Full length podcast with Edward Frenkel: ua-cam.com/video/n_oPMcvHbAc/v-deo.html. It's one of the best podcasts on all of TOE. We talk about Infinity, Ai, String Theory, Death, The Self.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING: For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism. For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is: S+o = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace) Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as: E= A͚͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness) For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history. To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 “The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓 P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India): 🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉 Chandogya Upanishad 3.14 (‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’. “Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence. There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).
No "M" theory so far. Witten continues to live off that juicy budget without producing any real theory or law. It's amazing how scientists without knowledge of real human interactions still fail to see the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Witten is a con artist. Contra facta argumenta nulla sunt.
6:52 Such a great analogy🙏🙏🙏 This is really being clear about Truth. Every theory based on incomplete knowledge is challenged by the Axioms themselves being challenged .
7:27 - 7:40 That video from *acollierastro* was humorous and informative. It distilled a lot of useful information for a layman like me who periodically dips his toe into this whole world of high-level physics.
She has so many great videos. I also love that she's not afraid to draw the connection between chemistry and physics something I think has been a bit too ignored. I'm very shocked that top level scientists don't compare notes more often it could lead to way more insight. Like reading a Fermi biography and learning that chemists had known and been experimenting with some of the stuff physicists were discovering for like 5-10 years. But they were ignored for reasons unknown.
String theory likely has the most interest to work on due the many branches can give years of theoretical work from quantum computing to condensed matter physics so it's probably going nowhere any soon
You know the horrible things is, when you talk to orthodox Jews...they COULD really argue like that. That the promised land was not really the coveted prize. So from an orthodox jewish perspective, you could easily have the analogue really coming back at you. Because Religion is incredible flexible. That is why it is so annoying to discuss religious matters with religious people.
The only reason why no one is saying, "what is this bullshit?? You guys have been screwing around playing mathematical masturbation games for 50 years and have completely derailed the physics community," is purely, 100%, because they don't want to offend the respected, tenured, and in often cases, gate-keepers of the scientific political world, who have successfully turned a dead end into fruitful careers. They still have to see these people at conferences and in their departments, and I think most scientists simply don't have the guts to get into anything approaching interpersonal confrontation. They've basically been a bunch of scaredy cats that would rather watch the funding, focus, and progress of science get gobbled up by string theorists than speak up and say, "face reality, this is a dead end and none of you know what you are even doing anymore." I think it's important to have tenure to explore fringe science--which is what I would consider string theory. If Michio Kaku wants to spend his life pursuing string theory, let him if he's convinced it is worthwhile, he's brilliant and maybe something will come of it. But it's the wider scientific community that just goes along with it, like this is some mainstream success, they are the problem for not saying the Emperor has no clothes.
9:48 acollierastro has a great channel. I started watching her about six months ago. It's a nice supplement to a channel like this for people looking for something a bit more tangible with regards to physics. It's nice to see some of the actual math that comes from or gives rise to the theories.
She’s amazing actually. The string theory video she did was wild. Just an academic exploding with the lore and distilled paraphrasing of the amazing story of a theory of everything…while playing a video game. 🫥
@@coder-x7440 While playing a video game rather well I might add... she played the damned game better than me... while reciting the history of string theory!!
@@Tekenduis98 ya it was like asking chat gpt coding questions for the first time all over again. I just closed my laptop and started staring out the window, shaking my head every hour or so.
The best things about science and math is you can be wrong and still be useful. If string theory is wrong then let's all document all of it and keep it's history.
if we dont destroy ourselves as humanity we'll have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of generations yet to come who can work on these problems. Just imagine where we'll be in 50K year's time!
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .----------------------------
It's useless. It couldn't be proved in any of the conceivable ways. It doesn't even predict anything and get it right. Even remotely right. Nope! It deserves all the mocking and aggression. This crap is way past it's expiration date. Total garbage!
Because of Sabine Hossenfelder and her book. (She also uses to lump the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM together with theories she considers "unfalsifiable", but she is very superficial in her philosophy of science and interprets Popper in a naive, on the nose, sense)
Can we not just apply the same principle of wormholes to entangled particles? Especially after the recent idea that some black holes maybe something other than previously thought.
Yeah well, EEEEEEEELONNNNN just rolled up his Texas He-Man sleeves and said, "Hold my Texas He-Man hat, I got this with record my Failed ..., er ..., Full Self Driving Scam!"
In my research string theory is more like a framework to study field theory. It is a UV regulator that is consistent with the symmetries governing gravity.
Two ideas, which I do have a lot more to say about, but my posts keep getting way too long for anyone to read: 1) promote the use of philosophy to critique the scientific project so that the poor reasoning often involved in these projects gets exposed at an early stage. 2) Two things in combination - i) make more of the funding for specific research projects tied to public support, and ii) put far more effort into the popularisation of science. I see the latter (2) point(s) as an attempt to offset the tendency for research cliques to develop where a handful of senior researchers monopolise access to political and commercial funding and therefore what gets researched.
Well math is super super important. If it cannot be sourced from fundamental mathematical description, we be churning b.s.ing or working on it/both. The harmonics think are important. The concept that its either open or closed strings becomes sorta a geometric problem of the field strings that are what closed, so then id suppose like the strings that make up the nucleus of an atom would be open as the closed field strings are concentrated at the nucleus, and that open string set of the nucleus is a sorta harmonic in so relation to the closed field strings of like all of space, which is in turn is made of higher dimesional very very small closed loop strings like fabric. So if it's vibrations and harmonics. Whos to say them resonances are not sourced from chaos to order, not necessarily fundamental? I find it really hard to concieve the crazy fuss about it.
Is it clear what physics need. As you mentioned " trapped " it could mean as well that GOAL LESS . Probably in Penrose's theorem term must be black hole ,source of gravitation is unknown but time appear in horizon. Just as I think.
However the thing which I would like to add here is string theory doesn't fit all in unifying Quantum field theory and gravity. In other words it has limits
These 2 guys are legends for bringing up the hypocrisy and malpractices in the academic world, and quite brave since the Academia as stand is like a mafia of knowledge and if you don't follow the status quo and dogma theories you're to be push aside. And the most sad part is that spread throughout every fields of research, some more than others. If you say that String Theory, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are faked you're already sign off from the club and the cleric will protect their baseless dogmas until the end, and that is if you're a scientist or researcher, if you're just a common man or woman you are to be cast aside like some dumb pleb that should be automatically dismiss. I saw one of these science channel attacking AI produce junk information channels, or at least they look like it, as if half of what the science channel that I will not name it talks about has not even being proven real, the few proves could be just misinterpreted data. They don't complain about lack of UFO data? But galaxies colliding with dark matter "shift" datas are all true and precise? A sober approach is much better, look at how many particles the LHC disprove or prove it, sure, maybe there's a need for even bigger collider but the point remains, the ones shifting the goal poll are those saying those particles need even more impact energy to be visible.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov It's in my personal comment. It's okay to disagree but I'm right... aliens told me jk. For real though our information is corrupted by academia and funding. My work won't be read because I'm self educated. Trust me, I've tried to be heard even at the risk of losing credibility which has already happened. In my opinion there is no God particle responsible for gravity. I think gravity and light are the same wave/particle with different momentum in the 6th dimension. They're just traveling in different directions. Better yet they are hyper vortexes "spinning" in different directions. It's a matter of vibration and momentum on the Q-axis that none of us is aware of because it can't be measured in the third dimension. Our dimension is expanding or falling in all directions. Light is moving faster than we are expanding. Gravity is not moving as fast so it's the inertia of expansion that keeps us stuck.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov if you have an email I'd love to share my work. It needs to be "tested". I don't know everything but I'm far from dumb. AI is handicapped without proper perfect data and us humans are far from perfect. The answer in my opinion was given with the last guest.
Science progresses one funeral at a time - Max Planck We just have to wait for the physicists that have invested their careers on it to die. The younger generations will have a more unbiased and sober outlook. This includes string theory and dark matter/energy.
Yeah, it is math not physics; however like a lot of math it is relevant to physics in ways not initially conceived of, and yeah pop science exploded the enthusiasm of Wheeler, Green and Kaku, etc into untruths. But on the whole string theory serves the species at some non abstract levels...
Sabine Hossenfelder on Sep 30, 2023: _“If you show up on [Curt Jaimungal’s] channel with a comment saying ‘Sabine sent me,’ he promises to reply. So, if you have any questions about Theories of Everything, that’s your chance.”_ Right. Okay, I’ll bite: I do bug-fix regression analysis, which tends to be brutal. Has anyone suggested to you that physics stalled not due to ideas like “super” strings [1] or infinite universes [2] _per se,_ but due to reliance on antiquated 1800s hyper-classical maths that accept points, spaces, and orthogonality as givens? This assumption makes such maths incapable of recognizing that the _approximation_ of these concepts is the trickiest and most precious of all emergent physics properties. ---------- [1] Sorry for my lack of respect for the resulting maths, but “super” strings originated as nothing more than an astonishingly physics-indifferent generalization of stringy quark orbitals. On the other hand, its multi-decade takeover of NSF funding paths was impressive by any standards. [2] Everett created many worlds by making a dumb math error [3]. He assumed the hugely oversimplified Hilbert space formalism “obviously” didn’t need to respect finite-speed state formation due to lightspeed constraints - and voila! Out pops as many universes as you want. Fantastic sci-fi, however - where would Marvel be without it? [3] To be fair to Everett, Einstein similarly ignored speed-of-light limits - ironic, yes? - when he assumed in 1905 that accelerating an object in xyz _immediately_ boosts it into a “new” coordinate system x’y’z’. It doesn’t. As with Everett’s universes, creating a valid new, fully stabilized x’y’z’ coordinate system is a wave propagation that may take eons to complete. Wave-style new coordinate formation is the deeper cause of twin paradoxes and why accelerator particles slow down instead of the accelerators. The new coordinate system is _never_ “instantly” universally symmetric. The maturing takes time and is more complicated - it needs wave equations - than Einstein’s too-simple algebraic methods.
well, this reminds me of Ramanujan, with theorems without proof... I say at least he brought something to be proven when others brought forth nothing...
The herd persecutes its black sheep and sadly that's how the scientistic establishment works too. String theory is the ether of today and the same goes with the dark physics of darm matter and dark energy too.
I think it's slightly different as string theorists try to fit a small theoretical sock to a giant practical foot. To fit the cosmos around Earth, in 16th century terms. They're not Copernicans, they're Tycho Brahe. Earth at the center and *everything else* moves around it? 4 measurable dimensions but an additional half to a couple dozen extra dimensions that collapse in on them? It's "not even wrong"
It's really simple. Ego is a big issue here. Their ego is bigger than their scientific integrity. They end up looking as fraudsters, and fraudsters tend to support themselves for reciprocal accreditation. Same old story... 🙂
You speak as though the jury is no longer out. It is. And it may be out for a very, very long time. The alternatives aren’t looking very promising either. The problem is hard.
Nobody is forced to study string theory - if you don't like it do something else. But it's unreasonable to try to stop others - if you are right and they are wrong then that will surely become obvious.
Loved theory that string theory was invented to divert attention from antigravity research in the early 60s. Witten sr actually said it himself, father of Ed
Just because the LHC is not big enough to detect the loss energy entering the extra dimensions when particles collide it near the speed of light, does not disprove string theory. If you think the LHC experiment disproved string theory then move on. The LHC we believe is way to small to detect this loss of energy when particles collide, maybe a LHC the size of the solar system would prove it. As Richard Witten says the theory of everything has no obligation to be easily explained. Witten has proposed M-Theory that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. Rome wasn't build in a day. Why don't you debate this with Witten on a pod cast?
The comparison of string theorists to communists was intriguing, but the insistence that they do public penance might not be an escape from that history 🙃... As with the end of communism the next step would be to discuss concretely what should come next, what new theories and experiments should be pursued
Edward Frenkel has been my favorite mathmatician ever since I first saw him on Numberphile. Some people only see math, and most see how it applies to life materalistically. I see how it applies to spirituality thanks to Edward and Curt.
Infinite radii in a circle.... infinite circles in a sphere. But if we want to study a section than or a quadrant than what is 1/4 of infinity? Undefined?
@@buddyhell7100 as I said, the problem with it is the 90 different types of 'Theoretical' math... 75 % of which can't be proven And won't be proven and a lot of brilliant mathematicians are wasting their lives chasing after nonsense. I can see you don't like the word 'stuff'.... good for you, that makes it clear you're Supremely intelligent... lmao
The source of that consciousness or the Creator of the consciousness being alluded to is the true reality. The phenomenon didn't just jump into existence it had to have a source just like all objects around us.
@@atiphwyne5609 , that wouldn’t be the guy who sent his son down for us would it 😄😄 , if this is what you mean specifically then I will wish you all the best on your journey, and bid you farewell , but if not I do use the term source , but I can only speculate as to the nature and character of that entity which ever form it takes in or out of space time , it is self evident to me that time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, and I am ( insert your own term in place of I am if you wish ) is in charge of my conceptual scheme I therefore have the final say , to deny this is to deny one’s own divinity and I will not worship false gods
@@atiphwyne5609 I would say consciousness /awareness is the creator and you and I are an individual but not separate piece of consciousness therefore we are the creators
It's worth pointing out that mathematicians and scientists are not more advanced than any other humans in the sense that all our brains contain various types of neurons operating biologically as non-linear systems due to positive and negative feedback. In such systems~~~both in Neural and non-neurone biological systems~~~you get both emergence and self-organising systems. We know this is a key characteristic of the brain; further, we know from studying complex systems (of various model types) that self-organising systems tend to be nearly informationally closed~~~resistant to direct external programming! In such systems, the external information gets processed by the internal self-organising system according to It's own idiosyncratic system properties. Therefore, it's very difficult for a perception~~~ arising from self-organision within the brain~~~to revolve suddenly in response to external challenge. Rather, the average response to external challenge is to be defensive and engage in debate, not dialogue. This is even seen as the correct way to be ie, to debate and reason others wrong and try to support your reasons with actual evidence. However, the mental representations built by scientists and mathematicians are abstract systems, so without exception, all of them are more likely to be wrong at some level. Ergo, dialogue tp understand the other person's basis of perception is more valuable than debate. Because these disciplines are quite tough to learn, people prefer not to invest their time with things they don't intend to take up. That's another mistake, because their personal career will fail to crack nature ~~~that's a certainty. Einstein failed, Bohr failed, Feynman failed, Witten will fail. Ultimately, nature is beyond human theories; however, our limited theories (limited in scope) will provide applications and limited consistency within certain boundaries. So dialogue where perception or basis of perception might be shared across physics disciplines ~~~despite the cost in time and effort required to achieve that~~~might well lead to more advance than merely sticking to your own bit of the map. But, in the system where funding depends upon meeting grant objectives, proper dialogue doesn't really happen. Almost all physicists argue from their limited perspective to attack views not consistent with their own understanding. So one problem for our species is the proclivity to analyse what others say with the geometry of our own mind (understanding) rather than to try to question another to determine their mental basis of perception. Likely all current paradigms will be superseded at some point. Likely the advances will come from someone seeing the world or situation in physics in a different way. Even then, most theories have their weaknesses despite their applicability. I don't think that it's easy to study any simple system and get the universe to pop out. Even minor issues could amplify to ruin a theory if emergent phenomena come out of that simple system. So string theory is unlikely to mirror nature but no system is likely to either. We probably have such a limited view~~~ consequent from our own scientific history~~~that very little we can think up will give us an accurate TOE.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge, Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
You move on Einstein spent most of his life AFTER his big papers trying to create unified theory. None of his attempts worked. He shrugged and moved on.
If you think string theory is not the answer, why no one has not come up with a better theory. And dont tell me academia does not allow them to work on their own theories.😊
@______4790 If you pay attention to what I texted, you will see that I haven't detracted from string or any other theory. I only commented on your inaccurate spelling. However, since you have responded, a little advice : ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument. The gentleman attacked the 'industry', you attacked him.
Hilarious you try to correct my spelling and then throw around terms like "ad hominem". At least my criticism that his opinion comes from a place of ignorance is valid, as shown by saying nothing about actual theory and parroting other people. @@atiphwyne5609
The string theory is a theory, people criticize that the theory is not supported by facts. But no one has demonstrated there is a reasoning flaw or glitch in string theorist’s papers. Peter Voit who first criticized the string theory in his book « not even wrong » has cited the Bogdanov affair to support his claim . He changed gear from « supporting » letter to « polite » letter to Bogdanov. He denied his own words pretending the diplomatic and polite language that was misinterpreted. I don’t trust people who are not faithful to themselves. AI in 1960s also went into winter age before experiencing rebound in 1990s and struck the world by storm with chatGTP in 2022.
I haven’t given up on it. I’ll tap out when Ed does. However that works out. I think he’s gonna clutch it still. He’s got no quit in him. If the math adds up surely it must mean something.
To an extent, it doesn't even work with the math: it suffers from the same mathematical problems that _nonperturbative_ Quantum Field Theory suffers from.
Tbh I think all these folks trying to fathom realty should have a real good ketamine trip, a mushroom trip, an acid trip, and a DMT journey. It will open their eyes so much more to the capacity of reality and the far deeper interconnectedness that becomes so much easier to glean in those states.
So string theory is just that, a theory. You can't tell people what to study or what not to study, people study whatever they want. Theories that are decades old can be proved wrong, and theories that were wrong for decades proved right, as time move forward and knowledge changes, things change as it should. Nothing can be said to be absolutely correct or wrong, we can only say its right or wrong with our current understanding but we must always be open to that the future can change what we understand today.
I'm no defender of ST, but I'm sure public funds spent for ST projects (which have been and are only theoretical) are an infinitesimal fraction of those spent for the military pretty much in every country.
Welcome! Hopefully you enjoy some of the podcasts on the channel. Here's a starter playlist if you're interested ua-cam.com/play/PLZ7ikzmc6zlMS2MP3hzVot4Z77AWFnHzQ.html (or just browse through ua-cam.com/users/TheoriesOfEverything) - Curt
I dont know how string theory took hold when onion theory was becoming popular around the same period. I guess onion theory was closer to the truth, what society 'needed' was more gaps.
He himself is a part of the "string theory" mathematics hype, and obviously has no clue about the methods and real problems of physics beyond formal mathematics.
The current knowledge of string theory says it’s not accepted. It’s not a secret so it’s not like everyone is putting all their eggs in one basket for that single theory. Bit confused on what this guy is supposed to be exposing…
String theorists blame their failure on the same false gods as their opponents while the adversary of all creation laughs at the final chosen species and God and Karma have the last laugh with the faithful
I do know that four dimensional space exists... Proof of four dimensional space is inside of mandela effects which are kind of unmeasurable... the Cornicopia in fruit of the loom gone... Pikachu's tail isnt all black... has brown. Its all evidence of illusion... singularity...
@@movement2contact like i said... it's no provable... everything is subjective... objective reality doesn't exist. In order to have objective reality you need an observer that exist from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and the end of time is not here... Think about the logical Progression in the spatial dimensions from 0d which is nothing to 1d which is a dot... infinite 0d can fit inside anysize 1d existence. Just as infinite 1d space can fit in anysize 2d space which is a plane. Same goes in the logical progression infinite 2d planes can fit in anysize 3d object. The next step is infinite 3d existence can fit in anysize 4d object... its all illusion... everything is one. Singularity comes here to forget it is all encompassing and completely alone... very quiet here in comparison...
@@AdrianBoyko its all subjective so proof doesn't technically exist but if you haven't experienced mandela effects good for you not noticing or being the center of the universe...
I am a physicist and I use string theory all the time in my research on the fractional quantum Hall effect. What Frenkel means here is that the expectation to find the standard model in the 90s by Calabi-Yau compactification of one of super string theories turned out to be unfullfillable to this date. This does not harm the theory. The prediction was just wrong. Therefore, the title of this video is a little bit missleading. String theory revolutionized the way we understand physics and math in general and it continous to do so. Aja by the way, it is the only consistent theory unifying quantum field theory and gravity.
If one wants to say ST was useful for mathematics and broadening physics' application, fine - but that is not vindication of the essential idea itself. And if physicists can't admit that, then frankly they just don't want to admit failure in this particular instance.
This argument that it is the only theory that unifies qft and gravity is silly. If people wanted to blindly unify these theories in some random unphysical 7th, 13th etc. dimensional spacetime, they could pursue that anytime, but it's a terrible strategy. You are a mathematician, strategy is important in physics; you can't just assume extra dimensions, extra symmetries, make no predictions, all at the SAME time and call this physics. It's just fancy boring fiction
@@Doozy_Titter The extra dimensions are not assumed. They are forced onto you to retain Lorentz invariance. A theory of everything should give you the number of dimensions you live in. QFT and GR make perfect sence in arbitrary dimensions. I believe you are not the only one who has this incomplete knowledge. May I ask where you got it from? Additionally, the modern forms of string theory work in any dimension below 11. Thats why I can use them for the quantum Hall effect, where the AdS/CFT corrspondence in three/two dimensions describes the states of a fractional quantum Hall system.
I didn't mean that the dimensions are axiomatic, I meant that anyone could pursue a unification without caring about the dimensions, which is a terrible strategy. It is like throwing a dart in the dark. It could very well be the case that there are uncountably infinite many ways to unify the theories outside the string framework, in 2, 7 or even 453 dimensions. If peiple wanna do that it's fine, but it's not that special for fundamental physics.
@@Doozy_TitterAnd that is where I think you are wrong. It is hard to explain in a UA-cam comment section but the mathematical and physical frameworks we developed since Maxwell 200+ years ago and which have been proven to be a correct description of your world, only work for point particles even though not for gravity and for one-dimensional strings. Everything else has no physical or mathematical consistency in that regard. This is also why string theory already involves higher dimensional objects called D-branes. So asuming that particles are no points but strings and applying the framwork of quantization gives you the vast landscape of modern string theory that includes so many areas of mathematics and physics proved to be right. I think this is the reason for poaple that work in string theory to believe in its correctness.
Full length podcast with Edward Frenkel: ua-cam.com/video/n_oPMcvHbAc/v-deo.html. It's one of the best podcasts on all of TOE. We talk about Infinity, Ai, String Theory, Death, The Self.
My favorite by far. I've watched it three times.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism.
For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is:
S+o = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace)
Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as:
E= A͚͚
(Everything is Infinite Awareness)
For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history.
To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
“The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓
P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India):
🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉
Chandogya Upanishad 3.14
(‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’.
“Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence.
There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).
No "M" theory so far. Witten continues to live off that juicy budget without producing any real theory or law. It's amazing how scientists without knowledge of real human interactions still fail to see the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Witten is a con artist. Contra facta argumenta nulla sunt.
I wonder if he and Eric can have an interesting anti-string conversation together.
6:52 Such a great analogy🙏🙏🙏 This is really being clear about Truth. Every theory based on incomplete knowledge is challenged by the Axioms themselves being challenged .
7:27 - 7:40 That video from *acollierastro* was humorous and informative. It distilled a lot of useful information for a layman like me who periodically dips his toe into this whole world of high-level physics.
She's plays binding of Isaac along with it
She has so many great videos. I also love that she's not afraid to draw the connection between chemistry and physics something I think has been a bit too ignored.
I'm very shocked that top level scientists don't compare notes more often it could lead to way more insight. Like reading a Fermi biography and learning that chemists had known and been experimenting with some of the stuff physicists were discovering for like 5-10 years. But they were ignored for reasons unknown.
Only 10 more years! Sounds like fusion power which has been only 20 years in the future for the last 50 years.
I hope this blows up and will be part of many future discussions on this. This channel would deserve it.
String theory likely has the most interest to work on due the many branches can give years of theoretical work from quantum computing to condensed matter physics so it's probably going nowhere any soon
The misleading title gives hope to ignorant people
The analogy to Moses and the promised land is brilliant.
You know the horrible things is, when you talk to orthodox Jews...they COULD really argue like that. That the promised land was not really the coveted prize. So from an orthodox jewish perspective, you could easily have the analogue really coming back at you. Because Religion is incredible flexible. That is why it is so annoying to discuss religious matters with religious people.
I loved hearing Frankel shout out ACollier’s video on string theory
Oh good. I'm glad we're thinking outside the box of mirrors.
The only reason why no one is saying, "what is this bullshit?? You guys have been screwing around playing mathematical masturbation games for 50 years and have completely derailed the physics community," is purely, 100%, because they don't want to offend the respected, tenured, and in often cases, gate-keepers of the scientific political world, who have successfully turned a dead end into fruitful careers. They still have to see these people at conferences and in their departments, and I think most scientists simply don't have the guts to get into anything approaching interpersonal confrontation. They've basically been a bunch of scaredy cats that would rather watch the funding, focus, and progress of science get gobbled up by string theorists than speak up and say, "face reality, this is a dead end and none of you know what you are even doing anymore." I think it's important to have tenure to explore fringe science--which is what I would consider string theory. If Michio Kaku wants to spend his life pursuing string theory, let him if he's convinced it is worthwhile, he's brilliant and maybe something will come of it. But it's the wider scientific community that just goes along with it, like this is some mainstream success, they are the problem for not saying the Emperor has no clothes.
9:48 acollierastro has a great channel. I started watching her about six months ago. It's a nice supplement to a channel like this for people looking for something a bit more tangible with regards to physics. It's nice to see some of the actual math that comes from or gives rise to the theories.
She’s amazing actually. The string theory video she did was wild. Just an academic exploding with the lore and distilled paraphrasing of the amazing story of a theory of everything…while playing a video game. 🫥
@@coder-x7440 While playing a video game rather well I might add... she played the damned game better than me... while reciting the history of string theory!!
@@Tekenduis98 ya it was like asking chat gpt coding questions for the first time all over again. I just closed my laptop and started staring out the window, shaking my head every hour or so.
Its the alternate thinking where we find answers. String theory has set us back in many ways as its prevented funding for other investigatory science
Probably not much different to the ppl who ensured funding into antibiotics was kept to a limit and taken away in many cases.
The best things about science and math is you can be wrong and still be useful. If string theory is wrong then let's all document all of it and keep it's history.
if we dont destroy ourselves as humanity we'll have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of generations yet to come who can work on these problems. Just imagine where we'll be in 50K year's time!
@@daarom3472I worry we will be back to fighting with rocks and arrows…lol
@@daarom3472Borrriiinnnggg
13:20 This is the courage that internal human quest for truth that is what will lead to the total knowledge of every thing exists as it exists.
Sophistry at its very worst!
I love how the automated caption says "I was never a stink theories..." 13:40
I moniker it all under the generalised heading of:
“Hagoromo’s Failure” -CCMG
😂
You mean Hagoromo the Japanese brand of chalk loved by mathematicians? 😂
Excited to watch full episode…Edward has given me a whole new perspective on AI and it’s likely limits. The duck/rabbit was an eye opener.🤙🏼
As soon as he said Moses I absolutely started dying! 😂
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.----------------------------
11:07 Coexistence theory can explain all the dimension of existence that is the reality.
One can always wonder why string theory triggers so much aggression - also demonstrated in the comments.
It's useless. It couldn't be proved in any of the conceivable ways. It doesn't even predict anything and get it right. Even remotely right. Nope! It deserves all the mocking and aggression. This crap is way past it's expiration date. Total garbage!
As suggested by Edward Frenkel in the video, go read Kaplan's testimony on "Not even Wrong"
Because of Sabine Hossenfelder and her book.
(She also uses to lump the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM together with theories she considers "unfalsifiable", but she is very superficial in her philosophy of science and interprets Popper in a naive, on the nose, sense)
@@rv706 Yes, she is very overrated.
Can we not just apply the same principle of wormholes to entangled particles? Especially after the recent idea that some black holes maybe something other than previously thought.
Roger Penrose talks about this in his new (2024) preface to his book “Fashion, Faith and Fantasy”.
I would have thought that the 40 years of saying somethings just around the corner was the failure.
Yeah well, EEEEEEEELONNNNN just rolled up his Texas He-Man sleeves and said, "Hold my Texas He-Man hat, I got this with record my Failed ..., er ..., Full Self Driving Scam!"
In my research string theory is more like a framework to study field theory. It is a UV regulator that is consistent with the symmetries governing gravity.
Two ideas, which I do have a lot more to say about, but my posts keep getting way too long for anyone to read: 1) promote the use of philosophy to critique the scientific project so that the poor reasoning often involved in these projects gets exposed at an early stage. 2) Two things in combination - i) make more of the funding for specific research projects tied to public support, and ii) put far more effort into the popularisation of science. I see the latter (2) point(s) as an attempt to offset the tendency for research cliques to develop where a handful of senior researchers monopolise access to political and commercial funding and therefore what gets researched.
Sabine Hossenfelder stated recently they need to work with non-linear mathematics.
Well math is super super important. If it cannot be sourced from fundamental mathematical description, we be churning b.s.ing or working on it/both. The harmonics think are important. The concept that its either open or closed strings becomes sorta a geometric problem of the field strings that are what closed, so then id suppose like the strings that make up the nucleus of an atom would be open as the closed field strings are concentrated at the nucleus, and that open string set of the nucleus is a sorta harmonic in so relation to the closed field strings of like all of space, which is in turn is made of higher dimesional very very small closed loop strings like fabric. So if it's vibrations and harmonics. Whos to say them resonances are not sourced from chaos to order, not necessarily fundamental? I find it really hard to concieve the crazy fuss about it.
It's not that I don't have time, I just don't have that much time. Speed makes a difference.
Is it clear what physics need. As you mentioned " trapped " it could mean as well that GOAL LESS .
Probably in Penrose's theorem term must be black hole ,source of gravitation is unknown but time appear in horizon. Just as I think.
@TheoriesofEverything Curt, have you reached out to Max Tegmark in attempt to have him on the pod? Could be some great convo!
Max Tegmark is the boss.
"We've learned about the desert. We've learned so much about the sand". EPIC
However the thing which I would like to add here is string theory doesn't fit all in unifying Quantum field theory and gravity. In other words it has limits
These 2 guys are legends for bringing up the hypocrisy and malpractices in the academic world, and quite brave since the Academia as stand is like a mafia of knowledge and if you don't follow the status quo and dogma theories you're to be push aside.
And the most sad part is that spread throughout every fields of research, some more than others.
If you say that String Theory, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are faked you're already sign off from the club and the cleric will protect their baseless dogmas until the end, and that is if you're a scientist or researcher, if you're just a common man or woman you are to be cast aside like some dumb pleb that should be automatically dismiss.
I saw one of these science channel attacking AI produce junk information channels, or at least they look like it, as if half of what the science channel that I will not name it talks about has not even being proven real, the few proves could be just misinterpreted data. They don't complain about lack of UFO data? But galaxies colliding with dark matter "shift" datas are all true and precise?
A sober approach is much better, look at how many particles the LHC disprove or prove it, sure, maybe there's a need for even bigger collider but the point remains, the ones shifting the goal poll are those saying those particles need even more impact energy to be visible.
Well said and I 100% agree.
@@luke144 i dont agree. if u have a better theory, please tell us. let's test it.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov It's in my personal comment. It's okay to disagree but I'm right... aliens told me jk. For real though our information is corrupted by academia and funding. My work won't be read because I'm self educated. Trust me, I've tried to be heard even at the risk of losing credibility which has already happened. In my opinion there is no God particle responsible for gravity. I think gravity and light are the same wave/particle with different momentum in the 6th dimension. They're just traveling in different directions. Better yet they are hyper vortexes "spinning" in different directions. It's a matter of vibration and momentum on the Q-axis that none of us is aware of because it can't be measured in the third dimension. Our dimension is expanding or falling in all directions. Light is moving faster than we are expanding. Gravity is not moving as fast so it's the inertia of expansion that keeps us stuck.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov if you have an email I'd love to share my work. It needs to be "tested". I don't know everything but I'm far from dumb. AI is handicapped without proper perfect data and us humans are far from perfect. The answer in my opinion was given with the last guest.
Science progresses one funeral at a time - Max Planck
We just have to wait for the physicists that have invested their careers on it to die. The younger generations will have a more unbiased and sober outlook. This includes string theory and dark matter/energy.
Yeah, it is math not physics; however like a lot of math it is relevant to physics in ways not initially conceived of, and yeah pop science exploded the enthusiasm of Wheeler, Green and Kaku, etc into untruths. But on the whole string theory serves the species at some non abstract levels...
Sabine Hossenfelder on Sep 30, 2023: _“If you show up on [Curt Jaimungal’s] channel with a comment saying ‘Sabine sent me,’ he promises to reply. So, if you have any questions about Theories of Everything, that’s your chance.”_ Right. Okay, I’ll bite: I do bug-fix regression analysis, which tends to be brutal. Has anyone suggested to you that physics stalled not due to ideas like “super” strings [1] or infinite universes [2] _per se,_ but due to reliance on antiquated 1800s hyper-classical maths that accept points, spaces, and orthogonality as givens? This assumption makes such maths incapable of recognizing that the _approximation_ of these concepts is the trickiest and most precious of all emergent physics properties.
----------
[1] Sorry for my lack of respect for the resulting maths, but “super” strings originated as nothing more than an astonishingly physics-indifferent generalization of stringy quark orbitals. On the other hand, its multi-decade takeover of NSF funding paths was impressive by any standards.
[2] Everett created many worlds by making a dumb math error [3]. He assumed the hugely oversimplified Hilbert space formalism “obviously” didn’t need to respect finite-speed state formation due to lightspeed constraints - and voila! Out pops as many universes as you want. Fantastic sci-fi, however - where would Marvel be without it?
[3] To be fair to Everett, Einstein similarly ignored speed-of-light limits - ironic, yes? - when he assumed in 1905 that accelerating an object in xyz _immediately_ boosts it into a “new” coordinate system x’y’z’. It doesn’t. As with Everett’s universes, creating a valid new, fully stabilized x’y’z’ coordinate system is a wave propagation that may take eons to complete. Wave-style new coordinate formation is the deeper cause of twin paradoxes and why accelerator particles slow down instead of the accelerators. The new coordinate system is _never_ “instantly” universally symmetric. The maturing takes time and is more complicated - it needs wave equations - than Einstein’s too-simple algebraic methods.
100%. String theory a great base for maths but the elders won't let go of the fact that they might be at a dead end. Let it go
well, this reminds me of Ramanujan, with theorems without proof... I say at least he brought something to be proven when others brought forth nothing...
The herd persecutes its black sheep and sadly that's how the scientistic establishment works too. String theory is the ether of today and the same goes with the dark physics of darm matter and dark energy too.
Seems like string theorists are still busy working on their Copernican system, while the rest of the world waits for Kepler to show up
I think it's slightly different as string theorists try to fit a small theoretical sock to a giant practical foot. To fit the cosmos around Earth, in 16th century terms. They're not Copernicans, they're Tycho Brahe. Earth at the center and *everything else* moves around it? 4 measurable dimensions but an additional half to a couple dozen extra dimensions that collapse in on them? It's "not even wrong"
@@BarackObamaJedigreat insight
It's really simple. Ego is a big issue here. Their ego is bigger than their scientific integrity. They end up looking as fraudsters, and fraudsters tend to support themselves for reciprocal accreditation. Same old story... 🙂
You speak as though the jury is no longer out. It is. And it may be out for a very, very long time. The alternatives aren’t looking very promising either. The problem is hard.
Nobody is forced to study string theory - if you don't like it do something else.
But it's unreasonable to try to stop others - if you are right and they are wrong then that will surely become obvious.
They are mad about the funding and can't cope
If you was a theoretical physicist in the 1990es you know that your statement is wrong.
Loved theory that string theory was invented to divert attention from antigravity research in the early 60s. Witten sr actually said it himself, father of Ed
We made a video on that subject ua-cam.com/video/eBA3RUxkZdc/v-deo.html ! - Curt
This ten years promise, it reminds me the soviet five years plan. It was always four years away
Just because the LHC is not big enough to detect the loss energy entering the extra dimensions when particles collide it near the speed of light, does not disprove string theory.
If you think the LHC experiment disproved string theory then move on.
The LHC we believe is way to small to detect this loss of energy when particles collide, maybe a LHC the size of the solar system would prove it.
As Richard Witten says the theory of everything has no obligation to be easily explained.
Witten has proposed M-Theory that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. Rome wasn't build in a day.
Why don't you debate this with Witten on a pod cast?
The comparison of string theorists to communists was intriguing, but the insistence that they do public penance might not be an escape from that history 🙃... As with the end of communism the next step would be to discuss concretely what should come next, what new theories and experiments should be pursued
Edward Frenkel has been my favorite mathmatician ever since I first saw him on Numberphile.
Some people only see math, and most see how it applies to life materalistically. I see how it applies to spirituality thanks to Edward and Curt.
Sabine sent me here! Great channel!
Hello and welcome!
Hi Kurt, Sabine sent me and glad sge did!
Me as well! Hope you enjoy the channel
13:20 This lip service that human society provide to the groupthink mentality .
This is the social culture nature of human being.
I'm relieved that Sabine sent me to your channel. So relieved to know this field is pretty much what I thought: failed under pressure.
Thank you. - Curt
Witten is searching for this man.
yeah, :-D I had found that video of Angela myself, it is really good :-D
Infinity sign, that's the equation for everything, you're welcome, where's my check?
Infinite radii in a circle.... infinite circles in a sphere.
But if we want to study a section than or a quadrant than what is 1/4 of infinity? Undefined?
We need to find a theory that acts like physics.
Thought: if the universe were fundamentally fractal, it wouldn't have a natural number of dimensions
Well, that proves the universe is not a fractal, doesn't it? Next pseudo-problem, please.....
Frenkel is awesome!
It seems like Math has stalled with too much Theoretical stuff.
Not at all. Lots of new math has been created showing relationships between 'stuff'.
@@buddyhell7100 as I said, the problem with it is the 90 different types of 'Theoretical' math... 75 % of which can't be proven And won't be proven and a lot of brilliant mathematicians are wasting their lives chasing after nonsense. I can see you don't like the word 'stuff'.... good for you, that makes it clear you're Supremely intelligent... lmao
Can you be more specific??
It sounds like you're misunderstanding what pure mathematics is.
your questions, unlike the man of tangents, are on the point please diversify your subjects Curt.
What would be useful to acknowledge is how atomic physics has been put to bad use.
Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, consciousness is the fundamental reality
The source of that consciousness or the Creator of the consciousness being alluded to is the true reality. The phenomenon didn't just jump into existence it had to have a source just like all objects around us.
@@atiphwyne5609 are you saying something that came before? If so then you are back in the notion of linear time
@Magicalfluidprocess I am talking about the Creator of time, space, consciousness, and you and me.
@@atiphwyne5609 , that wouldn’t be the guy who sent his son down for us would it 😄😄 , if this is what you mean specifically then I will wish you all the best on your journey, and bid you farewell , but if not I do use the term source , but I can only speculate as to the nature and character of that entity which ever form it takes in or out of space time , it is self evident to me that time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme, and I am ( insert your own term in place of I am if you wish ) is in charge of my conceptual scheme I therefore have the final say , to deny this is to deny one’s own divinity and I will not worship false gods
@@atiphwyne5609 I would say consciousness /awareness is the creator and you and I are an individual but not separate piece of consciousness therefore we are the creators
It's worth pointing out that mathematicians and scientists are not more advanced than any other humans in the sense that all our brains contain various types of neurons operating biologically as non-linear systems due to positive and negative feedback.
In such systems~~~both in Neural and non-neurone biological systems~~~you get both emergence and self-organising systems. We know this is a key characteristic of the brain; further, we know from studying complex systems (of various model types) that self-organising systems tend to be nearly informationally closed~~~resistant to direct external programming! In such systems, the external information gets processed by the internal self-organising system according to It's own idiosyncratic system properties.
Therefore, it's very difficult for a perception~~~ arising from self-organision within the brain~~~to revolve suddenly in response to external challenge. Rather, the average response to external challenge is to be defensive and engage in debate, not dialogue.
This is even seen as the correct way to be ie, to debate and reason others wrong and try to support your reasons with actual evidence. However, the mental representations built by scientists and mathematicians are abstract systems, so without exception, all of them are more likely to be wrong at some level. Ergo, dialogue tp understand the other person's basis of perception is more valuable than debate.
Because these disciplines are quite tough to learn, people prefer not to invest their time with things they don't intend to take up. That's another mistake, because their personal career will fail to crack nature ~~~that's a certainty. Einstein failed, Bohr failed, Feynman failed, Witten will fail. Ultimately, nature is beyond human theories; however, our limited theories (limited in scope) will provide applications and limited consistency within certain boundaries. So dialogue where perception or basis of perception might be shared across physics disciplines ~~~despite the cost in time and effort required to achieve that~~~might well lead to more advance than merely sticking to your own bit of the map.
But, in the system where funding depends upon meeting grant objectives, proper dialogue doesn't really happen. Almost all physicists argue from their limited perspective to attack views not consistent with their own understanding.
So one problem for our species is the proclivity to analyse what others say with the geometry of our own mind (understanding) rather than to try to question another to determine their mental basis of perception. Likely all current paradigms will be superseded at some point. Likely the advances will come from someone seeing the world or situation in physics in a different way.
Even then, most theories have their weaknesses despite their applicability.
I don't think that it's easy to study any simple system and get the universe to pop out. Even minor issues could amplify to ruin a theory if emergent phenomena come out of that simple system. So string theory is unlikely to mirror nature but no system is likely to either. We probably have such a limited view~~~ consequent from our own scientific history~~~that very little we can think up will give us an accurate TOE.
Lol
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement,
Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality.
Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge,
Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge.
Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Sir, really NO one kid arguing w/you. Your whole premise is that we hold S.T. relevant. An your wrong about that to begin with.
Sabine sent me: is your logo based on Reese peanut butter chocolate?
No but I love Reeses. So perhaps subconsciously. Welcome!
🛸🌿 Greetings
String theory is on life support.
You move on
Einstein spent most of his life AFTER his big papers trying to create unified theory. None of his attempts worked. He shrugged and moved on.
String theorists.... Matematicians really good at solving math puzzles
Ah the Promised Land is just around the corner.....
It is not 10 dimensions, it is 12.
If you think string theory is not the answer, why no one has not come up with a better theory. And dont tell me academia does not allow them to work on their own theories.😊
THEORY OF AN ELDER
ABUSING
BULLY
Next time invite Michio Kaku, phycisist, visionary and Co-Founder of Science and Not At All Just A Braindead Teacher Hack Hated By His Students.
String Theory is basically a jobs program. As long as there's money to be made they will keep doing it.
says the peasant
@______4790 Surely when trying to insult someone you should at least get the spelling right!
@@atiphwyne5609 surely you will keep detracting from the best present theory of gravity whilst positing nothing in return!
@______4790 If you pay attention to what I texted, you will see that I haven't detracted from string or any other theory. I only commented on your inaccurate spelling.
However, since you have responded, a little advice : ad hominem attacks do not constitute an argument. The gentleman attacked the 'industry', you attacked him.
Hilarious you try to correct my spelling and then throw around terms like "ad hominem". At least my criticism that his opinion comes from a place of ignorance is valid, as shown by saying nothing about actual theory and parroting other people. @@atiphwyne5609
Gravity and antigravity have already been solved. String theory is a distraction
Antigravity has been solved? How?
@@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344 You can ask the military and their private contractors.
The string theory is a theory, people criticize that the theory is not supported by facts. But no one has demonstrated there is a reasoning flaw or glitch in string theorist’s papers. Peter Voit who first criticized the string theory in his book « not even wrong » has cited the Bogdanov affair to support his claim . He changed gear from « supporting » letter to « polite » letter to Bogdanov. He denied his own words pretending the diplomatic and polite language that was misinterpreted. I don’t trust people who are not faithful to themselves. AI in 1960s also went into winter age before experiencing rebound in 1990s and struck the world by storm with chatGTP in 2022.
Sabine sent me here ;)
String Theory works with the math, but not in reality. I had hope for it and now convinced it is nonsense.
I haven’t given up on it. I’ll tap out when Ed does. However that works out. I think he’s gonna clutch it still. He’s got no quit in him. If the math adds up surely it must mean something.
To an extent, it doesn't even work with the math: it suffers from the same mathematical problems that _nonperturbative_ Quantum Field Theory suffers from.
Science is buyable and easy to alter, and most universities harbor academic bullies and malcontents
Any books or links to recommend about this
@@vicvic2081 Academic Repression: Reflections from the Academic-Industrial Complex
@@toddm6999 thank you and have an amazing day.
Tbh I think all these folks trying to fathom realty should have a real good ketamine trip, a mushroom trip, an acid trip, and a DMT journey.
It will open their eyes so much more to the capacity of reality and the far deeper interconnectedness that becomes so much easier to glean in those states.
So string theory is just that, a theory.
You can't tell people what to study or what not to study, people study whatever they want.
Theories that are decades old can be proved wrong, and theories that were wrong for decades proved right, as time move forward and knowledge changes, things change as it should.
Nothing can be said to be absolutely correct or wrong, we can only say its right or wrong with our current understanding but we must always be open to that the future can change what we understand today.
"String theory" seems to be pointless mental gymnastics. Such a waste of talent and energy of the bright people wasting their lives away.
It looked promising, it had to be explored.
Witten isnt wrong.
So over 50 years of strings ruling physics and countless billions or trillions of dollars and it was NO BIG THING. I want my money back.
I'm no defender of ST, but I'm sure public funds spent for ST projects (which have been and are only theoretical) are an infinitesimal fraction of those spent for the military pretty much in every country.
Billions or Trillions of dollars? ARe you delusional.
Sabine sent me.
Welcome! Hopefully you enjoy some of the podcasts on the channel. Here's a starter playlist if you're interested ua-cam.com/play/PLZ7ikzmc6zlMS2MP3hzVot4Z77AWFnHzQ.html (or just browse through ua-cam.com/users/TheoriesOfEverything) - Curt
its crazy to see hip hop and string theory racing each other to the trash bin
Angela Collier is really cute. And smart. And funny.
I dont know how string theory took hold when onion theory was becoming popular around the same period. I guess onion theory was closer to the truth, what society 'needed' was more gaps.
Ed shouted out Angela @acollierastro 🎉
Sabine send me 🤭
Welcome! Hope you enjoy the channel :)
He himself is a part of the "string theory" mathematics hype, and obviously has no clue about the methods and real problems of physics beyond formal mathematics.
The current knowledge of string theory says it’s not accepted. It’s not a secret so it’s not like everyone is putting all their eggs in one basket for that single theory. Bit confused on what this guy is supposed to be exposing…
ST has been treated by far as the biggest basket for decades though...
String theorists blame their failure on the same false gods as their opponents while the adversary of all creation laughs at the final chosen species and God and Karma have the last laugh with the faithful
Maths is just a measurement of quantity, but I enjoyed the silly mystical explanations, went right over my head though 😂🎉
Boring
Two dimensions. Space/Counterspace. Solved. Thank you Nikola Tesla. All other beliefs are meaningless.
String theory feeds the rice bowl of people that spent their life studying it. They defend it because they have nothing else. Very sad.
I do know that four dimensional space exists... Proof of four dimensional space is inside of mandela effects which are kind of unmeasurable... the Cornicopia in fruit of the loom gone... Pikachu's tail isnt all black... has brown. Its all evidence of illusion... singularity...
Sure... 💊💊💊💊🙄
Hope they are kidding
@@movement2contact like i said... it's no provable... everything is subjective... objective reality doesn't exist. In order to have objective reality you need an observer that exist from the beginning of time all the way to the end of time and the end of time is not here... Think about the logical Progression in the spatial dimensions from 0d which is nothing to 1d which is a dot... infinite 0d can fit inside anysize 1d existence. Just as infinite 1d space can fit in anysize 2d space which is a plane. Same goes in the logical progression infinite 2d planes can fit in anysize 3d object. The next step is infinite 3d existence can fit in anysize 4d object... its all illusion... everything is one. Singularity comes here to forget it is all encompassing and completely alone... very quiet here in comparison...
@@AdrianBoyko its all subjective so proof doesn't technically exist but if you haven't experienced mandela effects good for you not noticing or being the center of the universe...
I am a physicist and I use string theory all the time in my research on the fractional quantum Hall effect. What Frenkel means here is that the expectation to find the standard model in the 90s by Calabi-Yau compactification of one of super string theories turned out to be unfullfillable to this date. This does not harm the theory. The prediction was just wrong. Therefore, the title of this video is a little bit missleading. String theory revolutionized the way we understand physics and math in general and it continous to do so. Aja by the way, it is the only consistent theory unifying quantum field theory and gravity.
If one wants to say ST was useful for mathematics and broadening physics' application, fine - but that is not vindication of the essential idea itself.
And if physicists can't admit that, then frankly they just don't want to admit failure in this particular instance.
This argument that it is the only theory that unifies qft and gravity is silly. If people wanted to blindly unify these theories in some random unphysical 7th, 13th etc. dimensional spacetime, they could pursue that anytime, but it's a terrible strategy. You are a mathematician, strategy is important in physics; you can't just assume extra dimensions, extra symmetries, make no predictions, all at the SAME time and call this physics. It's just fancy boring fiction
@@Doozy_Titter The extra dimensions are not assumed. They are forced onto you to retain Lorentz invariance. A theory of everything should give you the number of dimensions you live in. QFT and GR make perfect sence in arbitrary dimensions. I believe you are not the only one who has this incomplete knowledge. May I ask where you got it from? Additionally, the modern forms of string theory work in any dimension below 11. Thats why I can use them for the quantum Hall effect, where the AdS/CFT corrspondence in three/two dimensions describes the states of a fractional quantum Hall system.
I didn't mean that the dimensions are axiomatic, I meant that anyone could pursue a unification without caring about the dimensions, which is a terrible strategy. It is like throwing a dart in the dark. It could very well be the case that there are uncountably infinite many ways to unify the theories outside the string framework, in 2, 7 or even 453 dimensions. If peiple wanna do that it's fine, but it's not that special for fundamental physics.
@@Doozy_TitterAnd that is where I think you are wrong. It is hard to explain in a UA-cam comment section but the mathematical and physical frameworks we developed since Maxwell 200+ years ago and which have been proven to be a correct description of your world, only work for point particles even though not for gravity and for one-dimensional strings. Everything else has no physical or mathematical consistency in that regard. This is also why string theory already involves higher dimensional objects called D-branes. So asuming that particles are no points but strings and applying the framwork of quantization gives you the vast landscape of modern string theory that includes so many areas of mathematics and physics proved to be right. I think this is the reason for poaple that work in string theory to believe in its correctness.
Sabine sent me.
Hello! Hope you enjoy the channel :)