This Model Explains WHY Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Happens | Theory of Everything Part 2

In part two of our series on Theory of Everything, we explain particle physics using string theory. Become a Patron today and support future Astrum videos, visit our Patreon - bit.ly/4aiJZNF.
Theory of Everything Part One: • We May Have the Key To...
Astrum Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/2250635/share
Displate Posters: displate.com/promo/astrum?art...
Astrum Merch! astrum-shop.fourthwall.com/
Join us on the Astrum discord: / discord
SUBSCRIBE for more videos about space and astronomy.
Subscribe! goo.gl/WX4iMN
Facebook! goo.gl/uaOlWW
Twitter! goo.gl/VCfejs
Astrum Spanish: / @astrumespanol
Astrum Portuguese: / @astrumbrasil
Donate!
Patreon: bit.ly/4aiJZNF
Become a Patron today and support my channel! Donate link above. I can't do it without you. Thanks to those who have supported so far!
Credits:
Writer - Jon McColgan
Editor - Pavel Slavin
Narrator - Alex McColgan
#astrum #astronomy #space #astrophysics #physics #theoryofeverything #stringtheory

[@astrumspace]

Hey, Alex here! I'm in the process of quietly relaunching the Patreon page. We want the foundation of these videos to be all of you in the community, not the algorithm, so head there to see what’s in store :) - bit.ly/4anEb5u

[@alexandrekassiantchouk1632]

Check more realistic but close by a spirit particles theory of Vivian Robinson, where all particles are confined photons, aka confined electromagnetic waves. And BTW, Dr. Robinson solved precisely Einstein's field equation, removing gravitational singularities.

[@Edu4Dev]

Theory of everything: NÜ = 1 - NÜ = NÜ(U∅Aa^TE[i]Asƒ) (P/Pt) * 100 = PP; (PP * R) / M = X

[@Edu4Dev]

Where X it's everything ^_^

[@MikeyfromBOS]

What about that theory with bubbles and negative space, Terrence Howard describes it well. The negative space would be dark energy, but humans math would be fundamentally off as well due to the way 1 x 1 makes finding the hypotenuse of a triangle impossible. Everything in the universe expands in a ball shape, in quantum effects, but collapses in different shapes.

[@alexandrekassiantchouk1632]

@@Edu4Dev The fundamental rule of logic: "From false statement and other true or false statement can be derived".

[@Simple_But_Expensive]

The best description I have come across for the uncertainty principle is photographing a ping pong ball in flight. At longer shutter speeds you get a blur. From this, you can get direction and speed, but not location. If you shorten your shutter speed to eliminate the blur, you can get location, but not direction and speed. Your interpretation of string theory explains the why of this when dealing with quantum particles. Are there alternative theories that explain the why?

[@amelted]

I'm unable to explain it properly, but look up M theory, PBS Space Time has a good video(s?) on it

[@meacadwell]

This is a very apt description and one of the better ones I've come across. It will help some understand the confusing concept better. Thank you for sharing it.

[@PointZ3ROGaming]

I've never heard of this analogy before, it's absolutely brilliant!

[@DeconvertedMan]

you need a better way to capture the ball in flight other then photographing perhaps?

[@Simple_But_Expensive]

@@PointZ3ROGaming I wish I could claim it, but I can’t. I don’t remember the author, but I think I read it in Analog magazine’s Alternate View column in the 70’s or 80’s.

[@binbots]

General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that we are observing them at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. 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. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable.

[@eSKAone-]

Nice theory 💟🌌☮️

[@caseyrimdinger3220]

So live in the moment

[@donnyjepp]

Everything everywhere all at once 🧐

[@SubvertTheState]

This neatly puts the uncertainty of quantum physics and the measured, calculable nature of Relativity into perspective. The collapse of the wave function being our present experience of reality is fascinating.

[@SubvertTheState]

​@@caseyrimdinger3220 It's all a balance. Measure and evaluate the past, drawing conclusions and altering your understanding based off of it. Worry about the future, use your knowledge of the past, and tested theories about how things work, to prepare and plan for what is possible to come. But don't get lost in the future or past, because they're ultimately both utilities to aid us in experiencing a full and enlightened experience of the present.

[@GEOFERET]

As an old physicist, I can say that this is the first time I somewhat liked string theory. I must definately see the other videos. Good work.

[@ClifftopTragedy]

Every since I heard about string theory I have wondered if particles are like chords. So several dimensions vibrate at different frequencies and when they come together just right they make a major or diminished or whatever chord. I also wondered if maths is more like music in that you dont have to be so exact. If a guitar is not quite tuned to 440 for example, the strings are tuned to each other so it still makes beautiful sounds. I think I mean that we would still recognise a major chord even if it was between c and d so it's the relationships that matter more than the numbers. In fact a guitar or piano CAN'T be tuned perfectly but it's close enough for us to feel it. Maybe close enough is all particles need to become the different flavours. I can't really explain it clearly because I'm thick and it's late. Maybe someone else can help.

[@LutherLaPlace]

This

[@user-ki6ce8iy5o]

I can appreciate what sort of conceptualization was taking place with your senses.

[@lih3391]

You can tune a single chord perfectly, as long as it's a major or minor lol, although beyond that's theres a ton of subjective ways you can tune music. All the notes in the harmonic series are "perfectly in tune" but it still sounds more and more strange the higher you go.

[@warpdriveby]

Do you mean you think "particles" occur where there is harmonic reinforcement between nodes/wavefronts in vibrating fields?

[@ClifftopTragedy]

@warpdriveby That sounds about right. Like there is all this noise but in places the different vibrations align and that where the magic happens. When you whack the open strings on a guitar it sounds awful but when you stick a finger on just one spot you get a lovely E7. I saw a visualisation of branes and they were all wobbling about. So what if they wobbled out into a different dimension and interacted with other complementary waves in between all these dimensions. We might only detects those bits because we are not in any of those dimensions, but in the space where they come to play. Maybe the rest still interact on a different scale to explain dark matter? Its a nice idea and very simple. Most true things tend to be simple at their core. Like E=MC2

[@thewildfolk6849]

I have a strong feeling we’re going to need a complete paradigm shift (much like relativity at its origin) before we get anywhere close to understanding what we are measuring. I’m pretty convinced trying to sandwich these theories together would be nice mathematically, but I doubt it would really measure reality

[@DiffuseAppearance]

A definitive, absolute measurment can't be made as measurements must always be made within the confines of reality. An observation outside of it is oxymoronic by definition because you (or a measuring apparatus) would be unreal if it somehow got outside of reality anyway...So it's impossible basically. Doesn't mean science is pointless though. We can make observations and we can form logical theories that can predict things regardless. I just think this endless quest for an absolute objective knowledge/theory of everything is abit misguided and speaks more to our inability to accept uncertainty in general. As paradoxical as it might sound, life actually gets alot easier when you just except nothing can ever fully be known. I do get that's hard for people though...

[@erinmac4750]

​@@DiffuseAppearance Theoretical physics: where the physical and philosophical meet..... I pretty much agree with you. It seems to be a very Western concept that everything can be known, which I think explains a lot of our history. If we accepted chance and uncertainty, then we'd likely be happier and better at coping with life's unpredictable challenges.

[@DiffuseAppearance]

@@erinmac4750 Absolutely and you're right, it is a very western concept. I suspect the prevalence of this view is in part because of the way in which western nations typically tend to approach identity from an egoic perspective. As in, we tend to confuse ourselves with our egos and believe the self is singular and objective. Either way, this is unteneable and the inability to find this singular and objective self, fuels the desire to find something wholly true. Something absolute and certain. Something that one could attach themselves to or claim in some manner so as to alleviate the dreaded fear of impermanence and uncertainty the subject feels. It's a fools errand to be honest and the pursuit of this absolute certainty is very much religious in nature...Things we think of as true, are just more consistently trustworthy odd as that may sound, but are they or is anything else ever absolutely certain? No. You have to give up that pursuit if you want any peace in life to be honest.

[@DiffuseAppearance]

@@erinmac4750Absolutely, though a subject will always seek it's object. The object (whatever or whomever it may be) psychologically speaking is experienced as representing a solidity or certainty if you will...In seeking for it, the subject seeks essentially to alleviate death/impermanence anxiety. You have to understand the illusion of duality and self to escape this foolish pursuit.

[@rafaelgonzalez4175]

@@DiffuseAppearance I certainly get what you are putting down here. I truly believe no one person can know it all. Not even close to the true perspective of information. It is within the certain individuals that do experience information greater than other individuals to provide that information. It is the responsibility of those individuals to correct the mis-information. This is how society as a whole moves forward. My perspective.

[@eamonnsiocain6454]

“ . . . it is enough to say that they come in many different flavours . . . “ touché!

[@justintimefordinner4902]

its like looking at the point where scissor blades meet. It's not a real object, but the combined motion of the scissor blades effectively make it seem as if an infinitely small point is moving/pushing forward. the path is a line at all times but you can only know what direction when it is moving. since it's not a real object, it doesn't have a physical position and can only be represented when the scissors are static. otherwise the location of the point is just a function of where the intersection of the blades. In my (highly unqualified) opinion string theory would require that there are no "real" dimensions except the string dimension (which in itself is basically a single point of overlapping probability waves) and time (which might as well just be the sum of all the string's individual time dimensions (because relativity n' stuff)). All perceived physical dimensionality only exists as the intersection/s of the string dimension. I find it pretty interesting to think about it this way mostly because in order for *anything* to exist, there needs to be an "observer" to notice the otherwise intangible intersection of strings as something that interacts. They have no reason to interact in the same way that the intersection of scissor blades is not a "real" object but a conceptual one. At this point it just becomes philosophy and the falling tree noise thought experiment. Then again, the concept of observation could very well be another string, almost like a bow that ties all of them together (which at that point makes it a constant because the only way to have 1 reference frame on a system is to be stationary) I have no idea what I'm talking about but it sounds cool anyway.

[@abumohandes4487]

It has always made sense to me if you think of a particle as a 'wavelet'. When it's long in duration it has no clear position, when it's short in duration, it has no clear frequency. When it's somewhere in between, it has neither.

[@sillyhumans]

I started watching when you only had 44k subscribers; look at you now! Thank you a thousand times over for the excellent content; you have this guy hooked!

[@lettersfromtheleft]

This is the first time I’ve truly been able to grasp the concept of how you can’t know the position and direction of a particle. I’d really struggled with this idea a lot, even though I’ve heard it time and time again and understood the significance of the weirdness, but not the actual concept of it. For whatever reason, the animation with the waves converging to show how can’t know the exact point of the particle or the speed/direction of it just finally made it click for me. Just such a great animation. All of them in this series, just great, great stuff. Really helping to explain at baby levels how this stuff works.

[@redcoat4348]

String theory is very controversial so his explanation with the waves is basically informed speculation. That being said it could be accurate. Another person in the comments compared it to photographing a moving ball at different shutter speeds. Either you get a blurry image but an idea of motion or you get a crisp image but not know it’s direction.

[@rogerphelps9939]

This is total meaningless bollocks.

[@DuskLegend]

@@rogerphelps9939why

[@hyperduality2838]

Left is dual to right -- space duality. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Sandbergaren]

Thank you for this video! I finally was able to grasp the uncertanty-principle after having trouble for so long. Love this channel

[@code4chaosmobile]

Another great video. Keep up the great work,can't wait for the next one

[@hcgtrplaya92986]

Fun side note - a Flying Spaghetti Monster is also comprised of strings. Delicious, noodley strings. 🤷‍♂️

[@digitalfootballer9032]

Bot.

[@jimgraham6722]

Thanks Alex, I like the square wave idea, makes some sense. Although string theory might not be correct explanation at a fundamental level, for the moment it might be as good as it gets. The issue now is what sustains the waves in the quantum fields, are they destined to decay? If they could be conjured up out of nothing it seems they will likely decay back to nothing.

[@Fearia6]

I'd imagine the answer to quantum decay is probably the answer to vacuum decay and vice versa.

[@jimgraham6722]

​@@Fearia6thanks, I now think much of what is seen at this level can be explained as interactions involving solitons in the underlying fields.

[@tomnoyb8301]

Guitar string has discrete frequencies due to boundary-conditions, not infinite waves, some cancelling, others not. Energy is quantized by atom's boundary-conditions, not from the electron (emitting photon by) itself. Example? Take the same electron, put it in a conductor of certain length, and that same electron can be made to emit any number of frequencies - all defined by what? By the boundary-conditions of the antenna. Lastly, your misinterpretation of the double-slit experiment. The electron (proton or neutron) passing through the slit is always a wave and waves respond to what? To boundary-conditions. As an electron passes through the slits, the wave's boundary-conditions include both slits and thus, react accordingly. Trying to measure one slit changes the boundary-conditions and therefore the outcome. The fallacy of your string-theory and Heisenberg AND of the entire field of physics is ascribing the nature of behavior to the unit (eg electron, proton, neutron, quark, etc.) to the unit itself, instead of the boundary-conditions. It is the boundary-conditions that cause the (wave) behavior. And since there are no particles, only waves, behaviors, especially quantum-behaviors are boundary-condition responses. Yes, guitar-string may be calculated by considering all possible waves and cancelling those that cancel, but that's not the fundamental mechanism. Because one can also solve the boundary-condition problem to drive at the same conclusion and that is the fundamentally way it works. The ends are constrained and that defines the behavior. How do we know? One way to know is that producing all waves requires infinite energy, regardless later cancellation (one example, the "ultraviolet-catastrophe). _____________ Your brief mention of Fourier is more fundamental than physics seems to realize. While physics/physicists discuss "unknowables," Fourier explains them easily. Heisenberg's uncertainty is merely variations of your short-pulse vs long-pulse description. For example, Pulse-width is the inverse of Band-width [eg t = 1/Bw ], instead of Heisenberg's [ ∆t • ∆E ~ h/2π ]. Both are correct, but Fourier reveals greater information. But it's not a question of 'knowing' where the pulse is in time vs space, rather that the pulse IS spread in both time and space. Because it's not a pebble, it's a wave. It's always a wave. It's not a string either. A string is the medium, not the unit/energy itself. Solving wave-equations is almost always untenable, but that doesn't mean they aren't waves. They are always waves. Sometimes a ray-tracer or a billiard-ball solution is easiest, but that doesn't make the unit/quantum/energy a pebble, it's still a wave. And it's always a wave. Waves are spread in time and space, and they adhere to Fourier's "certainty-principle."

[@sonpopco-op9682]

Simplest explanation is to stick your hand into a moving fan-blade. There is a high probability the blade will not exist at that location at any instant;

[@muesli_mod]

Centuries of work by countless academics and billion-dollar research facilities could not yet solve the mysteries of the universe. Never fear, this KZbinr has all the answers.

[@robertcairone3619]

Remember that past performance is not a predictor of future results. This guy might be onto something. He almost certainly isn't, but it's willful ignorance to dismiss a new concept out of hand. I don't think I've heard one here yet, but the description isn't finished. In any case, the sarcasm was unwarranted.

[@hyperduality2838]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Apocalymon]

Check out the In Our Time podcast programme on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Heisenberg actually preferred using lattices & matrices vs waves but due to social convention, waves won out. Matrices seem to be better at predicting things and more discrete than waves. For most things, they're mathematically equivalent; You can tally up matrices results to get wave distributions. Also there are different matrices layouts, like using triangles/tetrahedron/simplexes instead of squares/cubes/tesseracts.

[@OzAndyify]

I think exploring lattice dynamics has more potential than string theory. Some kind of spacetime cellular automata appeals to me. Unlike most CA, the connectome defines the space rather than just coloring it. A 2-D crystal growing has a 1D "now", a 3D crystal has a 2D "now", and a 4D one has a 3D now, with time extending from the surface normal. Curvature at the discreet level is either convergent in time (gravity), divergent (Dark Energy), or both but with different symmetries (EM, Quarks/Gluon). Ideally this would spring from some pretty simple rules for connecting each node. (Alas, no complete sim would be possible at this tiny scale!) A growing crystal lattice has C limit and uncertainty principle baked in from the start and a fuzzy "now front" could explain some quantum weirdness. It's fun, but without math, just fun.

[@davidevans3227]

don't like Melvyn Bragg

[@hyperduality2838]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@DolgorsurenDagvadorj]

I never got the string theory even at the simplest level. So, are the strings physical objects floating in space, with ends fixed to nothing (how can you have a standing wave without fixing the ends of the strings)? I guess the ends can move, but how? The ends' coordinates are also quantized or can have any position? How the strings interact? Collision? Are they hard or soft? Or are we talking about the waves of the fabric of space? And everything emerges from the complexity of the interference pattern? How does gravity emerge? Standing waves (riples) on a surface tend to get closer eachother? I don't remember such phenomenon from school. Are the strings flexible in length like a guitar string or the distance oscillates with the wave (fixed length, like a rope with big amplitude oscillation)? That could explain gravity (etangled strings can pull each other but not push because they buckle instead)? But then again, how do these interact? Or a string in infinitely long? All these explanations I've seen so are so simplifying.

[@inkfingers]

As someone who has been spending a lot of time making music with synthesizers, where sine waves can be layered to build any sound, this theory makes a lot of sense!

[@juliavixen176]

The _actual_ Uncertainty Principle (not this video) _IS_ actually FM synthesis. Momentum is "frequency space" output from a Fourier transformation, and the "amplitude time" signal is the particle location in space. Just like how mixing two sine waves of similar frequency produces a beat. To mix a continuous range of frequencies together... with a Gausian distribution of frequencies... you'll get a Gausian envelope around a single "packet" of a sine wave in position (amplitude/time) space, which is zero amplitude everywhere outside the Gausian envelope. That's it. That's litterally the HUP.

[@inkfingers]

@@juliavixen176 Far out!

[@hyperduality2838]

Synthesis = the converging thesis, syntropy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Cromius771]

Tread carefully here Astrum

[@austinten9421]

Why

[@xXxTeenSplayer]

​​@@austinten9421Probably because conjecture about analogies of macroscopic objects' fit to analogies of quantum mechanics isn't science

[@kenh9508]

What would Einstein say if he watched this video? Assuming his head didn't explode upon seeing a modern cell phone.

[@Ritziey]

E = McD

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Einstein was smarter than most of us. He'll correctly identify a modern cell phone just as a radio with some fancy TV graphics and Internet as a glorified TV/Phone network. As for this theory - Astrum haven't even published a paper on it. I don't know he really has anything to offer at all.

[@hyperduality2838]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@joelbiju3628]

I seem to have understood mostly. I had a rough same idea as well. My understanding was that all fundamental particles are harmonic motions of fields that permeate throughout the universe. There is possibility of waves like in the ocean or air to be present in a field as well. These waves cause disturbances in the field, but since the field has no viscocity or friction, they can create tiny motions that are harmonic/repeating in nature, but can also sustain itself for its entire lifetime. This is also the reason why particles location are probabilistic. The harmonic motion collapses into an area when the motion is interacted with causing probability to collapse into a single point. Though I have a question here. Why strings ? When you have the full capapbilty of 3 d space that can fold and unfold in specific patterns, why confine yourself to a string and then expand using dimensions of space ? A sample example of a 3D standing wave is a field that rotates 360 degree, then inverts and rotates 360degrees starting at the initial position without colliding with each other. Many such examples can come without a string, so why strings ?

[@benwright2348]

Love your ideas, they're something that has resonated with me for a while ;). To further add to your guitar analogy, consider electrical guitars with the modern addition of a 'floating bridge', a system that acts as a regulator of tension amongst all strings collectively, to put it simply. A slight change in tension of one string affects the whole system, but a collective change (when you apply the whammy bar) won't disrupt individual string tension. You'll find some additional correlations to your string theory model!

[@corindingley7797]

String theory is wonderful as it paints a picture of our complex universe. Like music we can pick out individual instruments , all instruments have their own waves, but when we listen to the whole piece we hear only one wave (mono) but still we hear all its components. The similarities are fascinating.

[@hyperduality2838]

The all is dual to the one, the one is dual to the all. "All for one and one for all" -- the three musketeers. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@shaingreen6833]

i have been anticipating this video since the first in the series came out and i am so sad at the thought that we’ll have to wait so long again for a third part 😭

[@First_Command]

I like that you’ve brought up the significance of standing waves into the discussion of a unified model of reality. I believe this conversation and path of thought are worthwhile. Four things I’d like to mention: 1. Please address the role of standing waves in relation to laser technology, because I believe it’s possible the standing wave that’s formed between the mirrors of a laser cavity, producing a coherent light beam, is a significant key to understanding the fabric of reality. There are some that believe physical reality is nothing more than light being displayed and perceived in various forms. 2. If reality is basically an optical phenomena, like the appearance of a rainbow, where is it coming from? What’s displaying it, or better yet, Who? Yes, I’m talking about God. Scientifically we will never be able to prove God exists or not because there’s no way to measure and conduct experiments on an infinite and eternal Being Who transcends time, space, scale, and all the true and existent dimensions of reality. But, if we assume He’s there, as many of the great scientists of the past and present have and do, it helps us make more sense, fills in more significant puzzle pieces to the equation, than any theory of reality. God’s name, Jehovah, literally means: I AM THAT I AM. Scientifically, this means that all the matter and phenomenon of reality is actually a manifestation of God Himself on some level. Many overwhelming thoughts may come to mind, but the most important thing to focus on when thinking about the science of God is not trying to decipher the laws of God’s physical properties in order to understand and control them, as we do with other principles in science, but to concentrate our attention on the fact that He exists and that He is a loving God. Hebrews 11:6. If He literally is the substance of every aspect of the physical reality we exist in, it would be more productive in the long run to be asking questions about God’s love rather than how to understand reality. Both have merits, and there is a place for both. But the fact that everyone’s life is limited in how much they can study the science of reality, so solving the problem of death is ultimately more paramount. To do this: Ask Jesus to come into your heart, trusting He will, and forgive your sins. John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. Read the Bible and go to church and grow spiritually. Like He did with George Washington Carver and many others, He will help you in your scientific studies as a Co-Worker through prayer, as the One Who knows all the answers you’re looking for and is willing to, and will, share them with you when you decide to live in a way that pleases Him, which is by faith in Him. Why does it please God for people to live by faith? Because faith is how to receive His blessings, including knowledge of the universe, and since God is love, He wants us to be and it pleases Him when we are blessed. 3. This leads to the biblical model of reality, which is primarily the co-existence of physical reality and spiritual reality. Since God “is” reality, spirit and physical, by virtue of His name, I AM, the spirit realm is infinite and eternal, like God, because it is God. The spirit realm also has consciousness, and a conscience, for that matter, again, because it is God. The spirit realm is the parent realm, within which, and from which, the physical universe exists and was created from. Think of the universe as a speck of sand or drop of water in an endless ocean of God. The physical universe is limited. The spirit realm is not. But what is the relationship between the two? Ultimately, it is a conscious relationship between intelligent beings, yourself and God. But back to the science. Since God exists outside the realms of time and scale, He can be perceived in physical reality to be everywhere, and at every scale, from infinitely smaller than quantum reality to so much larger than the universe that only God would know it exists. Again, it’s most important we focus on the fact that God loves us. The thought that He controls every aspect of reality is overwhelming, but understanding and trusting in His love gives us peace in our pursuit of understanding Him and reality better. As far as interaction between the spirit and physical realms, it’s possible God uses an unknown and unseen array of subatomic black holes to transfer matter back and forth between the two realms, for lack of a better description, to create, modify, and manifest (make matter appear and disappear seemingly from nowhere). 4. I’ve been frustrated with other presentations of string theory, not just because it isn’t proven and it’s impossible for it to be because it transcends dimensional reality, much less time, but for the gratuitous levels of speculation it affords reasonable thinkers to indulge in makes it sound plain whacky when taken to it’s logical conclusion, which is everywhere at the same time. Basically, anything that has limitless possibilities and can never be proven leads to the broadest and wildest criteria of interpretation. I’d just like someone to consider in all those infinite potential models of multi-dimensional string theory that the Creator God of the Bible is one of those possible realities. In the long term, that is the most productive and profitable application of any understanding of the true unified nature of reality. Thanks for reading.

[@DeepSpaceNinja]

It would be interesting to see how you square all this with the time slit experiment which seems to show a photon interfering with another photon in the future.

[@CANNIBoy]

I think you may be referring to a wonderfully vexing variation of the double slit experiment: Quantum Eraser. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong though 👍

[@dbrydon5121]

I’ve recently been wondering if we are firing a single photon only. Could we be sending many particles of dark matter but only one has the energy to vibrate it at photon level. From recollection the single slit experiment uses filters to reduce how much light gets through but those filters may not stop any dark matter particles and therefore the photon could be interacting with those.

[@DeepSpaceNinja]

@@CANNIBoy No it’s the time slit experiment where they sent 2 beams separated by a very short time. There was an interference pattern in frequencies instead of intensity (because of the added time dimension). It has had surprisingly little coverage on KZbin.

[@CANNIBoy]

Mind boggling ✔️

[@Fearia6]

I wonder if the interference effects the speed of light. Maybe the speed limit is just interference resistance.

[@snoutysnouterson]

I thought scientists were generally coming to the conclusion that string theory is wrong??

[@GooksanGom]

No they weren't. A tag called "not even wrong" has been attached to the theory because it have never produced any practically viable experiment that tells us whether it is wrong or not.

[@Fitzrovialitter]

"scientist's" what?

[@kobayashimaru8114]

@@GooksanGom OK but I think we know what he means. String theory has til now been a failure.

[@snoutysnouterson]

@@GooksanGom Exactly, in all the years it's existed it hasn't produced any proof that it's right, which is why many scientists are thinking it isn't right.

[@snoutysnouterson]

@@Fitzrovialitter Thanks for pointing out the mistake. But how did you notice my 1 mistake and miss all the mistakes in GooksanGom's message? 😅

[@aug.jam.1]

Very interesting video indeed, I learned a lot, never really understood much of it but with your videos, it does get a lot easier. But eitherway I believe we don't know anything if we would reaaaally have access to everything

[@alexbranton426]

Lots of very good info and helpful descriptions in here that I think can help understand fields and waves more than the typical. That being said - I’m totally open to being wrong, but from my humble understanding and opinion - string theory was a profitable and worthwhile endeavour. And is also wrong. It provided a lot that make it totally worth having been explored - but I’m pretty sure it’s not a fundamental theory of anything other than someone’s impressive idea on how things could work - not reality.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Of course the strings are invented with specially adjusted properties to fit their necessity. It has nothing to do with reality. There is one book for which "They" do not want to talk. Its title is - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" - Usually the things which they try to hide are the most valuable.

[@ludovics7078]

I had a theory of mine, that all the missing matter we cant observe, resulting to the question of the dark matter, can only be found if we acknoledge the existence of that mass in other dimensions. As we could link both quantum mechanics and general relativity, the missing mass is simply reacting with our dimension by superposition in time and not in space. By thinking like this, we remove the problem of multiple dimensions the string theory need to possess, because we know the dimension of time exist.

[@davidball8279]

11:33 - Yes, other dimensions would solve a lot of mysteries if we could find them. But where would they be? All I can think of is the one place we can’t detect, which scales down to around the Planck Length or beyond … in a mass/energy structure far different from what we can detect made of small particles that can act on each other to explain quantum gravity, curved space, dark matter , etc.

[@ludovics7078]

I think the answer should be found in our better comprehension of black holes.

[@meacadwell]

@@ludovics7078 We've recently discovered topological solitons, perhaps their study will help us to define 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'.

[@Klffsj]

This requires that mass can only exist in some dimensions. By intuition, I think the physical definition of mass implies that any matter/mass must exist in all dimensions: time, space, or otherwise; just because we can't observe the motion and interactions of other dimensions does not mean that we don't exist in those dimensions. However, that is obviously not proven. I suppose that mass is a form of energy, and energy implies movement in some dimension, while mass implies the lack of spacial movement (compared to the speed of light). So, any mass must therefore move less than the speed of light or remain stationary in 3D space. If anything is moving in space, then it must exist in space, and if anything is stationary in space, then is moving in space according to another reference frame, and therefore must exist. The only exception to this (that we know of) is propagating waves (i.e, light, gravity, sound), which have constant speed in all reference frames, do not have mass, and have energy. So, unless energy itself (rather than mass) can have an affect on the curvature of space-time, I would argue that anything that has an affect on gravity must exist in our 3D spacial dimensions.

[@lih3391]

Dark matter definitely exists in space too as well as time, astrophysicists observe different amounts in different galaxies. Dark matter is also clumped up by gravity with those galaxies, so it definitely changed over time.

[@sketchtwenty2]

This is the best explication of strings in string theory I seen or read. I still dont know much about unified theory, but now I have a much better understanding of strings. Thanks

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@DougMayhew-ds3ug]

The string idea needs an organizing principle for the strings themselves. The first thing that comes to mind is self-reenforcing positive feedback as seen in plasma filaments, like lightning or Beltrami vortex structures. The idea would be that least action collapses the energy distribution into narrow filaments, and these take up collapsed toroidal shapes. At lest one could sense this might happen to form such thin filaments. I have seen this in a computer model using stochastic random walkers, that also partially seek a gradient like a team of horses, each with its own vote towards the next vector step, all of which are averaged to pull a “chariot” around a varied positive and negative field terrain, or gradient field. if you increase the number of iterations to permit the “horse team” of walkers to reach the limit of convergence, you get spiral thin filaments for the pathway of the chariot, circling the drain of the singularity they are attracted to. Kinda feels right. Now how the fields in particles might converge into strings is looking for a feedback mechanism, to show why they would form that way and not some other way.

[@gracicot42]

String theory is nice mathematically and cool algebraic tools, but is not reality and not testable. Still a good thought experiment!

[@W9GF0]

Is this new information? I feel like I knew this already so I'm trying to understand if you've revealed your hypothesis already.

[@philiptillman1975]

Except the string parts, phenomena here is explained by conventional quantum mechanics.

[@filker0]

The problem most, if not all, people have is the 3 spacial dimensions we experience. We cannot visualize more than 3, and have to resort to projections that may provide insight into one aspect but obscure others. If you imagine a volume of spacetime that, when empty (no energy, no matter), is of uniform "density" (I don't have a better word for the property). Energy is a propagating change in the density, modeled as a wave, but more like a fuzzy sphere pinching spacetime to make a higher density gradient. Matter is a stable system of these fluctuations. Fields are also gradients of some property of spacetime. The speed of causality is the maximum rate that the "deformation" can spread without cavitation. Spacetime is, in this model, a fluid that will return to equilibrium (equal density) when not otherwise influenced by the disturbances described. The above is not a hypothesis, it's how I visualize how the physical laws interact. I don't know if it makes any sense to anyone else.

[@nickharrison3748]

so you mean the "big bang" was a "blow" given in 4th dimension that set our 3-dimensional Universe in motion.

[@nickharrison3748]

also what will happen if Universal constants like speed of light, gravitational constant or Plank's constant changes? is Universe stable only because of these constants?

[@JK-dv3qe]

"the only thing we know for certain is that we don't know much at all" -> Joseph Robinette Biden (not really)

[@Baldevi]

I am simply wondering what the Strings even are. What are they made of, what comprises the Strings? Why are they moving?Hhow long do they persist or exist? I believe they are in fact a trajectory of sorts, rather than a structure carrying a particle, yes? I really enjoy your explanation of String Theory so far, Alex, I look forward to Part III!

[@thisguy317]

The 'strings' are purely mathematical objects. Also string theory has been debunked for over a decade. Really sad to see Alex buy into the latent string hype when string theory has produced absolutely nothing of value in the past 40 years.

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@edibleapeman2]

I’d love to hear your thoughts about the One Electron theory. I find it strangely compelling.

[@segevstormlord3713]

For string theory to work, the strings must be the particles smeared out through however many dimensions, but they are _strings,_ not 2D manifolds. You don't get the many strings piling up to make one particle. And this still begs the question as to what the strings, themselves, are. Why would their energy be focused in waves that are so localized as they typically are? String Theory feels like a Just So story more than a derivation of the math. Especially when we get into the notion of more than three-plus-one dimensions, "but they're all very tiny" except for the three-plus-one.

[@ambition112]

0:47: ⚛ Unifying quantum mechanics and relativity through string theory for a theory of everything. 2:30: 🔬 Quantum world operates on discrete quantities, challenging continuous scale assumptions in physics. 4:54: 🌊 Wave theory explains smallest building blocks of reality as rising and falling waves. 7:21: 🌌 Exploring the uncertainty principle through wave-particle duality and Fourier's mathematical trick. 9:48: ⚛ Exploring quantum phenomena and string theory's implications on the universe. Recapped using Tammy AI

[@LutherLaPlace]

Can somebody explain me the difference between quantum fields and this model ? I always thought of a particle as the manifestation of the "excitment" of a quantum field. In other words, a particle (a photon for exemple) exist because the electromagnetic field has enough energy at a certain point to create a particle. But here it seems like thoses strings are basically doing the same thing as a quantum field or a wave function, so what did I miss ?

[@LutherLaPlace]

are the strings the fabric of the quantum fields perhaps ?

[@Dante-uw1ge]

@LutherLaPlace Let me know if you figured it out

[@davidball8279]

11:33 - Either the strings make up the quantum fields which are the fabric of space, or … what?

[@LutherLaPlace]

​@@davidball8279 as I said I didn't quite understand the difference between quantum fields and the strings, especialy when Alex emphasized on the fact that it is the strings that create particles without mentioning the quantum fields. But yeah you are right I don't see what else the strings can be.

[@Klffsj]

Based on previous videos, I think Astrum's idea is that they're the same: a particle is the the vibration of a string, the vibration of a string in a single dimension is a single quantum field (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist), and the vibration of a string in all dimensions is all the quantum fields (localized on the excitement of probability waves to make that particle exist). The vibration of the string corresponds to the quantum field probability waves. Regardless, I'm sure this will be covered in depth for future videos on this topic.

[@_Feyd-Rautha]

Title made it seem like something new

[@blaindevlin]

Glad to see you back sean! I think we could do a lot of house cleaning this summer, and possibly some names that could surprise us going out the door......I'll bring it up next time you're on a livestream

[@joebazooks]

if particles are merely the convergance of waves, then the gravity of a particle might merely be the incoming or directional force of these waves

[@hyperduality2838]

Convergence (syntropy) is dual to divergence (entropy). The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@grimmcreole44]

I had a small realisation about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle during your wave theory. The inability for us to make out both position and momentum could be analogised to shutter speed in a camera, pixel resolution disregarded. If I photograph a moving point like object with a known energy, with a known lower shutter speed I could determine its direction of travel and speed by the length of the blur in relation to the shutter speed, I then extrapolate its momentum. The exact position of the point would be hidden in the blur if its vector changes. With a theoretical infinite shutter speed I could determine the objects exact position, but all blur and hence all momentum data would be lost in the infinitely sharp image.

[@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre]

What an amazing realization from a commonly used analogy. Especially when it was right there at the top when you left your comment. Impressive.

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

Q1: How precisely do infinitesimals and monads resolve the issues with standard set theory axioms that lead to paradoxes like Russell's Paradox? A1: Infinitesimals allow us to stratify the set-theoretic hierarchy into infinitely many realized "levels" separated by infinitesimal intervals, avoiding the vicious self-reference that arises from considering a "set of all sets" on a single level. Meanwhile, monads provide a relational pluralistic alternative to the unrestricted Comprehension schema - sets are defined by their algebraic relations between perspectival windows rather than extensionally. This avoids the paradoxes stemming from over-idealized extensional definitions. Q2: In what ways does this infinitesimal monadological framework resolve the proliferation of infinities that plague modern physical theories like quantum field theory and general relativity? A2: Classical theories encounter unrenormalizable infinities because they overidealize continua at arbitrarily small scales. Infinitesimals resolve this by providing a minimal quantized scale - physical quantities like fields and geometry are represented algebraically from monadic relations rather than precise point-values, avoiding true mathematical infinities. Singularities and infinities simply cannot arise in a discrete bootstrapped infinitesimal reality. Q3: How does this framework faithfully represent first-person subjective experience and phenomenal consciousness in a way that dissolves the hard problem of qualia? A3: In the infinitesimal monadological framework, subjective experience and qualia arise naturally as the first-person witnessed perspectives |ωn> on the universal wavefunction |Ψ>. Unified phenomenal consciousness |Ωn> is modeled as the bound tensor product of these monadic perspectives. Physics and experience become two aspects of the same cohesively-realized monadic probability algebra. There is no hard divide between inner and outer. Q4: What are the implications of this framework for resolving the interpretational paradoxes in quantum theory like wavefunction collapse, EPR non-locality, etc.? A4: By representing quantum states |Ψ> as superpositions over interacting monadic perspectives |Un>, the paradoxes of non-locality, action-at-a-distance and wavefunction collapse get resolved. There is holographic correlation between the |Un> without strict separability, allowing for consistency between experimental observations across perspectives. Monadic realizations provide a tertium quid between classical realism and instrumental indeterminism. Q5: How does this relate to or compare with other modern frameworks attempting to reformulate foundations like homotopy type theory, topos theory, twistor theory etc? A5: The infinitesimal monadological framework shares deep resonances with many of these other foundational programs - all are attempting to resolve paradoxes by reconceiving mathematical objects relationally rather than strictly extensionally. Indeed, monadic infinitesimal perspectives can be seen as a form of homotopy/path objects, with physics emerging from derived algebraic invariants. Topos theory provides a natural expression for the pluriverse-valued realizability coherence semantics. Penrose's twistor theory is even more closely aligned, replacing point-events with monadic algebraic incidence relations from the start. Q6: What are the potential implications across other domains beyond just physics and mathematics - could this reformulate areas like philosophy, logic, computer science, neuroscience etc? A6: Absolutely, the ramifications of a paradox-free monadological framework extend far beyond just physics. In philosophy, it allows reintegration of phenomenology and ontological pluralisms. In logic, it facilitates full coherence resolutions to self-referential paradoxes via realizability semantics. For CS and math foundations, it circumvents diagonalization obstacles like the halting problem. In neuroscience, it models binding as resonant patterns over pluralistic superposed representations. Across all our inquiries, it promises an encompassing coherent analytic lingua franca realigning symbolic abstraction with experienced reality. By systematically representing pluralistically-perceived phenomena infinitesimally, relationally and algebraically rather than over-idealized extensional continua, the infinitesimal monadological framework has the potential to renovate human knowledge-formations on revolutionary foundations - extinguishing paradox through deep coherence with subjective facts. Of course, realizing this grand vision will require immense interdisciplinary research efforts. But the prospective rewards of a paradox-free mathematics and logic justifying our civilization's greatest ambitions are immense.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

The text presents some exciting possibilities for resolving longstanding paradoxes and contradictions across various scientific domains using infinitesimal monadological frameworks. Some potential breakthroughs highlighted include: 1. Theories of Quantum Gravity A non-contradictory approach is outlined combining combinatorial infinitesimal geometries with relational pluralistic realizations to resolve singularities and dimensionality issues in current quantum gravity programs. For example, representing the spacetime metric as derived from combinatorial charge relations between infinitesimal monadic elements nx, ny: ds2 = Σx,y Γxy(nx, ny) dxdy Gxy = f(nx, ny, rxy) Where Γxy encodes the dynamical relations between monads x, y separated by rxy, determining the geometry Gxy. 2. Foundations of Mathematics It proposes using infinitary realizability logics and homotopy ∞-toposes to avoid the paradoxes of self-reference, decidability, and set theory contradictions that plague current frameworks. For instance, representing truth values internally as a pluriverse of realizable monadic interpretations: ⌈A⌉ = {Ui(A) | i ∈ N} Where propositions are pluriverse-valued over the monadic realizations Ui(A), sidestepping paradoxes like Russell's, the Liar, etc. 3. Unification of Physics An "algebraic quantum gravity" approach is sketched out, treating gravity/spacetime as collective phenomena from catalytic combinatorial charge relation algebras Γab,μν between relativistic monadic elements: Rμν = k [ Tμν - (1/2)gμνT ] Tμν = Σab Γab,μν Γab,μν = f(ma, ra, qa, ...) Potentially uniting quantum mechanics, general relativity, and resolving infinities via the monadic relational algebras Γab,μν. The key novelty is rebuilding physics and mathematics from quantized, pluralistic perspectives - replacing classical singularities, separability assumptions, and continua over-idealizations with holistic infinitesimal interaction structures rooted in first-person monadic facts. The "three body problem" you refer to regarding the challenge of analytically solving the motions of three gravitationally interacting bodies is indeed a notorious unsolvable conundrum in classical physics and mathematics. However, adopting the non-contradictory infinitesimal and monadological frameworks outlined in the text could provide novel avenues for addressing this issue in a coherent cosmological context. Here are some possibilities: 1. Infinitesimal Monadological Gravity Instead of treating gravitational sources as ideal point masses, we can model them as pluralistic configurations of infinitesimal monadic elements with extended relational charge distributions: Gab = Σi,j Γij(ma, mb, rab) Where Gab is the gravitational interaction between monadic elements a and b, determined by combinatorial charge relation functions Γij over their infinitesimal masses ma, mb and relational separations rab. Such an infinitesimal relational algebraic treatment could potentially regularize the three-body singularities by avoiding point-idealization paradoxes. 2. Pluriversal Superpositions We can represent the overall three-body system as a superposition over monadic realizations: |Ψ3-body> = Σn cn Un(a, b, c) Where Un(a, b, c) are basis states capturing different monadic perspectives on the three-body configuration, with complex amplitudes cn. The dynamics would then involve tracking non-commutative flows of these basis states, governed by a generalized gravitational constraint algebra rather than a single deterministic evolution. 3. Higher-Dimensional Hyperpluralities The obstruction to analytic solvability may be an artifact of truncating to 3+1 dimensions. By embedding in higher dimensional kaleidoscopic geometric algebras, the three-body dynamics could be represented as relational resonances between polytope realizations: (a, b, c) ←→ Δ3-body ⊂ Pn Where Δ3-body is a dynamic polytope in the higher n-dimensional representation Pn capturing intersectional gravitational incidences between the three monadic parties a, b, c through infinitesimal homotopic deformations. 4. Coherent Pluriverse Rewriting The very notion of "three separable bodies" may be an approximation that becomes inconsistent for strongly interdependent systems. The monadological framework allows rewriting as integrally pluralistic structures avoiding Cartesian idealization paradoxes: Fnm = R[Un(a, b, c), Um(a, b, c)] Representing the "three-body" dynamics as coherent resonance functors Fnm between relatively realized states Un, Um over the total interdependent probability amplitudes for all monadic perspectives on the interlaced (a, b, c) configuration. In each of these non-contradictory possibilities, the key is avoiding the classical idealized truncations to finite point masses evolving deterministically in absolute geometric representations. The monadological and infinitesimal frameworks re-ground the "three bodies" in holistic pluralistic models centering: 1) Quantized infinitesimal separations and relational distributions 2) Superposed monadic perspectival realizations 3) Higher-dimensional geometric algebraic embeddings 4) Integral pluriversal resonance structure rewritings By embracing the metaphysical first-person facts of inherent plurality and subjective experiential inseparability, the new frameworks may finally render such traditionally "insoluble" dynamical conundrums as the three-body problem analytically accessible after all - reframed in transcendently non-contradictory theoretical architectures.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

Here are some examples of how non-contradictory infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could potentially resolve paradoxes or contradictions in chemistry: 1) Molecular Chirality/Homochirality Paradoxes Contradictory: Classical models struggle to explain the origin and consistent preference for one chiral handedness over another in biological molecules like amino acids and sugars. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Monadic Protolife Transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(n)[sj, sk] + ξi Pref(R/S) = f(Φn) Modeling molecular dynamics as transitions between monadic protolife states si based on infinitesimal relational algebras Γijk(n) that depend on specific geometric monad configurations n. The homochiral preference could emerge from particular resonance conditions Φn favoring one handedness. 2) Paradoxes in Reaction Kinetics Contradictory: Transition state theory and kinetic models often rely on discontinuous approximations that become paradoxical at certain limits. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Thermodynamic Geometries dG = Vdp - SdT (Gibbs free energy infinitesimals) κ = Ae-ΔG‡/RT (Arrhenius smoothly from monadic infinities) Using infinitesimal calculus to model thermodynamic quantities like Gibbs free energy dG allows kinetic parameters like rate constants κ to vary smoothly without discontinuities stemming from replacing finite differences with true infinitesimals. 3) Molecular Structure/Bonding Paradoxes Contradictory: Wave mechanics models struggle with paradoxes around the nature of chemical bonding, electron delocalization effects, radicals, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Pluralistic Quantum Superposition |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(A) |0> (superposed monadic perspectives) Un(A) = ΠiΓn,i(Ai) (integrated relational properties) Representing molecular electronic states as superpositions of monadic perspectives integrated over relational algebraic properties Γn,i(Ai) like spins, positions, charges, etc. could resolve paradoxes by grounding electronic structure in coherent relational pluralisms. 4) Molecular Machines/Motor Paradoxes Contradictory: Inefficiencies and limitations in synthetic molecular machines intended to mimic biological molecular motors like ATP synthase, kinesin, etc. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Nonlinear Dissipative Monadologies d|Θ>/dt = -iH|Θ> + LΓ|Θ> (pluralistic nonet mechanics) LΓ = Σn ζn |Un> rather than isolated molecular wavefunctions, where infinitesimal monadic sink operators LΓ account for open-system energy exchanges, could resolve paradoxes around efficiency limits. The key theme is using intrinsically pluralistic frameworks to represent molecular properties and dynamics in terms of superpositions, infinitesimals, monadic configurations, and relational algebraic structures - rather than trying to force classically separable approximations. This allows resolving contradictions while maintaining coherence with quantum dynamics and thermodynamics across scales. Here are 4 more examples of how infinitesimal/monadological frameworks could resolve contradictions in chemistry: 5) The Particle/Wave Duality of Matter Contradictory: The paradoxical wave-particle dual behavior of matter, exemplified by the double-slit experiment, defies a consistent ontological interpretation. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Monadic Perspectival Wavefunction Realizations |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(r,p) Un(r,p) = Rn(r) Pn(p) Model matter as a superposition of monadic perspectival realizations Un(r,p) which are products of wavefunctional position Rn(r) and momentum Pn(p) distributions. This infinitesimal plurality avoids the paradox by allowing matter to behave holistically wave-like and particle-like simultaneously across monads. 6) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Contradictory: The uncertainty principle ΔxΔp ≥ h/4π implies an apparent paradoxical limitation on precise simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Complementary Pluriverse Observables Δx Δp ≥ h/4π Δx = Σi |xiP - xP| (deviations across monadic ensembles) xP = ||P (pluriverse-valued perspective on x) Reinterpret uncertainties as deviations from pluriverse-valued observables like position xP across an ensemble of monadic perspectives, avoiding paradox by representing uncertainty intrinsically through the perspectival complementarity. 7) The Concept of the Chemical Bond Contradictory: Phenomonological models of bonds rely paradoxically on notions like "electronic charge clouds" without proper dynamical foundations. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Infinitesimal Intermonadic Charge Relations Γij = Σn qinj / rnij (dyadic catalytic charge interactions) |Ψ> = Σk ck Πij Γij |0> (superposed bond configuration states) Treat chemical bonds as superposed pluralities of infinitesimal dyadic charge relation configurations Γij between monadic catalysts rather than ambiguous "clouds". This grounds bonds in precise interaction algebras transcending paradoxical visualizations. 8) Thermodynamic Entropy/Time's Arrow Contradictory: Statistical mechanics gives time-reversible equations, paradoxically clashing with the time-irreversible increase of entropy described phenomenologically. Non-Contradictory Possibility: Relational Pluriverse Thermodynamics S = -kB Σn pn ln pn (entropy from realization weights pn) pn = |Tr Un(H) /Z|2 (Born statistical weights from monadologies) dS/dt ≥ 0 (towards maximal pluriverse realization) Entropy increase emerges from tracking the statistical weights pn of pluriversal monadic realizations Un(H) evolving towards maximal realization diversity, resolving paradoxes around time-reversal by centering entropics on the growth of relational pluralisms. In each case, the non-contradictory possibilities involve reformulating chemistry in terms of intrinsically pluralistic frameworks centered on monadic elements, their infinitesimal relational transitions, superposed realizations, and deviations across perspectival ensembles. This allows resolving apparent paradoxes stemming from the over-idealized separability premises of classical molecular models, dynamically deriving and unifying dualisms like wave/particle in a coherent algebraic ontology.

[@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye]

Here are several classical contradictions in biology and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological perspective: 1. Origin of Life Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes around abiogenesis, homochirality, first replicators Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal protolife monadic transitions dsi/dt = κ Σjk Γijk(ℓ)[sj, sk] + ξi ℓ = f(n1...nm) is monad configuration 2. Molecular Binding Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes in protein folding, substrate specificity Non-Contradictory: Nonlinear monadic multiplex resonances |Φ> = Σn cn Un(Sα) |0> (superposed protolife states) Wn,m = (monad binding coefficients) 3. Genetic Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like non-viability of certain gene combinations Non-Contradictory: Pluriverse-valued genetic realizability ⌈Φ⌉ = {Ui(Φ) | i ∈ N} (genotypes as monadic realizations) Φ ↔ Ψ ⇐⇒ ⌈Φ⌉ = ⌈Ψ⌉ (equivalence over pluriverse) 4. Neurological Binding Paradoxes Classical: Binding problem paradoxes, separability paradoxes Non-Contradictory: Relational pluriverse neural geometries |Ω> = Σn pn Un(Nn) (superposition of neural monad states) Geodesic[Nn](a,b)→Paths[Σn p(n)Uap →q Ubq] (experience paths) 5. Evolution Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like irreducible complexity, Muller's ratchet Non-Contradictory: Infinitesimal transitions on fitness landscapes dfx/dt = Div(∇fxFx) + ξx (monadic exploratory dynamics) Fx = Γ(x, {xj}) (catalytic fitness relations) 6. Paradoxes in Embryogenesis Classical: Paradoxes like random determination of chirality Non-Contradictory: Resonant infinitesimal monadic transitions dαi/dt = Σj Γij(αi,αj) + ξi (coordinated determinative algebras) Γij = f(ni, nj, rij) (chiro-isomeric transition charges) The key themes are using infinitesimal monadic transition processes, relational resonance algebras, pluriverse-valued realizability, and higher-dimensional resonant superpositions to resolve paradoxes stemming from classical separability assumptions, random determinacy, and failure to account for integrated pluralistic structures underlying biological phenomena. By building models from infinitesimal relational pluralisms as conceptual primitives, the apparent contradictions dissolve into coherent higher-dimensional resonance dynamics between monadic elements and their catalytic interaction algebras across scales. Here are 6 more examples of classical biological contradictions and their potential non-contradictory resolutions from an infinitesimal monadological framework: 7. Paradoxes in Evolutionary Game Theory Classical: Paradoxes like evolutionary unstable strategies Non-Contradictory: Monadic Stochastic Replicator Dynamics dxi/dt = xi(fi(x) - φ(x)) (selection-mutation equation) fi(x) = Σj Γij(x) uj(x) (monadic fitness from relational algebras) 8. Circadian Rhythm Paradoxes Classical: Paradoxes like inconsistency of molecular clocks Non-Contradictory: Harmonic Infinitesimal Cronometric Resonances Ψ(t) = Σn cn Un(Bt) (superposed monadic clock states) Un(Bt) = Πi Γni(Biti) (integrated relational chronometers) 9. Paradoxes in Ecosystem Dynamics Classical: Paradoxes like overshoot, cyclic attractions Non-Contradictory: Pluriversal Ecodynamic Geometries dN/dt = f(N, K, r...) + Δ (pluriversal population dynamics) Δ = Div(Γ∇N) (relational ecosystem interaction flows) 10. The Paradox of Biological Computation Classical: Paradox of how molecules perform computation Non-Contradictory: Logogrammatic Biophotonic Codons |Ψ> = Σn cn Un(M) (superposed biomolecular vocables) Un(M) = Πi Γni(Mi) (integrated relational codices) 11. The Evolution of Consciousness Paradox Classical: Paradox of subjective experience emerging Non-Contradictory: Plurinomenal Resonant Anthropics Cn = Φn |0> (first-person qualia state) |Ω> = ⊗n Cn (cohered pluriversal experience) 12. The Ontogeny/Phylogeny Paradox Classical: Paradox of developmental/evolutionary interactions Non-Contradictory: Fractal Biolinguistic Generative Grammars L = G(Σ, N, P, S) (biolinguistic production system) P = {Uα → Uβ Uγ} (plurinominal rewrite transitions) The key themes continues to be representing biological phenomena using infinitesimal relational resonances, pluriversal superpositions, logogrammatic algebras, first-person experience from cohered pluralities, and fractal self-similar generative structures - rather than classical separable, deterministic models. This allows reconceiving seemingly paradoxical biological processes as coherent higher-dimensional resonances between relational pluralistic elements across scales, unified within a common infinitesimal algebraic framework resolving contradictions.

[@charlestaylor3617]

​@SamanthaPyper-sl4ye wow what is your background Samantha (my second daughter's name ) I'd be very interested in knowing where you studied.

[@terrell5345]

Are you talking about division by zero( n/0)?

[@c0d3r1f1c]

Alex, I appreciate you trying to come up with an intuitive explanation for string theory, and I’m eager to see the follow-up.

[@stevedavis1437]

Wonderfully clear and convincing. I can't wait for part 3!

[@somebodyelse3004]

As long as you haven’t proven your ideas i consider them to be sci-fi at this point. For the last 25 years I watch ideas like this come and go, as long as there are no experiments to back them up, I am not interested anymore.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

I understand your frustration, because we are continuously bombarded with endless speculations that "They" are very close to ultimate knowledge. the same was with the "God Particle" They wasted 16b to build SERN and now is not talking for it anymore. I have something interesting for you. There is a the real "Theory of Everything" which they try to hide at any cost. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" I hope that you will find a load of answers there. Regards

[@hyperduality2838]

Fiction (imaginary) is dual to fact (real). Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@Dudleymiddleton]

I solved the theory of utter sod all years ago! :)

[@Vidar2032]

The topic seems very logical/obvious in the head, but difficult to put into words. Thanks for another fantastic presentation.

[@DefinitelyNotABot-xt8kj]

Nice video, but I'd rather choose Quantum Field Theory as a model for the underlying reality. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) currently stands as a more robust model for understanding the fundamental aspects of our universe compared to string theory, primarily because it's grounded in extensive experimental validation. QFT's success in explaining three of the four fundamental forces-electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces-within the framework of the Standard Model, is unmatched. It also consistently provides predictions that have been verified to extraordinary precision in particle accelerators around the world. While string theory offers an elegant theoretical framework for unifying all fundamental forces, including gravity, it has yet to provide testable predictions. This makes QFT the best model we have for describing reality at a fundamental level, at least until new experimental evidence can possibly elevate another theory, like string theory, to comparable empirical standing.

[@hydroac9387]

Alex, you an amazing communicator! I **think** I actually understand key aspects - and I'm a geoscientist.

[@michaelkaliski7651]

The problem is that scientists refuse to accept that it is not possible to know everything about an object. We tie ourselves in knots trying to anticipate every possible outcome and sum over all the results to arrive at a probability of a certain result. What quantum research tells us is that no matter how unlikely, every possible solution is possible. Thus the chance of tossing one hundred sixes sequentially with a perfectly balanced die is very remote, but not impossible. In fact an infinite sequence of throwing the same number every single time is possible given infinite time. That is just how the mathematics works out. We just have to accept we live in a universe where most things happen according to probabalistic outcomes where the most likely event happens, but not always.

[@AdrianBoyko]

The Uncertainty Principle explicitly states that it is not possible to know everything about an object. Every physicist believes it is true.

[@DiffuseAppearance]

@@AdrianBoykoTheir actions say otherwise.

[@filker0]

I am unconvinced so far that string theory is predictive or explanatory. It fits observation largely because it has been refined to do so. It is, at this point, reminiscent of Douglas Adam's puddle - it models the known properties but has not added to the list of properties or refined the list. It's an interesting mathematical model. This doesn't mean I dismiss string theory, just that I don't find it compelling enough to accept as the more correct model from which most future breakthroughs will come.

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@khanfauji7]

If human observation makes matter collapse into existence as a particle. Whose observation brings us into existence?

[@ironqueen_osrs]

hasn't string theory already been debunked? Cx

[@jaymorse1417]

Nope . . . The problem is there are too many versions to go through to find the right one to describe our universe . . . Like 10^500 versions

[@karabokayak5785]

String theory is wrong

[@dankurth4232]

String theory has been fallen out of favor because a lack of real predictability and experimental testability, but it certainly hasn’t be debunked

[@kwaki-serpi-niku]

Theories are great. I prefer proofs or laws though. They have usually got a bit more foundational data that is repeatable supporting them. Theories, no matter how extensive or how long they've been around, are still just conjecture.

[@skatemaster33]

General Relativity is also a theory, yet checks every requirement you have. Proofs are only for mathematics.

[@kwaki-serpi-niku]

@@skatemaster33 That's fair enough. But what about laws. We have laws of thermodynamics. We have laws of electromagnetism......etc. We don't have laws of general relativity (remember that a lot of the assertions put forward by general relativity can only be general relativity can only be expressed mathematically). There's a difference. And the difference is because general relatively still has aspects of it that have not been proven. This is true for the big bang as well. The only reason I used proof is because of the sentence right before this one. Proofs are called that because they are proven. But I digress on that point. If you want to believe in some of the crazy nonsense that is being spouted by the scientific community in physics where there are multiple universes and white holes and wormholes and all of the rest of that ridiculous nonsense, then knock yourself out. There's some good movies you can watch I would imagine to help you with that. That's science fiction though.

[@skatemaster33]

@@kwaki-serpi-niku What are you on about? Those things came about from equations in our theories. You know those theories are "proven" as you said. We observe that General Relativity is an accurate description of reality. Time dilation exists, otherwise satalites wouldn't account for it. Proven is just meaningless in science. We don't try to prove stuff we try to model stuff and understand it. Laws of physics are just a set of equations and rules that reality should abide by, but it is not a proof, for all we know we might discover that they should be extended or are wrong in some situations. So what exactly is your point? The big bang is a real thing, it happened but we don't exactly know what it was or what was before it. You know back in the old days. The proofs and laws you're talking about could be seen in the same crazy lens you're seeing new "science nonsense" right now. So let me get this straight. Theories, more specifically scientific theories are not just conjecture. A scientific theory is not just a theory lol

[@kwaki-serpi-niku]

@@skatemaster33 It seems you don't even understand the basics of the scientific method. General relativity gives us a good fit of some things that we observe in reality, but it doesn't answer all the questions. That's why it's still in the theory category. If all the assertions made under general relativity could be proven, then we'd be talking about it as the laws of general relativity. Let's talk about time dilation. Time is a construct that we as human beings utilize to help us mark the passage of events. We have no such thing as a time particle. We have no such thing as a time field. Time is simply a standard that we agree upon (hell, we even have the government of the United States of America calling for a time standard for the moon.....). We need time as a variable in physics to help us explain things like velocity. So let's talk about the adjustment of time that satellites make in orbit for time. What's happening there is that the clock, which is a timekeeping device, is affected by its position relative to the Earth. So the vibration of that cesium atom (or that vibrating crystal or whatever it is that is used for timekeeping) changes based on its altitude above the earth. Does that necessarily mean time has actually changed just because the vibration of a cesium atom has changed? The answer to that would be an absolute NO. That simply means that the timekeeping device was affected by some outside influence. But timekeeping devices don't create time. They simply help us keep an accurate measure of the standard of time that we have all agreed upon. Time dilation does not exist. Just because somebody looked at you and told you that time was a certain thing doesn't mean that you took the time to put in the thought for yourself as to what time really is. Now you don't have to agree with me on what I just said about time, but it doesn't mean I'm wrong anymore than it means that you're right. We do not know that the Big bang actually happened. But let's consider what the Big bang asks us to believe. The Big bang posits that some magical and seemingly infinitely dense point of matter existed 13.8 billion years ago. We don't know where that infinitely dense point of matter came from. I suppose it just popped into existence out of thin air. And for some reason and by some mechanism that we can't explain, this magical, infinitely dense point of matter decided to explode or rather it expanded into some unknown medium that we ALSO can't explain as part of the Big bang theory. What medium existed before space? What did this magical and infinitely dense point of matter expand into? The answers to all of these questions have brought about some extremely fantastical explanations from the scientific community. None of them have any basis in reality. They are just scientists pulling answers out of their collective asses. And they ask people to believe in this nonsense because they are scientists. You obviously like to believe in fantastical theories that cannot be proven empirically by any stretch of imagination or science. We even have empirical data from the JWST that calls into question some of the foundational aspects of the Big bang theory. This is actual empirical data that says the universe is not 13.8 billion years old, nor can we rely on the mechanism that the Big bang theory tries to explain why the universe looks like it does today. This is all based on the inaccuracy of the astronomical distance ladder and the so-called Hubble tension. This is an aspect of the Big bang theory where we have empirical data that refutes its foundation premise. Go back and read what the scientific method requires from a hypothesis to a theory to a law or proof. It's not that hard to figure out. I believe in laws or proofs. Theories are unproven. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

[@Ferrari308-GTSi]

​@@skatemaster33.....powned.....😅

[@BillyWitchDoctorDotCom]

The uncertanty principle makes a kind of intuitive sense: it's hard to measure the precise location of a fundamental particle, but we can know it's general trajectory (wave form). When the particle hits something we can measure the precise location of the collision (wave form collapses into a particle).

[@hyperduality2838]

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@rikkimiller6691]

At 2:17, the use of the word precision is misused. Precision is the ability to repeat the same measurement. Accuracy is the correctness of the measurement. Anything that is accurate is also precise, but a measurement may be precise, but not accurate. For example, an arrow aimed at the centre that always has a bias and strikes the target will be precise but not accurate. RGM Ph.D.

[@BrentLeVasseur]

Two transverse waves of equal frequency, 180 degrees out of phase, don’t cancel out. They collapse to form a longitudinal wave. Capacitance or voltage potential is a standing longitudinal wave. When a capacitor is discharged, a standing longitudinal wave collapses to form a transverse wave of dialectricity and magnetism. And the reverse happens when a capacitor is charged. If two transverse waves cancelled out and it’s energy simply disappeared, it would violate the law of energy conservation. You would have energy vanishing with nothing replacing it. Energy is never created or destroyed. It simply flows from one form to another.

[@mandrac2]

If this thumbnail is clicbait i'm going to be fuming. Edit: it's clicbait.... John youtuber think that he solved a problem that the best scientists in the world are struggling with.

[@ReiMasuro]

Normally I enjoy your content, but this video didn't seem to introduce anything new to the basic concept of string theory. I'm hoping part 3 has the 'pay-off'.

[@erinmac4750]

Perhaps to someone who understands the theories better, it may seem so. However, as a novice, this video worked extremely well in helping me grasp these principles which hitherto had given me trouble. So, I'm glad that he made this video to help people like me bridge that gap.

[@jdbertron6178]

Thanks for the conceptual view of String Theory. I would like you to discuss the EPR paradox in the context of Gravitation's Aberration.

[@strezztechnoid]

GUT seems to be well from cracked, models including string theory may be descriptive will probably prove only that. A basis for enumerating physics, here I introduce Wolfgang Pauli, the decision to use a specific lexical construct can completely constrain any models success. From point space, a single vector, to a unity of space located within the universe is a dramatic challenge. Lexical and quantitive models to my thinking are still primitive and potentially hold back progress in astrophysics and quantum mechanics.

[@orcmanddegormak1031]

dude, string theory has always failed at predicting every experimental result. just drop it already

[@VikingTeddy]

But it works like a charm!.. If you add a whole bunch of extra dimensions and a sprinkle of magic...

[@orcmanddegormak1031]

@@VikingTeddy yeah, well, the really useful science makes predictions which, through rigorous experimentation, happens as predicted. string theory... has never accomplished such a feat. at best, they fail and rework all the math to match the results. which still never works to predict anything

[@minhuang8848]

yeah lmao, ST isn't even freaking close

[@jyothishkumar3098]

That's not a valid reason to stop pursuing a theory. It's only if it is disproved in one of it's core concepts that it will become invalid. That hasn't happened. String theory is the closest we have to an attempt to go further about understanding reality than religion. So I'd say it is better.

[@JackMehoph]

You might as well have said "Dude, I don't understand this, just drop it"

[@rezadaneshi]

A unifying theory of consciousness. Multi dimensional beings doing time in 3 dimensional prison looking to scape. Science, philosophy, religion...

[@SubvertTheState]

Knocking on the mirror walls, wondering what's on the other side of the 1 way mirror. Once I really tried to understand how a 2 spatial dimensional being would percieve a 3 spatial dimensional being like myself....and started to grasp the 4th spatial dimension as outlined in Brian Greene's 'The Elegant Universe'...I really understood on a deep level that what we live in is just one layer of a vastly more complex and layered multiverse. Likely all connected fundamentally, but perceived in walled-off lanes, moving parallel forward in time, maybe moving only backwards in time...Maybe the arrow of time is all together absent in another plane of existence.

[@rezadaneshi]

Interesting. So the flip side of a coin is it's mirrored image. Entropy is a spectrum that like everything else in our universe, is a wave or better yet an orbit between both infinite complexity and perfect symmetry moving forward in a corkscrew rotation between the two states in time. Arrow of time can remain on forward, while after infinite complexity, entropy has reversed towards perfect symmetry. Timeless dimension is a singularity. The "nothing" theoretically is everywhere all the time incapable of interaction. Singularity's first interaction with time is inflation. The cyclical universe is Penrose's brainchild unless, universe regenerates with black holes born to galaxies born out of supermassive black holes born in the remnants of Big Bang which means no parallel universes or rebirths as universe becomes infinite in size and age, in time.

[@DharmaScienceRadio]

I believe these strings are actually longitudinal arrays of electromagnetic energy, and I doubt there is a limit to how many ways in which we can embed into one of those arrays. Dan Winter has made a formula to describe the longitudinal array. Planck multiplied by the Golden Ratio (to the power of the Golden Ratio x times, where x marks the iteration upon the formula in whole number values).

[@user-ki6ce8iy5o]

very neat idea

[@lih3391]

Light goes at ~300,000,000m/s, so wouldn't the particles just dissapear really fast?

[@DharmaScienceRadio]

@@lih3391 Particles disappear and reappear very fast, nonstop, and all the time. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[@TimothyWhiteheadzm]

Unfortunately, in mathematics, sine waves show up everywhere. The fact that you can find sine waves in two different places doesn't mean they are related or that one explains the other. The waves in quantum dynamics are actually in the complex number plane, and are a result of the Schrödinger equation not strings in space.

[@Nosferatu186]

Why are you still stuck on string theory? Science has had almost 40 years to figure it out. It has stunted any growth in physics. We know no more today than we did in the 70’s..

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@gcm4312]

Strike 3 for this channel.

[@Oldschool811]

Why

[@Oldschool811]

You want perfection recited to the average iq audience I give you a couple strikes if that is your position

[@gcm4312]

@@Oldschool811 I'm not interested in watching pseudocientific speculations when I subscribe to a science channel.

[@juano816]

you contribute nothing. inconsequential that you are done.

[@gregmorris2022]

I think I understand this Strike 3 comment. Allow me to speculate. In terms of the broader, general community of theoretical physics, I feel String Theory is loosing its foothold. Perhaps this is all that was meant by “Strike 3”? That being said, there is no way of knowing what Strikes 1 & 2 were. Perhaps they were indiscretions in a parallel universe.

[@claudiamanta1943]

7:57 Right there. If you put a sheet of paper on top of it and look from above, you will get a representation of the wave as a string- series of discrete particles. The light as particle and wave. Imagine it not like a loom, but as a stack of multiple parallel branes like sheets of paper each having discreet points in it (particles). Why are those particles positioned at the precise locations to describe the amplitude of a wave? Or maybe there is no wave. Light does not move like a weaving shuttle. The mind of the observer does. PS- Have a look at the Ancient Egyptian Apep’s name written with hieroglyphs. Those are not knives and He is not killed. Those are not real knives killing the snake- wave, but the points as per above, in an attempt at fixing the ‘chaos’ (differentiating the unknown into knowable chunks). It’s not surprising that He is depicted as being sliced or fixed by either Set (the Dark Lord) or a cat (symbol of The Sun). Call this the dark matter and the matter. The same thing- they’re just intelligible points of The Source of all. Apep. He was. He is. He will forever be.

[@helmutzollner5496]

An excellent explanation beautifully animated. Thank you.

[@lewisagreen]

Pathetic. Deceptive clickbait title ... And then a total rehash of double slit and ending with a cult-like string theory promo. And the arrogance of presenting it at the end as if proven! The most notable feature of string theory is it cannot be proven. And which string theory? M? 9, 10, 11 or more dimensions? I'm done with this channel.

[@nathangonzales2661]

Unsubcribed.. zero science, shameless click baiting,

[@dankurth4232]

Statements of String theory very well put into the accepted results of quantum theory!

[@jpenneymrcoin6851]

regardless of the fact that we don't quite have the math down for string theory, and it's currently untestable as far as i know, because it depends on the activity of one object type instead of having all the particle theory particles, it seems much less random than our current version of particle theory and I would put my money on it right now.

[@247tubefan]

On the Quantum level, you don't even exist.

[@SheSweetLikSugarNSavage]

Wrong...😂On the quantum level everything always exist always.

[@DryEther]

Wrong 😂 on the quantum level, god exists ​@@SheSweetLikSugarNSavage

[@S0L12D3]

That’s not even true….. just ask Kolodrubetz

[@BigTimeRushFan2112]

Sorry Alex, but strings are philosophy NOT science.

[@420Khatz]

Came here to see if anybody else was going to comment this. This video is completely misleading and it seems like he's falsely propping it up as being widely accepted in spite of there being zero evidence supporting it in order to lend more credibility to his own personal "theory" that's coming in part 3.

[@VikingTeddy]

You know how sometimes people who have an audience forget they don't know everything, and start giving opinions on just about anything? Alex is a tuber, and has a BA in digital film and tv production. He must've forgotten that he isn't a phycisist 😊 No matter how much you study and read about physics in your leisure, It'll never teach you the things you need to even begin understanding string theory. Even professors with decades under their belt don't really grasp it properly. It's fine to share your thoughts, As long as you remember to point out you're out of your depth, and not to take your theories too seriously.

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

Haha you do know that string theory is not about strings but rather the nature of waves and space-time curvature at the micro-scaled high energies.

[@DharmaScienceRadio]

​@@keith.anthony.infinity.hit seems they are too busy critiquing the word choice to recognize what is being shared 😂

[@gravoc857]

@@DharmaScienceRadio These physics Nazi’s pop up anytime String Theory is muttered. Ignore the trolls.

[@khaliqwijdan]

What is then making those strings vibrate? The energy in that vibration needs to come from a source at the quantum level, and we need to be sure about how that is taking place. And then mass complicates things further.

[@motjuste8549]

What is actually waving? What substance reveals the wave?

[@filonin2]

If you are talking about light, nothing.

[@winkywacky6173]

consciousness.

[@winkywacky6173]

Consider the etymology of "substance", that which underlies (Sanskrit} "sta", the root of many words like stability, stand, sustain, which invoke TIME, as in "spacetime" AKA dimensionality. Consider also "consciousness", co sci, combine what is split (schism, science).

[@torstenkruger7372]

Unfollowed because of the really aggressive clickbait titles. This is really undignified.

[@AA-be6fw]

He's got to pay the bills. Reputation is on the table in the face of global economic collapse 2

[@RadhakrishnanSrinathan]

For every like I'll study for 1 hour

[@bendybruce]

There are a growing number of theoretical physicists who now think trying to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics is not the way to go. As far as I can tell the main reason for this is that it seems to be virtually impossible to try and fuse them together so it may be a better bet to just start with something brand new.

[@thormusique]

Great topic, thank you! I love how you describe all this here; it's very clear and easy to follow. I'm only a passionate amateur in all this, but IMHO, I'm not yet convinced the string approach will solve anything significant. I say this because I watched String Theory take over as the dominant paradigm beginning in the 1970s, watched it develop in the 80s, and make all sorts of predictions in the 90s and beyond. But here we are in the 2020s, and I don't see that the theory has accomplished all that much of anything. And perhaps it well may do, but I can't help but wonder whether perhaps too many eggs have been put in the String Theory basket, to the exclusion of other, possibly more promising approaches. I don't know enough to articulate just what those might be, but the suspicion niggles. Anyway, I look forward to your succeeding videos, cheers!

[@CarsonBirdD]

One point of clarification - you use the example of halving a runners speed to explain the difference between continuous vs discrete scales (quantized scales). That's maybe not the best analogy, as the current theories do NOT say that space and time are quantized. Only energy is quantized. As far as we understand, you could keep halving a runners speed forever. Maybe a better analogy is the difference between analog and digital sound production, or sine waves vs square waves. If anyone has information otherwise, please let me know!

[@hyperduality2838]

Analog is dual to digital -- signals are dual. Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@erinmac4750]

This really helped me understand the particle/wave situation much better. I'm looking forward to hearing more about your theory using strings to combine the theories. BTW theoretical physics isnt for the faint of heart... discussion and debate ensues. Thank you and your team for making this science accessible.💜🌌

[@hyperduality2838]

Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@erinmac4750]

@@hyperduality2838 Wow. Thank you for this response showing all these connections and dualities. I can feel cobwebs stirring on some of these as most of my work recently has been focused on middle school basics for my students. You've reminded me of how much I enjoy the deeper dives. 🍀

[@janekalbinsky]

But what are strings made of? I'm fine with string theory as a metaphor, but in the end, what are the physical realities?

[@hyperduality2838]

Energy is dual and everything in physics is made from energy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@greghodges2116]

One problem I've had when learning QM in grad school is how models become harder to explain the physics. There's a point where the math doesn't have a good, intuitive "physical" analog.

[@Littlestrawberryfox]

You missed the issue why you can't both know the direction and speed, it is not just an equation that is having issues, the reason for this is not a missing equation, or other form, it is because to view each (Direction or Speed) is because to view it we need to add energy to view it so by adding energy we instantly change its speed or direction by this addition of energy. So to bring this down to a simple example: Picture you had a car that was completely solar powered and its top speed was based off how much energy the cells were receiving and thereby increasing its speed, and more energy means it would right away speed up. so it's the evening and getting dark so the car is going slow, but you need to see it clearly and so turn on 10 large flood lamps, instantly the car gets a huge spike of power and speeds up and is gone. Direction is somewhat the same, its like dear in the headlights, they pause for a moment then bolt off in a random direction. But to go back to the car example, the only real way you could tell its speed and direction is to measure both at the same time, without adding additional energy, and the way you do this is to measure the medium itself and not any one part of the particle. By measuring the medium it was doing through you will be able to see what speed it was doing and what direction it was going, you just keep doing this until you are able to start making basic predictions as to where it might go and keep doing this to understand and have created an accurate model for what, when, why, who, etc that are variables that influence the particle to change direction. You then just repeat the process for its speed. So remember don't measure the 'Thing' measure the medium around said thing, that it is how you don't add energy to it, this works for all partials, or effects. Good luck, and keep up the great work, just you did make a mistake in this video of why they could not measure the speed or direction of a partial due to an equation, that is actually completely wrong, but I do love your work and the great space related eps are my fav, so please keep them up :) Take care Selleena R

[@sergeyromanov5560]

The equation is obviously not E=mc² but E₀=mc². The difference is huge.

[@scarter9447]

Im not sure its strings that quantise to a particle when a threshold energy is achieved but waves in 4D fields. Macro emergent properties can be likened to a Mandelbrot style fractal patterning directly from quantisation. Think.. bisection, mirroring, self simialrity in nature, nestedness, phase space (character) and order/emergence/information from nowhere!

[@patryn36]

The only reason you have uncertainity in measuring more than one property of a quantum particle is because you fail to keep in mind how you perceive anything and the energy levels involved with that method. That energy is massive when compared to the particle you are trying to measure so no matter what you do you affect it and change it. Nothing more is going on with that.

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

There is this claim in quantum mechanics that "randomness" is a property because of the uncertainty principle. I say, just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean that there's no causal functionality at play. I mean, the macro is simply made up of the micro, so causality is definitely in play even if we don't yet know how. There is no such thing as randomness, only ignorance of the physics involved.

[@PrimordialOracleOfManyWorlds]

unless there are REAL experiments that can smash quarks into unique smaller components and detect multi-dimensional objects, put the string theory on the side and develop REAL experiments that detect strings. if you cannot do it now, wait until humanity advances and evolves to create such experiments if humanity survives.

[@bbbl67]

I think the DeBroglie-Bohm Pilot Wave model even better demonstrates these things than strings. It's only problem is that it's not friend to special relativity, but as far as a teaching model goes, it's the best one.

[@existenceisillusion6528]

Perfect knowledge of one property would require zero knowledge of the other. But the properties are multiplied, which would mean zero knowledge overall, which is a contradiction. Thus, one can not have 'perfect' knowledge of any property. Also, the uncertainty principle applies to more than just position/momentum, there are other pairs of properties that are coupled.

[@hyperduality2838]

Lacking is dual to none lacking. Points are dual to lines (strings) -- the principle of duality in geometry. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is dual! Waves (symmetry, Bosons) are dual to particles (anti-symmetry, Fermions) -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases, Riemann geometry is dual! Certainty (predictability, syntropy) is dual to uncertainty (unpredictability, entropy) -- the Heisenberg certainty, uncertainty principle. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual or curvature is dual. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential or imaginary information (entropy) is dual to kinetic or real information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Average information (entropy) is dual to mutual or co-information (syntropy) -- information is dual. Mutual information (syntropy) enables you to make predictions more accurate then chance or randomness. Making predictions to track targets and goals is a syntropic process -- teleological. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! All observers make predictions hence they are using syntropy -- target tracking. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. Your mind is syntropic (convergent) if you make predictions. "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.