Untangling String Theory

[@aurorathekitty7854]

When I was driving truck Isaac was my go to person to listen to. Now I just enjoy his videos at home.

[@palehorseman8386]

I'm still doing this. Throw in Timcast and some Joe Rogan and my drive is complete

[@АртурМилкович]

I'm still doing this. Throw in Timcast and some Joe Rogan and my drive is complete

[@mamukich1121]

Damn trying to understand an 11 dimensional concept whilst being shown a 3D representation through a 2D screen to my 1D light cones, only to be processed by my 0D brain...

[@whocares435-z9v]

Cones are 3D! They are are little machines floating around your eye cells.

[@bounceday]

😂

[@lgjm5562]

I expect that anyone who clicked on this video is already beyond that introductory analogy.

[@mamukich1121]

@@lgjm5562 MY 0D brain. Other brains are 3D. Don't make fun of my lower dimensional organ! I'm quite proud of it, even though it occupies little to no space

[@JohnSagin-SimViDeLucis579]

Dont be silly, its a 4d consciousness alt least

[@splitprawn]

Well done. I re-wound when you mentioned the 11 dimensions that were mentioned in the Three Body Problem. To efficiently send a singularity to earth from Proxima Centauri, they etch a virus algorithm onto uncompacted material they fold into the 10th dimension in order to carry that much data. Thanks for this. R/S, Carlo Systems Eng./USSF USMC (ret)

[@djdrack4681]

I find it to be a very intriguing sci-fi idea. The US version is pretty solid show...but knowing what Book 2 and 3 involve, I have reservations they can capture the plot and sci-fi of that properly on TV. That being said. IF N > 4Dimensions, the String/Superstring notion that 'they can't be interacted with' = laughable. There's no reason why there'd be extra dimensions to reality if properties/phenomenon/forces don't interact w/ those dimensions, even if they only exist in them (IE a force that exists in D = 6-8)

[@splitprawn]

​@@djdrack4681fantastic. I also made a mistake above and said 10 dimensions, they reference the 11 in the book. I was just at the point in the video when he referenced 10 and it was the last thing I heard when I wrote this. 😅 I haven't seen the shows yet. I started the US version but tuned out when I saw it wasn't Chinese. Then I got the Chinese version. Keen to hear your analysis/thoughts on how they manage the plots and nuances later as they explore these ideas.

[@djdrack4681]

@ String Theory, Loop-Quantum Gravity etc are all 'self-love' ego-stroking by mathematicians/physicists at a certain point... As a lot of the math and theory is tiered, and many of the 'deeper' parts of them are based on other ideas they come up with, that have no experimental proof (and in many cases may be unprovable) ...You could argue 10dims or 1001dims, IF your theory says our 3+1 dims don't interact w/ these higher ones, and there isn't ANY physics translating from the 3+1dims --> higher dims: well its kind of 'pointless'. There may be a multiverse, BUT if a other universe NEVER INTERACTS w/ Our universe...Full Stop, the 'physics' of that other universe doesn't matter: we can't ever know, its a waste of time...

[@djdrack4681]

@ BOOK SPOILERS AHEAD.... .... ... Book 2/3 involve 'Dark Forest Hypothesis'..IE tons of advanced civilizations out there, and all/most are hostile to each other cuz "the galaxy is a limited set of resources"...So they're ALL quiet for fear of 'blind 1st attack' by other civilizations, using megaweapons to wipe em out (-1 threat and/or to gain their resources). The part that will be hard to capture is the 'cosmic dread' aspect of it; essentially the 'fear' that underpins Dark Forest Hypothesis...That the enemy is so advanced and the 'attack' would be unimaginable in 'How' it happens...and how that fear/dread causes people to act/behave...In the books they try a Cold War era MAD (mutually assured destruction) approach: broadcast Prox Centauri (aliens homeworld) IF San-ti don't agree to peace treaty... THE SCIENCE: Book 2 a megaweapon some unseen alien race uses 'removes dimensions' from its target...at solar system scales. Book 3 reveals the "universe used to have more dimensions" but the megaweapons like that over billions of years causes damage at a universal scale, and so the higher dimensions beyond 3+1 are either entirely non-existent, OR they've entirely been 'collapsed' into regular 3+1; and it takes extraordinary energy/science just to access them on a subatomic scale. There's other stuff I wont mention so I don't entirely ruin the series, but HOW they intend to capture these ideas w/ switching to pure animation like Futurama did...no idea.

[@splitprawn]

@djdrack4681 - no, this is great!!!! I started to fade a little on book 2 because they changed translators and the "voice" seemed off or different. I think they changed fonts too? lol Anyway, because of your comment and linkages in topics helped me to put them back in queue. These are all vehicles to explore concepts and questions we are all asking anyway so I rarely read these types of stories for their "canon". Like the Clancy books, I enjoy the technical indulgences in a story framework.

[@TheStrykerSeven]

Was sitting on the couch watching this with my 11yo son as we looked at the 19:58 supersymmetry diagram again and he pipes up "😆 do you want your subatomic particles in English or Spanish?" 🧐... Now we can't stop laughing about the 'Higgsino Boson Parrrticalllll' 🤣

[@adamredwine774]

Physicist here. For anyone trying to think through how "extra dimensions" works, here is the explainer that I like to give: Imagine getting on a space ship and launching off the ground straight up into space. You travel for a long time and eventually, you approach a star and find that you are heading for the third planet from it. When you arrive, it turns out that you landed on the opposite side of Earth from where you started (just ignore orbit and rotation). Without ever turning, you went "around" the universe. Now shrink that dimension down. Imagine it didn't take "a long time" but was such a short trip that you could see the other side of the planet by looking up. Now shrink that down. Imagine that the distance is actually about the same as you are tall. You can stand on your own head and grab your own feet by putting your hands on your head. You can still go as far as you like forward and backward, or left and right, but you are limited in up and down. Now shrink more and you can't stand any longer but you have to lie down on yourself or you won't fit. Now shrink more... you are crushed by the universe but the stuff you are made of isn't yet. Shrink more until even the smallest particles start to get crushed. They can go as far as they like in two dimensions, but the third one is restricted. That is essentially what we mean by "big" and "small" dimensions. In this case there are two big and one small spatial dimension.

[@wyrmofvt]

That satisfying feeling of having Isaac show up in my feed before anyone could have possibly watched it all the way through. That said, the urge to make string puns and have us in stitches must have dangled over you. But I get it - your hands are tied because this is a serious discussion with little time to get tangled up in levity.

[@tomkerruish2982]

I know you're just stringing me along, but I won't be roped in!

[@junkequation]

Every time I hear a pun, I feel like someone kicked me in the nuts, started laughing, and expects me to laugh too.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Believe me, the temptation to weave in some string puns was knot easy to resist, but I didn’t want to trip over a joke and unravel the serious discussion. Still, I’m hanging by a thread trying not to!

[@NovaRuner]

32:28 “a plank length is to an atom nucleus, as that nucleus is to a planet” ~Isaac Arthur Me: wow! Just wow. If you stop to think about it…. That is mind blowing. And a very vivid picture of just how tiny these scales are. Excellent analogy.

[@juliocortez5209]

It isnt though. Its a mathematical concept....not something that has ever been observed. In the same breath, you can divide the plank length (or any other numerical value) mathematically to infiniti. Hows that for mind blowing.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Will need to listen to this episode a few times in order to fully comprehend String theory as a whole concept. Still, you do a far better job explaining this than most. Wonderful work, Isaac.

[@SECONDQUEST]

You don't need to. String theory is a bunk theory that is propped up by the media because it sounds cool and the guys who like it do lots of interviews. I am not exaggerating.

[@Erowens98]

Not really worth the effort to be honest. Mostly a deadend relic of a theory. Some of the mathematics invented for it is useful for solving other problems though from what ive heard.

[@purplemicrodot58]

I always feel that I understand 10% of an Isaac Arthur topic but learn 100% more about it than I knew before.

[@MrCoalmin]

I love this guy's voice - so clear and easy to listen to.

[@aarondyer.pianist]

Isaac is being generous towards what is called a crisis in physics. Some physicists are pretty pissed off about the state of things after fifty years.

[@MarshalltheWarlock]

As a knotcraft hobbyist I can say with absolute certainty... there is no strings left... it's all knots by now.

[@ticketforlife2103]

Vçvol

[@shamandgg]

It is now claimed string theories halted progress in theoretical physics for decades.

[@WickeD72]

It did

[@zethloveless7238]

Wellll it did because people went off and didn’t do actual science…

[@baraodascolinas979]

Well, if that is the case, the resources spent were still useful in developing an idea, a hypothesis, and (supposedly) proving or heavily implying that that specific research program was not compatible with evidence. That is still progress, since you proved that something is wrong and now the science resources will be spent on another idea that hopefully matches empirical evidence better. That's what innovation is too, failed prototypes and successful ones.

[@roseCatcher_]

​@@baraodascolinas979 It is not progress when they purposefully block public funding to other more fruitful vistas of research and divert it to string theory, even when they haven't come up with results for decades, and probably never will. I understand what you're trying to say, but things work that way in an idealistic world, not in the real world

[@KJ6EAD]

I read Brian Greene's book 'The Elegant Universe' describing string theory back when it came out and found it implausible then as I do now.

[@oliviamaynard9372]

More implausible than a point with no volume but also only existing a a probability wave at the same time called an electron?

[@ramastarchild6804]

Great book(!)...but still a crap theory.

[@SECONDQUEST]

​@@oliviamaynard9372absolutely. One you can do experiments with. The other is just an idea.

[@AnonymousAnarchist2]

Here is where I stand on it. Somethings vibrating, we know that. I've dealt with that directly at times. Its a thing. As long as the math checks out, and until the math doesnt check out it does not matter if the theory in element or whole is implausible or wrong. Same goes for Quatum, and unfortunetly Quatum has some magic thinking invloved. Having Quatum states havung only set energy states that a partical can exsist in is magic thinking this is a real world with real interactions, and we can move objects and measure the movement of objects to a far smaller degree then the proposed energy states would move electrons. That is to say the fabric of our universe is not quatized, and the instrument you need to prove it for yourself is only a few grand, and becoming more common. its an atomic force microscope. String is not the only propsal that fixes that magical thinking, and it might be the most implausible. But so long as the math maths without magic thinking its still a better theory then what got us as far as I am aware all of our technology so far. These theorys are not to my awareness yet being taught to utilize in practical application as of yet (I could be wrong) And again, I dont care nor do I think anyone should care if its right or wrong. Just if it matches better what we observe and nothing more until we refine ourselves down to a working theroy, or set of theories that matches all observations that are physically possible.

[@k_a_bizzle]

@@oliviamaynard9372 experiments support this model

[@roberthofmann8403]

What a tangled string we weave

[@zico739]

Great stuff as usual.

[@mjk9388]

Thanks for the explanations Isaac and team. I understand a lot more now on this subject. Thanks for all the hard work you guys put into these episodes every week. It’s truly appreciated by me and many others.

[@CopperCooper420]

If i had a super collider for every dimension of string theory...well I'd still need at least 12 more super colliders to prove string theory. Allegedly 😅

[@djdrack4681]

Super Collider? But I just met 'er

[@DIABETOR]

While I am glad that Isaac is able to monetize all this hard work, I gotta say, nothing quite ruins my learning experience/flow state like having a midroll sponsor interrupt the explanation of a pretty complicated topic

[@mattbland2380]

Sign up for Nebula. Those videos don’t have the sponsors.

[@DIABETOR]

@ Nothing wrong with having sponsors, just they should be more thoughtfully placed

[@KentoLeoDragon]

Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't seem too impressed with the theory or its progress.

[@KentoLeoDragon]

@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd ?? She knows all their models are wrong and always wrong which is better than 99.99% of actual climate scientists.

[@geekswithfeet9137]

@@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4ydand yet she gets it mostly right anyway

[@TheGenericavatar]

Unless and until String Theory becomes Falsifiable (which it wasn't, last I heard), it's just theology for theoretical physicists.

[@TheAndroidNextDoor]

Amen.

[@patrick-kees8962]

I feel like this is a bit reductive and mean. I agree that it's is probably incomplete or lacks utility due to its lack of verifiable statements. But it's not theology and there alot of good reasons why reasonable people are interested in it.

[@jamesa6693]

These are my absolute favorite Isaac Arthur style videos. The explanation of theoretical sciences. Of course of everything I’ve learned the best way I can see it is that it’s a sound theory if it can’t be proved wrong. I hope we get to see more of this soon.

[@waterbottles393]

The conclusion I came to the first time that I heard about string theory is that the universe is made out of music. Which is a very romantic idea, honestly, though I know I'm way oversimplifying it

[@annalorree]

JRR Tolkien would appreciate this thought.

[@purplemicrodot58]

It's corny and I'm a hard agnostic but I always found String Theory and the claim that God _spoke_ the Universe into being an interesting pairing for my bad scifi plotlines.

[@jasonGamesMaster]

It's what the prophet Tolkien taught us in his holy book The Silmarillion! Lol

[@SECONDQUEST]

String theory is almost certainly incorrect. Very few theoretical or experimental physicists believe it to be how the universe works.

[@siddharthbirdi]

​@@SECONDQUEST As the saying goes "Its not even wrong", basically it not even physics anymore.

[@TheHaviocdarkmoon]

I wish with nebula you could run videos in the background i want to lesson videos while at work but if I minimize the app I can't lesson to stuff

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

I'll drop a note to the dev team, I'd like that myself

[@jasondolph2785]

Oh boy, Isaac untangling a ball of twine!

[@annoyed707]

Almost a twine paradox...

[@lgjm5562]

The ultimate gordian knot.

[@Seventeen_Syllables]

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - Wm Shakespeare. "There's no word in English for my style." -They Might Be Giants, Extra Savoir Faire Language is finite and therefore confusing. When there is no word, what do you do? The choices are finite, but no matter your choice someone will be confused.

[@lewebusl]

The use of extra dimensions can be substituted with simple spatial and temporal variables and the math will work equivalently. The variables in the string theory equations does not need to be associated with dimensions , they are better associated with a 3D Space in which we chose to describe each dimension x , y , z with 3 possible vibrational states each for a total of 9 vibrational states.

[@wasprider7239]

I'm pretty sure it's string theory has been pushed to the side. I think it's time for us to look in other places for our answers in physics.

[@zethloveless7238]

Agree. Cool maths but a dead end

[@ramastarchild6804]

String Theory is a mess!

[@jamesa6693]

I always considered that’s the real reason for the name. The more detailed you get, the more messy and confusing it gets.

[@John-ir2zf]

Not really... like Arthur said, people get wrapped around the axle of "strings" and try to imagine these particles AS strings, when "string" is just an analogy of something that vibrates. If you reduce it to the simple idea of every particle vibrating in a specific ways, and the particular vibrational frequency conveys the particles properties, it becomes easier to conceptualize. In string theory, the other 6 (or 7) dimensions don't need to be thought of as LITERAL things. They are just a means to allow more vibrational frequencies beyond what can be achieved by moving left/right, up/down and forward/backward.

[@ramastarchild6804]

@@John-ir2zf I understand the theory. It is a complete mess. It has about as much going for it as Scientology.

[@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x]

​@@ramastarchild6804 Agreed. M-theory is kind of looked nice (among other theories) but still very wrong as well as other newer theories. Too much dimensions and possibilities needed among other problems. But hey, finding out is the fun part and the whole point. BTW I've heard real people thinking they are literal strings and asking "what kinda rubber they are made of" before.

[@John-ir2zf]

@ramastarchild6804 everyone said the same thing about general relativity and special relativity in the early 20th century...... Yet, we now understand those concepts to be true, despite the "mess" they appeared to be when introduced.

[@Roxor128]

Nice to get another pure science video again! It's been a very long time! If you're thinking I haven't watched it before commenting, I actually have. I just accidentally hit the back button before writing, so the playback counter got reset.

[@Teth47]

Question: If a black hole radiates at a temperature inversely proportional to its diameter, does it not stand to reason that there's a certain minimum size a black hole can be before it's no longer able to evaporate any further? I would imagine that if it reached a diameter that tried to force it to emit a photon with an energy greater than the rest mass of the black hole that it would fail to do so, and would thus remain.

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

I think there's a lot of reasons to think hawking radiation may not function down at atomic scale

[@Vaeldarg]

If it evaporates enough, it might become too weak gravitationally to continue even pulling in photons. Which would allow what was once a black hole to become visible again as photons escape it and become eventually detected.

[@OleksiiGVS]

Ich liebe Quantenmechanik, Physik, Teilchenphysik und Stringtheorie. Mehr solcher Inhalte, bitte!

[@renstimpy9313]

If only string theory actually were a mathematical explanation of the cosmos 😂

[@djdrack4681]

String Theory is 'self love' for mathematicians and physicists that can't get somebody to do it for them XP

[@renstimpy9313]

@djdrack4681 SO we agree it's cognitive masturbation

[@lgjm5562]

Only to be engaged by consenting adults behind closed doors.

[@roseCatcher_]

​@@djdrack4681 It's also a way to earn lots of 'moneys 🤑' without doing anything of consequence or promising beneficial results, can't blame the scientists for falling for its allure.

[@thesimplicitylifestyle]

I bet Schrödinger’s cat loved playing with strings 😎🤖

[@tamasmihaly1]

Congratulations on making your channel more accessible to a larger audience. Everyone seems to be pleased.

[@TheAndroidNextDoor]

There's a verse from the Bible I often go back to when I'm at a loss for figuring something (most often people) out. "By their fruits ye shall know them." -Matthew 7:16 I think the most telling thing about String Theory and it's proponents is to look at what it's produced in the world. And so far, the answer has been close to nothing except for book deals and lecturers for it's advocates. The last big revolution in physics was Quantum mechanics which gave us everything from modern computing to nuclear weapons. In the same amount of time, String theory has done nothing of similar note or magnitude. No new insights have been gained, no new theories developed, no new directions to look. It's like physics has been stuck spinning its wheels for decades since the "beautiful framework" of string theory has popped up onto the scene and sucked all the oxygen out of the room. To quote Family Guy, "It insists upon itself," while providing nothing of value in return. It doesn't even matter if the theory is correct if there's no real practical way to prove it. You can be the smartest Roman engineer theorizing about waves of invisible light all you want but you won't make the radio anytime soon since your entire civilization still doesn't even have electricity.

[@drdca8263]

It has produced some mathematical insights. Mirror symmetry for one.

[@TheAndroidNextDoor]

@drdca8263 which leads me to think it's not actually physics but just pure math masquerading as such.

[@drdca8263]

@@TheAndroidNextDoor *shrug* perhaps? Either way, I think that its fall in prestige/reputation compared to what it had has been appropriate and should perhaps happen more, but it is still worthwhile having some people continue to work on it.

[@TheAndroidNextDoor]

@drdca8263 I think people should still work on it as well but I don't think it should be the primary focus of physics the way it has been for decades now. It's eaten up all the oxygen in the room and physics as a field has stagnated as a result in a time where we need it more than ever. Other people have pointed out that for all practical purposes it's unfalsifiable which means we shouldn't be spending so much time and effort and intellectual capital on it.

[@patrickmchargue7122]

As you're digging into string theory here, would you consider an episode that examines the theories proposed by Stephen Wolfram as outlined in the book, 'A New Kind of Science'?

[@isaacarthurSFIA]

Maybe, I'd have to study up on it more though, my knowledge on it is fairly shallow

[@patrickmchargue7122]

@@isaacarthurSFIA I know I'd appreciate an episode on this. I read the book many years ago, but the theory has come a long way since then. Wolfram says he has found ways to explain/derive various laws of nature using his theories, though many are skeptical. It should at least be interesting.

[@philosoaper]

it feels like some really basic concept has eluded us and that's why all these complicated constructs that's been made to compensate, gets stuck... like if we knew of addition, subtraction and multiplication...but had completely missed a concept like division...

[@deanwarsore]

Great episode

[@MenxiangFanrongXinzheng]

String theory has 11 dimensions Keep your biases in check Particles are discrete Parallel universes exist in string theory We haven't experimentally seen string theory

[@BurtonShotton]

I've been looking forward to this. I strongly suspect that Isaac Arthur will do a better job than Sheldon Cooper in explaining this theory. edit: Only two minutes in, and the explanation is already clearer. 😁

[@classarank7youtubeherokeyb63]

I don’t think the writers of that show knew string theory well enough to explain it.

[@BurtonShotton]

@@classarank7youtubeherokeyb63 Well, UCLA Physics Professor David Saltzberg was their technical advisor for the show; but I don't know if it was a case of him not explaining it well to the writers, or a case of the writers not translating his explanation into clear character dialogue.

[@purplemicrodot58]

From a production standpoint, I'd imagine explaining String Theory _well_ (a high-brained lecture at minimum) isn't what most BBT viewers were in it for. I also imagine plenty of casually educated people _were_ motivated to research and learn a little more about ST and other popscience topics. That would be cool. Not being argumentative or haughty, just sayin'. 😁

[@jijilr]

What are these sttrings made of? Also, where does it 'get the energy ' to vibrate? Also, are there strings and dimensions we dont know of?

[@NullHand]

If you go down the rabbit hole of physics, you will start to see that the Classical Newtonian view of "Energy" as a property that "matter" has, is a little too primitive. Going through a text on particle physics, you will find that the "mass" of particles starts to be given, not in some sub-attogram unit, but in Electron-Volts. Literally an energy unit straight outta electronics. At 28:00, Isaac goes into tracking down the "mass" of a proton. There is another way to approach this, using Relativity and the position-momentum uncertainty of the quarks. Turns out well over 90% of the proton "mass" is relativistic kinetic energy of the constituent quarks. So really, "mass" is just another way to say "energy". Asking where either comes from will get needlessly metaphysical. Science starts from observation. Mainly the observation that stuff is here, and it changes. We also are stuff, and it turns out all stuff, is really energy underneath the hood....

[@drdca8263]

The idea is that strings are what things are made of, not that there’s something else that strings are made of. Edit: as for “where they get the energy to vibrate” : well, where does an electron get the energy to “orbit” the nucleus of an atom? There’s a going back and forth between kinetic and potential energy, and also a minimum energy due to uncertainty principle combined with the potential energy term making it so that in order to have low energy need things to not be super spread out.

[@mcmoose64]

I don't know if string theory (hypothesis?) will ever earn a Nobel Prize , but if not , it has got to be in the running for a Nebula Award .

[@JohnBoen]

Another banger.

[@anthonyandrade5851]

Everytime I read or watch anything related to String Theory, I feel that parts of my brain leak into extra dimentions

[@SammyWhiteley]

19:38 WHEN THE PARTICLE IS SUS

[@ThoughtsAreReal]

Nice overview, thank you.

[@SystemsMedicine]

Hi IA. I think it is possible to ‘morph’ the mathematics of high dimensional strings into 3 space dimensions (+ time) via making the string nonlinear. If memory serves, a couple of physicists were pursuing this idea a couple of decades ago, but nonlinear strings bother linear operator oriented quantum mechanics people, so these ideas were met with some resistance.

[@leodi4169]

Hi Isaac! Have you ever heard about gravity as an emergent property by Verlinde? I found it really interesting

[@theorize999]

the idea of extra dimenions that are…. tiny? that’s not actually how dimensions work, a dimension can’t have a size by definition. the ant on a string example is hilarious. its not an extra dimension its actually a 3d string from the outset. its a jedi mind trick

[@theorize999]

dimensions are a problem for most people, I don’t like most examples used to rationalize this concept. Yes there’s 360 degrees in a circle, but that’s not a spacil dimension, ok unit of measurement sure, but that’s doesn’t mean it’s a dimension, anythinng you can do with a protractor you can do with xyz coordinates as well, given you can get granular enough. it’s a good argument but in my eyes requires you take a pretty dang big leap of faith that i’m not comfortable with. If this is real and there’s more spacial dimensions then we should be able to demonstrate some impossible stuff by now you’d think. show me evidence of at least one of these extra spacial dimensions. We should be reaking physics by now if it’s all real. math is a tool, we don’t even know that we know the whole story on math, I’m convinced that if we meet advanced aliens they’ll show us a better way to account for stuff. To think we’ve figured it all out, i mean even on the basics, when we’ve only been doing this for a few thousand years is pretty absurd. Early languages didn’t even have numbers if I remember correctly, but later we added that it, and stopped making laguages out of pictures and invented grammar lol. my point is don’t take the math too literally, it’s just a tool. It seems the math is being taken more seriously than our senses, and yah i know that’s the whole thing with science…. but there is such a thing as taking it too far. I’m not saying string theory is wrong, but i think maybe the math is interpreted wrongly or something. If you gotta zoom down to a sub microscopic level to see a dimension, then maybe it’s a property rather than a spacial dimension. something more like spin. i really don’t know, the one thing i do know is our 3d system is pretty good and the one thing that is the defining characteristic is it works on ANY scale, it’s the whole point. When you have to get rid of that then you’re dealing with something else. Any dimension needs to be measurable in light years as well as plank lengths, if it’s truly a spacial dimension that we can use the units we have already defined on that dimension too. Otherwise, it’s something else. I understand that the guy that keeps this ship floating is a supergenius, and I think that’s part of the problem, is nobody can scientifically pin down exactly how he’s wrong, but if he’s righ we should be able to show measurements that don’t make sense if there’s extra spacial dimensions. Saying that they’re curled up is straight up nonsense, for anything to be curled up it has to be interacting with a three dimensions, x y and z. To say that a dimension has extra dimensionality as a basic property is just nonsense, i’m sorry to say it so plainly, but to go along with this is to just forgo what we already know, not build upon it, you kind of have to throw out the 3d system altogether, with no evidence that anyone can demonstrate, to go along with these ideas. it’s just too much of a stretch for me, if someone could throw a ball in this extra dimension and have it land somewhere it shouldn’t I’d be on board so quick it’s not even funny, but until then i’m giving extreme side-eye. A dimension needs to be able to be measured in light years, or it’s not a dimension, it’s something else. Again, maybe the math is correct, but it’s describing something we don’t know about yet if so, not spacial dimensions.

[@drdca8263]

@@theorize999It sounds like your objection is just that you use the word “dimension” to mean something other than what mathematicians and physicists use the word to mean. To a mathematician, a manifold “is N dimensional” if around each point it locally looks like R^N . Personally I kind of wonder if, if there are extra compact “dimensions”, whether they might fail to even be as much like normal space as things would be in the picture in the video. Maybe it could be some kind of non-commutative space. In which case, I might agree with you that it might not entirely make sense to call it a “spatial dimension”. But if it is just, like, actually coordinates something can move through (and if it actually exists! Maybe it doesn’t!) then I would call it a dimension.

[@djdrack4681]

Novel Idea = Schwarzschild Limit: Lower mass-radius limit at which an object that violates its own Schwarzschild Radius can collapse into a singularity (IE Black Hole). IF an object is under that mass/radius, its incapable of forming a singularity.

[@MogofWar]

No Son of Mine: "But Dad, String Theory suggests..." Me: "Listen up kid! We do Standard Model of Particle Physics in this house."

[@MogofWar]

@Toxicpoolofreekingmascul-lj4yd You're going live with your Mom now.

[@replica1052]

for faster than light communication we could manipulate/observe the potential of entropy (the speed of light is seemingly an escape velocity pssibly from strings forming entropy )

[@replica1052]

when a photon escapes there is no need for smaller dimensions (the potential of entropy follows the expansion of the universe )

[@EksaStelmere]

I finally have a video I trust to just send people. Praise be the stars. Not really a researcher, and I'm more on the dirt side of physics, but I never liked theories that throw lots of numbers without any sort of tempering. At the very least, I've seen lots of mathematicians try and claim "this should work" but it's ultimately pointless. That's where my bias against string theory comes from and media only makes it worse because I have to explain it once or twice a year.

[@randomconstructions4513]

huygens optics did a vid a couple days ago about wave particle duality, self confining vibration simulations and all, i feel it is oddly related to this

[@mjmeans7983]

String sequence 2. Type I, 2A, 2B. (enterprise computer voice responds) Code not recognized. Universe self-destruct sequence incomplete.

[@xavier84623]

What is meant by tiny compact dimensions smaller than an atom? Like, if the entire dimension is smaller than an atom, does that mean every particle in the universe is sharing this space, or at least the strings that wiggle some there?

[@drdca8263]

For two topological spaces A and B, the Cartesian product of A and B has, for every point a in A, and every point b in B, a point (a,b). Here, think of A as like the 3+1 dimensional spacetime we are familiar with, and B as the compact dimensions. so if a and a’ are different points in the 3+1 dimensional part, and b in a point in the compact part, (a,b) and (a’,b) are different points. If b and b’ are different points in the compact part, they are still very close together, so (a,b) and (a,b’) are very close together. But, (a,b) and (a’,b’) may still be far away from each-other, as a and a’ may be far away from each-other.

[@xavier84623]

@ that was not helpful at all, sorry. Can you describe what it is physically instead of math? Was my initial guess right, it’s basically an extra special dimension, but it’s really small, all the points are close together.

[@drdca8263]

@@xavier84623 It’s still going to kinda be math, but here: If you have a line, or a line segment, that’s a 1D thing. If you have a circle (not the circle including the inside, just the “we took a line segment and connected the opposite ends together”) that’s also a 1D thing. If you take a product of the line and the circle, you get a cylinder shape. For each point on the cylinder, there is a corresponding point on the line and a corresponding point on the circle. If the circle is small, then most of the “how far away are they” for two points on the cylinder, is because of the line part, not the circle part.

[@xavier84623]

@ ok. So I was right is what you’re saying?

[@xavier84623]

@ I understand the idea of extra spatial dimensions. And one being small and still being sort of “parallel” in the sci fi sense, meaning every point in this space relates to a point there. So I guess my physical description is correct. All the string everywhere that wiggles a certain way are also all crammed into a tiny folded up dimension for the part of them that wiggles that extra direction.

[@TrappyJenkins]

This was like a roller coaster, at the start i was holding on fine and it was good, and then it went off a cliff

[@SpotterVideo]

Dr. Roger Penrose has suggested instead of trying to create a particle called the "graviton" to explain gravity, why not try to describe subatomic particles in terms of spatial curvature, as in the twist in a piece of real thread. What if we add one extra spatial dimension to the "Twistor Theory" of Dr. Roger Penrose? It can be "chiral" by having either Right-hand or Left-hand twist. It can be "Quantized", based on the number of twist cycles. If Physicists describe electrons as point particles with no volume, where is the mass of the particle? Can one extra spatial dimension produce a geometric explanation of the 1/2 spin of electrons? The following is an extension of the old Kaluza-Klein theory. Can a twisted 3D 4D soliton containing one extra spatial dimension help solve some of the current problems in Particle Physics? What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein and the exploration of one extra spatial dimension by Lisa Randall and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? Is the following idea a “Quantized” model related to the “Vortex Theory” proposed by Maxwell and others during the 19th century? Is the best explanation of the current data a form of “Twistor Theory” first proposed by Dr. Roger Penrose during 1967? During recent years Dr. Peter Woit has explored Twistor Theory as a possible solution to help explain the current Standard Model. Has the concept of the “Aether” been resurrected from the dead and relabeled as the “Higgs Field”? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) If quarks have not been isolated and gluons have not been isolated, how do we know they are not parts of the same thing? The tentacles of an octopus and the body of an octopus are parts of the same creature. Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. Are these the “Flux Tubes” being described by many Physicists today? When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The "Color Force" is a consequence of the XYZ orientation entanglement of the twisted tubules. The two twisted tubule entanglement of Mesons is not stable and unwinds. It takes the entanglement of three twisted tubules to produce the stable proton. The term “entanglement” in this case is analogous to three twisted ropes being wrapped around each other in a way which causes all of the ropes to move if someone pulls one of the ropes. Does the phenomenon of “Asymptotic Freedom” provide evidence that this concept is the correct interpretation of the experimental data now available? Can the phenomenon of "Supercoiling" help explain the "Multiple Generations" of particles in the Standard Model? The conversion of twist to writhe cycles is well understood in the structure of DNA molecules. Can the conversion of twist to writhe cycles and vice-versa help explain "neutrino oscillations"? Within this model neutrinos are a small, twisted torus produced when a tube becomes overtwisted and breaks producing the small, closed loop of twisted tube (neutrino), and a twisted tube open on each end, which is shorter than the original. (Beta Decay) Within this subatomic model gravity is produced by a very small higher dimensional curvature imbalance within atoms, which causes all atoms to be attracted to all other atoms. This extremely weak attraction reveals the very small scale of the curvature imbalance. This produces the curvature of spacetime on a larger scale like the solar system which is required to counterbalance this small imbalance in the individual atoms.

[@bounceday]

The concepts of internal and compact dimensions are distinct. I am pretty sure curled only refers to internal dimensions. Compact dimensions are pervasive and touch everywhere at once.i think compact dimensions are a better explanation for quantum entanglement than strings.

[@alucardbird_of_hermes9785]

My best friend from age 13-19 ish years old mike had/has the same accent or impediment as you do maybe thats part of why i enjoy the channel so much besides being passionate about future technology. On a side note throughout school i noticed many girls found the impediment very sexy.

[@spiffygonzales5160]

The reality is that string theory is partly true. What it fails to realize is that not only are we a string... we are in fact a giant yo-yo.

[@SECONDQUEST]

Can we please just kinda move on from strong theory like most theoretical physicists have? String theory at this point is a buzzword for to get funding for research that has proven to be very useless in proving anything. Too much "well we haven't observed anything yet and we'd have to tweak it Again to match observations from other non-string theory experiments but we're just around the corner!"

[@hircenedaelen]

6:06 I've only watched this far in, so I may be jumping the gun slightly, but the idea of a 'small' dimension just doesn't make sense. The extra dimensions would still have to be everywhere for the strings to move through them no matter where they were. And how if every string in an object is moving through these extra dimensions, what's stopping that object moving through these dimensions

[@MechanicaMenace]

You can have infinities of different sizes. The set of every integer compared to the set of every rational number is a famous example. Not a great analogy but for the extra dimensions in string theory you could think of some adding to make a 2D space infinitely long but very narrow. Think the surface of an infinitely long cylinder. Travel along one axis you can go forever, but along the other you very quickly get back to where you start. Also the strings... they are often argued not to be objects in these extra dimensions, but sections of those extra dimensions interacting with space-time.

[@hircenedaelen]

@@MechanicaMenace I'm so sorry, I really don't understand those analogies, thank you for trying tho

[@a2izzard]

​@hircenedaelen A thing can be n-dimensional, but seem like it's lower dimensional. For instance, a piece of paper is 3D, but at our scales it is practically 2D. For why they can't move out in the other dimension, it's because the compacted dimension loops back on itself. For instance, the surface of a thin cylinder like a hair strand. In one dimension, it extends really far, in the other, it is compact, and loops back on itself

[@jamesa6693]

Think of it more like each individual particle having its own full set of individual dimensions. We only perceive the first few just like we only see a small spectrum of light.

[@hircenedaelen]

@ so instead of all the extra spacial dimensions existing everywhere in universe, each string has its own personal set of extra dimensions that they vibrate through?

[@tiagotiagot]

Is there a model where instead of strings, it's just waves in fields in a N-dimensional space-time, with those additional terms incorporated into the equations for wavefunctions with the "length" of the extra axes (or at least some of them) being very small and looping around, and the vibration modes that the different lengths allow and the time it takes for information to travel around each axis playing a role in producing the results we observe? edit: And maybe there might be some non-linearities due to the "mass" of the energy in a dimension having a more significant impact on the length than in the bigger "normal" 3d spaces by shrinking them but only when enough energy is in there that the new length would sustain a mode with matching energy for the length or something like that

[@RealEstateRonFL]

So... a vibration is some sort of oscillation over time correct? So a photon which does not experience time... its "string" couldn't vibrate right? I think that gets glossed over

[@tonyportcullis488]

When i think of string theory i think of a cat chasing a string it cant quite get a grip of.

[@Kargoneth]

@17:56. Damn. I have to leave for work. I am looking forward to watching the remainder.

[@gregorysagegreene]

For anything to be fundamental I believe it ultimately has to be intuitive. We are a very long way from that.

[@ChelseaSaidTV]

I just love you omg 😊

[@POTATOEMPN]

I wish I could have helped with this. I worked as an understudy to Michio Kaku. I love quantum physics. It was the final piece to finish my puzzle. It just makes sense. My memory works like a library, but instead of shelves it is a vast cave with strands of thought forming a web. A big, spherical web. Points connect in ways that most people don't think about or would never consider. I even helped make a few breakthroughs in protein folding technologies by just thinking about it differently. Always question everything. If you aren't asking, "Who, What, Where, When, and most certainly Why?" then you are doing it wrong. Dive deep into the web. The universe works much the same way. One day that will make sense to somebody who reads it.

[@Perserra]

I am unreasonably curious about the 3D fruit chart. 😁

[@greggweber9967]

Is it comparable to the circles of circles that described the positions of the wandering lights before Copernicus and Kepler?

[@drdca8263]

I don’t think so, no. The epicycles for those lights were doing something a bit like taking a Fourier series to describe the periodic motion observed, where any periodic motion can be decomposed into a Fourier series in this way. (Only, they were interpreting there Fourier series terms as like physical objects I guess.) In any case, the thing with the epicycles was adding additional terms to better fit the data. String theory isn’t really doing that because the calculations are so difficult (and involve unknown things like the particular shape of the compact dimensions) that it is so difficult to compute predictions in the first place, which is kind of a prerequisite for being able to add on extra terms to fit the observed data . It seems like every internet cynic thinks that “epicycles” is always the correct criticism to make, but it often isn’t.

[@tiagotiagot]

If String Theory is so broad as to be able to model an infinite number of universes; maybe it would be more useful to treat it is like a branch of mathemathics, than something specific to our universe; just like math in general lets us describe possible and impossible, real and fictional things?

[@LaboriousCretin]

Good episode. Though a few things missed. K-theory is older than M-theory and has a 3+1 variant. Also another way to frame a part. QFT+G vs. String theory and the pros and cons of framing. I would say that all the various versions of string theories is kind of crazy, but reductions/filtering for ones that match things seen or known is a good thing to help reduce the number of versions to look at. M-theory and K-theory both have 3+1 variants. The extra dimensions CERN has been looking for for a while. There is no sign yet. As far as foliation from big bang. That gets into things like flow during expansion and artifacting within the universe and also things like cavitation. Good CNB mapping might tell us more about the first moments of the universe, but that gets to building better detectors and the neutino floor and much more precise mapping. Some things point to strings and others don't, and point more to a field. Things like one handed neutrinos point away from SUSY models most seem to like from some of the symmetries seen in modeling. In the end string theory might not be right, or it could be and current models just need adjustment or such, but the toolbox is a rich one. Keep up the good work.

[@SECONDQUEST]

String theory is lame and propped up by the media because people who like it do lots of interviews. It may be a neat set of tools but it's not how the universe works. String theory hasn't been popular among leading phsysists in like 20 years. Just the people who make money off of it. CERN may be looking for extra dimensions but that's a small part of what they do and they certainly don't have many eggs in that basket.

[@David-bh7hs]

String theory is a scientific religion. That doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, but it’s definitely on the same metaphysics as other religions.

[@replica1052]

as there is no limit to how small a dimension can be, you can always go perpendicular on the perpendicular strings is what entropy consist of -as in an explenation of the origin of everything

[@David-bh7hs]

@ that doesn’t have anything to do with what I just said.

[@replica1052]

@@David-bh7hs origin of everything is rather religious - cosmic radiation origins by entropy as an infinite vakuum would hold more energy than an infinite universe full of cosmic radiation

[@jesseboutell3511]

In no way is string theory like a religion. It has a rigorous mathematical structure that can possibly unify all of physics. The fact of it not being testable with our current level of engineering in no way equates to ridiculous superstition. Last I checked, String theory doesn't pander to the human condition and offer false promises to placate our mortality.

[@chevasit]

Good 👍

[@beatadalhagen]

There are many dimensions. Ana/Kata, sure, but also Hither/Yon, To/Fro, Deosil/Widdershins, and I am sure there are many others.

[@fightwithbiomechanix]

Hi Isaac can you do an episode on Wolfram Physics. It's cool but I'm skeptical

[@greghelton4668]

Intuitively speaking, the string theory is the only subatomic theory that makes sense.

[@GODOFEARTHREALM]

It's like reading the documents from that game "control " lol

[@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x]

Here I am obediently drinking and eating, then snacking even without the prompt. Like well trained cows joining the milking line or going home from the _(not only quantum-)_ field when it's time.

[@Endymion766]

it sounds like "just keep adding extra undetectable dimensions until the math works" theory.

[@Raj-gr6dy]

No strings attached string theory? Alright.

[@greggweber9967]

20:15 Like a helicopter that can move in six different directions and also have six different orientations?

[@generalnawaki]

The idea that there are only 3 dimensions and then one more for time is based on our limited understanding of space time. Recently studies have been published showing that our predictions and simulations for how space time expands have been getting proven wrong. Our observation using the newest telescopes and satellite telescopes is proving out understanding of cosmology wrong.

[@АртурМилкович]

Was sitting on the couch watching this with my 11yo son as we looked at the 19:58 supersymmetry diagram again and he pipes up " do you want your subatomic particles in English or Spanish?" ... Now we can't stop laughing about the 'Higgsino Boson Parrrticalllll'

[@zarni66]

A Comment copying Bot alert 🚨

[@АртурМилкович]

@@zarni66 cheerful

[@tylergoldstein]

The real question about string theory: is it even worth trying to untangle? It has failed to tell us anything new about the universe.

[@yankeevictor9055]

Remember, kids: the string is the powerhouse of the particle.

[@JaneDark-r7u]

I meant in your own time, in your own way, as you are ready to do that! You will have to incorporate all the new information about world peace for the future, and what future we must build, and what things we MUST let go of... So much of the control structure is illegitimate. So we will heal it all, naturally, in good time. And so all I wanted from you, ever, is your commitment to your enlightenment/sainthood/godhood, and assurance that this is your birthright. You are starborn! We are made of star stuff! We are goddesses and gods. It is our time to take the reigns of our divinity.

[@coinopanimator]

Ok after that I realize that I my understand string Theory in the same way as a bamboo understands a mango.

[@JavaChrome1]

I always liked the idea of string theory. its odd and fascinating. 7:41 what if both string theory and quantum gravity are both correct?

[@BroncoJoeAK]

I had such a rush when I saw this video dropped!!

[@junkequation]

If strings should form black holes smaller than a planck length, but nothing can be smaller than a planck length, then shouldn't they not form black holes?

[@billyheaning]

I love your channel, your videos are amazing. But your subreddit is an awful place to go to with questions, especially if you're an aspiring amateur sci fi writer. I was shocked at the amount of gatekeeping and condescension I encountered there after *trying* to post a few worldbuilding questions of my own. Once they get even a whiff that you don't know as much as they do, they pounce on you like a shark on chum and delight in pointing out every conceivable error in your ideas without even bothering to answer the questions asked. They just lay it on. Between this and the insane amount of gatekeeping and condescending attitudes in the ToughSF discord, it's not even worth asking questions to make your worldbuilding better. I only posted this here because no one ever replies to KZbin comments and I know I would be downvoted into absolute oblivion for posting my feelings on the subreddit. Anyway, like I said, I love your videos, and you seem to be the kind of person who would educate rather than belittle and mock. Have a good day, and I look forward to your next upload.

[@acejace00]

It's confusing and misleading how the convention is to number dimensions as a continuation of the X, Y, and Z of space. Though we may refer to the 10 or 26 "things" as dimensions, they are likely only loosely related to each other. It's akin to referring to dynamite, paper, and the sun all as "wood" simply because they burn

[@drdca8263]

0:12 : “and without a lot of math” : hm, you are still going to talk about some of the math though, right? I mean the video is over 30 minutes long.. 0:46 : “which we will even discuss a bit of today” oh, good! 4:26 : “how can something with no size exist”: I don’t see the problem? [edit: Err, until you include things like gravity]

[@sarunas8002]

I feel like you are talking about AGI, hypewave hypewave hype!

[@BladeTrain3r]

New record 52 seconds :D Thanks in advance for the good watch.

[@brownwhale5518]

String theory is about convoluted as 10 lb pile of cooked spaghetti and Spaghetti O’s.