You Can’t Criticize String Theory Without Understanding It (Part 1)

📊 Do you need PRIVATE CLASSES on Math & Physics, or do you know somebody who does? I might be helpful! My personal Whatsapp and email: [phone] ; [e-mail]
📈 Check out my Udemy courses (you may find something that interests you 😉): www.udemy.com/user/luca-di-beo/
🥹 Consider supporting us on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=86646021
😎 Become a member to have exclusive access:
/ @dibeos
🔔 Subscribe:
/ @dibeos
_______________________________________________________
Article link: universealacarte.blogspot.com...
--
🔬 Welcome to our cosmic journey through String Theory, where we simplify the complex and make the mysteries of the universe a little more understandable! 🌍 Today, we're exploring how this fascinating theory seeks to unify Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a single framework that could potentially explain everything in the cosmos. 🌟
📏🕰️ Ever wondered about the fundamental nature of measurements like meters and seconds? We kick things off with a deep dive into how these units are defined through constants like the speed of light and atomic characteristics, all leading up to why these definitions matter in physics. 🧐
🪢 Next, we'll unravel how String Theory proposes that the universe's most basic elements are not points, but rather tiny vibrating strings. Each vibration corresponds to a different particle, transforming our understanding of matter and energy. 🎵
🌐💥 From black holes to the Big Bang, discover how String Theory attempts to resolve the monumental clashes between the laws that govern the large and the tiny. 🚀
🧪 Despite being a leading theory, String Theory faces the challenge of experimental verification. Join us as we explore the proofs, the predictions, and the profound implications of this groundbreaking scientific endeavor. 🔍
👨‍🔬 Whether you're a seasoned physicist or just a curious mind, this video is your gateway to grasping one of the most intriguing theories in modern physics. By the end, you'll see the universe in a new light! 💡
📺 Watch now and elevate your understanding of the cosmos. Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more mind-bending physics content! 🌟🔔
---
#StringTheory #Physics #QuantumMechanics #GeneralRelativity #ScienceEducation #PhysicsLovers #TheoreticalPhysics #QuantumPhysics #SpaceTime #ParticlePhysics #ScienceExplained #UniverseMysteries #Cosmology #Astrophysics #STEMEducation #PhysicsFun #Einstein #BigBangTheory #BlackHoles #QuantumWorld #PhysicsIsFun #MathAndScience #ScienceDaily #ScienceIsAwesome #LearningPhysics #PhysicsTeacher #PhysicsVideos #PhysicsStudent #PhysicsMajor #ScienceGeek #ModernPhysics #ScienceChannel #PhysicsExperiment #QuantumEntanglement #PhysicalScience #PhysicsClass #PhysicsLife #PhysicsLecture #PhysicsEducation #ScienceForEveryone #UniverseExploration #SpaceExploration #PhysicsResearch #ScienceAndTechnology #PhysicsEnthusiast #ScienceCommunicator #QuantumLeap #EinsteinTheory #PhysicsIsBeautiful #LearnPhysics

[@alexeycanopus1707]

The quote which is hated by string theorists. “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

[@danielpulido2101]

It is kind of pseudo science to me

[@NairitSahoo]

1. Lol. No true string theorist will hate that quote because no experiment has made string theory invalid. See this short featuring Brian Greene: kzbin.info2sfDAqL11UI?si=q82csWK-_dLigq9c . Even he doesn't believe in it, and he is gonna believe if experiments are consistent with it. 2. It is a big misconception that string theorists don't care about experimental results: the whole subject of "string phenomenology" is dedicated to it.

[@enterprisesoftwarearchitect]

There aren’t any compact dimensions. BOOM! Proved String theory WRONG- spend money on something that has a chance maybe?

[@vtrandal]

Correction: Sting Theory is “Not even wrong”. -Peter Woit.

[@alexeycanopus1707]

Of course, I can. As long as there is no clear path of experimental proof of the string theory, I can criticize it as much as I wish.

[@dibeos]

Touché! But would you agree that it is much more reasonable and accurate to judge/criticize something you studied rather than something you’ve just heard of?

[@alexeycanopus1707]

@@dibeos yes, I agree.

[@ustadspencertracy7195]

20 years ago it was “cool” to be for string theory. The same reason why you are against it today thanks to some shreds of half baked epistemological argumentations.

[@dibeos]

@@ustadspencertracy7195 what about you? Are you against it or for it?

[@maxwell8758]

@@dibeosNo, not if it has no evidence. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Have you studied the history of unicorns? Probably not. Do you have to study the lore of unicorns to not believe in it? No. Anything without evidence requires no study to dismiss.

[@russchadwell]

Standard Model has loads of experiments, but can't get a handle on gravity. Meanwhile, String Theory is short on experiments, but gravity appears anyway

[@dibeos]

Yeah, but what should we do with this fact in your opinion?

[@russchadwell]

@@dibeos why, simple. Shrink such that experiments are easy.

[@arrdubu]

@@dibeos stop finding string theory experiments with public funds.

[@medicalphysics-lt2wo]

good statement

[@zemm9003]

No it doesn't.

[@aquathewise7838]

I don't even want to criticize String theory. I believe no one knows what string theory is for now (check Peter Woit's not even wrong blogs, although I think you probably knew him). This is string theory's biggest issue as research topic. For employment, you are highly unlikely (although no impossible ) to get hired in either mathematics department or physics department if you claim your research area is string theory, because physicists think string theory is too mathy and mathematicians think string theory is too physics.

[@dibeos]

I agree with the fact that “no one knows what string theory is for now”. However, we should still study it (maybe we find out what it is 🤷🏻), but it should definitely not be taken too seriously in the scientific community at least

[@weylguy]

It is said that string theory predicts a massless spin-2 particle that is identified with the graviton, so that the theory includes gravity, making string theory a candidate for a theory of everything. But does the theory also predict Einstein's field equations? No, it does not! If it did, I'd believe in string theory. This one-off is a turn-off for me.

[@dibeos]

Yes… but shouldn’t you “believe” in the theory just if it had actual experimental results instead? 🧐

[@weylguy]

@@dibeos But it doesn't and likely will never have. So it's not a theory, it's a conjecture.

[@SpotterVideo]

What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? 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. 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.

[@danielackles4265]

Nice video. Btw the graphics and sound effects are awesome 😎 they help visualize what you are talking about. I think most people will enjoy them.

[@dibeos]

Thanks for the encouragement and nice feedback 😎

[@Kyoz]

Yes I can. String theory literally depends in physicist's lack of understanding when it comes to *gravity.* Physicist's also claim that its impossible to tell the difference between an accelerating reference frame and *gravity.* They also can not combine Quantum Mechanics without modifying *gravity* somehow. So I think its pretty clear what the problem is... Physicist's are too SCARED and COWARDLY to doubt our current understanding of *gravity.* They are afraid of going all the way back and looking for the correct path. Afraid of looking like the fool who doubted *gravity.* I for one, believe in a *post-gravity* world. The best possible solution to string theory (although still flawed) would be to use something like a rubiks cube to model a quantum system. Give the cube pieces complex numbers depending on their location + rotation and then string theory becomes a hypothetical particle at the center of mass of the system as it evolves and draws out a path/string. tldr; string theory is a misunderstanding of how the hypothetical center of mass of a quantum system moves and the path it traces out.

[@tom-kz9pb]

Practically every aspect of human life involves knowledge that is incomplete, and propositions that are difficult or impossible to either prove or disprove with finality, Very few claims of any kind exist with universal agreement, or without counter-claims. Yet we make our judgments and take our stands, anyway. On string theory, with an extremely fuzzy layman's understanding from browsing various articles and Wikipedia, I take the stand that "the jury is still out". In spite of pitifully and admittedly scant understanding, I feel prepared to defend that position against any physicist, any time, anywhere, even Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@dibeos]

Yes, I agree with the fact that String theory can very well be correct!! It is an open possibility. But we should mostly invest (money and minds) on theories that will most likely bring empirical results. We should still study string theory though! Just don’t take it too serious… what do you think about it?

[@tom-kz9pb]

@@dibeos Trying to understand physical reality is like an itch that you cannot scratch, very maddening. I would hold out hope that if continuing to invest, string theorists would eventually think up some clever way to test their theories. It must have take a flash of brilliance to come up with something like measuring the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, to test if gravity can bend light. Government funding should emphasize practical payback, but neither should it totally short-change pursuit of pure knowledge. You cannot always anticipate what might have long-term reward. My gut says that if "fundamental" particles have proliferated to a dozen, part of what that is telling you is that whatever these things are, they are not "fundamental". There must be something more basic that underlies them. If not string theory, then what? But for string theory, the proliferation of dimensions seems somewhat dubious, as well. What would underlie that aspect? The maddening itch goes on. More power to string theory, if it can someday relieve the itch.

[@stardustwight1895]

"You Can't Criticize String Theory Without Understanding It." *Proceeds to pull Einstein's equation and tensors of general relativity to put those on the preview, but NOT some elements of string theory.*

[@dibeos]

Haha it is true! Next time we’ll do it 😉 thanks

[@danielpulido2101]

Waste of time

[@dibeos]

@@danielpulido2101 why do you think so?

[@debjyotimishra3176]

What is name of the book thay you were holding? And author also!

[@marcinmarcin2506]

I can't believe this wideo have less than 100 viewers, can't wait for more!

[@dibeos]

Thanks for the support! Stay tuned cause we are planning a veeeery cool video for the next few days. We are very excited with it 😎

[@drdca8263]

I have some questions. You can assume I know some basic differential geometry, though have forgotten a fair bit of it, and that I am familiar with the idea of a Lagrangian, I know about the Wiener process and have read a tiny bit about how people try to use an abstract wiener measure to formalize path integrals. I’m a little unclear how the scale invariance mathematically relates to... some stuff. Like, when the post says that we allow that the rulers for the string be allowed to be temporarily different as long as we change it back to match the spacetime metric in the end, I’m confused about that. So, I get the impression that, rather than the world sheet being parameterized necessarily by [0,1]^2 , we just have some 2D manifold, with a metric, which we embed into the 4D spacetime manifold, and... is the idea that like, the choice of the metric on the worldsheet surface doesn’t matter? So that if there is a diffeomorphism between two different parameterizations which have the same image, that they will have/result-in the same action? What does the “set it to match the actual lengths of spacetime at the end” consist of? Is this just, “the metric ultimately used to compute the area is the spacetime metric”? Like, if X is a position in spacetime, then we take like, the gradient of X with respect to the local coordinates for the worldsheet, and then use the metric on the spacetime to multiply this by itself, and so... I guess obtain a metric tensor on the worldsheet?? I feel like I’m probably getting upper and lower indices mixed up.

[@dibeos]

The “fake rulers” explanation was slightly “touched” in this video. I well get deeper in the next. But basically, it is not that the metric of the background spacetime doesn’t matter. It is just that string theory uses this transformation (to an arbitrary metric, easier to work with) as a mathematical trick/tool to simplify calculations (of the minimization of the area of the worldsheet of the string, i.e. it’s action) and then “naturally” get to Einstein’s equation out of it. In the next video (part 2) I will go deeper into this concept. I finished the video there, but we will pick up the ideas from these “fake rulers” on.

[@drdca8263]

@@dibeos Alright, thanks!

[@kauffmann101]

String theory may provides a good mathematical framework but it definitely just a theory without provide any approach can prove it is a valid or not and without based on any experimental evidence to effectively explain the physical phenomenon

[@dibeos]

Yes, it is true. It was worth rhetorical shot though, but undoubtedly it failed miserably

[@michaelblankenau6598]

I like how you said ‘ Diract path ‘ .

[@dibeos]

Thanks, I’ll say it more often in the next videos 😎

[@manasdogra5757]

People be like: "It is not science unless you prove it experimentally and we can't do quantum gravity experiments, right now."---Exactly, and that should be one of the motivations of doing stuff theoretically. No good string theorist will say that string theory is a proved description of nature, but yeah it is a good candidate and irrespective of whether it is a theory of nature it has and continues to give us a lot of insights about the nature of quantum gravity and applications from applied physics to mathematics.

[@dibeos]

I agree 100% with you. Just would like to add: despite all the positive features (that you mentioned) of string theory, since it is not science , by definition, it should not be taken seriously by the scientific community. Would you agree?

[@samueldeandrade8535]

People that say what you mentioned have no idea about what is science.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Its questionable if its a good candidate anymore. On the outset, such simple idea as vibrating string predicting gravity seems very attractive. The only issue is, it also predicts many other thing that doesn't make sense and feels very artificial. That's one of the main reason it lost favor.

[@dibeos]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 yes, I guess it all boils down to Einstein’s famous phrase: “Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

[@manasdogra5757]

​@@dibeos Hmm...Yes! If we are being conservative with the definition of "science", then I agree string theory is not science yet. Still, even many great scientific discoveries were not "science" per se before they were actually discovered! Insights from of string theory (e.g. holography) resulted in actual applications to the real world. So, that might indicate there be some layer of truth to it and hence it is worthy of further research. But yeah, my POV on string theory is to remain agnostic about whether it describes the real world or not. Calling it science or not on the other hand is a matter of semantics, I think.

[@pareiidolia9889]

It's unfortunate to see such high-quality videos get such little attention

[@dibeos]

Thanks!!! We will keep on improving the video quality and the content itself. Success will be inevitable 😎

[@hanniffydinn6019]

If gravity falls out of string theory so naturally, there’s most definitely something to string theory! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@dibeos]

Exactly! There is something there, I agree. But is it really the correct unified theory of physics or just a correct mathematical theory, with no physical meaning?

[@hanniffydinn6019]

@@dibeos if it predicted gravity it has physical meaning! The problem I see is we don’t know how to define which universe we are in, and string theory predicts infinite universes, so perhaps we can narrow it down & use all the fine tuned physical constants to find a string theory universe we can make further predictions & invent experiments to test it! 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@sergeyromanov5560]

if decades of research failed to experimentally confirm this theory, there's most definitely something wrong with the theory.

[@alejandroatoche858]

@@hanniffydinn6019for decades they’ve been saying that in the next 10 years there will be something testable and predictions that will prove string theory. So far it has been a nothing burger. Also there are more theories of gravity and Einstein’s makes a big assumption about the speed of light

[@hanniffydinn6019]

@@alejandroatoche858 it took over 100 years for experimental proof of gravity waves. Physics get exponentially harder to prove as theories evolve. Seems you are just impatient! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@gblargg]

BTW graphics (and sound effects) are distracting and mostly don't contribute to understanding the content.

[@dibeos]

Thanks for the tips! We are trying to improve at each video, so if you can give us an example of moment in the video that was distracting, we would appreciate it :)

[@gblargg]

@@dibeos Well I went and re-watched the first two minutes and see that every bit (except a few things, like the t in meter coming unhinged) is trying to visually illustrate some part of the words. Like the picture of the metal resonating, then doing it faster when hit by a photon, then slowing down once one is emitted, that's illustrating ground vs. excited state. When someone like me tries to watch, I get distracted by all the particulars of the visuals, why those things were chosen, whether they're adding anything. Maybe some people really do get the material better with them. I'm going to have to just admit that it might be a personal thing. I'm the type who can keep interest in a dry technical description of something without it being "spiced" up, since the subject matter is inherently fascinating. Apologies.

[@dibeos]

@@gblargg thanks man, really. I will review this and the next videos we are preparing in order to “clean” the excess. I hope you like the next one better 😎

[@gblargg]

@@dibeos I could easily be an outlier in my preferences (your video simply showed up on my main feed). I'm curious as to how you came to this style. It seems like it must be labor-intensive coming up with a constant stream of animations for nearly every sentence.

[@dibeos]

@@gblargg yes, it is very time consuming, and that’s why we do not publish as often as we’d like to. But soon we will monetize this channel and be able to hire somebody to do the editing, so that Sofia and I can focus only on improving the content

[@sergeyromanov5560]

Sabine Hossenfelder studied it, go talk to her

[@dibeos]

I bet she did, and that’s why she has great insights about its true nature. I’m a huge fan of her

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Every physicist studied it. So, the channel anchors also know the theory well.

[@julianbrown7976]

Yes you can criticize a theory which has for over 30 years taken the lion's share of all funding for fundamental physics topics despite never having made any correct predictions.

[@dibeos]

Yes, you are right. This is awful. In my opinion this is the worst consequence of String Theory so far. Many other areas could have been advanced, but instead tax payers are funding the dreams of a few people

[@hellohi-mj8ho]

This is such a great video you deserve more views and likes

[@samueldeandrade8535]

No video with a non ironical title "You can't criticize X if you don't understand it" can be even good, so definitely NOT great.

[@mrtienphysics666]

this video is definitely better than Sabine's ones. number of likes usually means number of fools

[@siddhartacrowley8759]

​@@samueldeandrade8535 How are suppose to critize something, that you don't even understand? Thats just stupid.

[@dibeos]

Thanks! I hope you will enjoy the next videos we are planning for the next few days 😉we are very excited with them 😎

[@samueldeandrade8535]

@@siddhartacrowley8759 "How are suppose to criticize something, that you don't understand? Thats just stupid?" I guess you didn't understand what I said. AND you are criticizing it ... See what I've done? Do you want me to explain it in an different way?

[@kayeassy]

I have understood it and that's why I decided to move to condensed matter theory and open quantum systems!!

[@dibeos]

Cool, so after understanding it, why did you decide to move on with it?

[@kayeassy]

@@dibeos the simple answer is the theories are mostly non relativistic in nature and relatively easier to relate with experimental results. During my masters in specialization courses I have taken QFT,Quantum Info, GR, Advanced Mathematical physics and Introduction to Superconductivity in the next semester I have taken a course on beyond standard model, topological phases of matter, quantum statistical field theory ,introduction to string theory to give you a reference that I have gone through it.

[@nussypigga]

Me defending an untestable theory like

[@dibeos]

Yeah, I’m not defending it though. I am saying that it is rewarding from the intellectual point of view to study this theory. It really pushes you to the edge of your creativity in the boundaries of mathematics. String theory is non-scientific, at least so far, there is no doubt, but studying and discussing it (as long as not much investment is poured into it and as long as people understand that it should not be taken seriously from the scientific point of view) is harmless

[@ratenfantguerre-objectifma3861]

You can't criticize the Theory TUNZE without understanding the TUNZE'S PIZZA THEOREM

[@ratenfantguerre-objectifma3861]

TUNZE PIZZA THEOREM : if you divide a pizza in 4 pieces, you have 4 pieces of pizza, not 1/4. So (1 divided by 4) equal 4

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

I thought that finally this video will explain what causes the speed of light and will give us the definition of time. But it's kaputt.

[@dibeos]

Interesting. Please expand on what you want. Since this is a series we can add it in one of the next videos

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@dibeos It's not what I want. It is just my curiosity that is responsible for my quest. Next post will be with my expansion.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@dibeos An object traveling at the speed of light is also traveling through time but static time. If time were passing we would see the movement of it. There is not time real time dialation and no real contraction. Clocks have nothing to do with time and they do not measure time for they are not sentient mechanisms. Time and space are separate. If time and space were one the graph of time and space would lie on the same line. There is only one real process and it it entropy but it has nothing to do with time. Time is static, entropy is not because entropy has different rates. Clocks have nothing to do with time. Time does not have a direction and it does not flow. If it flowed like a river we would be able to see it or detect its flow. If it were possible to travel with the speed of light, would it mean that one traveling with that speed would never die? Of course, the traveler would die because everything would be just as normal as on Earth even moving at that speed - if it were possible I stress. Therefore, time dilation is an illusion. Time is not a dimension. And this video talks about time a lot without giving us the definiotion of time. So, what is the definition of time? Until then we can just speculate on time which still can mess many things for us. Concerning photons in a photon clock: Another aspect of this issue here is that a photon cannot bounce off the mirror instantaneously. When it hits the mirror perpedicularly it has to stop and reverse the direction or whatever the angle it hits the mirror the photon loses energy. Then the photon bouncing off the mirror has to accelerate to reach speed c - nothing happens in zero seconds. So, in my concept the equation looks like the following: V sub f = [v sub 1-(v sub2 x a)/(1-cos theta)]/(mc^2/2).

[@dibeos]

@@user-ky5dy5hl4d Hi, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this complex topic! I would like to understand where this formula came from… anyway, here is my opinion: In physics, space and time are interconnected, as outlined in Einstein's theory of relativity. While they are distinct concepts, their relationship creates the space-time continuum, where events occur within this framework. This is crucial not only when studying the foundations of physics (as string theory aspires to do), but in everything. So arguing for the refusal of it is, not impossible, but really challenging. Time dilation is not merely an illusion but is supported by experimental evidence. The concept of time dilation shows that time can slow down relative to observers moving at different speeds, which has been observed in experiments involving fast-moving particles and accurate clocks. So it is more than a mathematical trick or theoretical concept. It is empirical data. Regarding traveling at the speed of light, relativity suggests that as objects move closer to light speed, time slows down for them relative to stationary observers. However, no massive object can travel at the speed of light because it would require infinite energy. So the example of a person traveling at the speed of light, and the apparent contradiction that arises in which this person would never die, is simply not a contradiction after all. Your point about photons is interesting. While photons can't reflect instantly, the energy loss they experience is minimal. Photons travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, and their interaction with mirrors and their speed should remain consistent. So, I’m not sure how/why they would slow down to zero and turn it backwards to continue its motion. Photon are not like rubber bands bouncing off a wall. This “picture” of photons is misleading for the very concept of time difference that you mentioned in special relativity.

[@user-ky5dy5hl4d]

@@dibeos Good points. Correct; photons are not like rubber bands but neither are they hard balls. Here is a brief of my variables in the math expression I had submitted before. It would need more explanation but it would take a lot of YT storage room here. Of course, you know mc^2; c is constant, m is is a variable. V sub f- final velocity. v sub one- beginning velocity. V sub 2- velocity of the bounced photon losing energy at each hit. a is acceleration. Since from formula v sub 1 = v sub zero + at, I ommitted the element of time because of the photon not experiencing time. a na v are, of course vectors. Time has nothing to do with this photon clock and if we concur that the photon is a wave mutiplying velocity and acceleration, which must occur, we have meters squared which is plane on which the photon smears itself. The wave function psi would help here also. You will get seconds to the power of 3 which is the moment of reversal of the direction of photon which undergoes the loss of energy by decelerating and again acceleration from; so it is meters per second per second and then after the reversal is per second again. I use time only for model purposes because time has no definition and it should not be taken as a part of mathematical experessions for we don't know what it is. A photon must accelerate for it cannot leave the source instantaneously nor after losing energy regain its speed to the original velocity. For I can ask you a question: what causes the speed of light? Not concerned with the particular speed of it but what is the mechanism behind that allows the photon leave its source and acquire the speed and it does not matter what speed; it can be 2 miles per hour. How does the photon do it(?) and when it does, it must accelerate.

[@bongobasi379]

Astrology is better than doing particle physics and string theory. Because at least you can criticize astrology as much you wish without doing it.

[@intracy999]

I have a dark sense of humour but 4:16 just doesn’t feel right in this one man..

[@samueldeandrade8535]

Well, shouldn't be a big deal for someone that really has a dark sense of humour. The thing is that it is complete unnecessary. If they removed it, the video would be better. But with a title like that you can't get a good video anyway.

[@intracy999]

@@samueldeandrade8535well I do have dark humor, bur this just doesn’t feel right nonetheless, like I said.. but I get what you’re saying

[@siddhartacrowley8759]

Cry me a river

[@viniciuscilla2865]

Maybe in the end String Theory did more for mathematics than for physics.

[@dibeos]

So far, it “did only” for Math haha

[@viniciuscilla2865]

@@dibeos Sad but true. String Theory is so beautiful, I really wanted it to be right 🥺

[@dibeos]

@@viniciuscilla2865 I totally agree! And I enjoy studying it, as entertainment

[@digxx]

Oh god... Not again 😐

[@dibeos]

What again?

[@digxx]

@@dibeos This topic... Maybe you were kinda sarcastic in the naming of the title, but string theorists have been doing exactly that for like 50years straight, defaming everyone and everything who is daring to question their narrative. That is not science, but ideology driven dogma and the irony is "scientists" themselves don't even realize they fell for ideology...

[@dibeos]

@@digxx exactly! It was a sarcastic sentence, you nailed it

[@digxx]

@@dibeos Yeah, wasn't meant as offense. I'm just kinda allergic to this topic 😛

[@dibeos]

@@digxx hahah yes, it is very controversial indeed, but it is interesting and important to be discussed at the same time…

[@grapeape780]

Hopeium isn't science, get rid of bias.

[@manasdogra5757]

Higgs boson was undiscovered for decades after being theoretically predicted. Thankfully, they didnt looked at Higgs boson as "Hopeium" :)

[@dibeos]

Yes, string theory to date is not science, but it is an interesting theory per se

[@dibeos]

@@manasdogra5757 yep, we never know.

[@samueldeandrade8535]

That's ... unacceptable. The statement "you can't criticize X if you don't understand X" is ridiculous.

[@dibeos]

Hm… why do you say so?

[@samueldeandrade8535]

@@dibeos there is more than one way to explain it. I will try this one: because the statement is vague af. It is too vague in "criticize X" AND "understand X". For example, if a person says "In Genesis 1, the Bible says there is night and day, BEFORE the creation of the sun" Now, did that person criticize something? This is the first question. If yes, what? The Bible? Or this particular information from the Bible? If you disagree the person criticized something, consider a variation of the statement that fits your definition of "criticizing something". Now, what do you expect the person to understand to say that statement or your chosen variation? The Bible? The sun? Astronomy? Hebrew? Do you get it? Saying "can't criticize X if you don't understand X" is so vague it is illogical. And, just to be clear, because we talk in mysterious ways, ANY statement can be interpreted in more than one way, so invalidating the statement in the title. I will just give a second answer: take something, X, you don't understand. Now say or think "X is good/bad" Was you able to say or think it? Then you just criticized something you don't understand. That's just technical silliness. Valid, but irrelevant. Just means the statement admits the more precise version "you SHOULDN'T criticize X if you don't understand X" BUT even this statement is WRONG. If we followed such ridiculous idea we wouldn't have science. Because in order to understand something you have to say things about what you don't understand. You have to dare say, including criticize, things you don't understand!

[@sanjanathakurta]

Polchinski's textbooks regarded as the holy grail of string theory texts (atleast in the late '90s) mention that it is not known what string theory is after spending 500+ pages on...well "string theory". So in that sense, even the string theorists are talking about a subject that they don't understand, which is perfectly fine by the arguments put forward by samuel. The problem arises when certain people begin criticizing string theory, without any valid logical arguments or even trying to understand even 0.01% of the huge corpus on string theory since the '60s: I think maybe that is what Di Beo's is trying to communicate here.

[@samueldeandrade8535]

@@sanjanathakurta "The problem arises when certain people begin criticizing string theory, without any valid logical arguments or even trying to understand even 0.01% ..." Irrelevant. No problem arises from that. Most of criticisms is logically invalid. Knowledge doesn't validates or invalidates arguments. The validity of an argument is independent from who said it. I am impressed I have to say the obvious. Actually, I am lying. I am not impressed at all. It happens so much I can't even pretend surprise anymore.

[@alevyts3523]

@@samueldeandrade8535 You don’t have to be a scientist to understand that milk has gone sour. You will feel it immediately after taking a sip. You can also critique a movie because you have watched it in its entirety. However, this cannot be applied to the critique of string theory if your knowledge of mathematics and physics is zero, and you have not read anything about this theory. Understanding string theory will take significantly more time than watching a movie.

[@crazieeez]

String theory is as good as my mom believing in a God.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

Nah. Despite it's failure the predict anything measurable, string theroy has a good, logically coherent structure, that religion lacks.

[@keith.anthony.infinity.h]

Are you physics student and/or researcher? If not just stop talking you sound like an ignoramus and are embarrassing yourself honestly.

[@arrdubu]

String theory is just as credible as climate science.

[@dibeos]

Unfortunately it is true. I think though that studying it as a branch of pure mathematics (or even as pure entertainment) is a valid mental exercise anyway

[@Ri-ver]

You agree with that clown's point on climate science? String Theory broke down in the early 2000's, but if you're denying climate science then you aren't worth subscribing to.

[@aniksamiurrahman6365]

You could be a climate change deniar. But climate science makes testable prediction.They still lack accuracy, but are correct on the broad scale.

[@dibeos]

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 yes, climate change models are still solid, from the point of view of science

[@arrdubu]

@dibeos if the climate models are solid, that explains why they are so wrong. The climate tends to be fluid! But you could say the climate is made of strings and rhe tards will still send you money.