String theory is the only way physics leads so it's inevitable. I did my undergrad in physics and yeah....there's 0 other options in the math..And physics is all math. Loop quantum gravity is blatantly incorrect(gr cannot be derived from it) and abandoned decades ago. String theory is literally the Only option
This is the first time I'm actually understanding (and retaining) wtf the "strings" are in String Theory. Excellent background and explanation! Thank you!
Already is without string theory. The Standard Model already presumes elementary particles are really just vibrations within universe-spanning quantum fields. 🙃
Man every time I try and really focus on this stuff I’m almost immediately confronted with words I have to look up and before I know it 5 minutes of the video have played without me having really understood or absorbed any of it in a meaningful way. Yet still I watch.
I'm going for my associates degree in astronomy at the moment and love watching your videos to stimulate my mind no matter where I'm at. (I'm going to work toward a PhD)
*Me during the video* "Yup... Uh huh... Makes sense... Of course... Jeez, this guy's actually explaining String Theory, and everything he says makes perfect sense" "So what was the video about?" "Pff"
He does that have that style of delivery where you understand the words he is saying but not have a clue what he's talking about. It's like in hospital dramas where they throw all these technical terms about and they don't mean a thing to average joe but sounds good.
It's because during the video you are saying to yourself 'he understands it, he understands it, he understands it' rather than 'i understand it, i understand it, i understand it'
can't believe anyone would say that any of your video's are boring?" ...no way! i learn something new every time i watch one of your video's .. to me every single video you make is incredibly interesting and mind expanding, and i want to thank you for all of your awesome video's Matt* ....
They also mixed up the photon and gluon symbol. Also the symbols for muon neutrino and tau neutrino are where the muon and tau are, and vice versa. The electron neutrino has the electron symbol and the electron has the gluon symbol
another useless string theory video on youtube. how about showing what laws and events look from a view of strings? strings solves singularity? ok good. show us how. every youtube video-same blablablah about extra dimentions and thats it. masterpiece, mother of god.
@UR Just Wrong how is that a fair comment? Even the minority of us who are educated have problems comprehending this advanced (and very very very theoretical) way of thinking. Me thinks you are a man way too fucking high on his horse.
@@williamblake7386 how about you give these people time to dive into these things instead of fucking jumping the gun and assuming they will explain everything you need to know about this theory in one 13 minute video? I swear comments like that are what turn people off entirely from these fucking subjects. You both sound uneducated to me.
And later Bohm. Standing wave is part of pilot-wave theory - which has a lot of problems, but just like String theory is just a way to visualize, and understand physics. Now I'm Copenhagen, but there is something beautiful in String Theory.
Evan102030 I guess for arguments sake, some people just say that "GOD" is dark matter (not really) but hope ya get the idea. There is also string theory which seeks to explain everything. We are all connected via an invisible string/chord
23andMe is involved in multiple scandals with selling the data of their customers. Selling without informing them of course. I would really think about changing the sponsor.
Yea, let them fund Space Time. I don't think any viewers will really consider using their services anyway. Who cares if you have 2.5÷ Ivory Coast heritage?
Do you have proof they aren't? Their TOS doesn't prevent it. Livescience had an article on it back in July, as did Business Insider, who also had a second one in Aug. @ra said to 'really think about changing the sponsor'. 'Really think about' means to research and consider it, not do it immediately just because he said to.
In programming there's a really useful way to look at dimensionality with nested or "jagged" arrays which I figured others might find useful. A single variable would be a 0D point. We've got various types of lists/collections which are 1D, accessed by a single "index" number. Arrays are 2D, with an X and Y coordinate defining where to find an item in "grid" of W width and H height. To add dimensions, you simply take a regular array, but at each coordinate pair you store a list to get a 3D array, you access which list by X and Y, then which item in the list with Z. To get to 4D you put an array at each coordinate in the first array (XYZW), then 5D is an array of lists at each coordinate in the original array, and so on. It makes it much easier to conceptualize of more dimensions without getting into the geometry. This lets you focus on the way dimensionality works without worrying about how it "looks" - at least for me.
I don't know if they are used in string theory, but in Relativity we use tensors to operate with the kind of objects you are describing. I only studied special relativity, so for now I only know rank 3 tensors (See the Levi-Civita tensor). They are basically a variable with as many indices as the the rank: by assigning an integer value to the indices, the variable gets a certain value which is defined by the tensor itself or by an operation between other tensors. An example would be the kronecker's Delta, which has 2 indices i and j: if i=j the delta is equal to 1, if not it's equal to 0
Similarly, mathematics allows you to just keep adding spacial dimensions, regardless of one's ability to visualize it. To my knowledge this is done with matrix multiplication, which most programming languages have some sort of mechanism for calculating. The only thing is I'm not sure exactly how one would make a data structure that simulated the proposed "tiny dimensions" within the bigger 3. I guess that's a question for the mathematicians, haha. Topology is not my strong suit.
I too have played around with the idea of multidimensional arrays. I found out that an array of any object can be made, so I started by making an array of one dimensional arrays. Then I started filling values and trying to manipulate them. Made an array of that very two-dimensional array. Then a three-dimensional array. Then a four-dimensional array. You can just keep adding brackets to seamlessly add dimensions. I've been wondering how it's being stored and handled in my computer, and how it would be spatially represented.
The celluar automata called "SmoothLife" produce some kinds of strings. I'm not saying it is connected, but i wanted to point out that string-like structures can emerge from a simpler underlying set of rules.
SmoothLife is cool. Something I don't understand about it though, is why doesn't Noether's theorem imply a conservative of energy or momentum for it, and therefore prevent the thing where the structures can disappear? The physics for it seems to have time and space translation symmetry, so I'm confused.
I like string theory, although I can't help but wonder about the fundamental nature of the strings themselves if it is ultimately correct. What creates tension? I wonder if this theory could be used to try to create a new particle.
I remember Brian Greene: He was always harping on the same two testable strings of the string theorist's bow: Super Symmetry and Extra Dimensions. Both seem very elusive. Which other parts of the math of ST could point to testable phenomena?
Analysis of the gravitational waves proved that there are no "extra dimensions". They could not find supersymmetry predicted by String "theory" in the LHC. Now the string "theory" guys are claiming the levels of energy in the LHC is not enough and never will be... Basically what we have here is a "theory" that cant provide any evidence and its not testable. Its a scam and an academic job program.
@@Domispitaletti gravitational waves did not discovered at LHC, and there are no bigger extra dimensions that gravity can leak to, results neither comfirm or deny string theory. Also its not a scam its just one of the considered models, which there are lots of different it is just very interesting because it fixes a lot of problems, unites matter, energy and forces as one fundamental thing and creates too many possibilities. It's not scam its just a model that can be wrong but people will try all possible models until they are proven impossible
Relativity adds an extra dimension (time) so why can't theories of everything have their extra dimensions? they describe everything so they need more "space" to work with
Basically there aren't any. My understanding is that so many possible variations of string theory exist that for any result of any experiment there would be an impossibly large number that are consistent with that result, even if the rest are ruled out. That said, I don't think they've proven that they can't fix that problem by taking things in a different direction. So maybe in the future there will be testable predictions. I definitely don't think we should try to ban string theory research or anything, but maybe we should limit the amount of resources going into it.
@skywolf23 I don't quite think ST is that elegant - if it were just a humble GUT, maybe, but it pretends to be a TOE via "spin-2 = graviton", the old tired formula from the covariant camp. Not only this undermines the physical content of GR, it's subjectable to anecdotes, like MTW's remark that Fierz and Pauli discovered a spin-2 particle that obeys the EFE - too bad it goes in straight lines instead of curved ones
Well I question whether string theory is an expanse of Relativity? The reason I ask this is because The fundement of Quantum Physics is the Matter and the results of. Hence the search for the Graviton. String Theory is the concept of energy being the primary and matter being the secondary or at least the wall that exists between Multiverses. Theoretically the Graviton may exist beyond the wall of String Theory and String Theory is analogous with the Swartzchild radius of a Black hole. We have zero information about a Black hole yet we have attributed it to a singularity mathematically. I am confused about the relation of little g to big G. Why is it impossible to quantify Big G yet we are able to quantify little g. Especially considering spacetime has a quantfied time Dialation?
Absolutely love this site. I get to the end of each talk and feel that I know absolutely nothing, which apparently is the same as all the scientists who involve themselves in this study...this is very reassuring.
What bothers me about string "theory" is both the tunability to match any prediction while offering no known testable predictions to test the "theory" and more worryingly the rapid dismissal of questions regarding the "theory" that worries me. I fear some people may have gotten so caught up in the theories beauty that they have neglected the fundamental role of testability in keeping science grounded in our physical universe. And that is ignoring the misuse of the word "theory" which in the context of the sciences is reserved for well tested hypothesis that both explain our universe in a predictable testable way and have predicted phenomenon latter observed all while standing up to challenge after challenge. If string "theory" is to earn its name then it must meet that standard.
There's lots of abuse of terminology in theoretical physics. Many physicists use "theory" to mean "model," (example: Chern-Simons theory). It might be weird for science PR to call the theory of evolution and string theory both theories, but the name "string theory" kinda stuck by now. You can always try and make string theorists call it otherwise if you want, though! String theory is more like a mathematical framework or model that, in some limits, contains some quantum field theories we know and love, and also gravity. And that's kinda cool :p . Also, string theories give some really nice predictions / backpredictions regarding some dualities (AdS/CFT is a good example!). Also, if you're somewhere in between Maths and Physics, you can always have some fun doing string theory :) so there's that. Whether or not string theory can be useful... :p eh, the math of QFT itself are so weird already (in formal terms) that string theory might be plain intractable, if it's supposed to contain QFTs in some of its limits. I personally treat String Theory more as a playground to try and rederive some nice mathematical relations / explanations / backpredictions for QFT, but that's just me.
Theory can be an open ended world in a lot of sciences. In psychology 'theory' is often discussed before a hypothesis as being merely a frame work of ideas/possibilities that drive us to investigate different hypothesis. So from psychology, to biology, to physics, I think people use theory more loosely than maybe the text books or some non-scientists insist. Also, I think the only reason 'theory' became a buzzword is as Jeffery Toledo was talking about with Evolution. Some people in America particularly do not like evolution because it conflicts with their religion, and made an attack on it as a 'theory', preferring it to be called anything else to discredit it. The word 'theory' became under threat and so people, at least in the states, started to more narrowly define it, perhaps unfairly. I like how Rickhard Dawkins put it, calling many things in science 'theories', barely a few things, and mostly only in mathematics as laws or theorems, and some almost certainly true theories as [his word] theori-orems. But honestly, Jeff is right. How anal we are about the word is more for PR against science-haters, than it is hardcore science speak. At least in my opinion [disclaimer: I only have a bachelors degree] it is OK to use the word somewhat loosely, somewhere between the popular scooby-doo usage, and the more exacting text book usage. That said, I'm hardly an expert.
The main reason we can't test the theory is because we normally test theories by taking an unobserved prediction of the theory and testing to see if the prediction is correct. The problem is string theory is used to explain observations we've already made, leaving no room for predictions to be tested. This is not completely true, as string theory predicts some energy to be lost as gravitons in particle collisions, which has sadly not been observed
As Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
Google image search "the standard model of fundamental particles and interactions chart" and you'll know everything you need to know about the universe :)
When you pulled up that picture of the Standard Model, you used a g for the electron when it should be an e, and also you got the symbols for the photon and gluon (Y and g, respectively) mixed up. It's just a mistake. I hope you fix that in later episodes.
Watching SpaceTime before bedtime: more effective than sleeping with a book under the pillow. I don’t know how, but I wake up just a little bit smarter the next day.
Steve Harrison my son loved the Nova series about String theory hosted by Brian Green and frequently went to sleep with it playing. He is now indeed a certified genius with a persistent passion for theoretical physics 😂
If I understand this right, in M-Theory we can validate whether a parameter given configuration matches our observable world, but it is very hard to work backwards and find the parameter configuration that would result in our universe. So finding the correct parameter configuration of M-Theory is NP-Complete? Well, hello there complexity theory, my old friend.
But nowadays ELECTIONS are sure boring! (No choice, as both parties have been commandeered by the same corporate interests.) Nonetheless, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX where lies are often offered as "truths." If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
I've always had a question: The standard model is described by Quantum Field Theory where fields are the building blocks of our Universe. What happens to them in String Theory? If particles were excitations of quantum fields, where is the link with the string vibrational modes?
I'm badly regurgitating Edward Witten, so take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that standard model calculations can work effectively if you're trying to describe a particular incident in a particle's existence, but that m theory describes the entirety of the related string's make up, thus describing the particle as it fluctuates through numerous different quantum events. So, you can map any point, like if a particle splits in 2, using standard particle theory, but string theory effectively describes how the particle will react in every scenario. I recommend getting it from the horse's mouth. He's arguably the smartest man on earth, and I'm def not...🤷♂️ ua-cam.com/video/IE_8596AYsk/v-deo.html
I hope we can find a way to test the productions of the theory one day, many find it hard to believe because it's almost impossible to prove wrong without testing, it basically fixes it self when ever it's faced with an objection because you know, it can't be tested, but still it's one of the coolest physical theories
Thanks Matt! Now I truly can make a layman (which I am) sense of the basics of the Strings of string theory. Sorry I can't contribute any knowledge but can surely follow what the string theorists have to and do say! BTW you have a very unique style, can I say, like an ad agency pro aiming to reach out to commoners to lend their attention 😄. Thanks again.
Pretty much what just happened. Theory of a medium in which calculations are based on. What the medium is made of is not known so just focus on the calculations. The other tragedy is that the dimensions brought up so often aren't broken down for newcomers either
When taking into account the conservation of mass, and mass coming from the length of the string does this mean there might be a constant length all these strings share between them?
Not necessarily. It also gets mass from its energy in the form of tension, so it could decrease if the length of the string increases (and vice-versa), keeping mass the same.
Generally speaking, this channel does create multiple videos on certain topics and there is an order in which you should view them (see the channel playlists). But this video is the introduction to string theory, so if you're interested in string theory, this is the best place to start. BTW, it's normal to have to rewatch the video to fully understand. 😀
If you haven't done it already, can you please please PLEASE read the Three Body Problem trilogy and go over some of the concepts they use there? You'd love the books. As an amateur Spacetime fan, it seems like quite a bit of their science is legit, and the way it's used is creative. The series takes place in a generally more near-futuristic setting, where things are just a tad bit more advanced now. Throughout the books, you'll get things like: what life is like on a planet with an unstable orbit around a trinary star system, how a computer can be built out of people holding up flags, a weapon made out of high density neutron star material, a particle which can be folded along each different dimension of string theory, a theory of alien sociology, and a very plausible answer to the Fermi paradox. It would be so great to hear what you think about how he handles those concepts in those books. I also think you'd just enjoy them
@@donwald3436 String Theory has already advanced physics in other areas. Even if it's wrong, it still has quite a bit of value. That's why physicists, even the ones who don't care for string theory, take it very seriously. Also, PBS wouldn't have made a video about "nonsense". People fear what they don't understand and a lot of amateur arm-chair physicists don't understand string theory. So they lash out against it. It's a pretty common response.
Yes. But you have to count from the other side (starting from the super unstable mega-heavy element that can only exist for exactly two atomic nucleous vibration).
If a string produces massless particles , it, the string, then experiences no time evolution, so then how does it have a frequency, seeing as frequency is calculated with velocity?
strings? Time? we're talking about energy and distances that you encounter at the beginning of time or black holes but yeah that is a legitimate question might be that they exist outside of time
On the topic of what strings are made of; I don't know whether these strings actually exist, or whether they are fundamental or not. However on that topic I wanted to say that I ascribe to the belief that when you reach the actual fundamental level of something such as strings if they are the fundamental "thing" stuff is made from, that questions like "why" or "what are they made of" are questions that no longer make sense as they imply a deeper level. Maybe your understanding differs but I don't believe something is actually fundamental if a deeper level exists, the lack of a "why" or "made of" is what makes it fundamental. So to me asking what a "fundamental" existence is made of is so far from making sense as a question that I can't even come up with a comparison.
The plenum of reality may be fractal, indeed beyond the cosmological scale could also be fractal, the speed of light in any one fractal formed reality would be the same as photons would exist at the same scale as all other particles.
So fascinating!! I'm glad I found your channel, with the simple enough explanations, a simply educated person like me can actually make sense of it. I'm really excited to dive in deeper!
Could you explain why do we need 9 dimensions for this theory to work And why does it fail in our normal 3+1dimensions And can the standard model be explained by string theory
so the extra dimensions have something to do with simplicity in higher dimensions, and it becomes inconsistent in 3+1 The standard model probably will be described, but we need to solve it without the regular methods
I think the extra dimensions are supposed to give extra freedom of movement for the strings to vibrate into. Just 3 spacial dimensions doesn't allow the necessary room to explain all of the particles we observe. That's my understanding anyway. The best analogy I could come up with is checkers. You can play checkers in 2D, except when you need to jump. To jump, you need an extra spacial dimension for the piece to jump into, otherwise you'd just bump into other pieces. Strings need the extra dimensions to vibrate in. I think M-theory is 10+1, 3 large spacial dimensions, 7 small ones, and 1 for time (I think).
Boring-ass technical reasons, what else could it be? For the old bosonic theory, if you ever grab M. Kaku's _QFT - An Introduction_ , it's in eqs. 21.45 and 21.53: you only zero those expressions for D=26. From what I gather, they have to do with eliminating "ghosts" from the theory (which, from what I know from ordinary QFT, are fictitious particles with wrong statistics - say a spin-1 fermion): so if you want to use strings, either you use 26D or special relativity breaks down, or something...
Oh well, maybe those three neutrinos had oscillated just in the right way, so that they were all in their electron flavour eigenstate when the pic was made^^ :D
I would have a hard time laughing at that joke a couple of days ago, Brian, but after learning some stuff on neutrino flavor oscillation the other day, it seems to me a very good joke, because... that's exactly what happens all the time, as weird as it may sound.
As a musician and amateur music theorist, I’ve actually gained a somewhat better grasp of the concepts presented in this video than I’d expected. That is, infinitesimally north of zero. I’ll take it.
Random question. If time goes infinitely slowly at a black holes event horizon, would that mean that time would pass infinitely quickly at a white holes horizon?
I have never understood why it's necessary for additional spatial dimensions to be microscopic just because we can't perceive them. One of the main points of Flatland is that there could be 2D beings in a 3D world, and they could be completely oblivious to the higher dimension just by virtue of the constraint of their 2D bodies, and in that scenario all three dimensions have the same properties as ours. Why couldn't there be extra macroscopic spatial dimensions that we just can't access because we are constrained by bodies that exist in 3D (plus time)? I'm not saying there necessarily are higher spatial dimensions. I just don't think we should assume something doesn't exist just because our body is incapable of detecting it-- I mean, we don't sense any of the many EM waves outside of the visible spectrum despite them being all around us, and AFAIK it's generally suggested when we think about thought experiments pertaining to a fourth spatial dimension that if there was a four-dimensional being (analogous to us as 3D beings compared to Flatlanders) that they would have a kind of omniscient perspective from which they would be indetectable to us unless they intersected with a local region in each of our three dimensions (in which case we'd see a 3D "shadow" cross-section of the being/object). It would be a major inconvenience for science if there were extra dimensions and we just had no way of accessing or observing them (and so no way of verifying them from our mathematic theories), but it seems entirely possible that that could be the case if there just isn't a lot of (or any) "stuff" in those dimensions to intersect with our observable space-- or normal three-dimensional objects could have some kind of properties in fourth-dimensional space, but in ways that don't cause them to interact with anything in that space, so we don't have any indication. There are many possibilities, but all we can do is continue to try to make progress towards the truth. I think speculation, posing new and subversive ideas, and re-examining orthodoxies all have an important role to play in the scientific method, but we should always keep our perspective of what we know, what we just think, and what we merely wonder if it's possible.
Because, gravity is not bound by our 3D spacetime. And, if extra large dimensions exist, gravity will spread to those too, weakening itself in the process. Tests of gravitational waves have determined that gravity does not weaken in that way.
Genesis actually covers world creation with the six days thing. John 1 14 I assume is just a summary. Could be a direct contradiction Bible got a ton of them.
It actually helps not to be a creationist when analysing the Bible to see correlations between the Bible and science. You mentioned the six day thing. Obviously it's not a day in Earth terms. You heard about General Relativity, right? Time is relative depending on frame of reference. I think now you'll know what I'm getting at. With John 1:14 I meant that a spoken word is a wave, which vibrates, just as the strings, which according to theory, vibrate and as a result create the universe.
When physicists speak of vibration strings and cats in boxes, without elaborating, they do themselves a disfavor if they want to popularize their field for the masses. People are too apt to be more confused by this and ask, "a vibrating string of what?" or "why a cat?" Best to explain things in ways that help clarify so people can understand, like this video does. Great job!
@C M I see your point but government funds a lot of physics, and the general public elects the politicians who decide on this funding. In fact, in the past, research facilities have not been funded for this reason.
Sir,can you please shed some light on the facts: 1) How come the problem of quantum gravity is resolved in string theory by taking the picture of the gravtion as the loop like structure? 2) How can we test the string theory as these so called fundamental strings are order of planck's length(smallest object known to as, smaller than wavelength of the visible light)? I had heard of experiments in LHC in which scientists are waiting for the gravtion to be released in extra dimensions as according to them gravity hovers in the hyper space freely as it's string is not attached to our 3rd-brane while other force's strings are attached to the brane. Scientists believe this might be the explanation of gravity's weak strength. But your pervious video on "extra dimensions" showed that the gravity doesn't interact with the extra dimensions it followed inverse square law. So can you clear my dilemma and provide me clear picture and also if gravity doesn't hover in extra dimensions then is there a way to test the string theory or an indication tells string theorists that they are on right track. 3) Can string theory explain the quantum entanglement.?
@@quintecence X-rays are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3×1016 Hz to 3×1019 Hz) Strings of string theory are magnitude of 10^(-36) m
I believe the answer to #1 is this: Blackholes are formed when the ratio of the radius of a sphere of mass compared with that mass is below a certain level. This raduis is called the Schwarzschild radius. A blackhole can be formed by having a very large mass or a very small radius (or both). When a particle is this small, nearly any mass in a spherical configuration will cause a blackhole. If that same mass is spread out into a ring such that its not concentrated at the center, this reduces the mass/radius ratio which in turn avoids the particle from becoming a blackhole.
Yep. For, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
Thank you for that explanation. I think here I see a question. Which came first, the fundamental building blocks and forces of the universe or the string? It seems easy to see the strings just as it seems easy to hear sounds. We can count measures and bars just like we can count protons electrons. Another note of interest(see what i did there?). Aren't we forgetting the 0th dimension? The lowly point can have properties too.
I like the idea. What are the made of? Empty space! What do they vibrate in? The very curvature of space and time! Let's go all relativistic, not just string theory is a fail (so far it is, increasingly so) but QM is arrogant and annoying with their "shutupandcalculatium" thingy. It's probably all explainable in terms of vibes in space-time...
I read a book by Lawrence M. Krauss who I believe is a particle physicist. He was highly critical of string theory. He actually made a few clever jokes about it that I am fond of repeating in discussions about the topic. Not that I understand the problem, but the jokes are funny enough that they deserve retelling. I personally don't have an opinion about it, other than that it sounds like it is based more on belief perseverance that than on mathematics theory tested against observations in nature. But as a psychology student, my physics is naught. So, maybe there are camps of physicists who hate the idea, and want to disprove it, and others from whom it is like a quasi-religion, who say 'Its the best idea I can think of, so it must be true, even if it seems like it isn't.' That's my not-a-physics-guy understanding of it. Go easy on me, if you frankly disagree. It's not my field. I would like to understand string theory more, if, it really is more than wishful thinking. Thank you all for your patience with me.
The joke goes [paraphrasing] 'So two scientists are talking and one says to the other 'Hey I think I just figured something out, what if the universe was made of tiny little strings?'... to which they other replies 'Yeah, so, well, what would that mean?'. and the former says.... 'Um, I don't know'... He he he.
All physics theories are relative, and are approximations that attempt to describe reality. But they cannot. Because, Truth is NOT relative. Truth is ABSOLUTE. And as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
Just don't make money from it, full stop. If you have a philosophical view, you can share it if you wish, even try to link it to some evidence. But as soon as marketing comes in, it makes it better. Having special interest groups isn't much sounder.
The table used to represent the standard model of elementary particles in this video is very incorrect. I guess it just somehow slipped in during editing...
@@beri4138 In relation to mass, charge and spin, the bottom three leptons from left to right are electron, muon and tau. The three upper ones are their neutrinos, respectively. Mind that here, 'g' is an imposter so to say. 'g' is actually the symbol for a gluon and gamma is the symbol for a photon (correcting the gauge bosons column). In this column the data for Z and W bosons is incorrect - they both have mass and W boson also has a +/- 1 charge. Other numbers on the chart seem relatively fine.
How does it curve? What about mass and how it interacts with and relates to space makes it curve? How is the interaction mitigated on the scale of quantum particles? The curvature has to come from somewhere and at the smallest scales interactions must be occurring. Thinking of a graviton as a quanta (the smallest possible bit) of gravitational energy may help. The million dollar question is what is it exactly and how does the smallest scale interactions with matter and energy occur to give us the macroscopic picture of gravity we observe.
Could strings have information of mass and space while quantum field has information of energy and time? The interaction of strings with quantum field could produce classical universe.
12:34, ah that's only 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 choices. No biggie.
Now, I learned from you, how spacetime is filled with quantum fields which are more or less just described by a function adding up many waves. So "particles" (I don't get the wave-psrticle-dualism. Just accept that waves have properties you gave so called "particles") are stretched out blurs adding up on each other and stretching in sinking strength over theoretically unlimited volume. How can a 1-dimensional string do the same thing? Why bring quantum particles back in after replacing them by a quantized field?
All of QM is based on zero-dimensional 'centers' of particle-wave things. String theory modifies this by making them more complex, 1D strings. These strings would still produce wavelike particles, but by being more complex they could encode more properties than the standard 'point particles' of QM.
I’m glad there are well produced physics videos on youtube like this that don’t resort to sensationalism like other channels
Me too. Unfortunately they’re not here.
I love how matt makes it clear what has scientific comprovation and whats is theorical
michio kaku has left the chat
@@randyzeitman1354how so?
String theory is the only way physics leads so it's inevitable. I did my undergrad in physics and yeah....there's 0 other options in the math..And physics is all math. Loop quantum gravity is blatantly incorrect(gr cannot be derived from it) and abandoned decades ago. String theory is literally the Only option
This is the first time I'm actually understanding (and retaining) wtf the "strings" are in String Theory. Excellent background and explanation! Thank you!
You guys not only get much more in depth with these complex subjects than other places, but somehow still succeed in making it digestible!
The whole universe literally just be vibing
🤣
What is that melody!?!?
This is my favorite comment ever.
@@Squibbo0000 whatever LoFi Girl is listening to.
Already is without string theory.
The Standard Model already presumes elementary particles are really just vibrations within universe-spanning quantum fields. 🙃
Man every time I try and really focus on this stuff I’m almost immediately confronted with words I have to look up and before I know it 5 minutes of the video have played without me having really understood or absorbed any of it in a meaningful way. Yet still I watch.
*_quack_*
*_anti-quack_*
Theory of quantum ducks!
Supersymmetry predicts the existence of squarks such as the sup and stop squarks.
Alpha気 quark********
Ducks' quack isn't echo lol
*Kurzgesagt joined the chat*
Space is cool
So is microsopic world
Time is neat
Michael Ortega
Cool is space 👌
Space-time is very cool. Absolute zero is as low as you can go. Someone knit me wookie hair sweater, I'm shivering.
but showing off your channel in other channels isn't
Wow, I didn't expect to be featured in the video. And my name was even pronounced pretty much correctly!
Phew.
XD
@@pbsspacetime Hahaha
Awesome
I'm glad you are here to explain these curious creatures about string theory
I'm going for my associates degree in astronomy at the moment and love watching your videos to stimulate my mind no matter where I'm at. (I'm going to work toward a PhD)
I don’t care if it’s been two years since you’ve made this comment. I hope you made it or are still pursuing it! Yeah science!
Im studying for my 7th grade stanford OHS midterm
The sheer amount of information in the world is exciting
Hope you did it!
yeah me too man, i'm going for my associates in astro-physics/quantum biology in devry university ... excellent degree ...
*Me during the video*
"Yup... Uh huh... Makes sense... Of course... Jeez, this guy's actually explaining String Theory, and everything he says makes perfect sense"
"So what was the video about?"
"Pff"
He does that have that style of delivery where you understand the words he is saying but not have a clue what he's talking about. It's like in hospital dramas where they throw all these technical terms about and they don't mean a thing to average joe but sounds good.
String theory is a religion masquerading as science
@Bacalhau da Noruegaeverythings made of strings made of nothing
It's because during the video you are saying to yourself 'he understands it, he understands it, he understands it' rather than 'i understand it, i understand it, i understand it'
Bluemilk92 it isn’t you. It’s that there’s astonishingly little to say about string theory outside of “it has strings.”
But I don't want any more dimensions. It is already hard enough to find my keys.
Your keys won't go to other dimension. At least at this level of technology. * _ 8 /
You are a special case, the rest of us don't have that issue.
just imagine the struggle
Not a problem...you just need to be driving a TARDIS.
Don't stress too much about it, physicists cant find 84% of matter
can't believe anyone would say that any of your video's are boring?" ...no way! i learn something new every time i watch one of your video's .. to me every single video you make is incredibly interesting and mind expanding, and i want to thank you for all of your awesome video's Matt* ....
I just ate string cheese while watching this video, and it is increasing my mass, eliminating my stress, and causing internal waves.
Don't forget the rapid expansion into two of the three dimensions.
Science!
Are the internal waves bothering you?
They eventually pass via the fourth dimension.
I am too! What the fuck!?
I love this channel. There's no way these videos are boring.. they're about the universe and everything in it!
"You guessed it."
"I did?"
"Strings."
"Oh."
I did
Are the strings that control gravity called G-strings?
asking the real questions
Ayyyyyy
Ah, that explains the smell
Now they are
No. It's a bottom E
The neutrino line of the leptons at 0:51 are mislabeled (well, the second and third ones), if you care. Ticky tack, I know. :)
Well spotted, nothing wrong with being a bit captious!
They also mixed up the photon and gluon symbol. Also the symbols for muon neutrino and tau neutrino are where the muon and tau are, and vice versa. The electron neutrino has the electron symbol and the electron has the gluon symbol
I was quite surprised by how messed up that graphic is.
Don't you guys know about the new elementary particles: the gelectron, the vuon, the vau, the goton, and the pluon? ;)
Timothy Lee I noticed that as well!
I find it strange that older videos are never wrong and it all fits together
Another master piece video
another useless string theory video on youtube. how about showing what laws and events look from a view of strings? strings solves singularity? ok good. show us how. every youtube video-same blablablah about extra dimentions and thats it.
masterpiece, mother of god.
@UR Just Wrong how is that a fair comment? Even the minority of us who are educated have problems comprehending this advanced (and very very very theoretical) way of thinking. Me thinks you are a man way too fucking high on his horse.
@@williamblake7386 how about you give these people time to dive into these things instead of fucking jumping the gun and assuming they will explain everything you need to know about this theory in one 13 minute video? I swear comments like that are what turn people off entirely from these fucking subjects. You both sound uneducated to me.
@@williamblake7386 You are not wrong. Dear fucking mother of God even the smart people are fucking idiots anymore.
@UR Just Wrong r/iamverysmart caught in the wild.
Historical detail at 6:50: It was De Broglie who thought of Bohr's model in terms of standing waves!
That's because he thought the model was Bohr-ring! 😜
And later Bohm. Standing wave is part of pilot-wave theory - which has a lot of problems, but just like String theory is just a way to visualize, and understand physics. Now I'm Copenhagen, but there is something beautiful in String Theory.
I scrolled down to see if someone else had noticed too, gj
That's so rigth!!
Great. So the universe is a gigantic guitar
Or a Bach fugue!
Now all we need is a string theory Guitar Hero! Rikki Tikki.
Cosmic Musique 🎼
And we are the most beautifully complex and harmonious chords God could create playing it. What is God made of though?
Evan102030 I guess for arguments sake, some people just say that "GOD" is dark matter (not really) but hope ya get the idea.
There is also string theory which seeks to explain everything.
We are all connected via an invisible string/chord
Q: "What are strings made of?"
A: "It's strings all the way down!"
23andMe is involved in multiple scandals with selling the data of their customers. Selling without informing them of course. I would really think about changing the sponsor.
do you have proof?
Nah, put their money to good use funding PBS. It's not like PBS viewers are total idiots.
Yea, let them fund Space Time. I don't think any viewers will really consider using their services anyway. Who cares if you have 2.5÷ Ivory Coast heritage?
I want to know about the Neantertal ...
Do you have proof they aren't? Their TOS doesn't prevent it. Livescience had an article on it back in July, as did Business Insider, who also had a second one in Aug. @ra said to 'really think about changing the sponsor'. 'Really think about' means to research and consider it, not do it immediately just because he said to.
Thanks for this. This was always one of the big missing pieces of the puzzle for me. It always seemed like the idea of string just came from nowhere.
In programming there's a really useful way to look at dimensionality with nested or "jagged" arrays which I figured others might find useful. A single variable would be a 0D point. We've got various types of lists/collections which are 1D, accessed by a single "index" number. Arrays are 2D, with an X and Y coordinate defining where to find an item in "grid" of W width and H height. To add dimensions, you simply take a regular array, but at each coordinate pair you store a list to get a 3D array, you access which list by X and Y, then which item in the list with Z. To get to 4D you put an array at each coordinate in the first array (XYZW), then 5D is an array of lists at each coordinate in the original array, and so on. It makes it much easier to conceptualize of more dimensions without getting into the geometry. This lets you focus on the way dimensionality works without worrying about how it "looks" - at least for me.
I don't know if they are used in string theory, but in Relativity we use tensors to operate with the kind of objects you are describing. I only studied special relativity, so for now I only know rank 3 tensors (See the Levi-Civita tensor).
They are basically a variable with as many indices as the the rank: by assigning an integer value to the indices, the variable gets a certain value which is defined by the tensor itself or by an operation between other tensors.
An example would be the kronecker's Delta, which has 2 indices i and j: if i=j the delta is equal to 1, if not it's equal to 0
Similarly, mathematics allows you to just keep adding spacial dimensions, regardless of one's ability to visualize it. To my knowledge this is done with matrix multiplication, which most programming languages have some sort of mechanism for calculating. The only thing is I'm not sure exactly how one would make a data structure that simulated the proposed "tiny dimensions" within the bigger 3. I guess that's a question for the mathematicians, haha. Topology is not my strong suit.
Yushatak umm, no
huh. that's a really interesting way to think about it. thanks for posting.
I too have played around with the idea of multidimensional arrays. I found out that an array of any object can be made, so I started by making an array of one dimensional arrays. Then I started filling values and trying to manipulate them. Made an array of that very two-dimensional array. Then a three-dimensional array. Then a four-dimensional array. You can just keep adding brackets to seamlessly add dimensions. I've been wondering how it's being stored and handled in my computer, and how it would be spatially represented.
“Su”, my new favorite particle!
It's an element, not a particle.
@@beri4138 shutupandcalculateonium
Its a joke, i know its an element
"Oh and we needed to add 22 dimensions to the familiar 4, no biggie!" xDD
@Brad Watson "Atheists hate this" hahaahahahah
@Brad Watson God is the Super Artificial Intelligence that created this universe from an universe full of Matrioskha Brains
@Brad Watson I don t even get whatchu talkin bout
@Brad Watson That ain t science🤦🏻♂️
@Brad Watson but does it have a headphone jack? And can you judge a book by its cover? ..tune in next time..
You could say string theory comes with a lot of strings attached.
Zing!
No
Bud um tiss*
Kurzgesagt
yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk 🤪
The celluar automata called "SmoothLife" produce some kinds of strings. I'm not saying it is connected, but i wanted to point out that string-like structures can emerge from a simpler underlying set of rules.
Many scientists now are thinking that universe is probably a cellular automata and maybe that's the way
SmoothLife is cool.
Something I don't understand about it though, is why doesn't Noether's theorem imply a conservative of energy or momentum for it, and therefore prevent the thing where the structures can disappear?
The physics for it seems to have time and space translation symmetry, so I'm confused.
Best explanation I've seen so far. Ties together all the little snippets that I've accumulated over the years.
I wish I could live enough to see if we finally get to an answer for this 😭
well, you just might
I bet the asnwer is fries
Sure if you live to infinity....
Amen brother. This is all fiction.
The answer is divide by zero.
I like string theory, although I can't help but wonder about the fundamental nature of the strings themselves if it is ultimately correct. What creates tension? I wonder if this theory could be used to try to create a new particle.
This was great, more videos explaining the fundamentals of these theories would be great. It helps understand more advanced topics later on.
I remember Brian Greene: He was always harping on the same two testable strings of the string theorist's bow: Super Symmetry and Extra Dimensions. Both seem very elusive. Which other parts of the math of ST could point to testable phenomena?
Analysis of the gravitational waves proved that there are no "extra dimensions". They could not find supersymmetry predicted by String "theory" in the LHC. Now the string "theory" guys are claiming the levels of energy in the LHC is not enough and never will be...
Basically what we have here is a "theory" that cant provide any evidence and its not testable.
Its a scam and an academic job program.
@@Domispitaletti gravitational waves did not discovered at LHC, and there are no bigger extra dimensions that gravity can leak to, results neither comfirm or deny string theory. Also its not a scam its just one of the considered models, which there are lots of different it is just very interesting because it fixes a lot of problems, unites matter, energy and forces as one fundamental thing and creates too many possibilities. It's not scam its just a model that can be wrong but people will try all possible models until they are proven impossible
Relativity adds an extra dimension (time) so why can't theories of everything have their extra dimensions? they describe everything so they need more "space" to work with
Basically there aren't any. My understanding is that so many possible variations of string theory exist that for any result of any experiment there would be an impossibly large number that are consistent with that result, even if the rest are ruled out. That said, I don't think they've proven that they can't fix that problem by taking things in a different direction. So maybe in the future there will be testable predictions.
I definitely don't think we should try to ban string theory research or anything, but maybe we should limit the amount of resources going into it.
@skywolf23 I don't quite think ST is that elegant - if it were just a humble GUT, maybe, but it pretends to be a TOE via "spin-2 = graviton", the old tired formula from the covariant camp. Not only this undermines the physical content of GR, it's subjectable to anecdotes, like MTW's remark that Fierz and Pauli discovered a spin-2 particle that obeys the EFE - too bad it goes in straight lines instead of curved ones
Great video. You describe the subject brilliantly.
This is what happens when you leave theoretical physicists on their own for too long
Study topology and come back to me
Well I question whether string theory is an expanse of Relativity?
The reason I ask this is because The fundement of Quantum Physics is the Matter and the results of. Hence the search for the Graviton. String Theory is the concept of energy being the primary and matter being the secondary or at least the wall that exists between Multiverses. Theoretically the Graviton may exist beyond the wall of String Theory and String Theory is analogous with the Swartzchild radius of a Black hole. We have zero information about a Black hole yet we have attributed it to a singularity mathematically. I am confused about the relation of little g to big G. Why is it impossible to quantify Big G yet we are able to quantify little g. Especially considering spacetime has a quantfied time Dialation?
I thought that was CERN ;P
You guys are very destructive. My bet is that he knows far more that all of you put together.
Antoine The great 😂
Absolutely love this site. I get to the end of each talk and feel that I know absolutely nothing, which apparently is the same as all the scientists who involve themselves in this study...this is very reassuring.
What bothers me about string "theory" is both the tunability to match any prediction while offering no known testable predictions to test the "theory" and more worryingly the rapid dismissal of questions regarding the "theory" that worries me. I fear some people may have gotten so caught up in the theories beauty that they have neglected the fundamental role of testability in keeping science grounded in our physical universe. And that is ignoring the misuse of the word "theory" which in the context of the sciences is reserved for well tested hypothesis that both explain our universe in a predictable testable way and have predicted phenomenon latter observed all while standing up to challenge after challenge. If string "theory" is to earn its name then it must meet that standard.
There's lots of abuse of terminology in theoretical physics. Many physicists use "theory" to mean "model," (example: Chern-Simons theory). It might be weird for science PR to call the theory of evolution and string theory both theories, but the name "string theory" kinda stuck by now. You can always try and make string theorists call it otherwise if you want, though!
String theory is more like a mathematical framework or model that, in some limits, contains some quantum field theories we know and love, and also gravity. And that's kinda cool :p . Also, string theories give some really nice predictions / backpredictions regarding some dualities (AdS/CFT is a good example!). Also, if you're somewhere in between Maths and Physics, you can always have some fun doing string theory :) so there's that. Whether or not string theory can be useful... :p eh, the math of QFT itself are so weird already (in formal terms) that string theory might be plain intractable, if it's supposed to contain QFTs in some of its limits. I personally treat String Theory more as a playground to try and rederive some nice mathematical relations / explanations / backpredictions for QFT, but that's just me.
Theory can be an open ended world in a lot of sciences. In psychology 'theory' is often discussed before a hypothesis as being merely a frame work of ideas/possibilities that drive us to investigate different hypothesis. So from psychology, to biology, to physics, I think people use theory more loosely than maybe the text books or some non-scientists insist. Also, I think the only reason 'theory' became a buzzword is as Jeffery Toledo was talking about with Evolution. Some people in America particularly do not like evolution because it conflicts with their religion, and made an attack on it as a 'theory', preferring it to be called anything else to discredit it. The word 'theory' became under threat and so people, at least in the states, started to more narrowly define it, perhaps unfairly. I like how Rickhard Dawkins put it, calling many things in science 'theories', barely a few things, and mostly only in mathematics as laws or theorems, and some almost certainly true theories as [his word] theori-orems. But honestly, Jeff is right. How anal we are about the word is more for PR against science-haters, than it is hardcore science speak. At least in my opinion [disclaimer: I only have a bachelors degree] it is OK to use the word somewhat loosely, somewhere between the popular scooby-doo usage, and the more exacting text book usage. That said, I'm hardly an expert.
The main reason we can't test the theory is because we normally test theories by taking an unobserved prediction of the theory and testing to see if the prediction is correct. The problem is string theory is used to explain observations we've already made, leaving no room for predictions to be tested. This is not completely true, as string theory predicts some energy to be lost as gravitons in particle collisions, which has sadly not been observed
...yet
As Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
the fact that these videos exist for free on youtube gives me substantial hope for humanity's future in the universe
Matt, you explained this better than Michio Kaku.... well done!!!
Agree. Matt is less animated and interesting yet also very professional and clear.
“It’s a warm summer evening in Ancient Greece”
😂 Is this from Big Bang Theory?
OH BALLS
I'm working on Dot Theory, little tiny vibrating dots
Dots nice...
That’s just regular quantum theory
Thats just a smaller version of string theory
I prefer garlic bread theory. Lots of tiny vibrating slices of garlic bread.
That's literally just the standard model
That was 101? I'm in trouble understanding this already. Why do I watch this show? Why do I think it's the same as when my cat watches the TV? Miaow!
Is it Schrödiger's cat? 😉
Max Goodman, same here!😂😂😂
Yes my inability to comprehend much of it is fascinating and profound
I understood the chart with the quirks leptons and such otherwise I’m clueless lol
Google image search "the standard model of fundamental particles and interactions chart" and you'll know everything you need to know about the universe :)
The "standing wave" animation is trippy as hell
When you pulled up that picture of the Standard Model, you used a g for the electron when it should be an e, and also you got the symbols for the photon and gluon (Y and g, respectively) mixed up. It's just a mistake. I hope you fix that in later episodes.
Watching SpaceTime before bedtime: more effective than sleeping with a book under the pillow. I don’t know how, but I wake up just a little bit smarter the next day.
Steve Harrison bed and time. then einstein came and unified it into one bedtime.
Steve Harrison my son loved the Nova series about String theory hosted by Brian Green and frequently went to sleep with it playing. He is now indeed a certified genius with a persistent passion for theoretical physics 😂
I do the exact same thing
i feel like the more of these videos i watch the more ignorant i realize i am..
If you haven't yet, would like to hear you discuss the E8 theory.
If I understand this right, in M-Theory we can validate whether a parameter given configuration matches our observable world, but it is very hard to work backwards and find the parameter configuration that would result in our universe.
So finding the correct parameter configuration of M-Theory is NP-Complete? Well, hello there complexity theory, my old friend.
Just like they did with astrophysics, they didn't know of the Electric connection of the Universe.
Could we find the parameter configuration using quantum computing?
Electrons are not Bohring!
The boring world of Niels Bohr
also, etcetera
But nowadays ELECTIONS are sure boring! (No choice, as both parties have been commandeered by the same corporate interests.) Nonetheless, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX where lies are often offered as "truths." If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
Yeah, yeah. We know that elections have increasingly become circuses, with the choices narrowed ahead of time. But keeping on topic...
@@chrissonofpear3657 sounds like Rosanna Danna, next he'll ask why we're talking about the erections...just saying! lol
boring*
I've always had a question: The standard model is described by Quantum Field Theory where fields are the building blocks of our Universe. What happens to them in String Theory? If particles were excitations of quantum fields, where is the link with the string vibrational modes?
I'm badly regurgitating Edward Witten, so take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt, but my understanding is that standard model calculations can work effectively if you're trying to describe a particular incident in a particle's existence, but that m theory describes the entirety of the related string's make up, thus describing the particle as it fluctuates through numerous different quantum events.
So, you can map any point, like if a particle splits in 2, using standard particle theory, but string theory effectively describes how the particle will react in every scenario.
I recommend getting it from the horse's mouth. He's arguably the smartest man on earth, and I'm def not...🤷♂️
ua-cam.com/video/IE_8596AYsk/v-deo.html
You can't do physics with a dictionary.
I hope we can find a way to test the productions of the theory one day, many find it hard to believe because it's almost impossible to prove wrong without testing, it basically fixes it self when ever it's faced with an objection because you know, it can't be tested, but still it's one of the coolest physical theories
Thanks Matt! Now I truly can make a layman (which I am) sense of the basics of the Strings of string theory. Sorry I can't contribute any knowledge but can surely follow what the string theorists have to and do say!
BTW you have a very unique style, can I say, like an ad agency pro aiming to reach out to commoners to lend their attention 😄. Thanks again.
What are the Strings in String Theory?
Nouns, of course.
Ill give you a sub for this!
Pretty much what just happened. Theory of a medium in which calculations are based on. What the medium is made of is not known so just focus on the calculations.
The other tragedy is that the dimensions brought up so often aren't broken down for newcomers either
Actually, in "String Theory", "String" is acting as an adjective modifying the noun "Theory".
New Message Life is a thread .
That last comment, might just be the best comeback I ever heard.
Very well done.
When taking into account the conservation of mass, and mass coming from the length of the string does this mean there might be a constant length all these strings share between them?
Not necessarily. It also gets mass from its energy in the form of tension, so it could decrease if the length of the string increases (and vice-versa), keeping mass the same.
Is there an order I should be watching these in? Man, I'm fascinated, but obviously missing stuff you reference from previous videos.
Generally speaking, this channel does create multiple videos on certain topics and there is an order in which you should view them (see the channel playlists).
But this video is the introduction to string theory, so if you're interested in string theory, this is the best place to start. BTW, it's normal to have to rewatch the video to fully understand. 😀
0:57 I think there's something wrong with the leptons, the gluon and photon seem to have switched place, too.
Nice catch! Most of us were too busy listening to actually look at the chart! Rikki Tikki.
I'm very grateful and appreciative for these excellent videos that give me the opportunity to learn about whatever I fancy. Keep up the good work !
If string theory were correct, cats would have unraveled the universe by now.
Just like how if the Earth was flat, cats would have knocked everything off of it by now.
Gravijta perhaps cats know all things in the universe and just cant tell us?
lol or simply WON'T tell us.... cats like to keep us humans in suspense :-=).
How do we know getting tangled up in the strings isn't how they got here?
This is why cats were considered gods
If you haven't done it already, can you please please PLEASE read the Three Body Problem trilogy and go over some of the concepts they use there? You'd love the books.
As an amateur Spacetime fan, it seems like quite a bit of their science is legit, and the way it's used is creative. The series takes place in a generally more near-futuristic setting, where things are just a tad bit more advanced now.
Throughout the books, you'll get things like: what life is like on a planet with an unstable orbit around a trinary star system, how a computer can be built out of people holding up flags, a weapon made out of high density neutron star material, a particle which can be folded along each different dimension of string theory, a theory of alien sociology, and a very plausible answer to the Fermi paradox.
It would be so great to hear what you think about how he handles those concepts in those books. I also think you'd just enjoy them
"Knowing" something, and being able to explain it are 2 completely different things.
This man stands as proof.
You can't explain nonsense, which is what string theory is.
@@donwald3436 If you are not a scientist, you come out as an idiot claiming string theory is a nonsense.
@@donwald3436 String Theory has already advanced physics in other areas. Even if it's wrong, it still has quite a bit of value. That's why physicists, even the ones who don't care for string theory, take it very seriously. Also, PBS wouldn't have made a video about "nonsense". People fear what they don't understand and a lot of amateur arm-chair physicists don't understand string theory. So they lash out against it. It's a pretty common response.
@@donwald3436 Dunning/Krueger
Steven Hatcher It’s nonsense.
Isn't ShutUpAndCalculateonium is the true 42nd element?
Yes. But you have to count from the other side (starting from the super unstable mega-heavy element that can only exist for exactly two atomic nucleous vibration).
@@adolfodef Ahh, right, a rookie mistake really!
I thought that was "Unobtainium"...
How can it have an atomic mass of 104
It does. trust me. I counted
I understand about 50% but mind blown. Never could understand string theory tho fascinated. Love this channel amazing.
If a string produces massless particles , it, the string, then experiences no time evolution, so then how does it have a frequency, seeing as frequency is calculated with velocity?
THIIIIIIS!
Cosmological time? I don't know, but if they are made of space-time itself o something similar, this should not be a problem.
strings? Time?
we're talking about energy and distances that you encounter at the beginning of time or black holes
but yeah that is a legitimate question
might be that they exist outside of time
Who says the vibrations have to propagate via time ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Please let them be a space-time wave.
Please let them be a space-time wave.
Preety pleaase.
On the topic of what strings are made of; I don't know whether these strings actually exist, or whether they are fundamental or not. However on that topic I wanted to say that I ascribe to the belief that when you reach the actual fundamental level of something such as strings if they are the fundamental "thing" stuff is made from, that questions like "why" or "what are they made of" are questions that no longer make sense as they imply a deeper level. Maybe your understanding differs but I don't believe something is actually fundamental if a deeper level exists, the lack of a "why" or "made of" is what makes it fundamental. So to me asking what a "fundamental" existence is made of is so far from making sense as a question that I can't even come up with a comparison.
thx for figuring out a way to formulate this. i agree.
Maybe we should call them Axomeres
weren't atoms once thought as indivisible and fundamental? Took a few centuries but we figured out "what" and "why" . Maybe we should be keep asking.
The plenum of reality may be fractal, indeed beyond the cosmological scale could also be fractal, the speed of light in any one fractal formed reality would be the same as photons would exist at the same scale as all other particles.
"What came before time?" is the comparison you're looking for.
So fascinating!! I'm glad I found your channel, with the simple enough explanations, a simply educated person like me can actually make sense of it. I'm really excited to dive in deeper!
Could you explain why do we need 9 dimensions for this theory to work
And why does it fail in our normal 3+1dimensions
And can the standard model be explained by string theory
so the extra dimensions have something to do with simplicity in higher dimensions, and it becomes inconsistent in 3+1
The standard model probably will be described, but we need to solve it without the regular methods
I think the extra dimensions are supposed to give extra freedom of movement for the strings to vibrate into. Just 3 spacial dimensions doesn't allow the necessary room to explain all of the particles we observe. That's my understanding anyway. The best analogy I could come up with is checkers. You can play checkers in 2D, except when you need to jump. To jump, you need an extra spacial dimension for the piece to jump into, otherwise you'd just bump into other pieces. Strings need the extra dimensions to vibrate in. I think M-theory is 10+1, 3 large spacial dimensions, 7 small ones, and 1 for time (I think).
Boring-ass technical reasons, what else could it be? For the old bosonic theory, if you ever grab M. Kaku's _QFT - An Introduction_ , it's in eqs. 21.45 and 21.53: you only zero those expressions for D=26. From what I gather, they have to do with eliminating "ghosts" from the theory (which, from what I know from ordinary QFT, are fictitious particles with wrong statistics - say a spin-1 fermion): so if you want to use strings, either you use 26D or special relativity breaks down, or something...
I thought it was 11
@@WanderingBackpacker I said _old_ theory; rewatch the video
I lost it at “As an added bonus, this ambition shaved off a bunch of dimensions, only 10 dimensions were needed” 😂😂
Brilliantly done! Easy to understand. Matt - you are excellent. Also, very engaging delivery. The graphics are helpful. Thank you so much.
I have no clue what he said
as expected from someone who has an anime profile pic
@@Integralsouls oof
Too much Boharing content 🥱
@@owlredshift then why watch?
@@shaikrehanaparveen8862 That was a physics pun 🤓 Look up Bohar
Whoops, you have 3 electron neutrinos in your standard model chart. That's two too many.
Good catch!
Oh well, maybe those three neutrinos had oscillated just in the right way, so that they were all in their electron flavour eigenstate when the pic was made^^ :D
I would have a hard time laughing at that joke a couple of days ago, Brian, but after learning some stuff on neutrino flavor oscillation the other day, it seems to me a very good joke, because... that's exactly what happens all the time, as weird as it may sound.
Bravo, Brian.
As a musician and amateur music theorist, I’ve actually gained a somewhat better grasp of the concepts presented in this video than I’d expected. That is, infinitesimally north of zero. I’ll take it.
Random question.
If time goes infinitely slowly at a black holes event horizon, would that mean that time would pass infinitely quickly at a white holes horizon?
I have been maniacally watching your videos in the last few days. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Nothing puts me asleep better than these lectures. Interesting yet lulling... 😉
I have never understood why it's necessary for additional spatial dimensions to be microscopic just because we can't perceive them. One of the main points of Flatland is that there could be 2D beings in a 3D world, and they could be completely oblivious to the higher dimension just by virtue of the constraint of their 2D bodies, and in that scenario all three dimensions have the same properties as ours. Why couldn't there be extra macroscopic spatial dimensions that we just can't access because we are constrained by bodies that exist in 3D (plus time)? I'm not saying there necessarily are higher spatial dimensions.
I just don't think we should assume something doesn't exist just because our body is incapable of detecting it-- I mean, we don't sense any of the many EM waves outside of the visible spectrum despite them being all around us, and AFAIK it's generally suggested when we think about thought experiments pertaining to a fourth spatial dimension that if there was a four-dimensional being (analogous to us as 3D beings compared to Flatlanders) that they would have a kind of omniscient perspective from which they would be indetectable to us unless they intersected with a local region in each of our three dimensions (in which case we'd see a 3D "shadow" cross-section of the being/object). It would be a major inconvenience for science if there were extra dimensions and we just had no way of accessing or observing them (and so no way of verifying them from our mathematic theories), but it seems entirely possible that that could be the case if there just isn't a lot of (or any) "stuff" in those dimensions to intersect with our observable space-- or normal three-dimensional objects could have some kind of properties in fourth-dimensional space, but in ways that don't cause them to interact with anything in that space, so we don't have any indication.
There are many possibilities, but all we can do is continue to try to make progress towards the truth. I think speculation, posing new and subversive ideas, and re-examining orthodoxies all have an important role to play in the scientific method, but we should always keep our perspective of what we know, what we just think, and what we merely wonder if it's possible.
Because, gravity is not bound by our 3D spacetime. And, if extra large dimensions exist, gravity will spread to those too, weakening itself in the process. Tests of gravitational waves have determined that gravity does not weaken in that way.
By the end I expected you had made your point, but it turns out it was a 1d circle.
This guy knows and understands everything.
String Theory comes from the Lord of the Rings, obviously. What do you think Iluvatar used to create that music of his?
Singer castrato angels?
actually it would be the Bible: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh
Great minds think alike.
Genesis actually covers world creation with the six days thing. John 1 14 I assume is just a summary. Could be a direct contradiction Bible got a ton of them.
It actually helps not to be a creationist when analysing the Bible to see correlations between the Bible and science. You mentioned the six day thing. Obviously it's not a day in Earth terms. You heard about General Relativity, right? Time is relative depending on frame of reference. I think now you'll know what I'm getting at. With John 1:14 I meant that a spoken word is a wave, which vibrates, just as the strings, which according to theory, vibrate and as a result create the universe.
6:57 BOHARING! HA! This is my 3rd time watching this vid, I just got it.
I'm so very late to this video, but I'm so glad someone else got that and commented.
When physicists speak of vibration strings and cats in boxes, without elaborating, they do themselves a disfavor if they want to popularize their field for the masses. People are too apt to be more confused by this and ask, "a vibrating string of what?" or "why a cat?" Best to explain things in ways that help clarify so people can understand, like this video does. Great job!
@C M I see your point but government funds a lot of physics, and the general public elects the politicians who decide on this funding. In fact, in the past, research facilities have not been funded for this reason.
Sir,can you please shed some light on the facts:
1) How come the problem of quantum gravity is resolved in string theory by taking the picture of the gravtion as the loop like structure?
2) How can we test the string theory as these so called fundamental strings are order of planck's length(smallest object known to as, smaller than wavelength of the visible light)?
I had heard of experiments in LHC in which scientists are waiting for the gravtion to be released in extra dimensions as according to them gravity hovers in the hyper space freely as it's string is not attached to our 3rd-brane while other force's strings are attached to the brane. Scientists believe this might be the explanation of gravity's weak strength.
But your pervious video on "extra dimensions" showed that the gravity doesn't interact with the extra dimensions it followed inverse square law.
So can you clear my dilemma and provide me clear picture and also if gravity doesn't hover in extra dimensions then is there a way to test the string theory or an indication tells string theorists that they are on right track.
3) Can string theory explain the quantum entanglement.?
I have a feeling the answer to number 2 is x-rays or gamma rays
@@quintecence X-rays are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3×1016 Hz to 3×1019 Hz)
Strings of string theory are magnitude of 10^(-36) m
@@rituvats734 well.. I'm out of ideas 😂
I believe the answer to #1 is this: Blackholes are formed when the ratio of the radius of a sphere of mass compared with that mass is below a certain level. This raduis is called the Schwarzschild radius. A blackhole can be formed by having a very large mass or a very small radius (or both). When a particle is this small, nearly any mass in a spherical configuration will cause a blackhole. If that same mass is spread out into a ring such that its not concentrated at the center, this reduces the mass/radius ratio which in turn avoids the particle from becoming a blackhole.
"This erases more questions than it answers"
Paradoxical, like String Theory itself.
Yep. For, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
And which great mind invented stoning? Or was this a set of lesser minds and spirits?
"Raises"
I think he said "raises"...
Thank you for that explanation. I think here I see a question. Which came first, the fundamental building blocks and forces of the universe or the string? It seems easy to see the strings just as it seems easy to hear sounds. We can count measures and bars just like we can count protons electrons. Another note of interest(see what i did there?). Aren't we forgetting the 0th dimension? The lowly point can have properties too.
strings , it should be callled vibes
Vibe theory? Sounds to millenial
In string theory, vibes send you!
I like the idea. What are the made of? Empty space! What do they vibrate in? The very curvature of space and time! Let's go all relativistic, not just string theory is a fail (so far it is, increasingly so) but QM is arrogant and annoying with their "shutupandcalculatium" thingy. It's probably all explainable in terms of vibes in space-time...
Do they come with batteries?
So that's how Vibe's powers work.
I read a book by Lawrence M. Krauss who I believe is a particle physicist. He was highly critical of string theory. He actually made a few clever jokes about it that I am fond of repeating in discussions about the topic. Not that I understand the problem, but the jokes are funny enough that they deserve retelling. I personally don't have an opinion about it, other than that it sounds like it is based more on belief perseverance that than on mathematics theory tested against observations in nature. But as a psychology student, my physics is naught. So, maybe there are camps of physicists who hate the idea, and want to disprove it, and others from whom it is like a quasi-religion, who say 'Its the best idea I can think of, so it must be true, even if it seems like it isn't.' That's my not-a-physics-guy understanding of it. Go easy on me, if you frankly disagree. It's not my field. I would like to understand string theory more, if, it really is more than wishful thinking. Thank you all for your patience with me.
The joke goes [paraphrasing] 'So two scientists are talking and one says to the other 'Hey I think I just figured something out, what if the universe was made of tiny little strings?'... to which they other replies 'Yeah, so, well, what would that mean?'. and the former says.... 'Um, I don't know'... He he he.
All physics theories are relative, and are approximations that attempt to describe reality. But they cannot. Because, Truth is NOT relative. Truth is ABSOLUTE. And as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.
Just don't make money from it, full stop. If you have a philosophical view, you can share it if you wish, even try to link it to some evidence. But as soon as marketing comes in, it makes it better. Having special interest groups isn't much sounder.
Is it the book "The universe from nothing" or something along those lines? I have it :D
@FACE GALLON Does nothing even exist? :P
ShutUpAndCalculateonium had me cracking up. lol
The table used to represent the standard model of elementary particles in this video is very incorrect. I guess it just somehow slipped in during editing...
What's wrong with it?
@@beri4138 In relation to mass, charge and spin, the bottom three leptons from left to right are electron, muon and tau. The three upper ones are their neutrinos, respectively. Mind that here, 'g' is an imposter so to say.
'g' is actually the symbol for a gluon and gamma is the symbol for a photon (correcting the gauge bosons column). In this column the data for Z and W bosons is incorrect - they both have mass and W boson also has a +/- 1 charge. Other numbers on the chart seem relatively fine.
Wait, why should there be a graviton and gravitational field if gravity is just the curvature of space-time?
How does it curve? What about mass and how it interacts with and relates to space makes it curve? How is the interaction mitigated on the scale of quantum particles? The curvature has to come from somewhere and at the smallest scales interactions must be occurring. Thinking of a graviton as a quanta (the smallest possible bit) of gravitational energy may help. The million dollar question is what is it exactly and how does the smallest scale interactions with matter and energy occur to give us the macroscopic picture of gravity we observe.
@@justdave9610 Ah, right. So is it helpful to think "space-time" as BEING the gravitational field? And a quantum OF "space-time" BEING a graviton?
What *_causes_* that curvature? No, no - I mean, *_why_* does matter/energy make space/time curve? tavi.
Richard Deese matter or I think it was mass. An object warps the fabric of the space time continuum considering things are in a vacuum (space)
I'm super smart
I understood 4 & 1/2 words he said
You should do an episode on 1/137 (alpha).
You're gonna be stringing us along for the entirety of this series until it patience hangs by a thread, aren't you?
There are no strings attached, though! 😜
This is the greatest diss on string theory so far.
Could strings have information of mass and space while quantum field has information of energy and time? The interaction of strings with quantum field could produce classical universe.
12:34, ah that's only 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 choices. No biggie.
piece of pie
@@adamdecoder1 piece of DIFFICULT pie *vsauce music kicks in*
It's remarkable how many of your animations look like a DMT trip.
Can someone upload this video in English please?
What?!
It's in english yo
Sarcasm, come in
check out "parthum astulate: a beginner's guide"
Takudzwa Shamhu it helps if you aren’t a total idiot bro
Now, I learned from you, how spacetime is filled with quantum fields which are more or less just described by a function adding up many waves. So "particles" (I don't get the wave-psrticle-dualism. Just accept that waves have properties you gave so called "particles") are stretched out blurs adding up on each other and stretching in sinking strength over theoretically unlimited volume. How can a 1-dimensional string do the same thing? Why bring quantum particles back in after replacing them by a quantized field?
All of QM is based on zero-dimensional 'centers' of particle-wave things. String theory modifies this by making them more complex, 1D strings. These strings would still produce wavelike particles, but by being more complex they could encode more properties than the standard 'point particles' of QM.
A string is also a quantized field, just with different properties.
Thank You so much! Your perspective allows to build a bridge between the Theories.
LOVE the idea of this string theory series! Aww yeah! Thanks for the 101, to clear up some stuff and relay plenty more information efficientally.