I will just say again as the most important part of string theory is one-dimensional string membranes which can be destroyed by The singularity of a black hole and be in a state in between 0 and 1 dimensional therefore they can be ejected from a black hole as we observe non baryonic matter is ejected from a black hole... And again if we follow the logical progression of the spatial dimensions we can make string theory even more solid because infinite amount of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence in infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack in any size two dimensional existence and infinite amount of two dimensional existence can stack in any size three dimensional existence of a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence.
I haven't seen all of your output (I am a very interested layman not a mathematician or physicist), but I will just say, on the basis of this, that it is good to hear you talking / explaining at length in your own words / opinions, rather than encouraging your guests to speak and (quite properly), saying little yourself.
As a young theoretical physicist myself, I can tell you that most top physicists and mathematicians are very arrogant. I don't like that toxic environment. The more you know the more humble you should become.
This all looks funny from the outside. People forget their knowledge and abilities are specialized in a single thing. Put them in another field and they will be a complete beginner, just like everybody else. I know a very good mathematician who did a little bit of "coding" and thought programming was easy for him. I put him in a normal mid sized project and he couldn't solve a single bug. He doesn't think its easy anymore.
That's great! That's the best defense of string theory that I've ever heard (now please understand I'm not a physicist); and at the same time the same person, Curt, explains why it's nearly impossible for a young physicist to work on anything else. Where the reasons you can't work on anything else have nothing to do with whether or not string theory is the truth!
Iterative processes default to the right answers never give up. All thoughts can help others see more directions. Great content thanks for explaining this with your perspectives.
I am positive about being informer about the economic governance of science and theoretical physics in particular. Lee Smolin rightfully said that the taxpayers are the ultimate “patrons” of science.
string theory is awesome and will be proven correct, and the string theorists behind it will get the credit they deserve for being mavericks who understood objective reality better than their peers.
Try this, E=MC² break it down to find meaning. We have mass which can be divided into fractions of M representing Dark matter m1 and Ordinary matter m2. m1+m2=M this represents mass as fractions of M which allows for reductive multiplication. We can then extrapolate c1 and c2 c1+c2=C and these represent the dynamic interactions between dark matter and ordinary matter. This also represents E through C as negative energy which allows for he function of subjective and objective time based on physical and metaphysical relationships. Because c1 and c2 interact to produce C you have the basis for the dynamics we experience. In this scenario the dark and ordinary matter are in equilibrium even if one outweights the other because of the dynamic interaction of C and function of time. This sets up the proper physical framework to interpret the equation. We now have M represented as fractions through m1 dark and m2 ordinary which give us our scaling through reductive multiplication for a physical volume and we have c1 and c2 which function as negatives of the energy driving the universe forward in time. This gives us reductive multiplication for M and negative integers representing C. The negative integral nature of c1 and c2 allow for the dynamics of subjective and objective experience of time.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Most people believe that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. BUT, what if I told you that there is an exception to that rule? Get yourself a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets. At the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet, LIKE POLARTIES ATTRACT AND OPPOSITE POLARITIES REPEL. Is it even possible that as an electron goes around a nucleus that it generates a magnetic field that encompasses the nucleus whereby LIKE charged protons ATTRACT and OPPOSITE charged electrons are REPELED inside this area, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electron across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field? Are the strong and weak nuclear forces just a derivative of 'em' interactions between quarks and electrons? Do gluons even truly exist? Is the nucleus just a magnetic field boundary? Hmmm......I wonder.
@@raxneff Picture: Not here on YT, I do not make videos. Here is the full TOE idea though: THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a: TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe. The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test): THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format. 10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) 11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter. 13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow). 14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. 25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence. DISCLAIMER: 26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence? GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version): Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
I’m tired of this kind of conversations or critiques; however true they may apply personally, they will all be irrelevant. People talk as if the other guys have not thought about what they are saying. At the end of the day things will be settled not by vacuous accusations or debate but by coming up with something demonstrable.
Tjhere is a simple way to apply string theory. Since the world is either free energy in the form of radiation or condesed form as matter, one can take open strings to represent energy, since both are a propagating hyperbolic pde solution. Matter is not propagating and should be represented by elliptic pde solutions. Here we can use closed strings. To build a theory of everything we need not only describe energy and matter but also how to convert between them. Thus make rules for how strings can be transformed from one type to the other and you should be on a correct track.
@xlmncopq, dear friend do not think you are dumb.. What the speaker in the video is saying is the story of String Theory in a simplified version but with some defined terms from Physics and Math. It's like I know language "A" but not language "B" and the talk contains both the languages, so how will I follow it completely or get a feeling of appreciation?
In the sciences, it seems to me, that opinion does not converge on the actual, it converges on the apparent. There are multiple theories of reality, but only one apparent reality that we test our theories against. This is fortunate, as it's this multiplicity of realities that pushes the scientific endeavor forward, and one apparent reality which constrains the exercise.
Bold and necessary statements.... Stringing the string theorists... It's about bloody time... PS . And Thank you for encapsulating the string theory so well. I was worried about watching the whole iceberg string videos.
The founders of string theory, Susskind et al have concede it is wrong but it has produced ground breaking maths and foundations for other theories. Curt should be aware of this. The criticism is it should have been conceded at least 10 years ago as it has crowded out so much other research.
I believe there are no particles or strings but only the relative observation at 0⁰ and 90⁰; a snapshot at a certain point in time and space; of interacting fields.
The LHC completely failed in finding it as well! So they faked the data at the end to save face by finding the Higgs lol They write science fiction with numerology and pompously declare themselves as using the language of nature lol Not to mention they use point-particles with 0 volume and fields with infinite volume to avoid structuring the actions and forms with geometry because they are incapable of doing it. Get Sheldon and his fans out of academia and let them make a living with their humongous arrogance.
Physicist retired here; studied and tutored string theory. String theory and msm physicists are nonsense and a proof of who and what has infested academia and theoretical physics.
I agree, I am an older physics nerd too. Do you believe in black holes? In regards to string theory, higher dimensions are interesting to think about but they are illogical, nature at its heart is not illogical. If higher geometric dimensions existed there would be evidence, there isn't. For this reason string theory is obviously incorrect.
I was wondering if the _M_ in _M-theory_ stood for _Misleading._ Rank 7/2 Tensor Spin 7/2 Anti-Graviton field ~ i.e. responsible for anti-gravitation ~ e.g. Dark Energy Rank 6/2 Tensor Spin 2 Graviton field ~ i.e. responsible for gravitation Rank 5/2 Tensor Spin 5/2 Fermionic field ~ Supersymmetric ~ e.g. Photinos and Gluinos Rank 4/2 Tensor Spin 2 Bosonic field ~ Supersymmetric ~ e.g. Selectrons and Squarks Rank 3/2 Tensor Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger field ~ e.g. Dark Matter* Rank 2/2 Tensor Spin 1 Bosonic field ~ e.g. Photons and Gluons
I'm not a physicist or mathematician but from what I've heard that there only needs to be one extra dimension necessary to make the math works, and all those extra dimensions of 9 or 11 are totally unnecessary. Is that true or not? I believe that's what Eric Weinstein suggests
a man in a fox hole solve equation or man in near death position connects with entangled universe and channels knoledge beyond his own. if the physical and quantum universe are entangled through blackholes, then the first channeled info or intangled info to come through would probably be about the blackhole itself and how it works, gravity, relativity, time ect
From my memory of your interview with him, i think what vafa said was something like, string theory is the only game in town in terms of having real prospects, but people should work on other ways too. I don't think he implied something like other people have low iq, etc. Not verbatim but that's what i understood. Also i think some of the speculative or guiding thoughts that gets you from unknown stuff to progress is very difficult to explain in few hours, especially something very technical like string theory, and thus may appear to fail to stand up to scrutiny in such a setting. If one goes through a lot of the technical stuff, i think one get a sense of why it is something more 'real' than the other ones. For example even if you take something that's usually assumed to be in some firm footing in some local domain, like newtonian mechanics, if one goes through all major historical publications on it, both the 'right' and 'wrong' approaches to it, or even from a short resource collection like Mach's book 'science of mechanics' one can get a good impression of the lack of theoretical rigor or vagueness or speculativeness of the arguments, but you can get a very strong feel for what could be a candidate for real progress if you through all the technical stuff. But those can go wrong as well, but i think that is all we have, go as thorough as you can through the details so far we have and make guesses based on reliance on 'feel' from it, and improve on it by doing experiments and so on, even if very 'clear' correspondence experiments may take some time. I know I didn't say in a thorough way, but my point is that the act of describing of the 'feel' you get from thinking about it for a long time and going through lots of technical nuances is hard to explain in a short conversation, and so can come out the wrong way when talked in such a setting
Recent Origins podcast by Lawrence Krauss titled "Leonard Susskind: Strings, Quarks, Black Holes, and More." - Susskind says explicitly that "big 'S' String theory is wrong" but speculates that some of it will contribute to the correct answer.
Sticking with string theory is not healthy phenomenon for physics community, there should be other choices to support. It just like putting the whole eggs in one place. If the choice was wrong, which can not be descovered after even a person lifetime span then at that moment we will realize what we have done!!!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ... Upton Sinclair. I do have hope for experimental and applied physics. Theoretical physics not so much ;-(
Technology and AI 🤖 can help fix some problems, so it’s only a matter of time before more people can access and contribute to science in more efficient ways. I think this will lead to good things in the near future. 👍
I don't see them discovering any answers with this mathematical trial and error, especially since they've been doing it for 50 years. They've already iterated through all the simple ideas. It has to mean that something very fundamental that we think we know very well is actually wrong.
Per Feynman progress comes from disproof not proof. Confirmation bias has to be avoided. But mathematics progresses from proof to proof. The sociology of mathematics runs counter to good physics, as several people have shown.
I agree with your assessment that String theory may still be generating or will continue to generate more interesting math and even physics on the leading edge. But I think that is not the point many critics of String theory are making. It is the issue of sharing the fixed pie. If the academic funding was unlimited and similarly physics department number of positions were unlimited, most likely nobody would have cared. However, String theory has been hogging that pie and professorship positions for almost 40 years now. And even though I do not like or agree with the way Eric Weinstein addresses this issue in public rants over and over and over and over, I do think he has a point. It appears that some String theorists behaved like gatekeepers on academia. The point is that, sure, they had a good run at it for a while. May be they can step back for some time and let others have a real shot at it. They can come back and take a shot at it again. It is true that a discontinuity is not a good thing though.
The idea that blocks of theorists unwittingly create barriers of entry to new ideas is the point of Thomas Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" no?
Very good Physics Theory emergence description but, you have missed one path, the path I think fits String Theory. Here it is: Sometimes in Physics we encounter problems in reality that are too hard to solve by explicit description of it (I'll give examples soon). Hence, we find MATHEMATICALLY EQUIVALENT case that is easy to solve but which DOES NOT represent reality, it is Math tool. Example: Topology. Imagine two dimensional world that is surface of a three dimensional torus. We could deal with it in its "real reality" or we can fake it for Math simplicity and make equivalent world that is infinitely tiled 2D plane, each "tile" being that identical real world and connected to its identical neighbors. Reality is 3D torus, Math equivalent is infinite tiled 2D plane. But, latter helps describe the former! Another well known example is in Solid State Physics. It is extremely hard to describe Solid State crystalline lattice by describing motions of each and every real particle in it. However, fake but Mathematically equivalent system is created by inventing non-existent "particles", phonons (phonos Mathematically represent collective vibrations in the lattice). And, voila, Math that can be solved emerges, describing the reality via something that we know is not real. I think that String Theory will turn to be such a case, be it started from not knowing the reality and first developing equivalent solvable Mathematical structure. When we find what the reality is we will understand what all those dimensions and string properties mean, what RAEL Natural properties they describe by their Math equivalence.
We were supposed to be flying around and be visiting other star systems.Beautiful mathematics brings us nowhere.Check the second Allende letter in the Philadelphia experiment book investigate the reaction of aluminuim metal to the vector magnetic potential.Check the ionic field spinning around the ship and read David Hamel 30 year search.Start by investigating the antigravity party chair trick check for weight loss.Then check for spinning magnetic and electric fields around the experiment.Check for the action of moving blood and read the book by Timothy Good Alien Base.
I definitely think they are on track using the string theory. Clearly we know there are other dimensions, furthermore there appears to be intelligent life operating outside of our dimension of time. Fascinating really.
String theory and the other suites of mathematical models, and, for that matter, any mathematical models are not "wrong". Just more, or less, accurate. Sure, an understanding of mechanism can be helpful as a seed for a mathematical model (e.g. The understanding of corpuscular motions yielded Boyle's Law)… But such is not essential to the progress of mathematical modeling. Mayans based very accurate eclipse-predicting mathematical models on the supposed antics of their gods. Epicyclists could accurately predict when planets would go retrograde, with a model based on a very wrong notion of the actual motions. String Theory, based, as are both quantum and relative/classical mathematical models, on a few unexamined and fundamental Aristotelian assumptions… is not much hindered by it. It took a long time before those who preferred the Copernican notion to Geocentricism came close to matching Epicyclic accuracy. The various non-intercommunicating academic echo chambers within "fundamental" physics are each their own linear pursuits. Hence, lacking overview and blinded by unconscious assumptions, they are "blind men's reports of the elephant". And there is truth in those reports. Encountered in its parts, through the occluding lens of the problematic paradigm, existence is indeed stringy, relative, quantum … Just as the elephant can be known as snake, spear, fan, tree, barrel and whip. And no one who knows the whole elephant can compete with making more accurate hardness descriptions than the "spearists" or make better measurements of the circumference than the "barrelists", or better predict the breeze than the "fannists". Wierd it looks from the outside indeed, but, the more I see of these models, the more I appreciate the irrelevance of intuitive understanding to the production of predictive mathematical constructs.
Right! If we had just accepted your deep insight sooner we wouldn't have all these pesky modern medicines and computers and cars and bridges and whatnot.
MikeWiest@@MikeWiest I think that you misunderstand the statement. Let me state it as follows: If I understand why a rule of nature holds, I could explain it in more fundamental terms. This would remove the need for the rule. For example, take the first law of motion: A body keeps moving in a straight line unless acted upon. Now if we knew why this is the case, we would have no need for the law.
String theory is very cool and neat but I have a hard time thinking it is a 10 or 26 dimensional solution. But then again who am I to argue against minds like Witten and Susskind. My math is simply not there
String Theory needs to be more Defined Within the Braneworld & Super-Tension Framework! Using Background Independence as a Guide & Commonalities in All Sub-Fields in Physics String/M-theory needs to be Defined as Fundamental Condensed Energy-Force(Confinement, Hardcore, Entropic Forces-Motion, Local Fluctuations) & Matter Systems that Construct Braneworlds/Universes/Multiverses(Action=Complexity=All Forms, Patterns & Dimensionality)! Also a more Dynamical Concept of Dimensionality is Needed as we are Reaching the Limitations of a Geometric Topological Description of Dimensions! More Later!.....
@2:00 I disagree. String Theory is not natural. It is far from natural. General Relativity is natural. How do you put a string or brane into GR though? You can't, it's an unmotivated topological incursion. There are topological defects in GR that _are_ natural, and they are called wormholes. The natural theory to develop is to explore what can stabilize a wormhole topology (it could not be macroscopic, nor traversable), and how particle phenomenology can result. But that's not string theory. There is no case for extra space dimensions in this idea.
dude it all just math. until u can measure it , detect it in real world, it is just math. same with string. if they can "see" the string, then it is nature.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything? a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence. b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them? Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How? * NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
@@____uncompetative Okay, I am willing to learn. What are some of those answer to at least some of those items that are logical, coherent and inter-related? Surely you must know some of those answers to make the claim you just made.
Didn't read all that, but as far as I know the most fundamental theories in physics are general relativity, which describe spacetime and gravity, and quantum field theory (including the Standard Model of particle physics). The dilemma string theory is supposed to solve is unifying general relativity with quantum field theory. But it's actually an unproven assumption that physics reduces to a single unifying theory that applies to everything. That would be nice, but there is no logical reason why that must be so. And furthermore, even if all physics can be described by a single unifying theory, there is no reason why that theory must be comprehensible to the human mind. Similarly, it is often claimed that string theory (or any other theory of everything) can explain the standard model (that is, why our universe has the elementary particles and forces that it does). But this is illogical. String theory could simplify our understanding of the standard model, but it cannot explain everything, because it cannot explain itself. It has to be taken as a given, without explanation. Which is exactly the same "problem" string theorists claim to have with the standard model of particle physics.
@@Dg0yd "but as far as I know the most fundamental theories in physics are general relativity, which describe spacetime and gravity, and quantum field theory (including the Standard Model of particle physics)." a. Okay, I will try to keep this simple: 1. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space warp? 2. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary? 3. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'gravity'? 4. Tell me and the world how exactly numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence. b. "Didn't read all that..." Maybe if you did I would not have to ask these same questions to you.
String theory itself is a fascinating mathematical model with very interesting properties but it’s not at all some accurate description of reality. Take actual theories like Newtonian Mechanics, Maxwell’s Electromagnetism, Einstein’s Relativity or even Quantum Mechanics which not only fit all the data at the time but also were experimentally verified within 10-15 years after they were formulated not to mention describe a vast range of physical phenomena. String theory has been around for almost 60 years & not only has it not made any testable predictions but its predictions CONTRADICT the data itself.
Sting theorist pull on the string and by relativity they see the fabrics of the cosmos and even the fabric of a blanket and understand the connections. If you pull the strings you see a path, all of us pulling the strings reveal our world but beyond that, potential and infinity. So why are we even tripping when we all are sharing? But yeah people who see can’t be talked out of seeing but it’s not trying to talk them out but get them to see another perspective connected. Sometimes they are blinded by the infinite and think that path is the right one.
The Illusion of Agency: Why would randomness produce Logic? A singular Universe formed logically from illogical Nothingness? Never conflate freedoms within a construct for free-will. In the video game Tetris players have freedom to manipulate shapes within allotted parameters. The player does not have agency to change the mechanisms within the game construct; one cannot transform into Master Chief and play Halo from within Tetris. Within our Universe, Nature has permitted freedoms within our predefined construct, not Agency. One cannot imagine themselves transforming into a literal Superman, and actually becoming one. The game designer sets the rules and functions, not the players. Starship Determinism (a hypothetical scenario): As an act of desperation Earth develops a starship capable of reaching the nearest habitable world beyond our solar system. Without light-speed travel capabilities, the journey will require 700 years before their destination is reached by the crew. From the initial several hundred crew members; generations will be born into and die aboard Starship Determinism. Considering conditions aboard such a limited space, with finite offerings, both in terms of occupations and personal options (food, sex, shelter, recreation) - how much 'free will' can be exercised by those generations born into their limited paradigm? How many subsequent generations after the initial crew would have opted for life within a cramped vessel? Earth is a deterministic cosmic vessel, following a predetermined trajectory through space - except on a significantly larger scale. the Alchemist -Ø1
the reason i don't like stringtheory is not because of the stringtheorists, it's because the baseclaim of stringtheory (1 dimensional strings) is already complete bs to me i didn't took a deepdive in stringtheory, but from what i heard about it, it's completly psychotic to me already starting by 1 dimensional strings, string theorists calculate to death without results, because they calculate mostly with completly made up variables, instead of actually existing ones but maybe i'm just missinterpreting, maybe ,,1 dimensional strings" is meant not literal, but until nobody clarifies, i have to stay with my position
I judge the merits of what someone is saying not only on the soundness of an argument, but also on how aesthetically pleasing the person is. I don't know one physicists who is really making me wet. Curt is a cutie and I do respect his ideas because his arguments are sound. Correlation? I think so. But look at a Michio or a even Brian Green. Brian Green is not a monster, but he don't dress right or something. He's like a slacker look. The guy from the New Worlds Lab is hot AF and I believe his ideas.
You should bring in a historian of science to talk about science in the 17th century. Is light a wave or a particle etc.. Then you can test if your whack-a-mole description is right.
Your contraction lacks an apostrophe and your exclamation should be in BLOCK CAPITALS as it is an initialism. You are also wrong, and lazy for even not attempting to provide a single example of some piece of information that Mr Jaimungal which was false.
When you say string theorists are "arrogant," what exactly do you mean by that? Let’s start with Ed Witten: he is the new Einstein of our age, but I would never consider Ed arrogant. He is just weird because he is too smart for us mere mortals. Brian Greene is also humble, and Michio Kaku can be a little abrasive, but he is reasonable to talk to and informative. Leonard Susskind is also very approachable. Juan Maldacena is extremely smart but humble, and Cumrun Vafa is also extremely nice and reasonable. So, who are you talking about? Remember, these people live in their own bubble and may "appear" arrogant, but they are not. Remember, these people want all their glory to themselves and that's why they think ST is the only game in town. The only one that appears arrogant to me is Weinstein because he thinks the ST is a failure and he does not give proof of that, it's all talk, and he is not even a String theorist. It's probably envy.
I'm not a fan of letting mathemagicians use advanced maths and formulas to dictate what is happening in reality. A formula that breaks down into infinities or anomalies could be nonsense instead of becoming a singularity or some other numerical artifact transposed into a real object. I have a skepticism for infinties, dark or black cosmological entities, and dozen dimensional anomalies. Yes, I'm of average intellect, yet I err on the side of results produced. Oh, and the money spent on such things, with little to show for it.
5:40 Schwarzschild lol the center of symmetry still captures your eye? Stephen Crothers knows the truth and I suggest you interview my fellow Australian about it. If Shilo and Ana from Demystify are willing to have him on then why not you Mr. Jaimungal? ua-cam.com/video/WlbYRszw1AQ/v-deo.html
String theorists are elite math athletes so yeah, elitism might be expected from some practitioners? Why should the relatively math ignorant or unproficient & more superficial political and media bully types, who traffic in gossip of what they don't understand, push professors at the IAS and Stanford around for example? We live in a 3D + 1 world though, stuck between uncertainty at both small Planckian and large Machian scales? We are limited by the constant light speed electromagnetic and acceleration spectrums of what we can both see and feel as hominid sensing apparatus? Both John Wheeler and Frank Wilczek may have been on to something with their Geon and time crystal theories vis a vis the Susskind et al ER = EPR ideas? It appears at Heisenberg uncertainty scales that the fermions or at least Protons and electrons behave like stable geons where their angular accelerations form stable time crystals, that store as a kind of memory, near timeless charge, spin and mass as singular entities with low or zero entropy, at least at their centroids if not their surfaces, the latter effectively being near perfectly spheroidal from recent experimental findings? At fermionic scales, local acceleration or spacetime curvature transitions to the bosonic and persistent, being effectively timeless? Let's look at gravity or acceleration as a local time effect? The Hamiltonian is a kinda two-step dance like the Charleston? Excuse the opinionated Ethiopian caffeine overdose!
Curt pushes every string theorist that's been on his show. Plus "It's the only game in town" is about as arrogant as one can get. They know this. It's not talking shit.
The simpler interpretation is that if you get too many gophers, especially ones utterly unbound by experimental feedback, you've gone the epicycle path and must stop basking in the brilliance and beauty of something that is far more art and ego than it is physics.
@@LobexxNo, the dumb engineers soundly eliminated any vacua as gigantic, clunky, and hyper-classical as ones containing Planck-scale skip ropes back in 2020. That was when the HAWC Collaboration showed that supporting observed high-energy gamma rays requires a level of Lorentz smoothness of space 1800 times than “super” strings (or loop gravity). But that is experimental evidence about how the _actual_ universe works, so no need to worry. No one addicted to infinite detail for free - and it is very, very addictive - cares about the actual universe anyway. Forty-four years of utter stagnation. It’s kind of what happens when the folks who get hold of the NSF purse strings decide physicists don’t need to do physics anymore. But, on the positive side, this phenomenally costly, prediction-free children’s playground offers delicious, delightfully fun-to-explore whack-a-mole pop-up candy. Even better, if you whack enough meaningless moles, the Wizard gives you a certificate that declares you One Million Times Smarter than the rest of humanity. Delicious candy, indeed!
Hm. Parasites on someone else's body? Interesting. I mean, obviously you know that the knowledge of humanity is cumulative, yeah? An original idea? Good luck with that. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and so too do those very giants stand upon the shoulders of other giants. And string theorists being liked or disliked is entirely besides the point. The theory is probably wrong. That's fine, we are starting to understand that perhaps we should look elsewhere. 40 years of being wrong, what's that to thousands of years of also being wrong? We will get there eventually, but I have my doubts about string theory being the most precise route to take. Placing the failure of string theory on the shoulders of the theorists perception.. smh
Thanks to Julian Dorey! Julian's Channel: www.youtube.com/@@JulianDorey
Main Episode (August 2024): ua-cam.com/video/Q1mKNGo9JLQ/v-deo.html
I think this is the best clipping from the podcast...
I will just say again as the most important part of string theory is one-dimensional string membranes which can be destroyed by The singularity of a black hole and be in a state in between 0 and 1 dimensional therefore they can be ejected from a black hole as we observe non baryonic matter is ejected from a black hole... And again if we follow the logical progression of the spatial dimensions we can make string theory even more solid because infinite amount of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence in infinite amounts of one dimensional existence can stack in any size two dimensional existence and infinite amount of two dimensional existence can stack in any size three dimensional existence of a fourth spatial dimension exist then infinite three-dimensional universal potentiality can stack into any size four dimensional existence.
I haven't seen all of your output (I am a very interested layman not a mathematician or physicist), but I will just say, on the basis of this, that it is good to hear you talking / explaining at length in your own words / opinions, rather than encouraging your guests to speak and (quite properly), saying little yourself.
As a young theoretical physicist myself, I can tell you that most top physicists and mathematicians are very arrogant. I don't like that toxic environment. The more you know the more humble you should become.
I hate to brag, but I'm very humble.
Stop feeding them the funding
Let say it in another way
They are just keep sticking with what they have and not accepting other ideas.
The more you know the more you realise that you don't know sht and they all become broken and bitter
This all looks funny from the outside. People forget their knowledge and abilities are specialized in a single thing.
Put them in another field and they will be a complete beginner, just like everybody else.
I know a very good mathematician who did a little bit of "coding" and thought programming was easy for him.
I put him in a normal mid sized project and he couldn't solve a single bug.
He doesn't think its easy anymore.
Omg. That “1 inch long” comment was the hottest burn I’ve ever heard from Curt right there at the end!
That was some racist shit.
Glad I'm not Asian cause that shit was some SHADE
^^^ this! 🤣🤣
Curt is truly a scholar AND a gentleman.
I agree...
💯💯
@@JulianDorey if you ever want a discussion on fundamentals overlooked by the system just hmu and I will give you the podcast of your lifetime.
Curt you as a guest instead of a host is so refreshing, you become so animated and full of emotion
lmao curt with an absolute atom bomb at the end
Finally. Hahahaha That was highly unexpected. Made me finally like Curt.
Schwartzchild was in First World War, not second!
"Schwarzschild"
That's great!
That's the best defense of string theory that I've ever heard (now please understand I'm not a physicist);
and at the same time the same person, Curt, explains why it's nearly impossible for a young physicist to work on anything else. Where the reasons you can't work on anything else have nothing to do with whether or not string theory is the truth!
Iterative processes default to the right answers never give up. All thoughts can help others see more directions. Great content thanks for explaining this with your perspectives.
"No other game in town" can be ascribed to arrogance, but it means "there is no other finite theory of quantum gravity." Which is a fact.
I am positive about being informer about the economic governance of science and theoretical physics in particular. Lee Smolin rightfully said that the taxpayers are the ultimate “patrons” of science.
Love it Curt!!
string theory is awesome and will be proven correct, and the string theorists behind it will get the credit they deserve for being mavericks who understood objective reality better than their peers.
Try this, E=MC² break it down to find meaning. We have mass which can be divided into fractions of M representing Dark matter m1 and Ordinary matter m2. m1+m2=M this represents mass as fractions of M which allows for reductive multiplication. We can then extrapolate c1 and c2 c1+c2=C and these represent the dynamic interactions between dark matter and ordinary matter. This also represents E through C as negative energy which allows for he function of subjective and objective time based on physical and metaphysical relationships. Because c1 and c2 interact to produce C you have the basis for the dynamics we experience. In this scenario the dark and ordinary matter are in equilibrium even if one outweights the other because of the dynamic interaction of C and function of time.
This sets up the proper physical framework to interpret the equation. We now have M represented as fractions through m1 dark and m2 ordinary which give us our scaling through reductive multiplication for a physical volume and we have c1 and c2 which function as negatives of the energy driving the universe forward in time. This gives us reductive multiplication for M and negative integers representing C. The negative integral nature of c1 and c2 allow for the dynamics of subjective and objective experience of time.
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: Most people believe that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. BUT, what if I told you that there is an exception to that rule?
Get yourself a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets. At the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet, LIKE POLARTIES ATTRACT AND OPPOSITE POLARITIES REPEL.
Is it even possible that as an electron goes around a nucleus that it generates a magnetic field that encompasses the nucleus whereby LIKE charged protons ATTRACT and OPPOSITE charged electrons are REPELED inside this area, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electron across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field?
Are the strong and weak nuclear forces just a derivative of 'em' interactions between quarks and electrons? Do gluons even truly exist? Is the nucleus just a magnetic field boundary?
Hmmm......I wonder.
Can't follow you. Can you give some picture of the magnet experiment?
@@raxneff Picture: Not here on YT, I do not make videos. Here is the full TOE idea though:
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a:
TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format.
10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow).
14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now.
25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
DISCLAIMER:
26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence?
GRAVITY TEST: (Short Version):
Direct a high powered laser 90 degrees through an electric field and magnetic field polarized as such to nullify the 'em' of the laser. "IF" my current TOE idea is correct, a gravitational black hole would become evident. (The 'gem' photon being the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything else in existence in this existence.)
Interesting and funny, will done!
ok, i'm crackin the iceberg
Great pod and great joke
I’m tired of this kind of conversations or critiques; however true they may apply personally, they will all be irrelevant. People talk as if the other guys have not thought about what they are saying. At the end of the day things will be settled not by vacuous accusations or debate but by coming up with something demonstrable.
Tjhere is a simple way to apply string theory. Since the world is either free energy in the form of radiation or condesed form as matter, one can take open strings to represent energy, since both are a propagating hyperbolic pde solution. Matter is not propagating and should be represented by elliptic pde solutions. Here we can use closed strings. To build a theory of everything we need not only describe energy and matter but also how to convert between them. Thus make rules for how strings can be transformed from one type to the other and you should be on a correct track.
.i love curt, but im just too dumb to get even the simplified explanation, still watched it completely . btw, the joke in the end was great lol
Stick around long enough and you'll familiarize yourself. No one really "gets it"
@xlmncopq, dear friend do not think you are dumb.. What the speaker in the video is saying is the story of String Theory in a simplified version but with some defined terms from Physics and Math. It's like I know language "A" but not language "B" and the talk contains both the languages, so how will I follow it completely or get a feeling of appreciation?
In the sciences, it seems to me, that opinion does not converge on the actual, it converges on the apparent.
There are multiple theories of reality, but only one apparent reality that we test our theories against.
This is fortunate, as it's this multiplicity of realities that pushes the scientific endeavor forward, and one apparent reality which constrains the exercise.
Bold and necessary statements.... Stringing the string theorists... It's about bloody time...
PS . And Thank you for encapsulating the string theory so well. I was worried about watching the whole iceberg string videos.
Michio Kaku is out of control!!
Scharwzchild came up with the theory during World War 1 not ww2 right?
They are mathematical chauvinists.
Nothing wrong with that except they have no complete idea and theory of what mathematics really is.
Shared. Veey nice dialogue, well done Kurt
Brutal but hilarious joke🤣. Very informative thanks.
If you're passionate about String theory,are you highly strung.
The founders of string theory, Susskind et al have concede it is wrong but it has produced ground breaking maths and foundations for other theories. Curt should be aware of this. The criticism is it should have been conceded at least 10 years ago as it has crowded out so much other research.
I believe there are no particles or strings but only the relative observation at 0⁰ and 90⁰; a snapshot at a certain point in time and space; of interacting fields.
Jesus, Curt, that last little joke was brutal...
String theory presumes supersymmetry and that is fictional. So by extension, string theory is fictional.
Make sure to inform all the physicists at Harvard and Princeton then
The LHC completely failed in finding it as well!
So they faked the data at the end to save face by finding the Higgs lol
They write science fiction with numerology and pompously declare themselves as using the language of nature lol
Not to mention they use point-particles with 0 volume and fields with infinite volume to avoid structuring the actions and forms with geometry because they are incapable of doing it.
Get Sheldon and his fans out of academia and let them make a living with their humongous arrogance.
Both these guys are good examples as leaders.
String theory has led to very useful mathematical results but they don't describe our universe
Physicist retired here; studied and tutored string theory. String theory and msm physicists are nonsense and a proof of who and what has infested academia and theoretical physics.
I agree, I am an older physics nerd too. Do you believe in black holes?
In regards to string theory, higher dimensions are interesting to think about but they are illogical, nature at its heart is not illogical. If higher geometric dimensions existed there would be evidence, there isn't. For this reason string theory is obviously incorrect.
I was wondering if the _M_ in _M-theory_ stood for _Misleading._
Rank 7/2 Tensor Spin 7/2 Anti-Graviton field ~ i.e. responsible for anti-gravitation ~ e.g. Dark Energy
Rank 6/2 Tensor Spin 2 Graviton field ~ i.e. responsible for gravitation
Rank 5/2 Tensor Spin 5/2 Fermionic field ~ Supersymmetric ~ e.g. Photinos and Gluinos
Rank 4/2 Tensor Spin 2 Bosonic field ~ Supersymmetric ~ e.g. Selectrons and Squarks
Rank 3/2 Tensor Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger field ~ e.g. Dark Matter*
Rank 2/2 Tensor Spin 1 Bosonic field ~ e.g. Photons and Gluons
Reading this comment, I can safely say u don’t know string theory
@@Llluuuu130 I don't. I was speculating about UAPs which are ABOVE TOP SECRET.
I'm not a physicist or mathematician but from what I've heard that there only needs to be one extra dimension necessary to make the math works, and all those extra dimensions of 9 or 11 are totally unnecessary. Is that true or not? I believe that's what Eric Weinstein suggests
String theory is the flat earth equivilant for professors
me also have developed the TOe and believe it's the ultimate solution, a new approach for new physics. and I would like to discuss it on air
say something about it.
Dziękuję ❤
a man in a fox hole solve equation or man in near death position connects with entangled universe and channels knoledge beyond his own. if the physical and quantum universe are entangled through blackholes, then the first channeled info or intangled info to come through would probably be about the blackhole itself and how it works, gravity, relativity, time ect
Curt you are goated 😂
Curt's great
From my memory of your interview with him, i think what vafa said was something like, string theory is the only game in town in terms of having real prospects, but people should work on other ways too. I don't think he implied something like other people have low iq, etc. Not verbatim but that's what i understood. Also i think some of the speculative or guiding thoughts that gets you from unknown stuff to progress is very difficult to explain in few hours, especially something very technical like string theory, and thus may appear to fail to stand up to scrutiny in such a setting. If one goes through a lot of the technical stuff, i think one get a sense of why it is something more 'real' than the other ones. For example even if you take something that's usually assumed to be in some firm footing in some local domain, like newtonian mechanics, if one goes through all major historical publications on it, both the 'right' and 'wrong' approaches to it, or even from a short resource collection like Mach's book 'science of mechanics' one can get a good impression of the lack of theoretical rigor or vagueness or speculativeness of the arguments, but you can get a very strong feel for what could be a candidate for real progress if you through all the technical stuff. But those can go wrong as well, but i think that is all we have, go as thorough as you can through the details so far we have and make guesses based on reliance on 'feel' from it, and improve on it by doing experiments and so on, even if very 'clear' correspondence experiments may take some time. I know I didn't say in a thorough way, but my point is that the act of describing of the 'feel' you get from thinking about it for a long time and going through lots of technical nuances is hard to explain in a short conversation, and so can come out the wrong way when talked in such a setting
Recent Origins podcast by Lawrence Krauss titled "Leonard Susskind: Strings, Quarks, Black Holes, and More." -
Susskind says explicitly that "big 'S' String theory is wrong" but speculates that some of it will contribute to the correct answer.
Well of course he would hope so, given the time and effort he spent on it.
Oh that dig at the end. Granted it didn't get further than an inch in a field that should use metric. But okay.
Sticking with string theory is not healthy phenomenon for physics community, there should be other choices to support. It just like putting the whole eggs in one place. If the choice was wrong, which can not be descovered after even a person lifetime span then at that moment we will realize what we have done!!!
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ... Upton Sinclair. I do have hope for experimental and applied physics. Theoretical physics not so much ;-(
Technology and AI 🤖 can help fix some problems, so it’s only a matter of time before more people can access and contribute to science in more efficient ways. I think this will lead to good things in the near future. 👍
I don't see them discovering any answers with this mathematical trial and error, especially since they've been doing it for 50 years. They've already iterated through all the simple ideas. It has to mean that something very fundamental that we think we know very well is actually wrong.
🔥
Per Feynman progress comes from disproof not proof. Confirmation bias has to be avoided. But mathematics progresses from proof to proof. The sociology of mathematics runs counter to good physics, as several people have shown.
Leonard Susskind said it can’t be the answer, and is a useful tool at this point.
The Elegant Universe and the Dancing Wu Li Masters.
I agree with your assessment that String theory may still be generating or will continue to generate more interesting math and even physics on the leading edge. But I think that is not the point many critics of String theory are making. It is the issue of sharing the fixed pie. If the academic funding was unlimited and similarly physics department number of positions were unlimited, most likely nobody would have cared. However, String theory has been hogging that pie and professorship positions for almost 40 years now. And even though I do not like or agree with the way Eric Weinstein addresses this issue in public rants over and over and over and over, I do think he has a point. It appears that some String theorists behaved like gatekeepers on academia. The point is that, sure, they had a good run at it for a while. May be they can step back for some time and let others have a real shot at it. They can come back and take a shot at it again. It is true that a discontinuity is not a good thing though.
The idea that blocks of theorists unwittingly create barriers of entry to new ideas is the point of Thomas Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" no?
Very good Physics Theory emergence description but, you have missed one path, the path I think fits String Theory. Here it is: Sometimes in Physics we encounter problems in reality that are too hard to solve by explicit description of it (I'll give examples soon). Hence, we find MATHEMATICALLY EQUIVALENT case that is easy to solve but which DOES NOT represent reality, it is Math tool. Example: Topology. Imagine two dimensional world that is surface of a three dimensional torus. We could deal with it in its "real reality" or we can fake it for Math simplicity and make equivalent world that is infinitely tiled 2D plane, each "tile" being that identical real world and connected to its identical neighbors. Reality is 3D torus, Math equivalent is infinite tiled 2D plane. But, latter helps describe the former! Another well known example is in Solid State Physics. It is extremely hard to describe Solid State crystalline lattice by describing motions of each and every real particle in it. However, fake but Mathematically equivalent system is created by inventing non-existent "particles", phonons (phonos Mathematically represent collective vibrations in the lattice). And, voila, Math that can be solved emerges, describing the reality via something that we know is not real.
I think that String Theory will turn to be such a case, be it started from not knowing the reality and first developing equivalent solvable Mathematical structure. When we find what the reality is we will understand what all those dimensions and string properties mean, what RAEL Natural properties they describe by their Math equivalence.
Why ”Stagnation-Schism-Silence" since 1980? Observe yourself in this video to find the answer.
We were supposed to be flying around and be visiting other star systems.Beautiful mathematics brings us nowhere.Check the second Allende letter in the Philadelphia experiment book investigate the reaction of aluminuim metal to the vector magnetic potential.Check the ionic field spinning around the ship and read David Hamel 30 year search.Start by investigating the antigravity party chair trick check for weight loss.Then check for spinning magnetic and electric fields around the experiment.Check for the action of moving blood and read the book by Timothy Good Alien Base.
Sabine says that ambition and funding are fundamental to theoretical physics.
True, but obvious.
I definitely think they are on track using the string theory. Clearly we know there are other dimensions, furthermore there appears to be intelligent life operating outside of our dimension of time. Fascinating really.
"Clearly we know there are other dimensions." Do we?
Clearly we don’t know any such thing. Yet. It’s mathematically conjectured. That ain’t real. Yet
@@Llerrah508 what yours dealer number?
Id take Marx and Freud over any string theorist.
String theory and the other suites of mathematical models, and, for that matter, any mathematical models are not "wrong". Just more, or less, accurate.
Sure, an understanding of mechanism can be helpful as a seed for a mathematical model (e.g. The understanding of corpuscular motions yielded Boyle's Law)…
But such is not essential to the progress of mathematical modeling.
Mayans based very accurate eclipse-predicting mathematical models on the supposed antics of their gods.
Epicyclists could accurately predict when planets would go retrograde, with a model based on a very wrong notion of the actual motions.
String Theory, based, as are both quantum and relative/classical mathematical models, on a few unexamined and fundamental Aristotelian assumptions… is not much hindered by it.
It took a long time before those who preferred the Copernican notion to Geocentricism came close to matching Epicyclic accuracy.
The various non-intercommunicating academic echo chambers within "fundamental" physics are each their own linear pursuits. Hence, lacking overview and blinded by unconscious assumptions, they are "blind men's reports of the elephant".
And there is truth in those reports. Encountered in its parts, through the occluding lens of the problematic paradigm, existence is indeed stringy, relative, quantum …
Just as the elephant can be known as snake, spear, fan, tree, barrel and whip.
And no one who knows the whole elephant can compete with making more accurate hardness descriptions than the "spearists" or make better measurements of the circumference than the "barrelists", or better predict the breeze than the "fannists".
Wierd it looks from the outside indeed, but, the more I see of these models, the more I appreciate the irrelevance of intuitive understanding to the production of predictive mathematical constructs.
Is Edward Witten still a string theorist?
I think that we have to accept and encourage that there are NO laws in physics.
A law of nature is an admission of ignorance. - I have identified a pattern, but I don't know why it works that way.
Right! If we had just accepted your deep insight sooner we wouldn't have all these pesky modern medicines and computers and cars and bridges and whatnot.
@@MikeWiest No sht Sherlock. For once in your life try thinking for yourself.
MikeWiest@@MikeWiest I think that you misunderstand the statement. Let me state it as follows: If I understand why a rule of nature holds, I could explain it in more fundamental terms. This would remove the need for the rule.
For example, take the first law of motion: A body keeps moving in a straight line unless acted upon. Now if we knew why this is the case, we would have no need for the law.
@@niekiejooste4637 Fair enough. Cheers
String theory is very cool and neat but I have a hard time thinking it is a 10 or 26 dimensional solution.
But then again who am I to argue against minds like Witten and Susskind.
My math is simply not there
String Theory needs to be more Defined Within the Braneworld & Super-Tension Framework! Using Background Independence as a Guide & Commonalities in All Sub-Fields in Physics String/M-theory needs to be Defined as Fundamental Condensed Energy-Force(Confinement, Hardcore, Entropic Forces-Motion, Local Fluctuations) & Matter Systems that Construct Braneworlds/Universes/Multiverses(Action=Complexity=All Forms, Patterns & Dimensionality)! Also a more Dynamical Concept of Dimensionality is Needed as we are Reaching the Limitations of a Geometric Topological Description of Dimensions! More Later!.....
Nongeometric Backgrounds in String Theory & QG.
@2:00 I disagree. String Theory is not natural. It is far from natural. General Relativity is natural. How do you put a string or brane into GR though? You can't, it's an unmotivated topological incursion. There are topological defects in GR that _are_ natural, and they are called wormholes. The natural theory to develop is to explore what can stabilize a wormhole topology (it could not be macroscopic, nor traversable), and how particle phenomenology can result. But that's not string theory. There is no case for extra space dimensions in this idea.
gobbledy gook
dude it all just math. until u can measure it , detect it in real world, it is just math. same with string.
if they can "see" the string, then it is nature.
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything?
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence.
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?
Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
* NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?
Couldn't have said it better myself😂👍
Stephen Wolfram has most of these answers.
@@____uncompetative Okay, I am willing to learn. What are some of those answer to at least some of those items that are logical, coherent and inter-related? Surely you must know some of those answers to make the claim you just made.
Didn't read all that, but as far as I know the most fundamental theories in physics are general relativity, which describe spacetime and gravity, and quantum field theory (including the Standard Model of particle physics). The dilemma string theory is supposed to solve is unifying general relativity with quantum field theory.
But it's actually an unproven assumption that physics reduces to a single unifying theory that applies to everything. That would be nice, but there is no logical reason why that must be so. And furthermore, even if all physics can be described by a single unifying theory, there is no reason why that theory must be comprehensible to the human mind.
Similarly, it is often claimed that string theory (or any other theory of everything) can explain the standard model (that is, why our universe has the elementary particles and forces that it does). But this is illogical. String theory could simplify our understanding of the standard model, but it cannot explain everything, because it cannot explain itself. It has to be taken as a given, without explanation. Which is exactly the same "problem" string theorists claim to have with the standard model of particle physics.
@@Dg0yd "but as far as I know the most fundamental theories in physics are general relativity, which describe spacetime and gravity, and quantum field theory (including the Standard Model of particle physics)."
a. Okay, I will try to keep this simple:
1. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'space' and how exactly does space warp?
2. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'time' and how exactly does time vary?
3. Tell me and the world what exactly is 'gravity'?
4. Tell me and the world how exactly numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence.
b. "Didn't read all that..."
Maybe if you did I would not have to ask these same questions to you.
String theory itself is a fascinating mathematical model with very interesting properties but it’s not at all some accurate description of reality. Take actual theories like Newtonian Mechanics, Maxwell’s Electromagnetism, Einstein’s Relativity or even Quantum Mechanics which not only fit all the data at the time but also were experimentally verified within 10-15 years after they were formulated not to mention describe a vast range of physical phenomena. String theory has been around for almost 60 years & not only has it not made any testable predictions but its predictions CONTRADICT the data itself.
👌
I wonder why whitten dosent do much interviews
Maybe he's got better things to do.
That is totally not their point lol.
ask a person who knows nothing to comment about a very technical detail. he has basically 6 papers on this which are all weak.
Sting theorist pull on the string and by relativity they see the fabrics of the cosmos and even the fabric of a blanket and understand the connections. If you pull the strings you see a path, all of us pulling the strings reveal our world but beyond that, potential and infinity. So why are we even tripping when we all are sharing? But yeah people who see can’t be talked out of seeing but it’s not trying to talk them out but get them to see another perspective connected. Sometimes they are blinded by the infinite and think that path is the right one.
You are vexing a speaker not only an interviewer
"uncensored" lmao is Curt about to get vulgar?
The last 10 seconds of the video, before the outro, is something you don’t hear everyday 😂😂😂
The Illusion of Agency:
Why would randomness produce Logic?
A singular Universe formed logically from illogical Nothingness?
Never conflate freedoms within a construct for free-will.
In the video game Tetris players have freedom to manipulate shapes within allotted parameters. The player does not have agency to change the mechanisms within the game construct; one cannot transform into Master Chief and play Halo from within Tetris.
Within our Universe, Nature has permitted freedoms within our predefined construct, not Agency. One cannot imagine themselves transforming into a literal Superman, and actually becoming one.
The game designer sets the rules and functions, not the players.
Starship Determinism (a hypothetical scenario):
As an act of desperation Earth develops a starship capable of reaching the nearest habitable world beyond our solar system.
Without light-speed travel capabilities, the journey will require 700 years before their destination is reached by the crew.
From the initial several hundred crew members; generations will be born into and die aboard Starship Determinism.
Considering conditions aboard such a limited space, with finite offerings, both in terms of occupations and personal options (food, sex, shelter, recreation) - how much 'free will' can be exercised by those generations born into their limited paradigm?
How many subsequent generations after the initial crew would have opted for life within a cramped vessel?
Earth is a deterministic cosmic vessel, following a predetermined trajectory through space - except on a significantly larger scale.
the Alchemist
-Ø1
the reason i don't like stringtheory is not because of the stringtheorists, it's because the baseclaim of stringtheory (1 dimensional strings) is already complete bs to me
i didn't took a deepdive in stringtheory, but from what i heard about it, it's completly psychotic to me already starting by 1 dimensional strings, string theorists calculate to death without results, because they calculate mostly with completly made up variables, instead of actually existing ones
but maybe i'm just missinterpreting, maybe ,,1 dimensional strings" is meant not literal, but until nobody clarifies, i have to stay with my position
Michio kaku is out of control!
I judge the merits of what someone is saying not only on the soundness of an argument, but also on how aesthetically pleasing the person is. I don't know one physicists who is really making me wet. Curt is a cutie and I do respect his ideas because his arguments are sound. Correlation? I think so. But look at a Michio or a even Brian Green. Brian Green is not a monster, but he don't dress right or something. He's like a slacker look. The guy from the New Worlds Lab is hot AF and I believe his ideas.
Its elegant, natural even, but wrong
Im sexy and i know it lol 🤣
Science burn! ooohhhh....
You should bring in a historian of science to talk about science in the 17th century. Is light a wave or a particle etc..
Then you can test if your whack-a-mole description is right.
Im shocked how much wrong information Curt just said in this podcast… like wtf😅
Your contraction lacks an apostrophe and your exclamation should be in BLOCK CAPITALS as it is an initialism.
You are also wrong, and lazy for even not attempting to provide a single example of some piece of information that Mr Jaimungal which was false.
When you say string theorists are "arrogant," what exactly do you mean by that? Let’s start with Ed Witten: he is the new Einstein of our age, but I would never consider Ed arrogant. He is just weird because he is too smart for us mere mortals. Brian Greene is also humble, and Michio Kaku can be a little abrasive, but he is reasonable to talk to and informative. Leonard Susskind is also very approachable. Juan Maldacena is extremely smart but humble, and Cumrun Vafa is also extremely nice and reasonable. So, who are you talking about? Remember, these people live in their own bubble and may "appear" arrogant, but they are not. Remember, these people want all their glory to themselves and that's why they think ST is the only game in town. The only one that appears arrogant to me is Weinstein because he thinks the ST is a failure and he does not give proof of that, it's all talk, and he is not even a String theorist. It's probably envy.
I'm not a fan of letting mathemagicians use advanced maths and formulas to dictate what is happening in reality. A formula that breaks down into infinities or anomalies could be nonsense instead of becoming a singularity or some other numerical artifact transposed into a real object. I have a skepticism for infinties, dark or black cosmological entities, and dozen dimensional anomalies. Yes, I'm of average intellect, yet I err on the side of results produced. Oh, and the money spent on such things, with little to show for it.
Stop funding these conmen 😂😂😂
What is going on with this channel recently?
0 - closed string
1 - open string
?
Ø - both open and closed
Amazing! He studied string theory for a full three hours....
...and that was the last time a string theorist came on his show. "Why wont them come on my show?? I only called them all arrogant!!"
5:40
Schwarzschild lol the center of symmetry still captures your eye?
Stephen Crothers knows the truth and I suggest you interview my fellow Australian about it. If Shilo and Ana from Demystify are willing to have him on then why not you Mr. Jaimungal?
ua-cam.com/video/WlbYRszw1AQ/v-deo.html
String theorists are elite math athletes so yeah, elitism might be expected from some practitioners? Why should the relatively math ignorant or unproficient & more superficial political and media bully types, who traffic in gossip of what they don't understand, push professors at the IAS and Stanford around for example?
We live in a 3D + 1 world though, stuck between uncertainty at both small Planckian and large Machian scales? We are limited by the constant light speed electromagnetic and acceleration spectrums of what we can both see and feel as hominid sensing apparatus?
Both John Wheeler and Frank Wilczek may have been on to something with their Geon and time crystal theories vis a vis the Susskind et al ER = EPR ideas? It appears at Heisenberg uncertainty scales that the fermions or at least Protons and electrons behave like stable geons where their angular accelerations form stable time crystals, that store as a kind of memory, near timeless charge, spin and mass as singular entities with low or zero entropy, at least at their centroids if not their surfaces, the latter effectively being near perfectly spheroidal from recent experimental findings? At fermionic scales, local acceleration or spacetime curvature transitions to the bosonic and persistent, being effectively timeless? Let's look at gravity or acceleration as a local time effect? The Hamiltonian is a kinda two-step dance like the Charleston?
Excuse the opinionated Ethiopian caffeine overdose!
Particles are cyclic machines. That’s the simple truth.
You really have guests on your show only to talk shit about them afterwards?
Curt pushes every string theorist that's been on his show.
Plus "It's the only game in town" is about as arrogant as one can get. They know this. It's not talking shit.
@@Mikeduffey_ curt only has an undergraduate degree in physics. He's not qualified to challenge anyone in anything.
Why is it called String Theory when it makes no predictions and has no experimental data to support it. Isn’t that a Hypothesis?
This is why:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_theories
The simpler interpretation is that if you get too many gophers, especially ones utterly unbound by experimental feedback, you've gone the epicycle path and must stop basking in the brilliance and beauty of something that is far more art and ego than it is physics.
The lack of experimental feedback is an engineering problem.
@@LobexxNo, the dumb engineers soundly eliminated any vacua as gigantic, clunky, and hyper-classical as ones containing Planck-scale skip ropes back in 2020. That was when the HAWC Collaboration showed that supporting observed high-energy gamma rays requires a level of Lorentz smoothness of space 1800 times than “super” strings (or loop gravity).
But that is experimental evidence about how the _actual_ universe works, so no need to worry. No one addicted to infinite detail for free - and it is very, very addictive - cares about the actual universe anyway.
Forty-four years of utter stagnation. It’s kind of what happens when the folks who get hold of the NSF purse strings decide physicists don’t need to do physics anymore.
But, on the positive side, this phenomenally costly, prediction-free children’s playground offers delicious, delightfully fun-to-explore whack-a-mole pop-up candy.
Even better, if you whack enough meaningless moles, the Wizard gives you a certificate that declares you One Million Times Smarter than the rest of humanity.
Delicious candy, indeed!
@@Lobexx or there's just nothing to be found.
Hm. Parasites on someone else's body? Interesting. I mean, obviously you know that the knowledge of humanity is cumulative, yeah? An original idea? Good luck with that. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and so too do those very giants stand upon the shoulders of other giants. And string theorists being liked or disliked is entirely besides the point. The theory is probably wrong. That's fine, we are starting to understand that perhaps we should look elsewhere. 40 years of being wrong, what's that to thousands of years of also being wrong? We will get there eventually, but I have my doubts about string theory being the most precise route to take. Placing the failure of string theory on the shoulders of the theorists perception.. smh
Curt sometimes gives voice to idiots in his channel, be mindful of what you hear…