Brian Greene - Should We Ditch String Theory?

In this thought-provoking video, renowned theoretical physicist Brian Greene delves into the complexities of String Theory and its role in unifying our understanding of the universe. He explains that the current understanding of the universe is based on two major theories: quantum physics and general relativity, which respectively explain the behavior of microscopic particles and the large-scale structure of the universe. However, these two theories seem incompatible when combined.
Brian Greene elucidates how scientists have been trying to reconcile this paradox through a quest for a theory of everything. Among the proposed solutions, String Theory stands out. According to String Theory, the most basic constituents of the universe are not particles, but rather tiny, vibrating strings of energy. Different vibrations of these strings give rise to different particles, and hence the diversity we observe in the universe. This idea provides a unified framework, encapsulating matter particles and force particles within the same theoretical structure.
As Greene articulates with passion, String Theory suggests that everything in the universe, at its core, is made up of these tiny vibrating strings. He illustrates this concept through an analogy of examining an object closely until we see its constituents like atoms, and then even further down to the level of quarks. But conventional ideas stop at quarks, and here is where String Theory proposes the new idea of vibrating strings of energy within these particles.
However, String Theory is not without its challenges. Greene explains that the mathematics of String Theory implies the existence of extra dimensions beyond the familiar three dimensions of space and one of time. String Theory requires ten dimensions of space and one dimension of time. These additional dimensions are believed to be compact and hidden from our perception, making them incredibly challenging to investigate.
Towards the end of the video, Brian Greene addresses skepticism around String Theory. Despite the beauty and elegance of its mathematical framework, String Theory has not yet made testable predictions or yielded experimental evidence. This raises questions about whether it is still a viable candidate for the theory of everything.
This video is ideal for anyone interested in physics, cosmology, or the fundamental nature of the universe. Brian Greene’s ability to distill complex ideas into accessible language makes this a must-watch for both experts and laypeople alike.
Subscribe to Science Time: / sciencetime24
#stringtheory #briangreene #science

[@averagejoe845]

String theory is no longer a theory. We know for a fact that String Theory predicts with 100% certainty that anyone studying String Theory will get grant money and get to go to really nice places for conferences.

[@TheSdsdff]

evidenceless fiction

[@PrinceBlake]

​@@TheSdsdff String Theory produced Matthewave 935 which produced the Dreyfus version of The Riddle of the Sphinx. Who walks on 4 legs in the morning. 2 in the afternoon, and 3/5ths in the evening? The answer is Dreyfus. For as an infant, he crawled on all fours. As an adult, he walked on 2 legs, and as an old man, he added a fifth appendage, a walking cane resulting in his ambulation on 3 of 5 appendages - three-fifths! . In the Friesian language, Dreyfus means 'tripod' or an elder person walking with a cane. It comes from the fact that 'drei and trije' mean 'three' and 'funf' and 'fyfden' means 'fifths'. There are other names in other languages that have a link to numbers in their native language. For example, my wife's name Kumiko has a soundalike in the numbers ku-mitsu-go, or 9-3-5. In English, the words JESUS, YES, and YESHUA begin with letters looking similar to 9-3-5. There is also a correspondence between the kanji meaning of Kumiko (久美子) (forever/beauty/child) and the meaning of Christ Jesus (eternal/glory/regeneration). In Matthewave 935 the intervals 9, 3, and 5 form an aligned core as read from the top down. The sum of the expanding cross intervals from an overlapping 2 and 3 of one generation to the next is 935. As a mathematical object representing regeneration. It also carries a match to the Biblical verses promoting healing and compassion found in Matthew 9 35 and John 9 35. Mrs, Kumiko Kerch's discovery is a match for St Helena's prediction of a True Cross to be found in cross remnants in Golgotha as a symbol for a wave of healing. A priest tested the cross pieces finding one had healing powers over the others. It was determined this remnant must have come from Christ's cross.

[@jaytravis2487]

LOL. I get the joke. I'm actually pretty happy there aren't 16 other comments from humourless 14 year old dweebs affirming/contradicting

[@stevewise1656]

Hahaha...you said better than me.:) String theory is bs.

[@jgrab1]

Nailed it.

[@ephraimgarrett4727]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers what the Universe is for and why it exists, it will immediately disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -- Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

[@russmarkham2197]

The narrator's voice reminded me of Hitchhikers Guide. I was waiting for the punch line and Hitchhiker's Guide reference page number, but it never came

[@ShellyMischelleMorrison]

Yes,that could explain why the 🌎, has became 'even more biizzarre and inexplicable', and seemingly, gone mad) .Thanks for remiinding me of "Hitchhikers..great book !

[@lugyd1xdone195]

42

[@ShellyMischelleMorrison]

@@lugyd1xdone195 Spot on!

[@SpidermanInLondon]

DON’T PANIC

[@malkwinter8998]

Once they find this "theory of everything", they'll find that it just opens a door to even MORE incomprehensible things.

[@kevinmcfarlane2752]

TOE is just shorthand for a theory that is compatible with both QM and GR. It doesn’t mean it will be able to explain all observed phenomena at a fundamental physics level. E.g., it still might not be able to explain the values of all the constants.

[@DS-ry5dd]

If that's true than it never was a theory of everything.

[@tomcanty1904]

It’ll never be found. As an ancient saying goes “the eye can see everything but itself”. We haven’t moved beyond the gurus of the Indus Valley some 3000-5000 years ago.

[@user-np3zh3pd9v]

String theorists have made great progress in understanding the mathematics of string theory. They have made absolutely no progress in understanding how the universe works.

[@curiousuranus810]

Newtonian mechanics gave results immediately; Quantum Mechanics opened new avenues of research within 10 years, General Relativity gave solid results within 5 years - how long is too long for String Theory?

[@KpxUrz5745]

Excellent points.

[@hey_its_travis]

As long as they keep getting money to run operations it will not stop.

[@Jono98806]

There's no guarantee that any hypothesis in science will give results quickly. The rapid progress of science in the 20th century is actually unusual in the history of science. Before that, it took centuries, sometimes even millennia to make much progress in science. It may just be the case that new scientific theories are not as easily tested because it requires a lot of advanced technology and a lot of money.

[@sonarbangla8711]

String theory provided the deepest insight into reality with ADS/CFT duality and Maldacena conjectured that the whole universe is a QC function and promises to define life, consciousness, soul and faith. We just need infinite axiom logarithm for this function.

[@caloricphlogistonandthelum4008]

@@sonarbangla8711 Utter bollocks.

[@gror7849]

We should! String Theory is Mathematical concept, not a Physics based one. It has always failed to make any testable predictions or yield any experimental evidence, and we are still going at it sadly ... Physics is stuck because too much time is spent on this theory. Just my 2 cents ..

[@Balanar6236]

What do you say, were we stuck on something else before this theory, trying to go further?

[@sheph1145]

Please, yes! 40 years of ST and its not what we see in experiments. Time to rethink.

[@readynowforever3676]

Or is it time for the development of a new mathematics??

[@baghdadiabdellatif1581]

We have a saying in Algeria: “It is like one who waits for salt to blossom.” The meaning is that one who waits for results from ST is like one who waits for a rose seed to blossom in a pot of salt.

[@Michaelbradysanjose]

Brian Greene seems to shape his answers towards a conclusion he's already decided upon. String theory may just need uncountable decades of further research, my faith in Greene does not - I'm looking for others to explain without the bias.

[@ssrAlien]

Good luck waiting the second coming of Jesus then, sorry i mean testable experiment of string theory 😂

[@MindWorld]

I appreciate the variety of topics you cover and the effort you put into it!!!

[@ScienceTime24]

I appreciate that!

[@whirledpeas3477]

@@user-lb8nj7gs9n 😆

[@juricadogan3870]

Whilst the String Theory definitely shouldn't be abandoned, Michio Kaku should be put back under control.

[@BarrGC]

Lol, thank you Eric Weinstein

[@unknown-ob1qu]

This is really one of the best channels on KZbin ❤

[@deusdat]

Replace the strings with mere mathematical formulas and vibrations with mere numbers. It's the same thing, without the ridiculous “filaments of pure energy“ that no-one will ever see.

[@joehebert789]

It seems to me that a 'theory of everything' isn't something one stumbles upon with our first shot in the dark. A slow, incremental journey seems more likely to me. Whether string theory is part of the final solution or not, proving or disproving it gets us further down the road towards the goal. The ego of mankind that demands results within an arbitrary timeframe is a mindset that is anti-scientific by definition. IMO.

[@morganlee2806]

What's anti-scientific is a concept that is untestable, unprovable, and unfalsifiable. In other words, pseudoscience.

[@helicalactual]

I disagree. It can happen anyway it wants anyway it wants. You just need the right Eyes to see it

[@joehebert789]

@@helicalactual I have no idea what you are trying to say but clearly it has nothing to do with science.

[@helicalactual]

@@joehebert789 if your assumptions, are like your science, I can understand why you don’t understand how those things are correlated or causedate probably around 5 or 6 sigma.

[@helicalactual]

@@joehebert789 oh and, i hear the sound of wind chimes or bells in the distance… wrong wrong wrong wrong…. Wrong wrong wrong wrong… your wrong… your wrong… What a song ;)

[@tywesley2047]

I think this is yet another break through in the science community! String theory never seemed like the end all to me, but it damn sure opened up minds to thoughts of what could be! We’re on the right path and I think that should be celebrated!

[@mitchilito99]

As a well informed but non mathematical layperson, I found this presentation super enjoyable - although it took some time to get used to the multiple narrators.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes.

[@jayatigoyal8103]

Hello! I wanted to know if could it be that photons travel as particles in the trajectory of waves..? And when observed, they take a position otherwise they travel in the form of wave.. Hence both particle like and wave like behavior.. What do you think?

[@chraffis]

I've thought the same thing to be honest. The field becomes essentially a point-like particle and is pinned to "space time" by our observation. While to me that sounds logical, I'm fully aware that I'm likely missing something and am way, way off. Oh well, it's fun to think of stuff

[@glennet9613]

I saw a yt video on that somewhere. If a single photon is a wave it explains the two slit experiment. If a detector is installed that collapses the wave and it starts again. Perhaps it is like lightening, an electric field suddenly collapses to a random point.

[@e.mcguire1538]

Excellent. Thank you.

[@mikealvarez8250]

This is what happens when physics get taken over by mathematicians only and all becames a mathematical effort with "little" experimentation or worst yet, no possibility at all of experimentation at all, at least there are powerful experiments that will yield conclusive results about fundamental nature like CERN and better yet its upgrades in the near future that will boost luminosity to such extent that it will deliver fantastic results. The Chinese are planning to build their Circular Electron Positron Collider to investigate in detail the Higgs boson, this is good as it could generate an accelerator "arms race" and yield even more results in basic science.

[@gabrielteo3636]

Unless string theory has confirmed predictions, it is no better than a guess.

[@aaronarmijo3626]

The vibration or the haze IS the random order. Then probability through such guides as entropy can help to make formal guesses

[@d.e.7467]

Many discoveries occur by accident or under unique circumstances. Perhaps that is what string theory needs.

[@marcusviniciusdoprado7508]

Ok, but, i mean, discoveries like quantization of the world came of pure necessity, and Planck DIDN’T WANT IT TO SAY WHAT HE POSTULATE

[@mikaelbiilmann6826]

"We're gonna need a bigger boat..." or a bigger accelerator in this instance.

[@Older_Mountain-goat_1984]

I think folks have the right and freedom to ditch whatever they choose. Though I do suggest considering ditching 'speaking for others' and develop how to speak for oneself only.

[@Slowhobolicker]

Maybe not completely but certainly cut a big chunk of the funding out and cut your losses..It's been 70 years now and the resources, brains, time & effort put into this vs other things stagnated physics as a whole.

[@Reno_Slim]

Why do they call it "string theory" and not "string hypothesis"?

[@morganlee2806]

It's neither, really. An hypothesis has to be testable. String "theory" is nothing more than an idea based almost entirely in mathematics.

[@gaius_enceladus]

"It's not dead, it's just resting......... "

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

"Our theory can't be tested, but it inspires pretty math." That isn't science.

[@tomsunhaus6475]

Would a change of String Theory be to accept that the number of dimensions can vary? For instance a black hole is called a 'quantum singularity'. At the 'Event horizon', it is speculated that a two dimensional world is sufficient to describe the universe. Outside the region of a black hole, very small, almost massless, particles seem to have extra dimensions. Also, maybe the extra dimensions are temporary. Another point I have wondered about is that the equations are probably in the cartesian coordinate system. Isn't the universe a polar coordinate system (both large and small). It must have multiple centers though. A molecule is a collection of polar coordinate objects.

[@mcmoose64]

I would argue that we should refer to it as the String Hypothesis

[@grahamnewton4381]

We are looking for something that is inevitably outside our understanding by methods the results of which can be understood, using tools that our current understanding has enabled us to create. Good luck with that!

[@sofaspudd]

String Theory has seemed unlikely to me since I first heard it explained many years ago (note: I'm not a physicist, just an ordinary shmo who follows science news)... Here's the thing: how can a "string" be the smallest indivisible element of reality? What does that even mean... isn't one end of the "string" in a different position than the other end? If so, why would we assume that the "string" is indivisible? What about the part of the "string" in between the ends? The notion that reality is made up of "filaments" seems to directly imply that there's something even SMALLER that we can't perceive w current technology. That certainly is the historical pattern: atoms were originally considered the smallest indivisible particle.... then protons/neutrons/electrons... then quarks. The Universe fools us every time. I put "string" in quotes because I suspect that I'm the victim of a bad metaphor created by popular science writers. I **think** I get that "strings" are basically mathematical abstractions and not actually unbelievably tiny little strings... if so, BAD metaphor! But this brings up a more general problem w theoretical physics (as seen from the outside): why do we assume that Math is necessarily TRUE? What I mean is that, obviously, some math corresponds quite accurately w observed reality. But does that mean that ALL math does so? Might not some math simply describe things that DON'T exist in reality, much as language can be used to describe reality OR to create fantasy? *tl;dr?* I'm confused. Please explain to me in simple terms why String Theory isn't nonsense? From my largely-uneducated point of view it feels awkward and random, at best another stop along a possibly endless journey, at worst an unprofitable dead end.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Well it wasn't popular science authors that came with terms like colour, spin and so on. And they certainly didn't come up with the term string. That's o ;n your physicists. And it's not a metaphor; that's on you. It's simply the problem of coming up with language to enable vocal discussion. You are assuming it's a metaphor and that leads down a rabbit hole. These terms are glyphs; they are shorthand for the mathematics they represent. And why is string theory not nonsense? Because a self-consistent set of mathematics. Of course that might be you definition of nonsense, it's not mine. It's one thing with to be a sceptic, it's quite another to be a curmudgeon.

[@DS-ry5dd]

Too many brilliant physicists minds have spent far too long going down this rabbit hole.Every physicists fresh out of college should begin thier careers from first principles,with beauty and simplicity as their mantra.

[@p.bckman2997]

Nah, they should begin their career with finding testable hypothesis. A theory that can't be tested is a theory, it is just not a scientific one. Beauty is subjective and doesn't enter into it.

[@marcelfermer5369]

Lee Smolin wrote a bestseller about the failure of String Theory about 20 years ago. These wiseguys here seem to have forgotten that.

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

I read The Elegant Universe 20 some odd years ago when I got bored reading history and philosophy related content. I found it cool for a bit but then it sort of faded from my interest. The whole multi-dimension aspect was fascinating but I was left wondering how valid all of it was if you had to create something that can never been proven to make your theory work. Honestly, I don't know enough about it. That's why I decided to give this video a peek. Am I more enlightened? Not really, but it would be cool to find out I'm rich and famous in one of the other dimensions.

[@Rober2D2]

The really important thing is not to demonstrate. The really important thing is if string theory may make any prediction that can't be made with a simpler theory. The answer is no. They added a lot of complexity, and it didn't solve any problem

[@kenneths.perlman1112]

Same here.

[@hasch5756]

Other dimensions are not like alternate universes in which you could be richer or poorer. It is just like length, width, and height, a set of two opposite directions in which objects could theoretically move. For instance, in 3D space say you have the coordinates (0,0,0) and move 1 unit of length to the left, then you'd have the coordinates (-1,0,0). 11D space is just like that but instead of having 3 coordinates, you have 11, but we only know an intuitive meaning for the classical ones.

[@tappetmanifolds7024]

​@@kenneths.perlman1112 Maybe branch out and establish what developments have been happening in string theory that is not mainstream.

[@Praveen-or5ce]

At the fundamental level there shouldn’t be a particle or string or anything that has a shape. Because if it has a shape that means it can be divided. So at the most fundamental level it can only be a single object which is everywhere.

[@kenneths.perlman1112]

Strings are supposedly one dimensional in 10 dimensional space. Or not.

[@ErnestoGomezSantan]

The Large Hadron Collider failled to produce neutralinos when they should have been produced, according to theory. That evidence of absence put in question the hypothesis of supersymmetry, which in turn put in question superstrings, which in turn put in question, of course, M - Theory.

[@patelk464]

If string theory could unify the many universal constants then that would provide a good indication that the theory is on the right track.

[@mk1st]

I think that at such tiny scales ANY theory will be extremely difficult to test. Any new idea will be as esoteric and complicated as ST and take decades to confirm.

[@rodocar2736]

How is it possible that it is not accepted that the intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of elementary particles needs a basic force that contains it within certain limits? If we did, and with the help of relativistic theories, the origin of the so-called "strong force" could be explained

[@muhammadsidik5281]

In math string theory is a beauty in physics it is a fairy tale.

[@helicalactual]

It’s great to think about the idea of that, matter how small or compactified they are, a dimension higher than ours would be bigger than our entire universe.

[@darlenesmith5690]

Dimensions in physics are not necessarily spatial dimensions.

[@helicalactual]

@@darlenesmith5690 would degrees of freedom help? Or is this nomenclature also outdated such that you don’t understand?

[@darlenesmith5690]

@@helicalactual Mathematically, you are correct. A fourth dimension combined with our current three would have four degrees of freedom. And representing four dimensions in mathematics would require four variables. But the terms "small" and "bigger" sort of imply spatial dimensions. If, for example, we considered time to be a fourth dimension and we also determined that the past no longer exists and the future does not exist yet, one could not use the time dimension to go back and forth in time. If the past no longer exists, there is nowhere to go to. It ceases to exist the instant it becomes the new present. The mathematics could allow for time travel, but reality wouldn't (under these determinations). When discussing reality, I hesitate to use mathematical variables in an equation as actual physical dimensions. So although string theory has 10, 11, or 26 dimensions in it, those in my mind are just variables in equations that allow physicists to understand each other and to describe the theories. It doesn't mean that the dimensions actually exist. Course, some or all of them could actually exist. We just do not know. There was a noble prize winning physicist who was talking to a group of PhD candidate physics students at a university. I really wish I could remember his name. They were discussing Dark Matter and he stated that Dark Matter particles do not exist. The students were stunned. They had spent 5+ years being convinced that these particles existed. His explanation was that scientists had spent 70 years (this was a few decades ago, it's been 90 years now) searching for them and still could not find them. He concluded that after that amount of time and effort searching for them, it's likely that they do not exist and some other unknown explanation is correct. I feel the same about string theory. It's literally been developed over the last 80 years and we have virtually nothing to show for it, no experimental evidence, no predictions. It appears to be more of a way for physicists to wrap their heads around extremely complex ideas, but those ideas do not necessarily have anything to do with reality. It's like a mathematically advanced pseudo-science and it won't go away because thousands of scientists the world over have their careers invested in it.

[@helicalactual]

@@darlenesmith5690 how do you define time?

[@helicalactual]

@@darlenesmith5690 a degree of freedom would still mean the ability to move in that dimension, and time is not a dimension. the movement of three dimensions out words in three dimensions, does not actually give you another degree of freedom. Part of the reason is that the entire system would have to move uniformly in the inverse direction. People think time travel would be a sub system of the universe, i.e. a person or a machine has the ability to go “backwards” through the system states and configurations and arrive at a previous System State which doesn’t make sense. The whole system would have to “invert” and the waves would have to “move” “inverted” “toward” their “point of origin” while simultaneously going into the previous system states it was in before arriving at the point of “return”. It would be impossible because not all interior wave functions would do so at the same “rate”. This is the problem. Therefore I conjecture that there is only the present, the present far away and the present that is stored energy yet to be manifested in the environment. There fore the future is an observer problem of being a subsystem. Not a real thing.

[@tonywood3660]

42 that explains everything..!

[@GLASSB182]

Ok clearly string theory hasn't brought forth the practical progress we were expecting. So where should we explore or revisit to explain the universe now? I'm asking for honest suggestions.

[@wmwestler3305]

Is there a transformation that rotates a vector in normal space to one of the other axes of string theory?

[@starexplorers1202]

7:11 Evidence for extra dimensions: "There would be more energy before the collision then after the collision because the debris would have taken energy away from the place where our detectors can detect it." Question.....Doesn't this violate the Conservation of Energy Law?

[@eduardocardenas4920]

One of the main reasons is that it takes out of context the only constant in the cosmos, which of course is not the speed of light. In fact, all theories have meaning and relevance in different aspects, but none of them connect with the other due to the absence. of the ignored constant. Fortunately, the unifying theory of everything is being developed and in a simple and elegant way unites and explains the processes of creation of the cosmos that includes a plausible and logical description of existence. The process is started, the answers will be available very soon greetings Eduardo Cardenas

[@cubfanmike]

How are shape AND size, one difference?

[@kourosh234]

Perhaps there are different kind of dimensions, besides time and space. Looking at wrong place. Like different energies, forces, etc... But didn't you say it works? So what else are you looking for?

[@AS-xi9df]

Mind-boggling stuff 🤔

[@appresley4071]

My cat taught me string theory.

[@suebrown2804]

Very interesting

[@rahulbosebose1]

They should call it String hypothesis...

[@aspiknf]

He said quantum physics is used for the tiny particles when usually we say it is quantum mechanics, not quantum physics. Anyway, both are fine.

[@totalfreedom45]

*_M theory,_* the second superstring revolution, started by Ed Witten in 1995, combines five string theories (E8 x E8 heterotic, SO(32) heterotic, type I superstring, type IIB superstring, and type IIA superstring) with 11-dimensional supergravity. M theory unifies (1) electric-magnetic duality in four dimensions, (2) strange symmetries of supergravity, (3) the dualities of string theory, and (4) gauge theory dynamics in four dimensions. 💕☮🌎🌌

[@westoftherockies]

ALL WRONG !!!!

[@alexmeyjes5533]

As long as pursuing string theory helps us gain understanding in the long term, without taking substantial resources away from other research , let's go on and see where it leads

[@BillMurey-om3zw]

We should ditch needless violence and live vegan, separation is an illusion.

[@claudiaarjangi4914]

Living vegan has nothing to do with being in harmony with the earth & the universe.. Every life on earth is a combination of chemistry, into cells.. Every cell/ combination of cells, is a low entropy system that uses energy to keep itself lower entropy than outside itself.. Every cell gathers energy by getting energy from outside itself ( using atp etc).. Whether that is via cells eating cells, photosynthesis or multicellular animals eating other multicellular animals, it is all what those smallest increments of life Need to do to keep themselves alive.. There is no difference to the universe, whether it is plant or fungi or animal.. I would think Not making use of the resources around you is mondo- ungratefulness to our universe, planet & our ancestors, human & animal etc for what they went through in life & how they fed your planetary needs after life, to give you a chance at life.. Do you get angry at cats/ tigers/dogs/ lions etc because they HAVE to eat meat or die ? ( if you do 🤦‍♀️then read some biology ) This is how all of Earth's 3.1 B yrs of chemistry has led these animals etc , via evolution, to be what stays alive the best, in their environment.. Same with human beings.. An animal that relies ( for optimal health & well-being ) on plants & animal products, for the synthesis of hormones, proteins, specific vitamins etc ( which also rely on our microbiome staying alive & well balanced, with animal & plants ) Vegan does Not feed your body to be the best it can be, or your children ( a snub in the face of all those before you & the human wish to raise ourselves up into something bigger & better than we are..) apologies for the rant, but it really bugs me, the lack of awareness of how our planet really works, & what it needs to keep working.. Something like Veganism is cool as a personal choice, but doesn't save the planet.. That depends on changing our excess power use, throw away society plus more etc 😁☮️🌏

[@BarrGC]

@@BillMurey-om3zw Lol, fuck vegans!

[@whirledpeas3477]

@BillMurey-om3zw mostly agreed. But I just love deep fried dolphin 🐬 embryo. Yummy 😋

[@BillMurey-om3zw]

@@whirledpeas3477 desperate for toxic validation.

[@prismajane]

The source of the audio is from the Lex Fridman podcast #232

[@jayatigoyal8103]

I think what we call strings is a combination of particles and waves, of which light is made. What do you think about it?

[@chraffis]

Sounds good to me!! 😉

[@TheStephaneAdam]

oooh that's cheeky!

[@belphegor_tv]

I think you should go back to school.

[@jayatigoyal8103]

@@belphegor_tv I think most of the concepts in science can be understood in layman's terms. There is no need to complicate unnecessarily.

[@steeden54]

Can we ever find the grand theory by only concentrating on the physical attributes of the universe? Does the essence of mind need to be accounted for in order to find the true nature of the universe, and its construct?

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Yes, my friend! - Theory of Everything already exists - Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"

[@oliviacarlson5308]

Well, the mind isn’t really separate from the physical attributes of the universe. Just a collection of particles that have evolved over time to be able to think, and exhibit certain behaviors, and be self-aware. So our brains are bound by the same physical laws of the universe as any other collection of particles

[@PrinceBlake]

Neil deGrasse Tyson's idea comes to mind. He offers that until recently, humans were poorly adapted to figuring out the Cosmos on a large scale or the Quantum on a small. He says only recently, relatively speaking, did Man take a step forward in this direction with the near-simultaneous invention of the telescope and the microscope around the year 1600. I think there is some truth to this. In particular, Tyson cited hunting as an activity falling short of offering the necessary tools for understanding the worlds of the large at one end and small at the other. If not hunting, what activity may help to inform us about the nature of Cosmos? The two activities that come foremost to my mind are writing/drawing and pottery. The first is a no-brainer. Without writing, we can leave no written story of our attempts to explain things large and small. We could not have developed a common record: a means to pass reliably forward in time difficult concepts. Language, especially written language, is a given, but Pottery is a unique answer. Pottery sets the stage for understanding how things interact. When a potter sits at the wheel, he soon learns that all the necessary action to perform his art occurs between his hands and the clay. He cannot use telepathy, wishful thinking, magic spells, or even potions. I should add that the food preparer's role, the hunter and the gatherer, are still important to keep the artist alive. Still, the skill set the artist will use to explore the creation will most evolve from his appreciation for order and beauty and the mechanics of how things are created. The obvious overlap between quantum mechanics and pottery is spin. The analogy between a potter's hands and his clay is found in the expanding and orbital paths. This is where the action takes place. It should come as no surprise to learn that it was a potter's daughter, Mrs. Kumiko Krchňák who was exploring the art of diplomacy at the time she found the missing link between the quantum and the macro in Matthewave 935.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Mind and consciousness are two different things. The mind is our mechanical processor, but consciousness is not a material phenomenon whose existence is confirmed and accepted by quantum mechanics. We need to realize that there are real non-physical elements, which are an active part of the physical processes in the Universe. For example the information. QM states that you cannot create, destroy, or duplicate information. Information travels in an instant - (entangled particles) So... don't regard consciousness to be particles or electromagnetic impulses.

[@Atom.Storm.]

Since the dawn of string theory I've been saying, what's it between the strings. No answers.

[@brucelee5576]

We’ll never detect them if they do exist, if a Proton is the size of the known universe then a string would be the size of Basketball.

[@jimad]

String theory flunks "a simplicity of nature" test. Just as the lack of understanding that orbits can be elliptical inspired epicyclic explanations, there should be a corresponding simplicity that eliminates the need for string theory.

[@angusmackaskill3035]

It's all about positive/ negative, male/female, on/off, north/south, yin/yang

[@peterbaxter8151]

Until string theory, science was the study of things that could be tested. How is this expanding understanding?

[@MrTooter66]

It is equally encumbent on both skeptics and believers of String theory to find a way to disprove/prove it. I would not expect this of only String theorists. Someone like Bell needs to step up. But I expect it would be significantly harder than what Bell did. Not can we say if we can't prove/disprove it soon, then it is wrong. There are problems that have stood for centuries and yet not cracked.

[@AdrianCHOY]

This is a theory that relies more on mathematics believing that some physics would come out from it rather than physics relying on mathematics to explain phenomena.

[@vincentrusso4332]

As long as Edward Witten is still on board I'm gonna ride out this whole SST thingy..

[@magick1969]

Classical Mechanics, Electromagnetic Theory of Maxwell, General Relativity/Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics all have founding base Mathematics that one can expound upon to account for a vast majority of our reality and the Universe as a whole. String Theory starts with an insane set of base equations never resulting in a fundamental equation. Instead, the more you investigate to explain all these forces the more complex the solution(s) sets become. No one is saying E=mc^2 is basic and of course unravels with Tensor Calculus to show the complexity it contains to account for Electromagnetics and Classical Mechanics, nor is the wave equation of QT any different. But at the end of the day the big 3 start with a fundamental equation that hides what lies within to encompass those said theories. The more we attempt to mathematically force with too many assumptions a framework the more it will fail. The beauty of Physics and Mathematics is the more we unravel our measurable states of the Universe the more new areas we discover to study and figure out how they work together. Physics before Einstein declared nothing new to learn and then we discovered we have so much more to go. The same will be with the next big leap and still a theory of Gravity will not be complete.

[@philharmer198]

Their founding is based on the physical . Mathematics , numbers , in and of themselves can never produce a real physical thing . Nor space .

[@sorkeror]

Have the string theorists considered that the answer might be 42?

[@kenneths.perlman1112]

Among the unlimited things I don’t understand is that our 3 dimensions are ( as far as we know) unlimited. But the other 7 can’t ever go far enough for us to even detect. Ok. Why.

[@scipioafricanus2]

answer: yes

[@dalelerette206]

I do not think we should ditch the theory. The mechanism of "reflection" is obtained by oscillations of electrons (or atoms) by an in-coming magnetic field, which generate another wave reflected from the surface. So while something may not look like a mirror to your eyes, it may be a mirror at some other frequency. There are probably interdimensional reflections on quantum level that can greatly explain our understanding of the multiverse, connecting all of reality in a sophisticated string theory along the spectrum of all dimensions.

[@darlenesmith5690]

That assumes that a multiverse exists. It might not.

[@muradumer3497]

The Theory That Can Describe Everything (String Theory) There are many theories in the world of science. Even in each field of knowledge, (physics, biology, psychology, etc.) there are different theories that explain different issues. One of these people jumps out and says that he can explain all the phenomena by himself without the need for any additional theory, and it is inevitable that he will raise doubts and astonishment. This theory is called String Theory. According to Brian Greene, the author of a book and a popular TV documentary about this physics theory, if the scientific effort to describe everything in a single equation or linear theory succeeds, this band, which was once Einstein's dream, will be, in principle, nothing more than a daydream to the great. Matters up to the creation of the Universe are analyzed by a single universal theory. But does this mean that all the complex natural and human issues are analyzed in a clear manner, and that the human being can fully understand nature and the environment? is not.

[@halfglassfull]

but what are the strings made of?

[@vshazam]

Turtles

[@theephemeralglade1935]

String theory is a story, and an idea. It is not a theory in the testable sense. Tell 'em, Neil!

[@arkantos143]

Noob here. What I don’t understand is that objects small or large still exist in the same 4 dimensions (space and time). Just because strings are small, how are they new dimensions? Atoms and its constituent particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks) all exist in the same space time. So, by extension, are these small vibrating strings still sitting in the same space-time dimension? This is where I struggle with the small string analogy that most science documentaries use to explain multiple dimensions in string theory.

[@AlmostEthical]

Maybe there are two realms - quantum and relativistic - that operate differently? Maybe space at humongous scales operates differently again? Reality is under no obligation to be elegant or tidy.

[@Bryan-yq9pz]

String theory is not the whole answer but a step towards a final answer. It's obvious that vibrations are what the universe is made of. Those vibrations give birth to life so yeah, they are "Part" of the answer, just NOT the final answer. And that's where physics has gone astray in string theory.

[@anupluitel6996]

String theory is true. You have my blessings.

[@VennieKembabazi-ey3di]

This keeps time inside space

[@Kelticfury]

So we have a sample size of 3 dimensions, none of which are compacted within the lower dimensions. No wonder people can't make it work out.

[@DukeSlystalker]

my question is when are they gonna censor the star trek TNG episode that confirmed a cosmic string fragment.

[@MatthewLinton-jd9ls]

Close this, it’s one straight line that’s way. It works only one line and when everyone else decides to understand that all it will come together, it’s simple one line

[@alexyakyma1479]

Yes

[@ChadwickJames]

They’re just stringing us along, till the next paperback edition.

[@chivoronco4853]

Y quien conho dijo q el tiempo tiene dimension 1? 6:21

[@philharmer198]

Well it , time , effects a lot of things movements . NOT Really .

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

How did the string theorist hide from the experimentalist? By curling up into a little ball. What does a zombie string theorist seek? Braaaaaanes. Why did the string theorist cross the road? To get to the tenth dimension. How many string theorists does it take to change a lightbulb? 10 to the 500th power.

[@Mudguaard]

String theory, OK photons from galaxies on the edge of the universe have to travel in a straight line to shine on the Webb telescope. The amount of photons must be incredible to form such sharp images. Yet so many things affect them. so are photons strung out like marbles in a row? Maybe they are energy bubbles. I always like to ask this question, how many photons can occupy any one point in space? Then ask the same question for all other energy forces. X-ray, gamma rays cosmic rays, neutrinos, CME particles? It appears to my eyes that they all could be at that point at the same time.

[@Mudguaard]

Oh wait we can not see any of them with the naked eye! So space is empty? A void? I hardly think so.

[@robertallgeier2109]

Was it Dr. Kaku who said the problems with string theory credibility go away if it's replaced by membrane theory? Hmmm. Maybe it was not.

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

Scroll away from the glitzy video. This is an audio file.

[@mazmitrenko7558]

My advice? - Try reading a string theory paper but replace the word "strings" with the term "magic invisible pixies"

[@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763]

Are dark matter and energy just a misunderstanding of the actual physics of the universe?

[@misterflamingo]

Not a very accurate title - i thought we had found big flaws with ST

[@anm3037]

The non-testability is a big flaw

[@misterflamingo]

@@anm3037 yeah but they also say that they have potential ideas

[@lenniesmalls2843]

not sure of the ethics of enlightening the youtube comments section, but the problem is supersymmetric particles haven't been found which were expected to be.

[@aidanmargarson8910]

due respect to all in this "discussion" at its base the universe is geometry

[@kumar2ji]

If inherent limitations are to be acknowledged the answer appears. In this 3rd dimention empirical science cannot reveal other dimensions.

[@MatthewLinton-jd9ls]

All the string theory is subjugated to help what people think and like you said it’s to be compounded in different ways. What is the mentality of life it was wiggly but when you believe what you do, that’s what you see as what it is that’s where Michelangelo and all the famous artist.

[@mohammadsareh4732]

One can create a prescriptive philosophy having no common term with reality yet may work in the void like multiverse theory that fails in real time dimension.

[@replica1052]

starting out with an infinite wave -infinite of infinite directions, there is no limits to how small a dimension could be (infinite acceleration of space gives the brain the ability to grasp/fathom infinite space - infinite acceleration eliminates time --> time is inertia )

[@professorg2590]

I've seen you before, and I can't understand anything you say?

[@replica1052]

@@professorg2590 dimensions be pendicular waves -perpendicular on perpendicular in smaller and smaller dimensions

[@professorg2590]

@@replica1052 I don't really understand what your saying?

[@replica1052]

@@professorg2590 infinite acceleration of space as opening sequence of an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar wind and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation - cosmic radiation origin by entropy as cosmic radiation takes up space (a universe of cosmic radiation is less energetic than an infinite vakuum )

[@professorg2590]

@@replica1052 What are you trying to say?

[@muhammadsidik5281]

As long as it can produce best seller book or research fund. This theory Will exist

[@RavingFan]

do physicists think strings have 10 dimension, bc anatomically they have 10 fingers?