String Theory is flawed | Peter Woit and Lex Fridman

[@jasonkrapf]

Why do we still need to invalidate string theory? It was never validated. There is a problem with gate keepers in physics.

[@desmondknows]

It's all about book sales.

[@desmondknows]

It's all about book sales.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

The issue with the validation of string theory extends to all attempts of quantum gravity so far. Fact of the matter is that it’s a hard problem.

[@100c0c]

@@patrickhenry1249 How would Karl Popper disagree? If it can't make predictions it's not falsifiable.

[@FrankCoffman]

@@patrickhenry1249 ~ Jokes should be funny in order to be jokes.

[@rebeccarebunny2026]

Of all the luminous guests appearing on this podcast, I find myself returning to Peter Woit’s episode the most. The questions Lex asks and the answers Peter provides are remarkably edifying. Well done!

[@ermiasd2695]

Me too; his explanation is accessible and he seems genuinely humble

[@dxk2007]

I read Kaku's Hyperspace in 1996. He explained everything there, and the same damn problem existed back then. Lol

[@Gazaryt]

Dude, mitchio kaku is literally telling a fairytale at this point, he even tries to convey the meaning with regurgitated phrases and it becomes to sound really wack and cringe when i hear him saying what string theory or god equation is.. not that i am somebody, but he looks like a sellout from time to time, with that shady ass smirk 😃 idk why i get that vibe from him, other than that i like the guy looks friendly and very intelligent.

[@gregoryedwards9097]

@@Gazaryt bruh I remember when I was like 11 years old I was watching Alien Planets or some doc w him (this like 20 years ago) and I remember him saying how wonderful it would be to meet Aliens back then, and I remember even as a kid thinking 🤔 hell nah I doubt it would be. Fast forward to today he’s finally updated his opinion and is warning us about it. Doesn’t really relate to this at all but I just remember thinking how far fetched he sounded even as a child lmao. I respect him a lot but yeah I def get that vibe from him. He feels a part of the “group” along with Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson.

[@markcarey67]

Yeah that's a great pop sci book (Hyperspace - I think it was his first). In fact my first exposure to Quantum Field Theory - that actual maths of it - was his graduate level textbook on the subject - which is quite good. Somewhere along the line he seems to have slipped into being a pundit and stopped doing actual science though...Peter's book Not Even Wrong is very good because he gives explaining a lot of the relevant modern math a red hot go instead of just hand-waving over it.

[@SpotterVideo]

String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone. 1/137 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?

[@lpmuzza3274]

I find it hard to listen to michio kaku, he talks like hes reading of a page or something, his videos alone aint too bad, but when he's being interviewed he talks like hes addressing a room full of people 😅

[@pwill4real855]

He’s not the only one saying it’s dead

[@spsmith1965]

Could we get rid of the six extra dimensions by adding two time dimensions to our existing 3+1 dimensions. Two more time dimensions times the 3 spatial dimensions gives 6. Maybe those are the six dimensions we are looking for? 3 time and 3 space dimensions does have a certain symmetry. Just like a 3-D vector in space can be viewed as a single dimensional line, a 3-D vector in time could be perceived as a single dimensional time dimension. I'm sure this has been explored and dismissed. Any theoretical physicists out there who can chime in?

[@dgeesiogaming]

what hes basically doing is trying to work out like a programmer the meaning of life.

[@destroya3303]

That is a nice way of saying it is absolute unfalsifiable garbage.

[@sleepydays1350]

This will only make string stronger!

[@endofdaysprophet]

Peter Woit cannot explain his arguement!!! He basically is saying I don't understand therefore it is wrong. I see nothing that creates 10 dimensions 4 is all there is and all that is needed!!!

[@dazraf]

String Theory isn't flawed ... it has too many solutions, with nearly all being incompatible with our universe. In the meantime, quantum mechanics is incomplete AND an approximation.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

I’d argue that quantum mechanics is the one piece of modern models that is least evidently approximate.

[@dazraf]

@@NuclearCraftMod no argument with that :-)

[@957543]

Scale is a dimension

[@junak777]

Sir Peter looks like STar Trek Lieutenant Reginald Endicott Barclay III aka Reg. :-))

[@roberthofmann8403]

Broccoli

[@Theo2bmoody]

You mean Murdock?

[@davidrandell2224]

Physics is physical: motion is relative; Galileo.All this ‘ philosophy ‘, mathematical, religion, woo woo goes back to the pre- Socratics/ Euclid. 3 dimensions exceeds the abilities of “the most complicated thing in the universe- brain “ Why so puny is homo- sapiens wether Darwin or god based. The expanding earth approaches the released object, not vice versa.

[@solefood7477]

It's very clear something is missing here. Dude is trying to prove it's all numbers and no WOW. I'm placing my bet on some WOW.

[@HomelessHomeowner617]

black holes are a window to the 5th dimension

[@75hilmar]

I wonder if the supposed hidden dimensions could be responsible for like the weak and the strong force which are only active on a small scale. Can someone tell me something about that?

[@ziggityfriggity]

Could make sense if the weak and strong force propagate in the extra dimensions, which from the non-compact dimensions appears like a mass, and fields associated with mass die off exponentially rather than just like 1 / r^2.

[@destroya3303]

No, but those dimensions are responsible for my dog eating my homework.

[@raminarezou1009]

String theory had potential but it failed. continuing it is waste of resourses

[@michaellynch9086]

Lex is short for Alexander. Alexander Luthor.

[@KingpinEX]

String theory is dead.

[@zagreb2012]

You would know hahah.. or neil..

[@Bikewithlove]

I’m not a physicist, but I never bought ‘string theory.’ I don’t know the math, but I know grinning snake oil salesmen when I see them.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

String theory’s origin is a rather convincing story that shows there’s nothing particularly snake-oily about it. As explained in this podcast, the issue with modern “string theory” is that it has strayed from its primary goals in light of their apparent unreachability.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ntf5211 String theorists aren't "fitting" the universe to their theory (I'm not even sure what that means), they are trying to find a string theory which recreates observed physics, and it has proven exceedingly hard in multiple ways. Physics has only lost momentum in the sense that is has become increasingly difficult to improve the successful theories of the recent past. String theory is not the only attempt to do this, but is the one that was most grounded in physical reasoning as I said in my previous comment.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ntf5211 You have it the wrong way round again. They need to add supersymmetry to string theory to get fermions, which of course exist in nature. It is not clear how to add fermions without supersymmetry, and so the facts of nature force them to add it. It was then discovered that the addition of supersymmetry allowed them to remove the tachyonic (imaginary mass) ground state of the string which had plagued the original bosonic form of the model. Now, supersymmetry hasn’t been observed, so the “standard”, “ideal” supersymmetric string theory is wrong. The question is whether there is a string theory which incorporates a supersymmetry breaking mechanism to reproduce the apparent lack of supersymmetry at the energies of available experiments.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ntf5211 Unfortunately this is just how long some problems in maths and physics take. There are simply-stated problems in mathematics that are literally over a thousand years old which have still not been solved. It took people two hundred years to recognise that Newtonian gravity could not explain the exact perihelion precession of Mercury, and another fifty years for Einstein to come along with the solution. It took people decades to understand radiative corrections in quantum field theory - many of the pioneers of quantum mechanics suggested the whole framework needed scrapping, and now it's the basis of our most successful model of elementary physics ever. Similarly, as you say, it has been half a century and yet we still have no high-energy theory of quantum gravity consistent with low-energy observation. String theory currently doesn't struggle to solve the problem any more than any other framework built for describing quantum gravity, but is certainly the most mature of them. If physicists had the option of just throwing string theory away in favour of something more promising, that would be great, but alas, that door hasn't been prised open yet.

[@jebespolitiko]

Yes they are. There are no magical hidden dimensions of space. And if a theory requires them then it is nonsense.

[@clausbacher]

Like almost every crazy theory out there…..we don’t have proof but accept them somehow.

[@sicknado]

I love how the KZbin algorithm now specifically randomizes the frequency of ads so that they really mess with you. This is where we're heading people, and I wonder how far it will go..

[@cabforwardooo9983]

It's obvious that these ads are coming from the 6 dimensions.

[@sicknado]

@@cabforwardooo9983 a joke about a serious topic... typical

[@cabforwardooo9983]

@@sicknado They only mess with unstable people.

[@edwardjones2202]

Buy premium I missed a payment last month and had two weeks of ads before pay day I nearly smashed my phone into the wall

[@paulyetman2292]

I don't understand this guy he seems to be saying we should throw out a theory because we don't fully understand it? What is your alternative.

[@jebespolitiko]

No, we should throw it out because it is nonsense. Makes wrong predictions and experiments have consistently disproved it.

[@arminiouz]

This guy is absolutely confused about String Theory and is banking on general people’s lack of mathematical understanding to simply say “I don’t understand it so I don’t see how it can have any legitimacy”. 🤦🏻‍♂️ String theory is the equivalent to the Infinity Gauntlet tool of mathematics and it’s like this guy is saying ... well since anything snapped into existence can be unsnapped then what’s the point? 🤦🏻‍♂️ no insight. String theory is the cutting edge limit of mathematics/geometry themselves. He’s going to have to do more than shrug his shoulders to make a real constructive criticism to mathematics. 🙄

[@ziggityfriggity]

He's also completely ignoring the AdS / CFT correspondence, which is the smoking gun that if you're doing particle physics, you're doing string theory in some limit

[@arminiouz]

@@ziggityfriggity he reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ god of the gaps. Where you have the most robust theory of natural selection and you will always have those naysayers that try to steal air of legitimacy by highlighting what is “missing” or lacking in the best without providing an alternative solution. If you ignore his hand waving and listen closely to what he’s actually saying you can tell he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and then uses his own confusion as evidence to make absolutely no real argument 😡 infuriating. AdS/CFT Mera correspondence like you mentioned is being actively studied and used in holography and physics by people who actually know what they are talking about.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

The criticism is quite plain I think: we have not yet actually discovered a string theory that recreates known physics beyond the Einstein field equations, and there seems to be an abundance of choices about how to go about that due to a lack of restrictions about the models’ forms, contrary to what had initially been hoped.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@ziggityfriggity The AdS/CFT correspondence has so far produced correspondences between string theories and field theories which look absolutely nothing like the standard model, and even if it did, wouldn’t necessarily demonstrate that the string theory itself looks like the physics we see in the real world at low energies.

[@ziggityfriggity]

@@NuclearCraftMod what do you mean it looks nothing like the standard model? Are you worried about the “C” in CFT?

[@CaptainBlaine]

These two are managing to make science sound really boring

[@Miketar2424]

If I come up with an equation that tells me 3+1 = 10, I say it's wrong. If a tenured physicist gets the same answer he gets to pretend the 10 is a 4?

[@levansaginashviliskidney8726]

Dimensions and advanced geometry is not comparable to a simple operation such as addition

[@destroya3303]

Common sense is sorely needed in theoretical physics.

[@jebespolitiko]

When there are 4 dimensions and not 24 or 10 then yes, you say we're wrong, back to the drawing board. It is the same as some theory needing 10+4 is 2 and tenured profs then try to tailor reality to be where 10+4 equals 2.

[@WanderingIdiot81]

I haven't even heard anyone talk about string theory in like ten years

[@AdaptiveRider]

I just want to go back to the Berenstein universe

[@solefood7477]

Is that Lex Grossman!!!??? This is the Lex X Lex crossover we never knew we needed!!

[@sistajoseph]

The problem of dimensions do not exist in physics. What is a dimension. A dimension is only an independent variability of a phenomena. Eg, if we find out today in the description of matter, they is spin and spin does have a known source, then spin is a dimension and so on.

[@kelpy582]

Topic: The mathematics of string theory Thumbnail: THE HOGYOKU

[@Rakscha-Sun]

8:15 So if the experiment to proof the theories don't show this extra dimensions you just say the dimensions are much smaller till you reached a scale where not even the best scientific instruments measure anything and that than proofes that string theory could work...

[@destroya3303]

Yeah it almost sounds like imagination and rationalization for a bs theory.

[@YManCyberDude]

This video left my string theory in tangles . . .

[@oisnowy5368]

Of course string theorists never consider the most likely and most realistic and certainly the most simple reason why certain things do not seem to occur in nature despite string theory begging for it to exist...

[@jacklatta1890]

The greatest problem with string theory…is that you look at a competent theoretical physicist, trying to explain it simply, and they show it on their face…even THEY don’t have a clue what they are talking about…like a group of people who can add and subtract on paper, but can’t justify why this is even relevant…even if it unifies the 2 theory’s…ok, what does this do for me? I’m happy that you can do this math on paper, now, what does the “7th dimension do?” “What does the 8th serve?” Why is the 9th dimension RELEVANT, besides justification of your equations???

[@carefulcarpenter]

_synchronistic mathematics_ ✡

[@torlachrush]

Woit and Penrose seem to be completey aligned.

[@martijndejong1293]

Dear Lex can you please investegate vivos Europa one in rothenstein germany ! I realy need to know why the superrich build doomsday bunkers all around the globe!

[@martijndejong1293]

@Bemused AndConfused nucleair winter?

[@f.d.6667]

I can only speak for Germany: the hare-brained decision to switch off ALL sources of reliable power generation at the same time w/o having a working replacement will inevitably lead to massive black-outs and consequently to civil-war-like chaos in many regions. Better build a bunker and don't tell anyone about it.

[@martijndejong1293]

@@f.d.6667 alle straben zum them stad sind verswunden auf

[@martijndejong1293]

@@f.d.6667 G##gle

[@martijndejong1293]

@@f.d.6667 🌍

[@johnstfleur3987]

I AM JESUS CHRIST AFTER ALL.

[@Numberofthings]

Dimensions only exist in relation to something, like time. The question is, do they really exist ? Maybe not. Simulation theory is the closest and best thing we have to how it works. What does Laura Croft see inside her video game world? - a world with 3 dimensions and 1 of time. But what is her world really ? It’s just information, somewhere on a hard drive… Our universe works exactly the same way.. it’s very simple. Space and time are illusions and the universe is a hologram, based on information. The more pieces you pick apart the more pieces there are to pick apart. Black holes are the equivalent of hard drives. Everything in a given galaxy 🌌 resides in two places at once. One in local space-time coordinates, and another as information on the accretion disc of the supermassive black hole in the galactic core.

[@wrathofgrothendieck]

I think we are definitely in a simulation of some kind.

[@aidenstern5254]

Ppl always come up with crazy shit like this in Reddit and KZbin comments. It sounds cool on the surface but.. wtf are u saying man? Do u really believe this stuff? There’s no logic behind this statement lol

[@kaizetam6931]

@@aidenstern5254 it's the exploration of new ideas that moves humanity

[@Numberofthings]

@@aidenstern5254 Read it again. Black holes are hard drives. They store all the information for objects within a given galaxy. As all galaxies are self contained units. Did you realize that the stars on the outer edges of galaxies are moving so fast, and so far from their galactic core, the “gravity” is too weak to hold them in place. Yet, galaxies do not break apart driven by their own rotational speeds. Why is this ??? How is it possible, as it literally breaks the laws of physics. Well, it’s quite simple. We live in a hologram, objects are virtual and everything is pre-determined, even this comment.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

@@Numberofthings Why would the objects that store the information be inside the simulation itself? If the stars in galaxies move in ways that aren’t expected, why is this not just evidence that we haven’t understood the mechanics of galaxies as well as we could? The idea the universe is a simulation is not really testable either way. How can we even be sure that the logic of computation is the same on the “outside”?

[@SwayJJ]

Us being 3D beings that have evolved to only be able to perceive 3 dimensions will not be able to perceive extra dimensions. It’s the flat land analogy. There could be extra dimensions right in front of us but we a 3D beings in 3D land it is impossible for us it interact with a higher dimension

[@evanstegall8454]

I have a testable theory of everything. It would take me 30 minutes to explain on lex's show. I could also give some experiments. I keep it in a little book. :)

[@allandodge4636]

Send a video to him of you explaining it

[@absolute062]

Sure buddy good luck with that. Making a theory that sounds nice is easy. You need something mathematically rigorous and consistent

[@evanstegall8454]

@@absolute062 No it's not really that hard, I used simple geometry, a number of spider charts and $10 to $20 experiments. I've been compiling them in my little book. I call it the Quantonomicon.

[@evanstegall8454]

@@allandodge4636 How do I send him a video? I'm not very tech savvy.

[@allandodge4636]

@@evanstegall8454 Idk he has Twitter and Instagram right? If you were able to arrive at a testable theory of everything I'd imagine DMing a video couldn't be too complicated