You are blooding joking 😂😂😂 I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bigger pile of bollocks in all my life. But of course I’m only a normal human being. What better way to bamboozle folk than by starting out saying “I don’t expect a lay person to understand this” - that way ego will make you want to say you understand it and it makes sense; because if you were to say “this is nonsense” then all that will prove is that you are too stupid to underatand 🥴 or at least that’s what this con-man would have you believe 😂😂😂
2 brilliant, BRILLIANT men. It's great that Stanford U has Susskind lectures, in full on YT, for the general public. I would love to listen to this entire discussion if I can come across it.
***** All jokes aside you should listen to these 2 guys. They're kick ass. If only more people spent their time listening to this sort of stuff and less time watching FOXLies our country wouldn't consist of so many dumb assholes.
A quark lattice can be made of all neutrons, all protons or a mix, but it figures that quark lattices form most easily with neutrons. With a compressed neutron lattice there is double "down" (-1/3-1/3) compression between "ups" maybe on the way to forming a new quark lattice with +/-2/3 unit charges that include a new "double-down" (-2/3) quark made of subquarks -4/9+2/9-4/9 and a matching up (+2/3) of +4/9-2/9+4/9. Alternatively the +/- 2/3 units could be pairs of +/- 1/3 or quads of +/- 1/6.
@FallofDarkness55 A particle is mathematically modelled as a point. A bubble could have modes of vibration too. Is there a fundamental reason why closed strings are used or is it just an artifact of the model?
@MouseCheese2010 - Yes, I saw Ed Whitten say that too ! - so I re-ran the video, and just before he says it could be thought of as 'mystery / matrix / magic' - he said 'membrane'. The audio didn't pick it up so well but it is there. I had always thought that the origin of M was for 'Membrane' giving the 2-dimensional string a 3-dimensional surface quality. This, of course, is only a 'physicists shorthand' tool.
@raydredX It has to do with information from something entering a black hole. You might want to read all about that in "The Black Hole War" by Leonard Susskind.
Suppose independent dimensions can be equated to independent scales in this instance. Suppose the gravity, weak, coulomb and color scales are, in log10 meters sequence, +21, -4, -15, -17. The scale differences get progressively smaller, 25, 11, 2. Planck scale is -35. The number of scale jumps needed to span the difference between -17 and -35 is going to have to be very large if each jump must be progressively smaller. At some point the jumps might hit a bottom limit and become quite similar.
Maybe matter actually never makes it past the event horizon of a black hole, but it's all converted into energy instead and the energy quanta are probably tunneled away. Maybe this tunneling occurs along dislocations in the accretion ring caused by frame-dragging. The energy seems to leave the accretion ring at various angles with various properties, mostly as massless quanta, especially at the largest angles, and many of these particles are energetic enough to generate reaction mass.
It seems that in a range of trajectories involving long distances from the BH, but necessarily near the accretion ring spin axis, the BH energy output could create the effect of repulsion, maybe also a vicinity with much antimatter, to the extent that gravity lensing around the BH is distinctly quadrupolar when viewed nearer to the ring plane, and much like a triplet gravitational lens, with two weaker concave elements surrounding a stronger convex element, when viewed along the ring axis.
If quarks could be broken into 3 parts it seems the charges might be -1/3=-2/9+1/9-2/9, and +2/3=+4/9-2/9+4/9, with three different charge levels -2/9, +1/9, +4/9 instead of two, and the added +4/9 charge level maybe being explainable by the + charging bias inside of an "up" being twice that of the - charge bias inside of a "down."
The AdS5xS5 representation I gave earlier is maybe a bit too deep, it embeds the whole representation as a point in real space. Starting with 3D hypersphere times a 3-D saddle-point, as replacement for flat space the simple product of the two 3-D forms is apparently already similar to a 4-D curved space with spherical and quadrupolar aspects. Two scale jumps as point-to-sphere conversions from there might be compared to the jump from universe to ring galaxy to helium (2n2p quadrupole) nucleus.
Brian is a popularizer of difficult science, having made many programmes for the BBC. He asks questions more as an amazed layman would do, in order to make it more clear. He, himself has no need of such explanations.
I'd like to make the simplest analogy or representation possible for a 5-D Anti-de-Sitter space times a 5-D hypersphere, and I guess the best I can come up with right now is to go with the size-scale-as-dimension concept and see it as a concentric series of five 3-D spheres, with a size-scale separation between spheres such that the next sphere shows as a point in the center when the current sphere has filled the screen, and superimposed in each sphere would be the saddle of a hyperbolic space.
@NorthernEmperor what i understand is 'cause and effect' that both are observable, to me, meaning if we know it (cause and effect) we have already been able to take empiricle action, meaning violation is contractictory..i think.
So these strings have tubes conencted to them like a world sheet and when the tubes connect we have the pull of gravity? This is based on what Hawking said about strings in Universe in a Nutshell. Is that right?
Multiplying a hyperbolic space by a spherical space, maybe it could mix to make a quadrupolar well when viewed along one plane and yet have spherical symmetry when viewed perpendicular to that plane. I'm not at all sure about all of these things, but all of it still seems possible to me at this point.
Beyond what I just said, assuming the quark scale is about 10^-2 times as large as the baryonic (with the proton as ideal) scale, and assuming that it is somewhat an ideal ratio, and also that the jump from quark to plank scale is on the order of 10^-18, it's a natural guess to suppose there are about nine scale jumps equivalent to the proton/quark type of relation before hitting the planck scale. Admittedly it's naive, but it says there are about 12 dimensions.
Trying to make an 8-dimensional quark lattice, one might take the jump from 10^-15 meters (proton) scale to 10^-35 meters planck scale as having eight equal parts, all around 10^-2.5 [2.5=(15/8-35/8)], putting quarks around 10^-17.5 meters spacing. This is like saying all quarks have three parts with each part having two main types with opposite charges: +/- (1/9, 2/9), and repeating that process down further six more times, next with charges: +/- 1/27, 2/27, etc.
@repsincan I am actually not sure. I know that it was declared that Susskind won the "black hole war" but as to whether he, himself is still a proponent, I dont know.
@virumoz Not to mention the fact that Hawking is now a proponent of string (M) theory; a field that Susskind co founded with a couple of other scientists.
@NorthernEmperor I know this might sound stupid, but what exactly is the 'information' and what is 'conservation of information'? Your statement is pretty clear, so I'm really looking forward to your explaination. Thank you very much!!!
when i hear or see the 2 words the first thing i see is like a silk string swirling in the dark with light shining it :D wich reminds of string theory. i also imagine the standard model chart.
Strings are made out of energy. A vibration is energy like a particle. Waves are vibrations with different fequencies. I love this video because it explains what strings are and how they work very articulately. I like quantum gravity. Hope we can prove it. I like it when a theory predicts something and it become true.
Exactly, it is often criticized by physicists for this reason. At this point, string theory is just an abstract idea on paper. It's very difficult to find a way to test it. I find it to be pretty fascinating though.
As I understand it, the problem with string theory is that while it can be used as a good model to explain what we observe, we are actually forced to choose some of the parameters of string theory based on what has already been observed. Thus it has a bit of circular logic to it. Now, as with Newton's Force and Mass, circular reasoning doesn't make an argument wrong. But unlike Newton's equations, it has yet to explain or predict anything in a way that would be different if we didn't have it.
@tokenmatch...uh dude...brian cox is a particle physicist...im pretty sure he knows what susskind is talking about....he asks questions as if its a layman talking to him because the public is giong to see the video
@sahragraham I actually took a course on differential equations where we studied Dirichlet and Neumann Bounday Conditions, and made an A in the course. However, I know nothing about string theory. On the other hand, the LHC has almost completely ruled out the most attractive models of SUSY, so string theory is on the ropes. Not to mention the fact that they can't determine the degrees of freedom in the theory.
@schwarzfalk" Binary precession solutions based on synchronized field couplings" was published by the Indian Journal of Science and Technology and presented at Sofia Tech. University of Bulgaria. The research clearly showed the quantum structure underlining the motion of the most challenging binary stars, DI Herculis included. The American Peer Review process was all about giving String Theory credit in citation and I refused because their research was not needed. The Best Candidate Please
The mathematics has been worked out! It just takes years and years if study to understand something so complicated and in depth. The argument against string theory is the difficulty in making experiments that can show the effects because they act on such a small scale. The maths is sound otherwise theorists would have rejected it by now.
String Theory does make falsifiable predictions , just because you haven't read about them doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable. until ST is proven, it needs to be worked on, it might turn out to be false, it might be true, we need to WORK to find out.
@willieofroanoke ...model uses. Then maybe later i find out that the size doesn't really explain what happens in the pile of sand. Not exactly the same as in the case with strings, but close. The model they are working on uses THAT size of strings. Maybe it will work out to explain how the world works. Maybe it wont.
AH! Leonard's flow of conversation and train of thougth is much better when he's oriented by the questions of Brian. Much better than the stanford courses. I learned more in these few 4 min than 4h of Leonard's course on quantum mechanics cause he takes forever to explain vector spaces.
This is all very interesting and a theoretical Physicist with the mind of a Leonard Suskind can postulate mathematical/Quantum/Mechanical equations that seen to allow certain models to balance......but.....we are talking about a particle that is a billion/billionth the size of an atom ! how can we possible measure such a thing and grasp something akin to a truth that most of us can understand regarding this sub atomic sized entity ?....just a thought.many may have...
@audience2 now that statement of yours is is interesting.finally i am writing to a reply that is not pretentious. Actually, i never thought of bubbles. So, if bubbles, im thinking that meansyour considering positive and negitive space, if string, that would mean... positve space =a blank page. negative space= i.e dots for example. a closed of connection still has a connection. i.e light rays, sorry i cant really explain what im thinking but i do not doubt the bubbbles idea
there is tons of data, however, proven data is a different story... that is why it is called a theory. because we are still looking for the answers. I guess all religions could be called a theory as well, given that no one jas conclusive evidence for that either.
@willieofroanoke but some people are interested to hear Susskinds "babble". But I kind of see what you mean, but you take it a bit to far I think. At no point do Susskind say it's proved. He in fact says "It may not even be true."
@ermarauder um I think you're failing to read my comment in context to who I replied to because I was being sarcastic...so I can see why you wouldn't know what I'm talking about had you assumed I was being earnest. Plus, my second sentence shows direct disagreement to his comment which would contradict my first sentence if I wasn't being sarcastic.
the strings in string theory ....arent actually something u can imagine ..its not just a simple loop ... a string is a 1 dimensional object that moves in 11 dimensions and osscilates ... a better name would of been "osscilating energy theory" cus thats what strings really are but "string" is catchy.
@sidewaysfcs0718: As long as string theory gives no chance to falsificate it, it is no scientific theory of anything, And string theory can not predict just one phaenomen of the world. Neighter, describe anything already detected
I don't see why people take such umbrage with string theory. It's just an abstract mathematical model, that few people in the world have any real understanding of. Michio Kaku received a scholarship to Harvard after he built an atom smasher when he was still and high-school. String theory has the attention of the world's most brilliant minds, and it is worth following. However, it is just a MODEL. Some folks just have no concept of scientific modeling.
Being a physicist I have to disagree with you: first the energy scale at CERN is VERY far from the scale of string theory. Concerning your previous post, I must disagree also. We've seen cosmology growing and, in the past 10 years, our understanding of the Universe was revolutionized. I am talking about dark energy, cosmological constant, neutrinos, magnetic monopoles, ... Having said this, I must say that, as you, I too think that the string theory isn't the theory string theorist hope for.
I love it when people explain so seemingly complex things in a way that I can understand.
You are blooding joking 😂😂😂 I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bigger pile of bollocks in all my life. But of course I’m only a normal human being. What better way to bamboozle folk than by starting out saying “I don’t expect a lay person to understand this” - that way ego will make you want to say you understand it and it makes sense; because if you were to say “this is nonsense” then all that will prove is that you are too stupid to underatand 🥴 or at least that’s what this con-man would have you believe 😂😂😂
Susskind is an absolute monster. Love his lectures.
2 brilliant, BRILLIANT men. It's great that Stanford U has Susskind lectures, in full on YT, for the general public.
I would love to listen to this entire discussion if I can come across it.
*****
Gay
*****
:)
*****
All jokes aside you should listen to these 2 guys. They're kick ass.
If only more people spent their time listening to this sort of stuff and less time watching FOXLies our country wouldn't consist of so many dumb assholes.
Best explanation of String Theory I've seen so far.
Two generations of awesome thinkers. Just beautiful. I love these guys.
A quark lattice can be made of all neutrons, all protons or a mix, but it figures that quark lattices form most easily with neutrons. With a compressed neutron lattice there is double "down" (-1/3-1/3) compression between "ups" maybe on the way to forming a new quark lattice with +/-2/3 unit charges that include a new "double-down" (-2/3) quark made of subquarks -4/9+2/9-4/9 and a matching up (+2/3) of +4/9-2/9+4/9. Alternatively the +/- 2/3 units could be pairs of +/- 1/3 or quads of +/- 1/6.
@FallofDarkness55 A particle is mathematically modelled as a point. A bubble could have modes of vibration too. Is there a fundamental reason why closed strings are used or is it just an artifact of the model?
Can anyone please tell me what show is this clip extracted from?
Thanks
@MouseCheese2010 - Yes, I saw Ed Whitten say that too ! - so I re-ran the video, and just before he says it could be thought of as 'mystery / matrix / magic' - he said 'membrane'. The audio didn't pick it up so well but it is there. I had always thought that the origin of M was for 'Membrane' giving the 2-dimensional string a 3-dimensional surface quality. This, of course, is only a 'physicists shorthand' tool.
Love watching smart people talk to each other and try to simplify the subject to the casual science lovers.
That's the difference between Science and scholar communication.
@raydredX It has to do with information from something entering a black hole. You might want to read all about that in "The Black Hole War" by Leonard Susskind.
Suppose independent dimensions can be equated to independent scales in this instance. Suppose the gravity, weak, coulomb and color scales are, in log10 meters sequence, +21, -4, -15, -17. The scale differences get progressively smaller, 25, 11, 2. Planck scale is -35. The number of scale jumps needed to span the difference between -17 and -35 is going to have to be very large if each jump must be progressively smaller. At some point the jumps might hit a bottom limit and become quite similar.
Maybe matter actually never makes it past the event horizon of a black hole, but it's all converted into energy instead and the energy quanta are probably tunneled away. Maybe this tunneling occurs along dislocations in the accretion ring caused by frame-dragging. The energy seems to leave the accretion ring at various angles with various properties, mostly as massless quanta, especially at the largest angles, and many of these particles are energetic enough to generate reaction mass.
Best explanation of the roots of string theory
It seems that in a range of trajectories involving long distances from the BH, but necessarily near the accretion ring spin axis, the BH energy output could create the effect of repulsion, maybe also a vicinity with much antimatter, to the extent that gravity lensing around the BH is distinctly quadrupolar when viewed nearer to the ring plane, and much like a triplet gravitational lens, with two weaker concave elements surrounding a stronger convex element, when viewed along the ring axis.
If quarks could be broken into 3 parts it seems the charges might be -1/3=-2/9+1/9-2/9, and +2/3=+4/9-2/9+4/9, with three different charge levels -2/9, +1/9, +4/9 instead of two, and the added +4/9 charge level maybe being explainable by the + charging bias inside of an "up" being twice that of the - charge bias inside of a "down."
The AdS5xS5 representation I gave earlier is maybe a bit too deep, it embeds the whole representation as a point in real space. Starting with 3D hypersphere times a 3-D saddle-point, as replacement for flat space the simple product of the two 3-D forms is apparently already similar to a 4-D curved space with spherical and quadrupolar aspects. Two scale jumps as point-to-sphere conversions from there might be compared to the jump from universe to ring galaxy to helium (2n2p quadrupole) nucleus.
Does anyone know what programme this is from please?
@nicolara9 I dunno exactly what the relevancy of that would be but, I'm just curious about what exactly was said by Hawking to be proved wrong?
Brian is a popularizer of difficult science, having made many programmes for the BBC. He asks questions more as an amazed layman would do, in order to make it more clear. He, himself has no need of such explanations.
I'd like to make the simplest analogy or representation possible for a 5-D Anti-de-Sitter space times a 5-D hypersphere, and I guess the best I can come up with right now is to go with the size-scale-as-dimension concept and see it as a concentric series of five 3-D spheres, with a size-scale separation between spheres such that the next sphere shows as a point in the center when the current sphere has filled the screen, and superimposed in each sphere would be the saddle of a hyperbolic space.
@NorthernEmperor what i understand is 'cause and effect' that both are observable, to me, meaning if we know it (cause and effect) we have already been able to take empiricle action, meaning violation is contractictory..i think.
So these strings have tubes conencted to them like a world sheet and when the tubes connect we have the pull of gravity? This is based on what Hawking said about strings in Universe in a Nutshell. Is that right?
Brian Cox is 40 years old.... He's a fucking physics professor.
Multiplying a hyperbolic space by a spherical space, maybe it could mix to make a quadrupolar well when viewed along one plane and yet have spherical symmetry when viewed perpendicular to that plane. I'm not at all sure about all of these things, but all of it still seems possible to me at this point.
Beyond what I just said, assuming the quark scale is about 10^-2 times as large as the baryonic (with the proton as ideal) scale, and assuming that it is somewhat an ideal ratio, and also that the jump from quark to plank scale is on the order of 10^-18, it's a natural guess to suppose there are about nine scale jumps equivalent to the proton/quark type of relation before hitting the planck scale. Admittedly it's naive, but it says there are about 12 dimensions.
Trying to make an 8-dimensional quark lattice, one might take the jump from 10^-15 meters (proton) scale to 10^-35 meters planck scale as having eight equal parts, all around 10^-2.5 [2.5=(15/8-35/8)], putting quarks around 10^-17.5 meters spacing. This is like saying all quarks have three parts with each part having two main types with opposite charges: +/- (1/9, 2/9), and repeating that process down further six more times, next with charges: +/- 1/27, 2/27, etc.
Thank you for posting this…
Susskind is just brilliant!
@NorthernEmperor Thank you, your input is very clear and appreciated.
Would be nice to know what documentary this is from.
and what are the strings made of?
@repsincan
I am actually not sure. I know that it was declared that Susskind won the "black hole war" but as to whether he, himself is still a proponent, I dont know.
what's the name of the documentary??
Does anyone one know how to get the rest of this show.
I think it was a hint that Brian Cox works on the Atlas project at Large Hadron Collider.
@virumoz
Not to mention the fact that Hawking is now a proponent of string (M) theory; a field that Susskind co founded with a couple of other scientists.
What BBC Horizon episode is this?
@NorthernEmperor I know this might sound stupid, but what exactly
is the 'information' and what is 'conservation of information'?
Your statement is pretty clear, so I'm really looking forward
to your explaination.
Thank you very much!!!
Why closed strings instead of bubbles?
What are strings made of?
Nothing.
when i hear or see the 2 words
the first thing i see is like a silk string swirling in the dark with light shining it :D
wich reminds of string theory.
i also imagine the standard model chart.
Strings are made out of energy. A vibration is energy like a particle. Waves are vibrations with different fequencies. I love this video because it explains what strings are and how they work very articulately. I like quantum gravity. Hope we can prove it. I like it when a theory predicts something and it become true.
This is so clearly explained.
@adkinsjr Don't they "test" it by smashing atoms in those accelerators and observing how the particles behave on their own?
Exactly, it is often criticized by physicists for this reason. At this point, string theory is just an abstract idea on paper. It's very difficult to find a way to test it. I find it to be pretty fascinating though.
Oh to be sat in a vineyard w these guys discussing what the universe is made of!
As I understand it, the problem with string theory is that while it can be used as a good model to explain what we observe, we are actually forced to choose some of the parameters of string theory based on what has already been observed. Thus it has a bit of circular logic to it.
Now, as with Newton's Force and Mass, circular reasoning doesn't make an argument wrong. But unlike Newton's equations, it has yet to explain or predict anything in a way that would be different if we didn't have it.
@tokenmatch...uh dude...brian cox is a particle physicist...im pretty sure he knows what susskind is talking about....he asks questions as if its a layman talking to him because the public is giong to see the video
I don't think he realises brian cox is a particle physicist
string theory isn't exactly traditional. He might know the gist of it, but never have studied further.
+Tamen J No, I think that it just makes it more interesting for the interview if he acts like he doesn't know.
He is an experimentalist
im in love with susskind at least when he talks physics :)
@sahragraham
I actually took a course on differential equations where we studied Dirichlet and Neumann Bounday Conditions, and made an A in the course. However, I know nothing about string theory. On the other hand, the LHC has almost completely ruled out the most attractive models of SUSY, so string theory is on the ropes. Not to mention the fact that they can't determine the degrees of freedom in the theory.
I wish people like you would be humble to what they have no idea about. If you never studied this, you should not comment on it.
@schwarzfalk" Binary precession solutions based on synchronized field couplings" was published by the Indian Journal of Science and Technology and presented at Sofia Tech. University of Bulgaria. The research clearly showed the quantum structure underlining the motion of the most challenging binary stars, DI Herculis included. The American Peer Review process was all about giving String Theory credit in citation and I refused because their research was not needed. The Best Candidate Please
The mathematics has been worked out! It just takes years and years if study to understand something so complicated and in depth. The argument against string theory is the difficulty in making experiments that can show the effects because they act on such a small scale. The maths is sound otherwise theorists would have rejected it by now.
@warex3d no se.
Susskind is anything but the coolest physicist out there.
As far as I can tell, he's about as far from feynman as a fellow can be.
What are these?
The gravitational force is created most likely from the electromagnetic nature of all particles. These are the “strings” he speaks of, in my view.
this is not physics its philosophy
String Theory does make falsifiable predictions , just because you haven't read about them doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable.
until ST is proven, it needs to be worked on, it might turn out to be false, it might be true, we need to WORK to find out.
lol brian cox is very easy on the eye...it's a plus that he's so smart. i wonder whats his secret to looking so young?
This theory has real potential, but I can not help thinking that it is over looking something of fundamental importance.
@willieofroanoke ...model uses. Then maybe later i find out that the size doesn't really explain what happens in the pile of sand.
Not exactly the same as in the case with strings, but close. The model they are working on uses THAT size of strings. Maybe it will work out to explain how the world works. Maybe it wont.
There are no particles only waves. Some people just can't accept that everything is made of nothing.
no, just someone who has come to terms with the truth of our existence
Nope i can't get my head around that i give up. Some things are best left unsolved.
Brain Cox being made to act like he didn't know any of what the guy was saying xD
AH! Leonard's flow of conversation and train of thougth is much better when he's oriented by the questions of Brian. Much better than the stanford courses. I learned more in these few 4 min than 4h of Leonard's course on quantum mechanics cause he takes forever to explain vector spaces.
Being unable to directly observe strings is entirely different from being unable to find supporting evidence for String Theory.
This is all very interesting and a theoretical Physicist with the mind of a Leonard Suskind can postulate mathematical/Quantum/Mechanical equations that seen to allow certain models to balance......but.....we are talking about a particle that is a billion/billionth the size of an atom ! how can we possible measure such a thing and grasp something akin to a truth that most of us can understand regarding this sub atomic sized entity ?....just a thought.many may have...
You mean professor of particle physics, Brian Cox who works at CERN?
@audience2 now that statement of yours is is interesting.finally i am writing to a reply that is not pretentious. Actually, i never thought of bubbles. So, if bubbles, im thinking that meansyour considering positive and negitive space, if string, that would mean... positve space =a blank page. negative space= i.e dots for example. a closed of connection still has a connection. i.e light rays, sorry i cant really explain what im thinking but i do not doubt the bubbbles idea
He can proof it through math. Watch his lectures at Stanford for the math.
Quantum Entanglements, Part 1
who i understand a little of that but by the sounds of that it extreamly complicated stuff
Leonard Susskind would intellectually destroy Coxy. Not bad for a start out plumber.
2:25
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA YUS!
there is tons of data, however, proven data is a different story... that is why it is called a theory. because we are still looking for the answers.
I guess all religions could be called a theory as well, given that no one jas conclusive evidence for that either.
no one said string theory is right ...
but until we proove it wrong we must follow it and see what results it gets
Thinkable
So what’s a string made of 😂
yeah, if philosophy had data, math, and reason behind it, I would agree! :)
Why does Dr. Cox always wear that helmet around?
@cakesofdeath Nothing is ever best left unsolved.
brian cox is not convinced
brian cox and amy mainzer should make the smartest best looking child in history
@willieofroanoke but some people are interested to hear Susskinds "babble". But I kind of see what you mean, but you take it a bit to far I think. At no point do Susskind say it's proved. He in fact says "It may not even be true."
@ermarauder um I think you're failing to read my comment in context to who I replied to because I was being sarcastic...so I can see why you wouldn't know what I'm talking about had you assumed I was being earnest. Plus, my second sentence shows direct disagreement to his comment which would contradict my first sentence if I wasn't being sarcastic.
the strings in string theory ....arent actually something u can imagine ..its not just a simple loop ...
a string is a 1 dimensional object that moves in 11 dimensions and osscilates ...
a better name would of been "osscilating energy theory" cus thats what strings really are
but "string" is catchy.
This is hilarious 😂
r u physicist?
@sidewaysfcs0718: As long as string theory gives no chance to falsificate it, it is no scientific theory of anything, And string theory can not predict just one phaenomen of the world. Neighter, describe anything already detected
I don't see why people take such umbrage with string theory. It's just an abstract mathematical model, that few people in the world have any real understanding of. Michio Kaku received a scholarship to Harvard after he built an atom smasher when he was still and high-school. String theory has the attention of the world's most brilliant minds, and it is worth following. However, it is just a MODEL. Some folks just have no concept of scientific modeling.
lol... if you think Brian has a bad handle there...go look up the name of the senate leader of the Dutch parliament....
good laugh
"Sring theory is the wet dream of over the hill professors strung out on too much LSD."
Can you confirm this? What is your expertise?
I still don't understand it... :(
"perhaps it might not be"
a sign that Science is NOT like religion.
Being a physicist I have to disagree with you: first the energy scale at CERN is VERY far from the scale of string theory. Concerning your previous post, I must disagree also. We've seen cosmology growing and, in the past 10 years, our understanding of the Universe was revolutionized. I am talking about dark energy, cosmological constant, neutrinos, magnetic monopoles, ...
Having said this, I must say that, as you, I too think that the string theory isn't the theory string theorist hope for.
Old doc and young doc are back on LSD again.