Eric Weinstein or Brian Greene: Who’s RIGHT About String Theory?

Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com to win a meteorite 💥
In this clip from my interview with the one and only Brian Greene, we discuss string theory, Eric Weinstein, Peter Woit, and Juan Maldacena. Enjoy!
Check out the full interview: • Brian Greene: The Trut...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 KZbin: kzbin.info...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #briangreene
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is Eric correct that string theory has held back progress in physics for two generations or is Brian right that it is a success no matter what?

[@Shadow_B4nned]

I don't know who's correct. But String theory has done nothing for me except teach me a bunch of interesting nonsense that turned out to not be true. It did spark my interest in science for a time, so it's not all bad. But if instead of string theory, had there been a bunch of Einstein's working on GR the world would probably be much better off.

[@snarzetax]

I think String Theory is like the idea that 2+2=5. Yes, it can be proven with math but in no universe does two apples added to two apples equate to five apples.

[@Sirmellowman]

frankly string theory sounds like a bunch of stuff thought up by theoretical physicists trying to hard to become the next Einstein

[@manularajintha9377]

How do you prove 2+2 = 5?@@snarzetax

[@snarzetax]

@@manularajintha9377 there are lots of videos about that right here on youtube. do a search

[@baarbacoa]

Brian Greene reminds me of a real estate developer trying to explain why they haven't yet broken ground, to an angry crowd of buyers.

[@dinobotpwnz]

Real estate developers are "supposed" to produce things for a wide audience. String theorists are just trying to produce things for people who already study physics.

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

​@@dinobotpwnzif they want public funds fo research they should figure out how to explain it to regular people. A person who truly understands and is intelligent can explain something complex to everyone.

[@readynowforever3676]

@@maxwellblackwell5045 The best way to "explain" it to the novice is by stating everything starts with theory. There can be no ingenuity without science theory. All practical inventions all of our daily technology relies on the substrate of science. Computers Cars Ships Airplanes Phones Televisions Atomic bombs Nuclear bombs Medicine....

[@Thedudeabides803]

I have read all of Brian Greenes books and give him credit for my deep interest in physics. He is such a wonderful presenter. But I gotta say, my feeling is String Theory is a very contrived answer to what’s going on. But what do I know I’m an armchair theorist.😊

[@michaelperry9580]

I don’t think it’s contrived. It’s obviously a pattern in nature that works, but we just don’t know yet if it has real world implications.

[@wvltjr2934]

@@michaelperry9580string theory is not tested or observed in nature at all, that’s literally the main problem

[@robertjackson9326]

The basic problem is that String "Theory" is not a theory at all. It is a purely and ridiculously complex mathematical hypothesis which has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality. They should've learned something when SUSY was debunked at the LHC. And worse, it was never even a fundamental theory by its own admission. I'm sure Greene's a nice guy, but he's done a lot of damage.

[@robertjackson9326]

The basic problem is that String "Theory" is not a theory at all. It is a purely and ridiculously complex mathematical hypothesis which has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality. They should've learned something when SUSY was debunked at the LHC. And worse, it was never even a fundamental theory by its own admission. I'm sure Greene's a nice guy, but he's done a lot of damage.

[@robertjackson9326]

The basic problem is that String "Theory" is not a theory at all. It is a purely and ridiculously complex mathematical hypothesis which has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality. They should've learned something when SUSY was debunked at the LHC. And worse, it was never even a fundamental theory by its own admission. I'm sure Greene's a nice guy, but he's done a lot of damage.

[@gerardopc1]

I have to say that Brian Green inspired me to become a physicist. He's a great science communicator.

[@James-ll3jb]

Lol! He's definitely the Bill Maher of Science Guy superficialists!😅😅😅😅

[@robertjackson9326]

Might be more convincing if you spelled his name correctly. A shame he wasted his career on a purely (and ridiculously complex) mathematical hypothesis with no bearing on physical reality.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@robertjackson9326 really. C.all Don Hoffman.

[@robertjackson9326]

Had to think about this one. Fortunately, I am wise. Wait, what was the question...?

[@cleander97]

Just don’t waste your life in the String Theory please 😊

[@qigong1001]

String theory definitely needs some competitors, but Brian Green’s books has taught me more about physics than any physics class that I’ve ever taken. In school we just learn all the formulas and there’s no discussion about the actual concepts.

[@4pharaoh]

String theory is the epitome of modern "science", trying to make reality fit their math.

[@vapormissile]

So ... We still have no idea.

[@kurtu5]

Brian Greene is out of control!

[@Thedudeabides803]

Haha Eric? What’s annoying is how they never claim the faults they have with their theory. There are so many assumptions that they just assume which create huge gaps and leaps of thought to make it work.

[@peterquinn2997]

He and Kaku need to get a room. 😂

[@brotherbarnes]

Hahah

[@BrickBreaker21]

This needs to become a meme. 😂

[@InnerLuminosity]

😂😂😂😂​@@peterquinn2997

[@vonBottorff]

As I've said elsewhere, ST simply "followed the math." People threw shade on Einstein, on Dirac saying their math was just mental onanism that couldn't really be describing anything real -- but the math did eventually prove correct in real-world observations. Sure, it can be a rough road. Who can forget Pauli's comment to Dirac: "Just because the energy goes to infinity, that doesn't mean it's zero." Bottom line: If the math works -- and problems like energies being infinity and/or zero are eventually ironed out -- ST works.

[@NoNonsense_01]

Dirac, Einstein and Pauli produced hypotheses that were verified. These string "theorists" have utterly failed to reconcile QM with GR on theoretical level and they haven't produced any predictions that can be verified by experiment. It is an absurd dogma and it is high time that its priests are called out.

[@redriver6541]

I absolutely love that painting behind you and Dr Green. I can't stop staring at it.

[@Dayz3O6]

The void of string theory

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

​@@Dayz3O6damn. That was good

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Well, we will always defend whatever theory we invested most of our personal time in. No one wants to admit they wasted their post graduation life. Brian wasted his time on string theory, Eric on GU. Both men failed in this respect as obviously neither theory is a road to simplicity, merely complex mathematical approximations at best. Newton was the first and last great physicist as he was desperate to find the ToE in the most simple principles possible. All who came after him claimed to do the same, but in reality they looked for the truth in insanely complex mathematics. In their mastery of mathematical complexity they felt superior to all others. They couldnt be further away from the simple fundament of physics. Human vanity trumps human intelligence…still.

[@AncientAdvancedCiv]

Sounds like its the "putting alot of peoples careers in the shredder" that's such a difficult thing to acknowledge, that the alternative of maintaining a hope for String Theory becomes an impossible temptation to resist. We're all human. And these human tendencies are more transparent that we'd like.

[@rustymustard7798]

String theory = Flying Spaghetti Monster

[@dinobotpwnz]

If you don't care about discovering new consistent QFTs every day when we used to know almost none then sure.

[@rikimitchell916]

Brian technical tip , in a 'closed' environment, the greater the distance between a mirophone and the target source the more the acoustic characteristics of the environment effect the capture...shorten the distance..IE lapel mic EG Rode are always preferable

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

To bad ego will never be taken out of science. We get brainwashed into thinking these men are just trying to find the truth. Its very human to want a legacy and very normal for it to be hard or impossible to admit you were wrong and wasted your lifes work.

[@MainStreamRegimeDemocrats]

Almost word for word a Weinstein quote

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

@@MainStreamRegimeDemocrats maybe it's just two people seeing some kind of pattern. I'm not agreeing with him on everything. The guy actually comes across as a fool. . But he has some interesting things to say.

[@biancaferrara3196]

I'm also laughing. . We're both laughing 😂

[@wulfgarpl]

Brian sound more and more like Gwyneth Paltrow selling Body Vibe stickers that "have frequency in them"

[@dinobotpwnz]

And the authors of the 20,000 papers citing that work of Juan Maldacena he mentioned must be just like Paltrow's new age fans, amirite?

[@europa_bambaataa]

4:27 for the somewhat-Eric-Weinstein-related part

[@JanPBtest]

1:28 It reminds me: as a grad student at UCSB around 1984 I talked to a visiting physicist there and asked him about string theory. His answer was: "It's good for shit" 🙂

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Excellent 👍 Todah Rabah thank you

[@randymartin5500]

I watched the movie Frequency again with Jim Caviezal and understand the science behind it a lot better now.

[@kmktruthserum9328]

I've been really pondering something for a while now and I have been wanting to ask and hopefully it's as interesting to others as it is to me... I understand it's all relative but I want a better answer. Is there a way to come as close to absolute zero speed as possible? So like I get that if we shoot a rocket close to the speed of light and we come back everybody's going to be older but can we shoot a rocket the opposite speed of the Galaxy and come back and everybody's younger and we are the old ones? I guess we could never get to absolute zero because we would have to shoot at the opposite speed of the universe and we can't do that from within the system? But my question is still bothering me. Can't I be shot the exact opposite way at the exact speed and be considered going slower? Or is rest on earth the slowest that we can get? Or Is it only achieved through being cold?

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

No. That's not how time works. It's not about the direction you are headed. The faster you move, relative to another object, the slower time will be for you. If you came to a speed of zero compared to another object then your time would move faster than the time for that object or person so they would age less than you.

[@MainStreamRegimeDemocrats]

@kmktruth no, the universe is expanding everywhere, all at once in every direction, there is no opposite direction of the universe bro.

[@gregoryhead382]

11 dimensions in spacetime is a String Theory: 1 fine structure constant gradient = c/ (11 Universe radius) × (fine structure constant^2)

[@JimJWalker]

What has String Theory falsified? The results do not justify the effort.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Math mapping a certain minds way of rationalizing the universe around us has value and benefit but not acknowledging this is the only issue I have. I dont have any issues with mass displacement of space creating the by product of gravity or that every plank length gradiant has a vertical axis of time. This falls apart on smaller & larger scales so its a bad foundation to use. It seems to be a contrast between those who really want deterministic linear direction magical woven into the fabric of reality and those who are perfectly fine following the evidence where it leads. Trying to bend reality into manifolds or changing evidence to fit some human bias seems extreme to me. We tried and funded this with the most money ever ,the most brain power ever ,using the best tech to aid it and yet nature continues to tell us the same results. Its been many different lines of evidence telling us nature don't work like humans can manipulate systems. How many different generations finding similar results does it take?

[@DanIel-fl1vc]

I occasionally put on videos like this as background noise while doing real work. And then suddenly, 7 minutes gone by, what happened. Like time traveling. I think that proves nothing was accomplished in the chat, it's like ambient music or a steady drum beat. You don't have to pay attention because it's not, that great music.

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

It's like you can tell when someone is just trying to deflect and defend or actually tell you something they think.

[@realtalk5329]

Near death experiences and the mandela effect corroborates some of the ideas of string theory and many worlds theory. String theory also answers the fine tuning problem

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

Neither one of those have any scientific evidence and are not real.

[@LuckyInCards]

Took the world by storm? Really? Can it be any more arcane?

[@joegerrety4012]

Delta x \cdot \Delta p \cdot \Delta X \cdot \Delta P = C why is the “observer” static, From the frame of the photon? (The relationship isn’t symmetrical in current quantum mechanics - should be symmetrical😘)

[@Metacognition88]

Isn’t ed witten a proponent of string theory?

[@Thedudeabides803]

The number one contributor I believe. Eric Weinstein said he’s afraid to debate him because Ed is just so smart.

[@BrickBreaker21]

He practically is string theory.

[@user-lq9oi5jq3n]

Awesome.

[@crucifixgym]

The way to make String Theory exciting is to explain from the beginning the idea of why there is a belief of strings and how these are making up reality, and it’s all downhill from there.

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

What?

[@crucifixgym]

@@maxwellblackwell5045 huh?

[@DianelosGeorgoudis]

All I can say with certainty is that his book The Elegant Universe is good. As for string theory, the way it has failed may perhaps show the way forward in physics.

[@b.7944]

I have to say that. That.

[@RealityHijacked]

This man has aged 15 years in 5 years time....

[@maxwellblackwell5045]

He's just slow. 😅

[@BrickBreaker21]

QED changed everything, and I'm guessing this later evolved into QFT. But does string theory really inherit its accuracy and precision?

[@Wackyboombacky]

Qed and it’s claims of virtual particles are not accurate or precise. It is completely illogical.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Me I am

[@petermerelis7355]

watching a physicist who spent his entire life chasing a ghost try to defend the work through extreme cognitive dissonance is sad.

[@user-lq9oi5jq3n]

Please.

[@averybrooks2099]

You should have Larry on again, he is much more grump but not as willing to debate ideas these days.

[@dewiwood2106]

As a response to String Theory / Framework I highly recommend watching this presentation by Neil Turok. In his Perimeter Public Lecture webcast on October 25, 2023, Perimeter Director Emeritus Neil Turok shared his insights into the basic laws of the universe and their surprising simplicity - including his latest work on an alternative to the cosmological inflation model. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKSskHuPqbVpn7c Dr Keating, I would love to watch you interview Neil as I believe that he deserves much more media time as his ideas have merit and are well considered.

[@InnerLuminosity]

E8 theory for the win❤

[@organellespy]

Hipsters eating mushrooms

[@Time-Shepherd.]

❤❤❤❤

[@MeStevely]

Neither, both Brians are strong on the history of physics - the future, not so much.

[@Uncle_Yankee]

Please get Eric Weinstein on here to debate. This was just an uneventful clip of things I've already heard both of them say.

[@center__mass]

lol Star trekking across the universe only going forwards cos we can't find reverse. brian trying lol

[@pbp6741]

Is this a joke? One has studied string theory his whole professional career, the other is begging physicists to make something out of his pot pourri of incomplete work. One is published in premiere physics journals, the other has trouble putting his work in a slide show. One works a professional physicist, the other calls himself an entertainer.

[@robertjackson9326]

@pbp6741 Weinstein is a brilliant theoretician, and most physicists nowadays no longer consider Greene and Kaku and all the other String Hypothesis cult followers to be reputable or serious.

[@JamesCairney]

What is a joke is the inability of string theory to be able to test any of its hypothesis. Extra dimensional strings that conveniently suck up some gravity, nah can't find them. Many worlds hypothesis? Maybe but totally untestable, which ever version you try to test. Yeah great "science".

[@robertjackson9326]

@JamesCairney Yes. They might've taken the hint when SUSY was debunked by the LHC.

[@ChaineYTXF]

​​​​@@robertjackson9326 most exchanges I've encountered of knowledgeable people in the field disagree: inconsistent theory, math is fishy, shiab operator (which he invented) ill defined, ... the list goes on and on. This is not compelling work, by far. Did I look up the wrong trees? If so, share some links if you have the time.

[@robertjackson9326]

@ChaineYTFX. The extension of field theory from General Relativity makes more sense than random mathematics. Do your own research.

[@GoatOfTheWoods]

Not Eric Weinstein is a default answer in general.

[@mark6809mm]

I’m with Eric Weinstein

[@poloflaith9993]

String theory is nonsensical.

[@JAYMOAP]

Weinstein need to relax and do some work

[@proteusaugustus]

A useless mathematical system

[@user-qw4qv7ve3h]

Eric Weinstein is the Man! Love that guy.

[@mitchellhayman381]

He's an extremely nasty and dishonest man.

[@imatthewryan4076]

he said nothing lol

[@paolomiasma7364]

Neither of these guys are right. They are both hammy goofs.

[@NickolasGoadSD]

regurgitating much.

[@aanebalaa4s47]

All Brian Greene does is repeat the same crap over and over. I have nothing against string theory (not like my opinion counts) but I could have predicted almost everything he said. Does this guy have any original thoughts whatsoever?

[@l.rongardner2150]

None that he can string together.

[@rikimitchell916]

Your love of the false dichotomy is wearing

[@magtovi]

Brian, Brian... Brian... ...let go

[@Cue_D_ball]

I’m smarter than Eric Weinstein

[@l.rongardner2150]

Hunter Biden, is that you?

[@r-gart]

Not a big challenge, huh?

[@Cue_D_ball]

@@r-gart ask me a question, what’s the square root of 82. 9. !

[@r-gart]

@@Cue_D_ball what is the square root of 82.9?

[@Cue_D_ball]

@@r-gart nine

[@juggy-ik7qy]

String theory is a successful mathematical model with no real world application. Its a waste of time as is every model of physics that hasn't resulted in anything of real benefit to humanity. Understanding reality is just novelty if its not useful.

[@Metacognition88]

Sounds like philosophy 😂

[@sobeitchris6098]

I’m not in disagreement with you. I’d just like to know what credentials expertise do you have in science and/or math ? I do believe anyone can have an opinion. However, I do believe that you have to have working knowledge of a specific topic to have an INFORMED opinion on the topic. For said reasons, I’m slightly more inclined to believe what Ed Witten (a physicist’s physicist and Brian Greene) than someone with an opinion on KZbin.

[@juggy-ik7qy]

@@sobeitchris6098 Well nothing they've ever done in physics has amounted to anything tangible. No real world product. Meanwhile almost every labor in my adult life has. I'm supremely more qualified than they are to assess whether or not String Theory is useful.

[@joobinmcgroobin5181]

Brian Greene: " and this is not a plug" (proceeds to plug his reprinted book)

[@timtaylor7146]

When you build your entire career on a failed theory and dont being liked critisized over it! Not as far as I thought???? Really bruh! If you took your ego out of it and listened to anybody else's theory we'd atleast respect you. Grayam Hancock was right when he said scientist gang up on anyone with alternative theories! I truly believe men like Greene would rather destroy other peoples career than admit there whole career since his thesis to now is more than likely incorrect! Its not that you were wrong that pisses people off. Its that you were wrong and condescending, and dishonest to people who challeged you. Sam Harris has ZERO respect anymore from anyone including the other insane California liberals. Richard Dawkins is only respected by athiests wich is hilarious to me. NDT is now hated for the way he treated people about UFOs. Every chance he gets. Then we have the Pentagon that says okay people really were seeing stuff thats still very much unexplainable to us that's a direct quote. I miss Carl Sagan!

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

You had to throw politics into the mix. Tags you as emotional nonsense dude. Can't even spell people's names, sheesh.