Is String Theory Correct (and when will it be proven?) - Sixty Symbols

[@sixtysymbols]

Tony makes the case for string theory in an earlier video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2nGlIuwgpirbqM Ed discusses Cosmic Superstrings: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZmTZep6Qh5ebhLs

[@Jesus.the.Christ]

When can we expect the Timescape video?

[@renegadezed]

i think we should (for any normal people, like me, an average joe viewer) clarify that string "theory" is a mathematical theory, not a scientific theory.. there is no scientific evidence for it.. im guessing it is testable, but in our timeline, extremely difficult to test? could you elaborate? thanks a lot

[@oxi_dized]

Is String Theory Correct? - we asked two string theorists and the results are shocking 😱

And even they did not answer with direct "yes, I think it is correct".

[@culwin]

I would rather ask people who know as little about the subject as possible.

[@IceMetalPunk]

@@culwin Reminds me of a certain "documentary" series with Kirk Cameron... "we asked random people on the street leading questions that mix up multiple scientific frameworks if they think a different scientific theory is correct, and they didn't understand, so the science is wrong!"

[@appa609]

​@@culwin that's basically flipping a coin

[@cademosley4886]

Two things I've been hearing from people working on string theory are: (1) Forget about a theory of everything. Strings are playing the role that harmonic oscillators are playing in vanilla QM and QFT, and nobody is asking if harmonic oscillators are "proven". They work for the theory and let you solve problems in quantum gravity, which is the main thing they want to do. Nobody should throw out the whole of string theory for the same reason nobody has ever proposed throwing out harmonic oscillators and raising/lowering operators. (2) Stop thinking of them as "extra dimensions of literal space". The better term to use is "junk" degrees of freedom. Behind that is the proposition that it's better to recognize that what we call the 3D of literal space emerges from entanglement states than to think of the extra degrees of freedom in quantum states as literal curled up space. A related point they'll sometimes make is that if you want a vacuum background of a certain large-scale dimensionality, one way or another you'll need more degrees of freedom constructing the vacuum background. If there were only 3 degrees of freedom for constructor states (whether or not its strings), then the vast space of possible vacua states would be less than 3 macro-dimensions and the 3D ones would be abnormal, which is not the universe we live in. The fact we live in a 3D macro-dimension space if anything argues in favor of more degrees of freedom. That's before you even get to the points that string theory isn't even about strings, we don't have the full theory set yet, but we have a program that is at least pointing us in the right direction, and the math you need to make progress in string theory is they math you're going to need for whatever shape the next gen theory will look like in any event. Things like that.

[@passerby4507]

Except harmonic oscillators were born out of abstracting physical observations, while strings are essentially math exercises. I have nothing against doing math, but don't call it physics.

[@SgtSupaman]

Number 2 here seems to be relying on some flawed logic. How many universes have been observed for us to know, or even suspect, that a 3D one is unlikely with only 3 degrees of freedom? And even if it would have been unlikely, that clearly does not preclude its existence.

[@bobtk2352]

I would like to see a debate between a proponent and an opponent of string theory.

[@heywayhighway]

String theory can’t be falsified and isn’t a scientific theory. It’s cool maths.

[@WillyoDee]

Search KZbin. This has happened a few times in the public domain.

[@landsgevaer]

​@@heywayhighway Mwah, I think that is yet to be determined. For example, recently some evidence for cosmic strings was claimed. Not confirmed, but it would go a bit to far to say it **cannot** be tested. If you say that we are not sure yet how to test it, I would be inclined to agree though.

[@heywayhighway]

@@landsgevaer 40 years of trying mate

[@landsgevaer]

@@heywayhighway Yeah, but that is not enough to justify a "can't be falsified", imho. The stronger the claim, the stronger the evidence required. Plus, 40 years is a mere drop in the ocean. How long did the atomic theory take to be confirmed, for instance? Over two millennia. Was it unscientific in the times of the ancient greeks because they did not have any means of confirming it in sight? I wouldn't call it that.

[@MelindaGreen]

Betteridge's law: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no"

[@jari-0815]

Does Betteridge's law exist ? Checkmate! 😉

[@Tubleros]

Next headline: is Melinda a physicist?

[@milktruckdriver]

Don't show this to Sabine 😂

[@jursamaj]

Better yet, pay no attention to Sabine…

[@ReventonQ]

@@jursamaj why?

[@rdbury507]

Right, I'm pretty sure Sabine (Hossenfelder) has a rebuttal ready to go. But this shouldn't turn into a Team Strings vs. Team Sabine debate. It's not a question that's going to be resolved soon, and we already have enough tribalism in politics; we don't need it in science too.

[@kozodoev]

@@ReventonQ because Sabine makes money on selling you controversy.

[@Datamining101]

​@@rdbury507 That's not the debate. The debate is "what is science and how do you do it effectively" and Sabine would say that string theory is not science and it's prophets have been tremendously damaging to science for decades.

[@CB-y8f]

I think one of the fathers of string theory, Leonard Suskind, recently said that physicists needed to start over.

[@S....]

Unfortunately it looked liked that for some time now, and all the new experiments and observations are only making it worse for The String Theory. I believe that the only thing that is holding it is how beautiful and nice the math looks, and it would be so damn fine for it to work. (Controversial statement ahead: just as the case for Planet 9)

[@aminzahedim.7548]

Ed Witten once said (paraphrasing): “the important thing a scientist must do is to pick a topic to work on that is neither too easy and trivial to be fruitless nor too complex as to be a dead-end with no actual chance of success.” Maybe Unifying the Forces of Nature is too ambitious a goal when we don’t quite understand many aspects of the fairly established theories like General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory, The Standard Model, The Lambda-CDM, Chaos Theory, various interpretations of QM, etc…

[@Duckieperson]

On the other hand, trying to unify the forces may be a great way to advanche our understanding of each of those theories you mentioned

[@duroxkilo]

@@Duckieperson yes but on the other hand sometimes some ideas are too ambitious :)

[@mrnarason]

With the limitless number of graduate students slaving away at one idea or other, there should be fair allocation to those working on an idea that may be useful.

[@michaelnewman2343]

Short answer: no Long answer: noooooooooooooo

[@SazzMazz]

String theory works quite good inside the "room", but it does not explain the room itself. Apart of its mathematical beauty, there is still some link missing that adresses the background dependency of string theory.

[@TheRealSkeletor]

Inquisitive laymen: "Is string theory correct?" Top minds on the subject: 🤷‍♂

[@ClassicPass_]

Big things are coming from String Theory within the next 10 years! -Every String Theorist for the last 60 years. 😂

[@math6844]

No extra dimensions and no super symmetric particles found yet... But all our experimentation so far has given us vital insight on which direction to move the goalposts in!

[@coachj.landham1254]

Long time fan. Always incredible work; thank you for another amazing video!! Also, a question for Sixty Symbols: could we return to the Plonk length sometime soon?... diving more into why it is what it is and how did the math/mathematicians come to determine it was such a ridiculously small amount of time and/or space?

[@capnmnemo]

I'm with Angela Collier. ETA: (Explanation because of comments below: So this is an English idiom. It means "agree with", not being physically together with or in association with.)

[@otterlyso]

You are? Will you say hello to Angela from me then?

[@trevormugalu3797]

I am Sabine Hossenfelder

[@capnmnemo]

See edit above.

[@bensmith6554]

Estimated Time of Arrival?

[@capnmnemo]

@@bensmith6554 Edited To Add

[@doggosuki]

i hope we are all made of silly string

[@invariant47]

why just 4 minutes video ?

[@capnmnemo]

Ran out of string.

[@pedrocasella1327]

I will start my graduate studies in string theory. A few years from now, I will come bakc to give my opinion on this video. MARK MY WORDS!!!!

[@unvergebeneid]

"Is Loop Quantum Gravity Correct" next! 😄

[@TCovenantUnbeliever]

I don't even understand string theory well enough to have an opinion on if it's true, but I'm tired of hearing about it. If it's right around the corner, great. If not, fine. Update me when there's a result. I don't mind if it gets funding, because there should be more funding for study of a wide range of theories and models. But could we just tell the string theorists "Come back with a result or stop clogging the airwaves" , please? Its the most over-publicized thing in science.

[@DavidTh2]

If you have to make a decision about something you don't know enough about and it isn't practical to get to know it in depth, how else can you judge whether you should devote resources to it other than by if it produces results? I can't understand the string theory argument, but it seems to me that if there are inconsistencies, that there have been ad-hoc fixes that are shoe-horned in to make the theory not break. Is that a fair assessment?

[@spookylilghost]

Any video about string theory seems to cause a bunch of people without qualifications in the field to argue with conviction about the validity of the theory. That seems like a massive waste of time and energy for everyone involved, tbh.

[@electrodacus]

String theory is over 50 years old at this point. Despite that and large amounts of funding it produced no testable predictions.

[@vturiserra]

A bunch of physicists with lots of qualifications in the field have been arguing with conviction about the validity of the theory for 60 years now. This is a little bit closer to what I call a massive waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

[@jursamaj]

In the 1st place, it never should have been called a theory. You start with a hypothesis. It only gets considered a theory **after** it has successfully explained something. Secondly, there isn't even a hypothesis. There is some pretty math.

[@S....]

You should not measure others by your own standards. You'd be surprised by who some of those bunch of people really are.

[@beeble2003]

Not really sure what Tony means when he says that you can test things mathematically. Sure, you can test that the mathematics doesn't imply something unphysical but, ultimately, the question of whether string theory is a model of the universe can only be a question of physics. It's not enough to show that the mathematics is internally consistent: to be a theory of how the universe works, it needs to be consistent with the universe.

[@SpaveFrostKing]

On one hand, you're not wrong. But for mathematical concepts like string theory, they can be so complex that it's not intuitive what exactly they entail. So you can investigate if the math is consistent with other theories and with known physical phenomena. As a loose analogy, perhaps you come up with a model that will predict your income in 20 years. You might test your model by considering bizarre circumstances, like if you get divorced 4 times and have 15 children. If your model still gives reasonable estimates, you can have more confidence in it, while if the model says you'll be a trillionaire it's probably wrong.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

It’s not just a matter of internal consistency, but consistency with the low-order predictions of, say, general relativity. If it was not consistent with GR, that would be a big red flag.

[@beeble2003]

@@SpaveFrostKing Right, but the only conclusions you can draw purely from mathematics are either that it's wrong or that you don't know of a reason that it's wrong. You can't conclude that it has anything to do with the universe without looking at the universe.

[@SpaveFrostKing]

@beeble2003 Testing string theory purely with physical experiments is extremely, ridiculously expensive. If we can rule out string theory by first seeing if it's consistent with everything we know, we can save a lot of money.

[@landsgevaer]

Maybe if you could somehow mathematically prove that there can only be one physically consistent universe that agrees with the evidence we already have... But I would not get my hopes up for that.

[@ChumbisDilliams]

I hope the audience of this channel accepts that for the great majority they are far, far, far away from any kind of intuitive or clear grasp of the math and reasoning here. It should come back to scientific method principles - does it predict outcomes accurately? Is it testable? And if it's tested, does it prove out? I'm no string theorist, but that big string theory video from a few yrs ago (from Angela Collier) made a quite convincing argument that the answer to at least one, and possibly all of these, is a very consistent 'no'.

[@DragoniteSpam]

Laying aside all of the math that I don't understand, I feel like proponents of string theory sometimes forget that it's their job to convince us that they're right, not our job to convince them(/everyone else) that they're wrong. There are a few reasons I as a non-professional scientist don't like the whole thing, but the biggest one is that it feels like string theory is trying to sell me something in a way that other fields of science don't. I think that might have been part of the conclusion of the Angela video...

[@LemonArsonist]

I'm gonna get my PhD in quantum physics later this year, which I only mention to give some credibility to my very important opinion on string theory, which is: "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ seems like a lot of effort"

[@nightowl9512]

I have a phd in physics, and while I appreciate the investigation done into possible explanations of the nature of our universe, if it can’t - after what 50 years? - produce testable hypotheses, then it will de facto be less interesting per default. So the fact that it continues to spend tax payer’s money, ie research funds, which could have gone into also exploring other ideas, is a nail in the eye for me. This is in addition to the “celebrity factor” that some ST theorists have been wanting to use and abuse, which just rubs me the wrong way.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

String theory is not unique in its inability to produce testable predictions as a quantum theory of gravity. It is possible to make predictions with it, but the simplest ones are unfortunately those which are most difficult to confirm, e.g. small, subtle corrections to general relativity.

[@nightowl9512]

@@NuclearCraftMod So you're saying it's possible to test it, but ahh shucks, it's not possible to test it. Darn now give me more tax money that could have been spent on actual testable theories.

[@hamfranky]

I don't think these physicists are raking in cash. I doubt string theorists draw a significant part of public funding for science.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@nightowl9512 No, I’m not saying that. It’s one thing to have the reasonable opinion that it’s not worth researching, and another thing to mischaracterise the nature of the research.

[@nightowl9512]

@@hamfranky I've been in the game a while. Yes you don't need a million dollar lab (because you cant test the theory anyway lol) but I can assure you that those handing out grants need to choose very actively what to fund and what not to fund. I'm myself a theoretical dude (condensed matter theory), and in our field is absolutely essential to cite, work with, or propose tests that can be done on a continuous basis. But when a politician or someone in a "national research board for research" sees a proposal that can finally solve the origin of the universe and quantum gravity (and ohh - did I mention that our world is 11 dimensional?) and what have you, many times they go with the sexy proposal, leaving other proposals behind. It has happened to myself and colleagues of mine several times.

[@QuadmanSwe]

Have string theory been able to make any predictions yet that can be tested?

[@S....]

There's been some, and the results were all negative. Which only made some of the solutions for string theory go away since String Theory is know of the co-called "landscape problem" - having enormous number of possible solutions. The biggest that comes to my mind is Supersymmetry and trying to find a partner particle for any known particle with LHC. There could be some gravitational effect of comic strings in cosmic microwave background - nothing has been found. They should allow for unusual particles or interactions that could manifest in high-energy cosmic rays. No anomalies were found. They could influence the spectrum of characteristics of primordial gravity waves. Nothing's been found although this one is fresh I think.

[@sillystuff6247]

I prefer Schwing theory, developed & popularized by professors Wayne Campbell & Garth Algar. Since it's inception (circa 1990 in Aurora Illinois), no aspect of Schwing theory has been seriously challenged or proven wrong. Many expect Campbell & Algar will win a Nobel prize for their towering work any day now.

[@StreuB1]

Professor Copeland lookin fresh!!

[@ishmiel21]

Hopefully one day we'll be able to find out if string theory is true but testing mathematically is not a viable way to test if something is true. You can get results in math that don't correlate to things that actually happen in nature. You have to experimentally test it in order to find out if it's true.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I think you're right, but the argument that Tony talks about is more than pure mathematics: we know that the "low-energy" theories such as general relativity and quantum electrodynamics are accurate, and the theorists he mentions are trying to show that, with certain assumptions, the generalisation of the predictions of those low-energy results so that they are consistent (i.e. make sense, such as calculated probabilities between 0 and 1) at higher energies is precisely the one that was discovered in the 60s and was shown to be the prediction of a string theory.

[@dimi3978]

Of course. What they mean to say by testing it mathematically is whether it produces mathematically healthy models. Some examples of criteria for this are unitarity (whether probability is preserved), locality ("spooky action at a distance" etc), and whether energy is bounded from below (e.g. to have a stable vacuum). An example of a model that's somewhat known of in the public sphere that isn't healthy in that way is Eric Weinstein's "geometric unity" business. Timothy Nguyen did some interviews about this if you're interested.

[@capnmnemo]

Nothing in math happens in nature. That's the point of it I think.

[@DistortedV12]

This imo is a bad question, a better question IS what is the easiest to do experiment that could confirm quantum gravity? There is it’s called table top qg which can at least show entanglement

[@Diecastclassicist]

String Theory is Art. Truth is a secondary concern.

[@macedonboy]

The grey hairs on Tony just shows how well String Theory is progressing 😂

[@imPyroHD]

Love videos like this because the comments are always filled with theoretical physicists with decades of experience on the matter. Hum right? Surely random people on the internet with no formal education in physics wouldn't dare claim that they know more than professionals who have devoted their lives to the subject right? Wait, is this what's happening?

[@MyYTwatcher]

It is not like this. I would really like to hear the reason, why they still work on the theory which did not bring any result for almost 60 years and it is not even falsifiable. I dont need to be expect in that theory to be able to ask these questions.

[@imPyroHD]

@ It took the most brilliant minds of all time around 2000 years to come up with classical mechanics, from the ancient greeks to Newton, what makes you think we should be able to come up with a theory of "EVERYTHING" in 60 years? If anything, it should take us centuries if not millenia.

[@dimi3978]

@@imPyroHD I mean to be fair, I don't think you need to be an expert on a subject to comment on it, in that you don't need to be a leading authority in string theory to correctly notice and point out some of its shortcomings. That being said, most people just parrot opinions they don't really understand which are popular to hold in the public sphere ("string theory BAD PSEUDOSCIENCE").

[@MyYTwatcher]

@ That is nonsense. You include centries where pretty much nobody did any research. It is complete demagogy, because there where so few people working in science not did they have proper equipment. Start measuring from the time when people started to have enough money to live off of being a scientist. How can you compare progress centries ago with their amount of people working in a field and their technical equipment and today? The number of people today and computers completely break your naive comment.

[@TheUnlocked]

I don't think people are generally calling the technical aspects of string theory into question. They're questioning how it relates to the philosophy of science, which you very much do not need to be a physicist to have opinions about.

[@feandil666]

Seems to me the string theorists are blinded by the mathematical "beauty". After so many decades of failures they should probably try something else.

[@serkles8597]

As others have said, it would have been nice to hear a little more variety of opinion. Asking some people that are not string theorists would have made for a better video.

[@sixtysymbols]

That's a fair point and I think any video like this should be looked at within the suite of other content on the topic - just to put this video in some context, it is part of a quickfire series of videos where viewers are asking questions of Tony and Ed on all manner of topics... Here is the list which I am expanding on as more videos are added... kzbin.info/aero/PLcUY9vudNKBNLpmQg4SSZ6tMsyDldilnA

[@beeble2003]

The problem is that you need to ask people who are well-enough informed about string theory to have something worthwhile to say about it. But mostly, those people are string theorists. The honest answer from the overwhelming majority of non-string-theorists, even within physics, is "I don't know enough about it to comment, really."

[@culwin]

I agree, like when I want to learn about welding, I ask a string theorist. When I want to know about string theory, I ask a welder.

[@duggydo]

Ed is great

[@SpaveFrostKing]

My intuitive understanding of physics makes string theory seem bad and stupid. But that's not based on a deep appreciation of the mathematics - that's based on the opinions of random KZbinrs who got clicks by being contrarian. It's satisfying to believe that all the experts are wrong and you have secret knowledge, and usually there's a grain of truth to critiques of established norms or opinions. But I can't let the intuitive appeal of conspiracy get in the way of the more accurate, "Usually experts know what they're doing based on sound reasoning, even if they're still human and make mistakes."

[@ButzPunk]

If more people had even a fraction of your self awareness and humility, it would be a much better world

[@SoleaGalilei]

Well said.

[@duffman18]

I dunno. Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not really the guy to ask, if I'm honest.

[@militantpacifist4087]

The title of this video is ironic.

[@likithstochastic]

The greatest contribution of String Theory is to show that there is such a thing as 'Mathematical Science fiction', or to put it even more honestly, 'Mathematical Pseudoscience'.

[@ericvilas]

I like the thing Tony said at the end there. I feel like too much emphasis is aimed at string theory as a theory of literal strings, when the real problem is "let's suppose you want to make gravity compatible with quantum mechanics. We already know we can't test this empirically right now, so we're gonna need to just go at it purely mathematically: how could you make this work mathematically?" And the answer is, "we don't know, but stuff like string theory seems to give rise to very interesting mathematical relationships between the way gravity behaves and the way quantum field theory works, and the well of mathematical ideas hasn't yet run dry, so it's still worth exploring." Will it be confirmed/rejected experimentally within a couple decades? No, probably not, but that's not really the goal rn, we are so far away from being able to make experiments with black holes that something like this shouldn't even be on the radar. The math _is_ the point. The universe is a mathematical structure, and the goal of physics is to understand it. Sometimes you can interact with the universe in new ways and those paths should be prized and treasured (cosmology and neutrino physics being the two most promising paths forward rn), but sometimes all you have is the math and you will be surprised at how far you can get with Just The Math

[@froop2393]

String Theory is easy... You only have to pick the right theory out of 10 to the power of 500 different options 😅

[@not2busy]

As you said . . . a lot of caveats.

[@P3t3rG1]

Wonder whether they are interested in tonight's game 😂

[@vaakdemandante8772]

1. No it's not 2. Never 3. The real things are for example: plasma physics, non-linear characteristics of vacuum a.k.a. eather. cold fusion and electro-magneto-gravitics i.e. extended Maxwell's equations. There are publicly published papers on those subjects, though using slightly different nomenclature. There have already been Nobel Prizes awarded for research on those topics, one example being squeezed light (non-linearity of vacuum), so it's really quite well established. It's the mainstream academic physicist and science communicators that need to get up to speed with this, because wasting public's time with String Theory makes no sense.

[@ModuliOfRiemannSurfaces]

Asking if it’s “correct” is kinda misguided in the first place tbh. String theories are a special class of QFTs that may or may not describe our universe. Whether they do or not does not fully determine their value to the field and mathematics.

[@MEGAofELGIN]

How long will they vibrate? Sounds like perpetual motion.

[@jansenart0]

When mathematicians attempt physics.

[@carloswitek]

What would MOND or LQG ppl say about it?

[@ChumbisDilliams]

Check out Angela Collier's recent video on MOND! In summary, it hasn't beaten the standard model (specifically in relation to dark matter).

[@timothyhenry3841]

It’s a dead end … no new predictions or insights. Just trying to tweak the model to fit the observations somehow. Not great science imo.

[@NeinStein]

Tweaking the model to fit the observations sounds exactly like great science always has been done tbh

[@kapoioBCS]

I don’t think you know anything about it

[@rickitynick4463]

The exact opposite of what you said = great science.

[@imPyroHD]

quantum field theory is literally built on "tweaking the model to fit observations" (renormalization...) yet its the most successful theory of all time, now i also don't think string theory is taking us anywhere but your argument for that is just bad

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I think you are underestimating how hard string theory is. This is something that barely gets touched by even final-year undergrads. Even basic predictions are difficult, and there is not a massive number of people working on it.

[@MongoosePreservationSociety]

will we observe repeatable evidence?

[@Harekiet]

Just keep pushing out string theory papers, that mortgage doesn't pay itself

[@cipaisone]

As long as they give funds, it is correct.

[@muzikhed]

String Theory is quite exciting and I am very happy our specialists are working on it.

[@anonymousSWE]

String theory is not a theory.

[@androod6211]

No and never. You guys have wonderful brains - please put them to better use.

[@douglascodes]

10 more years.

[@ericpins9384]

Strings: from theorists to terrorists !

[@sub-vibes]

The maths for string theory looks good on paper, in the same way you can make the maths look correct for a flat earth.

[@davidf2281]

My string theory is that you need to change them sometimes otherwise they get gunky and gross and your guitar doesn't sound nice anymore.

[@cobmahavishnu]

Why there has to be unifying theory?

[@ThePlacehole]

immediately by definition

[@Craznar]

There doesn't have to be, but one would assume that there is one universe and thus one set of rules governing it. Right now we have two sets of rules that don't meet in the middle. Of course it is possible we live in two overlayed universes each operating under their own rules.

[@용욱-e1k]

Because we did unify some of the forces...? So It's kind of a hope.

[@2712animefreak]

Because we live in one universe, and both the things that quantum field theory talks about (e.g. subatomic particles) and the things general relativity talks about (e.g. black holes) exist in that same universe and can come into contact. QFT only works if the spacetime is flat, but GR says it isn't. GR only works if the universe is deterministic, while QFT says it isn't. And both QFT and GR give correct predictions as long as the other is negligible.

[@S....]

Sooo... no?

[@GeorgeV.Calapod]

"And you can test things mathematically, that's a legitimate thing to do" is probably one of the most frustrating things to hear, and symptomatic of a field too self absorbed to care about actual science anymore. No, that's not legitimate physics. Reality doesn't care how pretty or self consistent your theory is, only physical experimentation and observation can reveal reality.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I disagree. If it was found to not be mathematically consistent with the low-energy theory that we know is accurate, that would rule it out as a viable candidate for a theory of quantum gravity.

[@landsgevaer]

If they were to call themselves mathematicians instead, would you be okay with them then?

[@sebastiandierks7919]

It's a dumb question. Nobody knows is the correct and obvious answer.

[@marsspacex6065]

String theory has wasted decades of time for theorists. It’s time to work on other possibilities.

[@kapoioBCS]

Are you a theoretical physicist? I guess no

[@marsspacex6065]

@ my taxes and student loans do pay their salaries.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

People do work on other possibilities, and I don't know of any measure by which any of then have been more successful.

[@Nickdpoul]

@@marsspacex6065 1) people do work in other possibilities. 2) your student loans pay a bank or a fund not a professor. 3) people who have spend their entire lives working on some field and know it better than anybody else in the world are the most able ones to predict where progress on that field will come from. the fact that society contributes to it doesnt mean you get to choose what they do. ig, my taxes pay for civil engineers but i cant tell them which techniques to use to build a bridge, because i am not a civil engineer

[@culwin]

@@kapoioBCS He saw videos about it.

[@TheWagnerufpr]

plz make a video about wolfram theory ...

[@thstroyur]

Is string theory right? Honestly, who cares. Is defaulting automatic dubbing in every other video right? Damn right it ain't. We can all agree on _that,_ and thus achieve world peace.

[@BobbyGrant]

Why'd you have to go and remind me that they are sting theorists again? :(

[@MaxAim]

Let's ask astrologers if astrology is real next I'm joking of course but what kind of scientist would work on a theory they think would never be proven?

[@landsgevaer]

All scientists, actually! No scientific theory at all is ever proven. The best a theory can do is avoid being disproven.

[@MaxAim]

@landsgevaer then the video would be even more meaningless, it would last 5 seconds of both saying "no, no theory can ever be proven"

[@landsgevaer]

@@MaxAim Videos are not about whether theories are proven though. Science is merely producing the best model that is consistent with reality. To me, that is sufficient, useful, and interesting. Some theories are still better than others. Newtonian physics is fascinating, but essentially wrong. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Same for GR and QM. You seem to put the bar too high. So, bottom line, do you think scientific theories get proven?

[@MaxAim]

@landsgevaer "videos are not about if theories are proven" this video literally asked the question "do you think string theory will even be proven and if yes, when?" Also, I know science means changing what we think we know, but when someone says they want to prove a theory, you know they don't mean it's going to be the be all end all, it's something that works.

[@landsgevaer]

@@MaxAim Yeah, I am not gonna rewatch the video, but then they were also wrong when they phrased it like that, we can hopefully conclude. When someone says to me that they want to prove a theory, then I know what they mean, but I give the response above (unless it is a mathematician, I guess). 🙂 I bet many people at some point thought Newton's theory was proven.

[@vturiserra]

A conversation in the year 10,000: ―Is string theory correct? ―Probably yes. ―When will it be proven? ―Soon.

[@simontay4851]

- Probably not - Never.

[@GeorgesDupont-do8pe]

🙄 you never "prove" anything, you disprove it. Are you a scientist or what?

[@kpaasial]

Look my liege. String theory!, String theory!!, String theory!!! It's only a model. Shh.

[@TheDanEdwards]

The whole question "Is [ ] theory correct?" is such a misrepresentation of science itself. This channel has several times over the years shown that it doesn't really present science well. The mathematician mindset is different than that of the scientist. "Correct" is the not question to ask. Instead, ask the question: _how well does a theory describe empirical data?_

[@forton615]

Sabine Hossenfelder wants to have a word with you guys.

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

Brilliant... what forton615 said ! String theory is wrong is the gist.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I would say that the physical and mathematical character of Sabine's argument is significantly weaker than the case Tony in particular is making.

[@imPyroHD]

Sabine is a clown, Penrose called her out for not understanding undergrad level relativity, she should stick to making content on youtube

[@stureeks6594]

Oh yes - Brady - please, please, please could you try to get Sabine and the Nottingham Massive together for a conversation ...

[@sisyphus_strives5463]

Please don't make these videos, whenever someone discusses string theory all the cranks pounce like vultures on a week old corpse.

[@balintnk]

It's just that Prof Copeland's video on string theory (once a favorite of mine) is at least a decade old. It must be hard to let go the professional love of your life, but I think they should. Or just have fun with it for fun's sake, and admit that. As a viewer, I think its almost starting to be boring to watch theoretical physics videos, because nothing new happened since the Higgs.

[@thesecretthirdthing]

I like these guys but god I am tired of string theory.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

It's just made up with no direct evidence.

[@xBris]

To answer the question from the title: No, string theory is not correct. But it's a fun maths exercise :)

[@binbots]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. If we could observe a particle light years away up close enough it too would appear as a probability wave. Therefore if we could observe the universe in the present moment all matter would be a probability wave. This universal probability wave is what separates the past from the future and general relativity from quantum mechanics.

[@justsignmeup911]

You are always seeing the light particles where your eyes are. This is all nonsense.

[@landsgevaer]

Skipping over the stuff I could not make sense of, combining GR and QM means that you have to come up with something that is neither GR nor QM! So, you cannot just assume that your thoughts about wave functions will continue to hold. Maybe the underlying theory has no wave functions, and wave functions are just a crude incorrect emergent property that merely appears to exist in domains where our QM seems valid now.

[@mrtienphysics666]

Tell Sabine

[@theycallmeken]

Dead on Arrival

[@kilosierraalpha]

No. Never.

[@yesthatsam]

Sheldon Cooper approves this message.

[@gabest4]

If you replace "string" with "magic" it all makes sense.

[@Charity4Chokora]

String theory is never wrong and can never be wrong, but that doesn't make it correct.

[@Nickdpoul]

if it is not wrong it is correct pretty much by definition. particles exist and either they are made out of strings or not. You probably means that its indisprovable, which is a valid concern

[@ClockworkEngineer]

String Theory was debunked over 20 years ago.

[@landsgevaer]

¿Que? That would actually show it was falsifiable...

[@k1ry4n]

How? By who? Proof please.

[@me0101001000]

So in a nutshell: Is it the best? For now, yes. Is it good? Ehhhhh

[@pedrogorilla483]

These guys sound religious.

[@kooky45]

So, vote the video 👍 if you think Yes, and 👎 if you think No.

[@orsonzedd]

It's not and makes no testable predictions.

[@Lolwutdesu9000]

Seriously, Tony Padilla, the answer is a simple no. Stop side-stepping, it's pathetic.

[@imPyroHD]

How would you know? It's hilarious how random people on the internet with 0 formal education in physics suddenly think they know more than people who have devoted their lives to it.

[@MyYTwatcher]

@@imPyroHD How do you know he does not have formal education in physics?

[@Fiyaaaahh]

@@MyYTwatcher Because he makes a statement instead of an argument. Anyone with knowledge about the subject would tell you _why_ something is wrong.

[@infectedrainbow]

ChingChangChow...I mean tiktok is not good. 20 minutes is the bare minimum.

[@maynardtrendle820]

I like Rope theory instead.🪢

[@beeble2003]

Ah, you propose that the universe is made of giant ropes that are too BIG to see? Iiiiinteresting. 🤔

[@landsgevaer]

Can I interest you in spaghetto theory then? The FSM is there for you.

[@GamingDemiurge]

No. Never.