Brian Greene: Is String Theory Dead?

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Sponsors and Timestamps - Brilliant: brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off 00:00:00 Introduction 00:02:50 Faster than light travel 00:12:10 Traversable wormholes 00:18:45 Death and fear 00:20:40 Demons of pursuing science and psychedelics 00:27:57 Finding meaning in disconnectedness 00:32:35 The Hard Problem of Consciousness 00:37:38 Gödel, Dyson, and the relevance of a TOE 00:40:35 Time is not fundamental 00:45:35 The Holographic Principle 00:49:20 Google's wormholes and ER = EPR 00:54:18 Geometric Unity, Wolfram, and E8 00:58:00 Curt's upcoming physics paper 01:08:09 Advice for aspiring physicists (young and old) 01:14:50 Ed Witten is terrifying 01:19:15 Carlo Rovelli, Lee Smolin, and emergent time 01:22:02 Simulation Theory, Swampland, and Geometric Algebra 01:32:50 Responding to Eric Weinstein - Bias in String Theory

[@educatedguest1510]

Have you read 2-3 page "Simple quantum explanation of gravity without mass or math"?

[@User53123]

@@educatedguest1510 thanks for mentioning that, it's very interesting.

[@maciekjanicki1754]

Great episode, Thanks!

[@defenderofwisdom]

Geeze I'm glad to not get too deeply obsessed with oatterns in numbere - sometomes but no obsessive tracking of any.

[@vettevegas8549]

After care-giving 8yrs for my Mom's alzheimers...I have to wonder what clues it gives us in understanding consciousness. Also, there must be clues in "lesser" animal intelligence.

[@TheMikesylv]

I really hope Kurt’s pod cast blows up to be big enough for him to continue, Kurt is bringing responsibility and integrity to the people

[@Mentaculus42]

Brian Greene always impresses, one of the best communicators, always cautious about criticizing others, cautious about stating opinions that are outside his area of expertise, not full of himself. Outstanding general video on these topics. Keep up the good work.

[@darbrad3952]

He is everything Neil degrasse Tyson is not

[@Mentaculus42]

@@darbrad3952 It is hilarious that two more examples of people who are full of themselves were named with regard to TOEs and Brian gracefully deflected making a comment. Rather unique in his general area of science.

[@darbrad3952]

@@Mentaculus42 Absolutely

[@MMCEnsemble]

Very true, we appreciate his cautions approach, very respectful. Always good to hear him

[@dyrwtkhiehomie7887]

I like the way BG thinks, it's like this perfect combination of humble intelligence motivated by passionate curiosity. I really like that painting in his office as well lol

[@kenadams5504]

Its a depiction of a black hole.

[@n1k32h]

Left ur kitchen lights on there buddy

[@vikingthedude]

My man BG is the goat

[@thetobyg]

He does not really think that much

[@brendawilliams8062]

I am enjoying this lecture. Thankyou Toe

[@williamjmccartan8879]

The honesty with which podcast began allows for an eavesdropper to more appreciate the conversation as a whole. Thank you both Brian and Curt. Perspicacity, can't let a word like that slip by, our language is remarkable.

[@JuxJacy]

Brian Greene! no way!!! Excited for this!

[@GavriilMichas]

Very good choice for another meaningful conversation. Brian is one of the best physicists that can constitute thought experiments with such great clarity and detail. Curt, you are really doing great!

[@DavidinDetroit8157]

BG is my favorite physicist. I found him in the 90's and have soaked up all the knowledge I could from him since then. I love his natural ability to take complex physics theories and principles and put them in a format that's digestible for the average person.

[@exodus1977]

Great video. I'm a big fan of Brian Greene, and his ability to distill complex physics into very approachable discussions. It's also particularly refreshing to hear theorists discuss some personal views on different physics, or topics that challenge accepted textbook theories.

[@RichardAlsenz]

You are Kidding:?( Read Gauss Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@vbudico]

Curt, you did an amazing job at opening Brian Greene up. I've been following Brian Greene and The World Science festival for the past 3 years, and this interview is the most open and interesting and coming together of Brian Greene I've seen. It pulls together very effectively and yet surprisingly the the many scientific disciplines/domains that Dr. Greene has extended to within his scientific and philosophical research. I had a real blast. Thank you Curt and thank you Brian!!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much Victoria!

[@sonarbangla8711]

Is it that Brian Green himself wated to be a new Einstein.

[@karimkhloufi2767]

Brian green was the one, Who made me super interested in how the universe works.. this is great❤️👍 love it.. keep up the good work Curt

[@josephhall5681]

That comma really needs removed and the w made lowercase. It's so out of place it almost hurts to read your comment. That edit button will work again I bet.

[@Mtheory989]

@@josephhall5681 being a bit pedantic about a comment that was clearly amiable in nature and ultimately coming from a good place? If we are devolving into such pettiness, you do realize you should have wrote, “needs to be removed” - so before nitpicking on someone’s well intentioned yet informal comment, perhaps you should check yourself first. He is not writing some mid-term paper or doctoral thesis, it’s freaking KZbin man! Chillax.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@sgregg5257]

Love this conversation.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed:)

[@y5mgisi]

Just listened to Brian Greene on Lex earlier this morning. And am happy to hear him talk with Curt now.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@B-Nice]

Wow. I don't recall hearing Greene talk about depressive states of mind in any other interview of his!! Thankful he was willing to talk openly. Great line of inquiry, Kurt!!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you so much

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@brendawilliams8062]

I wonder about this blue planet and why my time line was assigned here.

[@markoszouganelis5755]

Brian Greene! My first Internet professor ever! Thank you Dr. Greene! 💚

[@primajump]

Looking forward to listen in to this conversation. Brian is one of the most down-to-earth physicists and a living legend in my opinion. I am sure it will be a great fun to watch this show. Good going Curt! All the best to you.

[@anphnyhundo1661]

One of the best interviews I’ve seen with Brian Greene. 👏🏾

[@KL-ni9ju]

Thanks Curt! Bought tickets for the show and told my friend in NY to get tickets as well for Greene's events

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@glenn-younger]

The World Science Festival-love this channel. Thank you so much for bringing on Brian Greene. I could listen to you two for hours. He has a way of normalizing science, even the heady parts.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@piratessalyx7871]

Love love love the World Science Festival! Love BG!

[@glenn-younger]

@@piratessalyx7871 Me tooooo!

[@jessemontano762]

Brian is literally the coolest modern physicist. So chill. Even with forceful questions, he responds in a laid back manner. Something to aspire to.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@adrianfeeger]

Loved that you got Briane talking about existential crisis, his also one of my heroes and it's also something that I frequently come up against.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@TommyToy]

Brian Greene is one of my favorite physicists. He is great in front of a live audience. Great communicator. Knows how to explain complex physics topics and mysteries in simple language anyone can understand. !!@@!!

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@oasill]

Nice to know about Gödel whos arguments are algebraic. Algebra is a consequence of set theory. The complment of algebra is co-algebra which is the world of algorithms and processes. This limiting case is stated by Turings theorems on computability. These two theorems are generalized by the work of Gregory Chaitin who developed the algorithmic complexity theory. This last one is probably most proper for understanding the limits of mathematics which is rendered an empirical science.

[@faheyplayer]

Two incredible humans, Brian and Curt, for our edification. Gift to humanity…

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@coreyrachar9694]

I just wanted to say thank you very much for this incredible conversation... I found it to be deeply therapeutic and helpful for my current mental state. This really helped me through a dark time.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

I'm so glad to hear Corey. How so?

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@keithmetcalf5548]

Thanks!

[@meditationliberation-athwa3986]

Hearing someone as accomplished as Prof Greene saying he too gets stuck and sometimes meeting with people changes everything is reassuring. Overall wonderful interview, Curt!

[@nancypulley]

Delighted & waiting for start of this brainy TOE show - For both of you, it will be crazy fun going off in tangents to whatever you both are keen to help us visually understand. . .In string theory 😳. Picture me in 1965 UMich Grad school - theoretical math - gave up on doing masters thesis - as I kept trying to visualize invisible vibrating filaments flickering in 3-D space and taking a Leap of faith that this non-applied pure math has a future - 😳really? Yep, Love Brian Greene . . . This is going to be one of your stellar podcasts, Curt ‼️thanks for all your work.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@bgz42]

Awesome, looking forward to this one!

[@simesaid]

Nice to see Brian so unabashedly excited about his work, physics - and thus life in general - once again. Inspiring!

[@kyran333]

I don't enjoy listening to brien greene, but im pleased that other people do and get a lot out of it, i probably enjoy curts enthusiasm the most

[@faheyplayer]

A lesson in awareness, humility, and knowledge. Just wonderful. Isn’t it fun, and vexing, to live in the future? Good heavens, nobody could have predicted an OPEN conversation such as this the year I was born, 1962. So very exciting!

[@mitchellhayman381]

Brian is the best. Beautiful human and a real genius

[@surrendertoflow78]

The research he discusses at the beginning is totally mind blowing! I don’t hear him overstating or inflating research in general so that makes it even more exciting to hear it coming from him. I do have to say, though I understand why he’s saying so, the notion that the fear of death is a possibly necessary motivator for humans is countered by the fact that many NDErs who are unafraid of death are often highly motivated and even completely rearrange their lives in order to bring more good/love into the world. That level of motivated change to dedicate oneself to helping humanity is a defining characteristic of profound NDEs. Something to consider if one feels attached to the fear of death as a motivating factor for forging meaning in life.

[@grahamjoss4643]

great job kurt. I am so happy for you and your channel

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i was listening to antonio padilla talking to sean carroll about "really big numbers" and he suggested that if you go far enough sooner or later you will encounter a duplicate milky way, that such are the numbers that you can't have uniqueness everywhere in the universe, the same patterns will emerge again and again - kind of a multiverse but within the universe we occupy - kinda like other dimensions but without leaving our own dimension. it made me think again about "how big is the universe" (or cosmos) it's not just big, it's not just mind bogglingly big, it's much much bigger than that too. it might be that it's just too big to get anywhere near a limit, that a;though it's geometry might still be "flat" or that it's not "really doughnut shaped" just that it's so unfathomably big it can appear to do anything, it doesn't have to BE infinite to appear infinite.

[@regblkss]

I've been waiting for this one. Thank you both for doing it.

[@Gregzilla83]

So pumped this conversation happened. Not taking anything away from previous guests, only that Greene was a long overdue addition

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@IrvRat1982]

This is big Kurt! Thanks!!!!

[@sullenpuffin]

Exciting!

[@kronkite1530]

The World Science Festival is, by far, the best, most in-depth, well curated and informative resource on physics and Cosmology anywhere, imho. A wonderful resource, and to think it is free!

[@Shane7492]

I love Brian Greene. His books really helped me understand many theories in physics in my younger years. I just wish scientists were more open to the study of the nature of consciousness and the expanded states of consciousness that can be experienced directly. He asked at 34:25 "Is there a realm of reality in which there is no conception of time?" The answer is yes, there is, and anyone can experience it directly via many different methods. That timeless (and spaceless) realm of pure potential is what the conscious experience of space and time emerge from. Many scientists could answer their own questions if they'd explore the nature of their consciousness.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Curt Jaimungal - Thank you. Your podcast is so cool. Maybe bring on Salvatore Pais again, with Luis A.

[@denniscowdrick1255]

Brian, I keep viewing Science discussions on KZbin where there is great trepidation about how molecular folding could have occurred allowing for the molecular constituents of life to form. I’m a retired Electronic Engineer so my question is: on a molecular scale, does a long molecule have electric fields associated with each atom (or small atom groups) along its length? If it does, it seems to me folding is to be expected when perhaps thermal agitation allows the tiny electrical fields to match up and fold various parts of a molecule by electrical attractions.

[@vak5461]

I'm used to seeing Brian on the KZbin he hosts, World Science Festival, and it will be GREAT To see him here too!!

[@beingnonbeingincludesexistence]

You have often great conversations curt👌, have you ever talked with Daniel schmachtenberger? I would love to see you to talk to him, i think he talks about one of the most important things of our time like Krishnamurti, David bohm, Alan watts❤️💪🏿.

[@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475]

It is always good to hear speculative content. These are ideas which rarely make it into traditional academic papers, but are nonetheless the entire base of scientific thinking.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@spiralsun1]

I loved this because I have learned to see and understand those signals. I wrote a book 20 years ago about this and now I am finishing up another book integrating that foundation with everything else. It’s pretty cool. ❤ One thing I keep saying is that when you answer the “why is there something rather than nothing”, then you understand what the universe is and everything follows from that. The NUMBER ONE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION of several that I have identified as barriers to clear thinking is that psychology has nothing to do with physics. This is the main reason people don’t listen and seem confused when I try to talk about it. But I actually figured out the barriers to an TOE. Some of it I wrote in my first book as “going beyond our evolutionarily limited world view” which Donald Hoffman took up the torch on. But it’s much more than that. These are elements of the actual TOE The number one aspect keeping us from understanding is assumptions fueled by the hubris of the success of the current patterns of thinking.

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

Want some dressing with that? Oil / vinegar? Way to say nothing, two thumbs up 👍👍

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

Oh I see we’re supposed to look up your book. Yeah nope.

[@vldmaiden]

so pumped for this, Brian is legendary

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@notexactlyrocketscience]

another great episode. brian has been one of my favourites for about 20 years now. about him politely sidestepping the whole consciousness "problem"; he sidesteps right into the combination problem, and appears to support IIT. i wonder if this is his actual position, or if he still has doubts. this episode brought him closer as a person as well, so excellent job there once again.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@rajeevgangal542]

One of most interesting, grounded interviews

[@nameatrandom9234]

Anything with Brian Greene gets a watch from me.

[@gmazz27]

Most amazing interview EVER!

[@darbrad3952]

Love Brian Greene. Great episode Curt. Well done as always.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@Jaggerbush]

Weird Beat-It jacket. I enjoy Brian - I could listen to him for hours.

[@Meditation409]

I absolutely love Brian Greene. Ive learned a ton from him. Everything and anything discussed by him is in my opinion a must listen!! 💯❤️

[@Wandering_Chemist]

1:18:16 I respect Neil Turok’s decision decide which Prof. Greene I think should’ve elaborated on more, but Prof. Turok’s approach of starting from ‘First Principles’ and ABSOLUTELY NOT ‘adding in’ all these ‘extra assumptions’ i.e. ‘particles/fields/dimensions’ that are needed in String Theory!

[@martin_the_artist_]

This was awesome! But so annoying I never get notifications for this channel, so I miss stuff all the time. I have the bell icon set to 'All'. Anyone else have this problem?

[@andreicostache4438]

Brian Greene is the best!

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Thanks for this great vid. Curt. Great questions ! Brian is always worth listening to , intently.

[@Time-Shepherd.]

Cheers Kurt & team, great interview with Brian. ❤❤❤❤❤

[@rastgo4432]

Another awesome episode, hope you interview him again may be to have a conversation with another guest, thanks Curt

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@Achrononmaster]

@8:44 I've always thought CTC's as different to FTL. In any spacetime with non-trivial topology there are CTCs, but they're abstractions, mathematical paths, there is no reason for physical particles to be able to follow such paths. It'd be interesting if an electron could, but I doubt it'd occur frequently enough to even contribute significantly to a path integral or whathaveyou. Having said that, the mere existence of the geometric CTCs can lead to interesting logic: it tells you (via Deutsch and Aaronson) that a classical computer equipped with one CTC (along which it can send signals to update registers) is equivalent to a quantum computer (has the same algorithmic complexity class, PSPACE). Moreover, the potential for CTCs to be traversed turns a classical Hamiltonian time evolution inside out, almost literally, it forces you to compute Feynman-Hibbs amplitudes and run path integrals for a sum-over-histories, since the CTC potential --- even if no particle follows --- has to be accounted for. So you've got GR + CTCs ⇒ QM. Smarter people, string theorists even, should chew on this, for more than five minutes. It'd save me a lot of time trying to develop the ideas myself at t4gu.gitlab.io/t4gu/ (unpaid I cannot afford the time to develop these ideas much). This is a tantalising clue imho that perhaps GR equipped with wormhole topology _on the Planck scale_ (not the cosmic scale as Greene considers) is equivalent to QM. GR = QM, or GR + CTCs = QM. I'll say I had that little koan after I heard about ER=EPR c. 2014, but before Susskind wrote QM=GR. I would not be fibbing, since I already had GR + CTCs = QM as a general idea, not in koan form, in the late 1990's after reading Mark Hadley's Warwick thesis. But I'm not going to ever cash this out. Just for whoever reads this. I'm not genius enough to leverage any of my madness. Odds are it is also just divine madness.

[@Dixy3]

Curt, thank you for sharing this video and discussion. Though much of it is above my understanding, it was really appreciated to listen to Brian Greene and your discussion. Please give my thanks to Brian Greene, as well as yourself for creating these excellent videos. 🙏

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@Mohammad_Imran_]

A conversation between Brian and Eric wienstien would be amazing.

[@nickalexander2007]

Brian, I really like how you make very complex subjects and make it easy to understand, I read your book. A hard read for a person with no formal education but I try. And love the world science festival.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@Timesend]

Really enjoyed this 👍

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

I hope these two win the Nobel Prize and each live to be 110 while still in great health. They are so cool.

[@eonasjohn]

Thank you for the video.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thanks for watching!

[@SilenzioDiEsistenza]

brian green is one of my favourite scientists.. i love his books.. not as much the string theory part though intrigueing, but his ability to express mathematics in a imaginative manner.. he was the first one who i found showing the earth gravity in a vector field rather than the trampoline version which is ridiculous.. i do wonder though what the earth gravity field would look like exactly.. whether it has a uniform shape.. not just the effects of mass and density.. but also the effect of relative presence of mass.. and whether the center of gravity is one point or a collection of points like a sphere within a sphere? if you are at a point on earth where all mass around you is equal would you not be falling to all sides? this would mean the center of gravity is away from you it seems.. so it appears that center would be at a point in between, where you arent pulled from any side. that is, where the forces cancel eachother out. perhaps i am wrong in this.. a thought: imagine a dyson sphere with equal mass as the earth but somewhat larger, surrounding the planet and its atmosphere.. would this change the gravity field? like a hollow sphere surface around a hollow sphere.. but the center of gravity of the dyson sphere cannot be at one point.. it has many points as you are pulled from both sides though less from the inside of the dyson sphere (upside down) due to earth influence.. and what if you connected it directly.. would the distortions of spacetime merge and have one point as center of gravity? if the dyson sphere in the first case is way heavier than earth you could stand on it, firmly upside down.. this makes me wonder.. if you would dig into earth would you experience less weight the deeper you go? could you at a point where more mass is above than below stand upside down in your digging machine? and feel as if gravity flipped? or would the general mass dominate and determine the gravity field, that is: you would always be pulled until you reach a one point center.

[@fisheromen18]

are you kidding me?! Dr. Greene himself?! woooooo!!!

[@wulphstein]

This model is easy-to-use. Think of the quantum vacuum as a bubbling brew. But the bubbles, beginning at the Planck scale, expand at the speed of light, a lot faster than an air bag. The surface area, A = 4pi(ct)^2, is a virtual photon, unless there is energy E=hf which is localized on the surface somewhere. For quantum entangled photons, they are on opposite sides of the sphere. By controlling the location of the entangled photons, you can control the entanglement (captured sphere). The center of the sphere denotes the center of the inertial frame that this sphere contributes to. The expanding surface carries a small amount of momentum (a tiny fraction of dark energy). Empty space generates expanding spheres which contributes to the Casimir effect. Matter absorbs these spheres and uses them as wave functions for quantum systems until they escape and continue to expand. The absence of expanding spheres (Casimir effect) is what we experience as gravity. The first expanding sphere had energy E=hf= energy of the big bang. All subsequent expanding gravitons are like children of the first expanding sphere. Calculations of the expectation value for position and momentum are the effect of two expanding spheres coming together, creating possible states for particles to occupy. The overlap of expanding spheres creates the virtual particles for the standard model, not vibrating strings. Feel free to pluck this idea 💡 like a flower, because it won't be published in a peer review journal.

[@OolaHula]

Amazing interview 🤯🤓

[@samogufonianrockstar7510]

👏👏👏Cudos Curt👍❤

[@prashantidutta2823]

Hi Curt, Thank you so much for having Brian Greene! Could you also bring Bernado Kastrup, Leo Gura, Michio Kaku and Brian Greene for a panel together! It would be an interesting discussion session. Gives me goosebumps thinking about it 😇🙏

[@beeasy4360]

Another great interview thanks awesome stuff never disappoint always awesome conversations

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@danejensen6064]

Kurt asked Brian out if left field if he’s been depressed or suicidal. That could have ended badly. I’m impressed with how Brian navigated that

[@kenadams5504]

I think its impressive that he realised our existance as a real and natural part or the universe , gives us an inate connection to it. If we believed , instead , that a "force" especially created us , as distinct from everything else , this would not allow such a connection.I find it impressive that accepting the credability of such a relation ,has such a profound meaning to Brian , as to give him real respite from his mathematical discoveries toward the random nature of existance.. ( regarding even the Universe itself).

[@Jalliams]

Agreed. Well navigated. Without meaning to diminish the seriousness of the subject, it did seem quite left field. Had me cringing a little bit at some of the analogies put to Brian to convey relativity or meaning of suffering. Important questions, perhaps needed preamble.

[@Nah_Bohdi]

He should have said "Hey, real talk for a moment........Hey. How ya doin'?"

[@danejensen6064]

@@Nah_Bohdi old Kurt he’s about as smooth as gravel the lad.

[@thewaythingsare8158]

A passionate and infectious chunk of the curious universe on the road to enlightenment

[@RichardAlsenz]

I just need your response to this:?( If you have none just say so! Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@mindseyeview7411]

So grateful for wonder 💖🌌💖

[@mikeymike34100]

amazing stuff Curt. Outstanding guest. The best physicist ever. Proper excited about this one. Not been on in a long time Curt but glad to be bk with such a Steller guest. Brilliant mate.

[@TheoriesofEverything]

So glad you enjoyed:)

[@hihowareyou0000]

Absolutely excellent interview 👏, your an Incredible young handsome host.,definitely subscribing. Thank you.☺👍

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Wow, thank you

[@wulphstein]

How to figure out what spacetime is made of... So there I sat at the Train Go By Cafe. I was looking out the window 🪟. It was cloudy ⛅ and raining off and on. There was a train going by very slowly. I could see a puddle on the roof. A drop of rain came down and created a ripple that expanded, it's center went by with the train going by. Just then, the waiter came by and delivered my soup 🍲 broth. As he put it down, he created a ripple in the soup. With my physics book 📖 open, reading about relativity, I began to study the Pythagorean derivation of time dilation. That was when the thought crossed my mind about how Huygen ripples can be wave functions and how the two slit interference pattern can be an interference between two ripples. I stopped studying and began to drink my soup hungrily creating ripples with my spoon as the train continued to go by . The rain grew heavier as the ripples created by the water 💧 droplets began to deluge the puddles

[@Wandering_Chemist]

God damn Kurt! That hair line and fade looking fresh good sir! Happy new years to you my friend.

[@curtjaimungal]

Thanks man. That's my wife! She styles me :)

[@babyUFO.]

24:20 My awareness awakening of the greater cosmos is exactly what makes me feel insignificant.

[@TomHendricksMusea]

The PARTICLE TRAIN! Previously I suggested that eternal photons made electron positron pairs, (as well as all standard model particles). Here's how. Start with a PARTICLE TRAIN, each time you add an electron or positron car to the train, you get a new particle. The only rule is the cars have to alternate from electron to positron. Think of a wave with trough always alternating with crest. Photons as electron positron pairs could make the main parts of an atom in the brief time after the Big Bang under those extreme and never repeated conditions. Charges are the cars on our particle train. Positive positron (+), Negative electron (-). Positron (+) Electron (-) Photon (+) (-) Proton (+) (-) (+) Anti Proton (-) (+) (-) Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) Anti Neutron (-) (+) (-)(+) . The PROTONS and NEUTRONS are made from ELECTRONS and POSITRONS! When this production of particles was over, most anti particles with charge; positrons, and anti protons, didn't exist on their own. They were LOCKED INTO PROTONS OR NEUTRONS. That way conservation of charge was maintained. That also explains the MISSING ANTI MATTER PROBLEM! This from Wikipedia article Matter Creation: It is possible to create all fundamental particles in the standard model, including quarks, leptons and bosons using photons of varying energies above some minimum threshold, whether directly (by pair production), or by decay of the intermediate particle (such as a W− boson decaying to form an electron and an electron-antineutrino).

[@thomasparisi5333]

Great interview !

[@808bigisland]

Engineer here. I got the equation for that. Seen Ufos doing that. Ready to build the experiment.

[@bokchoiman]

Can you imagine how different our experience would have been if we had developed sonar like the cetaceans, eyes like the mantis shrimp, nose like a dog's? The possible interpretations of reality are endless!

[@tulisotilas]

If I met Mr. Greene today, I would ask if he had any clues towards how we could ever reach tech or skill or whatever that is necessary to actually manipulate Branes (Building blocks of String theory). I mean I can see how we could be able to eventually have delicate and high energy machinery to utilize quarks and other unbelievably tiny things, but then to go even further and on industrial scale sounds difficult, even if we had perfect theory of how it worked. I'm not being too skeptical, as the nuclear reactor for example could be described as sticks in water. I wonder if there are some clues towards extreme and slightly cooky simplicity like that.

[@jeremyt4292]

Only 20 min in, but I've never seen a Brian Greene interview/talk like this. I wonder if he had a psychedelic experience, or is on a guru kick? I can't wait to finish this interview!

[@kyaintit]

Watch The World Science Festival's episode about psychedelics with Reggie Watts if you want to learn more.

[@jeremyt4292]

@@kyaintit I love Reggie Watts!

[@muddymaker3721]

For the majority of great thinkers, group think is crucial for collaborative ideas to be fleshed out and to flourish in a classical setting but never ever ostracise or shun an outlier that has the capacity and knowledge and critical thinking skills to solve the most intricate problems without the classical training in his or her bio. Great thinkers shouldn't be confined to a 'club', they should be embraced and welcomed into the fold regardless of the origin of their educational background. Another insightful meeting with a great mind Curt♾

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@otiliapopescu9264]

Hello Curt and Brian , could I just ask how these ideas about back to the future came into your mind?

[@steveclark4018]

Great talk

[@sibbyeskie]

Greene might be the best scientific orator. But my favorite story of his is when he ate hallucinogenic treats in Amsterdam. Physicists tend not to like speculating about consciousness, but stories like that are a good launch pad for such discussions.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

I would love to see Dr. Greene and Dr. Jaimungal debate CIG Theory as regards its application to Flying Saucers, or even the Double Slit. Maybe, one day. And they would use lots and lots of math that I do not understand. Wish Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman were here too. So many wishes. Not even three.

[@seraj3158]

Thank you for a great presentation! A candle that illuminates a dark tunnel is exactly as important as the discovery at the end of the tunnel.

[@RichardAlsenz]

Wake up, Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@ArtisanTony]

I have always thought the shape of the universe as more of an imaginary boundary rather than a physical one. The analogy of a balloon inflating with expansion always seemed to me to be too elementary. There are more dynamics at play in my mind :)

[@mnrvaprjct]

Think of the boundary like this. All 2D objects have a 1D boundary. Ergo, All 3D Objects have a 2D boundary - he’s saying that the universe is just a 4D hypersphere - with its boundary being the 3D universe we inhabit. Adding to that, the boundary is caused by matter being restricted to 3D because of the types of strings matter is composed of (closed strings) while gravity and Kaluza-Klein particles are made of open strings, and can move in that extra space.

[@RichardAlsenz]

It is comforting to see someone awake. Of course, no one has or will ever see the universe. No one has ever seen space:?) Gauss to Bessel Goettingen 9 April 1830 … The ease with which you delved into my views on geometry gives me real joy, given that so few have an open mind for such. My innermost conviction is that the study of space is a priori completely different than the study of magnitudes; our knowledge of the former (space) is missing that complete conviction of necessity (thus of absolute truth) that is characteristic of the latter; we must in humility admit that if number is merely a product of our mind.

[@ArtisanTony]

@@RichardAlsenz I have always said the truth is undefinable and it is amusing to me to hear people talk about "the truth" :)

[@AurelienCarnoy]

16:00 our existence is primordial. How could you think of a univers without you? Obviously you have to be there to say " i am not there". You have to imagine a separation. Simple.

[@stc6]

Previously was hard for me to connect with Brian, the opposite now . He is very careful with his words and kind . I wonder will quantum computers figure it all out ?