Did string theory poison physics | Eric Weinstein and Brian Greene clash over theories of everything

​‪@EricWeinsteinPhD‬ and Brian Greene argue over the poisonous culture of string theory.
This excerpt is from the live QnA section of our IAI Live debate titled The End of Everything. To watch the full debate and panellists Brian Greene, Eric Weinstein, Sabine Hossenfelder and Michael Shermer lock horns over the existence of a theory of everything head to: iai.tv/video/the-end-of-every...
#StringTheory #BrianGreene #EricWeinstein
Brian Greene is renowned for his groundbreaking discoveries in superstring theory and best-selling books. He has been chairman of the World Science Festival since co-founding it in 2008.
Eric Weinstein is an American podcast host, managing director of Thiel Capital, doctor of mathematical physics and member of the "intellectual dark web".
To discover more talks, debates, interviews and academies with the world's leading speakers visit iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today!
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Do you agree with Brian or Eric? Has string theory poisoned physics? Let us know what you think in the comments! To watch the full debate visit: iai.tv/video/the-end-of-everything?KZbin&+comment&

[@gurmeet0108]

Both, if you know what they are talking about and the physics and physicist's attitudes of that era, you'll realize both of that are correct and even agreeing on almost everything (surely everything factual whether it's historical or scientific), other than their emotional in-group biases.

[@mykobe981]

Eric Weinstein is obnoxiously aloof. He makes my skin crawl.

[@gurmeet0108]

@@hv7920 - I, myself, didn't experience those times first hand and I never claimed. I got to know about it from people who did. - Nothing was overly wrong about that era, at least nothing much worse that usual problems of academia, which we still have. Eric overly dramatize it, but I don't feel like blaming him for that, as he said he was on other side and suffered the impact. - That was an era of excitement, as Brian mentioned. Things were clicking well, as you must have heard, but a consequence was that it was becoming harder and harder for other ideas to get funding. - There was not enough effort to clear doubts and explain why they think String theory was the "right way to go", it just was for most string theorist. It literally was that for most string theory was very hyped and anybody who questioned was not entertained. Worse thing was for an average string theorist (not the top brass), they didn't have or couldn't convey their reason to favor string theory. It was essentially groupthink. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WEREN'T GOOD REASON FOR STRING THEORY. - Like Brian's reason that in Modern String Theory/QFT (after Witten) almost all, if not all, modern physics find a natural place. That's true but, as Eric was trying to tell, it's true because QFT/ST are very general tools to study interactions and most of geometrization of QFT and ST helped making that picture clearer, though still it's not fully worked out yet. - They both were on the different sides of this excitement wave, one who's riding the wave and other who's drowning because of it.

[@mykobe981]

@@hv7920 Well said.

[@SpotterVideo]

Could String Theory have been a necessary stepping-stone to the correct theory? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. (More spatial curvature). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are actually a part of the quarks. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" make sense based on this concept. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons. Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface A Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting occurs. 720 degrees per twist cycle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

[@HappyG1lmor488]

Putting scientific discussion behind a paywall should be criminal. The Institute of Art and Ideas should be ashamed. Edit: to everyone commenting saying "iT'S fREE iF yOu CliCK the LinK" no it's not, it's still $8 and you need a credit card. My comment stands.

[@kornel91]

It's free. Just press the link in the description.

[@BarriosGroupie]

Another person who thinks they're entitled to people's time and energy for free.

[@cashappsupport8597]

Take 2 seconds to look at the description and you would find a link to the full thing. You should delete your comment

[@helicopter_traffic]

@@kornel91 i mean to be fair that does require signing up for a “free trial”

[@kornel91]

@@helicopter_traffic I didn't have to. Maybe at the time of publishing?

[@merlepatterson]

If modern day scientific debates have to be placed behind pay-walls, and most people only get tidbits of content, then one could imagine most people will just say "Count me out of Science you self-centered greedy buggers"

[@jooman5939]

Same person complaining probably has a Netflix + KZbin paid subscription. Guess what? Organizing Science debates and uploading costs money.

[@merlepatterson]

@@jooman5939 For one, if you are suggesting this commenter, I personally don't have any paid subscriptions to any content provider with the exception of my ISP and most science is either funded by government grants or mega corporate donors. So, any scientific findings which are obscured behind pay walls and are of greater interest to the general public rather than proprietary to the institution doing the science, shouldn't be hidden in order to capitalize...just because.

[@etzenhammer]

exactly this.

[@GermanGameAdviser]

@@user-if1de8pt2j *but it's the same regarding fees* - looks like a "bad design" not a fee issue to me... like what are you on about? there is no need to hide this talk.. seems like just a talk or did i miss some promotion to what this could be more than just a talk? Well then there is no need for this talk via web cam, from any variable location to be behind a paywall in non cut form period? what did I miss... moderation and some behind the scenes work SOME in regard to your comment

[@joeyyc8515]

Sophistry has been an issue since the time of the Greeks

[@libraryofpangea7018]

Eric's criticism here is far softer than what he says in direct interviews.

[@King-jq5vt]

i really wanna see Eric and brian (and some other string theorists go at it for a few hours. I love that Eric draws a line in the sand.

[@jakubjodlowski2768]

oh yes! Day session! into evening jam session! 💪

[@PetraKann]

ST is not a Scientific Theory - not a Science. It’s best described as a Mathematical Philosophy. The situation could change in the future, but as it stands today ST is akin to magic, finger painting and is therefore unscientific trivial nonsense.

[@spridle]

He has to to stay relevant.

[@kaztheunbreakable]

@@PetraKann This might be slightly hyperbolic, but could you say its the astrology of theoretical physics?

[@PetraKann]

​@@kaztheunbreakable I see where you are coming from Mr Kaz. I dont think ST is based upon mysticism or superstition. The main problem with ST is that its predictions can't be verified or refuted by the Scientific method at the moment. ST is not alone in this regard. The Multiverse Theory also makes predictions that are outside the scientific methodology. I see String Theory as a Mathematical Philosophy as it stands today even though it makes many physical predictions and claims. Science is actually the most narrowly defined discipline. The fact that there are many different scientific disciplines doesn't alter this. I view Science as a fundamentalist religious cult that varies the content in its Biblical scriptures - and this mainly driven by the admission of ignorance about absolute reality. (a good thing in my view)

[@francisjtuk]

I maintain my 100% record in not understanding a single word Weinstein has ever said on any podcast.

[@ivogievski]

Not even he knows what he is talking about lol. Also, not a real scientist without a single peer reviewed paper, just a sad figure that is simply not on the level of other physicists and can't live with the fact that nobody in the circle cares about him, like at all.

[@mglikeabossplaysMC]

@@ivogievski Exactly! I don't know where he gets his superiority complex from when Greene has 50+ papers published since the 80's...Greene is also respected by many top physicists as he is a great science communicator while actually being knowledgeable, something Weinstein wishes he could say

[@colonelarmfeldt8572]

It's completely deliberate. He doesn't publish any papers, so isn't respected or even considered a scientist, in the scientific community, so instead tries to impress a common audience, who know less about physics, by using complicated and unnecessary jargon, in order to appear more knowledgeable.

[@francisjtuk]

@@colonelarmfeldt8572 funny thing is I have actually got a degree in physics. Agreed that was 30 years ago but even so. He's highly elliptical in his explanations of anything.

[@colonelarmfeldt8572]

@@francisjtuk I agree. Right now I'm only an undergrad (in mathematics), so it's natural that I wouldn't understand a lot of the stuff. But even the stuff I do understand, he combines it with so many words, and so quickly, that it's impossible to understand, unless I pause the video and replay it. I'm really not sure what his aim is when presenting lectures and debates, where he deliberately tries to not be understood by the audience. Isn't the exact opposite the intent? But it does make some people go ''I understand none of what he said, he must be very smart.'' Yet watch a lecture by someone an actual physicist, like Feynman or Penrose, and you'll easily understand everything, given an elementary knowledge of physics.

[@kewpified]

can i just say as a side note that i love Eric Weinsteins facial expressions to what Brian Greene said. lol pure gold

[@peterkay7458]

the weaker the argument the more weird facial expressions Eric needs

[@RayCromwell]

I'm getting tired of his whining and beginning for recognition. For years he bragged about his theory, resisted writing it down, and then when he finally wrote it down, the result was like a bunch of incomplete cliff notes. He's mad that no one takes him seriously and every venue. He's constantly whining about this, but he refuses to do professional quality research, or public in academic journals or go to academic conferences and give talks, all the normal ways the science community is expected to work and thinks simply being a guy on the internet with a big idea should cause a bunch of scientists to put down what they're doing and pay attention to him. The reality is, his career is investing money as a VC and not as a full-time physicist, but he acts like he's Einstein working at the post office and publishing Special Relativity. The dude derails EVERY panel I've seen in on. You get someone like Roger Penrose to fly in from the UK, at his old age, and he's got to sit there while every conversation thread constantly gets diverted to "I got bullied by String theorists, they're meanies!"

[@ronch550]

Yeah. 2:31. I would've spilled my coffee laughing.

[@wulphstein]

Trying to communicate a new idea to the physics community is like trying to get penetrate an infinite potential wall with a wave function. It's physically impossible.

[@shonuff4323]

Yep. It's sad and it is really hindering progress.

[@CrazyLinguiniLegs]

It is physically impossible to _not_ penetrate an infinite potential wall with a wave function. Bam! New idea!

[@matttzzz2]

/r/iamverysmart

[@9810593c16]

But didn't there is a thing where electron penetrates that potential??

[@jonsegerros]

@@matttzzz2 LEDDIT XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

[@luigicantoviani323]

That's right Eric. String theorists have indeed poisoned physics and controlled funding and tenure tracks all over the place. Lenny, Eddy, and friends are doing beautiful math but terrible physics.

[@mad-pj]

mathematical physics =/= theoretical physics

[@SilentThespian]

😂

[@vincentsmith9562]

Love this. It is so so important that these intellectuals challenge each other. Science works well when every scientific effort is made to challenge and disprove scientific theories. Keep it up

[@SimAction1]

Cannot agree more! We need challenges and arguments for science! 🧪

[@shadow-sea]

totally

[@GeekFurious]

The problem with Eric's approach is he's just as rigid and myopic about the problem as he thinks the problem is about his problem with the problem.

[@brandondrew4914]

His initial point is correct though. Th problem with string is that it's a system that works in and of itself with no correlation to a shred of proofed science.

[@AuditAmplifier]

One thing you can always count on him for...💯

[@Quixote1818]

I'm not sure why Eric even has a seat at the table here. He hasn't ever published anything and when he tried with 1 paper the paper was rejected. He's just a self promoter who Joe Rogan unwittingly elevated to where he doesn't belong.

[@sombra1111]

The lengths that people will go to criticize Eric...😅

[@tithonusandfriends8519]

String theory is like a house where every room contains a physical phenomenon, should we abandon the house because we are bored by a few of the rooms? On the other hand, the tower of babble also contains a description of every phenomenon..

[@georgeclune3282]

That was my question! I actually asked if Eric and Brian could have a discussion why they were in favour of String Theory (Brian) and why they were not in favour of it (Eric)!!

[@kayakMike1000]

No reasonable predictions found with String Theory.

[@brandondrew4914]

@@kayakMike1000 right, it doesnt make predictions on any known set of physics at all. It's predictions rely on a set of physics that don't exist. It's an error.

[@copernicus6420]

I came to this video in order to learn why the string theory might be wrong but instead I learned that someone got his heartbroken by someone else. How charming

[@nancyferrier8609]

Nailed it.

[@sombra1111]

There are dozens of videos of him and many others explaining exactly why string theory might be wrong here on YT. This one is asking "Did string theory poison physics?" in its title, which is what was addressed.

[@7Earthsky]

Anywhere I can watch the rest of this Q and A session without a stupid paywall?

[@GumbyTheGreen1]

Why isn't the rest of the Q&A segment anywhere on your website or channel?

[@felixvandiggelen8731]

I guess Weinstein's truth is a bit too inconvenient.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

more like culture poisoned string theory

[@tskinsplaylists2972]

Is there a link to the full video of this

[@____uncompetative]

Yes. It is in the Description. Tap v I don't know why that talk was called The End of Everything.

[@neftysturd]

Where is the link?

[@HouseJawn]

How does Weinstein get invited to these sessions?

[@howiegruwitz3173]

Boohoo "jew" priv

[@equilibrium_69]

Yes it has, it's basically wasting so much of our scientists time, effort and funding when it is fundamentally impossible to prove and every decade they're moving the goal posts to keep the theory viable.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

Because it makes no useful or testable predictions which reduces it from scientific hypothesis to philosophic conjecture

[@NuclearCraftMod]

It predicts GR, but it also predicts a lot more which has so far been difficult to analyse.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

@@NuclearCraftMod non-Minkowski solution?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@aaronrobertcattell8859 Yes, the presence of graviton strings is equivalent to the spacetime being non-Minkowski.

[@aaronrobertcattell8859]

@@NuclearCraftMod ‘background’ spacetime obeys the Einstein Field Equation (EFE) - plus string theoretic corrections. ?

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@aaronrobertcattell8859 I'm still in the process of learning how it works, but the idea is that the presence of strings restricts spacetime to obey the EFEs, and the scattering amplitudes of strings in a non-Minkowski background are equivalent to the scattering amplitudes of those same strings _as well as_ additional gravitons in a Minkowski background.

[@Ukepa]

two of my favorite physicists, and I'm not at all a physicist, but I have high hopes for the field with such gifted minds!!!

[@DrDeuteron]

did you even listen to what they said?

[@christianfarina3056]

@@DrDeuteron Only Greene is a physicist. Weinstein is an entertainer.

[@brandondrew4914]

Weinstein isn't a physicist. He makes a point of noting that commonly but he's actually right in what he says about string. Greene knows it too and deflects focusing the convo on the politics.

[@rickyp3329]

2 washed up clowns trying to impress a grill

[@sunsetguy37]

There is nothing as satisfying as putting my ego in the best place, relative to my imagination and curiosity, as chasing down rabbit holes which are inhabited by other mortals 27 stories above my cognitive biases.

[@dlbugge]

Where is this exchange in the full video on the site??? Was it omitted??😮

[@GUTOMOFFICIAL]

Can you post more videos about this topic?

[@commentorinchief788]

Why is Michael Schermer included in these discussions?

[@entingkabesote2197]

This between a mathematician and economist vs mathematical physicist and theoretical physicist.. who you got no matter what I thank all the ethical scientists around the world.

[@harryseldon362]

The link for the full video is NOT free to view. Just thought you should know.

[@treestandsafety3996]

Time, space, energy, co-incedences...all concepts that have been absolutely frapped by the establishment.

[@helmski]

I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, but please consider a bit more structure in the next debate. This is much too complex to address in an hour. These questions did not seem to fit for everyone in this debate considering their previous podcasts/interviews explaining their stance. I hope you would consider a longform event with an open forum and less restrictions on time and general questions.

[@adjeostr9720]

smth like jre you mean?

[@helmski]

@@adjeostr9720 JRE uses a great format, but would not work in a debate like this. Sorry, but It would be too much to detail in this comment section.

[@Prodigy_Il]

@@helmski So Lex Fridman

[@helmski]

@@Prodigy_Il Lex would be a good moderator and could draft the questions. But his style is maybe better suited as a one on one.

[@Prodigy_Il]

@@helmski I wouldn't disagree with that, saw one of his podcasts with Yaron Brooks and Yorum debating Nationalism, his moderating was alright but he is better one on one like you said

[@mr.greengold8236]

What is the fundamental structure that String theory discovered?

[@moumouzel]

Absolutely

[@eb4661]

When a scientist sounds, acts, and argues with insisting as fundament to be the right, one can but only walk away in the knowledge of the premise it being a scientist was wrong, perhaps believing it was a religions leader and give it a laugh. Sad it’s not so easy.

[@Edison73100]

Where is the rest of this?

[@HeavyMetal45]

In the 7th dimension of string theory.

[@earthexpanded]

Let's not overblame string theory. The real problem is that a group of people strong-armed the discussion. Namely, people who were understudied regarding the nuance and significance of prior interpretation and had developed an entirely new alternative explanation for observations because they could not figure out how the old model produced the observations. Right now, there is literally no alternative to QM, GR. These models are assumed to be true. Notice how the question "is String theory poisoning physics?" carries with it an assumption that the more general QM is not? The quark is assumed to be real for convenience. Classical mechanics is spat on like it is some filthy outdated mistake of the past. There was a time people made new observations and didn't just abandon everything of the past, but rather they tried to reason out how discrepancies in observation were still produced by the theory, when understood more precisely. The speed of light was calculated extremely accurately in 1676 because of anomalies that did not match Newton's Laws. Instead of a new model being concluded as the answer, they understood the philosophical basis of the theory and thus *reasoned out that the speed of light was not infinite and, instead, calculated at that time to be 220,000 km/s (vs 299,792 km/s stated today).* The fact is. People ignorant to the philosophical reasons of the classic approach rejected the model outright and abandoned it completely and then subsequently made sure that it was no longer part of the serious discussion. GR, QM, Big Bang all were then able to breakthrough the resistance and overwhelm the world with their extravagant claims in the face of no opposition, since they managed to *support one another to fill in the gaps in the other rather than to describe the UNIverse (ONE verse) using ONE model.* Unable to stand alone, they literally lean on one another to stand. Well. We fellow human beings continue to think. And there are those of us who acknowledge the merits of the classical approach and do not believe any of modern physics functions to actual *describe* anything. And so. They are all, really, poisoning physics. Confusing the matter. Controlling people's minds and thoughts. Access to information and alternative viewpoints. The mere fact that every academic institute in the world who wants to present an air of prestige and legitimacy is researching only the avenues that stem from QM, GR, and the Big Bang interpretations with a total abandon for classical analysis regarding the *fundamental nature of reality* is indicative of how much we have collectively lost touch with *natural philosophy.* Even that it is called "physics" and "science" rather than "natural philosophy" is telling of the disconnect. This gives rise to philosophically unsound (due to the lack of philosophy) statements such as "shut up and calculate!" And the tendency within the community to glorify and magnify the ridiculous nonsensical nature of QM as some sort of *proof of its truth.* "The universe has no obligation to make sense to you." This is a mental strongarm tactic to get people to stop questioning and simply accept what they are being told. If only there was basis. If you look at any actual line of reasoning for QM and compare it to the line of reasoning of, say, algebra, you can see that algebra has been extremely worked out and is flowing and builds incrementally off past steps, whereas QM makes drastic leaps and then just casually moves on. It is taken as fact and the structure is so vague that no one has made any effort to insure that new students are able to follow the careful line of reasoning. They do their best, but when push comes to shove: "ASSUME QUARKS." The upquark, downquark, and blah blah blah does blah blah blah and so when the quark does blah blah there's blah. Next thing we know, we've totally moved on from the whole "ASSUME QUARK" step of the process. UH. I could really go on.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

The structure isn’t vague at all. It’s harder and less intuitive than classical physics, but it is taught rigorously at universities, and even introduced at some high schools. Quantum mechanics solved a lot of problems with classical physics and correctly predicted a lot more, from material science to particle physics. The fact of the matter is that quantum gravity is hard, and it isn’t just string theory that has failed to make as much headway as we would have liked.

[@schrodingerscat7218]

I like this comment, Steve Scully. I was getting worried that reading all these comments would prove fruitless.

[@earthexpanded]

@@schrodingerscat7218 Thanks, glad you found it fruitful! :D

[@FathomlessJoy]

Yeah so what we really learned is that the most modern movement in physics is really just about ego and self-inflation. And they wonder why the public has soured on string theorists' puffed up nothing burgers. In that sense the real theory being proved is: the medium is the message.

[@user-tp7gy4dj4l]

How many string theorists does it take to change a light bulb? Ten to the five hundredth power. When will a string theorist write a field equation? Five years from now, for thirty-nine years.

[@kuribojim3916]

My issue with string theory is mostly that it potentially denies funding for other enquires that we should be pursuing.

[@jameswingert9596]

Very interesting discussion. I'm a little uncomfortable with the generalized thinking being thrown around but fascinating discussion.

[@sunsetguy37]

Thanks JRE

[@NathanDean79]

Loop Quantum Gravity is where it’s at. As an educated layperson just sitting and thinking about what LQG says about the world it just naturally seems right. And from what I understand of it quantum theory and general relativity fit inside the framework perfectly. Although Ed Wittins M-Theory also sounds plausible.

[@KaliFissure]

A year later... GR applied to mass free space will evolve all QFT through brownian motion. Flows in a dielectric fluid cause charge separation. Charge is an artifact of flows in space.

[@OneCrazyDanish]

Yes, is the short answer. If you want to understand charged matter, look at the matter. Not at everything around it. Also, Greene is wrong about the effects of string theory at least when it comes to Witten's "string theory is the only game in town" attitude. How can a scientist be that arrogant about an unfalsifiable theory?

[@kamalpada1270]

With Brian on this one

[@edwardjones2202]

Why is Shermer on a panel with theoretical physicists? Is he a host?

[@mikkel715]

Seems both String Theory and Quantum interpretations make many physicists go into a "I Believe" mode.

[@xjuhox]

Many also believe that qravity can be quantized, but there is no actual need for that.

[@mikkel715]

@@xjuhox And spacetime?

[@___Truth___]

@@hv7920 Is there?

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@hv7920 Yes, there is a need for a graviton, because if a neutron orbiting a neutron star drops down a quantum energy level, it emits a graviton to conserve energy.

[@LabyrinthMike]

The first time I heard Eric speak was a PBS Space Time panel discussion where Sabine was also on the panel. He kept calling her curmudgeon, but a nice curmudgeon. And I kept expecting her to verbally take him down, but she never did. But I kept wondering if he was talking nonsense, what the Star Trek writers called technobabble. Perhaps he was speaking on a whole another level, but I just can't shake the thought that no one wants to challenge him because they don't want to be on the receiving end of a verbal attack.

[@nicholasandrzejkiewicz]

or maybe you can read a book and see that this checks out, and is taught to graduate students as standard mathematics and physics - the rest is normal human behavior

[@kkandola9072]

That’s a sad assessment. I don’t even have a deep enough knowledge and understanding of mathematics or physics to discuss the topics themselves, but it’s funny to think that a scientific idea is not critiqued because they don’t want to end up on the verbal end of Eric. That sounds like highschool dynamics that should be stomped out at this level

[@kafka27]

Sabine is pain in the ass...and materialist

[@WestOfEarth]

@@kkandola9072 I agree, but you see the difference in demeanor between Brian and Eric. Brian has tact and calm engagement. Eric is bombastic. I agree with Mike. The first time I heard Eric talk about his ideas, it sounded like he was using words he didn't fully comprehend. I'm speaking of the physics jargon here. It is my assessment that he's the most intelligent person ever to suffer from Dunning-Kruger.

[@Mark-rw3kw]

@@kkandola9072 This is nonsense. Even Sabine has said on her KZbin channel that String Theory has not really paned out after being kicked around by the community for such a long time. As far as what Eric thinks about Sabine, keep in mind that she has shredded several of Eric's theories in public (probably for good reason).

[@egay86292]

ooh! cat fight! but will we ever find out who spiked acid in the physics punchbowl?

[@KaliFissure]

And c really needs to be reworked as Planck lengths/sec. This eliminates the arbitrary length unit and the energy density of space becomes real density and gravitational lensing is simple refraction through a more dense medium. Space with strong gravitational field.

[@OsscarBones]

What are you even saying

[@KaliFissure]

@@OsscarBones that space should be seen as a fluid whose density is measured by energy density. Space with more energy (gravitational field ) is more dense fluid and thus gravitational lensing can be seem like physical lensing. Light passing through varying density medium

[@theotormon]

@@KaliFissure I have a feeling that gravity is going to turn out to basically be a drag force that objects experience as they pass through regions of space with relatively more turbulence.

[@phrozenwun]

Once you reconcile GR and QM then you can place those together as fundamental absolutes.

[@lunam7249]

"planck length" is not "real"....thier will never be a ruler which will measure 1,2 ,3,4 "planck lengths......in "normalization mathematics" planck "unified": gravity = c = mass , by arbitrarily assighning a value of 1 to each.....but obviously , mass and c and gravity are different things....but it was a handy method, a planck length is the smallest theory length before modern classical physics laws begin to measure inconsistancy's...

[@keithkucera3163]

You go Eric , your the one , I know it , I did research into quantum gravity for forty years and what you have been talking about is right on the money don't worry what anyone says ,I see you , your insight is top notch

[@Justice_Hammer]

*you’re

[@keithkucera3163]

@@Justice_Hammer I agree but I am to old to take the long path of spelling anomalies and other bothersome English language additives unless I am working then everything will be correcr

[@keithkucera3163]

I predicted two kinds of time in matter and the flexibility of particle size in the proton experiment and in other particles and I also have a theory that says time has momentum .

[@throwaway692]

@@keithkucera3163 If it has momentum then it has a wavelength. If it has a wavelength then it has a frequency. I"m not sure what that would mean. LOL

[@keithkucera3163]

@@throwaway692 then maybe it does have wavelength , for an electron it's mass x velocity = momentum , did you know that it's g force x it's frequency also equals it's momentum

[@Minus_1_form_symmetry]

There is huge theme around the society to declare String Theory as dead. I never understand why, this formalism using strings use giving useful outputs in various branches. Yes the mathematics is arcane and the theory itself hasn’t reached its ambition. But it’s the hope that makes us do physics. Even Einstein faced similar issues with his work initially.

[@Minus_1_form_symmetry]

@@paulthomas963 do you know string theory?

[@FathomlessJoy]

String theory may survive, but what is dead is the pseudo-scientific, ego-inflated, flat-earther-type clowns who have been pushing a facade of science on top of just a bunch of random ideas they called "string theory." That part the public has soundly rejected, and it has hurt physics in the process.

[@Daniel-ih4zh]

Don't worry, all the experts who think calculus is advanced math are going precisely why they're skeptical and why their opinion matters very much.

[@frankdimeglio8216]

​@@Minus_1_form_symmetry Gravity is only one, TWO, AND three dimensional SPACE (ON/IN BALANCE) IF it is consistent with what is E=MC2, TIME, AND TIME dilation. TIME dilation proves that ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Indeed, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! What is E=MC2 IS dimensionally consistent. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. Great. By Frank Martin DiMeglio The ultimate mathematical unification (AND UNDERSTANDING) of physics/physical experience combines, BALANCES, AND includes opposites. The BALANCE of what is gravity WITH what is inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE requires and involves TIME AND time dilation ON/IN BALANCE, AS gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS this CLEARLY explains the fourth dimension; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. INSTANTaneity is fundamental to what are TIME AND time dilation ON/IN BALANCE. Accordingly, ON BALANCE, INSTANTaneity is fundamental to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS the extension of what is SPACE is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) electromagnetic/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE. What is GRAVITY IS, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. What is E=MC is taken directly from F=ma, AS the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Great. INDEED, c squared CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE), AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent WITH/AS what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE (ON BALANCE). A given PLANET (including what is THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in equal TIME. Great. What is E=MC is taken directly from F=ma. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON/IN BALANCE. INDEED, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! Notice WHAT IS the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON ON BALANCE !!! NOW, consider what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky ON BALANCE !!! So, consider what is the orange AND setting Sun ON BALANCE. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE), AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) what is GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY, AS the extension of what is SPACE is CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) electromagnetic/gravitational ON/IN BALANCE. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE). GREAT !!!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Carefully consider, ON BALANCE, why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing !!!! By Frank Martin DiMeglio

[@TheMahayanist]

No. Because science isn't done that way. That's how theology is done, not science.

[@Hyporama]

I would pay to have Brian Greene's subtle facial expressions as a meme on my phone

[@FathomlessJoy]

Ha. Call it "Neurosis Wallpaper" Or "Facial tick-tok" 😀

[@Sirrajj]

I just love Brian Greene passion

[@naczelnypsycholog6296]

whitewashing, instead of admitting we were wrong

[@leegoddard2618]

I've never understood string theory. How can one be everywhere at once, yet ONLY "comprehend" this string. I don't believe in being able to travel BACK in time, either. If it took science "needing" to go through string theory to get to quantum mechanics I can understand the process, but I have theories.

[@brandondrew4914]

Being everywhere at once, or everything having infinite velocity is a description of singularity if that helps give direction to your thought. With that being said your next statement is probably more on track than you realize. The entire problem with string theory is that it openly admits that's its own framework doesn't exist in reality but only exists to explain itself.......that doesn't exist either......string theory is like creating a trail of infinite breadcrumbs for yourself to follow in the most literal of senses. It was created knowing beforehand there's no solution or even problem based in reality. So far as we've been able to tell in 70 yrs of research is that it's a neato palette of sacred geometry to play with in the sandbox.

[@christophercudiamat5695]

You don even understand php javascript or python its ok youre a humn ypu don have to understand it all😅

[@leegoddard2618]

@@christophercudiamat5695 you don't even understand how to type. M0R0N

[@henrikstenlund5385]

I was lucky enough to avoid these issues and crisis by studying other subjects in TF

[@coreyfreeman6226]

We have stalled due to a few egos? What concrete results has string theory produced? How does this help or not help humanity?

[@Mikey-mike]

Yes String theory poisoned physics.

[@41-Haiku]

Glad you have the easy answers, Mike.

[@jonsegerros]

or, did smug narcissistic acedemic reductionist materialism poison science???? yea it sure did.

[@mactorresmo]

The most successful result of String Theory is not in physics but in mathematics: Calabi-Yau mirror symmetry

[@jonathanjollimore4794]

Strings might explain quantum strangeness nicely and works almost perfectly with idea of a cycling universe always has same starting point. When I say same I mean the same all same matter that was there first time + anti matter added. Strings at part of evolution maybe we are strings over many cycles

[@thomastmc]

It wasn't string theory that poisoned physics, it was physicists absent of the intellectual humility that scientists love to proclaim yet rarely possess. The 1980s was the second time in the 20th century that physicists thought they had essentially "solved" physics, the first being just prior to Einstein's publication of SR. Many physicists despised Einstein at the time for squashing their hubristic dreams.

[@thomastmc]

@@hv7920 Ignoring contradictory data, attacking the messenger, proclaiming a personal vendetta has been enacted while ignoring the crux of the issue. You are a physicist 😉

[@thomastmc]

@@hv7920 Google "The Hubris of Classical Physics". I have to believe you're being disingenuous when you act as if this is your first exposure to the notion of hubris in science and are naively ignorant of the issue, especially in physics and among physicists. You don't think Newton was kind, selfless, and eagerly open to criticism of his ideas in the pursuit of knowledge do you?

[@thomastmc]

@@hv7920 How can you have an opinion on this issue if you don't even understand what the issue is? Wouldn't you want to educate yourself on the issue instead of relying on my teaching you of it? How can you be a physicist and be ignorant of a centuries old argument related to science's separation from religion? If I claimed GR was false and then asked you to explain GR to me, and claimed I was an Astronomer, you'd have the same attitude, I hope.

[@JoelSjogren0]

@@hv7920 Regarding the paywall, if you are referring to this video, for what it's worth, you can just right-click the video sample at that website before it stops and choose "save as". The standard-definition file is a 700MB mp4. (I personally found the discussion to be garbage, though. People talking their own monologues largely...)

[@rjd53]

Your first sentence is exactly true for the physicists I personally know.

[@ns4235]

Your website doesn't have sufficient bandwidth. Buy better servers or upload the video to youtube please.

[@uladzislaushulha1994]

So, did it poison or did it not?

[@paulborst4724]

Yes. People have gone to neutral corners for the time being as people wait out the current lull. Most have gone off to side topics like medicine, biology and computers till something interesting actually happens in physics again. 80's and 90's physics had a lot of people taking sides, titles and money. If you weren't the in-crowd you were ignored and viewed as foolish which is what Eric pointed out. String and loop camps went at each other hard for 20 years. (I was a physics grad student in the 90's)

[@JakeBerg777]

String Theory is good marketing.

[@guillermocuadra8272]

What meaningful does Michael Shermer have to say about this debate? I'm here to learn, that's why I ask again.

[@HouseJawn]

You can see why Green has entered the pop science educational landscape. So warm, friendly and amicable.

[@phrozenwun]

Is your approach physically falsifiable? yes, then good, that is acceptable as physics; no, then go back to work and find evidence based ideas.

[@sulla1537]

I wish I knew enough to appreciate what’s being said or simply understand it lol

[@makokx7063]

The takeaway isn't even about science itself. Essentially what happened is when String Theory came out every physicist everywhere thought it was going to be the answer for anything and they ridiculed and mocked anything opposing string theory and no one could get grants for anything but string theory. So what Weinstein is saying is that the social climate in physics that string theory created destroyed the dreams and progress of many who wanted to do something else.

[@mydogskips2]

@@makokx7063 My question would then be, does Eric have a valid point or not? And if he does (which it sounds to me like he does), well, people need to stop bashing him and acknowledge the reality of what has happened in science over the past 40 or so years, along with its consequences/detriments.

[@makokx7063]

@@mydogskips2 Scientists are at the end of the day humans. Get enough humans together and you have crazy hubris and bureaucracy. Even if he's completely right, not saying he is, not saying he's not, so long as the popular kid at the table keeps putting him down nothing will change.

[@TheSoltesz]

It's odd watching this after they've discovered that the entire universe is basically quantum entangled particles popping in and out of existence

[@DenisVVFernandes]

Mathematicians study just a portion of the vast universe of physics. It's normal see people like Eric trying to dismiss string theory.

[@tahanayyar1182]

We want a 1 v 1 featuring Michio kaku and Eric Weinstein.

[@kalijasin]

Best part was watching Eric Weinstein and Brian Greene go at it. LOL

[@danfelder8062]

Okay but "Eric Weinstein" is the most "what should we name the science guy in the movie that isn't quite Albert Einstein" name I've ever seen.

[@stegemme]

Can't blame Eric for this, he was on the receiving end of a low moment. I don't think Brian should take the can though, for what is a general failing in the Academy. Corporations call the shots and more or less demand this form of conducting science. Even in the space where its all conjecture. There are still some pockets of proper heterodoxy but typically these people are there at the behest of some benevolence. David Deutsch sums up the situation very succinctly in his latest interview with Naval.

[@Sundaydish1]

There is only 1 string. Or I prefer to call it a thread. Imagine a thread woven through the fabric of the cosmos. You would only see the individual "stitches" and assume they were separate entities. If everything is from the same thread then everything is connected and explains "Spooky action at a distance", you pull on one stitch and you are pulling on other stitches on the thread. It would mean there is a mirror universe. The other side of the fabric. Where everything is opposite. Opposite charge. Opposite spin.... Opposite time.... Maybe. Or maybe not. Its my theory and I'm sticking with it :)

[@nolan412]

Where's Thad Roberts in this debate?

[@nolan412]

Or Wolfram: these all have a natural home in computation!

[@robertword1357]

It is conceivable that the contradiction between GR and the standard model might be resolved by a theoretical advance which falls short of being a theory of everything.

[@GreyWind]

Of course, that's all there needs to be done 🤦🏻

[@dinobotpwnz]

That has precisely played out within the last few years. This business with replica wormholes and quantum extremal surfaces are great for solving the information paradox. But a theory of everything they are not.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

It's concievable, but it's not what happened in the real world. In the real world, we found string theory, which is a theory of everything.

[@KaliFissure]

This seems a lot more elegant than Eric Weinstein's Geometric Unity

[@KaliFissure]

This is what someone else said

[@wrathofgrothendieck]

Geometric Unity the end of all theory of everythings

[@KaliFissure]

@Lester Reyes but I thoroughly disagree. A hydrodynamic model can be both classical and solve quantum weirdness. The problem was that the fathers of qm weren't good at fluid mechanics, why they went for a field model. And the oscillators aspect of black body solution

[@mydogskips2]

My guess, knowing nothing in detail about any of this, is that while String Theory may not really work, it is still the best idea we have right now, and that is why it is pursued, there are no real viable alternatives. But this does also mean that science/physics, whatever specific field this is, could be, has been, headed down a dead-end street for the last 40 or so years, basically taking the best and brightest among us, and well, that's probably not a good thing.

[@brandondrew4914]

No negative criticism here.. Your idea of string and it's issues are a little off. It's not and never has been the best idea that we have. In fa t it doesn't correlate to any proven science. It exists only on paper or 1s and 0s. The si.plest way I know how to explain is that it's a framework that exists to explain only itself. It's like Making a video game to be as real as possible but the reality only exists in the video game it's not real to anything outside of the video game. It's a simulation with no application in the real world amd we can't figure out one dingle way it does. There is literally zero empirical evidence to string, superstring, m-theory or anything related.

[@brandondrew4914]

For instance it has an idea of gravity but there's no known correlation to the gravity it describes and the physical world in any sense. It's just a description of a kind of gravity that could exist in no particular set of physics.....and our physics are very particular involving constants.

[@KravMagoo]

Neil Turok is convinced he's on the right track. Check out some of his vids.

[@cac8793]

That's what Eric has said many times. It seems unfortunate. I hope they'll sort it out and get back to pursuing physics aside from string theory

[@WILLIAMTHOMASFARRELL]

String behavior is the result of gravity due to mass. Dark matter is displacing the heavier atomic particle outward into avenues like a gas in water.

[@arturosuarez-silverio5983]

Irrational exuberance. Credit to Alan Greenspan.

[@brentwarren6788]

Yes

[@Atom_Line]

Minds me to the butterfly 🦋 effect 🌬 ..💀 : Why string theory does not after-all poison the world of physics .. precisely because super-stings there do vibrate and constantly shake❔

[@jordytheknifemaker]

The fact the Shermer is allowed anywhere near this conversation is alarming. The man is an expert in nothing and only seeks to be correct regardless of facts…

[@baraskparas9559]

My maths has a severe case of Godels incompleteness and I prefer to think of mathematicians in light of Richard Feynmans comment that " they do not care about that ( of ) which they are talking ".

[@mcmg-museudacriacao.melind405]

Yes!

[@sunilprinja9913]

Science is not business or politics , it does not need spinning.....!

[@SandipChitale]

It appears that Eric was really excluded/hurt/insulted by someone(s) working in the field of String Theory in mid-1980s. Can they please say sorry to him once and for all? I keep hearing the same complaint from him everywhere I see him. IMO it gets in the way of interesting ideas he may have and it turns people off when we hear the same rant (sorry to say). Maybe Eric can name the people he would like an apology from? This may explain why Stephen Wolfram's ideas are getting better uptake compared to Eric's ideas even though they may be equally revolutionary. Also Stephen is sharing his work openly. In fact, it was clear watching this video how it turned off the people who were participating.

[@xjuhox]

Eric is not a member of academy and thus he don't need to behave nicely. Of course, if he is rude, then other people can call him a cracpot who is not a member of academy.

[@reno_death]

Eric has put his theory online for anyone to read. That's not sharing his work openly? Also, he is far from the only person who does not trust academia. Eric is talking to those people.

[@SandipChitale]

@@reno_death I am aware of one video of a lecture at Oxford. It is not clear how the rest of the science community is supposed to comment on it. Some people have done it any via a rebuttal video. The main thing I am pointing out is that discussion of sociology of academic world in the discussion about scientific theories is a wrong forum. There are channels in academia to address those issues. I agree that not everyone and everything in academia is worthy of trust, and we should not trust anyone in media, science, academia and religion in a blind manner. There are untrustworthy people is all areas. Talking indirectly to THOSE people via a random science discussion video is not going to get him results. And looking at how many places he is found complaining and still having to continue shows that clearly.

[@GabrielMirandaLima-hv7oe]

Well, there is also loop quantum gravity

[@stupidvickfan3744]

I was seriously just thinking this

[@gk-qf9hv]

Why is it that mediators of debates feel the need to prove that they are smart?

[@drewcampbell8555]

So is String theory reel... or knot?

[@KaliFissure]

Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. Time is a compact dimension. Space is a fluid of almost infinite, but limited, density range. And that density can be measured by its energy density. Gravity is measure of metric. We are one side of temporal membrane and antimatter is on other. Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable. Can't wait to chat w you guys.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: Consider the 'speed of light': a. 'Speed' is distance divided by time. b. 'Distance' is two points in space with space between those two points. c. If 'space' and/or 'time' did not exist in actual existent reality, except for as concepts, then 'speed' could not exist in actual existent reality, except for as a concept. d. If 'speed' exists in actual existent reality, then 'space' and 'time' both have to have some sort of actual existent reality. e. Likewise, 'light' which is currently considered as 'em' also has to have an actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept, for 'light' to exist in actual existent reality, in addition to being a concept. f. So, if the 'speed of light' actually exists in existent reality, then 'space', 'time', 'speed' and 'light' ('em'), all also have to actually exist in existent reality, otherwise, the 'speed of light' could not actually exist in existent reality, other than just as a concept, (which would put a major kink in a lot of physics formulas).

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Additionally: Consider the following: a. Modern science does not know what 'space' actually is, but yet claim that space can expand. b. Modern science does not know what 'time' actually is, but yet claim that time can vary. c. 'Speed of Light', 'speed' being distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. d. "IF" space can expand and time can vary, and modern science does not fully know what space and time actually are, then how could they ever have an accurate speed of light that is utilized in many of the formulas? e. Additionally, modern science does not even know how numbers actually exist for math to do what math does and nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics. f. Plus, modern science does not even know what 'gravity' truly is, (as they claim matter bending the fabric of spacetime is what gravity is, but yet don't really know what space and time actually are), nor how gravity does what gravity apparently does. g. It would seem that modern science is missing some very fundamental items from their analysis.

[@KaliFissure]

@@charlesbrightman4237 time exists in a very real and substantial way, but it is fleeting. NOW, the present, has no depth. The wavelength of time is a single Planck. We are an an infinitesimally thin membrane of the present. Other dimensions one can get the sense that one moves within their spaciousness, but time.... things are remember in persisting structures, and things are anticipated. But life is experienced in the moment . A moment always in flux and yet we are caught on it like a transparency.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@KaliFissure "The wavelength of time is a single Planck." A wavelength of what exactly?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@KaliFissure FOR ME: 'Space' is energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. They are one and the same thing. And for me, the 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe. 'Time' is the flow of energy. 'Time' (flow of energy) cannot exist unless 'space' (energy itself) exists. And 'space' (energy itself) that does not flow (no flow of time / energy) is basically useless. An entity cannot even think a thought without a flow of energy. If all the energy in the universe stopped flowing, wouldn't we say that 'time stood still'? Time itself would still exist, it would just not be flowing, (basically 'time' stopped). But then also, how space and time are linked in what is called 'space time', (energy and it's flow). * And everything in existence currently appears to be eternally existent energy interacting with itself.

[@rg46979]

The way this video is cut is SUPER misleading. If you listen to just the audio, there is no “clash”.

[@mrb1483]

Guess they are all tied up in string

[@olswole3658]

Sheldon is in a room with his thumb wedged into a dark and remote location

[@davidgold2235]

I have seen debates with Brian Greene and he is normally friendly to everyone. Yes, put every theory to the test. I like debate and different opinions. But not this.

[@bruceli9094]

String theory is the side quest on the journey to a unified theory. Physicists got distracted.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

String theory is *"Science of the gaps."*

[@jmd1743]

There's nothing wrong to say that people jumped the shark as you see that with new investment trends such as NFTs & Crypto. It's less of a criticism toward physics and more about an observation of humans. The problems begin when anything is turned into Dogma or Gospel with the preachers preaching to the choirs .

[@youareivan]

please take this with a grain of "old man yelling at the kids on his lawn" but it sure seems like there are a lot of scientists swinging for the fences instead of trying to get on base. this applies to people other than scientists as well- lots of people obsessed with being there when history is made only the history they're thinking of is big huge flashy and tailor made for selfies.

[@aishwariyasweety2433]

Eric Weinstein and brian Greene are both scientist from the same generation. You can't say Eric is the old man. He's only in a different, not-mainstream camp not that I support his ideas or especially like this trend in physics.

[@youareivan]

@@aishwariyasweety2433 actually, i was the old man in my post. i was suggesting it might be appropriate to ignore my opinion because there's a possibility i'm just being a grumpy old codger. i was refering to neither mr. weinstein or mr. greene.

[@aishwariyasweety2433]

@@youareivan omg sorry I totally misunderstood. I do agree with your point.