You know, I felt that. That moment of closure with an old place you had bad memories with. Walking the halls as a different person, being somewhat disconnected from it. And being able to finally close that chapter for you. I'm felt how emotional it was for you to go to that bookstore near the campus and finding your published book in it. i can imagine it must have been even more emotional donating that book to the library, And amazing that the librarian still remembered to you. Good on you finally finding peace. Have some happy time with your wife, guess your definitely earned that!
That evoked some feelings from me, too, but some very different ones. I'm currently in my undergrad, and all I can hope is that someday I'll be able to have that feeling that Simon had.
Hi Simon. I’ve been watching your videos (as many here have been) since your days in Oxford. I just want to give you a huge congratulations on the publishing of your book! Your story really is inspiring, given the adversity you have faced, and your refusal to let it stop you from doing what you love. I now have a copy of your book and I’m looking forward to start reading it! Congratulations again, I can’t wait to see what happens next in your story 🌏
i've been playing Flagle every day for several months (without knowing anything about who created it, I just enjoyed it), I'm amazed to randomly find the creator in a video! I'm a big geography fan who tends to struggle a bit with knowing flags, and I've found it very helpful for that and fun to boot. Shoutout to Ryan!
I am an undergraduate Physics student in Singapore and I have followed your videos since your PhD days. I would say that I have never felt more like I did not belong somewhere than being in uni pursuing the field I always wanted. It has been 2 years since the start of my undergraduate and I am still struggling to do well in my course. There was particularly a periodwhen I simply broke down and gave up and did terribly because I felt like I was just not good enough. I am trying to pull myself back up and push on but my grades are not good I know I should be focusing on the learning aspect of it rather than the grades but in Singapore, where everything is super competitive, grades do matter a lot and it feels like I have already missed out on future opportunities because everyone around me is excelling with flying colours. I am unsure of why I am just not like the rest of my peers even though I really try. Everyday is a constant battle between pushing on and caving into the feeling of not being good enough and giving up. However, your videos do help a lot. It is touching to see someone having gone through similar struggles in their undergrad in Physics and turn everything around later on and not let that period of time define them. I use you as motivation on a daily basis, Simon. Nevertheless, it is super hard to not feel like I am never going to be good enough to do Physics and I chose a wrong career because I find it really hard and the ones around me do not seem to.
If you do really think you are not drawn to the field, change it. I am in the second year of my education in economics and I basically did not enjoy thinking about economics. So, I am, now, preparing for the university entrance exam to study physics.
Maths and Physics have a huge popularity slump between A-level and University. Engineering and Computer Science by contrast have a huge popularity increase over the same periods
Hey, don't worry man physics is extremely hard. Don't put pressure on yourself that you are to understand something that maybe 1% of the population ends up majoring in. I study physics too and find some "basic" stuff extremely hard but then I remember that the people who invented/discovered these things were extremely smart, and maybe spent a big portion of their life just trying to prove 1 formula (which then we are expected to learn in a few weeks :D)
Seeing you find your book in the shop made me so happy. You deserve every bit of it! Alongside the absolutely spectacular video, content and those amazing minds, I've found another Morning brain teaser game in Flagle. Goes alongside Worldle, Framed and Wordle. Thanks as always Simon!
This was great to watch! As a PhD student myself I'm really happy to see examples of students who love their work and have a good relationship with their supervisor. Most of the outside perception of PhD students is the opposite. While of course there are mental health problems within these programmes (and many just shitty situations), it's not helped when all we see is about how depressed we should be. How we just have to grind through 4 years of hell to get that paper.
Hey Simon, I really love your PhD Stories series. I understand it is not quite easy task for you, but if you can have more PhD students like this one, we would love to watch it. I was inspired by you and I am doing my PhD. Would really love to know how fellow PhD students are coping with and keeping up with research and grad school altogther. Thanks and always love to watch your videos.
I really resonate with how you were describing your experience at Oxford, I did math at Berkeley for my undergrad and for me personally it was both a really really challenging time emotionally and academically and mental health wise, and I’ve been wrestling with that since I graduated. But it also was the best time academically, I really enjoyed parts of it even though I felt emotionally destroyed. I’ve only recently started reckoning with how it shaped me and how I’ve since changed. Thanks for sharing your story and experience ❤
Simon, I've been watching your videos since your undergrad, and you have inspired me to apply and complete a postgrad degree in Oxford. I share your joy in traveling back to Oxford and finding that closure. So very proud of you, and congratulations!
I love this! I started my studies in psychology in 2013 and after graduating jumped right onto the next one at software engineering in 2018. Soon graduating from that I am contemplating a 3rd degree in physics. I absolutely love life in academia. Seeing and interacting with all the bright minds and promises of tomorrow, being at the forefront of scientific discovery, knowledge and innovation. What isn't there to love?
7:40 considering that string theory has at least 10^500 free compactification parameters this seems to be imortant research for the future of string theory
Please don't discontinue this series.... Also can you bring on some Biology PhDs here.... Like you can bring in Neuroscience PhDs or Evolutionary Biology Or Virology etc
Excellent perspective on the Oxford world. If you have not lived a little of that life you wouldn't understand, but it is important for everyone to know, as human understanding comes from the daily life of this place. Extraordinary and mundane.
As an unpalatable unqualified novice intelligence with no university education it was strange how the mentioned dimensional theory and quantum gravity description fits with my mental image of the fields that create the entire universe we see and are trying to understand..
Putting it out there! It will be great if you read it! Please make more of these and have a separate in depth physics and math conversation on other channels. I will like to follow up the math. Keep on introducing nerds like us lol
A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close. Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .----
I guess theoretical physicists are the ones with whom you should be least surprised when they state that they would like to stay in academia after their PhD.
Even then I wouldn't be so sure, Thomas is a definite exception. Of the theoretical physicists I've met and spoken to so far, most of them want to leave academia for a variety of reasons (garbage pay, stagnated/saturated field, university politics) and work somewhere to earn some of the money back that they've spent on getting that PhD.
Replace the blackboards with whiteboards. Cleaner, no powder debris, quicker to erase mistakes, less allergies, no cleaning the powder-filled erasers. You'd think that with all these geniuses and intellects in one of the highest universities in the world, you'd think they'd modernize and update their writing equipment for a more efficient, convenient, and practical substitute which is the logical approach instead of using a blackboard.
Do you frequently use either? I personally don’t have a super strong preference between the two, but my feeling is that it is largely a matter of taste that determines which one prefers. One upside of chalk over whiteboard markers, is that whiteboard markers run dry in ways that aren’t obvious without trying to use it. With chalk, when you the stick runs out, it is gone.
To answer your question: I had String Theory explained to me by one of the earliest & best physicists in this field: Prof. Barton Zweibach at MIT, back in 1998. 😁 But, my burning question, as you mentioned at the outset, is: Just why are Chalkboards in every single room in the theoretical physics dept. at every university around the World and ηot White Marker boards-⁉️ No toχic δυst, your clothes δon't look like they've βεεη ωorη for 2 months straight after a single δαγ of calculations and you can actually taste your fοοδ at dinner time without ενεrγthing tasting like C•H•A•L•K-?!?!
Cool video. It looks like he is taking a Monte Carlo approach combined with machine learning to try to map the vast parameter space in string theory to the well established standard model. Is there any reason to suspect that the parameter list can indeed be dialed in or is filling it totally random?
Hi, question about string theory: What if this doesn't turn out to be true? What do you do with string theory if it just turns out to be a more complicated way of describing things we already know that doesn't tell us anything about what we don't know? Also: What happens if string theory needs to be altered every other time when we learn something new?
The answer I’ve heard is that the math behind string theory is helpful even outside of string theory, and even though a lot of physicists don’t believe in it anymore they still use the math or switch into string theory to do math
In all of those scenarios they just write more papers about it and use those to apply for more research grant funding. The aim of Uni research is to get grant funding, not to do science.
One problem I have always had with string theory is the models can do basically anything you want and thus they aren't simple or reducibly observable. Some things from it appear to be far more general namely ER=EPR has been shown to emerge naturally in general relativity when applying entanglement and other concepts from quantum mechanics. More specifically there is fascinating consequences to enforcing internal consistency on the Einstein field equations as based on the implications of No big Crunch Theorem namely that the off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never be more symmetric than the initial conditions i.e. symmetry within the Einstein field equations can only ever decrease, most solutions to the Einstein field equations violate internal consistency i.e. conservation of information and or causality. That this application to an initially expanding universe automatically gives you nonlocality from symmetry constraints, i.e. all information on the initial conditions must exist somewhere in space in all possible timeslices, and that kind of kills most if not all of the nice neat computationally reducible solutions to the Einstein field equations. As that invalid assumption plays a foundational role in basically all work done within general relativity over the last century quantum gravity models. (Note that for free you get: -dark energy from the attraction of matter in an expanding universe always creating more underdensities than overdensities in any initially expanding universe of sufficiently large size, an irreversible arrow of time and the laws of thermodynamics from the total spatial volume at any timeslice being required to always grow larger in every sequential timeslice as no local or global inflection points can exist within any timeslice of the metric anywhere in spacetime. Also if the metric tensor being is composed purely from nonzero asymmetric element pairs that can't transmit information only constrain its propagation then not only do you get nonlocal behavior consistent with bells inequality but the metric needs a nonzero ground state component for gravity for all information contained within said universe as otherwise the solution wouldn't be internally self consistent. Meaning in essence there is a good chance based on this that the metric tensor self quantizes into entanglement pairs of any and all information initially contained within a universe. In other words ER=EPR appears fundamental to this with weird properties of Dirac spinors if I'm not mistaken which is interesting as it suggests elements of space (or rather the 4D metric tensor) at the quantum level may obey some form of the Pauli exclusion principal.
Awesome video and raw look to the inside of what boots on the ground students are actually working on right now. Awesome. Also I'm heterosexual but damn that dude is handsome, the speaker you interviewed.
What do you mean disproved? It's mathematically consistent, there's nothing to disprove in string theory. And even if it isn't an accurate model of reality, the mathematical structure underlying string theory has already found a ton of applications outside of high energy physics and quantum gravity.
@@ThePrimevalVoid I don't know a lot about string theory, it was just a theoretical "what if" question, about hyper focusing an entire degree on one theory.
@@m4rt_ A PhD in general is "hyper focusing" on a single niche topic. If it turns out to be disproved/made irrelevant later, well, that's just how science works sometimes. A PhD is more a certificate saying that the person who got it is capable of scientific research (and therefore is capable of carrying forward scientific research into the future) than anything about the work itself. It is not uncommon for instance for people to get a PhD in topic A, but then later switch fields to topic B. String theory PhDs (under a very broad classification of course, because like Thomas said, it's actually a lot of things) who remain in academia for example have done research in condensed matter physics and sometimes even something as out-of-left-field like neurobiology and cognitive sciences.
My undergrad research was somewhat similar to this, and I ended up deciding to pivot away from the theoretical physics realm in my PhD. This video made me glad I did, I spotted like four women total in the whole video
@@Andrew-rc3vh exactly. it's damn near impossible to do that when the room is so full of misogynists that nobody is willing to treat you like a physicist. i chose the path where i could do my science in peace.
@@grandunification Your logic is flawed. No one is hating you. It's just men prefer to do theoretical physics. If it were dressmaking there would be more women in the organisation. Neither would that be hatred either.
Simon as an educator could you cover the national electric power grid. This is a vital matter for future energy supply. Concentrated central supply, or dispersed renewables. The EV big batteries will be a huge part of life. Absolutely critical to the success of energy supply and stability. In Australia we have 1million klm and 25million people. In one solution to future power the national grid capcity will need to 5 times bigger. At $2million a klm for the existing national grid then 4 more national grid capacity is impossible. Central concentrated electrical power is a dead end impossibility. So economically, nuclear is dead, fusion is dead, fossil fuels generation is dead. Dispersed energy supply into all the millions of ends of the grid is the only economical possibility. A big battery in the EV is the only universal solution, plugged into the national grid 23/7/365. We have poles and wires to the streets and homes and businesses and industries and buildings and everything.
Studying string theory, to me, is like studying some dead language like old Greek or Latin. Based on what I heard, the predictions which string theory makes have gotten so ridiculously high bounds (thanks to the LHC and other experiments not finding anything) that it's basically being considered a dead end.
Here is an esoteric hypothesis: The seven heavens each a dimension. The first heaven/dimension being matter. 1 dimension for time. 2 dimensions for “space” Total 10 dimensions In the same “space” we are in there are dimensions with parallel time but with different “classical/local physics” because they are not a dimension of matter. Each dimension is 500 years apart.
You are using the word “dimension”, but do not seem to be using it in the same sense as is relevant here. What do you mean when you say the “dimensions” are 500 years “apart”? This seems quite disconnected from the sense of “dimension” mentioned in the video.
Are not the answers given by string theory highly dépendant on thé parameters you give it initially, to thé point that you Can predict everything and its opposite?
Why the accents on the letters “e”? Anyway, I don’t think that’s quite the case. A criticism somewhat *similar* to that might apply as an accurate and possibly important criticism, but it is more subtle than how you’ve phrased it?
String theory is speculation, go check what the scientific consensus is. Always listen to the critics not only to who has a biased point of view since is working on it.
He wasn’t saying that it is definitely right? He just said he was studying it, and in a way it is frustrating that it is hard to test due to energy levels involved?
Are your first and second sentences meant to be connected? People study the topic known as string theory for a variety of reasons, but largely because it is interesting, and it might give answers about fundamental physics, and in any case has at least produced a number of cool results in math (iirc it is what inspired the research into what has been named “mirror symmetry” in algebraic geometry and such. The name “mirror symmetry” isn’t really the most descriptive name, but that’s what they call it. I, don’t think I understand the idea well enough to give a good description of what it actually is, but the algebraic geometers think it is pretty cool.)
🤔🙄I don't like the basic idea of the string. Why we can't explain something like two things moving with a common center or one moving around another. From elementary particles to galaxies we see a very common notion or idea of rotating, circulating or spinning. It seems to me more natural direction than going with the string.
Are you suggesting using the idea of orbits as a foundation for everything? This seems ironic, especially if you meant circular orbits, in that it brings to mind the idea of explaining observed motions by stacking different circular orbits on top of one-another, I.e. literal epicycles. While string theory may be false, and it might even be that the consensus ought to already by against it, it is not for the reasons that you dislike what you think to be string theory.
I understood little bit but its cool that PhD students are finally getting a voice outside academia
I agree! It's such a cool thing to see the behind the scenes of academia
It's interesting to hear about unproven scientific ideas like string theory, climate change and alien spacecraft.
well but phd students dont even have a voice inside of academia
PhD students: they don't have much of a voice, but they always want to talk about things.
@@richardt6347 your parents didn't care about you either 😂
You know, I felt that. That moment of closure with an old place you had bad memories with. Walking the halls as a different person, being somewhat disconnected from it. And being able to finally close that chapter for you. I'm felt how emotional it was for you to go to that bookstore near the campus and finding your published book in it. i can imagine it must have been even more emotional donating that book to the library, And amazing that the librarian still remembered to you.
Good on you finally finding peace. Have some happy time with your wife, guess your definitely earned that!
It's like in Grand Theft Auto. You can go back to the start location but you can't repeat the mission.
That evoked some feelings from me, too, but some very different ones. I'm currently in my undergrad, and all I can hope is that someday I'll be able to have that feeling that Simon had.
Those chalkboards alone make me wish I didn’t get C’s in high school 😂
What about metaphysics
Dr.Chaddington!!!
How did I miss that my mans is MARRIED?! Good on you and pixel girl! Wish you both the utmost best!
Hi Simon. I’ve been watching your videos (as many here have been) since your days in Oxford. I just want to give you a huge congratulations on the publishing of your book! Your story really is inspiring, given the adversity you have faced, and your refusal to let it stop you from doing what you love. I now have a copy of your book and I’m looking forward to start reading it! Congratulations again, I can’t wait to see what happens next in your story 🌏
i've been playing Flagle every day for several months (without knowing anything about who created it, I just enjoyed it), I'm amazed to randomly find the creator in a video! I'm a big geography fan who tends to struggle a bit with knowing flags, and I've found it very helpful for that and fun to boot. Shoutout to Ryan!
I am an undergraduate Physics student in Singapore and I have followed your videos since your PhD days. I would say that I have never felt more like I did not belong somewhere than being in uni pursuing the field I always wanted. It has been 2 years since the start of my undergraduate and I am still struggling to do well in my course. There was particularly a periodwhen I simply broke down and gave up and did terribly because I felt like I was just not good enough. I am trying to pull myself back up and push on but my grades are not good I know I should be focusing on the learning aspect of it rather than the grades but in Singapore, where everything is super competitive, grades do matter a lot and it feels like I have already missed out on future opportunities because everyone around me is excelling with flying colours. I am unsure of why I am just not like the rest of my peers even though I really try. Everyday is a constant battle between pushing on and caving into the feeling of not being good enough and giving up. However, your videos do help a lot. It is touching to see someone having gone through similar struggles in their undergrad in Physics and turn everything around later on and not let that period of time define them. I use you as motivation on a daily basis, Simon. Nevertheless, it is super hard to not feel like I am never going to be good enough to do Physics and I chose a wrong career because I find it really hard and the ones around me do not seem to.
It depends on whether you went to a good JC and did well in A levels.
What textbooks do they use in your uni?
If you do really think you are not drawn to the field, change it. I am in the second year of my education in economics and I basically did not enjoy thinking about economics. So, I am, now, preparing for the university entrance exam to study physics.
Maths and Physics have a huge popularity slump between A-level and University. Engineering and Computer Science by contrast have a huge popularity increase over the same periods
Hey, don't worry man physics is extremely hard. Don't put pressure on yourself that you are to understand something that maybe 1% of the population ends up majoring in. I study physics too and find some "basic" stuff extremely hard but then I remember that the people who invented/discovered these things were extremely smart, and maybe spent a big portion of their life just trying to prove 1 formula (which then we are expected to learn in a few weeks :D)
Im in a similar boat, 3rd year though. If you want to connect and bounce around a few ideas, let me know.
That was honestly the best ad for Nebula I've seen yet, I had no idea it was owned by creators, that's awesome!
As always this series remains fascinating and informative. Great to see you putting your book in your college library. Keep the series coming Simon.
Seeing you find your book in the shop made me so happy. You deserve every bit of it! Alongside the absolutely spectacular video, content and those amazing minds, I've found another Morning brain teaser game in Flagle. Goes alongside Worldle, Framed and Wordle. Thanks as always Simon!
This was great to watch! As a PhD student myself I'm really happy to see examples of students who love their work and have a good relationship with their supervisor.
Most of the outside perception of PhD students is the opposite. While of course there are mental health problems within these programmes (and many just shitty situations), it's not helped when all we see is about how depressed we should be. How we just have to grind through 4 years of hell to get that paper.
I want to be on whatever this guy's on. Never seen a PhD be so content with their life and work.
Hey Simon, I really love your PhD Stories series. I understand it is not quite easy task for you, but if you can have more PhD students like this one, we would love to watch it. I was inspired by you and I am doing my PhD. Would really love to know how fellow PhD students are coping with and keeping up with research and grad school altogther. Thanks and always love to watch your videos.
Loved your videos Simon, Since the PhD days, keep it up!
I’m something of string theory specialist myself, I’ve watched some UA-cam videos describing it using some half true analogies.
I really resonate with how you were describing your experience at Oxford, I did math at Berkeley for my undergrad and for me personally it was both a really really challenging time emotionally and academically and mental health wise, and I’ve been wrestling with that since I graduated. But it also was the best time academically, I really enjoyed parts of it even though I felt emotionally destroyed. I’ve only recently started reckoning with how it shaped me and how I’ve since changed. Thanks for sharing your story and experience ❤
This is a fun series. I'd like to see interviews with some engineering PhD student if you get the chance!
Biochemical Engineering please 😁
If you guys wanna see vids from an electrical engineering phd alithedazzling has some good vids
Fantastic video. Love to see any insight into the cutting edge of physics
Math can be awesome. I get the "there are dimensions we can't see" explanation more now!
Agreed. I seriously never understood that until now.
This is a very cool format.
Simon, I've been watching your videos since your undergrad, and you have inspired me to apply and complete a postgrad degree in Oxford. I share your joy in traveling back to Oxford and finding that closure. So very proud of you, and congratulations!
Congratulations on finishing your post-graduate degree!
Lots'a love, cheers, & Mabuhay, from tropical Philippines!
Been in oxford the other day for a conference and it is quite a nice place 😍
Oh, that building is beautiful. I can't imagine a more idyllic place to do theoretical physics than that big blackboard in the hall.
What a good story. Bravo.
I love this! I started my studies in psychology in 2013 and after graduating jumped right onto the next one at software engineering in 2018. Soon graduating from that I am contemplating a 3rd degree in physics. I absolutely love life in academia. Seeing and interacting with all the bright minds and promises of tomorrow, being at the forefront of scientific discovery, knowledge and innovation. What isn't there to love?
7:40 considering that string theory has at least 10^500 free compactification parameters this seems to be imortant research for the future of string theory
Amazing content , excited for the new series!
not gonna lie, those corner chalk boards look pretty awesome
Please don't discontinue this series.... Also can you bring on some Biology PhDs here.... Like you can bring in Neuroscience PhDs or Evolutionary Biology Or Virology etc
Great video as always, Simon!
Excellent perspective on the Oxford world.
If you have not lived a little of that life you wouldn't understand, but it is important for everyone to know, as human understanding comes from the daily life of this place.
Extraordinary and mundane.
I have no idea what's going on but at least Flagle is fun!
Very interesting and inspiring video
Amazing video!
As an unpalatable unqualified novice intelligence with no university education it was strange how the mentioned dimensional theory and quantum gravity description fits with my mental image of the fields that create the entire universe we see and are trying to understand..
Putting it out there! It will be great if you read it! Please make more of these and have a separate in depth physics and math conversation on other channels. I will like to follow up the math. Keep on introducing nerds like us lol
Surreptitiously signing copies of your own book... pure gold moment.
I did CS degree in OBU, just being around Oxford brings back memories
can you please make a video with a student who is doing research in quantum computing ?
it would be very helpful....
A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.----
This was amazing!! it would be awesome to see some more economics like the ECB video!
I guess theoretical physicists are the ones with whom you should be least surprised when they state that they would like to stay in academia after their PhD.
Even then I wouldn't be so sure, Thomas is a definite exception. Of the theoretical physicists I've met and spoken to so far, most of them want to leave academia for a variety of reasons (garbage pay, stagnated/saturated field, university politics) and work somewhere to earn some of the money back that they've spent on getting that PhD.
There really aren't any other institutions where they could continue working in theoretical physics.
It’s like you’re king of students in physics coz string theory is probably the most complicated and difficult area in theoretical physics.
This series is great. Would be fun if you went abroad to global universities too.
These are great!
Perhaps there is only one compactification with a small positive cosmological constant. Which will uniquely be our Universe.
4:17 mouse bottom right corner 😮
nice!
wow, these guys are a very rare breed of scientists
Nice thank you
Fantastic Video even if it is at The Other Place *Grumbles*
I want a signed copy of Firmament. I live in the US though 😢
@SimonClark What are ur thoughts on COP27? In my opinion its a beating for all the optimists out there...
Replace the blackboards with whiteboards. Cleaner, no powder debris, quicker to erase mistakes, less allergies, no cleaning the powder-filled erasers. You'd think that with all these geniuses and intellects in one of the highest universities in the world, you'd think they'd modernize and update their writing equipment for a more efficient, convenient, and practical substitute which is the logical approach instead of using a blackboard.
Do you frequently use either? I personally don’t have a super strong preference between the two, but my feeling is that it is largely a matter of taste that determines which one prefers.
One upside of chalk over whiteboard markers, is that whiteboard markers run dry in ways that aren’t obvious without trying to use it. With chalk, when you the stick runs out, it is gone.
To answer your question: I had String Theory explained to me by one of the earliest & best physicists in this field: Prof. Barton Zweibach at MIT, back in 1998. 😁
But, my burning question, as you mentioned at the outset, is: Just why are Chalkboards in every single room in the theoretical physics dept. at every university around the World and ηot White Marker boards-⁉️
No toχic δυst, your clothes δon't look like they've βεεη ωorη for 2 months straight after a single δαγ of calculations and you can actually taste your fοοδ at dinner time without ενεrγthing tasting like C•H•A•L•K-?!?!
Makes them feel special. Also you missed out the pretty colours 😉
You should try Hagoromo Fulltouch chalk. Gives a very smooth finish on the blackboard, dustless and allows quick writing, ideal for equations.
Cool video. It looks like he is taking a Monte Carlo approach combined with machine learning to try to map the vast parameter space in string theory to the well established standard model. Is there any reason to suspect that the parameter list can indeed be dialed in or is filling it totally random?
Wow, I neede this, for my SOP 😂
Sorry can't stop myself asking, when he introduced the circle didn't it become 5-D?
He wrote R x R^2 x S^1 , not R x R^3 x S^1 .
1+2+1=4
Hi, question about string theory: What if this doesn't turn out to be true? What do you do with string theory if it just turns out to be a more complicated way of describing things we already know that doesn't tell us anything about what we don't know?
Also: What happens if string theory needs to be altered every other time when we learn something new?
Also see : every single piece of frontier science that's done in every conceivable field of science.
The answer I’ve heard is that the math behind string theory is helpful even outside of string theory, and even though a lot of physicists don’t believe in it anymore they still use the math or switch into string theory to do math
In all of those scenarios they just write more papers about it and use those to apply for more research grant funding. The aim of Uni research is to get grant funding, not to do science.
This guy is a G
If it looks simple, run
Completely over my lvl….I studied Math 1 in gymnasium and physics in junior high….
sheldon cooper??
One problem I have always had with string theory is the models can do basically anything you want and thus they aren't simple or reducibly observable. Some things from it appear to be far more general namely ER=EPR has been shown to emerge naturally in general relativity when applying entanglement and other concepts from quantum mechanics.
More specifically there is fascinating consequences to enforcing internal consistency on the Einstein field equations as based on the implications of No big Crunch Theorem namely that the off diagonal terms of the metric tensor can never be more symmetric than the initial conditions i.e. symmetry within the Einstein field equations can only ever decrease, most solutions to the Einstein field equations violate internal consistency i.e. conservation of information and or causality.
That this application to an initially expanding universe automatically gives you nonlocality from symmetry constraints, i.e. all information on the initial conditions must exist somewhere in space in all possible timeslices, and that kind of kills most if not all of the nice neat computationally reducible solutions to the Einstein field equations. As that invalid assumption plays a foundational role in basically all work done within general relativity over the last century quantum gravity models.
(Note that for free you get:
-dark energy from the attraction of matter in an expanding universe always creating more underdensities than overdensities in any initially expanding universe of sufficiently large size,
an irreversible arrow of time and the laws of thermodynamics from the total spatial volume at any timeslice being required to always grow larger in every sequential timeslice as no local or global inflection points can exist within any timeslice of the metric anywhere in spacetime.
Also if the metric tensor being is composed purely from nonzero asymmetric element pairs that can't transmit information only constrain its propagation then not only do you get nonlocal behavior consistent with bells inequality but the metric needs a nonzero ground state component for gravity for all information contained within said universe as otherwise the solution wouldn't be internally self consistent. Meaning in essence there is a good chance based on this that the metric tensor self quantizes into entanglement pairs of any and all information initially contained within a universe. In other words ER=EPR appears fundamental to this with weird properties of Dirac spinors if I'm not mistaken which is interesting as it suggests elements of space (or rather the 4D metric tensor) at the quantum level may obey some form of the Pauli exclusion principal.
Awesome video and raw look to the inside of what boots on the ground students are actually working on right now. Awesome. Also I'm heterosexual but damn that dude is handsome, the speaker you interviewed.
1:58 eyyy linux
what is that weird R?
Stands for the space of real numbers. Or, in other words, it represents the number line.
@@drdca8263 ahh...
what happened to him
what if you get a degree in string theory... then lets say it gets disproved... what do you do then?
What do you mean disproved? It's mathematically consistent, there's nothing to disprove in string theory.
And even if it isn't an accurate model of reality, the mathematical structure underlying string theory has already found a ton of applications outside of high energy physics and quantum gravity.
@@ThePrimevalVoid I don't know a lot about string theory, it was just a theoretical "what if" question, about hyper focusing an entire degree on one theory.
@@m4rt_ A PhD in general is "hyper focusing" on a single niche topic. If it turns out to be disproved/made irrelevant later, well, that's just how science works sometimes. A PhD is more a certificate saying that the person who got it is capable of scientific research (and therefore is capable of carrying forward scientific research into the future) than anything about the work itself. It is not uncommon for instance for people to get a PhD in topic A, but then later switch fields to topic B.
String theory PhDs (under a very broad classification of course, because like Thomas said, it's actually a lot of things) who remain in academia for example have done research in condensed matter physics and sometimes even something as out-of-left-field like neurobiology and cognitive sciences.
@@m4rt_ Simon got his PhD and his theory was wrong :) PhD requires a contribution to knowledge, not a success.
Move on to working in a closer field, in his case it could be quantum field theory, particle phenomenology, cosmology, general relativity, etc.
I could understand this if my brain wasn't compactified .
My undergrad research was somewhat similar to this, and I ended up deciding to pivot away from the theoretical physics realm in my PhD. This video made me glad I did, I spotted like four women total in the whole video
You do not go to college for the women. You are supposed to learn soemthing about physics.
@@Andrew-rc3vh exactly. it's damn near impossible to do that when the room is so full of misogynists that nobody is willing to treat you like a physicist. i chose the path where i could do my science in peace.
@@grandunification Your logic is flawed. No one is hating you. It's just men prefer to do theoretical physics. If it were dressmaking there would be more women in the organisation. Neither would that be hatred either.
I feel, I am so dumb.
most that I know about PhD's and Theoretical Physics comes from The Big Bang Theory (the show)
... it's a great show
I wonder what Thomas thinks of Peter Woit's blog: Not Even Wrong?
Simon as an educator could you cover the national electric power grid.
This is a vital matter for future energy supply.
Concentrated central supply, or dispersed renewables.
The EV big batteries will be a huge part of life. Absolutely critical to the success of energy supply and stability.
In Australia we have 1million klm and 25million people.
In one solution to future power the national grid capcity will need to 5 times bigger.
At $2million a klm for the existing national grid then 4 more national grid capacity is impossible.
Central concentrated electrical power is a dead end impossibility.
So economically, nuclear is dead, fusion is dead, fossil fuels generation is dead.
Dispersed energy supply into all the millions of ends of the grid is the only economical possibility.
A big battery in the EV is the only universal solution, plugged into the national grid 23/7/365.
We have poles and wires to the streets and homes and businesses and industries and buildings and everything.
Studying string theory, to me, is like studying some dead language like old Greek or Latin. Based on what I heard, the predictions which string theory makes have gotten so ridiculously high bounds (thanks to the LHC and other experiments not finding anything) that it's basically being considered a dead end.
String Theory: The world's most famous Glass Bead Game.
Here is an esoteric hypothesis:
The seven heavens each a dimension.
The first heaven/dimension being matter.
1 dimension for time.
2 dimensions for “space”
Total 10 dimensions
In the same “space” we are in there are dimensions with parallel time but with different “classical/local physics” because they are not a dimension of matter.
Each dimension is 500 years apart.
You are using the word “dimension”, but do not seem to be using it in the same sense as is relevant here.
What do you mean when you say the “dimensions” are 500 years “apart”?
This seems quite disconnected from the sense of “dimension” mentioned in the video.
If you know what you are doing it’s not research
Are not the answers given by string theory highly dépendant on thé parameters you give it initially, to thé point that you Can predict everything and its opposite?
Why the accents on the letters “e”?
Anyway, I don’t think that’s quite the case. A criticism somewhat *similar* to that might apply as an accurate and possibly important criticism, but it is more subtle than how you’ve phrased it?
First
String theory is speculation, go check what the scientific consensus is.
Always listen to the critics not only to who has a biased point of view since is working on it.
He wasn’t saying that it is definitely right? He just said he was studying it, and in a way it is frustrating that it is hard to test due to energy levels involved?
isn't string theory a failure?
Isn't string theory is a notion/hypothesis? Why do people still studying it?
Are your first and second sentences meant to be connected?
People study the topic known as string theory for a variety of reasons, but largely because it is interesting, and it might give answers about fundamental physics, and in any case has at least produced a number of cool results in math (iirc it is what inspired the research into what has been named “mirror symmetry” in algebraic geometry and such. The name “mirror symmetry” isn’t really the most descriptive name, but that’s what they call it. I, don’t think I understand the idea well enough to give a good description of what it actually is, but the algebraic geometers think it is pretty cool.)
🤔🙄I don't like the basic idea of the string. Why we can't explain something like two things moving with a common center or one moving around another. From elementary particles to galaxies we see a very common notion or idea of rotating, circulating or spinning. It seems to me more natural direction than going with the string.
Are you suggesting using the idea of orbits as a foundation for everything?
This seems ironic, especially if you meant circular orbits, in that it brings to mind the idea of explaining observed motions by stacking different circular orbits on top of one-another, I.e. literal epicycles.
While string theory may be false, and it might even be that the consensus ought to already by against it, it is not for the reasons that you dislike what you think to be string theory.
Both seem to be full of themselves. Is that an Oxford thing?
I guess you find out it doesn't work at Oxford
Its called: a waste of time
String theory is not a theory of everything...
String Hypothesis. Not a Theory.
The word “theory” is polysemous. String Theory is more of a *mathematical* discipline, like Graph Theory, Group Theory and others.
A waste of time.
Pfft! Theoretical physics currently is, for all PRACTICAL purposes, D-E-A-D.
"we discovered string theory too early". wow. delusion. theoretical physics is totally screwed.
String Theory is an abomination of stupidity. This is what happens when our mathematics is light-years ahead of our physics.
Leibniz > Newton
Boring. Just start a business and become rich
String theory is dead