What we don’t know...we don’t know ....is such a profound insight....i am from 1950, and what an incredible ride it has been over these almost 70 years....how exiting to be alive ...and what a privilege to share in some of these incredible new discoveries and insights...the infinite intellect and talent out there is beyond understanding
@@iambeing3305 there have been various changes in society and technology since the 50s...this person literally lived through the aids epidemic, so I fail to see why you think there have been no new insights in the past 70 years.
As a business management student who has never had an applicable need to take science courses beyond the general requirements, these free lectures about the most important breakthroughs in science mean so much to those who are curious novices
Because it IS simple. There's nothing difficult about their theory. It's a bust though. There are no "curled up extra dimensions" in our reality. They're all just chasing their tails.
@@iambeing3305 A dimension is simply a direction of free movement... As far as I know, we experience three spatial dimensions (up/down, right/left, front/back) and not one of them is "Earth", though earth has at least three. Another dimension just means another direction for motion, which isn't that out-of-the-box idea, either (: it's kind of freaky and contradictory to our observable, relative world, but isn't breaking what we take to be the truth part of learning?
Love this format of 1-2-1...what a great discussion...Brian is so great as a (mega) knowledgeable host and allowing his brilliant guests to talk...it is truly inspiring and amazing to think we humans (at least some of us) know so much so far.. science is just so astounding...Thank you for bringing this to us, the general public.
The secret of ultimately understanding the universal complexity lies in our understanding the quantum field, which holds the secret of dark matter, dark energy, inflation, gravity, space time, etc. But physicists are way behind and doesn't seem to give due importance, except Maldacena, Nima and a few others.
@@HardDie I think cosmic consciousness reside in the QF and can self-simulate intelligent 'observer', collapsing the field into particles/strings, creating the universe and life, so man and god are entangled.
Eastern mystics discovered thousands of years ago "...None of the properties of any part of the web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of any of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their inter-relations determines the structure of the entire web". [The Tao of Physics].
Wonder what Donald Trump thinks about all this..zz...suppose all he does not like is false news..how can a country elect an idiot like DT to the highest office when there are listening to this series obviously vastly more intelligent Americans to choose from.....whats wrong with a system that gives rather dumb people such prominent positions
Wow Brian Green is no less than the scientists he is interviewing. His dramatic explanation of the string theory makes it so simple. Feel so blessed having all these great minds think for us. God bless
He is 'explaining' theories, which is why it's called Theoretical Science, not Science means true and the same goes for Theoretical Physics. -marc27, The Truth Finder
I love this format. Well-produced introduction, for one. Also, in this conversational way, the interviewer can focus on the quality of the conversation instead of the distribution of time among a panel of participants. I bet that’s exactly why you decided to do this. Also, I LOVE an interviewer who is an expert in the field *and* is quite aware of the interplay between them, their guest, and the audience. They will know what to ask to guide both guest and audience to a truly informative and enjoyable conversation. ‘Lay’ interviewers tend to - sometimes understandably - interrupt too many times as they didn’t know what to ask in the first place, only to realise halfway their guest’s answer they should have asked something else first, inadvertently halting their guest’s train of thought, only to interrupt for a ‘let’s go back a step’ question. So... I love this. Well done!
Listened to this 30 times! Absolutely fascinating and so informative. What a great format! More of these Brian please!!! Less is more! Too many physics debates with too many participants. This was simply superb!
The more I listened to this beautiful forum the more I conclude that there's God: all this complexity can't happen without an Almighty designer-God. Suggestion: all the world scientists should come together and fast for 40 days and, sincerely beg God for the understanding of these complexities of His creation. God will definitely help us all to know how he did it. The first speaker was right: just as we find the unification equation, there'll be even too many questions than before to solve. God is always far above humans. Praise God.
@@danielamoako3065 im an atheist but I also dont rule out that there may be something Godlike in our universe. We cannot say for sure how our universe came to be. We can explain the timeline but pyhsics breaks down when we get close to the start of the universe. There may be a higher being somewhere. Although if so I dont think it affects life on earth.
Top notch. Great the way Brian pulls ‘me ‘, the non physicist, into an intelligent conversation instead of dumbing things down. It’s reminiscent of the high standards of Scientific American back in the 1950’s and 60’s. It's a positive that there’s a ravenous hunger by an educated public for ‘more’.
I love these World Science Festival talks and Dr. Brian Greene is an exceptional host/moderator. Coupled with the presentations by the Royal Institute, I spend half the night as an enthusiastic listener.
Wow, so many years ago I've read Marcelo's and Brian's books and by chance got into this video, so great when physicists are devoted to further the interest in physics and science
He is 'explaining' theories, which is why it's called Theoretical Science, not Science means true and the same goes for Theoretical Physics. -marc27, The Truth Finder
@@marcdouglasvogt7167 A theory in science isn't just a tentative ideology, it's regarded as the highest possible descriptive model of some phenomenon (above hypotheses and prostulates).
I really enjoyed the third conversation with Andrew Strominger, he seems extremely passionate about his work and has very respectable ideas, fantastic video
Andrew Strominger perfectly describes a black hole through string theory, the best explanation I have ever heard. I might add that strings of quantum physics make up the walls of a black hole which defines the wormhole which is empty or hollow, allowing information to fall through it into extra dimensions. Information is not contained inside a black hole but merely passes through it.
@@DrDeuteron A bit late but according to the chapters they begin to discuss black holes at about one hour in and stay on the topic throughout, have a look 59:00
In following many of these debates, i‘ve come to the conclusion, that quantum physics and the relativity theory are like electricity and programming of a system, they need each other, but on a differeent level.
I like the epistemological undertones of this ...I often muse on the chance mathematical descriptions of reality speak more about our desire to communicate ideas and our sapen inclinations for pattern recognition and the need to bend nature into descriptive terms
Looking Forward to this-I love these World Science Festival videos-they have completely blown my mind and got me interested in Physics. I will never understand the maths but I love the discussions on the concepts and theories. I love also the fact that the various luminaries in these discussions (some of the smartest people in the room) seem so humble and approachable and have a great sense of humour. Brian Greene is a legend at explaining difficult concepts in a way that can be understood by in layman's terms. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant....
Star Trek Theory So these physicists didn’t tell the engineers what was needed for the Large Hadron Collider to be built to function as they envisioned? Engineers apply what scientists discover. Your every comment reveals your idiocy.
Star Trek Theory Sorry that you aren’t allowed to use the LHC. Dilletantes are not allowed. But skepticism is good, man. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” Go prove you are right, and make a useful application of your theory. Back to the talk. Good luck
Question 47:15 How do we define the Coordinates for 3D space? What do we define them in relation to? How do those 3D coordinates interact with general relativity? If we define them as absolute, then what is the absolute? If we define them in relation to spacetime, how do we define the geometry of spacetime itself?
I really like this one-at-a-time discussion format much better than the panel discussions. Any one of them could just give the whole lecture at this basic (for them) level, so the panel discussions seemed so overkill. This one-at-a-time moves really well.
It’s time for The World Science Festival to get little side tables or something suitable for their drinks. Drinks on the floor should be beyond them by now. Great discussions as always. And of course, a superb job done by Brian Greene and the entire World Science Festival.
While describing special relativity at about 13:50, Brian says "space and time work together so that the speed of light is the same" for all (inertial) observers. It's actually deeper than that. It's not just the speed of light that's constant. Using the speed of light c as the conversion factor between units of length and units of time, the speed of everything (including light) through 4-dimensional spacetime is the same as the speed of light through 3-dimensional space. That result follows from the equation for the Twins Paradox and an application of the Pythagorean theorem. The faster anything moves through 3D space, the slower it ages, and applying the Pythagorean theorem shows that the length of the 4D hypotenuse is constant. Some corollaries: (1) Light doesn't age. (2) A motionless object ages at the speed c. (3) Nothing can travel through 3D space faster than light (unless it's aging at an imaginary rate, which is assumed to be impossible).
I feel it is fascinating that the Strominger grop, as far as I understood, arrived at exactly the same equation as Hawking regarding the black hole, but along a completely different path. I feel this is a very strong hint that the string theory, as applied by them, is correct. Otherwise, it seems like a miracle coincidence!
Absolutely riveting to listen to these great theorists describing their life's work. I really appreciated the intellectual honesty that Greene has about the potential implications for string theory based on the lack of experimental observation of these supersymmetrical particles so far. The second gentleman was also pretty honest about his surprise that the Higgs was actually found, although I was not clear about what the Higgs portends for string theory persay. Thanks so much to Mr. Greene for enlightening we the general public through these superb presentations. The world is better for it.
The string theorists were expecting that the energy of the Higgs particle would be significantly different from what's predicted by QFT, which would make QFT kinda incomplete and provide more strength to the String Theory implications. Unfortunately, both experiments looking for Higgs Boson found it in the exact range predicted by QFT, which makes String Theory that much more shaky. If theoretical physicists are looking for something to work on, they should move to Cosmology. That's where there's real unsolved problems; and give up on this 21 dimension multiple universe nonsense.
Indeed. Nothing sits still in nature, ever. Whence comes this impetus for constant movement? It is a universal driver. What is universal, behind everything, powers everything, has inherent power and ‘just is’?
@@SaRa-cs5nc What he probably means is that animations look cool. One problem though: they don't give an actual understanding of the subject matter, not even close. It's like saying that computers move ones and zeroes around and showing corresponding animations. Well, yeah, they do, but how does that help understand how and why programs work, and how we are able to communicate on RUclips? I guess this surface-level animation stuff works for kids :) Sadly there is no hint of children-oriented content in the title.
The ONLY way to advance theoretical physics is to broaden the umbrella of thinkers. After years of trying to solve deep problems in manufacturing facilities, what I have always found is that someone who knew nothing about what they were looking at is where I found those answers. Those people held NO paradigms that people who had been working on it up to that point. The reason that the number of people working on this is so laughably small is that the rest of the population has a paradigm that they aren’t qualified or intelligent enough to come up with an idea. The reason that it takes as long as it does to find truths is that there are too few people offering creative ideas. The greatest discovery ever made in this field was with Einstein. At its roots, Einstein discovered general relativity through curiosity and creativity and persistence. The only reason we have had such rapid advancements in every other area of humanity is due to quantity of people that contribute. Theoretical physicists are so puzzled why they can’t find answers and agonize over it. The question they need to ask is “why are so few people of the world not involved in solving the problems”. This will cause them to pursue them to totally redirect their efforts. I feel the role and purpose and their most effective contribution needs to be coordinators and managers of problem solving. They need to get as many human beings offering ideas to problems like CEO’s and managers of business make so many advancements. Physicists are experts at math and science and the history of scientific progression. Successful CEO’s and leaders are creative, and curious. Most are not at all experts in the technical parts of the business. They employ the technical people to provide the information and verification of ideas that arise from imagination and logic that ALL people possess in varying degrees. Being a manager in businesses over the last 30 years, people would be totally shocked at who I found my answers from
They are in the middle of a field of work few in the general public are privy too or able to readily discuss. They are skilled in advanced mathematics. They are curious, skeptical, insightful. They are persistent and hopeful. Is that part of your definition of brilliance?
Your comment is EXACTLY why knowledge is sparse and often a lie. Who exactly told you that you can't know things? You did. Where does knowledge and truth come from? Truth is. Knowledge is. You need to simply tune into it
I used to believe they had brilliance beyond comprehension. I have very recently changed my mind. I think we are selling ourselves short. High level math can be intimidating, but that is mostly what these guys are talented at. Think about the word that precedes the word “physics” in their title?... the word is “theoretical”. The rest is basically imagination combined with an incredible amount of curiosity to drive the discipline needed to concentrate for very long periods of time. So if that is a component of intelligence then I don’t think they are anywhere near rare. What is slowing the results is that there are not nearly enough people pursuing answers. My “theory” is that 99.9% of the population are assuming they could never be “qualified” enough to contribute.
@@whtfsh765, yeah, I've never understood how anyone can do that. I watched this interview advice thing one time saying that was better than putting your ankle on your knee because it looks tacky. Ok, guess I'll squish my nuts and get this job ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@HoneybunMegapack it wasn't invented...math, time, and geometry were taken from cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia, along with astronomy and other disciplines.
I need to preface my question with saying I have no science education. I am just highly fascinated by it. When I first heard the concept of strings, I thought “of course!”. After years trying to understand it more, all I have are more questions. I am afraid to ask them here for fear of looking like an idiot. BUT I I am feeling brave right now so here goes.. 1. WHAT makes the string vibrate exactly the same way? If that string would in any way vibrate differently would create a different particle. If particles would change than the orange in his example could turn into something else right before you eyes or even disappear. 2. WHAT is the string composed of? IF the are different dimensions as proposed, then inside of them could be strings that have even different dimensions. 3. If strings have different dimensions then COULD those different dimensions contain SOMETHING that drives the string).
Understanding compex things in simple and easy way is the art of genius. Brian Greene is creating environment to understand everything scientifically and eliminating superstitions .
Brilliant professors! We should have more initiatives like this one here in Brazil too. Yotube channels can be a great place to do that. Imagine you and other colleagues having great conversations about mathematical, experimental aspects and this great struggle to understand nature and a young Brazilian generation watching it. You can create a good generation of scientists here and help us fight for the future of the country world. PLEASE HELP US. WE HVE GREAT MINDS HERE!!!
String "theory" deveria ser classificado como religião. Todas as previsoes deles estavam erradas. Toda vez que uma particula prevista na "teoria" nao é encontrada, eles refazem os calculos e dizem que é preciso construir um acelerador de particulas maior..Quando os cientistas estudaram a propagação das ondas gravitacionais detectadas, eles descobriram que nao existem dimensoes extras. Vamos ver qual desculpa esse pessoal vai inventar agora. String "theory" is an academic job program and a scam.
This is a wonderful demonstration of a narrative of science by scientists for whom this is their way of LIVING with meaning & purpose ... GRATEFUL for the opportunity to see - hear - enjoy you, Brian, in a terrific DIALOGUE with your good friends. Hard as it is to pick among them, as they all are terrific, my FAVORITE is Andrew S... For me, he is REALLY INSPIRATIONAL. So glad to be ALIVE to enjoy this session. KEEP ON... MTL, MD
I’ve just fallen a sleep while listening to this and HAD THE WILDEST MIND-BLOWING DREAM AND ALMOST FIGURED OUT THE SECRET THAT LIES BEHIND THE STRING THEORY, but forgot all about it as soon as I woke up
Brian, could we be looking in the wrong direction. Is it theoretically possible that the dimensions we see on a macro scale are, in fact, the tiny, curled up extra dimensions of dimensions even larger still?
It's good to think! Nobody knows what is happening in the real world but we can conceive models via analogy and experiment. One that I value is when you turn a full open bottle upside down - liquid comes out and then stops, then bursts forth again ... it's like a choke...
09:15 The moving electromagnetic field runs perpendicular to gravitational waves, and the unified universe oscillates from -♾️ to +♾️ to condense and expand the matter of the universe, producing the evidence we observe as Brownian motion.
We NEED to stop arguing over useless shit. Especially the USA. People are wasting too much time in politics instead of helping and pushing humanity forward.
I ultimately have the sense that our explorations give us new words (formula) , sometimes new sentences, in what turns out to be a long narrative. We keep thinking we might be coming to a sentence that will be a vista, but ultimately it's only a note on a tree, in a forest, of a........
It seems very interesting that the string theory of prof Kaku,is not only very much in compliance with,but ot also rather completing and explanaing the "unified energy theory of entanglement" In the sense that,for onething it is also confirming the creation and emmission of semiotic energy waves from and within the structures of atoms at quantum level,which due to string musical and sismionic nature of the strings vibrations could only best be explained as to create nothing else but scalarewaves,also at each and every direction vertical and horizontals and at different levels,hence explaining and confirming the emission and creation of scalarwaves practicaly also at universal level,and from any surface or and material for that matter and hence throughout the entire universe ,And hence we can find direct correlations and compliances confirming the scalarwave technology can also cover the string theory as well.and that is a good sign.right freinds?
@Brad Watson evidence of God? You show one evidence and I will be religious! Maybe you're the one who ignores all the scientific evidence against the religious stories of God??
Hypothesis 1:11:00 The issue of black holes destroying entropy is perhaps resolved if entropy is maintained in a set of timespace coordinates, which while existing in conditions we cannot observe directly, still embody the information they contained while in the spacetime regime. The act of forward becoming down doesn't destroy the data, it merely converts it from data.spctm to data.tmspc The event horizon doesn't break entropy, it just re-formats entropy for timespace instead of the spacetime version we're familiar with and understand. Furthermore, attempting to read data encoded in timespace using a spacetime based decryption algorithm will not work. We would need to develop an algorithm to reconcile spacetime and timespace, then run our theory of entropy through that algorithm to determine how entropy would behave in a region of timespace. You're still operating in 4D, but now time is 3D and space only has 1 dimension, and you can only realistically travel in 1 of the two possible directions represented by this dimension. We would be able to travel up, down, left, right, forwards and backwards temporally, and we would have a scale representing forwards and backwards, but we could only travel forwards, and always at a rate relative to our gravimetric 'altitude'. Normally, we can travel up, down, left, right, forwards and backwards spacially, and while we have a scale for time, we can only travel forwards through time and at a rate that is determined by our gravimetric 'altitude'.
Hypothesis 42:00 The reason the LHC isn't going to work is as follows: We're trying to use a system which has fallen victim to eons of entropy to describe the conditions present when entropy first began. We simply don't have access to the levels of energy required to create the supersymmetric particles. We never will have access to that level of energy, even if we were to become a K4 civilisation. To successfully perform that experiment would require us to be able to reverse entropy back to the beginning. I think the masses of the sparticles will have to be so large they will outweigh entire galaxies, and that if we were able to create them, we would then have to develop theories to explain their structures, and connecting those at the Planck scale would be the ultimate solution to physics. However, that relies on us having access to and control of enough energy to reverse entropy to the Planck scale, possibly beyond it. It is also possible that particle theory and sparticles theory diverged before the beginning of entropy, and that reuniting the two theories would require you to be further back in time than the Big Bang itself.
@The Real Slim Brady first off, incorrect. Further away things are not back in time. We perceive them to be back in time because the light speed is finite. Also that doesnt disprove dark energy, since it doesnt explain the increasing acceleration if space itself away from all points. Your explanation is both incorrect and a massive disservice to parade it as truth. Also time is the factor, as every subsequent measurement shows galaxies farther way are red shifted more. Light does not shift without input and can remain in its spectra indefinitely if not acted up. In the vaccum of space you would not expect(all variables we are aware of accounted for) light to further red shift. But they do, and this because spacetime itself is stretching more rapidly than before. Unless you can provide numbers to prove your hypothesis, you are not a good source of anything but misinformation.
@The Real Slim Brady actually we can by measuring the rate of acceleration from previous points, allowing us to extrapolate a new velocity. That's just basic algebra
@The Real Slim Brady @Marc Perez maybe i'm wrong but to me it's totally logical that further and further galaxies have higher redshift , for they are closer and closer to the big bang : it doesn't matter if you look up or down or left or right or wherever : you're _always_ looking in the direction of the big bang , which of course is quite heavy . . .
20:35 I'm really struggling to understand why super-symmetry is bolted onto the side to create superstring theory. What's wrong with unifying the Electro-Weak and the Strong Nuclear forces, and then unifying the electro-nuclear with gravity and stopping there? What part of reality can only be explained by including super-symmetry? Every other part of the tree originated from observable phenomena. Electrons + Magnetism = Electro-magnetism Electro-magnetism + Weak nuclear force = Electro-weak Electro-Weak + Strong nuclear force = Electro-Nuclear Electro-Nuclear + Gravity = Theory of Everything Why do we need super symmetry? What effect are we trying to explain? How does super symmetry explain that force?
I always enjoy Brian Greene's warmth and intelligence. He's not afraid to look outside the box. I think of all the thrilling and magical possibilities of our universe. Most all the speakers seem to be exceptionally cool.
Rajarajan Manoharan lol Tyson is just very enthusiastic about the cosmo. He never truly grew out of the kid-in-a-candy-store phase. But, I do agree that he can overpower others with his projected voice, not to mention, his sheer physique.
Dear Docs; Time and entanglement are mutually exclusive as superposition precludes acceleration and the time function. That's why we need a dual membrane electromagnetic field with an antimatter half-brane that doesn't have a time function and this brane produces entanglement through strings that are paired with matter strings to form 1 to 3 aspect ratio tori that we call gravitons. The circuit or conduction tensor formed in the torus keeps these strings from annihilating as does the conduction tensor holding graviton clusters together, (looks like a barbell). Time just renders these antimatter strings into a recessive manifestation in the graviton and in subsequently more complex structures incorporating gravitons. Gravity is just the electromagnetic/fluid dynamics processes applied to the flow of graviton and graviton clusters around and through Standard Model particles. The clusters are actually gluons that were formed en mass during the GUT Epoch and are continually formed in SM particle cores. These gluons/clusters act like a dipole gas subject to condensation via Feshbach resonance and BCS field effect, and this condensate is formed in the electromagnetic field of galaxies as dark matter that is scattered by cosmic rays to appear as point source gravity. The dipole gas is spin and charge coupled on the surface of leptons and baryons to form the Higgs field emanating from the equator that operates as an electromagnetic rectenna generating space-time viscosity as it captures the momentum from the resonant strings in the gravitons and clusters flying through the field. The gas is also the working fluid for a gravitational propulsion system operating as an “ion thruster” through the core of the leptons and baryons. Dark energy is just the increase in quantum friction of the propulsion system in barren space where the Higgs field remains unimpaired to drag the particle backwards toward even less dense space like a sea anchor.
@@madhoneybeeking The positive "antimatter" strings that constitute half of the photon structure is just a string from the ubiquitous 3-brane soliton that stores all information at every point in space but doesn't have a time function. When the 3-brane string collides with the negative 4-brane string they annihilate and revert to ground state space, which again is just a 3-brane soliton that can be modified by EMF to generate space-time in the form of photons that can daisy-chain into other standard model particle structure.
Thank you thank you thank you!. I didnt complete high school. That was ten years ago, ive watch all these talks its what im about School wasnt at the right time of my life "Just because somethings not known doesn't mean it can't be"
Ultimately, Mark, we all need to be our own best teachers. Just watch out for the brain washing. Speakers who want you to believe them have a couple of techniques:. One is to manipulate your feelings using lots of adjectives and telling you what to conclude. That's outright propaganda. Another technique is just to outright lie about important facts. Do a search for some videos about identifying propaganda. Then always check important facts. Nothing is really true. It only has a probability of being true. Good luck. Texas Tech will let you complete an accredited GED online for an affordable price, if I recall correctly. My son also had some issues with being too smart for his teachers so I homeschooled him a little and I used some of the course from Texas Tech online High School. Good luck and never stop studying!
Mark Eckardt DON’T ever think that missing high school but you behind anyone else. You wouldn’t have found this in high school. Even if you would have major in math and physics in college all you would have learned was that part of this. The math does not solve the problems or create the ideas needed. Math just verified or disproves the ideas.
The long discussion of black hole entropy that begins around 1:03:00 neglects to explain why we should equate entropy with information. Entropy is the amount of random-appearing disorder of a physical system, and it seems counter-intuitive to associate more disorder with more information.
Correction: Columbus was not looking for China when he discovered the New World. He was looking for India because of its wealth of spices that were the most valuable commodity at the time, much more valuable than gold. He wrongly thought that he reached India and the inhabitants were Indians. So he wrongly named the natives INDIANS which stuck to this day.
Bees have been communicating through vibrations for millions of years. They explain distance, altitude, volume of irregular voids when looking for a new place that will accommodate the entire swarm and also head wind and much more, all through vibrations communicate to entire hive at the same time.
Professor Greene you are a well balanced host, you have the expertise plus you have the mind of an investigator. You ask the questions only to guide the guests into a more full explanation for your listeners/student. I thank you, one day I would be pleased if able to attend your World Science Fair. I thank you…gracias Prof. Greene!
@@ashleyevans1070 interesting, would that be considered a "Copenhagen interpretation" of tunneling? I believe the "Everett interpretation" suggests that there is no collapse of the universal wave function. Really mindbending stuff either way!
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Thank you, World Science Festival and Brian Greene, for explanations that actually help this 85-year-old senior to understand as much as she can these wonderful concepts. My innate ability (Don't know where it came from, but I'm thankful for it!) to visualize and conceptualize takes your amazingly clear explanations and makes me more than I was before hearing them.
maybe your mirror particles are time reversed? so you will never find them? but if you wind back time they exist. this is something that been proposed in a few areas, but might be worth consideration at lest, if your not seeing the particles you expect to find.
scott miller then they would be tachyons, traveling backward in time means they have imaginary mass that won’t allow them to move slower than light speed. A much bigger problem than even the one about symmetry breaking at higher energies than we can develop in a collider.
34:27 - String Theory explainer film My opinion: 1. d quark is electrically imbalanced photon held together and as it is by its own gravitational field. 2. electron is (at least) three d quarks held together. 3. Plank's constant is severely reduced in extremely strong gravitational field (as photon falls down toward the gravitational force source its frequency rises but its energy is constant).
@ Oliver... Well, I guess we know now why *you* weren't interviewed here. Sorry mate, you need to learn enough to realize that you have no chance -- virtually, *none* -- to be correct in such contrarian "opinions". It is hard enough for the very best qualified theoretical physicists to come up with even the tiniest measure of "new physics", so greatly is any new candidate proposition constrained by the unqualified success of the Standard Model and General Relativity within their regimes for many decades on end. There is just very little "wiggle room" left. Sorry 'bout that.
@oliver ill just address your last premise. Plancks constant is not a variable quantity. It is the quantized field of spacetime. It is a point where physical law breaks down... @ frederick. While it is clear that oliver is beyond uninformed in the field of physics you should never try to deter someone from formulating ideas no matter how mistaken it is. There are lightyears of wiggle room and eventually our standard model will be seen as an archaic misunderstanding of the deeper function of the universe. People told einstein very similar things. There is no wiggle room for new physics al. Just quit while youre ahead.
44:57 in case someone is wondering about the professor's footwear these are Merrell Alverstone hiking shoes. Just bought me a pair actually, i'd say very comfy and plush inside, while stiff sole makes it great for bike riding, and love the ventilation mesh too.
Pr Brian is the man for a first approach... I can only thank him for that. Besides, it all becomes very boring, very, very quickly... I'd love to watch him foreshow more than first grade material, and will happily be following any links if anybody can provide.
I've come to believe that Philosophy is the study of guidances for living. Any statement, which can be used so as to guide how one lives ones lifestyle, can be considered a guiding statement, or, as i like to call it, a guiding proposition; "guiding proposition" has another meaning, which is a statement/proposition that one is in fact actually using by letting it guide oneself in living; either meaning, one or more guiding propositions is a Philosophy (or "guiding philosophy"); so "Philosophy" also has a double meaning; one is a set of, one or more, guiding propositions (so a guiding philosophy), and the other is the study of guiding propositions (so the subject of philosophy). I start with this because, in my view, SO MUCH in fact stems from the guiding philosophy that the individual or collective lives by. Including much of our reasoning regarding other subjects. Such as physics. Hence i believe it is of use to try to understand the underlying guiding proposition(s) which the reasoning, or lifestyle or whatever, reflects (& thus was probably born from); partially because, if it turns out there is a more useful guiding proposition(s), then we can focus more on deriving a thus more useful reasoning & whatnot; & partially because then it'll be easier to advance & develop (& indeed just follow or apply) the reasoning & whatnot. So, for String Theory, I believe the underlying guiding philosophy could, at least in part, include (probably not word-for-word): "Things are connected" "It is the connection [itself] between two (or more) [Spiritless] things, which is the locus of the motion of those things". That is to say, unless there are Spirits in them, the motion (velocities and whatnot) of the things is determined by the connection they have with one another; as opposed to the things determining them by themselves or elsewhat. Whether or not the things can influence the connection itself, I dont know. And so, from that underlying guiding philosophy, we can see how, to understand how it is that things have the motion they have, one may arrive at the conclusion: they must be connected somehow, and so there must be another set of things, which act as the connectors, and such that they can influence the way the things move. We already reason largely by analogy; by likening one thing to another to see if the other has more of what the former has. So i think its likely that the individual(s) noticed that the conclusion is similar to a string, with a knot tied at either end around some object; and of course, were the string cut, the objects would no longer move together; moreover, the objects move together precisely because they are connected by the string. Ah but wait? How does the string influence/determine the motion of the connected objects? Doesn't someone still have to move the string first? Well, not if the string is vibrating. When the string is vibrating, the objects on either end must also move. True, we see it too. But usually (or always?) we see the objects made to move, so as to make the string vibrate. But the point still stands. Because were the string to vibrate anyway, somehow, the objects must move too. I can kind of be demonstrated, i think, by holding either end of a rather heavy string in either hand, and then motioning either hand up & down so as to produce a wave like motion in the string; then when you stop trying to do the motion, you'll find that one or two more waves, of the string, happen, and, as they do, your hand(s) is(are) pulled along too. The challenges that follow are: •the details. How many connections/strings can each thing have? How exactly does the frequency of the string alter motion? And a thing moving very fast, so is it rapidly changing connections, or result of much larger connection, or perhaps chains of connections (like beads on a string)? •the visual evidence. We've seen atoms, but we haven't seen their strings. I don't know of solutions to those. But i think i could help with another challenge, except it is with the underlying philosophy not string theory. So the challenge is: •Is it the connection between the [Spiritless] things, or is it those things themselves, that is the locus of their motion? A possible solution, I propose, can be found by using the half-&-half approach (learned/derived from the philosophy of Heart). So, perhaps there is an interplay between the vibrating(/not?) string and the things themselves. After all, were the connections alone the locus, then theyd have to always have been there; from moment things created, they must have been created in, at least, pairs. BUT, if the things alone are the locus, then how do we explain the phenomena of things, which are clearly connected as they've motioned in corresponding ways before/recently, well, moving in corresponding ways? Even if one things moves, which moves the connector, which then moves the other thing; clearly the connector can move a thing it is connected to, & thus it can move the other thing too. I think the connector is probably formed somehow. And can thus be removed too. Furthermore, the connector can either, somehow, exert motion by itself, or be influenced, say, by other connectors (like wave interference), & thus determine the motion of the things; however, should that very motion be correct for this, or sbould the thing(s) be influenced by elsewhat in correct way, then the things will thus move differently, not just indirectly altering the motion of each other via the connector, but possibly altering the motion of the connector such that, from then on, the connector determines the motion of the things so they move differently. Either way, string theory is really the study of connections. P.S. I know string theory also argues that atoms & whatnot themselves are made out of the strings, but, ehh, I don't buy it.
From my understanding, it is called a theory because it is a mathematical theory being used to understand physics. However, this is very confusing because in physics it is referring to a possible model of the physical world (a hypothesis). So it should be called a hypothesis. TLDR it is called theory because it is a theory in math not physics.
Hypothesis 46:00 If these extra dimensions exist, they're so small that any of the waveforms they produce we're capable of interacting with would have frequencies so high that they vibrate at 1 cycle per unit of Planck time, a cycle rate so high that we simply cannot distinguish the peaks from the troughs, because our instruments could never be precise enough. If our instruments were able to be that precise, then we wouldn't be able to know the location of our instrument and its velocity at the same time, and extrapolating meaning from the data would be practically impossible. If we were able to analyse that signal and find that the noise produced by that waveform was not white noise, then we could discern meaning from it. However, this is not possible if the cycle rate is 1 per unit of Planck time, because any variation would be lost due to the universes version of the rolling shutter effect. If anything, searching for the rolling shutter effect in reality itself may be where we find proof. Inference relating to simulation theory: The clock rate of the universe is Planck time.
It's confusing that physicists still at times refer to gravity as a force while accepting Einstein's curved space as the cause of objects being drawn earthward. So, according to Einstein massive objects cause the curvature of space. So, how is it that objects have a certain heaviness depending on their proximity to a massive object? An astronaut on earth has a particular weight while one in an orbiting space station is weightless. How does curvature impart weight to an object? Seems to me curvature of space alone isn't enough to account for an objects weight. In an airplane speeding toward the earth the passengers in that plane will become weightless. Does that speeding plane somehow remove the curvature, or the effects of the curvature? If the plane is outrunning the rate of strength of an earthward force thus neutralizing its effect on the passengers that would be the more understandable phenomenon. Thing is, it's one's weight that is instrumental in one's earthbound state. The moon is less massive than the earth so there is less gravity, and/or curvature and it was demonstrated on a moon mission that a feather and hammer fall at the same rate. How is that arranged by curvature? Wouldn't objects with different masses travel along curves at different rates? And when a helicopter hovers in the air it remains over a particular place on the earth. The earth doesn't rotate underneath the stationary helicopter thus enabling it to travel from one place to another merely by hovering in place. No, it moves along with the rotating earth and remains over the same spot. Does that mean there is a wall formed by the curvature that is pushing the helicopter along, or it is somehow in the grip of a curvature that is moving in unison with the earth? Is the curvature moving along with the earth's rotation? Also, we are taller in the morning after lying in bed all night than we are when going back to bed sometime later. How is that explained by curvature? And if a razor blade is positioned so that its sharp edge is facing upward it will eventually lose its sharpness. Could that be the result of curvature? Also, how are objects drawn earthward at the bottom of the planet? What would make them move along a curvature at earth's bottom in the same way they do at the top? Also, there are the tides caused by the moon's position relative to the earth. How is that accomplished with respect to curvature?
Truthfully the only thing that comes in a can is human acidic numbing and dumbing slavery Yes store your fire extinguishers and your aerosol cans upside down for optimal use all and the destruction that comes with it .
Our problem and barrier is time. Time is what we need to test and experiment on. Once we understand the dynamic of time, I do believe subatomic particles and electrons will be truly measurable. The issue is our fixed perception of it where we are stuck at 60 second per minute forward on a linear path.
If u can’t work out it’s a water bottle you know to drink water from! right? Then perhaps this is a little to advanced for you and you should start with Sesame Street and wait for big bird to explain water and it’s uses.
Auto generated subtitles are very helpful, but, at times they can be funny. Such is the case here as well. Where, at 57:18 the host (Brian Greene) asks a hypothetical question _"what about...[..] in 20 years from now.."_ The participant (Michael Dine) - who is already looks like he is on his late 60s - replies in a way that letting us know that most possible is after 20 years he might be not there. And then, at 58:39 we read the auto-generated subtitles: _"Michael dying everybody"..._
@@TeamLegacyFTW It takes a lot of courage to attempt to answer tough cosmological questions. But it takes more courage to admit that a theory has overstaying its welcome, even if it means losing one's research funding, and life long work.
At about 30:20 the concept of a map, to be completely accurate, must be the exact thing that is being mapped. A map of a country would be the actual size of the country. But that's not so any more than an image, to be accurately described, needs to be the image itself. An image can be described by a png or gif file. These formats accurately describe the image (with something smaller than the image) by describing areas of repetition.
What we don’t know...we don’t know ....is such a profound insight....i am from 1950, and what an incredible ride it has been over these almost 70 years....how exiting to be alive ...and what a privilege to share in some of these incredible new discoveries and insights...the infinite intellect and talent out there is beyond understanding
Lol... NEW insights? You're about 10, 000 years too late.
Much respect.
Absolutely. So humbled .
Human love ❤️ too youu
@@iambeing3305 there have been various changes in society and technology since the 50s...this person literally lived through the aids epidemic, so I fail to see why you think there have been no new insights in the past 70 years.
As a business management student who has never had an applicable need to take science courses beyond the general requirements, these free lectures about the most important breakthroughs in science mean so much to those who are curious novices
Brian Green has to be the best at explaining complex ideas.
It's amazing how simple he makes it.
Because it IS simple. There's nothing difficult about their theory. It's a bust though. There are no "curled up extra dimensions" in our reality. They're all just chasing their tails.
@@djtbone001a people's understanding of 'dimensions' is pathetic. Earth is a dimension. One dimension
@@iambeing3305 A dimension is simply a direction of free movement... As far as I know, we experience three spatial dimensions (up/down, right/left, front/back) and not one of them is "Earth", though earth has at least three.
Another dimension just means another direction for motion, which isn't that out-of-the-box idea, either (: it's kind of freaky and contradictory to our observable, relative world, but isn't breaking what we take to be the truth part of learning?
...but his last guest had to be the worst at explaining it.
John Smith yeah he’s good I like him
Love this format of 1-2-1...what a great discussion...Brian is so great as a (mega) knowledgeable host and allowing his brilliant guests to talk...it is truly inspiring and amazing to think we humans (at least some of us) know so much so far.. science is just so astounding...Thank you for bringing this to us, the general public.
The secret of ultimately understanding the universal complexity lies in our understanding the quantum field, which holds the secret of dark matter, dark energy, inflation, gravity, space time, etc. But physicists are way behind and doesn't seem to give due importance, except Maldacena, Nima and a few others.
Very well stated. Agree all the way.
@@HardDie I think cosmic consciousness reside in the QF and can self-simulate intelligent 'observer', collapsing the field into particles/strings, creating the universe and life, so man and god are entangled.
Eastern mystics discovered thousands of years ago "...None of the properties of any part of the web is fundamental; they all follow from the properties of any of the other parts, and the overall consistency of their inter-relations determines the structure of the entire web". [The Tao of Physics].
Wonder what Donald Trump thinks about all this..zz...suppose all he does not like is false news..how can a country elect an idiot like DT to the highest office when there are listening to this series obviously vastly more intelligent Americans to choose from.....whats wrong with a system that gives rather dumb people such prominent positions
Wow Brian Green is no less than the scientists he is interviewing. His dramatic explanation of the string theory makes it so simple. Feel so blessed having all these great minds think for us. God bless
He is 'explaining' theories, which is why it's called Theoretical Science, not Science means true and the same goes for Theoretical Physics. -marc27, The Truth Finder
Think for yourself
I love this format. Well-produced introduction, for one. Also, in this conversational way, the interviewer can focus on the quality of the conversation instead of the distribution of time among a panel of participants. I bet that’s exactly why you decided to do this. Also, I LOVE an interviewer who is an expert in the field *and* is quite aware of the interplay between them, their guest, and the audience. They will know what to ask to guide both guest and audience to a truly informative and enjoyable conversation. ‘Lay’ interviewers tend to - sometimes understandably - interrupt too many times as they didn’t know what to ask in the first place, only to realise halfway their guest’s answer they should have asked something else first, inadvertently halting their guest’s train of thought, only to interrupt for a ‘let’s go back a step’ question. So... I love this. Well done!
Bbc nobel prize
Listened to this 30 times! Absolutely fascinating and so informative. What a great format! More of these Brian please!!! Less is more! Too many physics debates with too many participants. This was simply superb!
To each his own - I like more participants who may not agree with one another - we get a different perspective & that is good
Respect for doubting his lifetime works. Thats real science, the search for the truth and an open mind
Gayy. Science is fake news.😠😠 God is the answer.
@@cloudridermrbliss7085 What proof of God do you have?
@@cloudridermrbliss7085 Saying that God is the answer doesn't help. We need some good evidence that there is an omnipotent being that exists.
The more I listened to this beautiful forum the more I conclude that there's God: all this complexity can't happen without an Almighty designer-God. Suggestion: all the world scientists should come together and fast for 40 days and, sincerely beg God for the understanding of these complexities of His creation. God will definitely help us all to know how he did it. The first speaker was right: just as we find the unification equation, there'll be even too many questions than before to solve. God is always far above humans. Praise God.
@@danielamoako3065 im an atheist but I also dont rule out that there may be something Godlike in our universe. We cannot say for sure how our universe came to be. We can explain the timeline but pyhsics breaks down when we get close to the start of the universe. There may be a higher being somewhere. Although if so I dont think it affects life on earth.
Top notch. Great the way Brian pulls ‘me ‘, the non physicist, into an intelligent conversation instead of dumbing things down. It’s reminiscent of the high standards of Scientific American back in the 1950’s and 60’s. It's a positive that there’s a ravenous hunger by an educated public for ‘more’.
I love these World Science Festival talks and Dr. Brian Greene is an exceptional host/moderator. Coupled with the presentations by the Royal Institute, I spend half the night as an enthusiastic listener.
Love the update on String Theory. Especially Brian's illustration of String Theory for those new to the subject.
Wow, so many years ago I've read Marcelo's and Brian's books and by chance got into this video, so great when physicists are devoted to further the interest in physics and science
He is 'explaining' theories, which is why it's called Theoretical Science, not Science means true and the same goes for Theoretical Physics. -marc27, The Truth Finder
@@marcdouglasvogt7167 A theory in science isn't just a tentative ideology, it's regarded as the highest possible descriptive model of some phenomenon (above hypotheses and prostulates).
I really enjoyed the third conversation with Andrew Strominger, he seems extremely passionate about his work and has very respectable ideas, fantastic video
String theory may be true, but maybe knot.
Knot that's funny, albert pick up your Planck it time to be relevant in 26 dimensions
😹😹😹
😆
It’s the stupidest thing to ever be imagined. These people are the best of con artists. Schools teach this garbage.
@@Wasssssuppppppp6869 You sound strung out :-)
Andrew Strominger perfectly describes a black hole through string theory, the best explanation I have ever heard. I might add that strings of quantum physics make up the walls of a black hole which defines the wormhole which is empty or hollow, allowing information to fall through it into extra dimensions. Information is not contained inside a black hole but merely passes through it.
Time stamp?
@@DrDeuteron A bit late but according to the chapters they begin to discuss black holes at about one hour in and stay on the topic throughout, have a look 59:00
In following many of these debates, i‘ve come to the conclusion, that quantum physics and the relativity theory are like electricity and programming of a system, they need each other, but on a differeent level.
33:20 for amazing clip explaining basis of string theory
Thank you! Quite helpful!
I like the epistemological undertones of this ...I often muse on the chance mathematical descriptions of reality speak more about our desire to communicate ideas and our sapen inclinations for pattern recognition and the need to bend nature into descriptive terms
Looking Forward to this-I love these World Science Festival videos-they have completely blown my mind and got me interested in Physics. I will never understand the maths but I love the discussions on the concepts and theories. I love also the fact that the various luminaries in these discussions (some of the smartest people in the room) seem so humble and approachable and have a great sense of humour. Brian Greene is a legend at explaining difficult concepts in a way that can be understood by in layman's terms. Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant....
Respect
Star Trek Theory So these physicists didn’t tell the engineers what was needed for the Large Hadron Collider to be built to function as they envisioned? Engineers apply what scientists discover. Your every comment reveals your idiocy.
Star Trek Theory Sorry that you aren’t allowed to use the LHC. Dilletantes are not allowed. But skepticism is good, man. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” Go prove you are right, and make a useful application of your theory. Back to the talk. Good luck
Star Trek Theory And you just proved my point again... you truly are breathtaking in your idiocy.
Question 47:15
How do we define the Coordinates for 3D space? What do we define them in relation to?
How do those 3D coordinates interact with general relativity?
If we define them as absolute, then what is the absolute? If we define them in relation to spacetime, how do we define the geometry of spacetime itself?
I can imagine 9 dimensions. 3 positive dimensions, 3 negative dimensions, and 3 imaginary dimensions. Only, I need 9 beers.
Or a few tabs of acid :)
surely 3x3x3 beers = manyzz dimensions
or a glass of cowpiss
I really like this one-at-a-time discussion format much better than the panel discussions. Any one of them could just give the whole lecture at this basic (for them) level, so the panel discussions seemed so overkill. This one-at-a-time moves really well.
So good to hear from Bob Balaban about string theory. I had no idea he was such an expert.
This was a beautiful conversation. Absolutely loved it.
Thank you for the subtitles. You don't realise what a big deal this is for me. Lots of your previous videos didn't have any.
It’s time for The World Science Festival to get little side tables or something suitable for their drinks. Drinks on the floor should be beyond them by now. Great discussions as always. And of course, a superb job done by Brian Greene and the entire World Science Festival.
needs more answers lmao
They have all the good talks from the festival on ice. Glad to see another one finally!
While describing special relativity at about 13:50, Brian says "space and time work together so that the speed of light is the same" for all (inertial) observers. It's actually deeper than that. It's not just the speed of light that's constant. Using the speed of light c as the conversion factor between units of length and units of time, the speed of everything (including light) through 4-dimensional spacetime is the same as the speed of light through 3-dimensional space. That result follows from the equation for the Twins Paradox and an application of the Pythagorean theorem. The faster anything moves through 3D space, the slower it ages, and applying the Pythagorean theorem shows that the length of the 4D hypotenuse is constant. Some corollaries: (1) Light doesn't age. (2) A motionless object ages at the speed c. (3) Nothing can travel through 3D space faster than light (unless it's aging at an imaginary rate, which is assumed to be impossible).
I feel it is fascinating that the Strominger grop, as far as I understood, arrived at exactly the same equation as Hawking regarding the black hole, but along a completely different path. I feel this is a very strong hint that the string theory, as applied by them, is correct. Otherwise, it seems like a miracle coincidence!
Absolutely riveting to listen to these great theorists describing their life's work. I really appreciated the intellectual honesty that Greene has about the potential implications for string theory based on the lack of experimental observation of these supersymmetrical particles so far. The second gentleman was also pretty honest about his surprise that the Higgs was actually found, although I was not clear about what the Higgs portends for string theory persay. Thanks so much to Mr. Greene for enlightening we the general public through these superb presentations. The world is better for it.
The string theorists were expecting that the energy of the Higgs particle would be significantly different from what's predicted by QFT, which would make QFT kinda incomplete and provide more strength to the String Theory implications. Unfortunately, both experiments looking for Higgs Boson found it in the exact range predicted by QFT, which makes String Theory that much more shaky.
If theoretical physicists are looking for something to work on, they should move to Cosmology. That's where there's real unsolved problems; and give up on this 21 dimension multiple universe nonsense.
The fact that you have vibrating strings, suggest that there are unknown forces influencing the string structure.
Indeed. Nothing sits still in nature, ever. Whence comes this impetus for constant movement? It is a universal driver. What is universal, behind everything, powers everything, has inherent power and ‘just is’?
@@andrewkemp70 I k. Bj
@@andrewkemp70 j lii lkolo
@Leonard ; @Andrew ; Could that be the Higgs field influencing or vibrating the strings?
Brilliantly put together programmes, invaluable for curious non-scientists. THANK YOU!
L C no
The "String Theory Explainer Film" was perfect
Explain please!
@@SaRa-cs5nc What he probably means is that animations look cool. One problem though: they don't give an actual understanding of the subject matter, not even close. It's like saying that computers move ones and zeroes around and showing corresponding animations. Well, yeah, they do, but how does that help understand how and why programs work, and how we are able to communicate on RUclips? I guess this surface-level animation stuff works for kids :) Sadly there is no hint of children-oriented content in the title.
@@bytefu Ohhh 😄 !! Get it!
@@bytefu LOL, for kids, you know shit or you'd be in this video on stage talking to Greene not here commenting, dipshit
@ 😂😂
The ONLY way to advance theoretical physics is to broaden the umbrella of thinkers. After years of trying to solve deep problems in manufacturing facilities, what I have always found is that someone who knew nothing about what they were looking at is where I found those answers. Those people held NO paradigms that people who had been working on it up to that point. The reason that the number of people working on this is so laughably small is that the rest of the population has a paradigm that they aren’t qualified or intelligent enough to come up with an idea. The reason that it takes as long as it does to find truths is that there are too few people offering creative ideas. The greatest discovery ever made in this field was with Einstein. At its roots, Einstein discovered general relativity through curiosity and creativity and persistence.
The only reason we have had such rapid advancements in every other area of humanity is due to quantity of people that contribute. Theoretical physicists are so puzzled why they can’t find answers and agonize over it. The question they need to ask is “why are so few people of the world not involved in solving the problems”. This will cause them to pursue them to totally redirect their efforts.
I feel the role and purpose and their most effective contribution needs to be coordinators and managers of problem solving. They need to get as many human beings offering ideas to problems like CEO’s and managers of business make so many advancements. Physicists are experts at math and science and the history of scientific progression. Successful CEO’s and leaders are creative, and curious. Most are not at all experts in the technical parts of the business. They employ the technical people to provide the information and verification of ideas that arise from imagination and logic that ALL people possess in varying degrees.
Being a manager in businesses over the last 30 years, people would be totally shocked at who I found my answers from
I like to think that these theoretical physics experts are far, far more brilliant than me.
They are in the middle of a field of work few in the general public are privy too or able to readily discuss. They are skilled in advanced mathematics. They are curious, skeptical, insightful. They are persistent and hopeful. Is that part of your definition of brilliance?
@@gbigsangle3044
That will do nicely! Thanks! Well said. GBigs!
Your comment is EXACTLY why knowledge is sparse and often a lie. Who exactly told you that you can't know things? You did. Where does knowledge and truth come from? Truth is. Knowledge is. You need to simply tune into it
@@iambeing3305
Thanks IAM BEING!!
I used to believe they had brilliance beyond comprehension. I have very recently changed my mind. I think we are selling ourselves short. High level math can be intimidating, but that is mostly what these guys are talented at. Think about the word that precedes the word “physics” in their title?... the word is “theoretical”. The rest is basically imagination combined with an incredible amount of curiosity to drive the discipline needed to concentrate for very long periods of time. So if that is a component of intelligence then I don’t think they are anywhere near rare. What is slowing the results is that there are not nearly enough people pursuing answers. My “theory” is that 99.9% of the population are assuming they could never be “qualified” enough to contribute.
Dr. Briane Greene makes the discussion of some highly complicated topics so lucid and interesting!
I like how comfortable Michael is. He really enjoys that chair. 😂
Yea, but he crosses his legs like a woman.
@@whtfsh765, yeah, I've never understood how anyone can do that. I watched this interview advice thing one time saying that was better than putting your ankle on your knee because it looks tacky. Ok, guess I'll squish my nuts and get this job ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Very Special View; Thank you. I understand much more than yesterday to every one who helped put this show on U - tube again Thank you.
Wow - Brian as orange tree magician was wonderfully made
Congratulations to the team !!!
The fact your able to perform the math behind the theory is nothing short of a miracle / gift from God.
@@HoneybunMegapack it wasn't invented...math, time, and geometry were taken from cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia, along with astronomy and other disciplines.
I need to preface my question with saying I have no science education. I am just highly fascinated by it. When I first heard the concept of strings, I thought “of course!”. After years trying to understand it more, all I have are more questions. I am afraid to ask them here for fear of looking like an idiot. BUT I I am feeling brave right now so here goes..
1. WHAT makes the string vibrate exactly the same way? If that string would in any way vibrate differently would create a different particle. If particles would change than the orange in his example could turn into something else right before you eyes or even disappear.
2. WHAT is the string composed of?
IF the are different dimensions as proposed, then inside of them could be strings that have even different dimensions.
3. If strings have different dimensions then COULD those different dimensions contain SOMETHING that drives the string).
Understanding compex things in simple and easy way is the art of genius. Brian Greene is creating environment to understand everything scientifically and eliminating superstitions .
Brilliant professors! We should have more initiatives like this one here in Brazil too. Yotube channels can be a great place to do that. Imagine you and other colleagues having great conversations about mathematical, experimental aspects and this great struggle to understand nature and a young Brazilian generation watching it. You can create a good generation of scientists here and help us fight for the future of the country world. PLEASE HELP US. WE HVE GREAT MINDS HERE!!!
String "theory" deveria ser classificado como religião. Todas as previsoes deles estavam erradas. Toda vez que uma particula prevista na "teoria" nao é encontrada, eles refazem os calculos e dizem que é preciso construir um acelerador de particulas maior..Quando os cientistas estudaram a propagação das ondas gravitacionais detectadas, eles descobriram que nao existem dimensoes extras. Vamos ver qual desculpa esse pessoal vai inventar agora. String "theory" is an academic job program and a scam.
This is a wonderful demonstration of a narrative of science by scientists for whom this is their way of LIVING with meaning & purpose ... GRATEFUL for the opportunity to see - hear - enjoy you, Brian, in a terrific DIALOGUE with your good friends. Hard as it is to pick among them, as they all are terrific, my FAVORITE is Andrew S... For me, he is REALLY INSPIRATIONAL. So glad to be ALIVE to enjoy this session. KEEP ON... MTL, MD
The world is a gigantic escape room and we gotta figure this shit out to escape it or die trying , either works.
Exactly.
I’ve just fallen a sleep while listening to this and HAD THE WILDEST MIND-BLOWING DREAM AND ALMOST FIGURED OUT THE SECRET THAT LIES BEHIND THE STRING THEORY, but forgot all about it as soon as I woke up
Brian, could we be looking in the wrong direction. Is it theoretically possible that the dimensions we see on a macro scale are, in fact, the tiny, curled up extra dimensions of dimensions even larger still?
It's good to think! Nobody knows what is happening in the real world but we can conceive models via analogy and experiment. One that I value is when you turn a full open bottle upside down - liquid comes out and then stops, then bursts forth again ... it's like a choke...
09:15 The moving electromagnetic field runs perpendicular to gravitational waves, and the unified universe oscillates from -♾️ to +♾️ to condense and expand the matter of the universe, producing the evidence we observe as Brownian motion.
Could these tiny dimensions be where a new universe has branch of from ours and the extra dimensions is where they connect in a multiverse view?
No that science fiction
Entirely a realistic possibility 🤔
Thank you so much Brain to give us a chance to ride with the most brilliant mind in the world.
great idea to talk with each person individually to keep the conversation moving the way intended
Mr. Brian, what a graphic, vivid, and resplendent representation of the string theory through the example of the orange!
Seems like we’ve been running in place for 15 years
We are lazy. We need more effort.
We NEED to stop arguing over useless shit. Especially the USA. People are wasting too much time in politics instead of helping and pushing humanity forward.
@@cameronjackson4117 word
One of the best programs hosted by Brian Green. Very enlightening to say the least.
I ultimately have the sense that our explorations give us new words (formula) , sometimes new sentences, in what turns out to be a long narrative. We keep thinking we might be coming to a sentence that will be a vista, but ultimately it's only a note on a tree, in a forest, of a........
It seems very interesting that the string theory of prof Kaku,is not only very much in compliance with,but ot also rather completing and explanaing the "unified
energy theory of entanglement"
In the sense that,for onething it is also confirming the creation and emmission of semiotic energy waves from and within the structures of atoms at quantum level,which due to string musical and sismionic nature of the strings vibrations could only best be explained as to create nothing else but scalarewaves,also at each and every direction vertical and horizontals and at different levels,hence explaining and confirming the emission and creation of scalarwaves practicaly also at universal level,and from any surface or and material for that matter and hence throughout the entire universe ,And hence we can find direct correlations and compliances confirming the scalarwave technology can also cover the string theory as well.and that is a good sign.right freinds?
i see brian greene, i click
Love him!
Soroush Mzs me too.
@Brad Watson evidence of God? You show one evidence and I will be religious! Maybe you're the one who ignores all the scientific evidence against the religious stories of God??
@Brad Watson Science and creation will never play friends even though this "big ban' could have been creation, no?
Hypothesis 1:11:00 The issue of black holes destroying entropy is perhaps resolved if entropy is maintained in a set of timespace coordinates, which while existing in conditions we cannot observe directly, still embody the information they contained while in the spacetime regime.
The act of forward becoming down doesn't destroy the data, it merely converts it from data.spctm to data.tmspc
The event horizon doesn't break entropy, it just re-formats entropy for timespace instead of the spacetime version we're familiar with and understand.
Furthermore, attempting to read data encoded in timespace using a spacetime based decryption algorithm will not work. We would need to develop an algorithm to reconcile spacetime and timespace, then run our theory of entropy through that algorithm to determine how entropy would behave in a region of timespace.
You're still operating in 4D, but now time is 3D and space only has 1 dimension, and you can only realistically travel in 1 of the two possible directions represented by this dimension.
We would be able to travel up, down, left, right, forwards and backwards temporally, and we would have a scale representing forwards and backwards, but we could only travel forwards, and always at a rate relative to our gravimetric 'altitude'.
Normally, we can travel up, down, left, right, forwards and backwards spacially, and while we have a scale for time, we can only travel forwards through time and at a rate that is determined by our gravimetric 'altitude'.
I am a big fan of you Brian Greene !!!! You are my favorite physicist .
Hypothesis 42:00
The reason the LHC isn't going to work is as follows: We're trying to use a system which has fallen victim to eons of entropy to describe the conditions present when entropy first began. We simply don't have access to the levels of energy required to create the supersymmetric particles. We never will have access to that level of energy, even if we were to become a K4 civilisation. To successfully perform that experiment would require us to be able to reverse entropy back to the beginning. I think the masses of the sparticles will have to be so large they will outweigh entire galaxies, and that if we were able to create them, we would then have to develop theories to explain their structures, and connecting those at the Planck scale would be the ultimate solution to physics. However, that relies on us having access to and control of enough energy to reverse entropy to the Planck scale, possibly beyond it.
It is also possible that particle theory and sparticles theory diverged before the beginning of entropy, and that reuniting the two theories would require you to be further back in time than the Big Bang itself.
Yes , The time has come !! World Science Festival (Talk on the unified theory) haha
@andrew ansyon yes
It might be my profile outfit right ?
@The Real Slim Brady first off, incorrect. Further away things are not back in time. We perceive them to be back in time because the light speed is finite. Also that doesnt disprove dark energy, since it doesnt explain the increasing acceleration if space itself away from all points. Your explanation is both incorrect and a massive disservice to parade it as truth.
Also time is the factor, as every subsequent measurement shows galaxies farther way are red shifted more. Light does not shift without input and can remain in its spectra indefinitely if not acted up. In the vaccum of space you would not expect(all variables we are aware of accounted for) light to further red shift. But they do, and this because spacetime itself is stretching more rapidly than before.
Unless you can provide numbers to prove your hypothesis, you are not a good source of anything but misinformation.
@The Real Slim Brady actually we can by measuring the rate of acceleration from previous points, allowing us to extrapolate a new velocity. That's just basic algebra
@The Real Slim Brady @Marc Perez maybe i'm wrong but to me it's totally logical that further and further galaxies have higher redshift , for they are closer and closer to the big bang : it doesn't matter if you look up or down or left or right or wherever : you're _always_ looking in the direction of the big bang , which of course is quite heavy . . .
20:35 I'm really struggling to understand why super-symmetry is bolted onto the side to create superstring theory. What's wrong with unifying the Electro-Weak and the Strong Nuclear forces, and then unifying the electro-nuclear with gravity and stopping there? What part of reality can only be explained by including super-symmetry?
Every other part of the tree originated from observable phenomena.
Electrons + Magnetism = Electro-magnetism
Electro-magnetism + Weak nuclear force = Electro-weak
Electro-Weak + Strong nuclear force = Electro-Nuclear
Electro-Nuclear + Gravity = Theory of Everything
Why do we need super symmetry? What effect are we trying to explain? How does super symmetry explain that force?
That was a great introduction. Very captivating and intriguing. Happy Brian Greene was the host.
I always enjoy Brian Greene's warmth and intelligence. He's not afraid to look outside the box. I think of all the thrilling and magical possibilities of our universe. Most all the speakers seem to be exceptionally cool.
Phoenix Uprising Same here. If it were someone like Tyson then he’d be talking over everyone. 🙄
Rajarajan Manoharan lol Tyson is just very enthusiastic about the cosmo. He never truly grew out of the kid-in-a-candy-store phase. But, I do agree that he can overpower others with his projected voice, not to mention, his sheer physique.
Dear Docs; Time and entanglement are mutually exclusive as superposition precludes acceleration and the time function. That's why we need a dual membrane electromagnetic field with an antimatter half-brane that doesn't have a time function and this brane produces entanglement through strings that are paired with matter strings to form 1 to 3 aspect ratio tori that we call gravitons. The circuit or conduction tensor formed in the torus keeps these strings from annihilating as does the conduction tensor holding graviton clusters together, (looks like a barbell). Time just renders these antimatter strings into a recessive manifestation in the graviton and in subsequently more complex structures incorporating gravitons. Gravity is just the electromagnetic/fluid dynamics processes applied to the flow of graviton and graviton clusters around and through Standard Model particles. The clusters are actually gluons that were formed en mass during the GUT Epoch and are continually formed in SM particle cores. These gluons/clusters act like a dipole gas subject to condensation via Feshbach resonance and BCS field effect, and this condensate is formed in the electromagnetic field of galaxies as dark matter that is scattered by cosmic rays to appear as point source gravity. The dipole gas is spin and charge coupled on the surface of leptons and baryons to form the Higgs field emanating from the equator that operates as an electromagnetic rectenna generating space-time viscosity as it captures the momentum from the resonant strings in the gravitons and clusters flying through the field. The gas is also the working fluid for a gravitational propulsion system operating as an “ion thruster” through the core of the leptons and baryons. Dark energy is just the increase in quantum friction of the propulsion system in barren space where the Higgs field remains unimpaired to drag the particle backwards toward even less dense space like a sea anchor.
Well shit
@@madhoneybeeking The positive "antimatter" strings that constitute half of the photon structure is just a string from the ubiquitous 3-brane soliton that stores all information at every point in space but doesn't have a time function. When the 3-brane string collides with the negative 4-brane string they annihilate and revert to ground state space, which again is just a 3-brane soliton that can be modified by EMF to generate space-time in the form of photons that can daisy-chain into other standard model particle structure.
Dusty Plasma and Electromagnetic Forces walk into a bar
You'd think Dusty Plasma would have seen it.
So much better when Greene is hosting instead of the obnoxious guy.
Thank you thank you thank you!. I didnt complete high school. That was ten years ago, ive watch all these talks its what im about
School wasnt at the right time of my life
"Just because somethings not known doesn't mean it can't be"
Ultimately, Mark, we all need to be our own best teachers. Just watch out for the brain washing. Speakers who want you to believe them have a couple of techniques:. One is to manipulate your feelings using lots of adjectives and telling you what to conclude. That's outright propaganda. Another technique is just to outright lie about important facts. Do a search for some videos about identifying propaganda. Then always check important facts. Nothing is really true. It only has a probability of being true. Good luck. Texas Tech will let you complete an accredited GED online for an affordable price, if I recall correctly. My son also had some issues with being too smart for his teachers so I homeschooled him a little and I used some of the course from Texas Tech online High School. Good luck and never stop studying!
@@76rjacksonWow thank you for the encouragement means alot ill look into it
@@76rjackson RUclips needs more ppl like you!
Mark Eckardt DON’T ever think that missing high school but you behind anyone else. You wouldn’t have found this in high school. Even if you would have major in math and physics in college all you would have learned was that part of this. The math does not solve the problems or create the ideas needed. Math just verified or disproves the ideas.
The long discussion of black hole entropy that begins around 1:03:00 neglects to explain why we should equate entropy with information. Entropy is the amount of random-appearing disorder of a physical system, and it seems counter-intuitive to associate more disorder with more information.
Youu ...you got me hanging on a string now ..
You never told me you were waiting...con templating ...
Loose ends string theory 😂
Correction: Columbus was not looking for China when he discovered the New World. He was looking for India because of its wealth of spices that were the most valuable commodity at the time, much more valuable than gold. He wrongly thought that he reached India and the inhabitants were Indians. So he wrongly named the natives INDIANS which stuck to this day.
One particle or stream of energy theory fits in rather well with quantum mechanics.
Thank you very much .
I think that the 4th dimension is observed through telepathy. That's how you could see an object in more than 3 demons. Any one agree or disagree?
Bees have been communicating through vibrations for millions of years.
They explain distance, altitude, volume of irregular voids when looking for a new place that will accommodate the entire swarm and also head wind and much more, all through vibrations communicate to entire hive at the same time.
Amazing 🐦 🌳 Nature
David that is an interesting possibility 🤔
Professor Greene you are a well balanced host, you have the expertise plus you have the mind of an investigator. You ask the questions only to guide the guests into a more full explanation for your listeners/student. I thank you, one day I would be pleased if able to attend your World Science Fair.
I thank you…gracias Prof. Greene!
could quantum tunneling be an example of a particle propagating through additional dimensions?
That's a really good idea.
A probabilistic dimension that collapses when the quantum observer collapses the wave function. Best candidate for extra dimension on RUclips
@@ashleyevans1070 interesting, would that be considered a "Copenhagen interpretation" of tunneling? I believe the "Everett interpretation" suggests that there is no collapse of the universal wave function. Really mindbending stuff either way!
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Thank you, World Science Festival and Brian Greene, for explanations that actually help this 85-year-old senior to understand as much as she can these wonderful concepts. My innate ability (Don't know where it came from, but I'm thankful for it!) to visualize and conceptualize takes your amazingly clear explanations and makes me more than I was before hearing them.
Yes, I’ve been waiting!
This format is very good ---- much better than having a whole group at once.
maybe your mirror particles are time reversed? so you will never find them? but if you wind back time they exist.
this is something that been proposed in a few areas, but might be worth consideration at lest, if your not seeing the particles you expect to find.
scott miller then they would be tachyons, traveling backward in time means they have imaginary mass that won’t allow them to move slower than light speed. A much bigger problem than even the one about symmetry breaking at higher energies than we can develop in a collider.
Why is it that no matter what I fall asleep to on youtube to, I wake up in the middle of the night to this video?
The Universe is counting on you, to unify Gravitation and Quantum Mechanics! Or RUclips doesnt work haha.
Love Brian's Quantum Magic Shows!
What magic?
Lol 😆
34:27 - String Theory explainer film
My opinion:
1. d quark is electrically imbalanced photon held together and as it is by its own gravitational field.
2. electron is (at least) three d quarks held together.
3. Plank's constant is severely reduced in extremely strong gravitational field (as photon falls down toward the gravitational force source its frequency rises but its energy is constant).
@ Oliver... Well, I guess we know now why *you* weren't interviewed here. Sorry mate, you need to learn enough to realize that you have no chance -- virtually, *none* -- to be correct in such contrarian "opinions". It is hard enough for the very best qualified theoretical physicists to come up with even the tiniest measure of "new physics", so greatly is any new candidate proposition constrained by the unqualified success of the Standard Model and General Relativity within their regimes for many decades on end. There is just very little "wiggle room" left. Sorry 'bout that.
@oliver ill just address your last premise. Plancks constant is not a variable quantity. It is the quantized field of spacetime. It is a point where physical law breaks down... @ frederick. While it is clear that oliver is beyond uninformed in the field of physics you should never try to deter someone from formulating ideas no matter how mistaken it is. There are lightyears of wiggle room and eventually our standard model will be seen as an archaic misunderstanding of the deeper function of the universe. People told einstein very similar things. There is no wiggle room for new physics al. Just quit while youre ahead.
One of the best talks I have listened to, thank you.
44:57 in case someone is wondering about the professor's footwear these are Merrell Alverstone hiking shoes. Just bought me a pair actually, i'd say very comfy and plush inside, while stiff sole makes it great for bike riding, and love the ventilation mesh too.
I thought Brians bottle became invisible at 7:35 at first :P
Pr Brian is the man for a first approach... I can only thank him for that. Besides, it all becomes very boring, very, very quickly... I'd love to watch him foreshow more than first grade material, and will happily be following any links if anybody can provide.
This was beautiful, thank you
I've come to believe that Philosophy is the study of guidances for living. Any statement, which can be used so as to guide how one lives ones lifestyle, can be considered a guiding statement, or, as i like to call it, a guiding proposition; "guiding proposition" has another meaning, which is a statement/proposition that one is in fact actually using by letting it guide oneself in living; either meaning, one or more guiding propositions is a Philosophy (or "guiding philosophy"); so "Philosophy" also has a double meaning; one is a set of, one or more, guiding propositions (so a guiding philosophy), and the other is the study of guiding propositions (so the subject of philosophy).
I start with this because, in my view, SO MUCH in fact stems from the guiding philosophy that the individual or collective lives by.
Including much of our reasoning regarding other subjects. Such as physics.
Hence i believe it is of use to try to understand the underlying guiding proposition(s) which the reasoning, or lifestyle or whatever, reflects (& thus was probably born from); partially because, if it turns out there is a more useful guiding proposition(s), then we can focus more on deriving a thus more useful reasoning & whatnot; & partially because then it'll be easier to advance & develop (& indeed just follow or apply) the reasoning & whatnot.
So, for String Theory, I believe the underlying guiding philosophy could, at least in part, include (probably not word-for-word):
"Things are connected"
"It is the connection [itself] between two (or more) [Spiritless] things, which is the locus of the motion of those things". That is to say, unless there are Spirits in them, the motion (velocities and whatnot) of the things is determined by the connection they have with one another; as opposed to the things determining them by themselves or elsewhat. Whether or not the things can influence the connection itself, I dont know.
And so, from that underlying guiding philosophy, we can see how, to understand how it is that things have the motion they have, one may arrive at the conclusion: they must be connected somehow, and so there must be another set of things, which act as the connectors, and such that they can influence the way the things move.
We already reason largely by analogy; by likening one thing to another to see if the other has more of what the former has.
So i think its likely that the individual(s) noticed that the conclusion is similar to a string, with a knot tied at either end around some object; and of course, were the string cut, the objects would no longer move together; moreover, the objects move together precisely because they are connected by the string. Ah but wait? How does the string influence/determine the motion of the connected objects? Doesn't someone still have to move the string first?
Well, not if the string is vibrating.
When the string is vibrating, the objects on either end must also move.
True, we see it too. But usually (or always?) we see the objects made to move, so as to make the string vibrate. But the point still stands. Because were the string to vibrate anyway, somehow, the objects must move too.
I can kind of be demonstrated, i think, by holding either end of a rather heavy string in either hand, and then motioning either hand up & down so as to produce a wave like motion in the string; then when you stop trying to do the motion, you'll find that one or two more waves, of the string, happen, and, as they do, your hand(s) is(are) pulled along too.
The challenges that follow are:
•the details. How many connections/strings can each thing have? How exactly does the frequency of the string alter motion? And a thing moving very fast, so is it rapidly changing connections, or result of much larger connection, or perhaps chains of connections (like beads on a string)?
•the visual evidence. We've seen atoms, but we haven't seen their strings.
I don't know of solutions to those.
But i think i could help with another challenge, except it is with the underlying philosophy not string theory.
So the challenge is:
•Is it the connection between the [Spiritless] things, or is it those things themselves, that is the locus of their motion?
A possible solution, I propose, can be found by using the half-&-half approach (learned/derived from the philosophy of Heart).
So, perhaps there is an interplay between the vibrating(/not?) string and the things themselves.
After all, were the connections alone the locus, then theyd have to always have been there; from moment things created, they must have been created in, at least, pairs.
BUT, if the things alone are the locus, then how do we explain the phenomena of things, which are clearly connected as they've motioned in corresponding ways before/recently, well, moving in corresponding ways? Even if one things moves, which moves the connector, which then moves the other thing; clearly the connector can move a thing it is connected to, & thus it can move the other thing too.
I think the connector is probably formed somehow. And can thus be removed too. Furthermore, the connector can either, somehow, exert motion by itself, or be influenced, say, by other connectors (like wave interference), & thus determine the motion of the things; however, should that very motion be correct for this, or sbould the thing(s) be influenced by elsewhat in correct way, then the things will thus move differently, not just indirectly altering the motion of each other via the connector, but possibly altering the motion of the connector such that, from then on, the connector determines the motion of the things so they move differently.
Either way, string theory is really the study of connections.
P.S. I know string theory also argues that atoms & whatnot themselves are made out of the strings, but, ehh, I don't buy it.
Should it be String Hypothesis ?
I think so, personally. lol Because it's still in progress and we don't know yet. But to be fair, String Theory sounds better. xD
Yes.. they should really be as precise with words as they are with numbers.
Winson Hui No! Nor should it be called fact. Theory is not fact.
@@rebeljustice9320
In science:
Hypothesis=not fact
Theory=fact
From my understanding, it is called a theory because it is a mathematical theory being used to understand physics. However, this is very confusing because in physics it is referring to a possible model of the physical world (a hypothesis). So it should be called a hypothesis. TLDR it is called theory because it is a theory in math not physics.
Hypothesis 46:00 If these extra dimensions exist, they're so small that any of the waveforms they produce we're capable of interacting with would have frequencies so high that they vibrate at 1 cycle per unit of Planck time, a cycle rate so high that we simply cannot distinguish the peaks from the troughs, because our instruments could never be precise enough. If our instruments were able to be that precise, then we wouldn't be able to know the location of our instrument and its velocity at the same time, and extrapolating meaning from the data would be practically impossible. If we were able to analyse that signal and find that the noise produced by that waveform was not white noise, then we could discern meaning from it. However, this is not possible if the cycle rate is 1 per unit of Planck time, because any variation would be lost due to the universes version of the rolling shutter effect.
If anything, searching for the rolling shutter effect in reality itself may be where we find proof.
Inference relating to simulation theory: The clock rate of the universe is Planck time.
I’m just watching this today , it’s from a year ago . My comments are to what is being said in this video 😊
It's confusing that physicists still at times refer to gravity as a force while accepting Einstein's curved space as the cause of objects being drawn earthward.
So, according to Einstein massive objects cause the curvature of space. So, how is it that objects have a certain heaviness depending on their proximity to a massive object? An astronaut on earth has a particular weight while one in an orbiting space station is weightless. How does curvature impart weight to an object? Seems to me curvature of space alone isn't enough to account for an objects weight. In an airplane speeding toward the earth the passengers in that plane will become weightless. Does that speeding plane somehow remove the curvature, or the effects of the curvature? If the plane is outrunning the rate of strength of an earthward force thus neutralizing its effect on the passengers that would be the more understandable phenomenon. Thing is, it's one's weight that is instrumental in one's earthbound state. The moon is less massive than the earth so there is less gravity, and/or curvature and it was demonstrated on a moon mission that a feather and hammer fall at the same rate. How is that arranged by curvature? Wouldn't objects with different masses travel along curves at different rates? And when a helicopter hovers in the air it remains over a particular place on the earth. The earth doesn't rotate underneath the stationary helicopter thus enabling it to travel from one place to another merely by hovering in place. No, it moves along with the rotating earth and remains over the same spot. Does that mean there is a wall formed by the curvature that is pushing the helicopter along, or it is somehow in the grip of a curvature that is moving in unison with the earth? Is the curvature moving along with the earth's rotation? Also, we are taller in the morning after lying in bed all night than we are when going back to bed sometime later. How is that explained by curvature? And if a razor blade is positioned so that its sharp edge is facing upward it will eventually lose its sharpness. Could that be the result of curvature? Also, how are objects drawn earthward at the bottom of the planet? What would make them move along a curvature at earth's bottom in the same way they do at the top? Also, there are the tides caused by the moon's position relative to the earth. How is that accomplished with respect to curvature?
Silly string theory is much tougher than regular string theory, but the upside is it comes in cans.
haha
Just turn those cans "upside" down!
It's flammable.
Truthfully the only thing that comes in a can is human acidic numbing and dumbing slavery
Yes store your fire extinguishers and your aerosol cans upside down for optimal use all and the destruction that comes with it .
Our problem and barrier is time. Time is what we need to test and experiment on. Once we understand the dynamic of time, I do believe subatomic particles and electrons will be truly measurable. The issue is our fixed perception of it where we are stuck at 60 second per minute forward on a linear path.
Agree with this
loved it, thank you for sharingl
Good to hear Brian Greene playinghis role.
Strings. So just a glob of worms. Somehow moving of course.
i was lost in the depths of RUclips doom scrolling madness when, once again, the World Science Festival channel liberated me from my agony
What are those red bottles for?
Obviously they think the theory of everything will get trapped in the bottle without the stopper! RDR
If u can’t work out it’s a water bottle you know to drink water from! right? Then perhaps this is a little to advanced for you and you should start with Sesame Street and wait for big bird to explain water and it’s uses.
Auto generated subtitles are very helpful, but, at times they can be funny. Such is the case here as well. Where, at 57:18 the host (Brian Greene) asks a hypothetical question _"what about...[..] in 20 years from now.."_ The participant (Michael Dine) - who is already looks like he is on his late 60s - replies in a way that letting us know that most possible is after 20 years he might be not there.
And then, at 58:39 we read the auto-generated subtitles: _"Michael dying everybody"..._
If string theory is not working you just need to demand the universe to fit in the string theory predictions.
I fear we lost these men to their crazy imagination and hallucinogenic reality. Please don't call them scientists anymore.
At least they dont go on to say "uhh -god- the universe works in mysterious ways idk"
@@TeamLegacyFTW It takes a lot of courage to attempt to answer tough cosmological questions. But it takes more courage to admit that a theory has overstaying its welcome, even if it means losing one's research funding, and life long work.
At about 30:20 the concept of a map, to be completely accurate, must be the exact thing that is being mapped. A map of a country would be the actual size of the country. But that's not so any more than an image, to be accurately described, needs to be the image itself. An image can be described by a png or gif file. These formats accurately describe the image (with something smaller than the image) by describing areas of repetition.