It also breaks my heart as somebody who was interested in Physics as a child, and who was completely put off by it when I went to High School by mean spirited teachers. The Western education system of the past 30 years has a heck of a lot to answer for.
What is the chance our civilization at this time is trying to find another civilization in time with the intellect to communicate? If there are worlds out there with intelligent info they were either millions of years ago or millions of years in the future. It's crazy to think while we are looking for aliens they are somewhere near us now.
What about Raptor theory ? The entire universe is composed of point sized Velociraptors. They can stretch as well and grow larger as well based on their junkfood consumption
Lex is such a good interviewer!!! He and Rogan are the best imo. They both know when to shut up, and they both know when to kind of butt in with a clarifying question for the listeners. Well done.
Up to this point, I only have heuristic half-knowledge of String Theory (trying to go through Polchinski‘s 1st book one time, but not quite making it :-)). But as far as I can compare, his explanations are pretty descriptive and on point. Good episode of this podcast!
Background Info: Cumrun Vafa is a prominent Iranian-American physicist who is known for his contributions to string theory and its application to various areas of physics, including particle physics and cosmology.
String theory is the theory that since everything is nothing so when you unfold nothing you might get back everything - its what happens when the math gets so hard you imagine it has to answer the fundamental question.
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Force" 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 Mesons. 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. 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 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. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 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?
We always separate the microverse from the macroverse. Which makes studying either very difficult. Yet, as I theretically stroll the solar system out to the clusters of solar systems in our galaxy. I even try to fathom other galaxies that make up our visible universe. One thought always comes to mind the farther out in the macroverse we go. The point I travel from seems to be microscopic. I'm no scientist or scholar but it seems like we should be able to infer way more about the microverse from the macroverse.
The problem is what we see. We see this small part of electromagnetism which is then images are constructed in our visual cortex. This is not how the world looks at all.
I would like to know the very piece of math that was produced the very first time, of the very first day, even the contours of it. what exactly was the initial sketch of the theory ?
i think its unavoidable that dimensionality shrinks as the number grows, when you say 'big dimensions and small dimensions' what is the relative sizes and how is it changing as you get into higher dimensions? can dimensionality into 'higher' dimensions be actually a subset or subdivision of the 3+1 that we are familiar with? as the particles of the atom are a subset of the atom with mirroring and twisting and 'flavor' or w/e the terminology is? i am not sure string theory is the answer but if it is sourcing some parts of the standard model (i find this ironic actually) it seems to me there would be a symmetry or similarity in the particles as well as the theoretical higher dimensions
Here's a standing wave analogy: ANTINODES are your forces while NODES are your mass particles. Don't be confused by morphing or transmutation characteristics. It's far easier to think of it in terms of as being membranes rather than strings. Strings going through a spacetime is complicated mathematically while a membrane universe where everything is already connected is far less complicated from a mathematical point of view.
We can only observe a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. So why is it so farfetched to think we can only observe a tiny fraction of the dimensions that exist?
Even if supersymmetry string theory doesn’t apply to the laws of physics in our dimensional universe, the multiverse could still be a reality and the physics of string theory could apply to other universes in other dimentions. 🤔
Sure. Given an infinite number of universes and dimensions, any thing could work. None of which is falsifiable so none of which is actually science. This guy may be a clever scientist but none of what he says about ST could be considered science
These comments are what is _dumb_ . Lot of this is simply not knowing a word, and then your brain can't finish doing what it does to reach a satisfying degree of "Understanding". Fault lies in how humans communicate and the restrictions/barriers current human-verbal language imposes. If you were directly linked brain to brain ... I'd wager the majority of people could understand (him) each other and our own understandings so much easier, better.
@@Umega101 well of course. That would completely eliminate variables that are far too often unconsidered. Context would become granted etc. I would make a case for the “dumb” comments, and presume that most are coming from origins of humility, as opposed to flat out confessing sub par intelligence lol.
@@casino9240 Oh I agree that it is from humility. That's why I find them _dumb_ . I don't like people doing that to themselves as it is a weird form of "virtue signaling" as the person is sacrificing themselves to the altar of "Science Gods". Meh. Like you said; removal of variables puts people on par with people more often than not. There is no need for people to submit their thoughts towards "I won't understand" and thus allowing them to be manipulated by _Gods_
@@Umega101 your not liking the way they do to themselves, is less worth them not liking that u don’t like what they do to themselves. I’m pretty sure that’s the end of the above decree. But as a disclaimer….I admire your thoughts. In fact, I’d made me think more than I’ve thought in the past week. So thank u for that. (You may ask what specifically: the idea that an unknown word amidst a conversation would dumb a man down so desperately, that he’d give up on himself; nope) The giving up, of a “science god” you prob shouldn’t broadcast ur personal mirror ideologue.
I understand what he's saying, but I think the use of the word "string" is confusing because matter and energy are essentially the same thing and harmonic vibration can derive from either or. In fact, harmonic vibration can bring into existence matter from energy and vice versa. But, again, the problem arises in this unified theory a paradox very similar to the "God Paradox" and it has only been resolved to X to the 11th power or so. And science is using theoretical dimensions to resolve real physics problems by layering the problem. They will continue to measure infinity like lunatics. The fact they have the audacity to assume locality above X to the 4th power is an absurd claim that is more based in zealotry than science. They have to go beyond x4 because their theory doesn't work and has yet to provide results no matter how "useful" the information.
@@MrIkesimba You could reflect a little on what science is; what our senses and language is capable of. But you can also just take drugs - might give instant insight. Haha!
Surely I'm naive, but I detect an issue. The logical steps are... (1) 2 fundamental theories are in conflict. (2) resolve conflict by theorizing new fundamental elements. (3) discover that those theoretical elements don't model well in 3 dimensions. (4) assume there must be more dimensions. Unless there is some extraordinary way to make observations, this seems more like metaphysics than physics.
I'll bite: (1) 2 fundamental theories are in conflict. None of them are fundamental then. The whole point is to find the fundamental theory that describes the observable universe. Maybe you meant something like "The two best theories that we have describing different things about the universe are incompatible" ? That's a different thing altogether. We also know that the theory of relativity is unlikely to be completely correct, because of black holes. So the first assumption misrepresents the issue a bit. We have really strong indication that quantum mechanics is correct, and that a 'theory of everything' will come about by finding mathematical descriptions that fit quantum mechanics and can describe gravity. The other way around is less likely. (2) resolve conflict by theorizing new fundamental elements. What exactly do you mean by 'fundamental elements'? ( or maybe you meant "theoretical elements" ) (3) discover that those theoretical elements don't model well in 3 dimensions. (4) assume there must be more dimensions. When the theory of relativity came about, the math itself predicted black holes. If the theory of relativity is approximately correct in describing some observations about the universe, then black holes exist. For over a hundred years, no one had seen black holes. Skeptics called black holes 'metaphysics'. But this is based on a misunderstanding of mathematical descriptions of physical reality. If you write down some equations that attempt to describe something, and these equations turn out to be good, then the equations might be carrying with them other, unforeseen implications about physical phenomena. The maths themselves seem to be running ahead of our ability to observe things. This has been a consistent pattern in the last few hundred years. People write down math trying to describe things, and these very equations lend themselves to a host of different things no one could have predicted (or seen given the technological and scientific capabilities of their time). If string theory is very successful at unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, then it is likely that there's something there. Just as there was something there when Einstein wrote down equations that 'implied' that black holes exist. Or when our equations 'implied' that anti-matter exists. Or when... the list goes on and on. Of course it is easy to be misled like that, and string theory could be a fruitless effort. But this common critique of the theory is very shortsighted. "Unless there is some extraordinary way to make observations, this seems more like metaphysics than physics." You could go back 100+ years and say exactly the same about black holes. Or space flight. Or anti-matter, or Quarks, or whatever. And that's why such forms of criticism are 'naive'. They have a terrible track record. There's an interesting observation to be made here. If one assumes that the observable universe follows physical laws, then surely both gravitational behavior of stuff and quantum mechanical behavior of stuff needs to 'intersect', since objects in the universe take part in both phenomena at the same time. Thus there must be a mathematical model that describes both gravity and quantum mechanics at the same time. The only 'good' criticism is alternative mathematical descriptions of reality that can deal with the incompatibilities between the two theories that give rise to infinite quantities. If you can deal with these infinite quantities properly, then you have something (there's obviously no infinite quantities around). Each theory works really well separately. There 'must' be a way to connect the two, since particles and stuff 'live' under both at the same time.
@@markos635567 The only thing I'll say, and I don't know the answer, is how many times has the math implied something that later turned out to be wrong. There might be a selection bias there, you only know about the times the math implied something and it turned out to be right. It's entirely possible that there are 10x as many times where the implications of an equation turned out to be incorrect, we just never hear about them. If that's true, then it undermines your argument. P.S. have you heard of quantized inertia? I don't know what to make of it, but it apparently doesn't require dark matter to explain what we see, and can explain at least some macroscopic behavior via quantum processes. Which to me seems promising. The fewer assumptions you have to make, the better.
@@spracketskooch Your comment is technically correct, but practically meaningless. You should re-read your initial comment about string theory being metaphysics. An equation turning out to be false is still part of physics. You basically contradicted your initial point there. In short : equation implying something that takes years to be confirmed: Has happened equation implying something that takes years to be falsified: Has happened Even if the second one happens 100x as often as the first one: a) none of the two is metaphysics b) given the transformative results of the one in one hundred (computers, spaceships, the internet etc), it's worth pursuing. The upside is literally transforming the world. So how does it undermine my argument again?
@@markos635567 Given that both confirmation and falsification both do/ have happened, and we have no way of telling which it will be beforehand, using purely the fact that the implications of an equation have proven to be correct in the past to bolster the case for pursuing string theory, isn't a good argument. That said, with the added addendum of the potential for world transforming outcomes, your argument becomes much stronger. Although I still think that 30+ years without a single piece of experimental evidence in it's favor, as far as I know, should mean maybe we should start considering pursuing alternative approaches. Also, can you point me to a technological development that has come from pursuing string theory? I'm not trying to be snarky, I genuinely want to know if there are any.
@@spracketskooch "using purely the fact that the implications of an equation have proven to be correct in the past to bolster the case for pursuing string theory, isn't a good argument." The problem here though is that we kind of know that a unifying theory exists, as i explained in my previous comment. So the argument mostly rests on the (reasonable) expectation that a single equation must be behind both current theories. That's where the argument in favor of String Theory ultimately rests, along with other similar theories. Physicists pursue String Theory because it's mathematically compelling to them, which might seem arbitrary but has made sense historically. Of course there is no guarantee that something 'beautiful' or simple is more likely to be true, but it tends to be a factor for various reasons. I agree with you completely about searching for alternatives. That's very much a 'human' problem, especially when many alternative theories are shunned, funding is limited etc. It's been many years and the fact that there are no results could indeed be worrying. But again, if for example we need a particle accelerator going around the solar system to check some predictions, the theory isn't unscientific, just merely out of reach of our current technological abilities. So where do we draw the line? We kind of know already that most low-hanging fruits of science and technology have been grabbed. I expect such difficulties to be honest. There are so many minds working into unifying our two best theories, that if an 'easy, and easily verifiable' one existed we would know by now. I don't think there has been technological developments stemming from string theory. The only interesting thing is how there have been mathematical developments from string theory, a weird and rare inversion. And these might in turn become useful in a few hundred years, as is common with progress in math. I remember Leonard Susskind saying in an interview that some predictions of string theory might need a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy (maybe he was joking, but you get the point). Does this make string theory a physical theory or not? Imagine if this is true, and our only known way to test the theory. How much effort should we put in string theory then? For how long? How much effort in finding alternative experimental setups? How much in alternative theories? I should conclude with this: For something to be metaphysical, it must be unfalsifiable even in principle. Since we don't know enough about the universe yet, there's an enormous set of theories out there, yet we can't tell for sure if they are true or even scientific. So we can't decide yet on what category they belong. We truly live in very interesting times. In a world with a functioning and verified theory of everything, deciding on the physicality of a mathematical model would be easier (probably? hopefully?).
Absolutely love your comment! Almost heard it in my head; like walking into a discussion of transubstantiation between Theologians and recognizing that the significance of the question itself will invalidate your existence!
Physicists will say that gravity is the weakest Force but I think gravity is the strongest force it's just getting poured through so many faucets that it seems like it is nothing we started thinking about other dimensions and how many dimensions there were well gravity works on all dimensions gravity is everywhere it is the greatest force in the universe yet it is so spread out but it seems really pathetic and weak
Here’s the thing truthfully; string theorist assume that the Gravity is an actual force and it’s produced by an elusive particle field called a graviton. So far there hasn’t been any evidence of a graviton. There’s also this false idea that gravity is weak, rather then looking at the strength of gravity, as nothing more then the mass or energy exerted on space time. Meaning that a mass of a planet will create a curvature of space time, but the gravity will still be weak enough we’re the other forces of nature will still over come it’s weak gravitational interactions. But what if gravity was a lot stronger, due to larger mass or energy created a warp in space time? Let’s say a black hole as an example? Then in the singularity of a black hole, the force of gravity becomes infinite, and electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces will yield to the gravity of a black holes singularity. What this mathematical equation means is that the strength of gravity is nothing more then the amount of mass or energy that is creating a warping of space, the gravitational force of a black hole singularity will over come all of the strong forces of the universe. So gravity isn’t created due to elusive particle fields of a graviton but rather the degree of strength of the mass and energy of a planet, star or a black hole.
@@julianaddison20 I think you'd change your tune if you ever experienced psychedelics. I've seen polygonal shapes that can't exist in 3D space. It's literally impossible to convey to you what I saw, but the most similar thing I can point you towards is a representation of a 4D cube rotating. The best way I can describe the psychedelic experience is that it imbues every particle of existence with profound meaning. That's why you can stare at one object for hours. The fog pulls back and you can see the long chain of events that lead to that object existing. You can appreciate the profound unlikelihood that any of it exists at all, that your consciousness exists and can perceive and understand. The gratitude from all of this can be overwhelming. In short, you've been lied to about psychedelics for decades. Whatever you're imagining they're like, they're nothing like that. Isn't it interesting that the substances that can make you question deeply, and fill you with gratitude and love, are illegal, while the substances that slowly kill you, keep you numb, and in the case of alcohol make you more aggressive, are legal? It's almost like it was done on purpose to keep us numb and apathetic so we can be busy little worker bees making honey for the queen. Every society in history has used some type of drug, most have used psychedelics as part of a normal life. It's only in the past 100 years that our society has banned their use, and I think it shows. We have no outlet for transcendent experience, which is a normal and healthy part of human life. We have no overarching "myth", and you can see people substituting other ideologies in place of that. It's just a fact that we have a religious impulse, and when that doesn't have a healthy outlet that energy gets directed into other things, like politics.
Sheldon would be so proud! More important, Lex why are single? you are such a beautiful person! Put a new item on you morning mantras! You are a gem, thanks Joe Rogan 😊
Here’s the thing truthfully string theorist assume that the Gravity is an actual force and it’s produced by an elusive particle field called a graviton. So far there hasn’t been any evidence of a graviton. There’s also this false idea that gravity is weak, rather then looking at the strength of gravity, as nothing more then the mass or energy exerted on space time. Meaning that a mass of a planet will create a curvature of space time, but the gravity will still be weak enough we’re the other doves of nature will still over come it’s weak gravitational interactions. But what if gravity was a lot stronger, due to larger mass or energy created a warp in space time? Let’s say a black hole as an example? Then in the singularity of a black hole, the force of gravity becomes infinite, and electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces will yield to the gravity of a black holes singularity. What this mathematical equation means is that the strength orb gravity is nothing more then the amount of mass or energy that is creating a warping of space, the gravitational force of a black hole singularity will over come all of the strong forces of the universe. So gravity isn’t created due to elusive particle fields of a graviton but the degree of strength of the mass and energy of a planet, star or a black hole.
Lex, I'm CIA agent I remember me as you in the 90's filming in Farragut. String theory is one thing but math is needed for everything. I'm in God's class. These are my works right now. Physics,. Formics, Physics by Nature, Physics by Mechanics, Contiplation by Memory. I got 14 more to go after that. That's not contemplation.
I think the string theory is bollocks. Everything "new" in physics isn't even observable anymore. Strings, dark matter, dark energy... like wtf are you guys hunting there? Just look at your current models and think about why they are wrong instead of coming up with nonsense to fix those holes in the current model nobody can measure anyway.
The new things can be tested, we have a rationale for what tests are valid and the technology needed to perform the tests. You view seems sullied by the way mainstream media tends to sensationalize science for clicks and merely because it is hard to put into layman terms while maintaining accuracy
Have you ever seen a full version of the standard model in quantum field theory (which is by its predictions the currently most accurate theory in all of science)? It's a hodgepodge of different terms all with completely different flavors and the equations, when written out, are endlessly long. That's exactly what they are trying to fix. Physicists are very well aware of those concerns you mention - no need to arm-chair-philosophize yourself above them.
@@JustinLockwood44 I'd be interested to know what test can differentiate between a point like particle and a point like string, or how we can test for seven tiny new spacial dimensions, if you know. Also I'd like to say that dark matter is clearly incomplete, seeing as they found a galaxy with no dark matter in it recently, and as far as I know it exhibits the same behaviors as other galaxies that are supposed to contain dark matter. Another thing, again as far as I know, quantized inertia can explain the rotation of galaxies with physics we already know, without inventing a new substance that can't be seen and only interacts via gravity. I just can't for the life of me understand why string theory gets so much attention when it has little to no observational evidence to back it up. Especially when there are other interesting ideas out there that make testable predictions that most people haven't even heard about. I think if scientists stopped dumbing things down so much it would address some of the issues that I, and people like me have. I might not be able to do the math, but i can understand abstract concepts and logic. When people take the time to explain these concepts while also assuming I'm not an idiot, I find myself saying things like, "Oh that's how they arrived at this conclusion, they didn't just make something up, there's a long line of logic that led to this." I guess string theory and dark matter haven't been explained too well, because it seems to me like they said, "hmmm, what could I add here that would make my theory work. What would have to happen to make it true?" then just made up terms to fit the holes in the theory. Which is fine, sometimes that's a valid tactic. It's just that when you haven't made any experimental progress to bolster that assumption in 30+ years, it gets to the point where maybe we should start trying a different approach. That's just my two cents, and I'm probably wrong, but I would like to know exactly why I'm wrong.
String Theory really has always sounded like a lot of baseless nonsense to me, and it still does after listening to this guy. Then again, what do I know. But I do believe it was Eric Weinstein who said that String Theory isn't even a theory, and even calling it a hypothesis would be generous, and I respect that guy and his knowledge in this field a lot more than random String Theorists so I'm just gonna go with my gut and call BS on this one.
Spoiler: i dont belive the earth is flat but sometimes i am amazed that conspiracy theoriests (specially in the extreme way) count as sick and dumb but when the most educated persons create these crazy unproofen theories they count as highly Intelligent and healthy... little bit weired no ?
They create projections based on proven science and mathematics. Conspiracy theorists often draw extreme conclusions based on little factual evidence --when you're discussing an extreme situation such as rationalizing the interaction between a black hole and a the rest of reality I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a complicated answer. Your inability to understand aspects of mathematics and science is not evidence against it.
@@alexandergeuze4689 I was telling you the difference between the credibility of either theorist. I never claimed to be a scientist nor did I claim that theories were facts. You should learn how to make an argument without mixing in your own personal insecurities.
@@johnny1587 i explained that it doesnt care if i understand the math or whatever behind ... its only Digital calculations, produced by an predefined algorhytm... even if only the smalles variable is wrong its all nonsense ... as all is theory equally to conspiracies its just fiction ... and to be honest ... most conspiracies are more proofen then these theories... so my question: why doesnt count these people as sick is still open ... but thanks answering a question with absolutly no answer, telling me that i just dont understand (so you got personal) and for wasting our both time for nothing
Take me back to the Times these topics were talked about with a good interviewer. JRE#100 " let's talk about string theory ok uh so um we will start with what is string theory " No flow to the conversation, feels unnatural. I miss feeling like you're there like early JRE
Cumrun succeeds in delivering a very clear exposition of string theory that I have not heard anywhere else! Its clear he is a master of the game.
indeed, no one has been able to explain it as good as him. No wonder he was Ed Witten's PhD student.
his explanation is great, especially with Lex's clarifying questions
I love his energy so much, i wish i was half as passionate about something as this man is about physics
It also breaks my heart as somebody who was interested in Physics as a child, and who was completely put off by it when I went to High School by mean spirited teachers. The Western education system of the past 30 years has a heck of a lot to answer for.
me 2
Just needs a new name!
@@PeaceDweller Its the same situation in almost every country,
Imagine alien civilization where this stuff is common knowledge - taught in 'third grade' or something.
Not only imagine but believe!
@@mattheww797 damn, you traveled the whole universe? Thats crazy.
What is the chance our civilization at this time is trying to find another civilization in time with the intellect to communicate? If there are worlds out there with intelligent info they were either millions of years ago or millions of years in the future. It's crazy to think while we are looking for aliens they are somewhere near us now.
@@mattheww797 did you say that while stamping your feet?
@@mattheww797 there are 10 billion trillion (10^22) stars in our universe kiddo
What an intelligent human being
"The STRING in my leg is gone!" - Peter Sellers, Dr. Strangelove
This was so entertaining. Always have been fascinated with string theory
And his comedic genius with "aha, aha, what else do you want me to believe?" just killed me :D
Very impressive, first time I understood someone discussing string theory
…. Iranian born physicist
iranian born AMERICAN physicist. the american is the most important part. 😎
So nice to have it explained in such a linear and contextual "narrative". Brilliant
What an incredibly clear and effective communicator this guy is. That was excellent.
Lex has chosen a very difficult job. Lol😂 Respect!👍🏼
It amazes me how Cumrun can explain complicated topics in such a clear and concise way.
Nothing he says makes sense in any way, nothing is proofen, nothing is feelable, nothing is logic
Damnt can somebody else dumb this down for me then cause even this was to much 😂😂
What about Raptor theory ?
The entire universe is composed of point sized Velociraptors. They can stretch as well and grow larger as well based on their junkfood consumption
That solves a major problem I've been working on. Now I know where all my cheetos went.
This is probably closer to the truth than actual String Theory...
Lex is such a good interviewer!!! He and Rogan are the best imo. They both know when to shut up, and they both know when to kind of butt in with a clarifying question for the listeners. Well done.
Up to this point, I only have heuristic half-knowledge of
String Theory (trying to go through Polchinski‘s 1st book one
time, but not quite making it :-)). But as far as I can compare,
his explanations are pretty descriptive and on point.
Good episode of this podcast!
I like this explanation, very interesting as always
Background Info: Cumrun Vafa is a prominent Iranian-American physicist who is known for his contributions to string theory and its application to various areas of physics, including particle physics and cosmology.
Fascinating, I just learned so much !
String theory is the theory that since everything is nothing so when you unfold nothing you might get back everything - its what happens when the math gets so hard you imagine it has to answer the fundamental question.
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? 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 gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (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 Force" 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 Mesons. 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. 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 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.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 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?
We always separate the microverse from the macroverse.
Which makes studying either very difficult.
Yet, as I theretically stroll the solar system out to the clusters of solar systems in our galaxy. I even try to fathom other galaxies that make up our visible universe.
One thought always comes to mind the farther out in the macroverse we go.
The point I travel from seems to be microscopic.
I'm no scientist or scholar but it seems like we should be able to infer way more about the microverse from the macroverse.
The problem is what we see. We see this small part of electromagnetism which is then images are constructed in our visual cortex. This is not how the world looks at all.
I would like to know the very piece of math that was produced the very first time, of the very first day, even the contours of it. what exactly was the initial sketch of the theory ?
one of the best explanations out there…
I understand completely
Face it folks it’s a simulation.
If we discovered that this is true, what would change?
i think its unavoidable that dimensionality shrinks as the number grows, when you say 'big dimensions and small dimensions' what is the relative sizes and how is it changing as you get into higher dimensions? can dimensionality into 'higher' dimensions be actually a subset or subdivision of the 3+1 that we are familiar with? as the particles of the atom are a subset of the atom with mirroring and twisting and 'flavor' or w/e the terminology is? i am not sure string theory is the answer but if it is sourcing some parts of the standard model (i find this ironic actually) it seems to me there would be a symmetry or similarity in the particles as well as the theoretical higher dimensions
Here's a standing wave analogy: ANTINODES are your forces while NODES are your mass particles. Don't be confused by morphing or transmutation characteristics. It's far easier to think of it in terms of as being membranes rather than strings. Strings going through a spacetime is complicated mathematically while a membrane universe where everything is already connected is far less complicated from a mathematical point of view.
this is a great physics history summary, experimental observation of anomalies colliding with mathematical dreamers
watt in the hertz is he talking about
Just wait until we find the DMT dimension
I hope we tie string theory in with Christmas and have ribbon theory
Prof Vafa is a wonderful guest
We can only observe a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. So why is it so farfetched to think we can only observe a tiny fraction of the dimensions that exist?
Thank you, best explanation yet for me.
Even if supersymmetry string theory doesn’t apply to the laws of physics in our dimensional universe, the multiverse could still be a reality and the physics of string theory could apply to other universes in other dimentions. 🤔
Sure. Given an infinite number of universes and dimensions, any thing could work. None of which is falsifiable so none of which is actually science. This guy may be a clever scientist but none of what he says about ST could be considered science
Now I get it..
Thanks
I feel like I’m from Mars listening to this guy…
My thoughts after listening in full: I used to think I was smart, until I smartened up and realized I was an idiot.
These comments are what is _dumb_ . Lot of this is simply not knowing a word, and then your brain can't finish doing what it does to reach a satisfying degree of "Understanding". Fault lies in how humans communicate and the restrictions/barriers current human-verbal language imposes. If you were directly linked brain to brain ... I'd wager the majority of people could understand (him) each other and our own understandings so much easier, better.
@@Umega101 well of course. That would completely eliminate variables that are far too often unconsidered. Context would become granted etc. I would make a case for the “dumb” comments, and presume that most are coming from origins of humility, as opposed to flat out confessing sub par intelligence lol.
@@casino9240 Oh I agree that it is from humility. That's why I find them _dumb_ . I don't like people doing that to themselves as it is a weird form of "virtue signaling" as the person is sacrificing themselves to the altar of "Science Gods". Meh.
Like you said; removal of variables puts people on par with people more often than not. There is no need for people to submit their thoughts towards "I won't understand" and thus allowing them to be manipulated by _Gods_
@@Umega101 your not liking the way they do to themselves, is less worth them not liking that u don’t like what they do to themselves.
I’m pretty sure that’s the end of the above decree.
But as a disclaimer….I admire your thoughts. In fact, I’d made me think more than I’ve thought in the past week. So thank u for that.
(You may ask what specifically: the idea that an unknown word amidst a conversation would dumb a man down so desperately, that he’d give up on himself; nope)
The giving up, of a “science god” you prob shouldn’t broadcast ur personal mirror ideologue.
We need to start giving our physicists DMT
Lex made me think of ippo in the boxing manga hajime no ippo
Hahahah yoooooo never would I have ever thought about but in some weird way I can see it
Idk this extra dimensions in black holes sounds a little too convenient...
thank you!
I understand what he's saying, but I think the use of the word "string" is confusing because matter and energy are essentially the same thing and harmonic vibration can derive from either or. In fact, harmonic vibration can bring into existence matter from energy and vice versa. But, again, the problem arises in this unified theory a paradox very similar to the "God Paradox" and it has only been resolved to X to the 11th power or so. And science is using theoretical dimensions to resolve real physics problems by layering the problem. They will continue to measure infinity like lunatics. The fact they have the audacity to assume locality above X to the 4th power is an absurd claim that is more based in zealotry than science. They have to go beyond x4 because their theory doesn't work and has yet to provide results no matter how "useful" the information.
Clear as a bell
Strings sound like God. A theory.
oh, NOW I get it!
What if there is not a bunch of strings but actually just one string and it actually isn't a string but a single point?
Lex's face... Oh my gawd... LOL ahhahahaha, I can't stop laughing..... . 11:26
What’s the story with the hedgehog? 🦔 🤣🤣
The meaning I inferred from15:50 and onwards has some deeply philosophical and spiritual consequences.
Sounds like tripping / visions to me.
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis.
So is mechanism and science ;)
@@lukastabrizi1335 What?
@@MrIkesimba Yes, say 'whaaaat' :)
@@lukastabrizi1335 You should stay away from the drugs.
@@MrIkesimba You could reflect a little on what science is; what our senses and language is capable of. But you can also just take drugs - might give instant insight. Haha!
My brain broke
It's very strange the way he decided to spell his name in English
Lex has the charisma of an envelope
Woop di doo Basil, what does it all mean?
Supersymmetric particles from another dimensional parallel universe, could be what the dark matter is in our 4 dimentional universe. 🤔
Ethan the HR nightmare!😂
This is like science fiction not real physics
Cumrun vafa is a cool name
Surely I'm naive, but I detect an issue. The logical steps are...
(1) 2 fundamental theories are in conflict.
(2) resolve conflict by theorizing new fundamental elements.
(3) discover that those theoretical elements don't model well in 3 dimensions.
(4) assume there must be more dimensions.
Unless there is some extraordinary way to make observations, this seems more like metaphysics than physics.
I'll bite:
(1) 2 fundamental theories are in conflict.
None of them are fundamental then. The whole point is to find the fundamental theory that describes the observable universe. Maybe you meant something like "The two best theories that we have describing different things about the universe are incompatible" ? That's a different thing altogether. We also know that the theory of relativity is unlikely to be completely correct, because of black holes. So the first assumption misrepresents the issue a bit. We have really strong indication that quantum mechanics is correct, and that a 'theory of everything' will come about by finding mathematical descriptions that fit quantum mechanics and can describe gravity. The other way around is less likely.
(2) resolve conflict by theorizing new fundamental elements.
What exactly do you mean by 'fundamental elements'? ( or maybe you meant "theoretical elements" )
(3) discover that those theoretical elements don't model well in 3 dimensions.
(4) assume there must be more dimensions.
When the theory of relativity came about, the math itself predicted black holes. If the theory of relativity is approximately correct in describing some observations about the universe, then black holes exist. For over a hundred years, no one had seen black holes. Skeptics called black holes 'metaphysics'. But this is based on a misunderstanding of mathematical descriptions of physical reality. If you write down some equations that attempt to describe something, and these equations turn out to be good, then the equations might be carrying with them other, unforeseen implications about physical phenomena. The maths themselves seem to be running ahead of our ability to observe things. This has been a consistent pattern in the last few hundred years. People write down math trying to describe things, and these very equations lend themselves to a host of different things no one could have predicted (or seen given the technological and scientific capabilities of their time).
If string theory is very successful at unifying gravity and quantum mechanics, then it is likely that there's something there. Just as there was something there when Einstein wrote down equations that 'implied' that black holes exist. Or when our equations 'implied' that anti-matter exists. Or when... the list goes on and on.
Of course it is easy to be misled like that, and string theory could be a fruitless effort. But this common critique of the theory is very shortsighted.
"Unless there is some extraordinary way to make observations, this seems more like metaphysics than physics." You could go back 100+ years and say exactly the same about black holes. Or space flight. Or anti-matter, or Quarks, or whatever. And that's why such forms of criticism are 'naive'. They have a terrible track record.
There's an interesting observation to be made here. If one assumes that the observable universe follows physical laws, then surely both gravitational behavior of stuff and quantum mechanical behavior of stuff needs to 'intersect', since objects in the universe take part in both phenomena at the same time. Thus there must be a mathematical model that describes both gravity and quantum mechanics at the same time.
The only 'good' criticism is alternative mathematical descriptions of reality that can deal with the incompatibilities between the two theories that give rise to infinite quantities. If you can deal with these infinite quantities properly, then you have something (there's obviously no infinite quantities around). Each theory works really well separately. There 'must' be a way to connect the two, since particles and stuff 'live' under both at the same time.
@@markos635567 The only thing I'll say, and I don't know the answer, is how many times has the math implied something that later turned out to be wrong. There might be a selection bias there, you only know about the times the math implied something and it turned out to be right. It's entirely possible that there are 10x as many times where the implications of an equation turned out to be incorrect, we just never hear about them. If that's true, then it undermines your argument.
P.S. have you heard of quantized inertia? I don't know what to make of it, but it apparently doesn't require dark matter to explain what we see, and can explain at least some macroscopic behavior via quantum processes. Which to me seems promising. The fewer assumptions you have to make, the better.
@@spracketskooch Your comment is technically correct, but practically meaningless. You should re-read your initial comment about string theory being metaphysics.
An equation turning out to be false is still part of physics. You basically contradicted your initial point there.
In short :
equation implying something that takes years to be confirmed: Has happened
equation implying something that takes years to be falsified: Has happened
Even if the second one happens 100x as often as the first one:
a) none of the two is metaphysics
b) given the transformative results of the one in one hundred (computers, spaceships, the internet etc), it's worth pursuing. The upside is literally transforming the world.
So how does it undermine my argument again?
@@markos635567 Given that both confirmation and falsification both do/ have happened, and we have no way of telling which it will be beforehand, using purely the fact that the implications of an equation have proven to be correct in the past to bolster the case for pursuing string theory, isn't a good argument. That said, with the added addendum of the potential for world transforming outcomes, your argument becomes much stronger.
Although I still think that 30+ years without a single piece of experimental evidence in it's favor, as far as I know, should mean maybe we should start considering pursuing alternative approaches. Also, can you point me to a technological development that has come from pursuing string theory? I'm not trying to be snarky, I genuinely want to know if there are any.
@@spracketskooch
"using purely the fact that the implications of an equation have proven to be correct in the past to bolster the case for pursuing string theory, isn't a good argument."
The problem here though is that we kind of know that a unifying theory exists, as i explained in my previous comment. So the argument mostly rests on the (reasonable) expectation that a single equation must be behind both current theories. That's where the argument in favor of String Theory ultimately rests, along with other similar theories. Physicists pursue String Theory because it's mathematically compelling to them, which might seem arbitrary but has made sense historically. Of course there is no guarantee that something 'beautiful' or simple is more likely to be true, but it tends to be a factor for various reasons.
I agree with you completely about searching for alternatives. That's very much a 'human' problem, especially when many alternative theories are shunned, funding is limited etc.
It's been many years and the fact that there are no results could indeed be worrying.
But again, if for example we need a particle accelerator going around the solar system to check some predictions, the theory isn't unscientific, just merely out of reach of our current technological abilities. So where do we draw the line?
We kind of know already that most low-hanging fruits of science and technology have been grabbed. I expect such difficulties to be honest. There are so many minds working into unifying our two best theories, that if an 'easy, and easily verifiable' one existed we would know by now.
I don't think there has been technological developments stemming from string theory.
The only interesting thing is how there have been mathematical developments from string theory, a weird and rare inversion. And these might in turn become useful in a few hundred years, as is common with progress in math.
I remember Leonard Susskind saying in an interview that some predictions of string theory might need a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy (maybe he was joking, but you get the point). Does this make string theory a physical theory or not? Imagine if this is true, and our only known way to test the theory. How much effort should we put in string theory then? For how long? How much effort in finding alternative experimental setups? How much in alternative theories?
I should conclude with this: For something to be metaphysical, it must be unfalsifiable even in principle. Since we don't know enough about the universe yet, there's an enormous set of theories out there, yet we can't tell for sure if they are true or even scientific. So we can't decide yet on what category they belong.
We truly live in very interesting times.
In a world with a functioning and verified theory of everything, deciding on the physicality of a mathematical model would be easier (probably? hopefully?).
..never mind.
Absolutely love your comment! Almost heard it in my head; like walking into a discussion of transubstantiation between Theologians and recognizing that the significance of the question itself will invalidate your existence!
The word he struggles to find is, it sounds "contrived."
Physicists will say that gravity is the weakest Force but I think gravity is the strongest force it's just getting poured through so many faucets that it seems like it is nothing we started thinking about other dimensions and how many dimensions there were well gravity works on all dimensions gravity is everywhere it is the greatest force in the universe yet it is so spread out but it seems really pathetic and weak
They mean it is literally the weakest force. Like the other forces would tug on something more compared to gravity
Here’s the thing truthfully; string theorist assume that the Gravity is an actual force and it’s produced by an elusive particle field called a graviton. So far there hasn’t been any evidence of a graviton. There’s also this false idea that gravity is weak, rather then looking at the strength of gravity, as nothing more then the mass or energy exerted on space time. Meaning that a mass of a planet will create a curvature of space time, but the gravity will still be weak enough we’re the other forces of nature will still over come it’s weak gravitational interactions. But what if gravity was a lot stronger, due to larger mass or energy created a warp in space time? Let’s say a black hole as an example? Then in the singularity of a black hole, the force of gravity becomes infinite, and electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces will yield to the gravity of a black holes singularity. What this mathematical equation means is that the strength of gravity is nothing more then the amount of mass or energy that is creating a warping of space, the gravitational force of a black hole singularity will over come all of the strong forces of the universe. So gravity isn’t created due to elusive particle fields of a graviton but rather the degree of strength of the mass and energy of a planet, star or a black hole.
Cumrun? Come on. Really? I'm so immature 😂
Uhhh...what?
Spiderweb
No. Just no.
The man is describing exactly what you see on certain Psychedelics and doesn't even know.
How do you know he doesn’t know?
@@eriklucasmusic exactly what I was going to ask!
Classic burnout statement
@@julianaddison20 I think you'd change your tune if you ever experienced psychedelics. I've seen polygonal shapes that can't exist in 3D space. It's literally impossible to convey to you what I saw, but the most similar thing I can point you towards is a representation of a 4D cube rotating. The best way I can describe the psychedelic experience is that it imbues every particle of existence with profound meaning. That's why you can stare at one object for hours. The fog pulls back and you can see the long chain of events that lead to that object existing. You can appreciate the profound unlikelihood that any of it exists at all, that your consciousness exists and can perceive and understand. The gratitude from all of this can be overwhelming. In short, you've been lied to about psychedelics for decades. Whatever you're imagining they're like, they're nothing like that.
Isn't it interesting that the substances that can make you question deeply, and fill you with gratitude and love, are illegal, while the substances that slowly kill you, keep you numb, and in the case of alcohol make you more aggressive, are legal? It's almost like it was done on purpose to keep us numb and apathetic so we can be busy little worker bees making honey for the queen. Every society in history has used some type of drug, most have used psychedelics as part of a normal life. It's only in the past 100 years that our society has banned their use, and I think it shows. We have no outlet for transcendent experience, which is a normal and healthy part of human life. We have no overarching "myth", and you can see people substituting other ideologies in place of that. It's just a fact that we have a religious impulse, and when that doesn't have a healthy outlet that energy gets directed into other things, like politics.
Sheldon would be so proud! More important, Lex why are single? you are such a beautiful person! Put a new item on you morning mantras! You are a gem, thanks Joe Rogan 😊
Here’s the thing truthfully string theorist assume that the Gravity is an actual force and it’s produced by an elusive particle field called a graviton. So far there hasn’t been any evidence of a graviton. There’s also this false idea that gravity is weak, rather then looking at the strength of gravity, as nothing more then the mass or energy exerted on space time. Meaning that a mass of a planet will create a curvature of space time, but the gravity will still be weak enough we’re the other doves of nature will still over come it’s weak gravitational interactions. But what if gravity was a lot stronger, due to larger mass or energy created a warp in space time? Let’s say a black hole as an example? Then in the singularity of a black hole, the force of gravity becomes infinite, and electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces will yield to the gravity of a black holes singularity. What this mathematical equation means is that the strength orb gravity is nothing more then the amount of mass or energy that is creating a warping of space, the gravitational force of a black hole singularity will over come all of the strong forces of the universe. So gravity isn’t created due to elusive particle fields of a graviton but the degree of strength of the mass and energy of a planet, star or a black hole.
String theory is a scam. I could word salad explain any fantasy idea too.
Is it just me, or does Lex seem bored in this clip?
Lex, I'm CIA agent I remember me as you in the 90's filming in Farragut. String theory is one thing but math is needed for everything. I'm in God's class. These are my works right now. Physics,. Formics, Physics by Nature, Physics by Mechanics, Contiplation by Memory. I got 14 more to go after that. That's not contemplation.
Hehehe.... cumrun
Cumrun
Geometric Unity.
😴
I intuitively know all this stuff. I must be smarter than all of you combined.
Cumrun😂😂😂
I think how much of this is true? I would follow the money anyway.
Nonsense lol
I think the string theory is bollocks.
Everything "new" in physics isn't even observable anymore. Strings, dark matter, dark energy... like wtf are you guys hunting there?
Just look at your current models and think about why they are wrong instead of coming up with nonsense to fix those holes in the current model nobody can measure anyway.
Go read some of the papers being filed in peer reviewed journals. They explain everything in great detail.
The new things can be tested, we have a rationale for what tests are valid and the technology needed to perform the tests. You view seems sullied by the way mainstream media tends to sensationalize science for clicks and merely because it is hard to put into layman terms while maintaining accuracy
Have you ever seen a full version of the standard model in quantum field theory (which is by its predictions the currently most accurate theory in all of science)? It's a hodgepodge of different terms all with completely different flavors and the equations, when written out, are endlessly long. That's exactly what they are trying to fix. Physicists are very well aware of those concerns you mention - no need to arm-chair-philosophize yourself above them.
Well there you go. By that reasoning Einstein does no thought experiments. Good idea?
@@JustinLockwood44 I'd be interested to know what test can differentiate between a point like particle and a point like string, or how we can test for seven tiny new spacial dimensions, if you know. Also I'd like to say that dark matter is clearly incomplete, seeing as they found a galaxy with no dark matter in it recently, and as far as I know it exhibits the same behaviors as other galaxies that are supposed to contain dark matter. Another thing, again as far as I know, quantized inertia can explain the rotation of galaxies with physics we already know, without inventing a new substance that can't be seen and only interacts via gravity. I just can't for the life of me understand why string theory gets so much attention when it has little to no observational evidence to back it up. Especially when there are other interesting ideas out there that make testable predictions that most people haven't even heard about.
I think if scientists stopped dumbing things down so much it would address some of the issues that I, and people like me have. I might not be able to do the math, but i can understand abstract concepts and logic. When people take the time to explain these concepts while also assuming I'm not an idiot, I find myself saying things like, "Oh that's how they arrived at this conclusion, they didn't just make something up, there's a long line of logic that led to this." I guess string theory and dark matter haven't been explained too well, because it seems to me like they said, "hmmm, what could I add here that would make my theory work. What would have to happen to make it true?" then just made up terms to fit the holes in the theory. Which is fine, sometimes that's a valid tactic. It's just that when you haven't made any experimental progress to bolster that assumption in 30+ years, it gets to the point where maybe we should start trying a different approach. That's just my two cents, and I'm probably wrong, but I would like to know exactly why I'm wrong.
First like what what!!!
... when he mentioned graviton, I lost all interest...
Why?
@@Matt-wv3if : because I realized the gravity of the situation.... is independent of reality...
What's the problem with gravitons?
@@Frandahab they gravitate towards delusion that something contrived from inference somehow leads to existence! 🥸
@@caterpod hm I mean, gravitons are elegant...
One dimensional strings? I’m sorry what
String Theory really has always sounded like a lot of baseless nonsense to me, and it still does after listening to this guy. Then again, what do I know. But I do believe it was Eric Weinstein who said that String Theory isn't even a theory, and even calling it a hypothesis would be generous, and I respect that guy and his knowledge in this field a lot more than random String Theorists so I'm just gonna go with my gut and call BS on this one.
I have a theory. all theories are subjective opinions.
Conclusion? String theory is a bunch of BS.
Spoiler: i dont belive the earth is flat but sometimes i am amazed that conspiracy theoriests (specially in the extreme way) count as sick and dumb but when the most educated persons create these crazy unproofen theories they count as highly Intelligent and healthy... little bit weired no ?
They create projections based on proven science and mathematics. Conspiracy theorists often draw extreme conclusions based on little factual evidence --when you're discussing an extreme situation such as rationalizing the interaction between a black hole and a the rest of reality I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a complicated answer. Your inability to understand aspects of mathematics and science is not evidence against it.
@@johnny1587 i know you feel very clever but there is a reason why scientists call it theory .. just saying wannabe
@@alexandergeuze4689 I was telling you the difference between the credibility of either theorist. I never claimed to be a scientist nor did I claim that theories were facts. You should learn how to make an argument without mixing in your own personal insecurities.
@@johnny1587 i explained that it doesnt care if i understand the math or whatever behind ... its only Digital calculations, produced by an predefined algorhytm... even if only the smalles variable is wrong its all nonsense ... as all is theory equally to conspiracies its just fiction ... and to be honest ... most conspiracies are more proofen then these theories... so my question: why doesnt count these people as sick is still open ... but thanks answering a question with absolutly no answer, telling me that i just dont understand (so you got personal) and for wasting our both time for nothing
@@alexandergeuze4689 brother its ok not to understand things.. that doesnt mean its bullshit. you clearly dont have a clue.
Take me back to the Times these topics were talked about with a good interviewer. JRE#100
" let's talk about string theory ok uh so um we will start with what is string theory "
No flow to the conversation, feels unnatural. I miss feeling like you're there like early JRE
Why am I forced to listen to this at 360p??