. Initially B. Schutz first course on GR.
2. Then lectures on GTR by Emil Akhmedov.
3. Have referred to Weinberg before but will read it properly someday.
4. The famous 'Large-scale structure of spacetime' is in list lol (big talks from a small nut like me).
Differential Geometry and Topology:
1. Lectures on advanced mathematical methods for Physicists by Mukhi and Mukunda (primary).
2. Nakahara (reference).
3. Some other books are in list might read if I survive masters.
Additionally you might need some stuff on conformal field theory, for which there's Rastelli in Stonybrook who's lecture notes can be used. You can refer initially to Polchinski who discusses CFT to some extent. Some idea of complex manifolds might be required? B. Greene's 1997 lecture on YC manifolds can be referred to. But then if you just google up complex manifolds a lot of modern lecture notes can be easily found out.
In case you're looking for application of strings to nuclear physics, look up AdS/QCD correspondence. Coincidentally my masters thesis is on this topic :)
Also I'm really excited with the possibility of getting a strings lecture from you!
Been watching for awhile now, seeing your progression from an undergrad student to now learning arguably the most complex thing known to man really inspires me to pursue physics myself at uni. Keep up the amazing content🤜
Dude watching Edward Witten lectures just to help you fall asleep at night and calling that “learning string theory” is unacceptable
Go ahead and learn string theory. But it's not how the universe works.
Saying the word "nuclear" exactly 76 years (on the day) after Nagasaki was nuclear-bombed. Super insensitive smh... jk, love your videos.
Why I Want to Learn String Theory: "Cause I think it's neat and like to learn neat things."
Wow nice , My research is actually string theory and GOD models ,
If you wanna look up in youtube , Barton Zwiebach String theory
MIT opencourseware AdS/CFT duality and string theory
David Giatto String theory
John Schwarz introduction to Superstring theory .
also Ed witten textbook for really advanced and details is great :
Edward Witten : Superstring theory .
Good luck! I have two recommendations if you’re interested. 1. Study S-matrix theory. This is the origin of string theory. Gribov’s The theory of complex angular momentum and the Analytic S-matrix by Olive et al are great resources. This should give you the intuition for string theory. It’s ultimately an S-matrix theory and not a quantum field theory. 2. How string theory is defined however is by a 2D conformal field theory. This remains the pillar for calculation for perturbative string theory. So you should study 2D CFT. The yellow book of conformal field theory is the main resource. It’s massive so you only need parts of it.
Clark video: ruclips.net/video/wDI9WTvSUwI/видео.html
Bonus quote: '"Much of what goes as “string theory” today has nothing to do with the original idea of unifying all the forces. Instead, string theorists apply certain limits of their theory in an attempt to describe condensed matter systems. Now, in my opinion, string theorists vastly overstate the success of this method. But the research program is progressing and working towards empirical predictions." -- Sabine Hossenfelder
Learning String Theory aka working through Polchinski for a few years as an initiation rite followed by "research" on something completely different which is even less connected to physics, the experimental science.
stealer of content, master of theft our own flat earther physicist mr.eddie lotte
(i was joking ^_^ good luck for your study)
In beta minus decay process is mass of neutron (before it's decay) greater than mass of proton and w- boson ??(bcoz some of it's mass is convereted inti energy right??)
Ansr plz??
So this is the one of the 10^500 universes in which you tackle String theory. What are you doing in the other 10^500 -1?
Because it is freaking awesome , that’s why!
Hi Jord
@@Eigenbros Hi!
You won't be able to have an objective opinion based on tong's courses alone. Tong's course is very nice but it's just a sliver of the tip of the iceberg. You can have a more objective opinion by looking at the Kiritsis book after and seeing how much you still don't know.
THIS guy ( of whom you want a load) suggests to feed your hostage who is suffering from Stockholm syndrome and when you come back to the old basement release me from there
The best way to learn any physics is the regular consumption of horse semen (roughly 1 liter/day)
Yay! Glad to see you are learning this amazing subject, especially considering the bad press it often (and frequently misguidedly) receives. For me string dualities blew my mind in particular, so I hope you find them as awesome as I did.
Also, as I mentioned in the comments of the community post, the offer is always open if you want a chat with someone who has been there before :-)
I'll hold you to that!
I just posted the same offer before reading this comment! I completely agree :)
Curious as to the difficulty this man has walking around on a daily basis due to the sheers size of his balls
Seriously though I hope you enjoy it man, your content is always great
Have you considered making a video about the science of God? I think it would be really interesting to see a video talking about the evidence for and against a creator using the scientific method.
Ohhhhh so that’s what string theory is! Finally, someone explains it in layman’s terms. Math major here, and I just want to wish you the best of luck going into a very hard branch of studies! Have fun!
the big bang theory is a solid resource (bit too much math though)
As a researcher in string theory and a huge fan of your channel I would be stoked to have a chat about it if you want :D but it's awesome that David gave you the thumbs up! I admire him so much.
what's your focus within string theory?
@@unbiunium I work on string theory with broken supersymmetry. There are many novel features that show up and it appears to be a necessary step to connect the theory with more realistic phenomenology! I'm almost done writing a paper where I describe how the theory seems to recover consistency despite instabilities of the vacuum (nice username, btw) :)
are people working on making string theory mathematically rigorous?
@@mastershooter64 some people are, but it only works for a very small fraction of the theory. For the most part the theory is still in its infancy, in the sense that there are a number of partial formulations that are (or can be made) perfectly rigorous, but don't cover the whole physics. A fully complete, global picture of string theory is not yet within reach with respect to any standard of rigour, but the progress that has been made is impressive compared to the expectations that I would've had personally.
@@Rubbergnome "the theory is still in it's infancy" that's reassuring, that means with more work we'll finally crack quantum gravity!
I'm super interested in quantum gravtiy in general and string theory specifically, (plus i enjoy mathematics lol) what math is used in string theory that's already not used in GR and QFT?
This happens with most theoretical particle physicists I know. And I’m the end they either work on GUTs or research against a wall for several decades.
It’s a trap, don’t do it. Go into condensed matter. It’s way more forgiving and interesting since effects can be verified in 10 years most of the time.
if you go into condensed matter then you'll end up exfoliating graphene for at least a year lol. source: my own (+ 2 of my friend's) experiences
@@unbiunium That’s the reason I’m in theory haha. Also, I actually do many body systems with strong correlations which is not bound by any material per se. But for real, CM and optics is rn the best thing to do (if not rigorous model building in mathematical physics).
But Particle Physics (as much as I love it in the past), is really not in a good position rn
Resource recommendation: Gribov , The Theory of Complex Angular Momentum (1969) , along with any 1960s book on Regge pole Hadron phenomenology. The theory can't be understood without the bootstrap, really. You need to learn S-matrix ideas. Without that, you won't get anything straight.
Finally, someone spitting straight facts. You *have* to learn Regge, Mandelstam and Chew's work to relaly get string theory.
Don't Do IT! - Seriously - wait 1 year.... you'll see...
Gotta learn string theory so you can brag about knowing string theory of course.
Tongs notes are good, but you barely scratch the surface with them. If you want to have good basic understanding you should go through Elias Kritsis book on string theory.
'Comprised of X' is incorrect. You say either 'comprises X' or 'composed of X'.
I think I'm a masochist as well because when the possibility of doing exercises came up, I got way too excited. Looking forward to the content!
I'm finishing up Hamiltonian dynamics, have to do a lot of problems, and then off to QM!
Cool stuff! I definitely want to give the topic the time of day as well, I'm just a couple years behind you so I haven't taken QFT and GR yet.... But I will! One question I have is I assume working on your PhD thesis is more or less a totally full time deal, so I'm wondering how much time do you think you'll be devoting (say weekly) to string theory? It would seem that unless you can receive credit for it as either a full course like at some universities or as independent study, you might not have the time, given how advanced the topic is.
Is there any other theory on par with string theory or maybe string theory is really the only game in the town?
Why do I want to learn string theory: Because I want to find out myself why others say, that it doesn't work. Maybe I could make it work.
I thought this is a meme shitpost before clicking in
Me two days after finding out s = ut + 1/2at^2:
Hello, wondered what source was used for graduate GR? Have done undergrad and a project in black holes for masters but struggled to find a good GR source. All of David Tongs notes seem to be great!
Definitely at least Wald.
I would love to see you learning LQG
If your endeavor takes you CFT let me know. I have to learn some basics it at some point. Maybe we can do some live Co-learning!
Oh it will. CFT has popped up a bit in my research and I didnt really get it.
It's hard to ignore CFT in string theory (I've tried!). It's maybe a bit easier learning CFT via string theory as you are always working with a specific example: d free scalar fields (+ d fermions for the superstring) in 2 dimensions.
If you want to learn the basics, I followed a course this year where the lecture notes were pretty good. The notes can be found here: courses-archive(dot)maths(dot)ox(dot)ac(dot)uk/node/51295/materials . The author is also one of the world leaders in CFT. Another good source is the lectures by Tobias Osborne.
@@Airsofter4692 I never thought to check Tobias' stuff. I learned a bit of PI from him! I need cft for topological edge states and bosonization but it seems strings is a nice inclusive intro.
Are you in papa flammys wooden basement?
I’m from an alternate timeline and this earth sucks
You learned physics while washing dishes in an Italian restaurant too? It was great until they moved me up to a server and I couldn't have my headphones on anymore.
Kudos for the good motivation. I've only recently tried, as a layman, to get a basic understanding of the status of string theory in the academic community, and most people's arguments (whether for or against) seem little more than a sea of unsubstantiated opinions and vague gestures towards the AdS/CFT correspondence. I hope your studies are fruitful!
Please add not even wrong to your reading list 😉
I'm interested in string theory for the mathematics involved. I'm an undergrad student studying engineering and physics with gravity, spacetime, energy, matter, and the transference of momentum at the core of my studies. Getting an understanding of the mathematics that's existed since the release of Star Wars might provide some insight into my own research.
Get ready to become a mathematician, Andrew! Come over to the dark side.
Hey this video came just as i just began studying conformal fied theory! Good luck and have fun and dont worry if you dont get it the first time, this is my (alot)th time revisiting CFT and i finally understood the basics. You might be keen in CFT too since its closely related, and i am also thinking of making some videos on cft soon :D
Well I remember when you said you were wanting to make a video series on circuits, so I hope this video series comes true 😢
Mathematical Physics graduate student here. I think learning string theory is important to complete one's point of view on it - I took an introductory course on it which clarified a few misconceptions.
That being said I must say string theory still comes to me as a mathematical theory rather than a physical one since it's unfalsifiable and seemingly always will be; however, I think it's great to learn because of the new tools from there that you can use outside of the scope of string theory.
Working on quantum Riemannian geometry and other alternatives to quantum gravity like LQG, I think we can all learn from the various approaches to different kinds of problems. All in all, I think you'll really enjoy string theory - if not because it's useful for your research, just because it's nice to see different kinds of problem-solving approaches.
Can't wait to follow the series of videos you'll make on it :)
Calling something "unfalsifiable" sounds a little strong for something which _does_ make several testable predictions which are only out of reach of current experimental technology. Even then, just of the top of my head, AdS/QCD predicts properties of quark-gluon plasma correctly; an often overlooked result of string theory is that it proves that there are no continuous spin representations in Wigner's classification for massless particles (which has to be posited independently in QFT), etc.
spoken like a guy who read one popular string theory book.
@@twistedsector from what ik it does make predictions of the existence of SUSY particles but makes zero predictions about how they will be like ie how much energy they will have (I think that has to do with the fact that 10^150 possible calabi yau manifolds may represent the curled up dimensions and we have no way of knowing which one is our universe- which is MOSNTROUSLY bigger than the number of atoms in our universe which is 10^73 so I am not sure if this problem can even be solved)
So if we haven't found a particle yet we could just say that we aren't looking at high enough energies yet. Hence unfalsifiable.
@@twistedsectorString theory does make testable predictions, just like SUSY does - but one can always shift parameter space and go to higher energies, which makes it unfalsifiable
Testable does not mean falsifiable ;)
@@sionae1967 There's a limit to how high you can shift particles. With a Planck energy accelerator, you can't help but verify or falsify string theory. It's totally verifiable/testable, it's just out of reach of any practical experiment today.
Learning something new is great! but I must admit that there are so many new things to learn in Quantum Field Theory that are as exciting as String Theory. It takes decades to be an expert in QFT and as a Ph.D. student who works on QFT models, I learn new stuff every single day, not just "boring" technicalities but also exciting ideas about nature. There are so many things that are not taught in class that are worth reading. I can give you a list of topics, and I think all will be worthy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should not learn String Theory, but I would suggest you stick with the basics and focus on QFT, because it is not worth the time (in my opinion). Not that it is not interesting, it is just what will be more useful for you in general. As probably mentioned, to learn String Theory you need to know CFT, Supersymmetry, and other ideas under the umbrella of QFT.
You made my day with a fresh Andrew Dotson video😃
Yes I think your reasoning behind starting with string theory is ideal and well justified.
I wish I can be someone of your intellect, reasoning and level of personality some day.😁
I struggling at math. What can I do?
Damn dude I can't wait to see the new content. The production level on physics RUclips videos has just been going up lately. Fucking love this stuff
DON’T DO IT!!
Perimeter institute lectures are awesome.
lol Gravitons. No, just no.
There's also a sort of introduction to string theory by Lenoard Susskind, which is a great lecture series on the substance of the topic. Looking forward to watching you (and also hopefully me) learning the topic.
Good luck in the new journey. Plz make some videos either as you go along or once ur in a place you feel comfortable to share
I am expecting you to fight Sabine Hossenfeider by the end of this
“Some people are just full of shit and talk out of their ass”. The image created by that is as disgusting as it is accurate.
Source: *Personal experience*
for the past year or two I have wondered how quantum mechanics in curved spacetime isn't quantum gravity. Could you explain?
Also why string theory and not loop quantum gravity?
QFT in curved space usually just treats gravity as a classical background that the quantum fields interact with. You aren't quantizing gravity there as opposed to true quantum gravity.
Disappointed that you aren't learning it to understand the memes better.
Keeping that aside, all the best! Will follow this series hoping to learn a thing or two.
I know string theory btw!
You look a bit like veritasium
Read one of Vafa's papers for taste
String theory sounds cool but I'm a sad experimentalist
the only thing you need to remember is that 6D N=(2,0) SCFT is dual to M theory on AdS7 x S^4 :). Oh and it has no quantum lagrangian description. Just saying. Good luck boi.