Penrose: String Theory is not Physics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 окт 2024
- Physics Nobel Prize (2020), renowned physicist and mathematician, Sir Roger Penrose expresses his view that String Theory (aka "Theory of Nothing") is not Physics due to its lack of connections with a strong empirical basis.
Check his amazing book "Road to Reality": rb.gy/pqc8g
Is he saying all that straight to Brian Greene's face??? Priceless. Roger Penrose is such an icon!
Right?! 😂
It's called proper discourse, and what this clip doesn't show are Greene's rebuttals.
@@desdenova1well its a short obviously
@@BUKUDI Yes, a format notorious for not presenting discourse well.
@@desdenova1 I would be interested in those. Because AFAIK string theory is not testable - therefore IMHO it can't be a theory, it's just a hypothesis.
Roger that- no strings attached
Underrated 😂
@@hamzailarzeg and the evidence based continues, Roy Kerr demolishes the dogma of singularities
Lazy yet so good 😂😂😂
Yes exactly I posted a video on that "Singularities are the Junk DNA of Astrophysics"
Haha!
One of the most important 20/21 Century men
Imagine him vs Ed Witten
Another sir Eddington (reactionary egotistical asshole)
Good joke
@@elliotpolanco159Yes! I have imagined that. Although I'm sure we couldn't understand their discussion when it got into the weeds of higher math!
@@elliotpolanco159Yes! I have imagined that. Although I'm sure we couldn't understand their discussion when it got into the weeds of higher math!
The emperor has no clothes... Except it's a brilliant mathematician pointing out the obvious instead of a child.
He has no clothes but he describes them VERY well.
@@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz
Nope, the trouble with "string theory" is that it is not testable.
@@aldofromsfpeople said the same thing about relativity when Einstein first modeled it mathematically. Wasn’t until long after he died that it was ever empirically confirmed.
@@4345ghee
Are you suggesting that every prediction becomes true with time? That is an indefensible proposition.
@@4345ghee That's not true. In 1916 Schwarzschild found a solution of Einstein's equiation that solved the problem of Perihelion precession of Mercury. In 1919 Eddington found a deflection of light by the Sun predicted by Einstein's theory.
I.e. in three years it has been proven that Einstein's theory can a) solve existing problems that can't be solved by the old theory and b) can *sucessfully* predict new phenomenons
Only Nobel prize winner in the panel there
Nobel prize is overrated and it's criteria should be changed
@@boogieman6529doesn’t change the fact that string theory isn’t even a theory if it can’t be tested. It’s string Idea.
@@adamproductions4529the great thing about making up how something works is that when you argue against it you can just pretend your argument makes sense and dismiss it. Please open a book on string theory and stop digesting RUclips shorts about it from people without a clue
Science relies on testable evidence. String theory is a cool idea, but if you cannot test the basis of it you cannot say that it's a compete idea of how the universe functions. There have been good predictions made by string theory, but that doesn't mean the whole system is correct or compete. I'm not making up how science works, I'm describing how science works. Testing and experimentation is the foundation of science. I suggest you stop making assumptions about people you know nothing about and read some more of your books. @@Cosmalano
and they all ignored him for decades. finally got his recognition
I just love u Penrose, just a great Mind ❤🙏
Only the geniuses can get away with hair like that. ❤
Perry Combover
They don't care about their hair because they are immersed in math/physics. Look at Einstein's hair lol.
@@retired5218and honestly they are cooler like that , true role-models for hair care🤪
@@retired5218 everything becomes IRRELEVANT including your opinion once you start digging deep in your mind and become a somebody...mr.nobody
His hair is normal? He's 90 years old senior citizen obviously he'll be partially bald, but they are neatly combed.
Love Dr Penrose! So thankful I had a chance to listen to him in my 20s. His brilliance shines through 🌞
I totally agree with Roger. If a theory cannot be tested, then it is not science. It is a philosophy written in mathematical language. One level up on the intellectual ladder from the old Greek philosophies.
Now tell me something...whats the universal language?
You have asked a very deep philosophical question we know math is the universal language and all that but only in case where the math intricately is liable to he verified via material experiment conduction which is simply not possible in case of string theory . The problem is not whether math is not true the problem is that if we can't experimentally check it than it simply isn't true that's how science operates . Now maybe it is True! But again if we can't proove it it's not even if people might think it is that's why modern sceince is so difficult because mathematics and experiment have become very divergent . What is true is one part and proving that is another in sceince ! And both are not going hand in hand as far as present experimental limitation of human
I don't think neither you nor Penrose understand how Physics actually works. Which is quite sad because Penrose even claims to be a Physicist and recognized as one.
A theory can only be tested if the technology capability catches up with the time. That has always been the case. And in the cutting edge case, the theory arises first and then people start to work on real ways to test it.
That happened with the electric alternating rotor by Tesla, and then Atomic Bomb by Oppenheimer, to the theorization of Positron by Dirac.
Saying because we can't test it immediately then it's useless is as childish as it can get.
Please.
@@markarmage3776 Roger Penrose is not just "recognized" as a physicist, he is a Noble Laureate. What are you??
He is a physicist with an open mind. No scientist is perfect, even Stephen Hawking made a mistake. In some cases, the theories were proven wrong by improved technology. No doubt Roger knows how physics works; don't you even try to belittle him. He knows what he is talking about.
@@johnlay3040 Well, he is a Mathematical Physicist, so yeah maybe he is a Physicist. But again, he's totally wrong about this aspect of Physics.
Any Physicist can be wrong, doesn't matter what your name is or how many awards you've been given, but don't confuse wrong with inability to verify.
String theory is very consistent, it's "beautiful", there is no known physical phenomenon that disprove String Theory, meaning you haven't found anything that dismiss String Theory entirely.
Penrose doesn't know what he's talking about here. Because what he's talking about is the dismissal of an explanation based on how there's no technology to test it. He's basically dismissing the nature theoretical physics entirely.
Countless predictions, theories that were eventually proven correct were not proven or tested, or even capable of being tested at the time of it's formulation, but the role of those theories are extremely crucial in the formulation of results in the future. Please show some respect.
It's a ridiculous criticism. Criticism of a theory can be mathematical inconsistencies, violating known rules of Physics, etc, etc. Not that "for now, we have no way to test it".
Witten knows that string theorie is not physics. But it is nice mathematics.
Snake oil salesman with a phd
He was the son of one of the leading anti-gravity researchers in the 50’s. Interesting that Witten took physics down a path where things couldn’t really be experimentally tested…..
@@EdgarHernandez-dq4vjnot at cern, mit, or really most applied fields and like multiple theoretical branches. it's up to whatever you choose, and realistically it's qft or the damn yarn. or there's a fundemantal we cannot observe, due to instrument or brain 😂. I prefer the last school, I'd subscribe and bet on qft. but I will say the random field equations just popping out of string theory would 100% make me spend my life on it
If it were my theory.
I've heard of his dad, I've never found a source. Not being a douche, just curious, anywhere I can read about him?
@@seanmcmanus9656 AIP has a transcript of an interview they did with his back in the early 2010’s. He’s still alive shockingly enough at the age of 103!
@@EdgarHernandez-dq4vj damn. Witten looks ancient, the yarn cat witten. Ed. I never even thought to look at his dad's life status lmao
there is another route, it's his job to control m theory and live as long as possible just like his dad 😂. seriously though, if there is a stagnation theory, m theory would be the place to look for unification. could also be his goal to make m theory aka largely pure math and experimental geometry... harder than it needs to be in context to obsfucate the important bits.
Not really my cup of physics, so I'd need a string theorist to answer.
Thank goodness! As a layperson, I seem completely incapable of understanding String Theory, now I can say, "Hey, it's not really physics. It's higher math. Not my thing!"
Exactly what Sabine Hossenfelder wrote in her book "Lost in Math" from 2018.
He's not on Hossenfelder's "side" either though, not at all. Just feel like this important to stress.
@@notexactlyrocketscience He´s on her side on that special point. Science is a permanent debate, but as Penrose said, ST is not science anymore.
@@Thomas-gk42 Talking about hidden variables here. Not string theory.
@@notexactlyrocketscience Not Penrose here. But he and SH will soon have a debate about QM on the HTLGI festival in London, the iai channel surely will upload it. Will become an interesting talk.Yep, I´m with Sabine on that point: so called superdeterminism is worth more research.
@@Thomas-gk42 I'm going to have to watch that, thanks for the heads-up. Do think local realism can be saved?
Penrose is great, but this comment section is grossly dogmatic. Physics isn't about 'owning the stablishment' or battling teams, either. Everything in String Theory has been part of a valuable process - collaboratively modeling ideas of how the universe may work, and seeing if any opportunities open up to test.
Not to poke fun or anything, but at some point a space may turn into its own echo chamber. How do string theorists get themselves to open a proverbial window every now and then to connect to the outside world? Finding fit in theories based on unverifiable means is a lot less impressive than it may seem on the surface. Making sense is great, making sense is not truth by default. If you created a space made up of gaps it turns out you can always find more to fill with further tracking rhetoric.
Eh. Penrose wrote a book called "Fashion, Faith and Fantasy". Go figure. If anything is dogmatic, it's scientific praxis by way of publish or perish and "mainstream" arrogance. If he's right, an entire generation was wasted.
@@vkjs2 This entire comments section is an echo chamber. You have people who are open to exploring alternate possibilities and those that stubbornly refuse to offer solutions to problems despite shooting others down.
@@vkjs2 In addition, you should stop projecting. RUclips commenters and redditors alike tend to do that an awful lot.
String theory is just Mathematicians LARPing as Physicists lmao
Yes. It's speculative physics, not experimental physics.
Not even theoretical, and not even wrong as Pauli would say
speculative implies that the theory in question makes assumptions or predicts results which can or could in the future be experimentally verified, unlike the idea of adding extra dimensions, just to save a model which tries to solve problems on the frontiers of physics by needlessly complicate them.
It’s equivalent to political redistricting. An ideal conflicts with reality, so shift a map upon reality until you get what you want. Call the map reality.
So nobody should work on quantum gravity? Every theory on qg, not just string theory, is not experimentally verifiable because the planck scale is much smaller than our tools
speculative physics is experimental physics, because speculations mean we can test them. this is neither of those, that's why he says its not physics. its not telling anything about the real world
Living in a world of many theories and few facts
String Theory: When you have advanced physics degrees but can’t bring yourself to simply say I have no effing clue.
I think you have no clue What penrose says😂
The Einstein of our time.
Definitely not. He might be more intelligent, i don't know, but he is not the Einstein of our era. The impacts both have are completely different.
@Technophile2323 I'm sorry you have a difficult time understanding basic English. Good luck
No. He isn't.
this nigga is way better than Einstein
why isnt he ? tell me one theoretical physicists smarter then him that isnt stuck in the past 200 years @@lucycloverlincoln111
Daaaamn, right in front of Brian greene
Finally someone said it.
This is what a Nobel Prize does
"As far as *I* can see..."
Ah... there's your problem right there. Lack of vision.
Can people with proper vision set up a hypothesis that can be tested? Otherwise it's not a vision, it's a mathematical mirage
true the theory should imply to reality not the other way around
I AGREE, PROFFESSOR ROGER PENROSE
IS ROGHT. IT WOULD TAKE A PARTICLE
ACCELERATOR THE SIZE OF OUR SOLAR
SYSTEM TO PROVE OR DISPROVE STRING-THEORY.❤
Love the man's honest uncertainty; it gives faith for much better possibilities than are currently possibly possible to perceive, as we don't even know of each others true perceptions and possibly are able to forget even our own at times. THIS COMMENT IS NOT A JOKE. God bless guys, have faith that we didn't create The Univers or even ourselves and our own perceptions. ❤
He is still a great man!
Would anyone send it's video link
Penrose: "String theory is not a theory of how the world operates."
Also Penrose: "Conformal Cyclic Cosmology."
this clip cuts out right before Brian starts crying
Penrose > Witten
ruclips.net/video/C8myJ6BngCA/видео.html
Damn straight
Have you read any papers of either person? This is such a childish comment
Am I missing something? Was there some controversy between these two or is it just the classic physics controversy for TOE
Yeah because physics is just like sportsball apparently
I love how Brian Greene acts all serious about this criticism but you know he doesn't care actually
He also does his rebuttals after the short ends.
Fix the paradigm, and ST will be seen to be a partial remarkable insight.
The extra dimensions being then no more necessary than the multiple circles needed in geocentric models of planetary motions.
Feynman thought it was useless, too. And so it is.
I forget who Feynman said it to but one day at Caltech he asked a string theorist "how many dimensions are we in today" which is so Feynman
. . . another Nobel Prize winner. Yeah, I'll take Feynman over any string theorist.
Relieved that he said this
I would like to know from Penrose... If i look at the wavelength of a foton and this wavelength would be 0,1mm long, how many time moments would be inside this length?
One dimension is fine per Occam's Razor. The problem with string theory is the other 10 dimensions noted in the theory.
Occam's Razor is sophistry, it does not always apply to physics - sometimes the most complicated solution IS the correct solution (e.g. non-general solutions to _n_-body problems and sensitive dependence upon initial conditions.) My preferred razor is Adler's razor...
Damn that woman in the navy jumper
I personally think that String Theory is a cautionary tale of what happens when you mistake Math for Physics.
Rhetorical questions: Does math not describe physics? Is 99.5% of theoretical physics not crunching numbers and then spitting out predictions to test against reality?
Math is how the Higgs boson was predicted 50 years before its discovery. Math is how the CMB was predicted 30 years before we could even detect microwaves. Math is how we predicted the muon years before experimentally confirming it. Math is how we predicted black holes decades before discovering them. Math is how we predicted neutrinos decades before discovering them. Math is how we predicted gravity waves a hundred years before discovering them.
Yes, math and physics are conceptually different things, but in the practice of doing theoretical physics research it's almost entirely a mathematical endeavor.
Actual questions: What exactly is the problem with approaching theoretical physics research from a mathematical starting point?
What is your basis for calling string theory "mistaking physics for math," and would you apply that same reasoning to any of the examples I listed?
😂no bro @@ThorsDecree
@@ICPR-YT ye bro 😂
Unless you're answering the only yes or no question I asked in that post, I have no idea what the "no" you wrote is referring to.
If you disagree with something I said, perhaps you could articulate what that is. I can't read minds, so you'll have to use your big boy words.
That is, unless a whole _two words_ was your whole vocabulary budget for this month? I get it, WolframAlpha is expensive lol.
@@ThorsDecree 🤣
@@ICPR-YT ;-)
To the Penrose hype fanboys in the comment section, this guy is not the only physicist on the planet, and yes, he doesn't have much expertise in this specific aspect of his field, which is not what his Nobel prize was about. So please show some respect.
What is he saying? There isn’t any sound no matter what I try
What happens when two nothings collide?
There is an old saying in Rock and Roll, "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
How do you know that the dimensions of our world are four? No experiments have shown that.
String theorists just say that the concept of dimensions is less obvious beyond the GR. Be skeptical without ignoring developments.
Based!
I too could say all sorts of shit I can't back up, that doesn't make them 'developments'. Conjectures at best
Roger succinctly says what many people have wanted to say for thirty years.
It's sad to see a comments section almost completely full of bots.
That lady sitting on stage ❤
I AGREE.❤ STRING THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE.
” just one more collider, trust me bro ” - famous string theorist's words
It's not easy being Greene.
I AGREE. STRING THEORY AND SUPERSTRING THEORY AND LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY IS NOT SCIENCE.❤
Penrose is much smarter than Hawkins ever was 🧐
Than Hawkins ever would have been
Hawking? 😂
@@beezowdoodoozoppitybopbopb9488 Hawking doesn't even exist in front of these giants
@@beezowdoodoozoppitybopbopb9488 yes. Very much so.
Keep learning mate. Doesn't matter if you agree.
But I'm right 🤣
His final book was a parody of science at best.
@@Gazishahchak Facts
I love to read and listen about physics but not mathematical derivations 😂
Thank you sir
Glory not to me Glory only to God Forever we can prove it right
Name of the person in video ?
The Nobel prize winning genius has spoken.
then what about loop quantum gravity ?
looks a little too loopy IMHO
I mean on the one hand, the fact that we are only able to observe a certain number of dimensions with our physically constrained bodies doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t additional dimensions we can’t access, because our physical bodies do not have extension in those dimensions. But I do think he’s right that String Theory goes into a lot of constructions for which there still isn’t any evidence, which don’t have predictive power, & seem to have been a wrong path, overhyped by media & a lot of resources being poured into promoting & funding the proponents of this theory quite selectively. It became a fad with its own String Theory-industrial complex, & so it took on a life of its own, but it’s never been as compelling to me as many other very deserving theories which don’t get that kind of press, or research funding.
The problem I see with string theory is that is has to make the universe profoundly more complex in order to suit its assumptions.
I agree with what Roger is saying. String Theory is not only Physics but it is not even a scientific theory.
Now he can speak freely and tell the truth.
He is correct. There are no "extra" dimensions.
How can that be tested?
it is very interesting that he speaks with such certainty of dismissal of what could be..
That's the wole point. Many things "could be", science is about finding out what "actually is" by confrontibg your hypothesis with experimental data. If you can't test it, it's nothing but a fiction story. Could be an interesting story, could be carefully written, could be based on mathematics. But a story nontheless.
@@TomFromMarsyes, and we find out what is by speculating what could be
@@snottyboy9983 that's the first step, yes. Doing science means you have to do the whole process not just getting stuck at the first step. This isn't hard to grasp...
Then prove it wrong.
prove santa is not real. you can't....therefore...Santa is real?
The problem with this statement is because string theory is not yet testable doesn't mean that will always be the case - example if you were sitting in 1799 you would be saying the same thing about atoms, that it's not science because they're too small to be observed and tested.
Spectroscopy, if you knew anything about it you' make precice predictions of atomic spectra
I agree but it's not like Penrose doesn't engage in some woo stuff of his own, but I guess at least people recognize Penrose's bizarre adventures aren't something worth dedicating a significant portion of resources too, unlike the enormous amount that is wasted on string theory.
I don't think that the mathematics that we have now can go beyond of what we think we might know about string theory, we might have have to invent a new form of mathematics to continue exploring this theory
It's not the mathematics... It's the experiments that are missing...
The mathematics are amazingly pretty though. Not that that matters for physics. The Lagrangian of the Standard Model is extremely ugly but also the best model we have ever produced
There’s no doubt Ed Witten and other string theorists are geniuses, but it’s odd how plenty of other scientists say they’ve been on a wild goose chase for the past 50 years
Thats my man
String Theory has been Limited in its Success because its Primarily a Geometric Theory when Ultimately Physics is Dynamical. Geometry, Form & Dimensionality arise or Emerge from Dynamics(Action especially Spin-Action=Complexity). String Theory needs to be Redefined as a 'Condensed-Conformal Energy-Force System' & Renamed 'Vibration' Theory(Elementary Quantum Particles are Harmonic & Anharmonic Oscillators). Although Extra-Dimensions & a Multiverse can still be Included though. More Later!....
Sheldon Cooper wouldn't be happy 😅😅😅
Brian greene smashing his piano
The very idea of there being more than three or maybe four dimensions seems like a hoodwink. When people say that they’re just very small or kind of “rolled in there” it sounds like all they’re really saying is that they’re just really small and rolled in there in three dimensions.
Parallels do cross. At least on eggs.
What if the way the world operates is not experimentaly testable?
Check yourself
Imagine all the great minds who were laughed at at one point are another.
Love Roger
elegant
String Theory might actually be the explanation for how nature and the Universe operates at the absolutely smallest scales, but it's physically impossible for us at this time to conduct experiments to either verify or disprove claims made about them (assuming that they, in fact, exist, and do what is claimed by String Theorists that they do); so, a lot of what is claimed by STs about Strings, including their properties and how they function, have to be taken on-faith for the time being -- and that is something that scientists of any discipline are loathe to do. Until the day comes when the existence of Strings can be verified, and experiments can be conducted upon them, I'm afraid that ST will remain a strong hypothesis, at-best, and it might wind up to be unprovable
I like him.
Hmm the exact same was said about Newtons theories, Einsteins theories, Maxwells theories, etc. Only when proven is it “science” but it takes decades of theoretical work to get to that point 🤷🏼♂️
But they all gave predictions string theory doesn't give anything
Literally, I have heard about string theory since I was young but never heard of any good prediction it has. No a single one.
you don't know shit so pipe down
no no same thing was said about these 3 people's theories
String Theory is multi-dimensional Sudoku.
I imagine Edward Witten edging himself while working on string theory 🎉
The test of time … how long a piece of string
String theory is now making measurable predictions , for example black hole entropy, and is looking more and more convincing. I'm with Brian on this one, sorry Rog'.
I don’t care if you call it chopped liver. I care whether it’s right.
String hypothesis!
Stringers received most research money
Woah, brotha tryin'a start a beef wid sum budy
"These predictions can't be tested as far as I can see"
The medicine in his pocket prescribed for his catorax!
*cataracts
Good stuff.
I think the only thing string theory can prove is that yarn is the best toy for cats.
It would be most epic if he had said this straight to Witten’s face lol. Penrose has said what many of us have felt for so long. You can’t experimentally test it? Ever!? Then drop it and move on!
Thats why sean caroll is rich without any experiment grade stuff or big breakthrough - brian greene as well😂
damn so based
Lol I didn't know scientists also used the word based
@@basil9633 only when it's particularly based
This in short clip form is not helpful to understand his real point.
String theory describes his hair😮
I believe in Sheldon!