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.
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...
@@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
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.
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.
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 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.
@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.
"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.
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.
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 😅
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.
This is awesome. I’m huge fan of string theory. I’m particularly a huge fan of M theory/bane theory. The thought that the big bang was two of these intra-dimensional brains, bumping together and that there are other universities out there on different branes is amazing. Now, just because I’m rooting for it doesn’t necessarily mean I think this is the way it’s going to pan out as our ultimate theory of everything. But is the one I find I like the best to cheer for.
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
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.
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
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 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
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.
@ 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?
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....
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 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.
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'. 😁
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.
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.
Well done. I re-wound when you mentioned the 10 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)
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)
@@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.
@ 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...
@ 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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I know only two things about string theory: 1 that I don't understand it. 2 that anyone who claims to understand it as a reason to sell me something is a scammer.
If you bring the palm of your hand hovering at a distance on top of an object and wave it slowly you can feel the object vibration. If you do it with cards, you can guess which card you are going to pick without looking because they all feel different. Ive teached it to multiple ppl. Anyone can do it. Try it now and see. Everything vibrates.
You fool yourself into making your own "signals' and through cherrypicking results contrive success to make it seem legitimate. If you had such a ilities you'd have collected Randi's million dollar prize
If the theory do not fit 100%, then either our theory, our observations or our preconceptions are wrong or lacks big pieces of the whole idea. With quantum level mechanics, string theory and what we know about the reality mechanics, not fitting well, it just means that parts of what we know is either lacking or wrong. The deeper we look into something it often becomes clear that the reason why things are like they are, are hidden in that deep that we can not see without tech, which basically means that bits of what we know, is unknown or possibly wrong. Take something like gravity as an example, how would it change things if it wasn't a pull, but rather a push effect. I'm not saying it is either, but the idea sort of makes a point whit how a simple misunderstanding can change a lot of knowledge once we fully understand. Such changes has already happened before and chances are good that it will happen again as our true understanding grows. What might be beyond our ability to measure or read, what might we see if we could see the Earth's magnetic fields or see time or measure gravity a lot better than we can today? Maybe we will get a surprise when we get to that point, or maybe we are already right, but if so, why don't the theories fit with fully with reality?
IF a particle = point-like w/ no dimensions, then arguably Gluons shouldn't exist, even if Baryons are point-like. To 'hold together' nucleus it'd need to 'span the gap' between protons and neutrons...that 'gap' = has dimensional volume/lengths == A Gluon would have dimensional values and not be 'point-like' in any way.
It should also be point mentioned that uniform mass among all particles of a given type (IE Electron) is contentious at best...In a universe where NOTHING is seemingly identical, there hasn't been a good theory to explain why elementary particles would have uniform Mass (MeV)...It may be our current tech can't detect differences; or maybe they are the same; ...IF the latter, 'something' is mediating that; and 'THAT something' = one of the bigger unanswered physics questions. The type of question nobody institutional physicist wants to address, cuz it could be fruitless endeavor OR it could topple the fragile theories that everything they 'believe' about science is based on; for the 'power users' like that, they fear the answer to questions like that...cuz of those affects it could have.
String theory is like all other overly complex theories. That is to say, they are needlessly convoluted so as to discourage questions regarding what tenured professors actually do, which is siphon off public tax money in the form of government grants which are essentially free money to charletans.
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.
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!"
I think that there are curled up dimensions. I think that what we think of as "time" is a partially curled up spatial dimension in the process of "uncurling" itself.
I almost have my welth collected from this lawsuit and il be on my way to Rome if it's done il be moving my ass first short tip to Rome check out the vibe over there I do not need a vizum I'm deutch so no need for vizum
When I was driving truck Isaac was my go to person to listen to. Now I just enjoy his videos at home.
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.
I know you're just stringing me along, but I won't be roped in!
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...
Cones are 3D! They are are little machines floating around your eye cells.
😂
I expect that anyone who clicked on this video is already beyond that introductory analogy.
@@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
Dont be silly, its a 4d consciousness alt least
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.
More implausible than a point with no volume but also only existing a a probability wave at the same time called an electron?
Great book(!)...but still a crap theory.
@@oliviamaynard9372absolutely. One you can do experiments with. The other is just an idea.
What a tangled string we weave
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.
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.
String Theory is a mess!
I always considered that’s the real reason for the name. The more detailed you get, the more messy and confusing it gets.
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.
@@John-ir2zf I understand the theory. It is a complete mess. It has about as much going for it as Scientology.
@@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.
@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.
"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.
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.
If only string theory actually were a mathematical explanation of the cosmos 😂
String Theory is 'self love' for mathematicians and physicists that can't get somebody to do it for them XP
@djdrack4681 SO we agree it's cognitive masturbation
Only to be engaged by consenting adults behind closed doors.
I bet Schrödinger’s cat loved playing with strings 😎🤖
Oh boy, Isaac untangling a ball of twine!
Almost a twine paradox...
The ultimate gordian knot.
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 😅
Super Collider? But I just met 'er
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.
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.
String theory is a scientific religion. That doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, but it’s definitely on the same metaphysics as other religions.
I always feel that I understand 10% of an Isaac Arthur topic but learn 100% more about it than I knew before.
No Son of Mine: "But Dad, String Theory suggests..."
Me: "Listen up kid! We do Standard Model of Particle Physics in this house."
This is awesome. I’m huge fan of string theory. I’m particularly a huge fan of M theory/bane theory. The thought that the big bang was two of these intra-dimensional brains, bumping together and that there are other universities out there on different branes is amazing.
Now, just because I’m rooting for it doesn’t necessarily mean I think this is the way it’s going to pan out as our ultimate theory of everything. But is the one I find I like the best to cheer for.
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
JRR Tolkien would appreciate this thought.
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.
It's what the prophet Tolkien taught us in his holy book The Silmarillion! Lol
String theory is almost certainly incorrect. Very few theoretical or experimental physicists believe it to be how the universe works.
Congratulations on making your channel more accessible to a larger audience. Everyone seems to be pleased.
When i think of string theory i think of a cat chasing a string it cant quite get a grip of.
Nice overview, thank you.
Everytime I read or watch anything related to String Theory, I feel that parts of my brain leak into extra dimentions
I am unreasonably curious about the 3D fruit chart. 😁
Another banger.
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
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.
@@MechanicaMenace I'm so sorry, I really don't understand those analogies, thank you for trying tho
@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
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.
@ 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?
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?
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....
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. 😁
I don’t think the writers of that show knew string theory well enough to explain it.
@@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.
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'. 😁
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.
Ok after that I realize that I my understand string Theory in the same way as a bamboo understands a mango.
@17:56. Damn. I have to leave for work. I am looking forward to watching the remainder.
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.
It is now claimed string theories halted progress in theoretical physics for decades.
Well done. I re-wound when you mentioned the 10 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)
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)
@@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.
@ 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...
@ 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.
@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.
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
I'll drop a note to the dev team, I'd like that myself
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.
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.
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.
String theory is about convoluted as 10 lb pile of cooked spaghetti and Spaghetti O’s.
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.
There are many dimensions. Ana/Kata, sure, but also Hither/Yon, To/Fro, Deosil/Widdershins, and I am sure there are many others.
Unless and until String Theory becomes Falsifiable (which it wasn't, last I heard), it's just theology for theoretical physicists.
20:15 Like a helicopter that can move in six different directions and also have six different orientations?
heh, -a drink and a snack- a coffee and a Tylenol
Is it comparable to the circles of circles that described the positions of the wandering lights before Copernicus and Kepler?
I just love you omg 😊
New record 52 seconds :D Thanks in advance for the good watch.
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
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.
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?
Hi Isaac can you do an episode on Wolfram Physics. It's cool but I'm skeptical
What if there are truly infinite spatial dimensions? Scary thought…
so , basically , reality is pocket lint
String Theory is basically the lazy child that picks up the rug and dumps all the stuff under it.
Touched by his Noodly Appendage!
Wasn't string theory debunked 20 years ago?
You're probably thinking supersymmetry but the answer is no to both, they just aren't viewed with the same confidence and enthusiasm
I had such a rush when I saw this video dropped!!
Already had coffee!
Spaghetti, the edible string.
TY SFIA. Snack of the day is Tylenol
I know only two things about string theory:
1 that I don't understand it.
2 that anyone who claims to understand it as a reason to sell me something is a scammer.
One way or another string theory is unraveling.
I prefer my universe stringy and not loopy!
Could space itself be vibrating?
Is there any explanation why we only experience 3 +1 dimensions?
Just started and I can tell that, while I'm sure I'll enjoy this episode, I'll barely understand any of it.
If you bring the palm of your hand hovering at a distance on top of an object and wave it slowly you can feel the object vibration. If you do it with cards, you can guess which card you are going to pick without looking because they all feel different. Ive teached it to multiple ppl. Anyone can do it. Try it now and see. Everything vibrates.
You fool yourself into making your own "signals' and through cherrypicking results contrive success to make it seem legitimate. If you had such a ilities you'd have collected Randi's million dollar prize
Snack of the day is String Cheese!
Where is time in string theory? Losing time while not quite explaining gravity is a theory in trouble.
String theory is a tangled, knotty ball of hypotheticals.
Well said!!
Sabine Hossenfelder doesn't seem too impressed with the theory or its progress.
If the theory do not fit 100%, then either our theory, our observations or our preconceptions are wrong or lacks big pieces of the whole idea. With quantum level mechanics, string theory and what we know about the reality mechanics, not fitting well, it just means that parts of what we know is either lacking or wrong. The deeper we look into something it often becomes clear that the reason why things are like they are, are hidden in that deep that we can not see without tech, which basically means that bits of what we know, is unknown or possibly wrong.
Take something like gravity as an example, how would it change things if it wasn't a pull, but rather a push effect. I'm not saying it is either, but the idea sort of makes a point whit how a simple misunderstanding can change a lot of knowledge once we fully understand. Such changes has already happened before and chances are good that it will happen again as our true understanding grows.
What might be beyond our ability to measure or read, what might we see if we could see the Earth's magnetic fields or see time or measure gravity a lot better than we can today? Maybe we will get a surprise when we get to that point, or maybe we are already right, but if so, why don't the theories fit with fully with reality?
IF a particle = point-like w/ no dimensions, then arguably Gluons shouldn't exist, even if Baryons are point-like. To 'hold together' nucleus it'd need to 'span the gap' between protons and neutrons...that 'gap' = has dimensional volume/lengths == A Gluon would have dimensional values and not be 'point-like' in any way.
It should also be point mentioned that uniform mass among all particles of a given type (IE Electron) is contentious at best...In a universe where NOTHING is seemingly identical, there hasn't been a good theory to explain why elementary particles would have uniform Mass (MeV)...It may be our current tech can't detect differences; or maybe they are the same;
...IF the latter, 'something' is mediating that; and 'THAT something' = one of the bigger unanswered physics questions.
The type of question nobody institutional physicist wants to address, cuz it could be fruitless endeavor OR it could topple the fragile theories that everything they 'believe' about science is based on; for the 'power users' like that, they fear the answer to questions like that...cuz of those affects it could have.
Maybe trying with the wrong type of detection, maybe instead of trying to see maybe should be trying to hear
I feel like the old German engineering joke; It's great that this works in practice but why does it work in theory?
I could use an extra layer or brains. Where do you sigh up for that dimension? 🙂
STRING THEORY LFG!!!
string theory isnt falsifiable in any manner that matters.
therefore it's relatively useless to talk of for us lay folk
String theory is like all other overly complex theories. That is to say, they are needlessly convoluted so as to discourage questions regarding what tenured professors actually do, which is siphon off public tax money in the form of government grants which are essentially free money to charletans.
tfw you dont understand something
That's the social sciences. STEM still usually do real stuff still.
@Austin-fc5gs lol, I'm sure you understand all that babble...😶🙂😀😃😄😆😅😂🤣
@@whocares435-z9v sure, sure... It's a new religion, that one.
Ngl OP has a point. How many things are people studying that are clearly silly.
To but the most well known one out there... gender studies lol
Came Faster than Isaac Arthur serving his Snack and Drink!
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.
Commenting for the Algorithm!
Nah, The geometry is missing.
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!"
Sabine says string theory is unfalsifiable nonsense. What say you?
Physics took a wrong path in the 20th century. We need a new look and I can probably guarantee it wont be me.
😊😊😊
Maybe stop calling it dimensions in favor of just degrees of freedom?
Ask Eric Weinstein what he thinks about String Theory and its proponents. Haha!
Sorry, too complex to my engineer brain...
Reminds me of God Theory, which is not a good theory.
27th to comment.
Its a scam !!
19th like! 2 minutes after posting, I couldn't get #1.
I think that there are curled up dimensions.
I think that what we think of as "time" is a partially curled up spatial dimension in the process of "uncurling" itself.
Well that is phylosophy not physics there buddy.
I almost have my welth collected from this lawsuit and il be on my way to Rome if it's done il be moving my ass first short tip to Rome check out the vibe over there I do not need a vizum I'm deutch so no need for vizum
He broer Isaac I'm not gonna let anyone woman iny bed till I know for sure thy did not cheat on me and aren't std desises
I experience 4d