@@alexDD-j6e Just start at the first video on this channel, and work your way through them all. It'll make sense after that. We'll see you back here in a few months. ;)
This is like hearing music without having ever seen an instrument, and trying to determine not only how the sound is made, but the exact making of the instrument. Effin' amazing.
UNDERSTANDING TIME AND TIME DILATION (ON BALANCE), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Let's talk about what Einstein curiously didn't talk about, at least publicly. Let's talk about TIME along with the VISUAL experience of the man who actually IS in outer "space", AS this is to be DIRECTLY compared with the BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL experience of the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (in and WITH TIME). In the first case, there is no feeling of gravity. There isn't relational motion (or mobility); AND, basically, there is INSTANTANEOUS death. So, THEN carefully and FULLY consider what is THE SUN (as it IS, AND as it must be/REMAIN). Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) For the man who IS actually IN outer "space", basically, obviously, and fundamentally, there is NO TIME. Excellent. Again, WITH this INSTANTANEOUS VISUAL EXPERIENCE, WITH the RELATIONAL consideration of what is THE SUN, what is THE EYE, AND what are the POINTS in the night sky, there is NO TIME (basically, obviously, and FUNDAMENTALLY). Great. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Therefore, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. Consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Our energy density is the same as water. Consider what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. (THE EYE is the body ON BALANCE.) The sky is BLUE, AND what is THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. THEREFORE, objects AND MEN fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great !!! Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. This explains the PERPETUAL motion of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground on balance, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. SO, I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience; AS I have mathematically proven why and how the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution AS WELL !!!! CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHAT IS THE SUN !! GREAT. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, consider what is the speed of light (c). Accordingly, I have explained why the planets move away very, very, very slightly in comparison to what is THE SUN. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. Indeed, HALF of the galaxies are "dead" or inert. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy on balance. By Frank DiMeglio
Francis Bacon, often called the first man to formulate the modern scientific method, did write: "Whatever it is that your mind seizes upon with peculiar satisfaction, regard it with suspicion." He was warning scientists against the danger of theories that they find personally appealing.
Funny! But in defense of theoretical physics, the nature of our universe is so weird, it will require some unorthodox pondering to stumble onto that Thread of Truth. Or do you think a Theory of Everything is going to be so simple, even a grad student should have seen it?
I had the honor and privilege of meeting Dr. Stephen Hawking a few years before he died, and I took the opportunity to ask him a fairly involved question about String Theory. When I finished he just smiled at me and, through his input device, replied: "It ain't no thing but a chicken wing swingin' on a string." I was floored. Finally, everything made perfect sense.
@@adamchurvis1 I think it was more the binary collapse of pretense halfway through the comment (expertly done btw) coupled with the fact that I read it in his voice 😂 thanks for the laughter!
SO(n) is the Lie group (pronounces “lee group”) the “special orthogonal group” of n x n real valued matrices which have determinant 1 and which have inverse equal to their transpose. So, SO(32) is that where n = 32 E8 is an exceptional Lie group . I don’t know what heterotic means.
Type 1, okay makes sense Type 2A & 2B, okay I can accept that, two variations on type 2 SO(32) Heterotic, wait, what? E8xE8 Heterotic, well that escalated quickly.
Ironically string theory held up science advance for several years when the US universities virtually refused to hire anyone that was not researching string theory.
Unfortunately that changed too soon. I defended my thesis on orbifold compactifications in 2014 and there were zero postdoc positions available anywhere. Hence I am now a boring software developer.
@@Karackal Your last sentence could mean many things: 1. Software development is boring 2. You develop boring software applications 3. You are boring Hopefully it is 2. and you can apply your skills to developing more interesting software applications
Why 'PBS Space Time', with host Matt O'Dowd, is my favorite of the many science channels... Matt just talks science with no frills. He doesn't desperately try to be likable. He doesn't try to be cute and unnaturally affable to the point of it coming across awkwardly and forced, like a phony person, or a salesman, in a sense. Like me! Like me! Viewers never sense a cry for personal approval. The viewers know the speaker is just relaying great science information, and isn't making himself part of the segment. Matt won't waste your time with attempts to be funny. I greatly appreciate his approach to teaching us science as his own ego isn't in the way.
@@JaychandranPadayasi Ha! No, he's ok. The ones that try to be funny are the most annoying to me because I'm here to learn science stuff, not for comedy or any entertainment. That just slows everything down and wastes our time. They don't have to try hard to dress the science parts up with comedy and entertainment as if the audience are dumb children. I don't know. I like serious science stuff without corny jokes.
@@mickobrien3156 I agree. Physicists usually make very bad physics jokes. It's good to restrict those to lunch tables. In these videos, the science can advertise itself!
@@JaychandranPadayasi Exactly! The cutesy corny lighthearted humor should be relegated to high-school level educational videos. Oh, wait... That's what these are. Ha! I guess I'm just a grump.
Truth is beauty. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Nal Nicely designed experiments are not. It is generally easier to design a perfect experiment than a perfect theory because experiments are designed using theories that are well proven and have stood the test of time!
fact checkers are becoming a problem in this country, all the leftist are trying to sell their dignity to China, telling you to limit yourself to the truths only approve by experiments nor the ones not proven right but not wrong and ignoring all the stupidity in their shrinking brain that causes them to have a limited view on matter while beauty is around the corner just the man's passion projecting on the endless forms of matter and nature within them and some people are just afraid to have something nice and that tells me about bad parenting.
Lol that’s unsound! Experiment requires tool, but our existence is only in the realm of finite.. therefore anything infinite or subfinite could never be experimented on! Thanks!!
According to Physicist Lee Smolin, one of the main issues with String Theory is that it is background dependent, not to mention that it is untestable. That makes it more of a philosophical exercise than anything else. Thank-you for making these topics accessible to anyone with the interest. Love this channel!
Untestable? I think your a bit off on your info if you think that. I'll try to explain as best as I can what I mean. String Theory is a physical science based on vibration and energy, yes? Guess we all knew that stepping into watching a video like this to begin with right, but what most don't take into consideration, is the fact that Einstein is one of the founding fathers of String Theory. E=MC2 is something he came up with that hints at his later theories on special relativity in 1904. Fast forward a few decades to the 1920s and the manuscript used to calculate black holes and wormholes(known as Einstein-Rosen bridges) deal with how gravity works. This gravitational science(before it got recognised as string theory) dealt with how to observe gravity and vibration and what kind of energy is found within such structures. It was not until 2019 that Black holes were scientifically proven to have the same measurements as what was penned down 100 years earlier, based solely on the math. 1 and 1 will always be 2 mathematically and so the measure meants derived on what string theory is and how it operates, including simulations on what these strings look like are all mathematically accurate. String Theory is all math. And the math is never wrong. Its just taking time for us to catch up with the empirical evidence. Time and time again we deny simple truths such as this. All you gotta do is take a look at flat earthers to see just how far people will go to distort the truth and create a 'truth' people will believe in. Cancel culture is not a new age thing. Its been apart of humanity's history for as long as there were people to live it. So to sum up everything, all I will do is leave this open question out for you about something seemingly unrelated to quantum fields, that of consciousness itself. How can you prove consciousness exists? We see the effects of it. We live and experience it. But how can you prove it with tests? Where is it located in us? This is as untestable as String Theory is. Infact, some might say that consciousness is the body's way of using quantum fields on an everyday basis. So just because you cant test for something specifically dont mean it aint real. We just havent created the tests for it yet. 🤷♂️
@@shawnmunck7412 I have to disagree. You say math will lead to correct physics, but that isn't always true. Examples: 1. If there is a missing physical component in the equation. 2. Hidden divisions of zero. 3. Limits that have no physical meaning. 4. Taking the power of an equation will add new solutions which don't exist in the original equation. 5. Taking limits of discontinious functions. All these things can lead to artifacts in physics.
It's like demostrating that a triangle doesn't exists in the real world. Also a string is a mathematical idea. But also numbers... and multidimensional objects, probability etc Math is superior in every aspect than sperimental pshysics
@@shawnmunck7412 You misunderstand the OP. The problem with string theory is that it not only can it explain everything (a good thing and necessary for a theory of everything), but it can be used to explain ANYTHING. If it can be made to explain literally anything, then you can't make a prediction that the theory can fail. You can't say "if the theory is true, when we do X then Y will happen, but if it's false then not-Y will happen instead." There is no "not-Y" condition for string theory, or all the "not-Y" conditions require experiments that are physically impossible to perform. The prices of falsifying hypothesis is the core of how science works, so if string theory can't be falsified then it isn't a scientific theory. String Theory is essentially at the point where it's a fancy way of saying "God did it." Any question you ask there is a perfect counter - "Why don't we see God then? Because he's invisible." "Well why don't we just ask God and if he's real he can tell us? Oh God didn't talk to people." "Why would God arrange things so it looks like he doesn't exist? Oh it's because he thinks it's funny." There's no actual predictive power in a theory like that, to the point that even if it were actually true you'd never be able to prove it and it would be completely useless besides.
@@cloud-w2v i never said it was a good joke, i just said that you got triggered over nothing and gave no meaningful info in a very short time frame. if you wanted me to congratulate you for that then congrats: you just wasted both your time and my time, you did a great job
@@cloud-w2v you sound dumb saying bad programming, programming isn't easy, neither is the universe... Your phone is full of bugs and billions were spent developing it
One of the Largest issues here is not that string theory may fail, it's that countless physics advocates flaunt that it is correct, they have a blind devotion to it. It makes future students more inclined to want to partake in string theory when they graduate. This leads to a problem where few are trying to come up with alternatives/additions and just beating their heads into a black board of action equations.
That's why germ theory took so look to be accepted. It was so controversial that a doctor in 1840 lost his Position for advocating to wash your hands. It's always bad when a whole profession seems deadlocked with certain ideas.
Throughout history, that phenomenon has been a problem. Some completely wrong fact was believed by so many people that a real truth about the subject could not be introduced, then all those who believed the untrue thing had to die of old age before the truth could become known.
I believe you are mistaken. String Theory is a frame work to work within. Its name is a misnomer. Even if string theory is incorrect, the framework of string theory has many valid uses. Think of string theory not as a program or app in Windows but as Windows itself. It's an operating system you work within. This is why Matt says that even if it's wrong, it still has use. It's already proven quite useful and has solved some real world problems.
@@zidbits1528 No prediction could be made with the string theory so far, thus it hasn't proven its validity nor its usefulness despite the many years of research spent on it.
I don't know what I enjoy more. The straightforward explanations that I can follow, given a basic background in cosmology (also available on this very channel) ...Or the jokes and their expert delivery. This channel has EVERYTHING.
Wait, you don't know what an electron is? Where were you during physics class in school? I can understand string theory not being covered in school, but electrons? Really?
@@GnI1991 I didn't get that from his joke; I actually didn't get any of it. Most memes fly over my head. But I'm sure Mr Nguyen would have to know b4 or during highschool, and remembering them is even easier with words like "electrocute" or that stuff powering these computer things people are using these days..
@@tomfly3155 It's the first time I heard electrons as being described as "electrocute", or "that stuff powering these computer things people are using these days". Honestly, I can't understand how it's easier to remember electron by those terms. They are more confusing, that helpful. For instance, if I didn't know that you were referring to the electron, I would have no idea what you are talking about. For me "electron" is just that - an electron.
An avg lightning has say 30,000 amps ie 30,000 Coulomb/sec 1C is approximately 10^19 electrons so it eventually becomes 3 x 10^23 electrons and if each has a mass of 5kg they would weigh 1.5 x 10^24 kg. Now just remember that mass of earth is near 6 x 10^24 kg and that of moon is 7 x 10^22. So it will be essentially like another planet colliding to earth. Except if that were the actuall mass of electron then the entire atmosphere would crush us into a paste.
I suspect that the reason there is so much enthusiasm about string theory being potentially "wrong" is that many people feel too many resources (or at least too many physicists) are being (or have been) engaged in exploring it. The universe may not owe us easily verifiable or falsifiable laws, but do we not perhaps owe ourselves to spend less resources on theories that prove this hard to verify? This is not to say we shouldn't be exploring string theory, but how many people does it take? How many people did it take to turn Weyls wrong symmetry into something useful? I think the reason string theory is so controversial is not because of its right or wrongness, but because of the large amount of resources being poured into it and therefore not into other competing theories in recent years.
Too many resources? You mean all those pencils and paper? The horror! Compared to other areas of science, string theory research takes up practically zero resources with the exception of researchers time. They're not out there building hundred million dollar detectors in the arctic, or launching billion dollar telescopes into orbit. Resources required to research string theory is damn near zero.
@@zidbits1528 Pencils and paper are pretty cheap yeah. Physicists' time may be relatively cheap, though I tend to think it's undervalued if it is. There is also like all those supercomputers they use for simulation. I'm pretty sure they're not just a bunch of 286's they got at the junkyard networked together. And sure, quantum computers may have other applications, but some people think we might need them to do string-theory simulations. And I'm pretty certain a LOT of money is going into them.
The impression that I got from Hawking's "Grand Design" is that M Theory is an approach to resolving the problems from String Theory by taking the different options in string theory, lumping them all together, and then holding hands and singing Kum Baya and pretending they now have a single theory.
No this is completely wrong. Roughly speaking, we understand quantum theories best in the “weak coupling limit,” that is, when quantum effects are small. When they are large, in general, the theories become extremely complicated and we can’t understand them well. However, string theory has an astonishing property called S-duality. When quantum effects become big in one theory, it’s exactly equivalent to another string theory in which quantum effects are becoming small. M-theory is an 11 dimensional theory that reduces to all of the other theories in various limits. There is a tremendous amount of mathematical evidence that says M-theory exists, although it’s exact nature is not yet known.
@@BhanuNarra1no physical evidence of course. Perhaps look for biological evidence also if you want to leave the field to look for things that support your theory 🤷🏽♂️
@@BhanuNarra1but you understand string theory and working in these higher dimensions are mathematical solutions to some of the blind spots in physics we haven’t revealed yet, right? There is no way we can actually say that there is hard evidence, which is true of our current theories, quantum and particle based.
Why is it called String Theory and not String Hypothesis? What String Theory isn't: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." I'm not saying String Theory is wrong per se, just that it isn't in fact a theory but a group of Hypotheses.
Windhelm Guard, if I ask anyone but specialists among my classmates or university-mates, I'm sure nobody would remember what are DNA/Proteins made of. It takes a special interest during that school bio lessons to memorize this fact. Which I had and remembered. But it's rare.
Right. Something beautiful that is not testable is not science. Beautiful conjectures like the various strings theories are, at best, "not yet science".
String theory wasn't very beautiful for me. I had a nervous breakdown after trying to learn it in graduate school. There were other factors involved as well, but I think the staggering complexity of the theory, compounded by the fact that there was absolutely no experimental evidence for any of it (and there still isn't) contributed. Thankfully, I've been much better ever since, in part because I decided to switch fields to pure mathematics.
He He. I remember looking at a book about computer graphics. I have been doing computer graphics for several years for seismic programs I was making and all the most math ever used was addition, subtraction, multiplication, division for shifting and scaling, thank you. But his university book had calculus and all kinds of complicated vector conversion and just looked so daunting! Poor students. Nah, skip that subject. I tutored students and make sure to use SIMPLICITY ALWAYS!!
@@ronlentjes2739 Well being a mathematician, I don't mind complicated math, as long as I can understand it and appreciate its beauty. On the other hand, any scientific theory needs to be justified for its use of complicated math, and part of that justification in my opinion involves falsifiability, i.e., the ability to perform experiments to test its accuracy. For this reason, I do not consider string theory to be a scientific theory. Economics is another example of a science which I feel isn't justified for its use of very complicated math, because this math far too often fails to model reality. A case in point is the 2008 housing crash, which was spurred on by the misuse of the Black-Scholes equation, a very complicated second-order differential equation meant to predict the performance of derivatives.
@@dcterr1 Economist here. Our math is not that complicated. Actually, the problem is that the system can be too complex to be handled satisfactorily. This is specially true of macroeconomics. But to be fair, no macroeconomist claim to predict recessions or prevent bubbles. Those are hard tasks, especially because it involves behavioral responses and coordination problems that are hard to track in real time. They shift too rapidly. But we know more or less how to treat recessions once they occur. Plus, even though the system is very complex, all good economists are well aware of the shortcomings of the science and they all know how science works. And we are getting better and better with our own statistical methods devised to help us identify causality and magnitudes in a more robust way.
@@Guizambaldi Thanks for educating me a bit about economics and microeconomics. To be fair, I really don't know much about either of these, so perhaps I'm not qualified to give a fair judgment of them. In any case, being a longterm student of math and physics, I love both of these fields. I appreciate the beauty of mathematics, both pure and applied, and I'm in awe of the beauty of math as applied to physics, although I still think that string theory is premature, whether or not it's accurate.
@@dcterr1 2008 was essentially the fault of President Bill Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall act that was brought in after the 1929 Stock Market crash. It enabled these big investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros. to provide imprudent backing to mortgage providers like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who then made reckless mortgage loans to high risk, literally, crackhead homeowners - who would routinely default on their payments, put the keys through the letterbox and skip to the next state to do it again. A mechanism existed between regular main street banks to help failing banks through a network of support, but this was over leveraged. Goldman Sachs packaged bad debt with good long term payoffs and sold it to the Icelandic economy, which I think was hit particularly hard by the US malpractice. I think there was one arrest. President Obama was one week in office and the Secretary for the Treasury was on his knees begging him to bail out the US economy, or risk complete collapse. That was the wrong call. Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks that were too big to fail. He should have let Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros. go to the wall, and underwritten the first $100,000 of all main street banks, and nationalised Fannie Mac & Freddie Mac. This political-economic perspective is based on a conversation with the author of _Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Turning the American Dream into a Nightmare_ as back around then I was responsible for feeding her Persian cats. Any talk of being misled by economic models is bunk.
Reminds me of a funny Feynman quote from his explanation of the scientific method, it was something like: "A theory that cannot be tested through experiment or observation is in a sense the best kind of theory because it cannot be proven false! But then you cannot claim to know anything"
The only issue I have with this is that String Theory does make testable predictions. Quite a few in fact, look at the wikipedia page on string theory for the exact tests. The most obvious test that wikipedia doesn't mention is.. for the strings themselves. Build a particle collider big enough and you would see strings.
That is not so testable nor observable unfortunately, actually the fact that it is not testable with our current technology is the argument used by String Theorists to explain why the various predictions of String Theory have not been observed - we have not produced high enough energies. It does not provide any answer for how much energy is required to produce the observation, so we cannot even theorize a test/ larger particle collider that could guarantee observations or disprove the theory. CERN could make their 20 billion dollar super collider, and if we still haven't seen the higher harmonics, the partner particles, ..., they will once again say we just haven't reached high enough energies - it cannot be proven false that way
@@zidbits1528 Build a particle collider big enough and you may see strings. We don't actually know what we would see with a particle collider the size of the solar system. We also can't actually build that particle collider. So it really isn't a testable prediction. I'm not saying string theory should be ignored. People theorized the atom thousands of years ago despite not having the technology to test for it. Democritus and Kaṇāda come to mind. Their versions of the atom were also wildly different than what we actually ended up finding. It's likely if we build an apparatus to test for strings they would be similar but wildly different than what we thought. And if anything we are thousands of years away from testing anything in string theory. Making it a bit of a moot point even if they are correct.
The duality thing reminds me of stats in video games. You can either increase your damage per shot by 10% or your shooting speed by 10%. It doesn't matter, either way, your DPS went up 10%
But it actually does matter quite a bit due to factors such as ammo, accuracy, damage thresholds, and so on. If enemies have 100 health and each shot does 50 damage, then increasing damage by ten percent still only two shots them. You are effectively wasting 10 damage.
@@geraldoantunes1410 Unless ammo is a major concern, and the 10% brings you to the next damage threshold. Damage also normally has more multiplers over speed.
Episodes like this are tough to understand but that's the main reason i''ve still been watching this channel. Been here since the beginning. Glad were getting to some of the stuff I was hoping we would from the start. Keep it coming.
@@tylukov420 sameee. I put them on to listen and fall asleep too... but it makes my mind wander and I can't sleep lol. I always have to force my screen off.
There are two types of science channels: ones where they seem like they were made by and for people who have never picked up a book in their life, and ones for people who actually understand what is being taught
If you're more interested in beauty than truth in regards to the physical world then just be a mathematician. We have all kinds of interesting thus far useless mathematical frameworks.
After watching House M.D, all these physicists seem like doctors trying to find a diagnosis that fits the symptoms, with the symptoms being all of reality itself
And then the patient starts bleeding from every orifice and he concludes that the diagnosis is leprosy, AIDS, a brain tumor and heartworm all at the same time and cures it by rubbing in topical viagra.
medexamtoolsdotcom, if the reality suddenly starts "bleeding" etc. (i.e. behaving abnormally), I'm afraid there'll be little chance to continue existing, let alone pose a better diagnosis
Lmao you guys are great It's kinda cool if you follow that idea through That, there's so many different "conditions" reality could have that all seem to fit the symptoms But none of them quite do after more analysis There must be something that does though, because otherwise nothing would exist! *house voice* differential diagnosis people, what would cause a universe to behave exactly the way our universe behaves? 🤔
So... string theory is like that crazy girl no one understands but you believe what she says just because she's cute af? *I need an string theory-chan trend on internet pls, those 11 dimensions being THICC*
I have been following these meta theories, string theory, m-brane theory, quantum loop gravity, relativity, variations of quantum mechanics for decades, and I have concluded that the fundamental error being made is the attempt to derive a coherent mathematically defined space-time manifold which has the properties that all of the known physics energy interactions, and conceptualized forces can be mapped to the characteristics inherent to the space - time manifold. I do not believe any such manifold and system of mathematics will every be found which encompases all known physics. First, space time is not a thing in the sense of being a first order phenomenological object. Matter - energy creates space time as a secondary dependent condition analogous to the way an obstruction of light creates a shadow. If there is no light and no obstructing object, then there is no shadow. If there is no energy and matter in the universe then there is no space and no time. Prior to the big bang there was no space and there was no time. Remove all matter / energy from the universe and there will be no space and no time in the universe. So it is a mistake to imagine space time (apart from energy / matter) as a first order phenomenological object which can have qualities corresponding to mathematical constrains which in turn create the laws and principles of physics. Instead, all of the laws and phenomena of physics are aspects of all of the forms and variations of energy / matter itself. And the second conceptual mistake is to attempt to search for or define an overarching mathematical frame work that consistently accounts for all of the variations and appearances of physical laws as if they are a single linked entity. There is no reason to conclude that every manifest physical principle is linked to every other physical principle at some fundamentally deep level. This is just an unproven assumption, there are alternatives, physical laws can be a set of constraints without binding logical or analogues cross relationships. For example, there is no fundamental all encompassing proven rule that says 'spin' and momentum in a sub atomic particle has to have the same behaviour as spin or momentum in macro classical physics. The universe and its laws do not have to all be manifestations of some inter-related cross dependent analog functions, alternatively it can be a set of conditionally dependent constraints which track to limited mathematically expressible laws, operating independently within those constraints and limits.
Everyone seems upset about explaining gravity in trying to have the full understanding of these systems and how they should relate. Gravity seems to totally to revolve around mass and the electromagnetic properties that mass inherently has.
Why don't you submit your thoughts to a peer reviewed journal and get a Nobel prize? Why are you wasting your time going into depth on a theoretical physics idea in a youtube comment section?
@@drhexagonapus because the fundamental problem is group think, especially among academics. So what ever I say its going to be ignored and ridiculed if it not the standard group think BS, - just as you are attempting to do. I dropped out of a physics major decades ago just for this reason. If my comment bothers you by my posting it here on UA-cam, my suggestion is that you could find something else to think about.
@@lordkizzle No, I do not think that is the case at all. I have been studying this topic for decades. I learn a lot from others, but I maintain my ability to think and decide for myself, and early on I understood that there is a lot of group think, a lot of agreeing to the academic consensus or else. That is agree with the academic consensus or you are not one of us, AND if you do not agree, then we do not respect your contrary views. But in reality there are many important open questions in physics, there are commonly accepted working hypothesis which are total and obvious BS and are completely ad hoc with no empirical basis, like 'dark matter' for example. So no one owns these ideas or other ideas beyond how people use them to identify in and out crowds, or how to usefully use them to help explain, understand the topic. I do not expect anyone to develop 'my ideas' I do not own any ideas, I am not invested in them in the sense of my identity or employment, or social standing.
@@gwen6622 are you kidding? Matt is awesome. I was just saying that some of the shows are tough to understand 100%. Spacetime is one of the greatest things on UA-cam.
String Theory Symphony He strums the notes upon the strings Creating subatomic things Vibrating elements into being So many notes so many strings These notes align their frequencies The physics flows in harmonies And chemistries are melodies In his universal symphony And everything is sung to be He sings the song and strums the strings Such beauty in every note he brings In this song he wrote of everything.
@@Fournier46 thank you! It is a pleasure sharing my poety! If I didn't share it it would go to waist. Got a lot more on my channel. Here is a twilight zone poem I wrote. ua-cam.com/video/lRx1tvdRdqk/v-deo.html
Your channel is really interesting, and I enjoy watching all your videos, including those about theoretical physics, although I'm an astrochemist who doesn't understand all the details of these complicated theories. I just wanted to point out a small mistake at the end of your video when you answer people's questions. DNA is indeed a right-handed helix, but not because it's made of right-handed chiral amino acids. The structural chemical backbone of DNA and RNA is made of a chain of right-handed (D) sugar units, 2-deoxyribose for DNA and ribose for RNA (hence their names deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid), themselves attached to a phosphoric acid and nucleic acids (A, T, G, C for DNA and A, U, G, C for RNA). Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and in terrestrial living organisms, all the amino acids used to make proteins are left-handed (L).
Thank you!! I’m a biochemist and the majority of the video was totally over my head, but not this part! You explained it way better than I could, but here are some extra fun facts: Left handed DNA also exists (although rare in nature) and is called Z-DNA! It is very strange and zig zagged and is thought to contribute to genomic instability (high rates of mutation). And L-amino acids are why proteins form exclusively right handed alpha helices!
To be fair, if you find anyone saying "i understand Quantum mechanics" is lying, once they discover the teory that explains it people will start understanding it. And that's the best part about it, never fails to mindblow everyone
Watch Harvard's CfA Colloquium channel's livestreams on Thursdays. Its basically Matt talking to a room full of Matt clones and with no intention of translation for the masses.
I think when we really understand gravity, a lot of things in theoretical physics is going to feel different. Right now I think high-energy and quantum physics is in a strange cul-de-sac created by physicists more enamored with beauty in mathematics than truth. Experimental results that direct the development of theories needs to be the benchmark, not extra tricks in math.
I'm the big boss man in physics. Einstein never nearly understood TIME, E=MC2, F=ma, gravity, or ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. He was, in fact, a total weasel. c2 represents a dimension ON BALANCE, as E=MC2 IS F=ma in accordance with the following: UNDERSTANDING THE ULTIMATE, BALANCED, TOP DOWN, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity, AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=ma: The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS this proves the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. SO, ON BALANCE, this proves the fourth dimension. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=mC2 IS CLEARLY F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!! By Frank DiMeglio The recognized world authority on gravity BY FAR.
I’m a physics undergrad right now and i actually steered my research focus away from high energy and towards astrophysics, specifically nuclear astrophysics because of this cul-de-sac
@@frankdimeglio8216 Time? You mean the earth's travel around the sun? Or you mean the delusionary psychosocial construct of past, present, and future that most humans sell their proverbial souls to?
@@hb712btw, a good choice. I'd recommend going into big collaborations if you can, so you can get a job in one of them. Specially gravity wave or ones with data analysis of James Webb data or the Parker probe data. Those experiments are going to give results and papers.
Math is a language, and like any language can be used to create fiction. Something that should be remembered when thinking about topics that literally only have math supporting them.
I would love to see an example of a fictional mathematical statement. At the end of the day, they can either be true (2 + 2 = 4) or false (2 + 2 != 4).
Great explanation of Kaluza-Klein. Not so great description of what dualism is, though. Dualism allows you to switch between two sets of words in a statement and still get a true statement. For example: A rectangle has two lengths and one angle. A rhombus has two angles and one length.The dualism between angle and length makes a rectangle the dual of a rhombus. A square has one length and one angle, so it is trivially its own dual. A parallelogram has two lengths and two angles, so it is its own dual as well. A trapezoid has three lengths and two angles so it is the dual of a kite, which has three angles and two lengths.
His explanation makes a lot more sense than yours xD Edit: I'm pretty sure your explanation is just bogus anyway. Duality is being able to describe the *same thing* with two, seemingly contradictory, explanations. You're describing different things with different explanations....
No, that is not what dualism is. An example of a duality is “possibility and necessity”. If something is NOT possible to be, then it is necessarily NOT, and if it is NOT necessary, then it is possibly NOT. They are dual with respect to negation. Symbolically, it is easier to grasp. If I represent that something is possible with P, that something is necessary with N, and negation with /, then I can write /P = N/, /N = P/. This sort of symmetry that happens when you relate the two things via negation is an example of the definition of duality. Another duality is in obligation and permission. NOT permitted to do X = obligated NOT to do X. NOT obligated to do X = permitted NOT to do X. Obligation and permission are dual with respect to negation. You can express something about one thing using the other thing, and vice versa, because of the way they are related by negation.
@Greg Jacques right, its like some guy at a blackjack table who puts half his money on black and half on red, then says he won. Didn't really pick the right answer as much as you picked all the answers. It does seem fantastical that's for sure. But at the same time there are lots of thing that we know are true now. That at one time we're considered silly. Even Einstein thought that quantum entanglement was "spooky action at a distance" yet I believe it has been proven that particles that are entangled, like two photons "born" at the same time. can mimic eachothers spin in an instant across any distance. Making faster than light communication possible. Which was and has been considered impossible for quite a while. But when you hear Michio Kaku basically say that the multiverse shown in doctor strange is potentially science fact, it does sound just a bit weird.
@@masterbeef981 I'm not sure the degree it's been experimentally verified, but last I checked it was impossible to tell the result of a collapse of an entanglement from the effect of your own measurement.
There is nothing wrong with a model and that is all it is until you provide experiments to prove the details of the model one way or another. It still can be used to make predictions or experiments, knowing the results are not fact until observed. It's more of a mathematical tool rather than a theory of anything. Einstein worried about one fudge factor, sting theory seems to have dozens of fudge factors and 10**500 possibilities.
I must look up Theodor Kaluza. The idea of gravity working like electromagnetism in a higher dimention is something I've wondered about for a long time.
I must look up... Albert Einstein... The idea of gravity working like electromagnetism and time as an aspect of reality like space is something he tried to put as one thing math equations that derived from quantum mechanical ones. Just wondering here...
Thank you for this video, I think theoretical exploration is a very necessary part of science even if what is being researched and developed is not at this time verifiable through experiment because science is an inductive process, and sometimes when a breakthrough is made, our prior theory work lets us know immediately what was ruled out and what is still relevant. I still would like to see more testable predictions from string theory but I think they will come in time. Where you started the video with the gauge symmetry and ended with how even though wrong it lead to other things we now understand was I think, very accurate.
*HUMILITY* of the 'New Physicists' that *they might not be right IS BEAUTIFUL!* [I was taught by harrumphing professors who were SURE THEY WERE RIGHT and would knock you down to a *'B' if you didn't appear to believe in THEIR DEITY!* ]
I love that there's a 'Why String Theory is Wrong' *and* a 'Why String Theory is Right' video. Do I remember rightly that Leonard Nimoy also wrote both 'I Am Not Spock', and 'I Am Spock'?
This series was the best bird 's-eye-view description string theory I've ever seen or heard of. You did a masterful job explaining both why string theory is so compelling and why it may not be not be right. Y'all did amazing work with this series. Just amazing. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
String Theory fails to make explicit predictions of experiments. Its predictions cannot be tested, because there are none. Until string theory comes up with testable predictions, it remains Mathematics and not Physics. We must beware of beauty as a guide to truth. Sometimes it may be; other times not. A beautiful woman is not necessarily a good choice for a wife. We must also beware of excessive love of symmetry. Sometimes a symmetry may be true, other times false. The false symmetry between charge (electric field) and pole (magnetic field) in Maxwell's equations has led to failed predictions of magnetic monopoles. When looked at from a relativistic perspective, the symmetry between electricity and magnetism dissolves. There is growing evidence that the symmetry between matter and anti-matter may be false: only approximate. Also, there is growing evidence that the time symmetry in the Schrodinger equation may be false, as it fails to take into account decoherence.
I'll name my new band "Left-Handed Replicators!" If we play on stage at the same time, our music will cancel each other's out resulting in absolute perfect silence. When even the strings stop vibrating, a hole in space-time will open and we will walk through our new Stargate to wherever we like! (Maybe Starbuck's?)
13:17 If there are around 10^500 different Calabi-Yao geometries to choose from, and physicists and mathematicians around the world work feverishly to eliminate all the ones that are not correct, and they manage to eliminate 1 geometry per second, it would only take about 10^493 years to find which geometry is the correct one.
String theory is very extreme: Either it will become known as one of the deepest and most predictable theories of all time, or one of the largest waste of time ever.
If String Theory doesn't lead to anything then it wasn't a waste of time either, it just would mean that it did not work or something is missing and people can just rethink or move on to something else that has a higher chance of succeeding. Not every scientist has to be doing the exact same things, otherwise we'd never move forward.
@@DarknessIsThePath string "theory" has been leading people along for decades. It might not have been a waste of time 20 years ago, but it certainly is now.
@@DarknessIsThePath they cant even come up with a coherent theory after 40 years. It's not a theory, not good science, and erodes trust of the other physics fields.
@DarknessIsThePath how about 40 years? Because it's been about that long now and we're still left with an empty sack. Meanwhile, just look at what quantum mechanics did to the world in 40 years since it's inception and you will quickly spot the difference.
You discuss the string theory with a great clarity and an obvious depth of knowledge. I have read many books about the string and M theories, but they were full of convoluted descriptions, hard to port outside their environment. For the "beauty Vs truth" debate, I choose truth without further thinking. In a further step of my logic process, I do believe that the debate in itself - it constitute a wrong metric. Science research require inspiration, like any other creative process; but I use my inspiration when I make initial hypoteses, not when choosing which of these hypotheses are correct. Beauty Vs truth criteria is an epistemological mistake. Thank you for your video, highly appreciated.
Read “Lost in Maths: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” by Sabine Hossenfelder for a discussion on how beauty in Physics is NOT truth, but may be misleading us up dead ends, and whether Physics is now “post-empirical”. By the way... DNA is composed of nucleotides not amino acids (proteins are polymers of amino acids - which are left handed in Biology).
The time dimension acts like a special dimension, it’s just that it’s literally impossible to wrap your mind around it except after looking at how time works for observation around a black hole.
What is so captivating about string theory is not that is right or wrong. It is the display of sheer ingenuity and motivation in trying to resolve problems.
some may argue that's what made it so controversial to begin with, considering the amount of resources put to research this single theory compared to other theories granted idk how many theory out there that are competing with string theory
Really interesting, just small correction to the biochemistry part of end (I would never hope to "correct" the physics), but amino acids make up proteins not DNA. The chirality discussion in general though is fine (except DNA nucleotides individually are chiral, but also can make up right and left handed spirals as a polymer).
Thank you! Went searching for this comment. I think he meant nucleic acids, just an honest mistake. IMO, the right-handed dominance is likely due to evolutionary competition, not fundamental laws of the universe.
17:35 "Right handed DNA is built entirely of right handed amino acids..." Sounds beautiful, but is someone confused? DNA is formed from nucleic acids. Amino acids are used to form proteins. You really should change that, Matt.
Don't denigrate strings. I've been using them for years and they're immensely useful. You should try them to tie down the tarp on your boat, they stretch enough so the grommets don't pull out. And who can forget when James Bond used his shoe strings to finish his mountain climb!
I was discussing with a friend of mine another day about how Kaluza-Klein where SO close to actually formulating gauge theory electromagnetism hahaha Like, bear with me: in gauge theory we basically look at the fibre bundle made by the base manifold (space-time) and the associated Lie group, in the case of electromagnetism the group is U(1), which, guess what, is precisely a circle, so you have space-time with this extra circular dimension, and the Faraday Tensor turns out to be the curvature of the gauge, so yeah, if they had realised that this extra circular dimension was not a simple extra spatial dimension but actually a Lie group on a fibre bundle, they would have formulated gauge theory quite early xD
I've never smoked weed, but watching this incomprehensible stuff, maybe I should have... I violently disagree that you're probably right. But, string... Yes?
At times like these I think about Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", in which he claimed Reason to be a mental function, probably a biological function, that synthesized our picture of the world by categorizing and cross-categorizing sense data in ways that amounted to a pretty damn good approximation. That sense data can be misconstrued, as in Escher drawings and other various optical or sensory illusions...even trickery....seems to confirm he was right. The reality we see, hear, etc is a fit of limited sense data to the categorization system. It is aposteriori - made up after the fact. He went on to note that maths are apriori....they work without need for sense data. So while we can come to distrust Reason a little based on instances where it fails, we can't distrust maths because when the rules are followed it all works out. Yet, he noted, we rely on Reason to check the basic assumptions of math. All considered there is reason to be suspicious. Kant noted some obvious problems with maths, which may not amount to much, but still they are there: any kind of infinity can't be proved, yet it seems part of the basic assumptions of math....numbers go on forever, infinte numbers in between numbers, an so on. Kant claimed that when we do science we do not learn about "reality" as it is, but only our mind based picture of reality, which may, on a grand scale, be only little better than that of the mosquito. In other words, we are not limitless in our ability to figure things out, and may be missing things that would be obvious with a different mental mechanism. Possible problems to be expected are going off a long ways in the wrong direction, thinking it is the right direction.
Aren't there an infinite number of string theories that imply negative curvature of the universe, but only a finite (but large) number that imply flat or positive curvature? I would think that alone should disqualify string theory.
Can you please start linking in the description to your other videos mentioned? Such as the prior videos on String Theory, or the videos we should watch before or after watching the current video. I often want to stop the video and catch up before continuing, or to move on to the next installment afterwards, but sometimes have trouble locating the video in question.
Of all the physics channels I don't understand, this is my favorite.
Seriously though, I thought this is popular science. Instead it's...just science. I was lost 2 mins in, sadly.
*Top rated review*
Read the original papers, this is a little more akin to edu-tainment
@@alexDD-j6e Just start at the first video on this channel, and work your way through them all. It'll make sense after that. We'll see you back here in a few months. ;)
Oh man, that made me laugh. Glad I'm not alone ...super string sympathy?
i honestly have no idea why i keep watching this stuff as all of it goes above my head ..but i always keep coming back
Marijuana has that capacity
@@999titu 420 all day long bro
demonpower101 start smoking crack ,
It will all go away
I watch because I’m mesmerized by Matt’s accent.
Because it’s interesting even if it’s not a sound idea.
This is like hearing music without having ever seen an instrument, and trying to determine not only how the sound is made, but the exact making of the instrument. Effin' amazing.
😳
Brilliant analogy.
Underrated comment. 👏
UNDERSTANDING TIME AND TIME DILATION (ON BALANCE), AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.
Let's talk about what Einstein curiously didn't talk about, at least publicly. Let's talk about TIME along with the VISUAL experience of the man who actually IS in outer "space", AS this is to be DIRECTLY compared with the BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL experience of the man who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (in and WITH TIME).
In the first case, there is no feeling of gravity. There isn't relational motion (or mobility); AND, basically, there is INSTANTANEOUS death. So, THEN carefully and FULLY consider what is THE SUN (as it IS, AND as it must be/REMAIN). Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience. Indeed, the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) For the man who IS actually IN outer "space", basically, obviously, and fundamentally, there is NO TIME. Excellent. Again, WITH this INSTANTANEOUS VISUAL EXPERIENCE, WITH the RELATIONAL consideration of what is THE SUN, what is THE EYE, AND what are the POINTS in the night sky, there is NO TIME (basically, obviously, and FUNDAMENTALLY). Great.
Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Therefore, BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. E=MC2 is CLEARLY F=ma ON BALANCE !!! GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity.) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Accordingly, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE.
Consider what is THE MAN who IS standing on what is THE EARTH/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Our energy density is the same as water. Consider what is BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE. (THE EYE is the body ON BALANCE.) The sky is BLUE, AND what is THE EARTH is ALSO BLUE. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. THEREFORE, objects AND MEN fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma.
E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great !!!
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. This explains the PERPETUAL motion of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground on balance, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE. SO, I have mathematically unified physics/physical experience; AS I have mathematically proven why and how the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution AS WELL !!!! CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHAT IS THE SUN !! GREAT. E=MC2 is CLEARLY proven to be F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. NOW, consider what is the speed of light (c). Accordingly, I have explained why the planets move away very, very, very slightly in comparison to what is THE SUN. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, AS E=MC2 IS clearly F=ma ON BALANCE. Indeed, HALF of the galaxies are "dead" or inert. Gravity is ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy on balance.
By Frank DiMeglio
He's political. He's lying about physics.
Francis Bacon, often called the first man to formulate the modern scientific method, did write: "Whatever it is that your mind seizes upon with peculiar satisfaction, regard it with suspicion." He was warning scientists against the danger of theories that they find personally appealing.
Indeed. The smarter you are, the easier it for you to come up with plausible excuses for your pet theory disagreeing with reality.
A brief history of 20th century physics: "If it doesn't work, add more dimensions until it does!"
Lol
Who are you?
bit of a copout isnt it
Funny! But in defense of theoretical physics, the nature of our universe is so weird, it will require some unorthodox pondering to stumble onto that Thread of Truth. Or do you think a Theory of Everything is going to be so simple, even a grad student should have seen it?
No true scotsman would do such a thing!
String theory could be true, then again maybe knot..
Josh Cavallo I see what you did there...
This one should be pinned. ;))
I stole it
Both sides have good points. I think it's a tie.
Badum tsss
I love Matt’s dry, subtle humour, e.g. “it’s my parity and I’ll cry if I want to.” I’m left-handed, but no hard feelings, universe.
Who is putting those jokes in the teleprompter?
Roy burgundy
I had the honor and privilege of meeting Dr. Stephen Hawking a few years before he died, and I took the opportunity to ask him a fairly involved question about String Theory. When I finished he just smiled at me and, through his input device, replied: "It ain't no thing but a chicken wing swingin' on a string." I was floored. Finally, everything made perfect sense.
He told ME to buy Polaroid. Go figure.
@@natural1952 Polaroid is Dioralop spelled backwards. Makes you think, doesn't it?
This comment sent me into an uncontrollable fit of laughter, and I don't even know why 😂
@@Jack-in-the-country 'Cause it's muthufuckin' **STRING** Theory, yo!
@@adamchurvis1 I think it was more the binary collapse of pretense halfway through the comment (expertly done btw) coupled with the fact that I read it in his voice 😂 thanks for the laughter!
There's an old saying all theoreticians should have in mind: "a beautiful idea destroyed by an ugly fact"
👏🏻👏🏻👽
A.K.A a day in my life 😋
Isn't that akin to dreaming about all the pretty ladies but have to settle for an ugly one?
@@trankt54155 Being alone is better than being with someone you don't like!
@@flexico64 You have a good point there....
Video: Type 1
Me: Makes sense
Video: Type 2A and 2 B
Me: Weird but okay
Video: SO (32) Heterotic
Me: Uuuuhhh
Video: E8×E8 Heterotic
Me: UUUUHHHH
Next: DekuxBaku Heterotic
Final: KissxSis Theory
SO(n) is the Lie group (pronounces “lee group”) the “special orthogonal group” of n x n real valued matrices which have determinant 1 and which have inverse equal to their transpose. So, SO(32) is that where n = 32
E8 is an exceptional Lie group .
I don’t know what heterotic means.
@@drdca8263 The group sexual identity ?)
Endy no
@@drdca8263 You must be fun at parties
Type 1, okay makes sense
Type 2A & 2B, okay I can accept that, two variations on type 2
SO(32) Heterotic, wait, what?
E8xE8 Heterotic, well that escalated quickly.
The last two are named after mathematical group theory concepts that are related to them.
Jason Young lol
JESUS CHRIST!
That's exactly what I thought
Hetero + erotic = heterotic (had to say it)
I dreamed I was a scientist measuring matter, but found it kept moving. Thus, my findings were given the name OF?
*Quantum.*
*Mechanics.*
Ironically string theory held up science advance for several years when the US universities virtually refused to hire anyone that was not researching string theory.
Unfortunately that changed too soon. I defended my thesis on orbifold compactifications in 2014 and there were zero postdoc positions available anywhere. Hence I am now a boring software developer.
@@Karackal Your last sentence could mean many things:
1. Software development is boring
2. You develop boring software applications
3. You are boring
Hopefully it is 2. and you can apply your skills to developing more interesting software applications
@@____uncompetative for some reason your comment made my brain think so much for no reason, i think you both literally gave me a brainfart
interesting how university political correctness influenced science as well
@@rogerjohnson2562 bro what
Why 'PBS Space Time', with host Matt O'Dowd, is my favorite of the many science channels...
Matt just talks science with no frills. He doesn't desperately try to be likable. He doesn't try to be cute and unnaturally affable to the point of it coming across awkwardly and forced, like a phony person, or a salesman, in a sense. Like me! Like me! Viewers never sense a cry for personal approval. The viewers know the speaker is just relaying great science information, and isn't making himself part of the segment. Matt won't waste your time with attempts to be funny. I greatly appreciate his approach to teaching us science as his own ego isn't in the way.
I think you are extremely pissed off by Hank Green :P
@@JaychandranPadayasi Ha! No, he's ok. The ones that try to be funny are the most annoying to me because I'm here to learn science stuff, not for comedy or any entertainment. That just slows everything down and wastes our time. They don't have to try hard to dress the science parts up with comedy and entertainment as if the audience are dumb children. I don't know. I like serious science stuff without corny jokes.
@@mickobrien3156 I agree. Physicists usually make very bad physics jokes. It's good to restrict those to lunch tables. In these videos, the science can advertise itself!
@@JaychandranPadayasi Exactly! The cutesy corny lighthearted humor should be relegated to high-school level educational videos. Oh, wait... That's what these are. Ha! I guess I'm just a grump.
the bad joke at the end was an attempt to be funny. new beard, old shirt.
Truth is beauty.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Well, it isn’t even wrong!
Well technically...
The experiment itself, as well as the instruments, could be flawed despite a correct theory.
Nal Nicely designed experiments are not. It is generally easier to design a perfect experiment than a perfect theory because experiments are designed using theories that are well proven and have stood the test of time!
fact checkers are becoming a problem in this country, all the leftist are trying to sell their dignity to China, telling you to limit yourself to the truths only approve by experiments nor the ones not proven right but not wrong and ignoring all the stupidity in their shrinking brain that causes them to have a limited view on matter while beauty is around the corner just the man's passion projecting on the endless forms of matter and nature within them and some people are just afraid to have something nice and that tells me about bad parenting.
Lol that’s unsound! Experiment requires tool, but our existence is only in the realm of finite.. therefore anything infinite or subfinite could never be experimented on! Thanks!!
19th century: throw in some extra cogs and levers. 20th century: throw in some more dimensions, infinities and singularities
True
21th: throw in some extra financing and 63 kidneys worth of liquid helium
@@alonsovm2880 21th? twenty-oneth?
@@tahabashir3779 xdn't
19th century science was more honest. Now they just try to make science sound like a religious gospel.
According to Physicist Lee Smolin, one of the main issues with
String Theory is that it is background dependent, not to mention
that it is untestable. That makes it more of a philosophical exercise
than anything else.
Thank-you for making these topics accessible to anyone with
the interest. Love this channel!
Untestable? I think your a bit off on your info if you think that. I'll try to explain as best as I can what I mean. String Theory is a physical science based on vibration and energy, yes? Guess we all knew that stepping into watching a video like this to begin with right, but what most don't take into consideration, is the fact that Einstein is one of the founding fathers of String Theory. E=MC2 is something he came up with that hints at his later theories on special relativity in 1904.
Fast forward a few decades to the 1920s and the manuscript used to calculate black holes and wormholes(known as Einstein-Rosen bridges) deal with how gravity works. This gravitational science(before it got recognised as string theory) dealt with how to observe gravity and vibration and what kind of energy is found within such structures. It was not until 2019 that Black holes were scientifically proven to have the same measurements as what was penned down 100 years earlier, based solely on the math. 1 and 1 will always be 2 mathematically and so the measure meants derived on what string theory is and how it operates, including simulations on what these strings look like are all mathematically accurate.
String Theory is all math. And the math is never wrong. Its just taking time for us to catch up with the empirical evidence. Time and time again we deny simple truths such as this. All you gotta do is take a look at flat earthers to see just how far people will go to distort the truth and create a 'truth' people will believe in. Cancel culture is not a new age thing. Its been apart of humanity's history for as long as there were people to live it.
So to sum up everything, all I will do is leave this open question out for you about something seemingly unrelated to quantum fields, that of consciousness itself. How can you prove consciousness exists? We see the effects of it. We live and experience it. But how can you prove it with tests? Where is it located in us? This is as untestable as String Theory is. Infact, some might say that consciousness is the body's way of using quantum fields on an everyday basis. So just because you cant test for something specifically dont mean it aint real. We just havent created the tests for it yet. 🤷♂️
@@shawnmunck7412 I have to disagree. You say math will lead to correct physics, but that isn't always true. Examples:
1. If there is a missing physical component in the equation.
2. Hidden divisions of zero.
3. Limits that have no physical meaning.
4. Taking the power of an equation will add new solutions which don't exist in the original equation.
5. Taking limits of discontinious functions.
All these things can lead to artifacts in physics.
It's like demostrating that a triangle doesn't exists in the real world. Also a string is a mathematical idea. But also numbers... and multidimensional objects, probability etc
Math is superior in every aspect than sperimental pshysics
They have tested string theory. Turns out it is an infinite number of echo chambers filled with perpetual circle jerkers.
@@shawnmunck7412 You misunderstand the OP. The problem with string theory is that it not only can it explain everything (a good thing and necessary for a theory of everything), but it can be used to explain ANYTHING. If it can be made to explain literally anything, then you can't make a prediction that the theory can fail. You can't say "if the theory is true, when we do X then Y will happen, but if it's false then not-Y will happen instead." There is no "not-Y" condition for string theory, or all the "not-Y" conditions require experiments that are physically impossible to perform. The prices of falsifying hypothesis is the core of how science works, so if string theory can't be falsified then it isn't a scientific theory.
String Theory is essentially at the point where it's a fancy way of saying "God did it." Any question you ask there is a perfect counter - "Why don't we see God then? Because he's invisible." "Well why don't we just ask God and if he's real he can tell us? Oh God didn't talk to people." "Why would God arrange things so it looks like he doesn't exist? Oh it's because he thinks it's funny."
There's no actual predictive power in a theory like that, to the point that even if it were actually true you'd never be able to prove it and it would be completely useless besides.
It's just like programming.... The more you add the more bugs you have.....
@@cloud-w2v ever heard of jokes?
@@cloud-w2v i never said it was a good joke, i just said that you got triggered over nothing and gave no meaningful info in a very short time frame. if you wanted me to congratulate you for that then congrats: you just wasted both your time and my time, you did a great job
@@cloud-w2v you sound dumb saying bad programming, programming isn't easy, neither is the universe... Your phone is full of bugs and billions were spent developing it
@@cloud-w2v I thought it was a good joke :)
Just like the McCabe cyclomatic complexity
"Why String Theory is Wrong" - Clickbait for Theoretical Physicists...
They've already done "why string theory is right". Like the other week.
more like: clickbait.
Should have come with a trigger warning
Its all we can thing of.. or this all wrong. I want to see an show on plasma..
Yes, except to put a clickbait aiming at such a narrow population would seem to display a poor understanding of click-baiting...
One of the Largest issues here is not that string theory may fail, it's that countless physics advocates flaunt that it is correct, they have a blind devotion to it. It makes future students more inclined to want to partake in string theory when they graduate. This leads to a problem where few are trying to come up with alternatives/additions and just beating their heads into a black board of action equations.
That's why germ theory took so look to be accepted. It was so controversial that a doctor in 1840 lost his Position for advocating to wash your hands.
It's always bad when a whole profession seems deadlocked with certain ideas.
Throughout history, that phenomenon has been a problem. Some completely wrong fact was believed by so many people that a real truth about the subject could not be introduced, then all those who believed the untrue thing had to die of old age before the truth could become known.
This has been true throughout all of history. You can't name a scientist who wasn't sure they were right until they were proven without a doubt wrong.
I believe you are mistaken. String Theory is a frame work to work within. Its name is a misnomer. Even if string theory is incorrect, the framework of string theory has many valid uses. Think of string theory not as a program or app in Windows but as Windows itself. It's an operating system you work within. This is why Matt says that even if it's wrong, it still has use. It's already proven quite useful and has solved some real world problems.
@@zidbits1528 No prediction could be made with the string theory so far, thus it hasn't proven its validity nor its usefulness despite the many years of research spent on it.
I don't know what I enjoy more.
The straightforward explanations that I can follow, given a basic background in cosmology (also available on this very channel) ...Or the jokes and their expert delivery. This channel has EVERYTHING.
@Jaime Cruz 🏳️🌈 sure thing, bro
"An electron would weight 5 kg"
Everybody: what the hell is that
Matt: "umm, probably wrong"
And the concepts that evolve in proving these theories are later used in forming more theories.
@ yeah; Tesla baby⚡⚡⚡
Wait, you don't know what an electron is? Where were you during physics class in school? I can understand string theory not being covered in school, but electrons? Really?
@@GnI1991 I didn't get that from his joke; I actually didn't get any of it. Most memes fly over my head. But I'm sure Mr Nguyen would have to know b4 or during highschool, and remembering them is even easier with words like "electrocute" or that stuff powering these computer things people are using these days..
@@tomfly3155 It's the first time I heard electrons as being described as "electrocute", or "that stuff powering these computer things people are using these days". Honestly, I can't understand how it's easier to remember electron by those terms. They are more confusing, that helpful. For instance, if I didn't know that you were referring to the electron, I would have no idea what you are talking about. For me "electron" is just that - an electron.
"You theory ain't workin'? Just add an extra dimension!" is my new favorite quote.
That will work against flat earthers.
Do you have a moment to talk to me about my 4629362640163 dimension theory?
A five kilo electron would explain why lightening knocks you down.
It would not
@@StefSubZero270 An iceberg does...
@@at7388 why?
An avg lightning has say 30,000 amps ie 30,000 Coulomb/sec 1C is approximately 10^19 electrons so it eventually becomes 3 x 10^23 electrons and if each has a mass of 5kg they would weigh 1.5 x 10^24 kg. Now just remember that mass of earth is near 6 x 10^24 kg and that of moon is 7 x 10^22. So it will be essentially like another planet colliding to earth. Except if that were the actuall mass of electron then the entire atmosphere would crush us into a paste.
@@delq thank you, easy to understand and now clear.
"If loving you is wrong - I dont wanna be right" 💁🏽♂️
17:34 zero DNA anywhere is made of amino acids. amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, not DNA or RNA.
I think he meant nucleic acid right?
@@BurningDownUrHouse He meant nucleotides
Why do I keep watching these videos even though I can't understand them?
Maybe I am hoping to understand them someday...
Same shit!
Just read about physics somewhere and then come back to the video. Everything will make sense.
Its like a drug.
I'm only here to recover what I've lost from watching an episode of the joe rogan experience 😂
@@officernasty2648 You could be here for awhile.
I suspect that the reason there is so much enthusiasm about string theory being potentially "wrong" is that many people feel too many resources (or at least too many physicists) are being (or have been) engaged in exploring it. The universe may not owe us easily verifiable or falsifiable laws, but do we not perhaps owe ourselves to spend less resources on theories that prove this hard to verify? This is not to say we shouldn't be exploring string theory, but how many people does it take? How many people did it take to turn Weyls wrong symmetry into something useful? I think the reason string theory is so controversial is not because of its right or wrongness, but because of the large amount of resources being poured into it and therefore not into other competing theories in recent years.
so much truth
Too many resources? You mean all those pencils and paper? The horror! Compared to other areas of science, string theory research takes up practically zero resources with the exception of researchers time. They're not out there building hundred million dollar detectors in the arctic, or launching billion dollar telescopes into orbit. Resources required to research string theory is damn near zero.
@@zidbits1528 Pencils and paper are pretty cheap yeah. Physicists' time may be relatively cheap, though I tend to think it's undervalued if it is. There is also like all those supercomputers they use for simulation. I'm pretty sure they're not just a bunch of 286's they got at the junkyard networked together. And sure, quantum computers may have other applications, but some people think we might need them to do string-theory simulations. And I'm pretty certain a LOT of money is going into them.
I thought secular institutions were supposed to be fair and logical? Lol
@@DiggitySlice Only more fair than religious ones. Not perfect. :P
The impression that I got from Hawking's "Grand Design" is that M Theory is an approach to resolving the problems from String Theory by taking the different options in string theory, lumping them all together, and then holding hands and singing Kum Baya and pretending they now have a single theory.
I was trying to find a way to say "No that's just crazy" but after thinking about it for a sec I realised you're right 😂
No this is completely wrong. Roughly speaking, we understand quantum theories best in the “weak coupling limit,” that is, when quantum effects are small. When they are large, in general, the theories become extremely complicated and we can’t understand them well. However, string theory has an astonishing property called S-duality. When quantum effects become big in one theory, it’s exactly equivalent to another string theory in which quantum effects are becoming small. M-theory is an 11 dimensional theory that reduces to all of the other theories in various limits. There is a tremendous amount of mathematical evidence that says M-theory exists, although it’s exact nature is not yet known.
@@BhanuNarra1no physical evidence of course. Perhaps look for biological evidence also if you want to leave the field to look for things that support your theory 🤷🏽♂️
@@BhanuNarra1but you understand string theory and working in these higher dimensions are mathematical solutions to some of the blind spots in physics we haven’t revealed yet, right? There is no way we can actually say that there is hard evidence, which is true of our current theories, quantum and particle based.
PBS Space Time: *"Why String Theory is wrong"*
*_John Henry Schwarz is typing_*
Umm...who's he? If you can tell. Idk about him.😕
@@adeshpoz1167 he is string theory
Bro, u've been dead for like decades.
Use the Schwarz, Lone Starr, use the Schwarz!
Why is it called String Theory and not String Hypothesis?
What String Theory isn't: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
I'm not saying String Theory is wrong per se, just that it isn't in fact a theory but a group of Hypotheses.
PBS Space Time: "Why String Theory is wrong"
Michio kaku has joined the chat.
has joined the chat
* Wheeze *
xl the past only exists in the present
nah, that was Brian Greene.. he shares a logon with Michio
Brian Greene was added to the chat.
Me: Get me a bucket of popcorn. I'm about to witness "crazy".
Amino acids are components of proteins, not RNA and DNA. RNA and DNA are made of nucleotides, and the chiral molecule is the five-carbon sugar.
LOL...he totally failed
@Madara Uchiwa
it's 9th grade in germany.
I admire how hard he went in...and his confidence
Windhelm Guard, if I ask anyone but specialists among my classmates or university-mates, I'm sure nobody would remember what are DNA/Proteins made of. It takes a special interest during that school bio lessons to memorize this fact. Which I had and remembered. But it's rare.
We love DNA
Made with nucleotides
Sugar, phosphate, and a base
Bonded down one side.
If you choose beauty over truth then you are an artist, scientists choose truth over beauty.
Right. Something beautiful that is not testable is not science. Beautiful conjectures like the various strings theories are, at best, "not yet science".
PBS Next episode : Why string theory is both
nilesh pandey or neither
@@anglo2255 it's Nilesh pandey
Schrödinger’s theory
There's no why. It just is.
Why String Theory is in a superposition of being right and wrong
String theory wasn't very beautiful for me. I had a nervous breakdown after trying to learn it in graduate school. There were other factors involved as well, but I think the staggering complexity of the theory, compounded by the fact that there was absolutely no experimental evidence for any of it (and there still isn't) contributed. Thankfully, I've been much better ever since, in part because I decided to switch fields to pure mathematics.
He He. I remember looking at a book about computer graphics. I have been doing computer graphics for several years for seismic programs I was making and all the most math ever used was addition, subtraction, multiplication, division for shifting and scaling, thank you. But his university book had calculus and all kinds of complicated vector conversion and just looked so daunting! Poor students. Nah, skip that subject. I tutored students and make sure to use SIMPLICITY ALWAYS!!
@@ronlentjes2739 Well being a mathematician, I don't mind complicated math, as long as I can understand it and appreciate its beauty. On the other hand, any scientific theory needs to be justified for its use of complicated math, and part of that justification in my opinion involves falsifiability, i.e., the ability to perform experiments to test its accuracy. For this reason, I do not consider string theory to be a scientific theory. Economics is another example of a science which I feel isn't justified for its use of very complicated math, because this math far too often fails to model reality. A case in point is the 2008 housing crash, which was spurred on by the misuse of the Black-Scholes equation, a very complicated second-order differential equation meant to predict the performance of derivatives.
@@dcterr1 Economist here. Our math is not that complicated. Actually, the problem is that the system can be too complex to be handled satisfactorily.
This is specially true of macroeconomics. But to be fair, no macroeconomist claim to predict recessions or prevent bubbles. Those are hard tasks, especially because it involves behavioral responses and coordination problems that are hard to track in real time. They shift too rapidly.
But we know more or less how to treat recessions once they occur.
Plus, even though the system is very complex, all good economists are well aware of the shortcomings of the science and they all know how science works. And we are getting better and better with our own statistical methods devised to help us identify causality and magnitudes in a more robust way.
@@Guizambaldi Thanks for educating me a bit about economics and microeconomics. To be fair, I really don't know much about either of these, so perhaps I'm not qualified to give a fair judgment of them. In any case, being a longterm student of math and physics, I love both of these fields. I appreciate the beauty of mathematics, both pure and applied, and I'm in awe of the beauty of math as applied to physics, although I still think that string theory is premature, whether or not it's accurate.
@@dcterr1 2008 was essentially the fault of President Bill Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall act that was brought in after the 1929 Stock Market crash. It enabled these big investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros. to provide imprudent backing to mortgage providers like Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who then made reckless mortgage loans to high risk, literally, crackhead homeowners - who would routinely default on their payments, put the keys through the letterbox and skip to the next state to do it again. A mechanism existed between regular main street banks to help failing banks through a network of support, but this was over leveraged. Goldman Sachs packaged bad debt with good long term payoffs and sold it to the Icelandic economy, which I think was hit particularly hard by the US malpractice. I think there was one arrest. President Obama was one week in office and the Secretary for the Treasury was on his knees begging him to bail out the US economy, or risk complete collapse.
That was the wrong call.
Obama shouldn't have bailed out the banks that were too big to fail. He should have let Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros. go to the wall, and underwritten the first $100,000 of all main street banks, and nationalised Fannie Mac & Freddie Mac. This political-economic perspective is based on a conversation with the author of _Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Turning the American Dream into a Nightmare_ as back around then I was responsible for feeding her Persian cats.
Any talk of being misled by economic models is bunk.
Reminds me of a funny Feynman quote from his explanation of the scientific method, it was something like:
"A theory that cannot be tested through experiment or observation is in a sense the best kind of theory because it cannot be proven false! But then you cannot claim to know anything"
The only issue I have with this is that String Theory does make testable predictions. Quite a few in fact, look at the wikipedia page on string theory for the exact tests. The most obvious test that wikipedia doesn't mention is.. for the strings themselves. Build a particle collider big enough and you would see strings.
That is not so testable nor observable unfortunately, actually the fact that it is not testable with our current technology is the argument used by String Theorists to explain why the various predictions of String Theory have not been observed - we have not produced high enough energies. It does not provide any answer for how much energy is required to produce the observation, so we cannot even theorize a test/ larger particle collider that could guarantee observations or disprove the theory. CERN could make their 20 billion dollar super collider, and if we still haven't seen the higher harmonics, the partner particles, ..., they will once again say we just haven't reached high enough energies - it cannot be proven false that way
@@zidbits1528 Time to harvest the asteroid belt and build a solar system wide collider!
@@zidbits1528 Build a particle collider big enough and you may see strings. We don't actually know what we would see with a particle collider the size of the solar system. We also can't actually build that particle collider. So it really isn't a testable prediction. I'm not saying string theory should be ignored. People theorized the atom thousands of years ago despite not having the technology to test for it. Democritus and Kaṇāda come to mind.
Their versions of the atom were also wildly different than what we actually ended up finding. It's likely if we build an apparatus to test for strings they would be similar but wildly different than what we thought. And if anything we are thousands of years away from testing anything in string theory. Making it a bit of a moot point even if they are correct.
@@theodosios2615 yes but no funding for you. waste of money
The duality thing reminds me of stats in video games. You can either increase your damage per shot by 10% or your shooting speed by 10%. It doesn't matter, either way, your DPS went up 10%
But it actually does matter quite a bit due to factors such as ammo, accuracy, damage thresholds, and so on. If enemies have 100 health and each shot does 50 damage, then increasing damage by ten percent still only two shots them. You are effectively wasting 10 damage.
Thats why haste is always better
@@geraldoantunes1410 Unless ammo is a major concern, and the 10% brings you to the next damage threshold. Damage also normally has more multiplers over speed.
No it didn't
These videos are the most interesting things that I can't understand.
Why not.
Episodes like this are tough to understand but that's the main reason i''ve still been watching this channel. Been here since the beginning. Glad were getting to some of the stuff I was hoping we would from the start. Keep it coming.
No offence but.. I usualy watch your videos to fall sleep at night while in bed..
No offence to whom? I couldn't fall asleep after those videos because of too many thoughts triggered by it.
@@tylukov420 I kinda envy to you
I use the channel event horizon for the same thing lol, not that it's not interesting but it helps me with rumination.
Sary Nassar - Me too lol
@@tylukov420 sameee. I put them on to listen and fall asleep too... but it makes my mind wander and I can't sleep lol. I always have to force my screen off.
I am an Australian physics student from Melbourne. I enjoy theses videos. Thank you to the host for providing these videos!
The quantum effects on String Theory allow it to be both right & wrong at the same time.
Ah, you got it first; I was about to say that xD
Of course not. An ill defined mathematical /physical theory has nothing to do with predictions of another theory (quantum uncertainty in this case)
@@imix360 but you did say it first and you also didn t
@@User-jr7vf r/wooooooooooooooosh
It was Schrodinger all along
I think my electrons might have a mass of ~5kg after 4 weeks isolation to be honest.
👽👍
The electron should be around 5 kilogram, probably wrong...
Electron: You dont know me! Im just big boned.
Let's hear it for electron positivity! 😏
@@jwscheuerman Electron positivity? Sadly all the positive electrons have been annihilated.
@@kennarajora6532 of course they have. What's wrong with our society??
"I'm not fat, I'm redshifted"
Was it the electron's bare mass? You know, the thing that is infinite in QED and "screened" by vacuum fluctuations to give the mass we measure.
There are two types of science channels: ones where they seem like they were made by and for people who have never picked up a book in their life, and ones for people who actually understand what is being taught
If you're more interested in beauty than truth in regards to the physical world then just be a mathematician. We have all kinds of interesting thus far useless mathematical frameworks.
What if every useless mathematical framework will eventually become useful?
"Once you discard scientific rigor, youre no longer a mathematician, youre a numerologist" ~the movie Pi
@@cezarcatalin1406 they pretty much are in some regard. Also, get your chaos magic out of here triangle man.
Or better yet, become a lawyer or a politician!
@@acousticpsychosis "You're tearing me apart, Liza!" ~the movie The Room
I figured I'd add in an idiotic quote of my own.
After watching House M.D, all these physicists seem like doctors trying to find a diagnosis that fits the symptoms, with the symptoms being all of reality itself
Whoa, that's both poetic and beautiful and even feels accurate
And then the patient starts bleeding from every orifice and he concludes that the diagnosis is leprosy, AIDS, a brain tumor and heartworm all at the same time and cures it by rubbing in topical viagra.
medexamtoolsdotcom, if the reality suddenly starts "bleeding" etc. (i.e. behaving abnormally), I'm afraid there'll be little chance to continue existing, let alone pose a better diagnosis
So which physicist is the one who thinks it’s lupus?
Lmao you guys are great
It's kinda cool if you follow that idea through
That, there's so many different "conditions" reality could have that all seem to fit the symptoms
But none of them quite do after more analysis
There must be something that does though, because otherwise nothing would exist!
*house voice* differential diagnosis people, what would cause a universe to behave exactly the way our universe behaves? 🤔
Awesome! I didn't understand absolutely anything from this video
So true. Glad we're not in class & have to take a test. This IS testing my patience.
"probably wrong"
Best sitation from this series.
So... string theory is like that crazy girl no one understands but you believe what she says just because she's cute af?
*I need an string theory-chan trend on internet pls, those 11 dimensions being THICC*
So... Luna Lovegood?
Well no it's kaku...... Your comment makes no sense lol since he's one of the smartest people alive
😂
Well if we can have earth chan then not why her too
She would warping thrpugh different versions of herself. She's dangerous because she may be a man while a woman at the same time or even a trap.
I never knew Russell Brand had such an enormous intellect.
🤣
I was hoping for some good tips for my coming puppeteers practical exam, I'm now more confused than ever.
I have been following these meta theories, string theory, m-brane theory, quantum loop gravity, relativity, variations of quantum mechanics for decades, and I have concluded that the fundamental error being made is the attempt to derive a coherent mathematically defined space-time manifold which has the properties that all of the known physics energy interactions, and conceptualized forces can be mapped to the characteristics inherent to the space - time manifold. I do not believe any such manifold and system of mathematics will every be found which encompases all known physics. First, space time is not a thing in the sense of being a first order phenomenological object. Matter - energy creates space time as a secondary dependent condition analogous to the way an obstruction of light creates a shadow. If there is no light and no obstructing object, then there is no shadow. If there is no energy and matter in the universe then there is no space and no time. Prior to the big bang there was no space and there was no time. Remove all matter / energy from the universe and there will be no space and no time in the universe. So it is a mistake to imagine space time (apart from energy / matter) as a first order phenomenological object which can have qualities corresponding to mathematical constrains which in turn create the laws and principles of physics. Instead, all of the laws and phenomena of physics are aspects of all of the forms and variations of energy / matter itself. And the second conceptual mistake is to attempt to search for or define an overarching mathematical frame work that consistently accounts for all of the variations and appearances of physical laws as if they are a single linked entity. There is no reason to conclude that every manifest physical principle is linked to every other physical principle at some fundamentally deep level. This is just an unproven assumption, there are alternatives, physical laws can be a set of constraints without binding logical or analogues cross relationships. For example, there is no fundamental all encompassing proven rule that says 'spin' and momentum in a sub atomic particle has to have the same behaviour as spin or momentum in macro classical physics. The universe and its laws do not have to all be manifestations of some inter-related cross dependent analog functions, alternatively it can be a set of conditionally dependent constraints which track to limited mathematically expressible laws, operating independently within those constraints and limits.
Everyone seems upset about explaining gravity in trying to have the full understanding of these systems and how they should relate. Gravity seems to totally to revolve around mass and the electromagnetic properties that mass inherently has.
Why don't you submit your thoughts to a peer reviewed journal and get a Nobel prize? Why are you wasting your time going into depth on a theoretical physics idea in a youtube comment section?
@@drhexagonapus because the fundamental problem is group think, especially among academics. So what ever I say its going to be ignored and ridiculed if it not the standard group think BS, - just as you are attempting to do. I dropped out of a physics major decades ago just for this reason. If my comment bothers you by my posting it here on UA-cam, my suggestion is that you could find something else to think about.
@@leschwartz It sounds like you had some idea and no one else was willing to do the work for you to develop it into something meaningful.
@@lordkizzle No, I do not think that is the case at all. I have been studying this topic for decades. I learn a lot from others, but I maintain my ability to think and decide for myself, and early on I understood that there is a lot of group think, a lot of agreeing to the academic consensus or else. That is agree with the academic consensus or you are not one of us, AND if you do not agree, then we do not respect your contrary views. But in reality there are many important open questions in physics, there are commonly accepted working hypothesis which are total and obvious BS and are completely ad hoc with no empirical basis, like 'dark matter' for example. So no one owns these ideas or other ideas beyond how people use them to identify in and out crowds, or how to usefully use them to help explain, understand the topic. I do not expect anyone to develop 'my ideas' I do not own any ideas, I am not invested in them in the sense of my identity or employment, or social standing.
I'm pretty sure this channel is amazing, but I don't know what he's talking about.
Me too
Count me in. He lost me 2 min in the video
yeah he's not a very good presenter
@@gwen6622 are you kidding? Matt is awesome. I was just saying that some of the shows are tough to understand 100%. Spacetime is one of the greatest things on UA-cam.
@@gwen6622 you are brainless. Matt is the best
I liked the bit when he said “ string theory”
👌👽
String Theory Symphony
He strums the notes upon the strings
Creating subatomic things
Vibrating elements into being
So many notes so many strings
These notes align their frequencies
The physics flows in harmonies
And chemistries are melodies
In his universal symphony
And everything is sung to be
He sings the song and strums the strings
Such beauty in every note he brings
In this song he wrote of everything.
yes that's perfect.
Screencapped - brilliant poem!!! Thanks for sharing that m8
@@Fournier46 thank you! It is a pleasure sharing my poety! If I didn't share it it would go to waist. Got a lot more on my channel. Here is a twilight zone poem I wrote. ua-cam.com/video/lRx1tvdRdqk/v-deo.html
@@thatpoetbobbymask8710 I'll send this one on atomic physics to my godmother for sure.
String Theory Symphony ua-cam.com/video/D1cDFpPHH04/v-deo.html
Your channel is really interesting, and I enjoy watching all your videos, including those about theoretical physics, although I'm an astrochemist who doesn't understand all the details of these complicated theories.
I just wanted to point out a small mistake at the end of your video when you answer people's questions. DNA is indeed a right-handed helix, but not because it's made of right-handed chiral amino acids. The structural chemical backbone of DNA and RNA is made of a chain of right-handed (D) sugar units, 2-deoxyribose for DNA and ribose for RNA (hence their names deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid), themselves attached to a phosphoric acid and nucleic acids (A, T, G, C for DNA and A, U, G, C for RNA). Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and in terrestrial living organisms, all the amino acids used to make proteins are left-handed (L).
Thank you!! I’m a biochemist and the majority of the video was totally over my head, but not this part! You explained it way better than I could, but here are some extra fun facts: Left handed DNA also exists (although rare in nature) and is called Z-DNA! It is very strange and zig zagged and is thought to contribute to genomic instability (high rates of mutation). And L-amino acids are why proteins form exclusively right handed alpha helices!
This is the only science UA-cam channel that has videos that are always far beyond my comprehension. And that's a complement... I think.
I know I like science and space but I can't understand a thing he says
compliment*
To be fair, if you find anyone saying "i understand Quantum mechanics" is lying, once they discover the teory that explains it people will start understanding it.
And that's the best part about it, never fails to mindblow everyone
Watch Harvard's CfA Colloquium channel's livestreams on Thursdays. Its basically Matt talking to a room full of Matt clones and with no intention of translation for the masses.
@@UpcycleElectronics damn thank you dude, i'll try to not go mental boom xD
I think when we really understand gravity, a lot of things in theoretical physics is going to feel different. Right now I think high-energy and quantum physics is in a strange cul-de-sac created by physicists more enamored with beauty in mathematics than truth. Experimental results that direct the development of theories needs to be the benchmark, not extra tricks in math.
I'm the big boss man in physics. Einstein never nearly understood TIME, E=MC2, F=ma, gravity, or ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
He was, in fact, a total weasel.
c2 represents a dimension ON BALANCE, as E=MC2 IS F=ma in accordance with the following:
UNDERSTANDING THE ULTIMATE, BALANCED, TOP DOWN, AND CLEAR MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy AND gravity, AS E=MC2 IS CLEARLY F=ma:
The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS this proves the term c4 from Einstein's field equations. SO, ON BALANCE, this proves the fourth dimension. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!!
TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. INDEED, TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy.
E=mC2 IS CLEARLY F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy !!!
By Frank DiMeglio
The recognized world authority on gravity BY FAR.
@@frankdimeglio8216 Silence, dorkass. This is a place of learning, not self-aggrandizing bullshit
I’m a physics undergrad right now and i actually steered my research focus away from high energy and towards astrophysics, specifically nuclear astrophysics because of this cul-de-sac
@@frankdimeglio8216 Time? You mean the earth's travel around the sun? Or you mean the delusionary psychosocial construct of past, present, and future that most humans sell their proverbial souls to?
@@hb712btw, a good choice. I'd recommend going into big collaborations if you can, so you can get a job in one of them. Specially gravity wave or ones with data analysis of James Webb data or the Parker probe data. Those experiments are going to give results and papers.
String theory is hanging by a string.
Should’ve kept it as “thread.”
i keep coming to this exact video because I absolutely do not understand it and keep falling asleep while it plays
Math is a language, and like any language can be used to create fiction.
Something that should be remembered when thinking about topics that literally only have math supporting them.
Wow that's an amazing insight
This quote should be in a museum
Math only explains physicalism
I would love to see an example of a fictional mathematical statement. At the end of the day, they can either be true (2 + 2 = 4) or false (2 + 2 != 4).
It's not like math predicted stuff like black holes and the Higgs-Boson in the past and got verified later.
Scientists “ we now know “
Next week scientists “ we thought “
Month later scientists “ we don’t know “
Yeah, that tends to be how it goes. Figuring out how shit works for a living isn't an easy job.
That's the "royal we".
@@absoutezeo2126 Describing life in 3 sentences
Welcome to the scientific method
A year later “we now know”
And repeat
Great explanation of Kaluza-Klein.
Not so great description of what dualism is, though. Dualism allows you to switch between two sets of words in a statement and still get a true statement. For example: A rectangle has two lengths and one angle. A rhombus has two angles and one length.The dualism between angle and length makes a rectangle the dual of a rhombus. A square has one length and one angle, so it is trivially its own dual. A parallelogram has two lengths and two angles, so it is its own dual as well. A trapezoid has three lengths and two angles so it is the dual of a kite, which has three angles and two lengths.
Almost like a reciprocal.
His explanation makes a lot more sense than yours xD
Edit: I'm pretty sure your explanation is just bogus anyway. Duality is being able to describe the *same thing* with two, seemingly contradictory, explanations. You're describing different things with different explanations....
Super Racist Left-Winger
Uh, yes.
No, that is not what dualism is. An example of a duality is “possibility and necessity”. If something is NOT possible to be, then it is necessarily NOT, and if it is NOT necessary, then it is possibly NOT. They are dual with respect to negation. Symbolically, it is easier to grasp. If I represent that something is possible with P, that something is necessary with N, and negation with /, then I can write /P = N/, /N = P/. This sort of symmetry that happens when you relate the two things via negation is an example of the definition of duality. Another duality is in obligation and permission. NOT permitted to do X = obligated NOT to do X. NOT obligated to do X = permitted NOT to do X. Obligation and permission are dual with respect to negation. You can express something about one thing using the other thing, and vice versa, because of the way they are related by negation.
Super Racist Left-Winger 2.9 What you are saying is nonsense.
Love how PBS has two of these one is "why string theory is right" and one that is "why string theory is wrong" and they are both from 2 years ago
@Greg Jacques right, its like some guy at a blackjack table who puts half his money on black and half on red, then says he won. Didn't really pick the right answer as much as you picked all the answers. It does seem fantastical that's for sure. But at the same time there are lots of thing that we know are true now. That at one time we're considered silly. Even Einstein thought that quantum entanglement was "spooky action at a distance" yet I believe it has been proven that particles that are entangled, like two photons "born" at the same time. can mimic eachothers spin in an instant across any distance. Making faster than light communication possible. Which was and has been considered impossible for quite a while. But when you hear Michio Kaku basically say that the multiverse shown in doctor strange is potentially science fact, it does sound just a bit weird.
@@masterbeef981 I'm not sure the degree it's been experimentally verified, but last I checked it was impossible to tell the result of a collapse of an entanglement from the effect of your own measurement.
My understanding of this video is 11-dimensional, in that I know some of it exists, but have no idea if most it does or not 😂
There is nothing wrong with a model and that is all it is until you provide experiments to prove the details of the model one way or another. It still can be used to make predictions or experiments, knowing the results are not fact until observed. It's more of a mathematical tool rather than a theory of anything. Einstein worried about one fudge factor, sting theory seems to have dozens of fudge factors and 10**500 possibilities.
Recently scientists discovered that the gravity is not leaking to any extra dimensions.
@myko freder Oh wow. I didn't know that? Can it make testable predictions at least?
I must look up Theodor Kaluza. The idea of gravity working like electromagnetism in a higher dimention is something I've wondered about for a long time.
I must look up... Albert Einstein... The idea of gravity working like electromagnetism and time as an aspect of reality like space is something he tried to put as one thing math equations that derived from quantum mechanical ones. Just wondering here...
Electromagnetism working like gravity appears to be the basis of one of the current possible explanations for Dark Matter.
do you have Instagram account or any other way to contact to discuss some fascinating topics of physics
@@OpportunisticHunter do you have Instagram account or any other way to contact to discuss some fascinating topics of physics
This theory is hanging by a thread.
Not bad, not bad
By a string actually
@@rafaela.flores4084 These matters are dark, though...
@@antonboludo8886 but it's generally relative too...
@@prasoon8861 Not to mention special...
Love the music in this one.
Thank you for this video, I think theoretical exploration is a very necessary part of science even if what is being researched and developed is not at this time verifiable through experiment because science is an inductive process, and sometimes when a breakthrough is made, our prior theory work lets us know immediately what was ruled out and what is still relevant. I still would like to see more testable predictions from string theory but I think they will come in time. Where you started the video with the gauge symmetry and ended with how even though wrong it lead to other things we now understand was I think, very accurate.
do you have Instagram account or any other way to contact to discuss some fascinating topics of physics
*HUMILITY* of the 'New Physicists' that *they might not be right IS BEAUTIFUL!* [I was taught by harrumphing professors who were SURE THEY WERE RIGHT and would knock you down to a *'B' if you didn't appear to believe in THEIR DEITY!* ]
Ay, as long as you dont believe in some sky wizard..
do you have Instagram account or any other way to contact to discuss some fascinating topics of physics
Me: Thinks this is an interesting and compelling argument.
Also me: Does not know what string theory is...
I love that there's a 'Why String Theory is Wrong' *and* a 'Why String Theory is Right' video. Do I remember rightly that Leonard Nimoy also wrote both 'I Am Not Spock', and 'I Am Spock'?
Really happy to see you guys be critical of string theory! Missed this when it came out
This series was the best bird 's-eye-view description string theory I've ever seen or heard of. You did a masterful job explaining both why string theory is so compelling and why it may not be not be right. Y'all did amazing work with this series. Just amazing.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
String Theory fails to make explicit predictions of experiments. Its predictions cannot be tested, because there are none. Until string theory comes up with testable predictions, it remains Mathematics and not Physics.
We must beware of beauty as a guide to truth. Sometimes it may be; other times not.
A beautiful woman is not necessarily a good choice for a wife.
We must also beware of excessive love of symmetry. Sometimes a symmetry may be true, other times false. The false symmetry between charge (electric field) and pole (magnetic field) in Maxwell's equations has led to failed predictions of magnetic monopoles. When looked at from a relativistic perspective, the symmetry between electricity and magnetism dissolves.
There is growing evidence that the symmetry between matter and anti-matter may be false: only approximate. Also, there is growing evidence that the time symmetry in the Schrodinger equation may be false, as it fails to take into account decoherence.
What kind of uber-chad are you to pass on a beautiful woman?
Thank you for this !
PBS spacetime is all about him finding a way to say spacetime at the end
10:44 Why did I laugh so hard when he explained the name for M theory? God dammnit 1 month of space-time and I begin to like physicists jokes
17:58 I think "Right-Handed Replicators" sounds like a good name for my new band, lol ;)
Or a porn movie about right handed mast... never mind... it's late and I'm obviously too tired.
I'm pretty sure the Japanese have built a robot called The Right-Handed Replicator.
I'll name my new band "Left-Handed Replicators!" If we play on stage at the same time, our music will cancel each other's out resulting in absolute perfect silence. When even the strings stop vibrating, a hole in space-time will open and we will walk through our new Stargate to wherever we like! (Maybe Starbuck's?)
So many decades of brain power wasted on this silliness.
13:17 If there are around 10^500 different Calabi-Yao geometries to choose from, and physicists and mathematicians around the world work feverishly to eliminate all the ones that are not correct, and they manage to eliminate 1 geometry per second, it would only take about 10^493 years to find which geometry is the correct one.
"Didn't the movie _Seven_ come out at that time? Woah!"
What's that animation at 5:33? How is it related to supersymmetry? Not doubting it, just curious.
Bumping this comment. I'd love to know what those animations are called.
I guess he couldn't explain supersymmetry in a picture, and didn't want to talk about it, so he put some eye-candy there.
ua-cam.com/video/y-Gk_Ddhr0M/v-deo.html
Looks like rotation in 4D of some 4D object mirrored two times - top to bottom and left to right (like in kaleidoscope)
Perhaps it's totally unrelated to supersymmetry and it's just impossible to animate supersymmetry.
String theory is very extreme: Either it will become known as one of the deepest and most predictable theories of all time, or one of the largest waste of time ever.
If String Theory doesn't lead to anything then it wasn't a waste of time either, it just would mean that it did not work or something is missing and people can just rethink or move on to something else that has a higher chance of succeeding. Not every scientist has to be doing the exact same things, otherwise we'd never move forward.
@@DarknessIsThePath string "theory" has been leading people along for decades. It might not have been a waste of time 20 years ago, but it certainly is now.
@@0Asterite0 20 years is nowhere near enough to determine if something leads to anything or not in science.
@@DarknessIsThePath they cant even come up with a coherent theory after 40 years. It's not a theory, not good science, and erodes trust of the other physics fields.
@DarknessIsThePath how about 40 years? Because it's been about that long now and we're still left with an empty sack. Meanwhile, just look at what quantum mechanics did to the world in 40 years since it's inception and you will quickly spot the difference.
You discuss the string theory with a great clarity and an obvious depth of knowledge. I have read many books about the string and M theories, but they were full of convoluted descriptions, hard to port outside their environment.
For the "beauty Vs truth" debate, I choose truth without further thinking. In a further step of my logic process, I do believe that the debate in itself - it constitute a wrong metric. Science research require inspiration, like any other creative process; but I use my inspiration when I make initial hypoteses, not when choosing which of these hypotheses are correct. Beauty Vs truth criteria is an epistemological mistake.
Thank you for your video, highly appreciated.
Read “Lost in Maths: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” by Sabine Hossenfelder for a discussion on how beauty in Physics is NOT truth, but may be misleading us up dead ends, and whether Physics is now “post-empirical”.
By the way... DNA is composed of nucleotides not amino acids (proteins are polymers of amino acids - which are left handed in Biology).
They keep adding spatial dimensions, why not try an extra time dimension
May work.... But we have problems with space... And time's just fine...
Then our clocks and watches would be outdated. Well unless the mad-scientists got it wrong yet again?
The time dimension acts like a special dimension, it’s just that it’s literally impossible to wrap your mind around it except after looking at how time works for observation around a black hole.
FBN776 I don‘t have a problem with space, rather with time (personally)
That is quite brilliant, explain pls..your comment caught my interest in a great way mate!
This was, simply, awesome. You compactified the whole story very well.
lol nice pun
What is so captivating about string theory is not that is right or wrong. It is the display of sheer ingenuity and motivation in trying to resolve problems.
some may argue that's what made it so controversial to begin with, considering the amount of resources put to research this single theory compared to other theories
granted idk how many theory out there that are competing with string theory
Or deflect away from them.
Really interesting, just small correction to the biochemistry part of end (I would never hope to "correct" the physics), but amino acids make up proteins not DNA. The chirality discussion in general though is fine (except DNA nucleotides individually are chiral, but also can make up right and left handed spirals as a polymer).
Aren't they left handed? ( as if theres a difference ) beautiful symmetry 😊
Thank you! Went searching for this comment. I think he meant nucleic acids, just an honest mistake. IMO, the right-handed dominance is likely due to evolutionary competition, not fundamental laws of the universe.
This lad furrows his eyebrows like a champ. He'll be Klingon by 40.
Eyebrows?! I thought those were caterpillars.
I know he doesn't look it, but he's 47
17:35 "Right handed DNA is built entirely of right handed amino acids..."
Sounds beautiful, but is someone confused? DNA is formed from nucleic acids. Amino acids are used to form proteins.
You really should change that, Matt.
Don't denigrate strings. I've been using them for years and they're immensely useful. You should try them to tie down the tarp on your boat, they stretch enough so the grommets don't pull out.
And who can forget when James Bond used his shoe strings to finish his mountain climb!
I was discussing with a friend of mine another day about how Kaluza-Klein where SO close to actually formulating gauge theory electromagnetism hahaha
Like, bear with me: in gauge theory we basically look at the fibre bundle made by the base manifold (space-time) and the associated Lie group, in the case of electromagnetism the group is U(1), which, guess what, is precisely a circle, so you have space-time with this extra circular dimension, and the Faraday Tensor turns out to be the curvature of the gauge, so yeah, if they had realised that this extra circular dimension was not a simple extra spatial dimension but actually a Lie group on a fibre bundle, they would have formulated gauge theory quite early xD
Are you suggesting that compactified dimensions should be reimagined as principal fiber bundles?
@@ritahall8148 not really, just toying with the idea that Kaluza-Klein were so close to formulating gauge theory
Loop Quantum Gravity > String Theory
定理が発表されるまでにやることは３重積分、曲線の長さの求め方、重積分の問題演習、正規分布の学習と単位を取る勉強だけです。
Yes.
@@HimanshuRohela I concur
Ture
Kudos to the graphics person who did the rotating higher dimensional thing.
I've never smoked weed, but watching this incomprehensible stuff, maybe I should have... I violently disagree that you're probably right. But, string... Yes?
At times like these I think about Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", in which he claimed Reason to be a mental function, probably a biological function, that synthesized our picture of the world by categorizing and cross-categorizing sense data in ways that amounted to a pretty damn good approximation. That sense data can be misconstrued, as in Escher drawings and other various optical or sensory illusions...even trickery....seems to confirm he was right. The reality we see, hear, etc is a fit of limited sense data to the categorization system. It is aposteriori - made up after the fact.
He went on to note that maths are apriori....they work without need for sense data.
So while we can come to distrust Reason a little based on instances where it fails, we can't distrust maths because when the rules are followed it all works out. Yet, he noted, we rely on Reason to check the basic assumptions of math. All considered there is reason to be suspicious.
Kant noted some obvious problems with maths, which may not amount to much, but still they are there: any kind of infinity can't be proved, yet it seems part of the basic assumptions of math....numbers go on forever, infinte numbers in between numbers, an so on.
Kant claimed that when we do science we do not learn about "reality" as it is, but only our mind based picture of reality, which may, on a grand scale, be only little better than that of the mosquito. In other words, we are not limitless in our ability to figure things out, and may be missing things that would be obvious with a different mental mechanism.
Possible problems to be expected are going off a long ways in the wrong direction, thinking it is the right direction.
Aren't there an infinite number of string theories that imply negative curvature of the universe, but only a finite (but large) number that imply flat or positive curvature? I would think that alone should disqualify string theory.
Can you please start linking in the description to your other videos mentioned? Such as the prior videos on String Theory, or the videos we should watch before or after watching the current video. I often want to stop the video and catch up before continuing, or to move on to the next installment afterwards, but sometimes have trouble locating the video in question.