What are the Strings in String Theory?

Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/Don...
To learn more about 23andMe head to 23andme.com/sp...
Why strings? What are they made of? How did physicists even come up with this bizarre idea? And what’s all this nonsense of extra dimensions?
You can further support us on Patreon at / pbsspacetime
Get your own Space Time t­-shirt at bit.ly/1QlzoBi
Tweet at us! @pbsspacetime
Facebook: pbsspacetime
Email us! pbsspacetime [at] gmail [dot] com
Comment on Reddit: / pbsspacetime
Help translate our videos!
/ timedtext_cs_. .
Previous Episode:
Computing a Universe Simulation
• Computing a Universe S...
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Luke Maroldi
Assistant Editing and Sound Design by Mike Petrow
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
In physics we like to reduce down our description of the mechanics of reality to the simplest possible form. We expect the most fundamental machinery to have the fewest possible moving parts - or free parameters. This is why the standard model of particle physics is considered incomplete. Its equations predict many things with stunning accuracy, but they first require us to tune many mathematical knobs and dials. We need to use physical measurement to fix 19 free parameters like the masses of particles. And then there’s gravity, which doesn’t fit into the standard model at all. So surely there exists a deeper set of cogs and wheels - a theory that brings all observable phenomena into the same mechanical framework. That would be a theory of everything, and this is the great hope of string theory.
Special thanks to our Patreon Big Bang, Quasar and Hypernova Supporters:
Big Bang
Justin Lloyd
Anton Lifshits
CoolAsCats
David Nicklas
Fabrice Eap
Juan Benet
Quasar
Dean Fuqua
James Flowers
Mark Rosenthal
Roman Pinchuk
Tambe Barsbay
Vinnie Falco
Hypernova
Chuck Zegar
Dan Harris
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
John Hofmann
Jordan Young
Joseph Salomone
Martha Hunt
Matthew O’Connor
Ratfeast
Thanks to our Patreon Gamma Ray Burst Supporters:
Alexander Rodriguez
Alexey Eromenko
Brandon Cook
Brandon Labonte
Daniel Lyons
David Crane
Fabian Olesen
Fauzan Ardhana
Greg Allen
Greg Weiss
Jack Frosch
James Hughes
JJ Bagnell
Jon Folks
Joseph Emison
Josh Thomas
Kevin Warne
Malte Ubl
Mark Vasile
Nathan Leniz
Nicholas Rose
Nick Virtue
Scott Gossett
Shannan Catalano
Shawn Azman
Tommy Mogensen
سلطان الخليفي

[@pluspiping]

This is the first time I'm actually understanding (and retaining) wtf the "strings" are in String Theory. Excellent background and explanation! Thank you!

[@forsaturn4629]

*_quack_* *_anti-quack_*

[@Skrajne_centrum]

Theory of quantum ducks!

[@fosheimdet]

Supersymmetry predicts the existence of squarks such as the sup and stop squarks.

[@specimen9862]

Alpha気 quark********

[@SaSa-fh2go]

Ducks' quack isn't echo lol

[@manashejmadi]

*Kurzgesagt joined the chat*

[@craigdodman6637]

The whole universe literally just be vibing

[@nicolaparsons5703]

🤣

[@Squibbo0000]

What is that melody!?!?

[@ganymedemlem6119]

This is my favorite comment ever.

[@morsecodereviews1553]

​@@Squibbo0000 whatever LoFi Girl is listening to.

[@robynsun_love]

Already is without string theory. The Standard Model already presumes elementary particles are really just vibrations within universe-spanning quantum fields. 🙃

[@stephenbrand5661]

Man every time I try and really focus on this stuff I’m almost immediately confronted with words I have to look up and before I know it 5 minutes of the video have played without me having really understood or absorbed any of it in a meaningful way. Yet still I watch.

[@matthewkagemann3328]

I just ate string cheese while watching this video, and it is increasing my mass, eliminating my stress, and causing internal waves.

[@Kalenz1234]

Don't forget the rapid expansion into two of the three dimensions.

[@kendomyers]

Science!

[@LuisSierra42]

Are the internal waves bothering you?

[@matthewkagemann3328]

They eventually pass via the fourth dimension.

[@TheRolvaag]

I am too! What the fuck!?

[@hunterstephens4541]

"You guessed it." "I did?" "Strings." "Oh."

[@LuisSierra42]

I did

[@MOSMASTERING]

I love this channel. There's no way these videos are boring.. they're about the universe and everything in it!

[@MichaelOrtega]

Space is cool

[@friendlydragon8999]

So is microsopic world

[@chii2924]

Time is neat

[@sfglim5341]

Michael Ortega Cool is space 👌

[@TheColemancreek]

Space-time is very cool. Absolute zero is as low as you can go. Someone knit me wookie hair sweater, I'm shivering.

[@user-lw5oc1tt8k]

but showing off your channel in other channels isn't

[@55painterman]

can't believe anyone would say that any of your video's are boring?" ...no way! i learn something new every time i watch one of your video's .. to me every single video you make is incredibly interesting and mind expanding, and i want to thank you for all of your awesome video's Matt* ....

[@javierab4371]

I wish I could live enough to see if we finally get to an answer for this 😭

[@AmYiChai]

well, you just might

[@-_Nuke_-]

I bet the asnwer is fries

[@joeshmoe7967]

Sure if you live to infinity....

[@taurusmonkey8780]

Amen brother. This is all fiction.

[@noexitnoproblem6037]

The answer is divide by zero.

[@upgrade1583]

I find it strange that older videos are never wrong and it all fits together

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

This is what happens when you leave theoretical physicists on their own for too long

[@jamesbra4410]

Study topology and come back to me

[@rodneymatthewmiller2934]

Well I question whether string theory is an expanse of Relativity? The reason I ask this is because The fundement of Quantum Physics is the Matter and the results of. Hence the search for the Graviton. String Theory is the concept of energy being the primary and matter being the secondary or at least the wall that exists between Multiverses. Theoretically the Graviton may exist beyond the wall of String Theory and String Theory is analogous with the Swartzchild radius of a Black hole. We have zero information about a Black hole yet we have attributed it to a singularity mathematically. I am confused about the relation of little g to big G. Why is it impossible to quantify Big G yet we are able to quantify little g. Especially considering spacetime has a quantfied time Dialation?

[@Jazzblade1977]

I thought that was CERN ;P

[@melgross]

You guys are very destructive. My bet is that he knows far more that all of you put together.

[@thewhizkid3937]

Antoine The great 😂

[@TheExoplanetsChannel]

Another master piece video

[@williamblake7386]

another useless string theory video on youtube. how about showing what laws and events look from a view of strings? strings solves singularity? ok good. show us how. every youtube video-same blablablah about extra dimentions and thats it. masterpiece, mother of god.

[@malachiclark1896]

@UR Just Wrong how is that a fair comment? Even the minority of us who are educated have problems comprehending this advanced (and very very very theoretical) way of thinking. Me thinks you are a man way too fucking high on his horse.

[@malachiclark1896]

@@williamblake7386 how about you give these people time to dive into these things instead of fucking jumping the gun and assuming they will explain everything you need to know about this theory in one 13 minute video? I swear comments like that are what turn people off entirely from these fucking subjects. You both sound uneducated to me.

[@malachiclark1896]

@@williamblake7386 You are not wrong. Dear fucking mother of God even the smart people are fucking idiots anymore.

[@Mach1Greeble]

@UR Just Wrong r/iamverysmart caught in the wild.

[@user-ko8fh5rd7t]

You could say string theory comes with a lot of strings attached.

[@elinicoritale6384]

Zing!

[@colelevel2654]

No

[@GuadalupeGonzalez-dl2xo]

Bud um tiss*

[@tres-2b299]

Kurzgesagt

[@chrismills9620]

yuk yuk yuk yuk yuk 🤪

[@timothylee1]

The neutrino line of the leptons at 0:51 are mislabeled (well, the second and third ones), if you care. Ticky tack, I know. :)

[@bopyourhead9584]

Well spotted, nothing wrong with being a bit captious!

[@TheFlipside]

They also mixed up the photon and gluon symbol. Also the symbols for muon neutrino and tau neutrino are where the muon and tau are, and vice versa. The electron neutrino has the electron symbol and the electron has the gluon symbol

[@GeekRedux]

I was quite surprised by how messed up that graphic is.

[@Zahlenteufel1]

Don't you guys know about the new elementary particles: the gelectron, the vuon, the vau, the goton, and the pluon? ;)

[@InfectedChris]

Timothy Lee I noticed that as well!

[@raspas99]

23andMe is involved in multiple scandals with selling the data of their customers. Selling without informing them of course. I would really think about changing the sponsor.

[@rafaellisboa8493]

do you have proof?

[@Jadinandrews]

Nah, put their money to good use funding PBS. It's not like PBS viewers are total idiots.

[@borisdorofeev5602]

Yea, let them fund Space Time. I don't think any viewers will really consider using their services anyway. Who cares if you have 2.5÷ Ivory Coast heritage?

[@sleepy314]

I want to know about the Neantertal ...

[@johnnywest5445]

Do you have proof they aren't? Their TOS doesn't prevent it. Livescience had an article on it back in July, as did Business Insider, who also had a second one in Aug. @ra said to 'really think about changing the sponsor'. 'Really think about' means to research and consider it, not do it immediately just because he said to.

[@theHiddenStone]

Thanks for this. This was always one of the big missing pieces of the puzzle for me. It always seemed like the idea of string just came from nowhere.

[@mikicerise6250]

I like string theory, although I can't help but wonder about the fundamental nature of the strings themselves if it is ultimately correct. What creates tension? I wonder if this theory could be used to try to create a new particle.

[@kdeuler]

“Su”, my new favorite particle!

[@beri4138]

It's an element, not a particle.

[@tres-2b299]

@@beri4138 shutupandcalculateonium Its a joke, i know its an element

[@PaulPaulPaulson]

The celluar automata called "SmoothLife" produce some kinds of strings. I'm not saying it is connected, but i wanted to point out that string-like structures can emerge from a simpler underlying set of rules.

[@yuryeuceda8590]

Many scientists now are thinking that universe is probably a cellular automata and maybe that's the way

[@drdca8263]

SmoothLife is cool. Something I don't understand about it though, is why doesn't Noether's theorem imply a conservative of energy or momentum for it, and therefore prevent the thing where the structures can disappear? The physics for it seems to have time and space translation symmetry, so I'm confused.

[@user-nw6oj4wb2k]

This was great, more videos explaining the fundamentals of these theories would be great. It helps understand more advanced topics later on.

[@StevePlaysBanjo]

Watching SpaceTime before bedtime: more effective than sleeping with a book under the pillow. I don’t know how, but I wake up just a little bit smarter the next day.

[@charlieangkor8649]

Steve Harrison bed and time. then einstein came and unified it into one bedtime.

[@lorenrenee1]

Steve Harrison my son loved the Nova series about String theory hosted by Brian Green and frequently went to sleep with it playing. He is now indeed a certified genius with a persistent passion for theoretical physics 😂

[@Jop_pop]

I do the exact same thing

[@1112viggo]

i feel like the more of these videos i watch the more ignorant i realize i am..

[@sysprog999]

Best explanation I've seen so far. Ties together all the little snippets that I've accumulated over the years.

[@hinkles73]

When you pulled up that picture of the Standard Model, you used a g for the electron when it should be an e, and also you got the symbols for the photon and gluon (Y and g, respectively) mixed up. It's just a mistake. I hope you fix that in later episodes.

[@jillwild23]

Is there an order I should be watching these in? Man, I'm fascinated, but obviously missing stuff you reference from previous videos.

[@Don2006]

Generally speaking, this channel does create multiple videos on certain topics and there is an order in which you should view them (see the channel playlists). But this video is the introduction to string theory, so if you're interested in string theory, this is the best place to start. BTW, it's normal to have to rewatch the video to fully understand. 😀

[@Adam-ui3yn]

I'm very grateful and appreciative for these excellent videos that give me the opportunity to learn about whatever I fancy. Keep up the good work !

[@DECEPTICONUK]

Great video. You describe the subject brilliantly.

[@erbenton07]

I'm working on Dot Theory, little tiny vibrating dots

[@thesoundsmith]

Dots nice...

[@fgvcosmic6752]

That’s just regular quantum theory

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

Thats just a smaller version of string theory

[@PsilentMusicUK]

I prefer garlic bread theory. Lots of tiny vibrating slices of garlic bread.

[@beri4138]

That's literally just the standard model

[@hajenzoo29]

Electrons are not Bohring!

[@-_Nuke_-]

The boring world of Niels Bohr also, etcetera

[@tomrhodes1629]

But nowadays ELECTIONS are sure boring! (No choice, as both parties have been commandeered by the same corporate interests.) Nonetheless, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX where lies are often offered as "truths." If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.

[@chrissonofpear3657]

Yeah, yeah. We know that elections have increasingly become circuses, with the choices narrowed ahead of time. But keeping on topic...

[@sidewinder814u]

@@chrissonofpear3657 sounds like Rosanna Danna, next he'll ask why we're talking about the erections...just saying! lol

[@jonas-ke4qz]

boring*

[@zollof6699]

So fascinating!! I'm glad I found your channel, with the simple enough explanations, a simply educated person like me can actually make sense of it. I'm really excited to dive in deeper!

[@bennythejet5026]

When taking into account the conservation of mass, and mass coming from the length of the string does this mean there might be a constant length all these strings share between them?

[@marcushendriksen8415]

Not necessarily. It also gets mass from its energy in the form of tension, so it could decrease if the length of the string increases (and vice-versa), keeping mass the same.

[@Dragrath1]

What bothers me about string "theory" is both the tunability to match any prediction while offering no known testable predictions to test the "theory" and more worryingly the rapid dismissal of questions regarding the "theory" that worries me. I fear some people may have gotten so caught up in the theories beauty that they have neglected the fundamental role of testability in keeping science grounded in our physical universe. And that is ignoring the misuse of the word "theory" which in the context of the sciences is reserved for well tested hypothesis that both explain our universe in a predictable testable way and have predicted phenomenon latter observed all while standing up to challenge after challenge. If string "theory" is to earn its name then it must meet that standard.

[@jefferytoledo2505]

There's lots of abuse of terminology in theoretical physics. Many physicists use "theory" to mean "model," (example: Chern-Simons theory). It might be weird for science PR to call the theory of evolution and string theory both theories, but the name "string theory" kinda stuck by now. You can always try and make string theorists call it otherwise if you want, though! String theory is more like a mathematical framework or model that, in some limits, contains some quantum field theories we know and love, and also gravity. And that's kinda cool :p . Also, string theories give some really nice predictions / backpredictions regarding some dualities (AdS/CFT is a good example!). Also, if you're somewhere in between Maths and Physics, you can always have some fun doing string theory :) so there's that. Whether or not string theory can be useful... :p eh, the math of QFT itself are so weird already (in formal terms) that string theory might be plain intractable, if it's supposed to contain QFTs in some of its limits. I personally treat String Theory more as a playground to try and rederive some nice mathematical relations / explanations / backpredictions for QFT, but that's just me.

[@stephenschneider3521]

Theory can be an open ended world in a lot of sciences. In psychology 'theory' is often discussed before a hypothesis as being merely a frame work of ideas/possibilities that drive us to investigate different hypothesis. So from psychology, to biology, to physics, I think people use theory more loosely than maybe the text books or some non-scientists insist. Also, I think the only reason 'theory' became a buzzword is as Jeffery Toledo was talking about with Evolution. Some people in America particularly do not like evolution because it conflicts with their religion, and made an attack on it as a 'theory', preferring it to be called anything else to discredit it. The word 'theory' became under threat and so people, at least in the states, started to more narrowly define it, perhaps unfairly. I like how Rickhard Dawkins put it, calling many things in science 'theories', barely a few things, and mostly only in mathematics as laws or theorems, and some almost certainly true theories as [his word] theori-orems. But honestly, Jeff is right. How anal we are about the word is more for PR against science-haters, than it is hardcore science speak. At least in my opinion [disclaimer: I only have a bachelors degree] it is OK to use the word somewhat loosely, somewhere between the popular scooby-doo usage, and the more exacting text book usage. That said, I'm hardly an expert.

[@connorschmidt5945]

The main reason we can't test the theory is because we normally test theories by taking an unobserved prediction of the theory and testing to see if the prediction is correct. The problem is string theory is used to explain observations we've already made, leaving no room for predictions to be tested. This is not completely true, as string theory predicts some energy to be lost as gravitons in particle collisions, which has sadly not been observed

[@connorschmidt5945]

...yet

[@tomrhodes1629]

As Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.

[@amcguigan2389]

Brilliantly done! Easy to understand. Matt - you are excellent. Also, very engaging delivery. The graphics are helpful. Thank you so much.

[@NewMessage]

What are the Strings in String Theory? Nouns, of course.

[@-_Nuke_-]

Ill give you a sub for this!

[@Smokecall]

Pretty much what just happened. Theory of a medium in which calculations are based on. What the medium is made of is not known so just focus on the calculations. The other tragedy is that the dimensions brought up so often aren't broken down for newcomers either

[@adb012]

Actually, in "String Theory", "String" is acting as an adjective modifying the noun "Theory".

[@whitenight941]

New Message Life is a thread .

[@gordontubbs]

Matt, you explained this better than Michio Kaku.... well done!!!

[@amcguigan2389]

Agree. Matt is less animated and interesting yet also very professional and clear.

[@austinharding9734]

PBS Space Time The gig is up! You've given yourself away! I haven't seen all your videos so im sure youve already pointed it out, but as soon as you said ZED Dimension i was like Aw! For all reading this can i ask you to give 3 cheers for our Canadian friends to the north, whose contributions to the progress of our species, from there critical involvement and indispensable aid in WW2 and D-Day, to these videos being produced have been, in my mind, vastly underrated and underappreciated, and are overdue for the recognition they've deserved, and time for the U.S to stop hogging the spotlight on the world stage and start acknowledging their achievements, in everything from the most successful universal healthcare than any other country, to being the inspiration for Terrance & Phillip

[@jorgeo6099]

I lost it at “As an added bonus, this ambition shaved off a bunch of dimensions, only 10 dimensions were needed” 😂😂

[@Smerpyderp]

Random question. If time goes infinitely slowly at a black holes event horizon, would that mean that time would pass infinitely quickly at a white holes horizon?

[@PazuzuDarkVoid]

I have been maniacally watching your videos in the last few days. Thank you and keep up the good work!

[@randomguy263]

0:57 I think there's something wrong with the leptons, the gluon and photon seem to have switched place, too.

[@richarddeese1991]

Nice catch! Most of us were too busy listening to actually look at the chart! Rikki Tikki.

[@kobiromano6115]

6:57 BOHARING! HA! This is my 3rd time watching this vid, I just got it.

[@nickverbree]

I'm so very late to this video, but I'm so glad someone else got that and commented.

[@nikob381]

If you haven't done it already, can you please please PLEASE read the Three Body Problem trilogy and go over some of the concepts they use there? You'd love the books. As an amateur Spacetime fan, it seems like quite a bit of their science is legit, and the way it's used is creative. The series takes place in a generally more near-futuristic setting, where things are just a tad bit more advanced now. Throughout the books, you'll get things like: what life is like on a planet with an unstable orbit around a trinary star system, how a computer can be built out of people holding up flags, a weapon made out of high density neutron star material, a particle which can be folded along each different dimension of string theory, a theory of alien sociology, and a very plausible answer to the Fermi paradox. It would be so great to hear what you think about how he handles those concepts in those books. I also think you'd just enjoy them

[@evgenyyastremsky6818]

Isn't ShutUpAndCalculateonium is the true 42nd element?

[@adolfodef]

Yes. But you have to count from the other side (starting from the super unstable mega-heavy element that can only exist for exactly two atomic nucleous vibration).

[@evgenyyastremsky6818]

@@adolfodef Ahh, right, a rookie mistake really!

[@dsnodgrass4843]

I thought that was "Unobtainium"...

[@shyamtripathi6817]

How can it have an atomic mass of 104

[@36013luke]

It does. trust me. I counted

[@rajeshkumarnayak8849]

Density of information per unit time is higher than that can be taken in with deeper understanding. I wish these episodes could be made a little longer to give time for slow buildup.

[@kimmaz7721]

I have no clue what he said

[@Integralsouls]

as expected from someone who has an anime profile pic

[@aurora4757]

@@Integralsouls oof

[@owlredshift]

Too much Boharing content 🥱

[@shaikrehanaparveen8862]

@@owlredshift then why watch?

[@owlredshift]

@@shaikrehanaparveen8862 That was a physics pun 🤓 Look up Bohar

[@nyk7979]

Thank you for that explanation. I think here I see a question. Which came first, the fundamental building blocks and forces of the universe or the string? It seems easy to see the strings just as it seems easy to hear sounds. We can count measures and bars just like we can count protons electrons. Another note of interest(see what i did there?). Aren't we forgetting the 0th dimension? The lowly point can have properties too.

[@patavinity1262]

"This erases more questions than it answers"

[@ShaneSchofield52]

Paradoxical, like String Theory itself.

[@tomrhodes1629]

Yep. For, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.

[@chrissonofpear3657]

And which great mind invented stoning? Or was this a set of lesser minds and spirits?

[@brokenwave6125]

"Raises"

[@tiagotiagot]

I think he said "raises"...

[@XrollhaX]

By the end I expected you had made your point, but it turns out it was a 1d circle.

[@ivanaameliabartolucci2779]

Thank You so much! Your perspective allows to build a bridge between the Theories.

[@FirstNameLastName1162AD]

Online classes: *Barley teach me anything* Me: Fine. I’ll do it myself

[@genghisgalahad8465]

Hops you do!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could strings have information of mass and space while quantum field has information of energy and time? The interaction of strings with quantum field could produce classical universe.

[@llawrencebispo]

As a musician and amateur music theorist, I’ve actually gained a somewhat better grasp of the concepts presented in this video than I’d expected. That is, infinitesimally north of zero. I’ll take it.

[@Vatsek]

So, do we know who pulls the strings?

[@-_Nuke_-]

;)

[@KamalKJoshi-zu8jb]

The Illuminati

[@dsnodgrass4843]

Bela Lugosi. Ed Wood filmed it once.

[@noexitnoproblem6037]

God.

[@KamalKJoshi-zu8jb]

@@noexitnoproblem6037 lol

[@nickdiamond7595]

As soon as I hear Matts voice I hit "like" and feel smarter. 👍 Now I'll watch it

[@AnimeShinigami13]

Bekenstein Bound? THANKS PBS space time! you just explained the origin of one of the human colony names in Mass Effect. They also have planets named Watson and Crick btw. Pretty sure there's one named after Niels Bohr too.

[@tjscorp]

Can someone upload this video in English please?

[@AmaanKhan-ho8po]

What?!

[@LuisSierra42]

It's in english yo

[@StuckInnerRut]

Sarcasm, come in

[@breadbutt]

check out "parthum astulate: a beginner's guide"

[@kkloikok]

Takudzwa Shamhu it helps if you aren’t a total idiot bro

[@peterbennett4754]

Matthew John O'Dowd is an Australian astrophysicist. He is an associate professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College of the City University of New York[1][2] and writer and host of PBS Space Time on KZbin.[3] He is a frequent guest on Science Goes to the Movies on CUNY TV and on StarTalk radio with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Hey

[@tsgillespiejr]

Wait, why should there be a graviton and gravitational field if gravity is just the curvature of space-time?

[@justdave9610]

How does it curve? What about mass and how it interacts with and relates to space makes it curve? How is the interaction mitigated on the scale of quantum particles? The curvature has to come from somewhere and at the smallest scales interactions must be occurring. Thinking of a graviton as a quanta (the smallest possible bit) of gravitational energy may help. The million dollar question is what is it exactly and how does the smallest scale interactions with matter and energy occur to give us the macroscopic picture of gravity we observe.

[@tsgillespiejr]

@@justdave9610 Ah, right. So is it helpful to think "space-time" as BEING the gravitational field? And a quantum OF "space-time" BEING a graviton?

[@richarddeese1991]

What *_causes_* that curvature? No, no - I mean, *_why_* does matter/energy make space/time curve? tavi.

[@thewhizkid3937]

Richard Deese matter or I think it was mass. An object warps the fabric of the space time continuum considering things are in a vacuum (space)

[@amcghie7]

Sorry Matt but this is not the most boring channel, nor series of videos ever, by a long margin. There are videos about pure unapplied maths.... Which I am also a subscriber of.

[@HisCarlnessI]

Watching this drunk was helpful.

[@unclestarwarssatchmo9848]

The strings became static as my blood-alcohol level made the world wiggle...

[@LowKDR123]

@@unclestarwarssatchmo9848 what did i just read

[@unclestarwarssatchmo9848]

@@LowKDR123 a scientific observation

[@jingobop1225]

@@unclestarwarssatchmo9848 well observed

[@devanwetenkamp4781]

I watch this show often but stuff gets way to over my head and I almost never finish the video. But I just go to the part where he talking about what strings are made of. That bit made me laugh out loud!

[@Antenox]

You're gonna be stringing us along for the entirety of this series until it patience hangs by a thread, aren't you?

[@TheCimbrianBull]

There are no strings attached, though! 😜

[@zauribrahimov7951]

Hello guys from PBS i was following your channel right from start and interesting. I was able to somewhat understand the early episodes. But now I am just lost. Dont get me wrong you are probably the best explainer in the youtube but now I understand that to understand even further I have to have a physicks background. Without it I just get lost like a drop in the ocean. It is over my knowldge levels head.

[@jefferytoledo2505]

You can always go and grab, say, Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time (or some other popular science book) or go read some articles in Wikipedia to cover your bases.

[@zauribrahimov7951]

@@jefferytoledo2505 oh I tried. Was too hard for me. I am not smart enough to understand

[@n9037]

What's the point of the higgs mechanism (and the higgs boson) if the size of the string gives a particle its mass

[@oneistar6661]

Higgs mechanism only gives mass for around 1% of the mass, the gluon energy gives 90% or more of the mass of all particles.

[@Brianboy9494]

The Higgs mechanism is part of the standard model - not of string theory.

[@nohbdy1122]

I'd assume the higgs mechanism just contributes to the size of strings

[@Brianboy9494]

It doesn't. The Higgs mechanism being part of the framework of the standard model ist a completely different concept than string theory. In string theory the rest mass of the particle is explained differently. Their size determines their mass. But one may ask, 'Where does their size come from then?'

[@SelcraigClimbs]

Brian The standard model should be able to be derived from string theory, thus the Higgs would be explainable in the string theory model.

[@thevoicestoldmetoagain4627]

I propose Quantum Potato Theory. Everything is made up of mini potatos. Depending on the shape they are cut, depends on what particle they become. Seems legit.

[@jacobgutierrez9642]

r/iamveryrandom

[@richarddeese1991]

How can you stand to peel potatoes with all those eyes watching you? tavi.

[@morgengabe1]

@Wilma Johnson Aren't they all?

[@ShrimplyPibblesJr]

It's remarkable how many of your animations look like a DMT trip.

[@劉景文-d4x]

ShutUpAndCalculateonium had me cracking up. lol

[@CockatooDude]

I've been waiting for a deeper video (well set of videos) on this topic for a while now. So thank you for doing this, it is very enlightening.

[@johannesh7610]

Now, I learned from you, how spacetime is filled with quantum fields which are more or less just described by a function adding up many waves. So "particles" (I don't get the wave-psrticle-dualism. Just accept that waves have properties you gave so called "particles") are stretched out blurs adding up on each other and stretching in sinking strength over theoretically unlimited volume. How can a 1-dimensional string do the same thing? Why bring quantum particles back in after replacing them by a quantized field?

[@garethdean6382]

All of QM is based on zero-dimensional 'centers' of particle-wave things. String theory modifies this by making them more complex, 1D strings. These strings would still produce wavelike particles, but by being more complex they could encode more properties than the standard 'point particles' of QM.

[@simonO712]

A string is also a quantized field, just with different properties.

[@pioneer_1148]

Are there any ways that the 10^500 dimension configurations could be narrowed down?

[@StormsparkPegasus]

Not that has been found yet. But there are a lot of really smart people working on it. It's a long way from being complete, and I don't expect it to be within the lifetime of anyone living now. But if humans don't blow themselves up in the next 100-200 years, it will eventually be.

[@jefffiooo]

On my basic level of understanding: 1) I understand the overall idea of Newtonian physics and understand the major work of Einstein to improve the work Newton started. 2) I understand Quantum Mechanics as it is the science of how our world operates on a microscopic level. I also understand QFT with the photon as primary example of a particle with wave-like properties. So, why not having fields of all types of particles we know and that what we perceive as particles are in in fact excitiations of the waves within the correspondings fields. However, QFT is also still speculative. 3) I also understand that with the knowledge we have today of both GR/SR and QM that we are still missing gaps of understanding (black holes / Big Bang etc) and that a unified theory combining the above both worlds would be the holy grail. After this vid, I am completely lost. The only thing I understand is that we are trying to fill in the hole of what the fabric of space-time is made of trying to get a fundamental understanding of gravity... But strings? 23 dimensions (no biggie)? They do not even want to know what a string is made of? Can someone please explain to me how this string theory can unify the established knowledge we already have about physics?

[@lomiification]

do quantum fields not bend? why would the graviton be like any of the bosons if general relatively considers it a bend in space time itself?

[@richarddeese1991]

That might be a good question... but only if you can ask it in math! ;) tavi.

[@Ric-Phillips]

After watching so many theory-or-everything science videos I am starting to think theoretical physics was primed ( pre-disposed from the get go ) to not consider reality explained until everything can be causally reduced to one variable that can only have two states.

[@tomrhodes1629]

Everything is indeed BINARY. And science already has all the info it needs in order to figure this out. But they don't want to. For, as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.

[@johannesh7610]

Well, yes, that's the goal. Because we are always interested in the WHY. And by that we'd like to finally remove the need for something supernatural.

[@chrissonofpear3657]

Or at least simplify the inordinate, and often illogical, plethora.

[@FrankHarrison12]

Guys I have the answer, read my book.

[@stryker1999]

@@johannesh7610 So how was the first star born?

[@AuthorJamesBeltz]

You want a Grand Unified Theory? "Transient and Intransient Phasic Particles". The 42 of the universe.

[@khatack]

String Theory comes from the Lord of the Rings, obviously. What do you think Iluvatar used to create that music of his?

[@LuisAldamiz]

Singer castrato angels?

[@AmYiChai]

actually it would be the Bible: John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh

[@RedRocket4000]

Great minds think alike.

[@RedRocket4000]

Genesis actually covers world creation with the six days thing. John 1 14 I assume is just a summary. Could be a direct contradiction​ Bible got a ton of them.

[@AmYiChai]

It actually helps not to be a creationist when analysing the Bible to see correlations between the Bible and science. You mentioned the six day thing. Obviously it's not a day in Earth terms. You heard about General Relativity, right? Time is relative depending on frame of reference. I think now you'll know what I'm getting at. With John 1:14 I meant that a spoken word is a wave, which vibrates, just as the strings, which according to theory, vibrate and as a result create the universe.

[@TheMarrethiel]

I love watching this stuff, just in case I get sent back in time.

[@stephenschneider3521]

I read a book by Lawrence M. Krauss who I believe is a particle physicist. He was highly critical of string theory. He actually made a few clever jokes about it that I am fond of repeating in discussions about the topic. Not that I understand the problem, but the jokes are funny enough that they deserve retelling. I personally don't have an opinion about it, other than that it sounds like it is based more on belief perseverance that than on mathematics theory tested against observations in nature. But as a psychology student, my physics is naught. So, maybe there are camps of physicists who hate the idea, and want to disprove it, and others from whom it is like a quasi-religion, who say 'Its the best idea I can think of, so it must be true, even if it seems like it isn't.' That's my not-a-physics-guy understanding of it. Go easy on me, if you frankly disagree. It's not my field. I would like to understand string theory more, if, it really is more than wishful thinking. Thank you all for your patience with me.

[@stephenschneider3521]

The joke goes [paraphrasing] 'So two scientists are talking and one says to the other 'Hey I think I just figured something out, what if the universe was made of tiny little strings?'... to which they other replies 'Yeah, so, well, what would that mean?'. and the former says.... 'Um, I don't know'... He he he.

[@tomrhodes1629]

All physics theories are relative, and are approximations that attempt to describe reality. But they cannot. Because, Truth is NOT relative. Truth is ABSOLUTE. And as Max Planck knew, here's what science will find when it finally acknowledges "the bottom of the rabbit hole": EVERYTHING IS THOUGHT WITHIN A GREAT MIND. And the MATERIAL Universe of our LIMITED sense perceptions is NOT Reality, but is literally a VIRTUAL REALITY MATRIX. If you want to know WHY we are experiencing a limited and false (virtual) reality rather than Reality Itself, read my book "The Holy Grail is Found." There is no need for further mental masturbation.

[@chrissonofpear3657]

Just don't make money from it, full stop. If you have a philosophical view, you can share it if you wish, even try to link it to some evidence. But as soon as marketing comes in, it makes it better. Having special interest groups isn't much sounder.

[@georgemissailidis1504]

Is it the book "The universe from nothing" or something along those lines? I have it :D

[@georgemissailidis1504]

@FACE GALLON Does nothing even exist? :P

[@felipereigosa96]

If M-theory is right, why can't we perceive the 4th large spatial dimension? Are the "slices" of that extra dimension parallel universes and we are confined to one?

[@stantrien8106]

The idea that that they're too small for any particle to fit in, so they act like they're not there.

[@felipereigosa96]

@@stantrien8106 I'm not talking about the extra, small dimensions, I'm talking specifically about the 1 extra dimension of M-theory, which Matt says at 11:42 that is "an additional, *large* spatial dimension"

[@Exist64]

I always get so tense and anticipating when he's about to say "space time" for the last time in a video

[@owlredshift]

I thought I was alone in this

[@polgabaldon]

Did you just call me grasshopper?

[@fahlers]

have you seen my grasshopper, mama?

[@H4kkk0]

Did you just assume my gender ?

[@RussianLearnsYou]

In the beginning there was a word. And the word was God. Word, Sound, Vibrations. He's everywhere, he's truly almighty

[@dinosaurplayer1276]

Where might one go to post a scientific paper concerning the theory of everything? Always wondered... It could be the great breakthrough idea/theory already exists... in someone's head right now... Love PBS Space Time - Watch it every day even repeats.

[@bitterlemonboy]

You can post it on Facebook

[@josefmuller6070]

How the quantum strings are made? Someone kills a quantum spider? Someone creates it out of quantum hemp?

[@asapbrooks743]

Oh yah man. Quantum hemp, aka Quantum Ganja. See da world in da smallest daimenshan 🍁

[@7Alberto7]

Amazing stuff i love this topic

[@ryleexiii1252]

12:34, ah that's only 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 choices. No biggie.

[@adamdecoder1]

piece of pie

[@oldm9228]

@@adamdecoder1 piece of DIFFICULT pie *vsauce music kicks in*

[@thewhizkid3937]

Hyperspace. That is some cool stuff 👍🏿

[@vp21ct]

Shutupandcalculatonium . . . is that a technical term?

[@kennethhymes9734]

Your videos are great. Years too late, I wonder, and will try to find out elsewhere: guitar strings are not really 2D though, right? The length can do all the fun phase stuff you go over, but the cross section must also be like the head of a drum in some sense? Or not? I did room acoustics and some acoustic theory in a tradecraft context, your videos show me the limits of my grasp of waves and vibration.

[@steveemerson7432]

The only string theory I want explained is why my headphone cables always manage to end up in a knot...And does anyone else think the presenter looks like a relative of Peter Dinklage? ;)

[@1invag]

Then your after knot 5theory mate

[@PhoenixT70]

"Or in other words, 'Shutupandcalculateonium'." My sides are now in orbit.

[@pwj86772]

i have absolutely no fucking idea what this guy is talking about, but i'm still fascinated

[@georgelastrapes9259]

I had whimsically thought, why strings? Why not drums, or winds? They've got the shapes and the harmonics. Perhaps not so whimsical?

[@chuckrittersdorf]

If strings are real I'll eat my shoe.

[@bopyourhead9584]

That's a shoe with a stringy lace I assume!!

[@GizmoMaltese]

Nothing is "real." There are just models that make good predictions. Your entire sense of reality is a delusion. That's why scientists just avoid going down that rabbit hole.

[@chuckrittersdorf]

Don't get all critical thinky on me. Whenever I use the word 'real' you may replace it by 'the most probable model of all known models' ;-P

[@LuisAldamiz]

Real is real, what is consistent, what makes sense. Reality is real because you (or others) can test it for inconsistencies and mostly reality is very very very very consistent with itsefl. When I go into "nothing is real" mode, I try to cross the door without opening it first. It always works! No, I don't mean that I walk out through the door, I mean that I realize that reality is still real, or at the very least painfully realistic to a very exquisite level of detail.

[@BiswarupRay]

@@LuisAldamiz you might interact with a door in a virtual reality game, does that mean the door is real?

[@davidleedougherty6478]

I'm super smart I understood 4 & 1/2 words he said

[@CasperBHansen]

What exactly were those peculiar observations and relationships which led to the stringiness? Could you guys show the math derivation which ends up with that conclusion?

[@high2407]

"like 20 orders of magnitude smaller" me: lmaoooo "that's like comparing the size of the Milky Way, to your living room. me: :'( I did however nicely pauzed the video on 4:20 ayy lmao

[@nicstroud]

At 4:55 are 'Spatial Dimentions' those which have been remarked upon _twice._

[@tubebrocoli]

Why do we consider the parmeters of the standard model as a weakness, but still think of string theory, with its 10^500 different possible space dimensions configurations as elegant?

[@vampyricon7026]

Because it only has one parameter. You aren't fairly comparing the two if you pick parameters for the standard model and the string landscape for string theory.

[@tubebrocoli]

Suppose we build a new theory, one that's very similar to the standard model, except instead of the 19 constants, there exists a parallel flat 19-dimentional space inhabited by a boltzman brain and a banana with 19 distinct arms attached to it, each pointing into different dimensions, and you measure the distance of the boltzman brain in the direction of the banana's arms to get the values you need for calculations. This theory only has "one parameter" in the same sense as string theory, because all you can really do is move the boltzman brain in relation to the banana. Would you say it's a stronger theory than the standard model because of it? Silliness aside, if the boltzman brain + armed banana idea seems too arbitrary, replace that with a parallel space with 19 dimensions looped into themselves, and you take the standard model "constants" from the size of each one of them.

[@vampyricon7026]

Neither of those make any sense.

[@drdca8263]

Well, one difference could be continuous parameters vs discrete parameters. With multiple independent continuous parameters, you can define the number of parameters by the dimension of the space of possible versions of it, where with a discrete choice, there might not be a clear way to split it up into separate parameters. You could arrange 10^500 points along a number line, where each point corresponds to a version, but you could also put them along a 10^250 by 10^250 grid in a plane, or [etc.]. I would guess that there isn't a canonical way to split those 10^500 versions into multiple independent discrete variables. However, given that we can only ever measure the parameters of the standard model to a finite precision, perhaps it could make sense that we can treat those as discrete as well, pretending they are split into discrete values at the most precise we could ever feasibly measure each of them. I wonder if the number of bits we have describing these parameter constants is more or less than the number needed to specifically which topology for string theory (which should be like, 500*log_2(10) )

[@garethdean6382]

The theory itself is elegant but its predictions are complex. Consider a chaotic pendulum (Two pendulums connected together.) These behave erratically as they're a three-body system. Now consider two theories to predict the system's behavior. The first uses simple Newtonian laws of motion, you need the mass and centers of gravity of the pendulums then you just crank through a lot of math. As a three-body system you quickly end up with lots of *possible* states after a certain period of time. 10^500 wouldn't be implausible after just a minute of movement. But the theory itself is simple (and proven in this case.) Another theory requires 19 initial inputs, which need to be measured for the system in its first few seconds of motion. Things like the acceleration of the centers of gravity, pendulum density and so on. This theory can then predict the motion quite accurately, at least for a minute or so. It's obvious this theory is more complicated and may contain pointless parameters. We'd certainly try and seek a simpler one. The goal then is a simple theory that produces a unique prediction but the two goals are not one and the same. String theory is elegant but has a prediction problem that needs to be solved.

[@fuckqcc]

Uhhh you lost me in the “string” part.

[@AlexWalkerSmith]

Whenever I see a thumbnail for a string theory video, I take a deep breath and let it out slowly before I click it. Will this be the moment it clicks for me? Or will this just be a repeat of the last time I tried to wrap my head around this concept?