Could Everything We Know About String Theory Be Wrong?

[@MrSpaztastic23]

I thought it was 42

[@eliemaltz1221]

Rory it is indeed. 42 are the paths that every human have to go in life to find his meaning according to the Jewish tradition. Thats why 42 was used in the novel in the first place.

[@zackcody5425]

@@eliemaltz1221 you are a fake jew. Not the jews of the scripture. Deuteronomy 28

[@Pooh0Bear8]

YES!!! You have made my day!

[@saiejagar6734]

What?

[@TenisJr]

@@zackcody5425 I don't know what you are talking about, but just to make things clear for anyone else scrolling down here: he's talking about Kaballah and the Sephiroth (I don't know what's the plural of each one) in the Tree of Life.

[@vacuumdiagrams652]

It's not quite dark energy that is argued to be problematic for stringy models. "Dark energy", as the name suggests, is just a placeholder. It's a TODO marker in our understanding of the universe. It's just what we call the speculative cause for the *accelerated* expansion of the universe. It doesn't say what this cause is, only that it has some energy density and that we don't know what it is. The simplest way to explain this acceleration is to propose that the vacuum of space has an energy density. This is a somewhat natural expectation, because we know about zero point energies in quantum mechanical systems. This would give rise to the famous _cosmological constant,_ which drives space to expand and explains the observed acceleration. It's this specific concrete realization of dark energy that is in dispute, because string theory works more naturally in spaces with a negative cosmological constant. A negative cosmological constant corresponds to negative curvature -- think a horse's saddle instead of the surface of a sphere. Such spaces have a boundary, and the way people think about string theory is intimately tied to the behavior on the boundary. Trying to do string theory in spaces with a positive curvature, such as our universe, has been a major open problem. This paper is the latest major conflict within that problem. What Vafa et al. are saying is not that dark energy is a problem for string theory -- they are after all string theorists and if they really thought that they'd find another job -- but that a positive _cosmological constant_ is a problem for string theory. They instead propose to explain dark energy dynamically by means of another fundamental particle. This is not a new proposal: the basic idea is 30 years old, and goes by the name "quintessence". Vafa et al. believe that quintessence or something like it ultimately explains dark energy, while their opponents believe it is ultimately explained by a cosmological constant. The contention is not about the _existence_ of dark energy, but rather its ultimate explanation.

[@aibot1074]

Our Universe has a positive curvature: Misprint, seeker simplistic, or do you really think the Universe is a sphere?

[@vacuumdiagrams652]

The ultimate shape of the universe is of course unknown. However, the observable universe is well described by a model (known as the FLRW metric) which is almost flat, but with a small positive curvature.

[@sirranhaal3099]

Quintessense? Damn, we still have about as much of an idea as to the ultimate nature of reality as the ancient Greeks

[@wishiwasboosted7741]

Ai Bot universe is too big to tell

[@Walker523]

Try hard

[@hastonian]

Strangest Trivago commercial I've seen

[@thecwd8919]

I thought this was a McDonalds commercial and they decided to sell strings and extra dimensions instead of toys

[@TheTattorack]

Everything we know about string theory can absolutely be wrong because there isn't anything really to "know" about string theory. String theory isn't something to know, it's a proposition for a possible solution to a problem we have in the standard model. But after 50 years it has nothing to actually show for itself that goes beyond just mathematics. We can't observe it or even test it in the real world, so string theory is technically unfalsifiable (also not much of a theory, more like a hypothesis).

[@thekaxmax]

It's more right than any alternative so far, so that's what has to be dealt with

[@kapworld2715]

Its more beautiful theory than big bang. If you understand math.

[@caylya7869]

String theory sounds cooler

[@theneonvert5368]

Tattorack string theory is a serious let down and should be dropped entirely for a few years, it only causes stagnation in science

[@jbs9373]

It's not even wrong!

[@Master_Therion]

Could string theory be wrong? I do knot know.

[@solidsinek14]

Did you just "tied" up this topic to a pun?

[@kbbeats3099]

First off, hello again Master Therion. Second, I've always thought that maybe our universe is a 4th dimensional shape and we are but a face of that shape and only able to observe a three-dimensional expansion. It would make sense why you couldn't detect the so-called Dark Energy causing the expansion because it's happening in the fourth dimension so to speak. I don't know

[@Psychol-Snooper]

ouch

[@daddyshrek7376]

"Baby I know I know no better"

[@stormtrooper5588]

Master Therion yes it could be wrong!

[@thom1218]

We all know the real fundamental elements are earth, wind, fire, and water.

[@RedLeader327]

thom1218 And heart.

[@NetworKrakle]

but that all changed when the FIRE NATION ATTACKED!!!!

[@BilalHussain-yd6ck]

GOOOO Planet!!!

[@abhayraina3780]

Go Planet!

[@mk17173n]

Captain Planet!

[@dude2260]

what i am doing here .. pretending to understand what she's saying

[@Michelrs]

we are all just looking at her lips, soo....

[@junioriseffe]

AHAHAHA

[@johnscallan5648]

me too. just nod your head, stroke your chin wisely, and say "Hmm... I see."

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

You'd think you'd need something a bit stronger than String. Like Rope, maybe.

[@spikespiegel6977]

@keecefly .no mames

[@SemperMaximus]

I love science but damn, this lady plays with my heart strings.

[@maximo1590]

The string theory really has many strings attached

[@JohnVKaravitis]

I down-voted your stupid post. You're welcome!

[@JohnDoe-tx8lq]

I up-voted your brilliant post. You're more than welcome!

[@JohnVKaravitis]

You suck. There. I dare you to reply to my post. P.S. I've down-voted YOUR post, too!

[@stormtrooper5588]

I think that comment was a joke! Chill out!

[@MewPurPur]

*birb from that creepy bird fetish educational weird name youtube channel, on a drumset* Ba dum, TSSS

[@MrKydaman]

String theory seems to be overused and threadbare, and it has too many loose ends for my liking.

[@donlaguilles3525]

its really a "suppose" this and then "suppose" that- and that is if it supposes this and that...all conjecture..really. science is the systematic and orderly study of natural phenomena- and must be repeatable- ..String theory stops at the Hypothesis..

[@TheTattorack]

The puns... it hurts! It hurts so bad!

[@MrKydaman]

@@TheTattorack are they punishing you?

[@Zaihanisme]

I'd say it seems rather frayed , and every few years it seems in danger of unravelling. Not sure how much more can be spun and twisted from it.

[@catman2157]

Short answer:Yes

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

Medium answer, maybe? If we knew it wouldn't be a question

[@hinata5736]

The right answer would be: We do not know yet.

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

@Naughty Nookie besides your stupidity, you're not completely wrong

[@hinata5736]

@Naughty Nookie Sorry, but you're a little late... That the earth is round is not a theorie anymore, it's a fact. So you should say something like "Your worldview on the shape of the earth is wrong"

[@benjamin7114]

Science , the art of assumption

[@NorthGermanic]

You boiled this down so incredibly well and concise. Hats of to you, Maren. You're sharp as surgical steel. Subbed.

[@Narutendo3]

I've never seen the need for a graviton to exist. Gravity could just be a different kind of force. It's not fundamental at the quantum level, it's just an effect of warped space. Besides, doesn't the E8 theory still predict a graviton, while also having a lot of evidence to stand on overall? Meanwhile string theory makes no accurate predictions and is unverifiable. It's really just a pointless hypothetical idea.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

With the parallel universes of String Theory being just future possibilities and opportunities in our one three dimensional Universe of continuous energy exchange

[@cybercephalopod3913]

Ever hear of Loop Quantum Gravity?

[@lkajsdflkasjdf1597]

www.wired.com/2010/09/stringy-quantum/ Is quantum computing pointless?

[@shantanumhaske2218]

Well gravity might not play a vital role in quantum physics as you say But gravity is one of the fundamental forces as she said in the video String theory helps us to understand more about our universe Hence the particles are assumed to be in the form of vibrating strings To answer another one of your question is that the E8 theory predicts existence of graviton it doesn’t prove it Because still haven’t found that energy carrying particle in the gravitational force like they found in other fundamental particles Because they are gravitational waves my friend Hence the string theory sets that part right But I am pretty sure that graviton doesn’t exist It’s pure force due to warping of space

[@lkajsdflkasjdf1597]

Could gravitational waves in space time be dark matter. There was recently a paper published that says that sound ways may have negative mass. Doesn’t that mean that areas with lots of vibrations in space time would act just like dark matter. www.sott.net/article/393302-Researchers-find-sound-waves-a-source-of-strange-negative-gravity

[@swaraj7993]

There is a reason why Sheldon Left it.

[@eythemischief4148]

Word.

[@rlicon1970]

Penny figured it out.

[@nothisispatrick4644]

"Do you believe in gravity? " -Pucci

[@urinater]

No this is Patrick I think Trump grabbed Pucci

[@nunotorres6314]

Made ino heveno

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

whos pucci makes me think of puSi

[@nunotorres6314]

@@SrmthfgRockLee it's a jojo's bizare adventure charcters from part 6 oh and jojo is a manga and anime

[@IWriteTooMuchForBleachIGuess]

Soft & Wet's bubbles are actually strings aren't they?

[@sebastianelytron8450]

_Clicks on video about String Theory_ **Understands it** 😐

[@draganoiugeorge6010]

kinda have a feeling that gravity is an emergent property and not a force on itself. but knowing that im too stupid to understand any of this my feeling is probably wrong and mathematically false :)

[@nathandaniel5451]

A dangerous delusion is to believe that you understand something like string theory without actually studying it extensively. Although I agree that the video is easy to follow. It's like looking at an equation of GR, it looks quite simple but if you pick up most texts you will likely be blown away with differential geometry and non-euclidean space. No so simple after all. :P Sorry for the rant, this may not apply to you but I'm tired of the same people who struggle with basic algebra trying to convince themselves that they understand mathematically rigorous theories.

[@NetworKrakle]

What is gravity? that is the question

[@draganoiugeorge6010]

a byproduct of mass interacting with space-time :O

[@fernandotills]

Todd Daniel Holy shit your ego😂

[@erichopper4979]

A nit-pick. Dark energy is not about the Universe slowly expanding. It's about that expansion slowly accelerating.

[@zamundaaa776]

It is about both. In the current theory ... as far as I understand it ... dark energy sort of pushes space outward. It's a property of space itself, so it kind of creates more dark energy and thus accelerates the expansion At least that's how much I know from the video(s) of spacetime about the topic

[@erichopper4979]

You have first, second, and third derivatives confused. :-) Dark energy itself is an outward pressure on the universe. Currently, it's stronger than the inward pressure of gravity, so it's causing expansion to accelerate. (second derivative, acceleration) Dark energy also appears to be a property of space rather than a substance which can vary in density in different parts of space. So, the more space you have, the more dark energy you have, and the faster you accelerate. (third derivative, jerk) The first derivative is the current expansion speed (aka velocity). Dark energy has a direct affect on the second derivative via the pressure it applies. The fact dark energy happens to be a property of space itself affects the third derivative, and the first derivative is just the innocent victim of all these other changes. :-) Now, I'm not a cosmologist or a theoretical physicist, just a software engineer who keeps up on a bunch of other stuff. So, I might be mistaken about our current understanding of dark energy. But I think the thing I think I'm least likely to be mistaken about here is the role of the first derivative and its relationship to dark energy. :-)

[@zamundaaa776]

@@erichopper4979 well I tend not to describe thinks so mathematically, but your illustration still _proves_ my point. Let's say you push on an object with a certain amount of force. By doing that you accelerate that object (second derivative). Let's also say that you accelerate your application of force and thus you accelerate the acceleration (third derivative). But still everyone will say that you are responsible for the velocity the object now has... Because you are. It doesn't matter if you "only accelerated" the object. You applied some velocity on it. And you kept adding some velocity; that is all what acceleration is. You can't accelerate something without being directly responsible for the velocity. It's not possible. To translate this into pure maths, did you ever get a non-zero derivative without having any change in the function (/without having a horizontal line)? Of course not. A derivative is per definition the change of the function. Acceleration is just a measure of the change of velocity, it's not actually a real thing. Quite often, for example with letting a balloon with some pressure inside of it expand, you have to be careful about cause and effect. The balloon expands because there's pressure inside of it. You can't deny that the pressure is responsible for the expansion. The expansion is then responsible for the reduction of pressure, thus for the deceleration of the expansion. It couldn't be the other way around. Yes this example is somewhat flawed because of deceleration but it works nontheless. Let's transfer that example to spacetime and dark energy. Let's just hypothetically assume that dark energy wouldn't be a property of space but was finite. Then you'd have (more or less) the balloon example. It would just expand the universe so long as it's stronger than gravity. So it directly expands the universe, it's not responsible for any acceleration at all. The only thing accelerating anything would be the dilution of dark energy (removal of pressure, and thus deceleration of expansion). Now let's add the property that an expanded universe has more dark energy, more pressure. At first, nothing changes. Dark energy just expands the unvierse. But as the universe grows, the expansion accelerates as the amount of dark energy increases. Nothing of that changes the fact that still dark energy is the one pressing outwards, expanding the universe.

[@LA-MJ]

I haven't read your wall of text but the point is expansion comes from 'inertia' (constant speed). You don't need anything once you get it going. The dark energy is the 'force' that supplies the additional acceleration.

[@PotatoMC1]

The universe is expanding regardless of whether or not there is dark energy. Dark energy only makes that expansion accelerate.

[@lululx3760]

What i am asking myself: Is it really the right way to think of gravity as a force? Maybe the reason why we weren‘t able to create a working theory of everything is because thinking of gravity as a force doesn‘t work, since it‘s the change of space-time. Does that make any sense?

[@JC-bt3gv]

We will find out on the 12th season of the bigbang theory

[@davidkugel]

Maren would make a great Middle School science teacher. She is so animated. I did not understand at least half of what she said. I have not heard the word "groovy" for many years.

[@ChewBaccaFlacka]

way to go Sheldon

[@Scicastic]

Bazinga!

[@Trident_Euclid]

STOP!

[@JediNiyte]

ChewBaccaFlacka for President of the Entire Universe...

[@superkamehameha1744]

I understood that reference

[@faisal-r2w8k]

I love physics and I think it is an amazing thing but physics mess up with your mind

[@faisal-r2w8k]

I could not agree more

[@hopydaddy]

As if religion doesn't...

[@cynthiaayers7696]

Physics mess up with your mind Sure does, look at your wording. That's funny...😂💖

[@hopydaddy]

Not anymore than religion... Telling simple people to believe in a talking snake and apple and bearded white man in the sky, and expecting simple people to abide by his commandments is much more serious way of messing with your mind, don't you think?

[@innerversable]

Step 1: Bring back the ether Step 2: Gravity=magnetism There you go, unified theory of everything.

[@caylya7869]

No

[@frankdimeglio8216]

WHY AND HOW E=MC2 IS F=MA, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY: Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity, as E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Ultimately and truly, TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. OVERLAY what is THE EYE in BALANCED RELATION to/WITH what is THE EARTH. Notice the black space of THE EYE. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. Now, carefully consider what is the semi-spherical, translucent, QUANTUM GRAVITATIONAL, AND BLUE SKY. Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEAR. Time DILATION ULTIMATELY proves (ON BALANCE) that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; as E=mc2 IS F=ma; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. The EARTH and the Sun constitute and comprise the MIDDLE AND THE FULL DISTANCE in/of SPACE (IN BALANCE) in full and BALANCED compliance and conformity with the CLEAR and universal fact that E=mc2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!!!! Hence, it is CLEARLY proven, in fact, that the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON NECESSARILY matches it's revolution. Great. Obviously, what is THE MOON is subject to and constitutive of both E=mc2 AND F=ma. E=mc2 IS CLEARLY proven to be F=ma. "Mass"/energy involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This CLEARLY explains why objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. THE EARTH is ALSO F=ma AS E=mc2. The Sun is both F=ma AND E=mc2. The BLUE SKY is E=mc2 AND F=ma. What is THE MOON is NECESSARILY F=ma AS E=mc2. THINK. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand.) VERY IMPORTANTLY, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black. Great !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper UNDERSTANDING of physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) GREAT. THE DOME of a person's EYE is ALSO VISIBLE. The balance of being AND EXPERIENCE is essential. The EARTH is ALSO BLUE (as water). Alas, the ULTIMATE unification of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND INCLUDES opposites; as ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. By Frank DiMeglio

[@Landonismo]

This channel is super rad, exposing really complex/active research topics in generally digestible means. My one suggestion would be to make the video like 20% longer in order to be a little more specific for those who understand the broad strokes already. For example, name Ed Witten when referencing the the researcher whose work unified all of the disparate string theories! This audience deserves to know who he is and a little more about what he proved :)

[@adityapratapsingh2518]

Hmmmmmmmmm🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Sorry wrong channel.

[@alkapatel3533]

PedeLion to hmmm or not to hmmm

[@adityapratapsingh2518]

Are you the brother of deepak kalal. 🤔🤔Hmmmmmmm

[@ruturajpokemon1]

Hello fellow 9 year old

[@adityapratapsingh2518]

@@alkapatel3533 are you the brother of deepak kalal. 🤔🤔Hmmmmmmm

[@adityapratapsingh2518]

@@ruturajpokemon1 hello my 9yr old friend

[@Ly0n64]

Maren crushed it. Great job! More of her please. :D // I wrote out a long-winded comment and just deleted it. Table everything except: Black Holes, Gravitational Wave Physics, Further studying Quantum states and info... It's extremely frustrating we don't have a large scale collider on the moon. We can't find what we're looking for (in terms of particles) at the current TeV, that's been almost proven at this point. Gravity is holding us back, literally. - What's the definition of insanity? Colliding the same particles over and over again in the same TeV threshold and expecting a different result? At the rate we're going, we won't have the answer by the time we need to come with an answer for a large enough scale endothermic chemical rxn to stop our own heat-death cataclysm. *rack tom, floor tom, crash cymbal*

[@gravijta936]

10 to the 500 other universes? I bet everything tastes like chicken in all of them!

[@AifDaimon]

Ten to the power of 500.. In other words, 1 followed by 500 zeros behind it.. Actually, I'd rather call it the omniverse

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

@@AifDaimon noo cause it is NOT infinite

[@Azknowledgethirsty]

@@AifDaimon it's mind-bogglingly giga enormous tho

[@thomasfholland]

Gravijta More like bacon taste like bacon in all of them?

[@GeekManual]

Except the ones in which giant sentient chicken perpetually tell each other that everything tastes like human.

[@ilovekitkat7857]

Just watched a 120 minutes PBS video on youtube on String Theory...I left that video with more questions. But u guys explained it so clear and simple I love it. Subbed.

[@mcnificent58]

kinda hot

[@NoName-ze4qn]

Planck temperature

[@erichopper4979]

I strongly suspect she's someone who basically thinks men are responsible for all of society's ills. So, I don't really care if she's attractive and/or smart or not.

[@TheInselaffen]

The Universe is 3K

[@BaguetteHD]

Eric Hopper I think you'll find being smart would eliminate the possibility of holding that belief. I know where you're coming from though, the general face structure looks similar to some SJW caricatures.

[@erichopper4979]

Mostly that she works for Seeker. I like most of what they produce because most science (especially physics, astronomy, and cosmology) doesn't really involve politics. But they tried to push the claim that gender is an illusion completely manufactured by society because biological outliers exist and therefor the strongly bimodal distribution of traits in humans is somehow fictitious. It was Trace and some other woman who pushed this idea. But it's caused me to be very suspicious of Seeker ever since. There are other things, voice tone and mannerisms. So, far from conclusive. I might be wrong. But, I strongly suspect the word 'patriarchy' which is code for "men are the cause of all of society's ills, including ones that negatively affect them" tumbles easily from her lips.

[@kristiandilov5249]

ok...one second.I can't seem to understand at 3:08 what does it mean by the size of the dimensions?. We said there are 10.How did we suddenly start talking about their size?

[@Vikash137]

Seeing that string theory has yet to make any testable prediction I'd say it's wrong until verified correct

[@Erik20766]

That's not how it works. Every theory is potentially correct until proven wrong. They can never be proven correct with absolute certainty, only with increasing certainty as a result of observations

[@mrsmerily]

As far as I understand you test theory with math (yeah the part I hated about physics). And string theory has had this on their side. This new theory is also done by math.

[@mikaelvuorenala9461]

V R no. It is like the dides cat wrong and correct the same time

[@mikaelvuorenala9461]

*dudes. The cat was dead and alive. Funny to say this because the cat is about quantum mechanics

[@driven_films]

LOVE the new visual aesthetic/creative direction you guys are going in. Really sophisticated and contemporary.

[@thecros1076]

Hey I am from India...I love science and your channel is the best source for me..thank you..hope that we get right answers to the string thoery in the future

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

panjabi mc mundian t obach ke=goodmusic

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

he said nothing pedo-like o_O

[@carydouglas8454]

Elastic string theory - it'll only stretch so far, before it contracts back to its original state. *I am stoned

[@Psychol-Snooper]

So Einstein is still good. It's all the wannabe Einstein's theories that are called into question.

[@SanctuaryLife]

Angry Applesauce can you imagine if Einstein had of lived another 50 years? We’d have the answers. Cry

[@Psychol-Snooper]

Especially the one about where his hair was headed! That and the unified field theory.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

@@SanctuaryLife TIME DILATION IS FULLY EXPLAINED, AS THE ULTIMATE MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS/PHYSICAL EXPERIENCE IS CLEARLY PROVEN: A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, as C4 is a POINT that is ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL (ON BALANCE) as SPACE; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. E=mc2 IS F=ma. A planet AND a star thus constitute what is A POINT in the night sky. It ALL makes perfect sense. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. ACCORDINGLY, I have ALSO fully explained the MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION of Einstein's equations and Maxwell's equations (GIVEN THE ADDITION OF A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION); AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. The Sun AND the Earth are F=ma AND E=mc2. By Frank DiMeglio

[@SanctuaryLife]

@@frankdimeglio8216 find a way to test that theory and then publish it.

[@wolfrunners9633]

I have 2 questions; 1. What are the strings in the String Theory made of? 2. If in a theoretical world we had advanced technology where we can manipulate the strings in the string theory, what can possibly happen? Is it possible to create something entirely different due to the manipulation of the strings? (these are probably dumb questions to you, but any possible answers are appreciated) :)

[@skashyap6008]

Noting got inside my mind ...pl help... i need to understand

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

watch the matrix, it has all answers u need

[@skashyap6008]

@@SrmthfgRockLee matrix ????

[@Raydensheraj]

What do you not understand?

[@skashyap6008]

@@Raydensherajbefore big bang

[@sad_depressed_weeb4996]

I'm not one of those people but this Fräulein is ridiculously beautiful to focus on the matter. *Had to watch it twice*

[@JayStacksTV]

Anyone else watch this because it looked like the thumbnail was moving while scrolling?

[@kittyonjupiter]

no one cares lmao m

[@secondamendment1890]

What if our universe expanding and contracting is just a vibration On one Big String

[@Dan-cm2ux]

It is, it's called a frequency

[@lorenh763]

Actually, not because what we know in string theory is nothing. To be wrong you would first have to think you know

[@danbossofthedairymob7764]

So if I said a perfect cube has only 3 faces even though that's horseshit and I'm aware that it's horseshit when it's said, I would be right about the cube only having 3 faces?

[@lorenh763]

@@danbossofthedairymob7764 then you'd just be a dip shit

[@rudiyardley75]

I really appreciate you being clearer than most science education videos about the difference between the settled and the speculative. That earned a subscription from me.

[@efilwv1635]

I’m thinking it’s possible that physicist got things very wrong.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

With the parallel universes of String Theory just being future possibilities and opportunities in our one three dimensional Universe of continuous energy exchange

[@craigcorson3036]

Conversely, it is also possible that they got things very right. We KNOW that they have most of it right. That computer you're using wasn't picked from a computer bush.

[@melindasimon3027]

@@craigcorson3036 yet everything for the computer was learnt from studying the bush (nature)

[@craigcorson3036]

Melinda Simon That metaphor is quite a stretch... but I'll allow it. Nature is the only thing that science can study, and from that study came all of our modern conveniences.

[@Raydensheraj]

@Jam Yeah the magic man Hypothesis... Lol

[@jamesbra4410]

It's called the Ekpyrotic Universe and it posits that dark energy flattens our universe to ideal Euclidean flatness and negates the role quantum fluctuations in separating entire universes by the modes. The current multiverse theory under the string theory states that parallel universes can coexist in regions of space, but don't interact due to an entirely different quantum field frequency mode. Dark matter theorists have reasoned that there can be entirely different parallel universes coexisting in our realm, but don't interact due to dark matter's inability to interact with the matter that comprises our universe. String theory could potentially be uprooted if dark matter and dark energy were to ever be measured. Many string theorists are basing their entire academic careers on the notion that dark energy, gravity, and dark matter are not fundamental forces, but mere implications of high uncertainty quantum events.

[@blackdevil4167]

I know the this all. And what I don't know is the math

[@metamorph5286]

This seems awesome! How long would it take to be able to do such calculations?

[@scareleague9551]

string theory sounds all tied up to me *badum tss* no okay ill let myself out

[@Eclispestar]

Have you done a video on E8?

[@joshuanorman2]

Ain't the carrier particle for gravity just every particle :/

[@flavorlessquark8614]

Boshua Borman No, it’s the graviton, supposedly

[@Jordan-lr4bi]

No technically gravity doesn't exist on paper

[@hinata5736]

To really answer your question: No, because if you found a particle for every known force except for gravity, then your either on the wrong way or you have to go on searching. Furthermore Photons (I don't know if it is the same for some other particles), well Photons have no mass, so you can't say mass is just something that belongs to particles since there is at least one particle that breaks your rule.

[@SynKronik]

@@hinata5736 Photons do have mass called 'negligible mass'

[@hinata5736]

Eternal Truth The Light That Never Dies No, Photons have no rest mass, it‘s just that when they are moving with light speed you can calculate they are mass because the energy they need to “fly” transforms into it (E=m*c). So photons alone have no mass.

[@asiburger]

I like the new pace and loooove the new audio quality, but please tune down the music a little more! :)

[@jeremyoverell2038]

I’m not a fan of this new format Maren is still a great speaker though

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

yeh

[@narutouzumaki2157]

If Einstein prove that mass curve space time and there is no gravity and gravitational force then why there is still necessity of gravitational force carriers particles .. Please someone explain ""??

[@axelbengtsson8195]

W

[@ambrosioromero1539]

Why should strings have finite vibration frequencies? What matter makes up a "string"? It is circular reasoning, not real.

[@NetworKrakle]

exactly! it's a useless field of study! we should be focusing on practical science. God only knows we need it now more than ever.

[@NetworKrakle]

Jason R Stanton Why would’t he. I never said he wad your “God”. Maybe i should have said “My God”. But really, why wouldn’t god care about Mathematics. Maths is just as real as god

[@diemilchgesichter2411]

Higher dimensions. strings are just an 3 dimensional interpretation from the small curled up 4th dimension. Like it moves in 4 spacial dimensions but in 3 that makes up all matter in the universe, thats why strings are maybe vibrating some people say we may be just an 3 dimensional shadow

[@thesoundsmith]

I thought that way inititally. The frequencies are harmonics of each other. Strings form matter, not the other way. It is NOT inherently logical, but if you start from the other side and work back toward perceived reality, you can find a way through. And even though I (mis)understand that basic elementary 'thing,' if you work backwards the logic can apply. I am probably wrong in 'fact,' but grasp enough of the truth of it to read further.

[@bxyhxyh]

@@NetworKrakle Why's something like "God" comes to the discussion of science? And yes math is just concept and idea to support real science exactly like God is concept to morality, fear and political control..

[@jbs9373]

String theory is code word for "we have absolutely no idea how to reconcile QM and Relativity so we're just going to throw beautiful mathematics at it until it sticks." This is the biggest problem with Physics today. Theory and Experiment no longer walk hand in hand.

[@SubsWithoutavideo-zp3kh]

I heard yanny

[@jazy921]

You should stop using Internet Explorer and try Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome for a change... Thank me later

[@SubsWithoutavideo-zp3kh]

@@jazy921 amazing

[@photelegy]

1:33 What's about the higgs-boson? Isn't this some kind of gravity interacting particle?

[@ADAMxFILM]

-yes

[@nickkazarian3334]

I could watch and listen to her speak about string theory all day. Great video, thank you!

[@truthseeker.108]

Dark matter could be graviton we were looking for🤔

[@skinny6710]

What is the background music played on this episode?

[@TheRayweather]

Of cours it is wrong no predictions came out of it.

[@AdHocF1]

Wait, isn’t the Higgs boson the elementary particle for gravity?

[@mischake]

When theories go into insane directions like "the age at least ten dimensions" or "is observing something makes it collapse into an outcome" I wish overtime would stick with their bu feeling and just say "I don't think we're know enough to claim we've got it figured out because the theories can't be right"

[@jeffc5974]

What does it even mean for a dimension to be "tiny"? Or to have "shape"?

[@Foiki]

is there an ELI5 Verson of this?

[@frenksan5834]

Since our most important sensor is eyesight , the easiest way for our brain to understand something is : visualization . Imagining a picture about it. Size ,shape,color etc. in motion or in static. But what happens,when we are reaching the level of reality,where things don't have size, or shape anymore ? Visualization there, will be necessarily wrong or imperfect/incomplete. And a vibrating string is a visualization, so...

[@MitchellMuller]

Hi seeker. i have a question Do you weight less on a airplane than on the ground

[@TWJfdsa]

it's not strings, everythings made of noodles. Ramen i believe.....

[@shanelstevens]

I could literally listen to Maren read the phone book, her voice is so soothing. Great video! 👌

[@alexanderhugestrand]

I've never watched any of your videos before, but I much appreciate the humble language in this one. Thumbs up!

[@tobiaszb]

4:50 I thought that red shift proves the universe expansion...

[@Ricocossa1]

This is maybe a good place to remind that string theory is not the only game in town as long as quantum gravity is concerned. There are many interesting background independent approaches of which the most developed nowadays is Spin foam theory or Loop quantum gravity.

[@Tonyrg1988]

is space expanding or are particles shrinking

[@thekaxmax]

Given nothing to relate them to, impossible to tell. However, space expanding makes more sense

[@NikolaosSkordilis]

2:00 Sorry, but that is not what string theorists claim at all. They do not claim that "each fundamental particle is a vibrating string", but rather that fundamental particles are _composed_ of strings. The scale of strings is _vastly_ smaller than that of the particles, very close to the Planck length (the smallest possible length), so there could be no way for strings to scale up to the size of the particles. In fact strings (assuming they exist, which I doubt) are claimed to be so small, in the order of ~10^-35 m, that strings are much, much smaller than quarks and electrons than quarks and electrons are smaller than us. The vastly different scales string theory and quantum mechanics operate is perhaps the most important reason that the former does not contradict the latter but instead supplements it.

[@kevinmorales7744]

Wait what about the Higgs particle work with both as well?

[@greensteve9307]

But what are quarks made of?

[@YOURMOMxo69xo]

As someone who isn't qualified to make any suggestions, I was always thinking that the universe continually expanded and contracted. The laws of thermodynamics tell us enough to know that matter will always have an effect on other matter. Thusly, if we did start from a big bang (of some kind) our universe would expand until the matter contained within could no longer overcome it's attraction to itself and start contracting back into a single point, then boom, expansion again. This would also recover all of the transformed and otherwise nearly unusable energy throughout the universe. Thermodynamics tells us that 100% efficiency is unattainable, and as such perpetual motion. To get into newton, the expanding particles of our universe would always be attracted to the particles behind them continually being pulled back, but just barley. This would be a force acting on them. I think of it like a bungie cord attached to a cannon ball. That said, my understanding of gravity isn't nearly high enough to really know weather I'm full of shit.

[@iamchillydogg]

Dark energy will overcome gravity. The expansion is actually getting faster.

[@YOURMOMxo69xo]

Well if the expansion is getting faster that energy has to come from a "limited" source.

[@iamchillydogg]

@@YOURMOMxo69xo No, as spacetime expands more dark energy is created.

[@YOURMOMxo69xo]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed...

[@iamchillydogg]

@@YOURMOMxo69xo Well since we have no idea what dark energy is it's possible that is wrong.

[@glitchysoup6322]

Why you are still not uploading 60fps videos in 2018?

[@skinny6710]

Could anyone tell me the music in this episode please? It seem like it would be great study music.

[@dangunn6961]

One day as I was eating a sandwich I observed a cockroach watching me. I tried to explain basic physics to him. After a while he shook his head and said "Dumb human, you will never figure out string theory. Just give me some of that sandwich."

[@deepvybes]

I think what that paper is saying is that Dark Energy isn't governed by String Theory. But just because Dark Energy isn't present in those universes doesn't mean they can't exist. They would just be missing the fundamental property that is Dark Energy.

[@Tenly2009]

Time doesn’t fit as a 4th dimension since it would also exist in a 1 dimensional world and a 2 dimensional world. If Time *is* a dimension, it would have to be the first or second dimension. Question: The 3 dimensions that we are familiar with: length, width and height are all infinite (at least in theory). Why do people refer to the additional possible dimensions as “tiny”? Why would they act differently than the 3 dimensions we know about?

[@cameronedwards3628]

Seeker is so good at skimming over the top of advanced topics and presenting so little that viewers don't actually learn anything and eventually create their own misconceptions stemming from the video

[@kevinmartin2961]

This is about a 7 page article that does not mention the AdS/CFT correspondence.

[@wontonfuton]

Isn't it 10 spatial dimensions and time? So 11 is it?

[@ligma4009]

Why does there have to be a particle or a string that carries the gravitational force? Maybe gravity just bends space in a 5th dimension that causes matter and light to roll down towards it like a hill.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

STRING THEORY, note item #15 below: My latest TOE idea followed by the associated gravity test following it: Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.

[@firexgodx980]

instead of writing a comment on KZbin, publish a paper on arixv

[@charlesbrightman4237]

firexgodx980 No thanks, I like KZbin. Smart people read KZbin comments too. You are smart, aren't you?

[@storm14k]

So I've been confused. Does the idea that gravity is a perception of curved spacetime mesh with gravity having some force carrying particle since it's not a force.

[@ClockDesignCo]

Isn't a "graviton" a higs boson?

[@scareleague9551]

*video talks about dark energy* bane: "ahh you think darkness is your ally....but you merely adapted to the dark"

[@royalalienza]

Your new video is great. So focused!

[@MythopoeicNavid]

Question: If string theorists postulate that there are 10 dimensions with higher level dimensions having the ability to manipulate lower level dimensions, wouldn't that mean that sentient beings in higher level dimensions can affectively manipulate reality around lower level dimensions? Namely us? Second Question: If higher level dimensions can be observed or glimpsed at through subatomic quantum fields or "going small" is that the basis for interacting with higher level dimensional beings? If so, can lower level dimensional beings affect THEM in the way, say, viruses are able to disrupt entire human bodies or computer systems? Thanks. Third Question: Is this how we beat Thanos?

[@akashthorat7044]

Can u make a video on relationships between gravity and time plz

[@aagamjain9480]

I remember Phoebe saying to Ross "Don't start me on gravity"

[@MrDexter337]

Not going to pretend I'm an expert, but the standard model doesn't suggest that force carrier particles are actually 'particles' either, right?

[@ashleyladner7620]

Can you explain E8 lattice theory

[@BrainSlamAnimatedScience]

The problem is that all this is a "house of cards", theories build on theories build on theories and so on.. if something is plausible doesn't mean that it is true However, we should continue to research but also have an open mind to totally new and unconventional ideas

[@nicolas9j738]

could you just like do a video for a start to understand the quantum world

[@LmgWarThunder]

Would gravity need a particle to transmit its influence if it bends spacetime and all particles travel in lines in accordance to how space is bent?

[@mycutedoggydog]

Did anyone notice how the cover photo looked like it was moving only when you were swiping up and down????