This was published 8 years ago and Smolin's comments hold now even more strongly than they did then. Supersymmetry? Zero experimental support, despite its proponents' high hopes. A fortiori, supergravity, and a fortiori, string theory. Zip, nothing, nada. The physicists should be extremely embarrassed that they've pushed so hard down a rabbit hole for 35 years (supersymmetry got started in the mid seventies) that not only does not have experimental support, it's unfalsifiable. If you don't see something that would support the theory, you just change the theory to fit. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. They might as well be doing astrology. And that is a serious comment: astrology is also unfalsifiable, it is also is a model of how the world works, and it can also be very mathematical. And now physicists are awarding themselves prizes (the "Breakthrough Prize") for working on theories whose only success has been spawning other theories, despite having zero experimental support. Perhaps astrologers should consider awarding each other "Breakthrough Prizes". I love Lee Smolin's work. I like his courage in standing up to the prevailing fashions. I went to a string theory conference in the mid 1980's in which Gerard 't Hooft, an invited speaker, thanked the organizers for his nice hotel room, which had two TVs, but he didn't switch them on because he didn't want to be advertised at from all directions. And then he said this conference feels the same. We need more examples of the kind of courage that Smolin, 't Hooft and Penrose exhibit.
I'm surprised by how well informed is the interviewer (Stephen Sackur) for such as complicated topic. Yes he interrupted a lot and maybe my expectations were too low, but I really think he did a fine job considering the subject matter.
Excellent interview. The interviewer was probing and challenging (as he should have been), and I greatly enjoyed Smolin's responses, which reveal the eclecticism of his thinking.
I came to listen to Lee Smolin, Not have him interrupted prior to finishing each question. This was a perfect example of how to maintain disbelief in science for a (very needed) globally religious audience... simply by refusing to let L.S. finish an answer. Especially effective when asking questions from an inflammatory, uneducated, authoritarian viewpoint. Instead of one that actually seeks meaningful answers to researched, and meaningful questions. Kudos to the interviewer for only allowing L.S. to come to the *beginning of his answers before asking the next, instead of listening for him to finish. That way, there are no seeds of doubt that can be sown in the minds of listeners, because they won't have to think for themselves. They can just be told how to think and what to think. I guess anyone actually watching the show on television in the first place are not only okay with being told how and what to think, but need and enjoy it. Groupthink. Heard mentality. Religion. Media. Hook, line and sinker.
I think you're right, but I don't watch T.V. so I was caught off guard. I'm used to seeing him at lectures etc. If this is common of the program though, viewers are being ripped off and manipulated. T.V. viewers, unless able to use critical thinking, are being shaped and manipulated out in the open (which is par for the course I assume), which we've known for a long time.. See: Vance Packard's: The Hidden Persuaders bit.ly/1NOHyBi Cheers.
James Thomsen That's why it's so important to use as many sources as possible. If you look into something covered by Fox News, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, The Young Turks, C-SPAN, and CNS you might just be able to piece together some truth... but still probably not.
What the fuck does it have to do with religion ? Why are you atheist people always trying to sound smart or to link all subjects to religion even when religious people have nothing to do with ??
This interview is wonderful. What an intelligent guy. I'm happy to have found out he exists. So insightful! I hope he partners with other like-minded people and is a part of another ground breaking discovery. I hope I can someday be a part of that!
Despsir that now he is rarely delivering his public talks. I search every day if there is any fresh presentation by Lee. A great mind of the era yet so humble!
This is not just the case in theoretical physics, its a major problem in most scientific disciplines now, with more and more power in the hands of the senior scientists.
5 more years passed... and string theory is just there. i hope after 10 more years if i come to this video again,, string theory would just be at the same point
No theory dies until all its supporters collect their pensions and go fishing. I find Smollin pretty convincing that string theory is just one of those fads that float through academia. The problem is we know that the whole quantum thing is Wonderful, Powerful, and Empirically Useful. We also know that it doesn't make sense -- and we don't have a new paradigm for "making sense," the whole huge epistemological project. So for the next few years we're in a ver-ree uncomfortable place, seems to me. That means another ten years of Brian Greene prancing around telling us what Marvellous Mysteries Science is Producing. Ugh. -dlj.
Shorter String Theory: the Standard Model keeps blowing up with all these furshlugginer infinities. OK, we'll stop dividing by zero. No more nils. Every one of them is now officially declared a Little Tiny. No more infinities, just a bunch of Great Bigs. Great Bigs are Good: they make huge funding requests seem normal... -dlj.
Commenantor did very good job, he gives Smolin opportunity to clarify his position and reveal misconceptions, obviously, by opposing him from the more orthodoxal view, because Smolin is doing no less than criticizing mainstream science concept. And we can see that he is no mad scientist, he isn't denying that the "earth is round", he has his point.
@@robbie_ I disagree. While I'm on Smolin's side, the devil's advocate played by Sakur was brilliant. As a physicist, actually my regard for him has been raised another notch after this interview.
Very good interview.The interviewer is one of the best prepared I've heard yet.Smolin may be right, or maybe they are all right in some ways yet to be discovered. We are in no position yet to say that any of theories proposed are ridiculous or not. We may even have gravity wrong again. Until we figure out (if we do I should say) what dark matter and bark energy is.....well, let the wondrous mystery that is our universe evolve, and let the intelligent debate continue.
@heethen1 there is causal set theory, causal dynamical triangulation, etc. string theory is currently the most ambitious because it tries to unify all the forces, the rests that i mentioned including LQG are attempts to just unify general relativity and quantum field theory to find a quantum theory for gravity.
as someone in the physics community, the real problem is that theoretical physicists create these elegant models, then don't bother to make any predictions that can be experimentally verified to support their model. Maybe not so much in supersymmetry, but this especially true in the cutting edge of quantum information theory (such as different pilot-wave theories, SED, etc). it appears they fear that their theory will be knocked down, then blame experimentalists for not keeping up. No, many theorists are really just mathematicians who want to live in their own little bubble, avoiding the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Surely the problem is that we already have a very accurate model which explains pretty much everything we can observe. Thus any new interpretation or theory has to produce identical predictions for all current observations or else it is obviously wrong. This being the case, there is inevitblly no way to test one model against another because we need to find cases where they differ.
chrisofnottingham no I didn't. You said in your previous post that we "already have a very accurate model which explains pretty much everything we can observe." ... however we have no accurate model to explain the collapse of the wave-function except as an instantaneous collapse into a single state, never a superposition of states.
Even tho you are just trollin' I will point out that the instantaneous collapse into a single state *is* the model. Interpretation is futile for the reason I gave.
This is a very old old program - we're in august, 2023 - and the host's suggestion that the Hadron collider at Cern might prove string theory has not borne out. It hasn't disproved either, which was the point Lee Smolin was making. It is exceptionally hard to prove and w/o that it remains an interesting speculation.
This. Also, there are many interesting approaches to this issue. Penrose's "Cycles of time" is one such approach, though it is more concerned with entropy within the early universe. Even so, it is the details that make experimentation possible. Geometry on it's own doesn't make a testable theory.
I pretty much agree with everything Smolin said. I wouldn't say that there has not been advancement in theoretical and experimental physics, especially now that the LHC has apparently found the/a Higgs Boson, but I do agree that the physics community seems to be in the middle of the job and it's still quite open to see what can be done about finishing the revolution. And we might be on the cusp of an even more confounding new revolution.
@heethen1 Among many approaches : - None commutative Geometry (from the French Mathematician Alain Connes, who got some significant results during the summer 2006, by obtaining the Model Standard Lagrangian) - Twistor Theory (the mathematician Roger Penrose) - The group theory E8 (an Exceptionnal Simple Theory by Garett Lisi)
My only problem with the string theorists is that they make no down to earth predictions, and yet they talk to the public like their theory is the final theory. This is no different from selling snake oil.
Spot on mentioning "corporativized" science and academia in general... however, in business there is (or at least should be) market, competition, customers as a fundamental forces that more or less do not exist in academia (what's main driving force of a professional scientist? Next month salary! => publish or perish, etc etc)
Smolin gave a hint of it in his book, but now I can see that he has the same problem as string theorist, rationalism. They refer to the beauty of physics while completely forgetting that physics does not need to be beautiful in anyway. The main benefit of Smolin is that he still holds a strong alliance to experiment, unlike string theory.
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators - Spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half rolled into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere
I like Lee Smolin, he seems like a nice guy. I'm not sure whether him exploring the potentials of LQG is the best thing for his career, but each to their own. Either way, I agree with him about string theory, it is the theory of the uncreative who have a need to sound intelligent. Even MB theory, which is simple speculation, seems to have more of a real world idea than string theory.
I appreciate Dr. Smolin's respect of the audacity of the big questions of science. The fact is that proven theories scientifically both have elegant mathematical proofs and physical evidence. It is at the very least troubling that string theory not only does not have any physical evidence but also any predictions that validate its authenticity.
Are you saying that you believe the discovery of the Higgs Boson, which won the Nobel Prize in Physics, displays not even a single shred of evidence or at least pokes at the chance of validity?
No I am not. The Higgs Boson is a subatomic particle that is a component of the standard model of particle physics. On the other hand, string theory is a theory on a smaller level that describes the components of fundamental particles. Unlike string theory, the standard model (that contains the Higgs Boson) has plenty of experimental evidence. Mostly from the LHC. String Theory gives a creative and interesting proposal for the components of fundamental particles and how these "strings" behave. But it does not propose any experiments at attainable energies to prove its validity. I find it troubling that after more than 25 years of working on blackboards, string theorists cannot propose any test to prove that these "strings" exist within subatomic particles. The scientific method requires some sort of real world proof of a theory. Without this step, theories are just writing on paper and ideas floating in peoples heads.
Yolanda Salas The LHC confirmation of the existence of the Higgs Boson actually casts doubt on the validity of Supersymmetry, which is a crucial part of the foundation of String Theory. Supersymmetry predicts a partner particle for each particle in the Standard Model, with energies calculated to lie in the range probed by the LHC's Higgs Boson investigation. The absence any evidence of supersymmetric particles in the LHC results crushed the hope that these experiments would provide physical confirmation of Supersymmetry that could be used to validate String Theory. news.discovery.com/space/lhc-discovery-maims-supersymmetry-again-130724.htm
basically he is saying: just assume that gravity is emergent phenomenon instead of depending on imaginary Gravitons to carry it and just go on from there, what do you know, String theory might even work.
I don't think it would matter if we even developed a theory that showed everything can be reduced to one particle. Because we'd eventually ask what that particle is made of.
The issue with string theory is that it remains just a theory and has hijacked funding from other credible theories. Having studied it for 12 years I have become disillusioned with it as the further it goes the more sticky tape is required to join the disjointed bits together.
19:05 - _what if there is no unified picture of reality?_ I thought about it once. It doesn't seem likely to me. Let's posit the existence of two supposedly separate ontological realities that make up our world. If they make up our world, that means they must somehow interact for this process to succeed. But if they interact with each other, it would at least suggest that there is really an underlying ontology somewhere deeper (otherwise, how would two totally separate ontologies interact?) and can encompass the other two. So it's definitely worth pursuing.
(15:00) No, the only thing shown at the LHC to back up string theory aspects, is you would need to blow it up in a conundrum of immeasurable energies. Smolin is right: just like with Copenhagen, String has contributed for sure, but not as the main unification directive theory. And it has led to under examination of other theories.
I get so used to the inane, immature, and clueless questions most interviewers ask on a subject like this that I was riveted in amazement at this exchange. I would almost call it a debate. Who the hell was this interviewer and is he always this well prepared and knowledgeable on his subjects? I also liked the complete lack of animosity despite some fairly pointed and hard questions. Well done to both of them.
25 years passed before this interview, without any "groundbreaking" achievement in physics (but math) by string theorists, despite so many extra fund spent and thousands of best minds in physics working on it. Another 10 years passed since this interview, and we are still in the square one, despite so many boasting and empty promises by string theorists ... , yet they still insist that the are on the right paths in their "metaphysical" mission and 35 years is a "blink of eyes"!! Really?
Yup… geocentrism, epicycles - history repeats, this time it’s just more high tech and we believe we are the most advanced there has ever been… Let’s reconvene in 5 more years
so for people to know, he says a factor of 10 is like a foot to an inch. and the size of the collider is about the size of a small city. now take that factor of 10 and do it 20 times. thats taking that small city and growing it by a factor of 10, 20 times. which is ABOUT the size of the galaxy. in other words what he is saying is, "unless you have a collider the size of the galaxy, then no you will not see the strings from string theory"
The problem situation for string theory is the same as that for atomic theory in the time of the ancient greeks. The theory makes eminent sense but there are no forseeable chances of obtaining the empirical data needed to confirm them.
Logarithmic Time 0-1-2-ness is the axial-tangential orthogonal-normal candidate for the dominant resonance positioning probability sequence of a "string" manifestation. Each superposition step in QM-TIMESPACE sequence vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity Perspective is critical to understanding the nature of log-antilog Conformal Field Condensation Correspondence. The null set, zeroth law, i-reflection containment in No-thing and Centre of Time eternally self-defining by formless spacing pure-math functional motion e-Pi-i continuous connection.., default defines the Reciproction-recirculation Completeness of implied Spheroidal Toroidal hyper surface orthogonal-normal log-antilog functionality-tangency in Unity.., which by i-reflection AdS/CFT Holographic Principle is potentially possible-motivational 2-ness i-reflection containment, and aligned modulo-geometrical interference positioning projection-drawing etc towards proximal and distal frequency density-intensity vanishing-into-no-thing limits at 1-0-infinity axial-tangential sync-duration quantization probability alignments. The solidity of eternal nothing, hyperfluidity of unity in Timey-Wimey e-Pi-i Reciproction-recirculation infinitesimal vertices in fractal conic-cyclonic resonances Vortex, is pushing our ability to comprehend the universe of probability positioning floating in potential sum-of-all-histories superposition possibility. "String Theoretical reasoning and Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning shaping by e-Pi-i inflation-condensation modulation cause-effect log-antilog Timing-spacing.., it's not "simple" or complex integration of ONE-INFINITY and simultaneously "not even wrong" conceptually.
Has Smolin never heard of ER=EPR which comes from the background of String Theory and is closely related to well known observables and thus potentially experimental testable
In defense of the knowledgeable people who have the kind of mind to assemble current understandings, the information base is at first superficially about how things work before discovering what they are and why they have to be that way. All fields of study need expertise in a narrow focus, ...who are practical and can't get on with generalization or theory because it's the difference between inside and outside reasonable certainty. The problem is that practicality degenerates into rule of thumb convention and habitual beliefs. Stability breeds corruption as circumstances and resources change. The art of revision is required for renewal. Hierarchies go down as well as up and where they intersect they weave tapestries (of strings). Evolution is another word for change or movement and the relative density/distribution of quantized information. The multiverse idea is also equivalent to the tapestries of strings making a fabric of resonance in which the sum over histories integration of timing condenses from many threads(?). Good talk, worth rewatching at intervals.
The short answer is Black Projects. We have been advancing just not in the public's eye. That's why they water down our text books to say that something that is possible to be impossible. Tesla was the last open breakthrough and look what happened to him.
Beautiful. The interviewer pulls the "god" argument on Smolin when discussing string theory. "But .... it could be little vibrating strings [in 11 dimensions] ... you ... don't rule it out". Like saying "you have no proof that god doesn't exist you silly physicist who wants to have experimental proof for everything!1!!" But ... one has to admit ... If those little vibrating strings are supposed to exist ... c'mon ... show'em to me ... otherwise it's just a nice piece of fiction. Just because it satisfies your contextually limited need for mathematical congruence does not mean that it's a valid model.
Oh may god! How does he deal with constant interruptions!? I mean, I get it as a host on a time-limited segment you have to squeeze a lot in but holy shit it's annoying. Kudos to Smolin for not flipping out.
Very interesting discussion. Not a slagging match, but a seemingly knowledgeable interviewer (for a change!) discussing whether a scientific theory without real evidence, and hence a mathematical philosophy until proven otherwise, should take as much weight and research funding as other stuff. Nice. :)
I hear this a lot, especially from guys like Lawrence Krauss, this emphasis on experiment and its a very simple point, you dont have to be a scientist to understand this. A mathematical model, like string theory, no matter how beautiful it is, if it doesnt make any testable predictions or requires an accelerator the size of the solar system I mean where do you go from there? Apparently, according to Smolin, string theory makes NO predictions because it allows for so many configurations
I was judging it from a mainstream perspective though. He has to keep his audience. Some physics conferences have also been harsh/rude though. It has happened before that an announcer asked the audience to tear the upcoming speaker to shreds. Or those who proposed the Higgs boson back then and got humiliated in front of others for their "dumb idea" by leading figures. This just seemed civil in comparison to me ;) PS Repaired=prepared in my earlier comment. Damn autocorrection :P
Smolin’s class and patience is beautiful here and his final answer is so good.
Professor Smolin, a true scientist. I salute you sir!
Or at least a fine sceptic... Salute agreed.
-dlj.
Diche Bach lol?
Nolol
@@TheDavidlloydjones Being a skeptic is inherently part of true science.
This was published 8 years ago and Smolin's comments hold now even more strongly than they did then. Supersymmetry? Zero experimental support, despite its proponents' high hopes. A fortiori, supergravity, and a fortiori, string theory. Zip, nothing, nada. The physicists should be extremely embarrassed that they've pushed so hard down a rabbit hole for 35 years (supersymmetry got started in the mid seventies) that not only does not have experimental support, it's unfalsifiable. If you don't see something that would support the theory, you just change the theory to fit. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. They might as well be doing astrology. And that is a serious comment: astrology is also unfalsifiable, it is also is a model of how the world works, and it can also be very mathematical. And now physicists are awarding themselves prizes (the "Breakthrough Prize") for working on theories whose only success has been spawning other theories, despite having zero experimental support. Perhaps astrologers should consider awarding each other "Breakthrough Prizes".
I love Lee Smolin's work. I like his courage in standing up to the prevailing fashions. I went to a string theory conference in the mid 1980's in which Gerard 't Hooft, an invited speaker, thanked the organizers for his nice hotel room, which had two TVs, but he didn't switch them on because he didn't want to be advertised at from all directions. And then he said this conference feels the same. We need more examples of the kind of courage that Smolin, 't Hooft and Penrose exhibit.
but it looks like Einstein's revolution won't be finished in either Lee's or my lifetime, for sure.
Yeah and they want to take billions and build an even bigger collider to look again.
In my opinion "Time Reborn" by Lee Smolin was a fantastic read, and definitely one of the best modern physics books I have read.
I love this guy. A true and very smart New Yorker. Not afraid to speak his mind.
Big Science. Money. Consensus-fixation. Risk-aversion.
I'm surprised by how well informed is the interviewer (Stephen Sackur) for such as complicated topic. Yes he interrupted a lot and maybe my expectations were too low, but I really think he did a fine job considering the subject matter.
Excellent interview. The interviewer was probing and challenging (as he should have been), and I greatly enjoyed Smolin's responses, which reveal the eclecticism of his thinking.
Now its 2021. still can't make prediction with string theory.
As opposed to LQG which cant even recover GR
Lee Smolin has the patience of a saint. I would have just told this interviewer to STFU and been done with it.
I came to listen to Lee Smolin, Not have him interrupted prior to finishing each question. This was a perfect example of how to maintain disbelief in science for a (very needed) globally religious audience... simply by refusing to let L.S. finish an answer. Especially effective when asking questions from an inflammatory, uneducated, authoritarian viewpoint. Instead of one that actually seeks meaningful answers to researched, and meaningful questions.
Kudos to the interviewer for only allowing L.S. to come to the *beginning of his answers before asking the next, instead of listening for him to finish. That way, there are no seeds of doubt that can be sown in the minds of listeners, because they won't have to think for themselves. They can just be told how to think and what to think.
I guess anyone actually watching the show on television in the first place are not only okay with being told how and what to think, but need and enjoy it.
Groupthink.
Heard mentality.
Religion.
Media.
Hook, line and sinker.
James Thomsen It's "Hardtalk", the interviewer uses that confrontational style with all the guests.
I think you're right, but I don't watch T.V. so I was caught off guard.
I'm used to seeing him at lectures etc.
If this is common of the program though, viewers are being ripped off and manipulated.
T.V. viewers, unless able to use critical thinking, are being shaped and manipulated out in the open (which is par for the course I assume), which we've known for a long time..
See: Vance Packard's:
The Hidden Persuaders
bit.ly/1NOHyBi
Cheers.
James Thomsen That's why it's so important to use as many sources as possible. If you look into something covered by Fox News, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, The Young Turks, C-SPAN, and CNS you might just be able to piece together some truth... but still probably not.
What the fuck does it have to do with religion ? Why are you atheist people always trying to sound smart or to link all subjects to religion even when religious people have nothing to do with ??
Lee is in love with the ATHEIST GOD EINSTEIN.
This interview is wonderful. What an intelligent guy. I'm happy to have found out he exists. So insightful! I hope he partners with other like-minded people and is a part of another ground breaking discovery. I hope I can someday be a part of that!
I agree with Smolin that controversy and conflict are necessary for the growth of science rather that a pre-mature concensus.
I like this guy Lee. First Physicist I can actually tolerate. Not overly egotistic, embraces new outside ideas, great!
Despsir that now he is rarely delivering his public talks. I search every day if there is any fresh presentation by Lee. A great mind of the era yet so humble!
This is not just the case in theoretical physics, its a major problem in most scientific disciplines now, with more and more power in the hands of the senior scientists.
brilliant analogy with the structure of law and society at 11:51
5 more years passed... and string theory is just there. i hope after 10 more years if i come to this video again,, string theory would just be at the same point
No theory dies until all its supporters collect their pensions and go fishing.
I find Smollin pretty convincing that string theory is just one of those fads that float through academia. The problem is we know that the whole quantum thing is Wonderful, Powerful, and Empirically Useful. We also know that it doesn't make sense -- and we don't have a new paradigm for "making sense," the whole huge epistemological project.
So for the next few years we're in a ver-ree uncomfortable place, seems to me.
That means another ten years of Brian Greene prancing around telling us what Marvellous Mysteries Science is Producing. Ugh.
-dlj.
August 2019 still going lmao. I’m agreeing with you.
5 more years and still nothing. But at least people started talking about other theories now.
Five years later and string theory is still mostly a dead end
10 years now, string theory still without a single shred of evidence. I will come back after next 5 years!
Ah, an interviewer from the Cathy Newman school of thought.
What a case Lee made here. And the interviewer did a good job, too.
String Theory isn't a theory, meaning it makes no testable predictions. That's Smolin's point.
Thank you BBC and my dear colleagues Lee, you all Rock Big Time and I can`t wait to Rock with you, peace and love, Doug.
Hats of for the amazons interviewer who knows enough physics to have this conversation on a high level.
Wow, the BBC commentator really doesn't like what Smolin is saying.
+Tehom
Name of this TV show is "Hard Talk".
Shorter String Theory: the Standard Model keeps blowing up with all these furshlugginer infinities. OK, we'll stop dividing by zero. No more nils. Every one of them is now officially declared a Little Tiny.
No more infinities, just a bunch of Great Bigs. Great Bigs are Good: they make huge funding requests seem normal...
-dlj.
Layman nonsense
The commentator is so terribly annoying...
Commenantor did very good job, he gives Smolin opportunity to clarify his position and reveal misconceptions, obviously, by opposing him from the more orthodoxal view, because Smolin is doing no less than criticizing mainstream science concept. And we can see that he is no mad scientist, he isn't denying that the "earth is round", he has his point.
OOO, I think I love this man. How did I never hear of him before?
The intellect gap is too hard to watch. But what really breaks the straw is the condescension of the pea brained.
I didn't notice an "intellect gap". The interviewer asked all the right questions, given his audience isn't a room full of physicists.
@Jay Bee safer* :p
@@robbie_ I disagree. While I'm on Smolin's side, the devil's advocate played by Sakur was brilliant. As a physicist, actually my regard for him has been raised another notch after this interview.
@Jay Bee I read it! :-D So no, I don't think leaving your credit card number would be a good idea, although it would be safe with me. :-D
Very good interview.The interviewer is one of the best prepared I've heard yet.Smolin may be right, or maybe they are all right in some ways yet to be discovered. We are in no position yet to say that any of theories proposed are ridiculous or not. We may even have gravity wrong again. Until we figure out (if we do I should say) what dark matter and bark energy is.....well, let the wondrous mystery that is our universe evolve, and let the intelligent debate continue.
@roddiero cool thx - what's the name of the video?
@heethen1 there is causal set theory, causal dynamical triangulation, etc. string theory is currently the most ambitious because it tries to unify all the forces, the rests that i mentioned including LQG are attempts to just unify general relativity and quantum field theory to find a quantum theory for gravity.
as someone in the physics community, the real problem is that theoretical physicists create these elegant models, then don't bother to make any predictions that can be experimentally verified to support their model. Maybe not so much in supersymmetry, but this especially true in the cutting edge of quantum information theory (such as different pilot-wave theories, SED, etc). it appears they fear that their theory will be knocked down, then blame experimentalists for not keeping up. No, many theorists are really just mathematicians who want to live in their own little bubble, avoiding the scrutiny of the scientific method.
Surely the problem is that we already have a very accurate model which explains pretty much everything we can observe. Thus any new interpretation or theory has to produce identical predictions for all current observations or else it is obviously wrong. This being the case, there is inevitblly no way to test one model against another because we need to find cases where they differ.
chrisofnottingham so you are suggesting that The Measurement Problem is just a human fabrication?
pj Err, no. Did you post against the wrong comment?
chrisofnottingham no I didn't. You said in your previous post that we "already have a very accurate model which explains pretty much everything we can observe." ... however we have no accurate model to explain the collapse of the wave-function except as an instantaneous collapse into a single state, never a superposition of states.
Even tho you are just trollin' I will point out that the instantaneous collapse into a single state *is* the model. Interpretation is futile for the reason I gave.
I could not agree more, let's hope that physics soon gets back on track (although that's unlikely).
15:35 lmao that expression, I feel your pain Lee.
This interview was better than the book. This was great and very balanced
Good interviewer. He was well repaired and dared to ask some real questions.
Nice video.... Recent data from the LHC tends to confirm taht Smolin is right.
This is a very old old program - we're in august, 2023 - and the host's suggestion that the Hadron collider at Cern might prove string theory has not borne out. It hasn't disproved either, which was the point Lee Smolin was making. It is exceptionally hard to prove and w/o that it remains an interesting speculation.
This. Also, there are many interesting approaches to this issue. Penrose's "Cycles of time" is one such approach, though it is more concerned with entropy within the early universe. Even so, it is the details that make experimentation possible. Geometry on it's own doesn't make a testable theory.
I pretty much agree with everything Smolin said. I wouldn't say that there has not been advancement in theoretical and experimental physics, especially now that the LHC has apparently found the/a Higgs Boson, but I do agree that the physics community seems to be in the middle of the job and it's still quite open to see what can be done about finishing the revolution. And we might be on the cusp of an even more confounding new revolution.
Love him. Sean Carroll and others feel the same as he does. Probably internal politics in academia holding back fresh thought.
You should interview David Gross on string theory.
This video is a great example of why podcasts took over media. Don't even have time to let the man answer the questions.
appreciated his uses of "premature consensus"
The interviewer did his best. I wish he'd encouraged the Prof to expand on the competing hypotheses to string theory.
Lee Smolin book is a really good read!!!
@heethen1
Among many approaches :
- None commutative Geometry (from the French Mathematician Alain Connes, who got some significant results during the summer 2006, by obtaining the Model Standard Lagrangian)
- Twistor Theory (the mathematician Roger Penrose)
- The group theory E8 (an Exceptionnal Simple Theory by Garett Lisi)
They can't even find super symmetry, forget strings.
My only problem with the string theorists is that they make no down to earth predictions, and yet they talk to the public like their theory is the final theory. This is no different from selling snake oil.
Spot on mentioning "corporativized" science and academia in general... however, in business there is (or at least should be) market, competition, customers as a fundamental forces that more or less do not exist in academia (what's main driving force of a professional scientist? Next month salary! => publish or perish, etc etc)
Smolin gave a hint of it in his book, but now I can see that he has the same problem as string theorist, rationalism. They refer to the beauty of physics while completely forgetting that physics does not need to be beautiful in anyway. The main benefit of Smolin is that he still holds a strong alliance to experiment, unlike string theory.
he really loves the word "audacious" doesn't he?
There is a great idea! For the dark side of the Universe - suppose that it consists of short-term interactions in long-lived fractal networks, the smallest quantum operators - Spherical «rosebuds», consisting of a large set; 1 - rolled into a sphere, 2 - half rolled into a sphere and 3 - flat, vibrating quantum membranes relative to their working centers in the sphere
@roddiero you are very excellent
I like Lee Smolin, he seems like a nice guy. I'm not sure whether him exploring the potentials of LQG is the best thing for his career, but each to their own. Either way, I agree with him about string theory, it is the theory of the uncreative who have a need to sound intelligent. Even MB theory, which is simple speculation, seems to have more of a real world idea than string theory.
He said that ST is one of half a dozen attempts to unification. What are the other ones? Besides loop quantum gravity
I appreciate Dr. Smolin's respect of the audacity of the big questions of science. The fact is that proven theories scientifically both have elegant mathematical proofs and physical evidence. It is at the very least troubling that string theory not only does not have any physical evidence but also any predictions that validate its authenticity.
Are you saying that you believe the discovery of the Higgs Boson, which won the Nobel Prize in Physics, displays not even a single shred of evidence or at least pokes at the chance of validity?
No I am not.
The Higgs Boson is a subatomic particle that is a component of the standard model of particle physics. On the other hand, string theory is a theory on a smaller level that describes the components of fundamental particles.
Unlike string theory, the standard model (that contains the Higgs Boson) has plenty of experimental evidence. Mostly from the LHC.
String Theory gives a creative and interesting proposal for the components of fundamental particles and how these "strings" behave. But it does not propose any experiments at attainable energies to prove its validity.
I find it troubling that after more than 25 years of working on blackboards, string theorists cannot propose any test to prove that these "strings" exist within subatomic particles.
The scientific method requires some sort of real world proof of a theory. Without this step, theories are just writing on paper and ideas floating in peoples heads.
Yolanda Salas
The LHC confirmation of the existence of the Higgs Boson actually casts doubt on the validity of Supersymmetry, which is a crucial part of the foundation of String Theory. Supersymmetry predicts a partner particle for each particle in the Standard Model, with energies calculated to lie in the range probed by the LHC's Higgs Boson investigation. The absence any evidence of supersymmetric particles in the LHC results crushed the hope that these experiments would provide physical confirmation of Supersymmetry that could be used to validate String Theory.
news.discovery.com/space/lhc-discovery-maims-supersymmetry-again-130724.htm
He said so a couple of years ago after a lecture he gave.
I have a hypothesis about everything. It has testable predictions. I guess I have to do the tests and prove my hypothesis by myself. Wish me luck!
basically he is saying: just assume that gravity is emergent phenomenon instead of depending on imaginary Gravitons to carry it and just go on from there, what do you know, String theory might even work.
I don't think it would matter if we even developed a theory that showed everything can be reduced to one particle. Because we'd eventually ask what that particle is made of.
The issue with string theory is that it remains just a theory and has hijacked funding from other credible theories. Having studied it for 12 years I have become disillusioned with it as the further it goes the more sticky tape is required to join the disjointed bits together.
19:05 - _what if there is no unified picture of reality?_
I thought about it once. It doesn't seem likely to me. Let's posit the existence of two supposedly separate ontological realities that make up our world. If they make up our world, that means they must somehow interact for this process to succeed. But if they interact with each other, it would at least suggest that there is really an underlying ontology somewhere deeper (otherwise, how would two totally separate ontologies interact?) and can encompass the other two. So it's definitely worth pursuing.
(15:00) No, the only thing shown at the LHC to back up string theory aspects, is you would need to blow it up in a conundrum of immeasurable energies. Smolin is right: just like with Copenhagen, String has contributed for sure, but not as the main unification directive theory. And it has led to under examination of other theories.
lee ftw :P fascinating talk
If you enjoyed this video see: "unTED Visualizing Gravity, questioning Expanding Universe", and unTED Gravitational Red Shift Static Universe"
I get so used to the inane, immature, and clueless questions most interviewers ask on a subject like this that I was riveted in amazement at this exchange. I would almost call it a debate.
Who the hell was this interviewer and is he always this well prepared and knowledgeable on his subjects? I also liked the complete lack of animosity despite some fairly pointed and hard questions.
Well done to both of them.
Lee Smolin is inspirational and superb
he sounds very logic.
@Beelzebud Well put!
25 years passed before this interview, without any "groundbreaking" achievement in physics (but math) by string theorists, despite so many extra fund spent and thousands of best minds in physics working on it. Another 10 years passed since this interview, and we are still in the square one, despite so many boasting and empty promises by string theorists ... , yet they still insist that the are on the right paths in their "metaphysical" mission and 35 years is a "blink of eyes"!! Really?
Yup… geocentrism, epicycles - history repeats, this time it’s just more high tech and we believe we are the most advanced there has ever been… Let’s reconvene in 5 more years
Ed Witten has finally revealed that the M of M-theory stands for Meh
I like this man👍👍👍
Perhaps the notion that gravity has to be quantum poses a thought lock that prevents progress.
so for people to know, he says a factor of 10 is like a foot to an inch. and the size of the collider is about the size of a small city.
now take that factor of 10 and do it 20 times. thats taking that small city and growing it by a factor of 10, 20 times. which is ABOUT the size of the galaxy.
in other words what he is saying is, "unless you have a collider the size of the galaxy, then no you will not see the strings from string theory"
are there only 7 strings in the universe? like the 7 musical notes?
The problem situation for string theory is the same as that for atomic theory in the time of the ancient greeks. The theory makes eminent sense but there are no forseeable chances of obtaining the empirical data needed to confirm them.
this is like watching a kindergartener interview a Rhodes scholar.
Exactly! The interviewer has no idea about it.
I find the thought of theories necessarially
Logarithmic Time 0-1-2-ness is the axial-tangential orthogonal-normal candidate for the dominant resonance positioning probability sequence of a "string" manifestation.
Each superposition step in QM-TIMESPACE sequence vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity Perspective is critical to understanding the nature of log-antilog Conformal Field Condensation Correspondence.
The null set, zeroth law, i-reflection containment in No-thing and Centre of Time eternally self-defining by formless spacing pure-math functional motion e-Pi-i continuous connection.., default defines the Reciproction-recirculation Completeness of implied Spheroidal Toroidal hyper surface orthogonal-normal log-antilog functionality-tangency in Unity.., which by i-reflection AdS/CFT Holographic Principle is potentially possible-motivational 2-ness i-reflection containment, and aligned modulo-geometrical interference positioning projection-drawing etc towards proximal and distal frequency density-intensity vanishing-into-no-thing limits at 1-0-infinity axial-tangential sync-duration quantization probability alignments.
The solidity of eternal nothing, hyperfluidity of unity in Timey-Wimey e-Pi-i Reciproction-recirculation infinitesimal vertices in fractal conic-cyclonic resonances Vortex, is pushing our ability to comprehend the universe of probability positioning floating in potential sum-of-all-histories superposition possibility. "String Theoretical reasoning and Reciproction-recirculation Singularity repositioning shaping by e-Pi-i inflation-condensation modulation cause-effect log-antilog Timing-spacing.., it's not "simple" or complex integration of ONE-INFINITY and simultaneously "not even wrong" conceptually.
Has Smolin never heard of ER=EPR which comes from the background of String Theory and is closely related to well known observables and thus potentially experimental testable
I'm sure you have been very progressive as a theoretical physics studying the question of quantum gravity. I respect your unquestionable opinion.
In defense of the knowledgeable people who have the kind of mind to assemble current understandings, the information base is at first superficially about how things work before discovering what they are and why they have to be that way. All fields of study need expertise in a narrow focus, ...who are practical and can't get on with generalization or theory because it's the difference between inside and outside reasonable certainty. The problem is that practicality degenerates into rule of thumb convention and habitual beliefs.
Stability breeds corruption as circumstances and resources change. The art of revision is required for renewal. Hierarchies go down as well as up and where they intersect they weave tapestries (of strings). Evolution is another word for change or movement and the relative density/distribution of quantized information. The multiverse idea is also equivalent to the tapestries of strings making a fabric of resonance in which the sum over histories integration of timing condenses from many threads(?).
Good talk, worth rewatching at intervals.
I've never seen a more informed interviewer. They usually ask boring old questions to scientists.
The short answer is Black Projects. We have been advancing just not in the public's eye. That's why they water down our text books to say that something that is possible to be impossible. Tesla was the last open breakthrough and look what happened to him.
Where did i say something like that?
Why is the interviewer trying to argue with Lee
Beautiful. The interviewer pulls the "god" argument on Smolin when discussing string theory. "But .... it could be little vibrating strings [in 11 dimensions] ... you ... don't rule it out". Like saying "you have no proof that god doesn't exist you silly physicist who wants to have experimental proof for everything!1!!"
But ... one has to admit ... If those little vibrating strings are supposed to exist ... c'mon ... show'em to me ... otherwise it's just a nice piece of fiction. Just because it satisfies your contextually limited need for mathematical congruence does not mean that it's a valid model.
Oh may god! How does he deal with constant interruptions!? I mean, I get it as a host on a time-limited segment you have to squeeze a lot in but holy shit it's annoying. Kudos to Smolin for not flipping out.
:why don’t you believe in tiny strings?
Smolin: let me play the world's smallest “violin” 🎻 for you ..
Cool
You can tell at 15:42 that he is just so fed up with the interviewers lack of understanding of what it is he's trying to say.
Very interesting discussion. Not a slagging match, but a seemingly knowledgeable interviewer (for a change!) discussing whether a scientific theory without real evidence, and hence a mathematical philosophy until proven otherwise, should take as much weight and research funding as other stuff. Nice. :)
I hear this a lot, especially from guys like Lawrence Krauss, this emphasis on experiment and its a very simple point, you dont have to be a scientist to understand this. A mathematical model, like string theory, no matter how beautiful it is, if it doesnt make any testable predictions or requires an accelerator the size of the solar system I mean where do you go from there? Apparently, according to Smolin, string theory makes NO predictions because it allows for so many configurations
I was judging it from a mainstream perspective though. He has to keep his audience. Some physics conferences have also been harsh/rude though. It has happened before that an announcer asked the audience to tear the upcoming speaker to shreds.
Or those who proposed the Higgs boson back then and got humiliated in front of others for their "dumb idea" by leading figures. This just seemed civil in comparison to me ;)
PS Repaired=prepared in my earlier comment. Damn autocorrection :P
I don't understand why the host keeps vaguely 'quoting' what Lee has said, when he hasn't said that at all
This is officially the single most intelligent comment ever left on a youtube video.
The interviewer should have tried to bring more out of Smolin than placing his own views on the table.
The Erwin chemerinsky of physics
It's a bit strange when a person clearly ignorant of the subject is trying to grill an expert on it, but Lee Smolin shows good patience nevertheless