String Theory’s Flaws in Physics Revealed by Top Mathematician Edward Frenkel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Main episode with Edward Frenkel (August 2024): • Revolutionary Math Pro...
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist....
TOE'S TOP LINKS:
- Support TOE on Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Listen to TOE on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
- Become a RUclips Member Here:
/ @theoriesofeverything
- Join TOE's Newsletter 'TOEmail' at www.curtjaimun...
SPONSORS (please check them out to support TOE):
- THE ECONOMIST: As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist....
- INDEED: Get your jobs more visibility at indeed.com/the... ($75 credit to book your job visibility)
- HELLOFRESH: For FREE breakfast for life go to www.HelloFresh...
Other Links:
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
#science #physics #math
Main episode with Edward Frenkel (August 2024): ruclips.net/video/RX1tZv_Nv4Y/видео.html
As a listener of TOE, you can now enjoy full digital access to The Economist and all it has to offer. Get a 20% off discount by visiting: www.economist.com/toe
String theories problem. The string moved on from it's previous location, yet they are still tracking a 2d sheet from past (t) locations. Oh and it's 1 dimensional, it has no area to interact with anything, also... another configuration of energy owns that location, and it's not being accounted for. 1d or 2d is fine when it tracks concurrent cross sections of events, and thermodynamics, but that structure doesn't obey any thermodynamic boundary, it exist in a void. What does it even describe? It's not describing this universe... we only need one (time slice) and velocity vectors of the distribution of processes, not the disconnected time evolution of a string (what's behind the string? It's not time, it's other processes lol).
Theoretical physics has really got to dive in to the matrix of complex mathematics. There is just one universe, as it's infinite in size and for ex. all the dimensions above 3/4, are just illustrations(hypothesis) of how matter might have been organised etc. what are mathematically possible models for the universes underlying structures.
Not really physicist fault, if those hidden structures are just absolutely unavailable today due to lack of sophisticated technologies &/ science, but no wonder many are begin to wonder, if physics has been of the rails, as for ex. you guys can't differentiate absurd and realistic infinite cities etc. believe in absolute creation of materia by some pretty magical procedure.
Also, how can you have a theory of everything, while the reality is in many ways not observable? Maybe some local theory of ..everything.., but you see.. Can a physicist be truly great, if he/she isn't at least the level of an average philosopher? Math is a specific language of the universe, but just on e part of the tool-set for describing reality, at least today. Words matter.
@@robertm3561 The big problem is them harvesting personal data and waging psyfight hate campaigns, even peoples chatgpt conversations, and google search results are used to harass people. They don't want to do science exploration, they want to artificially generate political enemies with psyops harassment campaigns, so they can get contracts with the government. They literally manufacture the problems that their business model claims to solve.
Throw the time dimension out, you only need that during computation or interpolation. Instead, your 2D sheet or 3D volume needs to be a map of (current events, and thermodynamic distributions, and vector directions determining the velocity directionalities). We don't need the past data, you vectors and computational method will determine the next frame. It's hard to argue with surveillance psyops hell simulation state, it doesn't respect cognitive autonomy, but I'm going to continue focusing on the things (I WANT TO FOCUS ON). I DONT CARE, WHAT YOU WANT, PISS OFF, OR I WILL HURT YOU PEOPLE.
I adore this guy . One of the best science communicators around atm
Thank you in the beginning for addressing the general public example me. Sometimes people get so expert heavy and highbrow they forget some people actually love to learn and just want more knowledge so thank you very much both the curb and the guest Mr. Frankel
The now forgotten vortex theory of the atoms was the origin of the mathematical theory of knots.
I find it fascinating that Edward Witten is currently working on _Knot Theory_ and how it relates to _Quantum Field Theory_ and the phenomenon of entanglement. It almost sounds like a joke, that the main proponent of string theory is entangled in knots, but it is true. Others have been inspired by this work in this area to write papers on _Quantum Computation_ and this entanglement from the point of view of _Knot Theory._
_Knot Theory_ then connects via the geometric _Langlands Program_ via _Modular Forms_ (which was used by Sir Andrew Wiles and his student to prove _Fermat's Last Theorem_ ), and out to _K-theory_ as all these are connected kinds of mathematics. However, _K-theory_ connects to _Type IIB String Theory_ which is interesting as it is the only flavour which has S-duality with itself. It is possible to go from this chiral theory to the non-chiral _Type IIA String Theory_ via a T-duality that is defined between them. Then this leads through another one to an 11 dimensional Supergravity theory which unifies the quantum with _General Relativity._ Obviously, all this is part of _M-theory_ and the fine tuning that is needed is a particular choice within a Swampland of alternative solutions.
However, what is curious is that (1, 3) is the only combination of dimensions in which it is possible to tie a persistent knot, so maybe this is a constraint, or filter, which ensures our reality is the only one which can be recovered out of this Swampland which is persistent, and all other combinations of dimensions unravel into chaos. It is too much of a coincidence that you can't tie a persistent knot in fewer than (1, 3) dimensions, and when you have more then the knot will slip its bonds through an adjacent hyperspace, and if you have additional temporal dimensions then it can use them to unravel its ravelling by moving the gramophone stylus of time up and back over the space through a retrograde temporal dimension to replace it and embroider over the history of frequencies inherent within the geometry of spacetime and its associated ⌊(d² + 3d) / 2⌋ dimensional fiber bundle of which d = 1 + 3 is the section.
This man needs to have a discussion with Sean Carrol.
I don’t think Carroll has the knowledge and training to do that
Why would he do that? Sean is an establishment tool
Fascinating episode.prompting the following suggestion: a discussion between Edward Frenkel and Max Tegmark.
Aren't they the same person?
@@astrol4b There is a superficial resemblance but no strict isomorphism exists between their respective covering surfaces.
@@____uncompetativeI’m sure your boyfriend looks like them too. Especially with a girls name like yours! 😂😂😅
@@____uncompetative still I haven't seen them before n the same room together
@@DevanMccallister What a weird comment. I was considering how Tegmark’s ideas about mathematical structures equating to a universe such as our own have similarities with some of Frenkel’s ideas but are contradicted by others. And I think exploring those similarities and differences would be interesting.
Edward is the real homie 🤝💯
How refreshing to be told that there is a difference between mathematics and physics. Mathematics may be a language but it is more a tool though in my opinion. Also physics if written in mathematical language doesn't make it mathematics as a book written in English isn't English. It is a story or a statement or whatever just written in English and in my opinion could just as well be written in German. An event of nature can maybe be described mathematically but possibly just as well in French or Italian or maybe even Chinese.
JAIMUNGAL. I'm so mad brow. Why are these videos too good
It took me a second or two to realise that Edward was succinctly stating that I am brain-dead.
Yo momma, Edward.
Please get Holger Bech NIelsen on the podcast. I would love to hear his story.
Great clipping! Thank you both.✌🏼🤙🏼😊
This discussion proves my point below:
I agree with the assessment that String theory may still be generating or will continue to generate more interesting math and even physics on the leading edge. But I think that is not the point many critics of String theory are making. It is the issue of sharing the fixed pie. If the academic funding was unlimited and similarly physics department number of positions were unlimited, most likely nobody would have cared. However, String theory has been hogging that pie and professorship positions for almost 40 years now. And even though I do not like or agree with the way Eric Weinstein addresses this issue in public rants over and over and over and over, I do think he has a point. It appears that some String theorists behaved like gatekeepers on academia. The point is that, sure, they had a good run at it for a while. May be they can step back for some time and let others have a real shot at it. They can come back and take a shot at it again. It is true that a discontinuity is not a good thing though.
And of course you keep drilling into a theory over and over you may get some more, new interesting math. The question is at the expense of what else.
csn Eric start a privately funded effort or sponsor grants and awards at universities?
Even by non physicists standards string Theory sounded childish idea. 😅😅😅 it took time to prove that it is indeed childish 😅
This was a great excerpt, makes me feel good, thanks
Not only the public have problems to differentiate maths and physics, the most modern theo. Physicists do not diff. Thats one of the root causes of the stagnation, this guys are not creative anymore
Could listen to Edward talk all day 🔥
Very much agreed 👍👍
Some of the thoughts were elaborated in 2006 Lee Smolin book The Trouble with Physics. Very good read!!!!
String theory wouldn't fail or be so abstract if they realized it as a simple frequency domain which in truth got there first not some 11-dimensional blobs floating about so voila an electromagnetic wave field is already accepted is it not? wave not blobs..well maybe that's too obvious.
String theory should have been abandoned decades ago. We have wasted a lot of time and resources on it, and for nothing.
Thank you
Love the energy and passion. Even Curt can't get a word in? Imagine a convo between Ed F and Ed W!
The fact that the real world of all physics profession is 3+1 a 4D world where photon an light signal is limit of mass and limit of speed.
People who are with torus geometry for science of field they are doing science of Higgs with Mexican hat surface to show QFT dynamics with gauge group running. But the 3D specific 2D theory.
Actually in my version of TOE that the reason of constant speed for electric and magnetic field disturbance is a 3D in 3+1 dimensional space -time without any geometry why ?.
The boundary of physics and Mathamatics is very sarp in case of cloud of charges.
Thank you after all it is a scientific bona-fide course of fundamentals of TOE .
Even 4D is not looked as real world of physics at present.
Thank you JAIMUNGAL.
For those that thought Weinstein was just going on a hate tirade lol. You now have a simple explanation of the issues with string theory and why it’s been downhill since LHC from someone who is very familiar with the subject and math associated. Thank you Frenkel.
If Witten is still on the subject I wouldnt be to certain, yet.
Would love to hear the discussion between the two, Witten is probably the smartest guy around these days. At least the man who utilize his abilities the best way.
It seems like most of the physicists have given up to get anywhere these days, dont know how many I have heard say "thats where we are at this point and have been for 40 years.
While Witten put in the work for all of them, trying to achieve something new.
But who am I to talk.
This guy is 100x smarter than me, better make it 10¹⁰⁰
too many people names. It would have been nice if people names were replaced by object (descriptive) names - like linear space for Euclidean space, right angle theorem instead of Pythagorean theorem, etc. Learning will be much easier and the public would have been a little more interested in science because it will be easier to follow what these guys are talking about.
If you were born 120 years ago, would you think that the universe was static and not expanding? What Edward stated are not flaws but beauties of string theory. It is our thinking or world view that have flaws - the flaws are much worse than compared to flat earth and to the geocentric or heliocentric mindset.
We think we all live in the same universe but in reality each of us live in our own universes. Some examples might help to understand:
1. A & B are both taking the same flight from London to NYC. They think they are taking the same plane. But in reality, A "is taking his own plane" projected by A's 8th Consciouness (M-theory), and B "is also taking the his own plane" projected by B's 8th Consciousness (M-theory). If there are 200 passengers, each is taking his or her own plane projected by his or her own 8th Consciousness (M-theory). (***by the way there is no gender)
The above example can be expanded to a room, a building, a state, a country, earth and the entire universe. Each is living in his or her own universe and has different types of Seeds (strings) hence infinitely many Calabi-Yau manifolds.
2. A sees B moves and vice versa. The fact is that A's 8th Consciousness (M-theory) is dependent on B's 8th Consciousness (M-theory) projecting B's movement and vice versa.
If you think the above is ridiculous, think about metaverse, or zoom call or online game. Every one is at his console and computer (that's why there are branes in string theory) playing a scene but the scene for every one is different where there is no one scene. It is how every player see other players. *** Gendes are just illusory images.
There is no one universe and no shared common strings.
That is why those things mentioned by Edward are beauties instead of flaws. In QM, a lower resolution theory, there are Hilbert space, path integral, sum over histories, and etc. In string theory, M-theory shows up with all the extra dimensions and 5 versions of superstrings. String theory is not a theory of physcis but a theory of consciousness.
String Theory is a mathematical theory posing as a physics theory -But It’s not testable
Surprising numbers: 26 -> 10 -> 4 is heading towards the 1 who exhibits those numbers .
Very good interview: string theorists neglect the all important synergy between physical theory and experiment.
Depending on the vibration you get a type of particle, all good. put a time wave with its crest, its future and its past close to the crest and gravity permeating from the future and the past. chocolate with chorizo.
Just stop it guys, cant you see it does not go anywhere, stop string theorie, dont waste another few decades with this mind fuck, you are lost in math, only because you can do a lot with math it does not mean its true, i know some would like to give up falsification and just say hey there is some great maths looks good lets say this represents something that exist in reality, physics has become a very boring and confusing play of endles play of models, imagine all you are saying here is never ever verified which is likely
Kaku about to get that strap and spin the block 😂😂
Wow, you're smart and funny. Such an insightful comment.
@@mitchellhayman381 thanks
Always wondered why you have never talked with Bill Gaede
@ Russian living on AMERICAN PROPERTY .
A JEW LIVING ON AMERICAN LAND.
When use the fields to speak of the primary conflicts , … instead of stopping there with galileo , you could extrapolate on what the nature of the connection is when the telescope is held as suspect , as a means of empirical reality : if one can ‘ t inhabit the places , one can ‘ t feel the 1 - dimensionality of time , very powerfully .
Could you comment on what one ‘ sinner sense of a ‘ space time ‘ metric should be ?
The relationship - of - dichotomy youre presenting here is the dichotomy between notions of what this g _uv is . Where it will be found :
The most realistic thing , to me , is that the 1 - dimensional time should be brought in as a fibre to a space that doesn’t emphasize ( nor recognize) such a distinction: an abstract topological space E .
A physicist may have an intelligent criticism of this , especially with results of light bending about gravitation entities .
* when you
OK. I dont have much knowledge of physics. But this guy made me understand basic principles of QFT and string theory, as well as their differences. Does he have any online lectures?
You can take an entire course on those for free I'm pretty sure from mit's RUclips channel they are just recorded lectures from through out the semester
Sean Carroll is going to have a hate on for you dudes.
mathematics is inherently derivative of physics
It's very difficult to follow someone's conceptual mind when you're struggling to understand every fourth or fifth word that they say I have no idea whether this guy has a point or not because I'm too busy trying to understand each word
Math teachers keep wondering why they are struggling to teach math and they never stop and think: "Are the English teachers actually the problem?"
But it's extremely interesting when you do. Maybe this isn't for everyone but I'm glad I could find someone to interview scientists that don't have to water things down.
@@youteubakount4449I don't think the conversation was too technical.
physics is realistic, mathematics is of greater abstract complexitie 18:49 s, which some can apply to physics or be derived from physics, maybe and example is a TTNL(top top and next level quark possiblity) stabilised quark configuration totally possible on both accounts yet beyond our reality if at all true, i used the term Laniakea in reference as example is a TTNL(top top and next level quark possiblity) stabilised quark configuration totally possible on both accounts yet beyond our reality if at all true, i used the term Laniakea in reference as this might explain the Great Attractor, next level up from galactic black holes, q⬆️*this might explain the Great Attractor, next level up from galactic black holes, q⬆️*
From my view, it seems we need to focus on reducing the number of fundamental physical constants/ parameters I.e particle masses, G, H, C etc. Surely a true theory of QG/ toe should account for the formation of many of these parameters.
Perhaps then, with less parameters, frameworks such as string theory/ QFT/ LQG may have more luck. Until then too many great minds seem to have got not all that far, at least in physics terms.
Thoughts?
Well he should present a better option then maybe
Yeah addressing the early part of the video I always thought physics was a form of math that was just represented by abstract values that represented real world momentum, inertia ,and energy etc. and we just haven’t found a method to quantify those actual forces so we gave them a generalized value and then attempted to do theoretical mass? Am I completely lost? 😂 sorry amatuer hr would be a higher quality of my previous knowledge
The universe is made of radiation- either flowing which is energy or trapped and this is mass and as Einstein claimed. Any theory that can desribe the two and how they change to each other becomes a theory of everything. String theory can be made such a theory by taking open strings to represent radiation obeying a hyperbolic propagation and closed strings to represent gravity with non propagating elliptical equations. The only thing left is rules of how to transform between the two strings.
Applied science needs more focus
As a layman I like string theory, I like that relativity naturally emerges, and apparently gravity or the graviton, and most importantly, in 40 years no other theory has come forward as a replacement.
Maybe you should try once more to explain what the Langland program is and then try to keep the focus on that subject and not jump around to other subjects that may also be interresting to dive into.
today's physics lost in mathematical mumbo jumbo and drowning in the particle soup
I, too, love all of my children, even those who are illegitimate. But of course I'm a mathematician.
String theory is not about physics. It's about consciousness. Get out of the flat earth mentality.
The biggest success of string theory in unification, was when the united all strings theory 30 years ago 😅
STRING THEORY WAS CREATED TO HALT THE ADVANCEMENT OF PHYSICS. IT WAS INTENTIONALLY MADE TO STAGNATE THE PROGRESS.
If that is true, it certainly worked.
Why is it a faliure ? they were rushing to fast for the "truths" something is stringy and bounching matbe they need addtional dimesions or a new way of seeing what is a dimension
Not flawed, just not explained in all aspects of comprehension.
Is it me or did he nonchalantly suggest it doesn't matter what you know it matters what you want to do with physics.
I have always been wondered why he choose physics instead of being a chad when he is in him prime.
Lack of imagination😂 Naked Singularities scale in more dimensions than 4D. Their strings are gargantuan. Can’t be it.
Mathematics represents forces. Forces represent the singularity.
There is no such thing as two dimentions, all is at least four.
this shit is seriously making me hungry with all this talk of pastries
2.04 Book of nature is written in the language of mathematics. Sure. But language of mathematics can be write many other books. One can also write gibberish in any language. That if why I do not buy Eugene Wigner's notion the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". If the mathematics only matched our universe then I can see the point. However as I said above mathematics can many other universes, which is what Edward is saying in so many words later. Also may of the mathematics we use matches the spherical cow approximations or models of the physical universe. The actual reality has more to it. That is why the mathematics of GR breaks down at regularity for example. It is true that our universe has some regularities, which can be modeled as spherical cow approximations and then we can write math equations for it.
There is also this about it that most books can be translated to other languages. That a book is written in English doesn't necessarily make the contend understandable in English only. Mathematics is more a tool in my opinion and as any other tool can be misused.
String Theory is simply Monoidal Algebra.
I'm not a mythomagician!
Can you explain this please?
Sorry prob dr frenkel
Russian collusion. 🐻
I solved string theory but how and who do you safely share it to .
The key is an algorithm this all works on or can take quantum measures it literally is a²+b²=c²as a poly algorithm they're doing the same concept developing the light cone im sure they will not share it with the world if in corporate hands .
Yep
Perhaps recent developments in Reimann Zeta function in representing physical processes should be pursued by string theorists to make their theory more acceptable and make it testable.
@sonarbangla8711 my brother in christ, what do you think all of the recent work on the eigenvalues of random Hermitian matrices is trying to do?
@@SimonH1111 Frankly I don't know, I just got a scattered mentions that seemed promising, but I didn't get a full account of new research on Reimann Zeta function.
@sonarbangla8711 fair. Yeah there's been efforts over decades to unite the study of certain atomic physical systems with the properties of the zeta zeroes, but unfortunately it really just ends up replacing one very, very hard problem, with another very, very hard problem
Major Question Concerning String Theory:
Okay, the theory is basically based upon mathematics. Shouldn't they have to answer how the very nature of reality allows mathematics to exist in the first place so that their mathematics has natural relevance to reality?
NUMBERS: (AND ZERO POINT ENERGY):
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time, my gravity test has to be done which will help prove or disprove the TOE idea), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe (including 'space' which is energy itself, 'time' being the flow of energy), and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
* While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'.
Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time?
Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's).
Putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.
* Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.
GRAVITY TEST:
WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space. Maybe I could concentrate the Sun's 'em' into a high powered laser. Might even work with the correct set up breaking the Sun's 'em' down into single 'em' energy frequencies acting like a single energy frequency laser. A high energy laser powered by the Sun. Cool, or actually pretty hot. More than one way to build a laser.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'Gravity' would not be matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' would be a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. (But hey, might even still get a Sun powered laser, which of course could even be utliized in outer space for various agendas.).
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
* Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
But also:
Questions: Are at least some black holes in this universe due to a species who were trying to discern what 'gravity' truly was, came up with a test to do so, were successful, but the black hole generated (to prove what gravity truly was) self fed itself and wiped them and at least their entire planet out? What species might have existed where a black hole now resides?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
* Added note: Suggestion: 'IF' society did not want to do the gravity test, one suggestion might be to at least create a model as if it were true, then see how that model matches with observations and predictions. It might be possible to discern the theory of everything without actually generating a gravitational black hole (which would definitely prove the TOE idea as being really true).
What a philosophical question. I doubt physics itself will ever have answers for that. What conceivable experiment possible can ever confirm that. Physics can only merely presume the existence of mathematics.
@@rockprime1136 And yet, so much of what Science and Physics do relies upon mathematics and they do not even know how mathematics even actually exists in reality to know how math does what math does in this existence.
@@rockprime1136 NUMBERS: (AND ZERO POINT ENERGY):
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time, my gravity test has to be done which will help prove or disprove the TOE idea), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe (including 'space' which is energy itself, 'time' being the flow of energy), and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
* While in bed one morning after a restful nights sleep, and assuming the above is correct, I mentally went 'inside' the 1 (the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself). I still saw with my mind the 3 different interacting modalities, the 6 maximum modality points, the '9' including and being the neutral points in the middle which faded into a 6 (as each maximum modality point came towards zero), that 6 fading into a 3 (as each modality came together), which turned into a 1 (which was the '0' point), but '0' wasn't zero. So, '0' is not really '0' but is something, not nothing. '0' is a relative '0'. But then here again, the zero point energy point is the maximum potential energy point for any and all modalities of the 'gem' photon. '0' is '1' and '1' is '0', this is the '1' inside the '1'.
Now I just have to come up with some tests to test this idea of the zero point energy point being '1', a maximum potential energy point of the singular pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon itself. The maximum potential energy point not really being potential energy per se, but the neutral point of kinetic energy. Tapping into here would be tapping into the 'zero' point energy point of eternally existent ever flowing energy. But then again, tapping into here, 'if' distorted what makes up space and time itself (assuming that 'space' is energy itself [the 'gem' photon] and that 'time' is the flow of energy), could it alter or even destroy the very fabric of space itself? What would occur if even only a single pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon were to explode? What potential ripple effects could occur with the rest of space and time?
Hence also why I try to think some things all the way through so as to try to identify potential issues before the test. Unexpected, unintended, potentially dangerous or even deadly consequences. If nothing else, it keeps my mind active. The mind, use it or lose it, but using it could also lose it, permanently. (My own and other's).
Putting the 'zero point energy point' into actual practice could be deadly. Warning: Proceed with Caution. The last words of human existence on this Earth might be, 'Hey it worked, ooooppppppsssssss.............'.
* Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.
Am I on a different time line? Wasn’t string theory listed as ‘flawed’ years ago ?
It looks like there are a lot of diletant people who have no real knowlege about this theory, except some handwavy things in their heads from none fiction sources, who really likes to canceling this theory, which about they know nothing, and declare that it was failed
@@СергейИванов-ы1п8э but it has failed. String theory is a black hole of discussion. No way of properly testing it, a reliance on other aspects (dimensionality) that we don’t know exists nor can we prove.
I think science has a huge problem. A human problem of arrogance and ignorance.
Mythomatics (Mathematics)
There once was a mythomatical sage,
Who worked on a geometrical page.
With values exact,
Pompous he'd act,
But his proofs were more of a cage.
In numbers, he found a grand tale,
A myth in each numerical scale.
Yet in his rush,
To the abstract bus,
He'd trip, slip, dip and leave reality pale.
You can tell Mathematicians don’t tell a lot of jokes. Ed’s joke about don’t put any money on string theory wasn’t that funny, but he kept going and ended up with a moderately funny shorting string theory.
WHAT ARE STRING THEORY'S ANSWER TO THESE ITEMS?
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything?
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence.
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
Interesting. I side with Eric Weinstein when he questions if String Theory was invented specifically to sabotage our scientific progress.
If you haven't already watch Jesse Michel's podcast American alchemist he dose one with Eric and there's another where he puts together a case for the statement you just posted definitely a couple of hours well spent... edit and of course his appearance on toe 😂
@@gavin1834 thank you. I believe I might be familiar with those uploads already, but will double check. I have digested almost everything I can find on Eric Weinstein, and rarely miss a TOE.
Wonderful stuff.
Utter nonsense! String theory developed a long time before becoming the by some ‚rejected‘ super string theory. To assume that this was a long lasting conspiracy is certified idiocy
@@colinrobinson4233 yeah I thought as much but thought I share the bit I know and to be honest the episode where Jesse lays out and presents the argument for string theory being an organised dead end is fascinating and I'd recommend it to anyone looking into the subject, also if there's anything you've come across that you could recommend I'm sure me and others would appreciate it, anyway nice talking look after yourself and enjoy the journey 😎
@@gavin1834Thanks
Try this hypothesis: There are about 7 space-times.
These are also called "Nearby Parallel Universes."
One gravity acts in these apace-times.
This explains 'dark matter' and a lot more.
And there are more universes, but get these ones figured out first.
Stop funding these string conmen
😂😂😂
Compactified time created all other conditions.
If one does a thorough geometric analysis and evolution.
Creates limits
Forces conservation
Those limits join
This creates flow
Gravity.
If we treat space as a dielectric super fluid gravity acting on this mass free fluid will evolve matter as minimal vortices.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. The topological and physical process solution to universe
That's not what gàlìleò saìd. Lòl.
Hè saìd, "màthèmàtìc ìs thè lànguàge of hòw God crèatèd the ùnìvèrsè".
Gàlìleò is à pròdìgy wày smàrtèr àbòvè your leàguè, and hè saìd God èxìst.
So what's that màkès you àtheìst as?
An ìdiòt. Lòl.
To quote all the so called “experts” in psychology and psychiatry, “who are the ‘they’ you refer to ([in the thumbnail])”?
The notion of mathematics being a language is beyond unfortunate.
As brain activities show, it is not processed by the same areas as is language, but by the areas which process (lyrics-free) music.
Hence, to be described in language, mathematics, like music, requires not translation, but interpretation.
Interpretation depends on the (generally unconsciously assumed) paradigm.
When interpretations of mathematical models don't make sense, one's paradigmatic assumptions should be questioned.
Quite remarkable that physicsts have managed to ignore this rather basic fact, given the history of Geocentric astronomy.
Extra dimensions are the new Crystal Spheres.
Fix the paradigm, and String Theory makes nice, solid intuitive sense, as does QM, GR and offspring.
Leave the paradigm unaddressed, and brilliant minds will be chasing mathematical phantoms for another century.
And now I shall sit down and design some zen diagrams.
Professor Edward Frenkel, this video nicely displays your sincere desire to understand math and physics - which, as you note, are quite different. My thanks to you and Kurt Jaimungal for making this well-selected snippet available.
I am tired, though. To think that a length metric of any type, mathematical or physical, is a “given” exhibits a degree of physics and cognitive naïvity that boggles the mind. But that is where physics is. Wow.
Einstein 1905-1911 came so close… the butterfly effect… a speck of infection drifting into Minkowski’s appendix… survivor’s guilt… full conversion to the continuums he once despised… phenomenal generalization of relativity cementing the deal even as the arrogantly infinite information densities of continuum spaces forever locked out union with information-averse quantum physics.
And Riemannian manifolds… Oblivious to the paradox of finite thickness and embedding, focusing only on asymptotic limits not truly reachable even in “pure" math, let alone Planck-limited experimental physics… the planetary-surface sweet-spot presumption that just because the strikingly complex first-space, then-time algorithms that the 1905-1911 Einstein not-quite-completely defined. He missed or, more likely, rejected his own equation for calculating time asynchrony within a single frame, thus excluding a critically important and all-inclusive time symmetry shared with the quantum world.
One 1907 footnote: “These coordinate transformations only work if no irreversible change occurs.” He knew, but could not resolve it without first making inertial frames into local-only linear momentum excitations instead of grotesquely oversimplified “universal” algebraic approximations. He fled to the safety of the smooth presumptions of Mankowski space, where mathematicians and physicists greeted him with open arms to embrace the inevitability of space and time as fundamental concepts.
It's all the story of fairy dust, fairy dust being a simple concept indeed: The arrogant presumption that information is simple, free, and infinitely available at no cost when, in fact, it is the very pinnacle of the classical construction that the universe gave us to make space and time sufficiently strong approximations to create information and hold history together - at least locally, at least for a while.
Noisily grainy matrices of infinite size presume infinite access speed and infinite brightness to reach their infinitely dark corners. Hilbert spaces. Orthogonality. The remarkable connections between spin and vectors in 3 + 1 space. All complex and emergent gifts that a deeper and far more baffling universe gives us so their asymptotic limits can enable both mathematics and physics to emerge.
Professor Frenkel, if you wish to find where the deep connection between physics and mathematics resides, go in the opposite direction. Stop superposing the most complex and free-information-presuming structures imaginable, such as Riemann spaces, and flip the question upside down.
How does the magnificent edifice of mathematics emerge, even if only completely, and even if only at an unreachable physical limit, from a universe in which the first rules are that if you want space, you must construct a ruler, and if you want time, you must construct a clock.
It is a universe with its own rigid and unyielding rules, such as conservation. But it is not a universe of space and time, and it certainly does not support throwing around infinitely information-hogging concepts such as in a Hilbert space with utter disdain.
These deeper rules are the common infrastructure beneath physics and mathematics, but you cannot reach them until you have paid your dues for information and energy costs. To think that mathematics is free from those costs is to think in terms of fairy dust. That path leads only to stagnation of wandering forever within infinitely complex dreams.
Supersymmetry, String theory, Quantum mechanics, all a big BS when trying to model the true reality.
Interesting his critics of string theory, at the very end of the clip he says the langlands program associated with supersymmetry but actively involved in the program. It's a bit contradictory:)
This is a load of nonsense. Right from the start he goes off the rails.
It would have been better as space and spin rather than space and time, i don't like time, it's error prone compared to structure
God must love scientists, the more they try to explain the Creation as a coincidence the more they prove it)))
Has this mathematical theory ever been used in a practical sense to discover something etc. Or is it a math olympics pissing contest?
Dont waste your time with 'string-theory'
and all kinds of theories,
Only Facts and Logic is valuable.
You can use string theory to prove God. You don't really have to all you have to do is look at the Milky Way and you know God is real. Can you guess who the Milky Way is. And if you want to make string theory work you need to understand that everything and I said everything is a living breathing creature. Including math science that is just part of the theory of what it is. You have gravity you have light you have emotions you have feelings these are all living frequencies. Quit listening to that Bouncer and start realizing that you are smack dab in the middle of the largest life force that ever is known to human. You're inside of a life form . That are to help you understand how String Theory functions in humans. Now let's see if you can figure out what in the human allows it to happen? And all life does this it's just humans are easiest to describe it in. Have a good day.
Physics allows you to find the correct, physically relevant solution, whereas mathematics can only give you a set of possible outcomes.
From a branch of mathematics, Boolean algebra, named after George Bool, we find the purpose of boolean values is to represent binary test conditions (true/false), used to form I/O and are the factor base of logic and decision making in computer programs. Booleans are stored using one byte of memory. Hence, mathematics is the basis of computers, which allow us to create more advanced concepts, such as Physics, KDM or Knowledge Data Mining, and Machine Learning and where we have been evolving toward AI, being the most recent "blurring of lines".
AI is not conscious.
Im from Russia, my first language is Russian, but listen to his heavy accent is kinda funny to me, I believe my pronunciation is a bit better