Lee Smolin: String Theory Is Still Wrong (152)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Is string theory still our best hope for a Theory of Everything?

[@mr8ty8]

I doubt it. And my doubts are great.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@zeb1820]

No, because we don't even know how long a piece of string is? But seriously, the two ideas that seem to be breaking ground are geometric unity and the understanding that there are additional factors or dimensions coupled with the realisation from the 'delayed erazor double slit experience' which shows that what is experienced is based on what wd expect to be. 'Allah gives you what you expect' , and 'prayer is the only thing that can change what is written for you'. Or as my enlightened daughter said, 'we don't know anything about reality'! My question is is it the expectation that changes the outcome of the experiment, or does it just mean we experience the outcome of the experiment differently due to what we expect? I'd say the later, but that's probably just because that's what I expect it to be...

[@mr8ty8]

I loved Lee Smolins the The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time and Einsteins unfinished revolution. Well worth the read.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Agreed

[@trax9987]

Brian plzzz the sound in the background does not go well the voice and speech. You can have the audio but it has to be different. You can hire an audio engineer for cheap and they will pick out the type of music that does go well and mix it so it all sounds right. Please I love your work but this makes it unbearable to listen.

[@chriskennedy2846]

Lee is a great thinker. He is always honest with himself and always honest with the rest of us as well. Physics needs more of that.

[@JasonMacKenzie]

First of all, I absolutely love your interviews and your deep knowledge in so many areas. My only request is: please, please, please lose that random background music that shows up in the podcast lately. It makes the interviews unlistenable to me. Am I the only one? It wouldn’t be the first time I’m an army of one :)

[@mechannel7046]

Agreed. The music is very distracting, and the guest's audio is barely acceptable, even though what he says is very interesting

[@parva777]

ME2

[@dsimpsonbeck]

Yeah, it's quite distracting and doesn't add anything useful. I'm also not sure the displaying of book covers on quantum gravity right when Smolin starts talking about it actually helps us to understand what he's saying. This was when the background music first dropped in though, so it might be that without the music i would have been less distracted by the book covers. The combination of the two sets up a mental expectation that you shouldn't actually be listening to the speaker anymore. Think of those sections in quick news videos when they're highlighting an idea by showing a clip of someone explaining the idea, then they fade the speaker's voice into the background as they bring on visual info to keep the explanation going but through a different medium. In those videos (of they're done well) the speaker's voice fades, and the music comes in overtop, to allow your brain to shift to taking in the info through the new medium. But with this video, that's not even the intention. So you prime the viewer into switching modes when you don't actually want that, and Smolin's explanation gets lost.

[@davidsmail1987]

Agreed. Amazing interviews but would (humbly) suggest the music/graphics should go.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks but will keep graphics for sure!!

[@sirilandgren]

Brian, it's so fantastic how you keep expressing your deep personal admiration for your guests, even though they sometimes hold deeply contradictory views. That gratitude for people's work and commitment (also shared by Lee) is in my mind what a field needs in order to be as good as it can be - both in terms of technical results, but also in terms of value to humanity. And this is also one of the reasons why I (from my amateur's point of view) hold Lee as one of the most important people to his field.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks SL. I really appreciate that!!

[@zbig47]

Smolin is a total picnic to listen to. Keating doesn't bother but ask the highest pertinent questions. Great conversation between the two. Thanks for this !

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much !!

[@pascalbercker7487]

I'm just echoing what others have already said, namely that the random music not only adds nothing - but detracts.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks I’ll tone it down. Get it?

[@gwh0]

@@DrBrianKeating Just turn it off.

[@johnwhitworth2090]

Distraction

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

As atmospheric music goes, this is not bad. I've heard sooooo much worse.

[@parva777]

Background music is painfull to my ears (much to lood)... Specialy with such an interesting subject !

[@johnwhitworth2090]

Especially painful and loud.

[@tonyguerich9854]

Needs to be faded down after intro. Really not needed at all.

[@DrBrianKeating]

The music or the videos? effects?

[@simplyzach]

@@DrBrianKeating Maybe I can clarify. The background music that appeared sporadically during conversation, was at times, extremely annoying. The volume seemed to vary quite a bit, and didn't match conversation. I am assuming this was an editing oversight with the other visuals that appeared (overlapping audio) but it was infrequent enough that I watched anyway, because as the previous poster noted, the topic material is extremely interesting.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Ok. Noted. Check next weeks video and please let me know if I improved

[@Joniversity]

The background music is distracting and annoying. Why the hell mix that in to a podcast??????

[@mxbishop]

I really like Lee Smolin. I've read his books including, "The Trouble with Physics." He was objecting to String Theory long before others had joined the chorus. When I think about physics, I see an elephant in the room. And that elephant is quantum entanglement. How can it be that two particles can seemingly communicate faster than the speed of light? To me, this is the big clue that's winking at everyone in the physics community. It's telling us that Einstein's relativity is incomplete. Perhaps there is more to reality than our classical 4D spacetime? QE suggests a broader theory that includes higher dimensions and/or more exotic geometries that allows quantum entangled particles to communicate without violating special relativity - when viewed in this new framework. Of course, the broader theory will have to recover special and general relativity in our familiar 4D spacetime. QE is imploring us to find a better theory of spacetime. I also suspect that once this new theory is discovered that explains how QE actually works, then quantum gravity may likely fall out of the equations as well. I'm not a theoretical physicist, but I am a mathematician, and this is what I think.

[@SpinStar1956]

I like Lee, he seems very down to earth, and realistic about not only science but the humility that is really necessary to not waste time and get on with the next frontier...

[@adraffy]

I rarely comment. Brian, this was one of your best podcasts. You got Smolin to braindump and you let him talk uninterrupted.

[@Achrononmaster]

LQG people have missed something big, because they've tried to quantize an already quantized theory[^]. Rovelli infected them all with unviable quantization. If they go back to the gauge picture, then formulate the GR sector in terms of geometric algebra (Lasenby & Doran's work) you get most of relativistic wave-mechanics for "free" (so to speak) with the rotors in the _real_ geometric (Clifford) algebra (David Hestenes work), then add non-trivial spacetime topology (wormholes --- Lenny Susskind & Maldacena's work) then use that to raise the _effective_ degrees of freedom so you get an "effective" extra pair of space dimensions (c.f. Dixon, Baylis and others), hence 6+1 d.o.f then with the geometric algebra you get octonions (Dixon, Baez) and the full standard model group with chirality (Cohl Furey's work). I cannot be certain but I also think you will not get superstring anomalies, and you do not need supersymmetry, since spacetime topology tames modes (and the graviton is not really a thing), you just have ordinary gravity waves and solitons, or wormhole vibrational modes. On the scale where wormholes persist (Planck scale) you'll get CTC"s and hence "time loops" which "explains" all the rest of quantum mechanics --- decoherence or "collapse" is a macro consequence of the fact big things cannot travel trough these CTC's, and so quantum effects must fade naturally the more fundamental topological geons have to coherently jump around the wormholes (whihc is what quantum foam is). I know this is a broad brush I'm painting with, by hey, it's only a youtube comment. Feel free to "steal" this patchwork quilt, but drop me a line if you do. I have more pressing humanitarian problems to solve, trying to get a job guarantee program into New Zealand law, switching career from physic to activist macroeconomics. [^] the "already quantized theory" is GR!!! (Mark Hadley's work) --- and Susskind & Maldacena have also cracked into this piece of the puzzle, the key to that bit is "ER=EPR," and more recently Susskind has even been writing about "QM=GR". The laboratory for studying QG will be on the desktop, the quantum computer (wormholes (GR) _are_ entanglement (EPR => quantum computing)). Susskind's missing all this because he is biased, he thinks GR emerges from entanglement, but it's the other way around! One can appreciate GR => QM when you listen to Feynman: all the weird shit like Pauli exclusion arises from spacetime symmetry and exchange (via what?... via wormholes, hello!!!) Sum over histories too and the "fractal" and acausal Feynman--Hibbs trajectories --- what's all that from?... from the non-time oriented statistics of topological geons jumping around through Lorentzian wormhole CTC's on the Planck scale or thereabouts (probably a quite broad scale of length and time, say sub-atomic, I don't know how extremal wormholes persist, not sure anyone does for sure, but the hint is at least as long as entanglement of one quibit persists). In a sort of very "macro" picture what's happening is gravity is what other forces "push off" --- topologically. The "EM-motor metaphor" is like gravity is the "stator" for the universe,and the gauge boson forces the "rotor" --- I got this off an engineer friend who's also an economist, Warren Mosler of MMT fame, of all people. It's only a metaphor but I kinda' like it.

[@williambunting803]

That is a great concept “Teleportation of character”. That talk had a number of philosophical gems towards the end.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks William. I really appreciate you/that

[@Wilson-Jr]

The string theory offers a solution to a problem created by the string theory itself.

[@seionne85]

To everyone complaining about the background music, I think that was on Dr. Smolin's end. Because it seems to only play while he is speaking. He may have had his rebellious teenage grandson's garage band practicing downstairs 😂😂

[@JaskoonerSingh]

Great fan of your but please lose this background music esp when someone like Lee Smolin is speaking. We want to concentrate on what the man is saying when is already very frail and faint of voice.

[@joqqy8497]

Lee is a wise, intelligent and good man. You can just hear it when he speaks and in what he says.

[@andyoates8392]

Thank you Brian and thank you Lee. Listening to this KZbin channel has had the most profound effect on how I view life, myself, my work and everything else. Keep the wisdom coming, it’s great.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Andy that is SO wonderful to hear. Have a great weekend!

[@andyoates8392]

Right back at you 🙂

[@tensevo]

I agree that the laws could be changeable across space and time. I find it oddly comforting that listening to great physicists, as they have grappled with physics their wholes lives, they feel no certainty, perhaps less certainty about what we know. The trick is to learn how to live without certainty. Live in awe and gratitude at the power and wonder of the Universe.

[@guitarslim56]

"Laws" are written by people. People change their mind from time to time. That's why the laws change.

[@tensevo]

@@guitarslim56 but only laws that everybody agrees on, stand.

[@emasolie4135]

Prof. Smolin is adorable. I turn on cc so as not to miss anything. He's a classic thinker (INTP). I like what you and he say about character. Many people today can't talk about it.

[@jonathanhockey9943]

That thought on the twin paradox was an interesting one, with analogy with the moment of measurement in quantum theory

[@sibbyeskie]

Thanks Brian for including helpful graphics. I’m finding myself increasingly wanting to learn the guts of the physics discussed; the math and terms that go beyond pop literature. I think we’ve underestimated the broad appeal of science AND the competency and capacity to learn by the average person sufficiently committed. I’m certainly surprising myself the deeper I go. So, many thanks !

[@DrBrianKeating]

Hi SE. yes you noticed. This is a new format for my channel. Glad you like it. I’m going to keep doing it. Please share with folks so i can help get new members on this journey!

[@spaceinyourface]

Were just couple of nobodies in the UK,,but we allways feel privileged listening to the top minds in physics you have on your podcasts,,if the sounds a bit dodgy or we cant hear something clearly we go back a few minutes & listen again ..& again if need be,, we allways pause it & discuss certain issues,,then carry on. Your interviews are a big part of our lives right now. These older guys wont be around for ever,...😃

[@DrBrianKeating]

I agree. That’s part of the motivation for my upcoming book. Inspired after the passing of Freeman Dyson your countryman last year.

[@ironshirt420]

I was surprised, delighted and moved by the closing segment. Especially your teleportation riff. Just splendid. Thank you so much! Both of you. Wow.

[@DrBrianKeating]

My greatest pleasure

[@arjundey807]

So i’m still kind of confused does this video trust the string theory or does it believe it’s rubbish ?

[@tensevo]

30:33 Really interesting ideas on time. Past: Determined. I was what it was. Present: It is what we experience and the result of the past. It is what it is. Future: Indefinite realm. It is what you make it, within the bounds of physical reality, but your starting point was pre-determined.

[@davidwilkie9551]

A version of theories is incomplete, if the fundamental elemental principles are correct, "the devils are in the details".

[@Alexander_Sannikov]

I appreciate that there are some graphics vaguely related to what's discussed. But I wish they were less flashy and more closely related to what's discussed. For example, when Lee is talking about the quantum loop paradigm, you show some really pretty stock videos that arguably have nothing to do QLG. Instead, I wish you showed static images that are less pretty but are more related to the subject.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks for the feedback

[@salmanuel4053]

The articulation of your graittude to Lee Smolin was deeply true and meaningful.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@Mrpsblobsoflowendmung]

Wow the last 5 minutes of this literally brought tears sir, Truly beautiful and inspiring conversation . I always find out so many of my favourite people are also musicians . Thank you Brian truly thank you

[@DrBrianKeating]

Dear Phil. I really appreciate that. Have a wonderful weekend!

[@arjundey807]

so i’m still kind of confused does this video show that the String theory is rubbish or not ?

[@simplyzach]

Love Lee, love how you are giving a voice to anti establishment physics. This stagnation in physics I whole heartedly believe is due to the stubbornness of academia. Is gravity simply emergent? Is dark energy simply a second inflation event? Can a "slow bang" explain it away? Are we too focused on making "right now" applicable to the past and the future? Are fundamental physics evolving over time? Are we simply living on a temporal island of stability? I ask myself things like this every day. We need more out of the box thinking, because strumming the theory of strings is getting us nowhere.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much. Stay tuned for more great guests next week!

[@williambunting803]

If Einstein was right with E=MC^2 then there is only one building block of the Universe, and that is Energy. The first question has to be what is the nature of the actual energy itself. Energy as we experience it is confined by a field, the Higgs Field. So that is a second building block which by Einstein’s theory must be energy in a different form to that of Matter Energy. Consider for a moment what properties Energy without a constraint field would have? It is logical that energy without constraint is infinite and therefore dimensionless for both space and time. Space and Time are emergent properties of spontaneous transition of infinite energy to energy with two properties which I suggest could be thought of as Dynamic Energy and Static Energy where Static Energy is the Higgs Field. Energy as we observe it is either moving (photons, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, gluons, etc) or static in the form of fields that mediate the nature of the dynamic energy passing through it. If you look at the universe from that perspective every thing we experience are emergent properties of the confinement of the dynamic form of energy which I perceive to be string like in nature and everything we know are clues as to how dynamic energy is contained within the field. So string theory is the only solution consistent with the fundamentals.

[@KaliFissure]

First. Friedman equation should be performed not on a perfect fluid (since space is no such thing) but on a variable viscosity fluid which appears to be infinitely compressible. This gives low density regions higher viscosity which has many characteristics of mass/inertia. This would also make denser regions like galaxies less viscous which would encourage turbulence and micro turbulence which would absorb the smooth large scale rotational energy solving galactic disk problem. Second. The quantum unit of gravity (which itself is continuous and fluid as energy does impart curve) is the neutralized charge pair which is in both proton and neutron but not in any other particles. P=+2/3+2/3-1/3=1 but the neutralized +1/3-1/3 is not gone. It is spinning at c . m = E/c^2. These charges, chasing each other at c induce inertia through centripetal force of c^2. This is the quantum of mass and why only P N have.

[@schmetterling4477]

Viscosity does nothing to angular momentum and energy.

[@hungryformusik]

At the end I almost cried. So emotional, so loving.

[@tensevo]

What I like about Lee is that he seems to prick the bubble of theoretical physics in a nice way. Too many believe the map is the territory. If I understand him correctly I think he is astutely aware that the map (i.e. quantum physics) is not the territory.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Yes I agree Mark. He does so in good humor too.

[@DraganAlves]

Great content, just wish the audio quality on the guest's end was better

[@pdcoates]

I started to watch this then I thought, WTF life is too short to waste it on proven dead ends. RI(not in peace) string theory.

[@wulphstein]

I wish the physics community would figure out the mechanisms that make physics work, so that we can build a warp drive. If you need ideas, I have ideas.

[@paulthomas963]

will never happen because that theory is false.

[@quarkraven]

The chiming in of music is extremely distracting and superfluous.

[@tnekkc]

I only have two years of college calculus.... and I never believed in string theory for a second....If a know nothing like me can see that, imagine how many well informed scientists had to hold their noses for years.

[@Jannikheu]

The closing words are quite inspiring and poetic! I'm going to quote them in my little notebook in which I collect all aphorisms that are meaningful to me.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much. Have a great weekend!

[@Jannikheu]

@@DrBrianKeating Thank you, you too :)!

[@arjundey807]

I’m still kind of confused does this video show that the string theory is rubbish or does it prove the theory ?

[@wulphstein]

An experiment that is called a Photon Wormhole or an Artificial Worm Hole is an idea that is worth explaining. Imagine if you had access to a wormhole. You can think of the wormhole in the movie Stargate if you like. What would happen if you took a laser and shined it directly into the wormhole? The photons would travel along the wormhole to the other side. But you have to remember that the wormhole is gravitationally either uphill or downhill. So in that sense, we are talking about a real physics phenomena called Gravitational Redshift. Gravitational redshift is normally talked about when photons are emitted from the event horizon of a black hole and have to climb out of the energy well. when they do climb, the photons redshift. If you were to shine a laser into a black hole, the photons would blueshift until they reach the event horizon. Likewise, a wormhole has two ends, and one end has a higher gravitational potential than the other, so that whatever falls into the wormhole can fall in the right direction. But photons will travel in both directions, both uphill and downhill. We don't have a wormhole like the one on Stargate. But we can simulate a wormhole by attaching an optical fiber along the radius of a spinning disk of radius r = 2 meters, that is spinning at 5000 RPMs. Depending on which way the photons enter, will determine if the photons are going uphill or downhill. The best quality Artificial Worm Hole would be able to continually allow the photons to climb or fall along the path of the optical fiber, by having a optical fiber path that brings the photons back to the start point to climb or fall again. This is a prerequisite to warp drives.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

As a published PhD Mathematician, physicists (both theoretical AND the experimentalist ones who criticize theorists) annoy me. We mathematicians have no problem amongst ourselves. Conflicts between different subsets of physicists do not concern us mathematicians. We are quite a happy open-minded bunch.

[@afriedrich1452]

Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection idea is lent a little credence by James Gate's discovery that error correcting codes can be found in the supersymmetric equations associated with string theory (how ironic). Error correcting 'codes' are found in DNA to prevent too much mutation from happening. Maybe error correcting codes are part of the fabric of the universe to control the mutations during reproduction of universes. You would not need error correcting codes if mutations were not happening at all. Error correcting codes control the rate and manner of mutations - too much and too little mutation is not good. Error correcting codes in DNA are also subject to evolution, meaning that the proper amount of error correction is selected for.

[@schmetterling4477]

Oh, boy, another creationist wannabe. This time it's a deist one. ;-)

[@xkagutaba]

Thanks again for the interview! Now when it comes to Octonions, John Baez is the grand master. His insights into mathematical and fundamental physics are brilliant as well. One of my heroes to be honest. Also, any plans on inviting Chiara Marletto to talk about Constructor Theory? Her interesting book just came out earlier this month, The Science of Can and Can't. By the way, sorry that I throw some names every now and then here. It's just that you have a great way of picking people's brains and make them reveal their cool ideas :)

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks I really will try to get her LIVE

[@xkagutaba]

@@DrBrianKeating Great!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks!

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Also david Deutsch, the originator of constructor theory. Winner of Dirac prize and medal. A real character and brilliant.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Agreed

[@Fritzybedeek]

That bg music is so irritating

[@IronCandyNotes]

A theory of everything would be a seed value and some function/algorithm for whats next.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Indeed

[@kokopelli314]

Interviews are great but they would be far far better with no background music!

[@phpn99]

TIME = MOTION -> at any scale, which means that any form of change, even within solid states, requires an agent in motion.

[@duggydo]

I love that intro sooooo much. I usually play it at least twice when I watch your videos.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you, so much

[@oraz.]

I dunno if the music helps, it makes the pace seem rushed, but big up to both of you.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks

[@worththewatch1517]

I only like him because I always believed string theory is wrong.

[@kosmos5420]

If you’re to interview serious thinkers, you should focus on the content and drop the random shiny clips and poor design choices… Its just not your strength.

[@chadriffs]

Time is a result of spin which creates a forward, backward and a center. This creates time whereas the flow of strings or waves doesn't have direction or a present, future and past. The future and past equally can inform our present though and can't be defined unless you consider a larger system in motion.

[@debyton]

Human ignorance often inhabits those aspects of the world that we refuse to include in our considerations. These are usually aspects that we find repugnant due to cultural and traditional pressures. As it turns out, the other situation in which the macro universe meets the quantum universe is in you. It is in your position of view (POV). It is in ones' individuality. The fact that you perhaps find this idea repugnant should be taken as the clue that individuality may indeed be the missing link. The well-considered 'LINE' (Life Instantiated by Natural Entanglement) hypothesis outlines this idea captivatingly.

[@KaliFissure]

It’s the cardioid and inversion of the circle, as they are in a way the same.

[@Appleblade]

Contra what I so far (admittedly math free) understand Einsteinian space-time to be: When someone speeds away and his processes slow down relative to his twin's, unless there are gaps in the traveler's existence there is one-to-one co-existence between them at any moment (you can pause, presumably, at any moment and find them both in the midst of some activity). What this implies, I think, is that time and the rate of change must be different things. Speed stretches moments, otherwise there would be those existential gaps. And if speed stretches moments, then some third thing (absolute time) is required to explain what the differing length moments share as a common denominator. This is just the temporal corollary of an argument against Einstein's, Leibniz's, other's view of space... that postulating reality as space free until objects appear makes no sense because the relevant objects supposed to bring space into being are inherently spatial themselves and so presuppose the reality of space prior to even the possibility of their existence. Also, the thought experiment against absolute space I have heard seems to me to fail: the argument is, if space had independent existence from objects you could move all of it 10 meters in some direction and you'd have a change without a difference. But space is infinite in all directions from any given point if space is absolute, and so there is nowhere for space to move (as proposed), so the thought of it moving is incoherent. Anyway... that's where I'm stuck trying to make sense of these basic ideas.

[@PhysicsNative]

I read Lee’s latest book on QM. I thought he left out some very credible interpretations (not of the Bohm or Bell type) of QM that resolve the paradoxes and address Einstein’s primary concern: nonlocality. To be fair, Rovelli’s interpretation also does not really address nonlocality either.

[@bouhschnou]

is it possible that, one day, we listen to the basics of strings theory, such as Thales or Pytharorus theorem for maths?

[@wulphstein]

The way to a quantum gravity theory is through an experiment called the Photon Wormhole. We have all the materials that we need to build it: (1) high RPM motor (2) optical fiber (3) high powered lasers (4) computer (5) lenses and mirrors. The goal is to reproduce the gravitational redshift that photons experience when they fall into the gravity well of a black hole. Since we don't have a black hole, we're going to simulate the gravity effects by centrifuging an optical fiber pathway. A photon wormhole is the prerequisite to a warp drive.

[@cosmikrelic4815]

i presume you are parroting ringbauer and his paper in new scientist. you state it as fact, howver: "Charles Bennett of IBM says that the results from the experiment are “entirely predictable from well-established principles of quantum optics” and that what is instead needed is “continued theoretical exploration of closed time-like curves’ consistency with, and consequences for, other parts of physics”. He also believes that the experimental set-up “does not function as a mechanism for reliably distinguishing non-orthogonal states”. This is a view shared by Antoni Wójcik of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland, who says that the experiment “provides very interesting confirmation of standard quantum mechanics but “does not answer any question” concerning time-travelling quantum particles." seth lloyd is also sceptical.

[@KaliFissure]

That mass particles/units are quantum makes the magnetic field act quantized. It does not show that the fields themselves are quantized. How do you have energy densities but no gravity? Gravity is measure of energy density in local vacuum.

[@Only1INDRAJIT]

Kindly give links to the papers u mentioned in the video. Great great work by the way Sir. Respect...

[@joyecolbeck4490]

You two are just marvellous. Thankyou for a thoroughly enjoyable chat.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Appreciate that Joye

[@bbassdf]

Lee, you are a beauty of a masterpiece, god bless you.

[@arjundey807]

I’m still kind of confused does this video prove that the String theory is rubbish or does it show the theory is truthful ?

[@deplant5998]

Had to stop watching due to the DUMB BACKGROUND MUSIC.

[@clintadkisson]

Had to stop after a few minutes due to distraction of background music.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Oh. That’s too bad.

[@clintadkisson]

@@DrBrianKeating Could you possibly reupload without the background music? I'd love to listen to this interview.

[@DrBrianKeating]

No unfortunately.

[@illogicmath]

And even black holes perhaps don't exist because after all, from our point of view as distant observers, black holes never come into existence because we never see matter falling into a black hole. If this is the case GR doesn't need to be quantized and information paradox simply does not exist at all

[@paulthomas963]

There are still many problems with gravity esp. SR.

[@dewiz9596]

I read Lee Smolin’s book years ago, and searched for the follow up without success

[@robertflynn6686]

Ztrings occur in living structures. That is one reason to unify forces for free will possibilities in physics to control all the 4 forces from another point. These are complex fractal string dimensions in number theory which underlies our brain physics of numbers. 🥸 /string dimensions being 1nerves and2 blood vessels centering in the heart and brain to coordinate all living events such as rhythms, and 3neurofibers inside nerves.

[@schmetterling4477]

It's much worse than that. String theory is still not even wrong.

[@manuelcasanova5698]

"Intellectually impossible is a version of the story of my lives." heheh. good luck with the translations and books you are creating for us. later.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks Manuel. Have a great weekend!

[@Appleblade]

Nitpick: This Clark quotation: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic... does anyone ever ask, what does 'sufficient' mean here? I'm guessing it means, sufficient to amaze us. And when you ask what the criterion for 'amazement' is, you're going to get something explicitly circular... like 'well, the way magic amazes us'.

[@jerryharvey3304]

Does anyone ever think that youtube could possibly improve the "comments and discussion" format? I have trouble reading everything everyone has said, or in what order! lol Then I think if I comment, I wouldn't have realized that someone here had previously had my same thought!

[@wulphstein]

Superstrings actually do exist. But they're not particles or fields. Superstrings are actually thoughts. They're thoughtforms. Any particular thought, besides being made of neurochemicals, it's also made of a wavefunction shape that is equivalent to the V(x,y,z,t) term of the Schrodinger equation that is equivalent to the chemicals that would take the shape of the wave function that would be the solution to the Schrodinger equation with that particular V(x,y,z,t). In other words, superstrings do exist. But they're not for particles. Superstrings are the thoughtforms, the things that a psychic would be able to pick up on or a mind reader. Can you imagine the utter shock that the physics community would have if their prized theory, superstring theory, was a better description of thoughtforms, the things that brains emit (and receive). Can you imagine how horrified and embarrased materialist physicists would be if they knew that superstrings (the most complicated, least woo things that could possiblity exist, could be a particle that makes woo woo woo wooo woooo psychics and mind readers possible?

[@das_it_mane]

Brian's face at 44:40 lol! Lee blowing everybody's minds

[@davidwilkie9551]

"No one's right if everyone is wrong". Real-time physical manifestation projection-drawing of stringed nodal-vibrational sequences is subject to the same perceptions of Uncertainty Principle in e-Pi-i sync-duration connectivity function that Forms the Holographic Principle Imagery state-ments of Singularity-point positioning.

[@JH_Phillips]

This was an amazing interview. Thank you, Brian! As much as I love the live interviews, this edit really improved the production quality and my overall enjoyment of the video with all of the visuals and edits.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thank you Jess

[@ericreiter1]

I wish I understood what these people were talking about. These discussions do not discuss any experimental detail from which one can determine how they make their hypotheses. It is a common flaw. I explain my theory directly from timing and pulse-heiights of clicks in detectors. Does a magnetic field from a superconductor really get strung together in lines? How do they know that? I do not buy it. Etcetera.

[@mitchellhayman381]

Smolin is a great man. Humble genius. Beautiful human

[@bernardofitzpatrick5403]

Lee Smolin is a legend. Just luv him - unique lovable personality and intelligence. 🔥. That he inclines toward Feyerabend’s approach to the philosophy of science is awesome.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much

[@volldillo]

Could you please provide a vid with the same content, but without background music, please? Your background music is too loud, it distracts, it makes it very very difficult to understand Lee Smolin's words. Thank you.

[@paulwharton1850]

Shit background music - Get rid of it because Smolin's audio quality is horrible.

[@zZ98634]

Hi Brian, love your podcast. I'm curious to know your opinion on Infinite category theory and Constructor theory. Greetings from Serbia :D

[@DrBrianKeating]

Would love to learn more about both of those. Only so much time… I do have some math focused episodes queued up! Have a great weekend!

[@mikegale9757]

The time is now. The now is real. Now we're talking! Perceptions of simultaneity are just that - perceptions. If you see blue in front and red behind, your perception is skewed. You need to find the centre of momentum in order to deduce when it's now over there.

[@chadriffs]

String theory went too deep in describing the vibrational nature of matter and although I think it's correct it is also irrelevant at the levels they describe. The dimensions of string theory I believe relate to scales of energy but to understand that we need to understand consciousness, entanglement and the influence of magnetism/electricity which arises from dark energy/inflation.

[@marsamatruh5327]

Dear Mr. Smolin, why you are not working with Stephen Wolfram ? He has the key of everything.

[@stevenhatcher3046]

It should be noted that Lee Smolin works in a field that is in direct competition to string theory (loop quantum gravity).

[@DrBrianKeating]

That’s true of course but doesn’t mean string theory is right or LQG is either of course.

[@phaniram5012]

if Brian Keating ever does anything wrong, we will punish lee smolin, eric weinstien, jim simons

[@farooqueparvez2767]

Beautiful and humble conversation

[@DrBrianKeating]

Amazing Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

[@farooqueparvez2767]

Thanks Dr Brian, i learnt a lots about Lee's contribution to Quantum gravity, biology, philosophy, he is an amazing scientists...

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks so much

[@PhysicsNative]

Brian, Just a suggestion, but it may be worth having debates again, not over the “TOE” but more mundane topics, such as the existence of black holes and the foundation of the physics underpinning them. Quite a few credible alternative models out there for gravitational collapse that don’t admit BH solutions (horizons, singularities). The science is not settled, despite Nobel awards that suggest the contrary. Confirmation bias has no place in scientific method!

[@DrBrianKeating]

Great ideas

[@Tpmcd2010]

The sound on this podcast basically makes it inlistenable

[@worker-wf2em]

It’s a great candidate for a Theory of Anything. Given enough imaginary dimensions you could construct just about any theory that works

[@wulphstein]

Superstrings are not other universes and they're not particles. Superstrings are thought forms, psychic-ions, psychic particles. Superstrings have sufficient complexity that they can describe any configuration, 10^500 +, any thought form that the brain can think or experience. The superstrings project a potential energy V(x,y,z,t) that can create a wave function that includes all of the molecules necessary to sustain a thought. There is no evidence that superstrings are particles. No evidence that superstrings are other universes. But there is evidence that thoughts and feelings exist. There is also a theory (string theory) looking for a phenomena to describe. Why not make,... superstrings = thoughts and feelings.

[@jatinkiran7626]

I really, really wanted to watch this but the random back ground music while I'm trying to listen to both people talk is super frustrating. Is there any way for this to be uploaded without it?

[@DrBrianKeating]

Sorry JK not this time

[@jatinkiran7626]

@@DrBrianKeating No worries :) I look forward to your future uploads! The conversation was amazing.

[@DrBrianKeating]

Thanks very much !

[@psi.squared9448]

Brian are you still sitting on an unreleased Nima Arkani Hamed interview??! Come onn let us have it

[@DrBrianKeating]

I wish. I will record one this summer inshallah

[@psi.squared9448]

@@DrBrianKeating I recall you talked about it at some point, but I thought it already took place Can’t wait

[@sibbyeskie]

Oh wow I cannot wait!

[@arctic_haze]

I like the idea of universes with different logic (not that I believe in any Multiverse). I once asked a theologian whether God needs to be constrained by "our" logic, implying the very same thing (that it may not be the only one possible). By the way my interlocutor was very surprised. It seems the Christian theologians assume the Aristotelian logic must be binding even for God. But why?

[@QuicksilverSG]

Michio Kaku is a sideshow barker but where in this video did Lee Smolin weigh in on String Theory? All I heard him address is Kaku's claim that Loop Quantum Gravity fails to account for fermions, which Smolin readily debunked.

[@dharris1234]

I used to think that it could be, but no longer. For mathematical physics, it is very interesting, however not so much for fundamental physics. They are not the same. A one dimensional unit that has no measurable length that lives somewhere between a 10, 11, or 26 dimensional space time. Uh, no thanks. I’ll stick with what I can observe and test. Keep it for it’s math, but give it up for reality.

[@sombh1971]

5:25 This is whataboutery at its worst, forget about whether LQG has fermions or not, why should I believe your theory when you don't even stand a chance in hell of computing g-2 from first principles?

[@landroveraddict2457]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fH62nn15gMaUeZI 👍

[@woobilicious.]

Michio Kaku's argument is just a deflection, If String Theory can't make predictions it can't make predictions, saying "what about Loop Quantum..." is just fallacy. Both could be wrong. and they have to stand on their own merits.

[@schmetterling4477]

All quantum mechanical models of gravity suffer from the same problem. The reason for that is simple: nobody has observed quantum mechanical gravity effects, yet. The criteria for valid physical theories is not that they predict the unobserved. It is that they predict the observed correctly.