Congratulations Phil. Science Communication should mimick Scientific Research in the sense that it should be held to the highest possible levels of scruitiny. Your video is clear and well supported. I just hope "the algorithm" gives it enough love as it gave the original video. Love what you do. Cheers from Morocco.
One of the things that I really like about Phil's approach is that he exemplifies the principle "Be the change you want to see in the world" ... especially for social media and popularizing science
I object to the use of the word 'lie' to include unknowingly spreading false information. That usage only clouds this discussion. Angela didn't show that they were lying. At best she showed they were in accurate in their near term predictions about string theory. It's hyperbolic in a very similar way she's accusing string theorists of being.
@ In my opinion, Greene was not clear. For example, I think you are giving him too much credit for a single "can" in a block of text that pretty much says "Einstein would have liked this but would have had concerns".
Is string theory falsifiable in theory? Yes or no. If yes, how? String theory predicts the existence of certain masive particles we don't observe due to experimental limitations. But is it falsifiable in any way? That seems to be the root of all of this.
Grand Unified Theories predicted things at much higher energies than we can access with particle accelerators, even today. It was falsified by some extremely clever, delicate experiments.
@@capnmnemo Russell’s teapot, invisible dragons in the garage and Sam Harris’s diamond the size of a refrigerator are all examples of things that aren’t falsifiable in principle, but that’s not really the point, because Warner didn’t use a woolly philosophical argument which could apply to anything, he gave specifics which apply to string theory
Well, scientists are disappointed about ST effectiveness in solving our unanswered questions up today over the last 70 years. You cannot deny this. Maybe its central initial idea was correct but its development after 30 years is discouraging. IMO after the LHC CERN's failure to discover SUSY over the last 14 years the theory was already dead or the theory is too advanced and came up too early for our era. They should try again after 50-70 years were we will by possible more technologically advanced and can do the string experiments.
I don't think string theorist will disagree that we might be 50-70 years too early, but this arguably holds for any theory of quantum gravity. Furthermore as Nicholas implied ST isn't just a theory of quantum gravity, but a broad framework for thinking about theoretical physics in general. Our modern understanding of quantum field theory owes quite a bit to the excitement of the 80s and 90s.
@@helburr Exactly ... and string theory has given the first and only cogent set of (at least partial) answers to the Information Paradox. (There are claims that loop quantum gravity gives answers to the information paradox , but these claims are overhyped, and nowhere near the level of the work in string theory).
At the very first point, she's quoting the book, and she's not wrong, superstring theory did NOT successfully merge GR and QM. Then you quote from another version, now that's being disingenuous. Angela's team here
"from another version, now that's being disingenuous" No. She quotes page xxi (2014 edition) and this video proceeds to show "a bit more from this introduction." Now, Greene did write "Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics" and everything that comes after that is surely seen by the reader as a deeper explanation of that point, but not as its essential refutation. So Greene did make a big big doo doo here.
She is wrong and superstring theory DID successfully merge GR and QM ... as far as we have been able to test this assertion theoretically. And we have make a huge number of such computational tests.
@@helburr What I believe: String theory merges GR and QFT, and it contains the Standard Model + a lot of other stuff. I am not certain what Angela believes here
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zx You're right, I may be confusing it with the issue of constructing de Sitter vacua. As for Collier's belief I think she would say that the sheer preponderance of possible solutions is a problem for the framework, not sure though. Funnily enough there's a paper called "A Quadrillion Standard Models from F-theory"
I think the crux of this discussion is hype vs lying and the social aspects of science as a whole. As stated in the video some people do hype/lie for human reasons and I think that is the main point of both discussions. I think the rest of the analysis obfuscates from this point. A similar dynamic arises when considering the opposite of hypers, skeptics. Now how much hype/lying should be attributed to them in pop science pieces is probably left to the viewer. Some people enjoy hype others enjoy skepticism and we are seeing both extremes play out in this debate.
This is a fair take. I guess the question I'd ask is where we draw a line between hype and dishonesty. If I'm an actor in a hamburger commercial and I say, "THIS IS THE BEST BURGER IN THE UNIVERSE," everyone immediately recognizes that as hype-- I'm clearly making an unreasonable claim for the sake of rhetorical impact in a space where everyone knows exactly what I'm doing. But what if I'm a famous... Burgerologist?... (let's pretend that Burgerology is a serious science, for a moment) and I'm in a seemingly serious interview, being asked to opine on what actually is the best burger? And I say, "Well, actually, there's a good chance that this particular burger is actually the best burger in the universe- even if it may not be- but it could take a century or more for us to figure that out." Is that hype? Am I lying? Am I just overstating a position I'm passionate about?
@ Great points. These are exactly the types of questions each viewer has to decide for themselves and their answers may change from subject to subject. I don’t think there is a way to have societal prescription or best practice because on the other hand what if they were right and we did have a theory of everything by 2025, would anyone look back and deride them for being too hyped in the 80s?
I don't hate string theory, as I cannot hate something that doesn't exist. Still waiting for the promised huge advancements or, at least, some hard data in support. They only have an invisible dragon in the garage.
"I cannot hate something that doesn't exist ..." I am sure you can if you try. A significant number of people hate God, for example. More seriously, string theory does exist ... disputing its existence is like arguing that electromagnetism doesn't exist. I think you need to say what you mean with greater precision.
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zx you are write. String theory exists. I don't think that strings exists, though. And, seriously, I wouldn't go so far to say that the electromagnetism doesn't exist - you, sir, are engaging in strawman-ing me.
@@adalbertred Not straw-manning, just trying to understand your perspective by illustrating possible interpretations... There is no observational evidence for string theory and so we do not have evidence that strings exist, so to that extent I agree with what you say here. However, if one asks how to build a viable quantum theory of gravity, then by far the best candidate is string theory ... given that you need to make a choice
just tell me what the string theory predict. New particles huh, then what is their mass? Super-symmetry? we haven't seen any thing that can proof SUSY.
I'm only at the beginning of the video. But I think you're already putting a red herring out here. At least in the first part it's about: Did string theory (Brian Green) lie or was he misrepresented in the video? You're comment is more about: Is string theory unlikely true as theory of reality given the evidence now? That's a different question.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos exactly, the video is about two main claims 1 string theory lied 2 this has led to a big drop in the trust of science. I maintain that neither is true, or at best, they are not shown to be true in Angela's video. if anything the evidence I looked at shows they are clearly wrong.
@@PhilHalper1 How many millions of dollars have been invested in string theory? Has the physics actually profited from all of the decades 'wasted' or money invested ? Compared to other 'theories'? I think most people talking about this 'theory' is about the financing the physics.
Good video, it was interesting to hear your comments, I do watch Angela's videos and she is good when talking about physics and often funny too, and she also gets into some social issues. So I do like her channel but I also enjoyed your review.
I quit watching her video after a couple of minutes because of that silly game she kept playing. It was way too distracting. It's hard to pay attention to someone when they aren't paying much attention themselves, so I'm glad you did pay attention and were able to shed some light on the subject.
Here's what grates me though: Greene writes an introduction to a book by Einstein. There is no particular reason why that would have to include a section on how Einstein would have liked ST, *unless* you want people to associate ST with the success of GR, and make them expect that ST will be just as successful. It is slimy. Adding the cans and coulds, as Dan Olson has it, gives off the "same energy as “no copyright infringement intended” in the description of a complete upload of Dances With Wolves to TH-cam".
If string theory was the cause of the observed decline of trust in science between 1970 and 2010, surely it would have affected liberals as much as conservatives?
exactly. Although the distrust in the last survey is more recent, there is no evidence of a decline between 1970 and 2010 that I am aware of , but if you have some, I would love to see it.
@@PhilHalper1 OK; seems it's a news item from 2012 in phys org called "Study: Conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since mid-1970s". Make of it what you will.
I mean, I don't think she ever said it was the ONLY contributing factor... And it has affected liberals too, they're just not completely braindead to obvious stuff like climate change and vaccines.
You mentioned scientists taking shortcuts in science communication, and while I understand that's necessary because science is bloody complicated, it's a breeding ground for inaccurate information. Acadmeics will often speak to the public with more certainty than they speak to each other. Historians for example usually need to be pushed to talk about the fact that their work is probabilistic. It's something they all know, but when they communicate to the public they tend to be like 'well this is what happened' rather than 'this is what probably happened given the information'. It's a subtle difference but an extremely important one when it comes to public trust in academia.
You are right ... shortcuts can be dangerous. When I use them I am also prepared to dive deeper to avoid confusion but such deep dives will make the material much harder to watch/read. As you point out, there are levels of confidence that might need nuance. I will happily state the theory of evolution or the expansion of the universe as "fact" ... no nuance needed. However, with ideas like fuzzballs, or string theory there is a much greater need for nuanced statements
I just sewed up a small hole in my coat where the down was ploofing out and getting all over the place. In sewing it back together I had to use my best understanding of string theory!🤪😁
The 4 forces can not frezee into just one - but maybe with the union of the 4 forces gravity is made as the 4 cancel each other - electro and magneto are one pair, the strong force and the weak force is another pair, this 2 pairs meet at the center of systems say galaxies that is what you call a BH.
From my perspective on Greene's remarks, it's either true that String Theory is "paving the way to the final explanation of everything" or it's one plausible avenue of research that might yield fruit at some point in the next century, if it's not just wrong. I guess maybe it's just an issue of tone-policing, and maybe some are misinterpreting Greene's genuine excitement on the topic as a more formal pronouncement of the theory's validity from an expert but, to me, it's pretty clear that he was speaking carelessly and in a way that will confuse a lay audience. Which, I think, was Collier's point?
@@PhilHalper1 There are, of course, different sorts of lies if we're willing to acknowledge the subtlety of language. I get it if you're simply interested in defending Greene's honor, but a perceived misrepresentation can colloquially be referred to as "a lie" in many contexts and I'd say this is one such.
I disagree ... string theory was not a red herring. It simply does not have effects that can be seen in the current generation of particle accelerators
If she'd read more by him (Brian Greene), I highly doubt that she'd have so easily misunderstood him. We all talk/write in different ways, even scientists. My own personal intro to theoretical physics was via his excellent books "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and coincidently "The Elegant Universe" (a pretty good summation of string/superstring theory:-)
Yeah, I mean, I just didn't get the impression from reading his books that string was a done deal or it will be done in a decade. Rather, it's an idea that excites physicists and might pay off, but it might not.
I definitely got the impression from reading Fabric that ST was the real deal and just a matter of time. But I had to reread the Bell's theorem chapter five times and still din't understand it, so I am perhaps not one to trust.
@@capnmnemo I guess that was not my impression. In fact, I recall him mentioning Loop Quantum Gravity as an alternative. possibility, which meant that isn't a done deal, very far from it.
@@PhilHalper1 Exactly. As you both go on to mention, his statement/inference was that it was theoretically/mathematically valid. Pretty obvious that it wasn't, or isn't, experimentally conclusive - otherwise, we certainly would have heard about it.
While I essentially think that string theory (directly not in its methodology) as a model of reality is dead and while I think it was never shown to be a promising candidate (in a statistical learning sense - so we should have been more sceptical than whatwas communicated), I also think Angela missed her own criteria in the first point you raised very clearly. Most comments sympathetic of her video so far seem to be emotionally along the lines of the first two points and as a general sentiment towards string theory not about the quality of her video itself (measured by her own standards).
Admittedly, I don't recall the specifics of Collier's video because I watched it nearly two years ago. That said, I think she overstated the claim clipped here (i.e. that Green lied) even if I agree with what I recall being the thrust of the content: that Greene and others have done a public disservice by vastly overstating the successes of string theory while ignoring or smoothing over its many issues, and that this probably provided fodder for further distrust in the physics community on the part of lay people.
@@shassett79 So your point is essentially my point two? I think that point and the problem I see here addressed with this video (a bad case of science communication by her own standards) is completely independent from eachother. I don't think you can count that as lying btw.. I don't think Green or others are aware of the statistics of model fitting. Other than that at that time and especially with the scientific training given (model fitting by philosophical criteria instead of maths) I don't think the shortcomings were obviously serious problems. They seemed at the time (before low energy SUSY was ruled out ...) only to be mathematical technicalities. We ignore those technicalities (Haag's theorem in QFT and the standard model for example) in other established theories even. I wouldn't phrase it as lying or misleading but more along how Sabine H. expresses it: We should learn why string theory failed and learn from it (so essentially learn model fitting criteria). [Btw. a lesson Sabine herself hasn't learned in thinking superdeterminism is something we should pursue. I however don't think she does this on purpose. It's just not so easy. We should not judge so hard.]
What you call BH its just the electromagnetic union part of all the stars forming a galaxy - There is a diagram shown in the video HALTON ARP: SEEING RED in you tube.
Erm... hypothesis a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Philosophy a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. theory a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
Small look at the channel shows she has a beef with males in sciences and some theories without looking deeper. Dwindle down the theories. Like use the variants you can also construct 3+1 versions. More dimentions acceptable if used to explain entanglement and such. Brian green is a good orator, but has clear religious bias sets showing also. With the bias sets they also come with bias blindness too. The anti male and pshing against some science and theories. Shows she is trying to set herself up as a victum when people come to challenge her thought in ways. She is not framing it all within a honest talk about things. Some variants of string theory have been falsified, but there is not just one theory. String theory has variants and some are still viable. It's nice to see people critical of theories, but when you have a whole class of theories. It's wise to know the details of them all before judging them all for one subset. How many people do you know going over the pros and cons of theories and viability. The pros and cons of QFT+G vs. string theories vs loop vs twistor, ect.. Besides M-theory you have K-theory also for viable versions. Or at least thats how I see it. If you want something to think on. All these theories ( string, TOE, GUT, twistor/icing, ect. are hidden variables variants when you think about it. Anothrr thing they are not talking about is. What contribution does gravitational waves have on quantum foam if any. I like some of the theories, but string does have some problems when framed certain ways. ( quantum eraser delayed choice, the 3 polarization trick, getting the universe as a natural cutoff, ect. ). Though the story of the big bang and inflation have problems also. No FTL in a vacuum seen. No Quantum foam/flux/scalar spike seen even close to what's needed. The superstructures that directly conflict with homogeneity, ect.. 38:08 They did put up theories and some got shot down from results, but not all. I.E. constraints ruling out models. Similar to constraints on dark matter and dark energy. 41:57 Exactly. 43:36 The multiverse theories linking to quantum or manyworlds theory gets shredded by occums razor. 45:08 You talked about the next universe over. At least thats more likely, but means it's a crazy disyance over and for a type of prebang theory. Planck as a lower bound for white hole and the universe as a natural cutoff from a larger event and spiked ring distribution like you see from quantum systems. That gets to artifacting in the universe to get probabilistic universe over. But nothing we will ever see. Might be good for students and dealing with large numbers. 54:32 Suskind seems good. He puts his religion on his shoulder and goes after the theories. I can't say that about a lot of other orators. 1:05:05 Hahaha I agree. Mitchio, Sean Carrol, Brian Green, Penrose all show religious bias sets. Mitchio even said onstage/video. Put up or shut up and his string theory version is broken. XD bad move in a way. Other teachers are better for framing possibilities from known stuff. 1:11:01 I'm more annoyed so many orators not having good honest debates about a few things. Good example isthe non problem and colapse theory. They have 2 perfectly fine solutions older than me. A couple more recent and ones just a variant of the older. So more like which one to use or argue some point. Schrodinger time dependant equations for Hydrogen and Helium but starts to go wrong/get more complex as the atomic numbers go up. ( 3 body problem expanding in completely as atomic numbers climb higher. ). But even that points towards hidden variables variant or combination. 1:22:49 The point might be no good counter argument and flawed info not hashed out in her circles. No arguments of broken symmetries and one handed neutrinos and why we need that to exist. It may sound like I'm aginst string theories. I'm not, but wish there where good talks about some of it. 1:28:26 Does she not know that person wrote a paper on a version of string theory? I don't watch that show and know that lol. 1:31:07 Witten gromov. 1:32:29 Hawking radiation amd black hole evaporation and Plank limit and end of black hole life. The radiation ramp up before it pops out of existance. A black hole is a future event cloaked in time. That version even obeys censorship. Though I've never seen people talking about some things. Fluidic neutrinos condensing into a black hole before degeneracy/melting. The virtual infinity that comes from time dilation factors that can push the core further forward in time( locked away before joining the larger space time of the universe. Also the universe being one of a few limits for black holes as weird as that may sound. 1:43:43 You don't see people arguing foliation or FTL in a medium and cherenkov radiation production and gravitational melting or counter wave or such and plankian black hole universe 12.5 light year diamiter with error bars or such. Flows, phase changes and things like the coldest becoming the hottest. 100% nuclear burn vs nuclear bombs and super novas. Antimatter and it's valley of stability. Good talk on the person and part of the field. Keep up the good work
She’s not “anti male” and you saying that is an example of the idiocy that many women have to face from men in physics and science in general. Drop that bullshit.
we arent claiming string theory is a fact if that's what you are referring to. The claim I focused o, are that the claims of lying are false , that the evidence that this led to a big decline in the trust of science is either false or(based on the data I could find) or at least isn't supported by anything in Angel's video and the claim that this disillusionment led to the cancellation of the SSC in the 1990 is impossible.
i've always loved science, i still have my "O" level physics book i stole from school when i left in 1970, i used to watch those OU programs at 2AM and i have worked as an animator on ESA projects and the 2000 BBC series "the planets". i spend more time on youtube than tv, but instead of watching everything avidly as i did a few years ago, now i tend to watch the first five minutes of a show, angela's, sabine's, brian's, penrose, cox - whatever, i give them five minutes then go off to do something else, cos why bother? i'll probably hear about one day when you have figured out a unified theory, or made your minds up if it's strings or dark pea soup or whatever - these programs never tell me anything new. in fact it's turning into "let's criticise someone cos we have no new content" which is not science at all. i mean, it really doesn't matter who is saying what cos none of you know for sure what you're talking about.
I've only seen the first point so far. But that's not nit picking to me. That's a clear misrepresentation. It would be a lie the way she stated and interpreted it, but it was just a true statement the way it was actually stated by Green. I don't think you can count something as nit picking if the answer to the title of the video flips completely.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaosthat the people that spoke of string theory were misspeaking and not capable of representing things properly to laypeople is one of the biggest parts of her critiques that two-non-layfolk can understand the books to defend him 2 decades after the book came out doesnt change how it'll come across to hobbyists/kids/lay people that want to hear aboutedges of science it's the entire point of her video. theyre picking nits
@@markd.s.8625 All you need is basic language skills. You don't have to be an expert in the discipline. The misrepresentation used was even contrasted by Green himself in the same text as he explicitly said experiments are not there yet. How can a layman that understands English then misinterpret it in the stated way?
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaosnot at all basic language skills, ive taught english as a second language and youre not right there at all. the content of words, could be literally true and yet still provide a mood that cant be kept up, there is a such a thing as being able to hype something up unduly without ever uttering a statement that is a lie. but the outlook it gives on string theory not just by itself but also pushed along with how it's spoken elsewhere where it's more driven by the profit motive.
@6:18 You are not responding to Collier's actual point by saying "Brian Greene never claimed string theory was tested." You are just splitting hairs about the definition of lying. This is not a fact-checking video at all.
I mean... the video they're replying to is nearly two years old. If you think it represents Collier delving into tabloid science she decided to do it a long time ago.
The problem of quantum gravity is that it totally ignores the best proven theory ever: General Relativity, and wants to start again from Newtonian scratch because of reasons... "quantum reasons". That's not how you do science, sry.
This is junk. I don't understand why these two characters are laughing the whole time? This was a legitimate critique of String Theory by Angela Collier. Oh....yeah, I do know why, but just like string theory, I understand it but I cannot confirm it.
@@PhilHalper1 I was also very disappointed when the SSC was cancelled. If we built the SSC, then we could have discovered the Higgs 20 years earlier and also abandoned supersymmetry and string theory 20 years earlier.
@@PhilHalper1 I love your channel. And also @acollierastro. This is a hit piece. I think that you and I might both agree that the community needs a conference to work out what direction we are going to go forward. Loop Quantum Gravity is not it. And String Theory isn't it either. Someone of influence should get the minds together to at least carve a path. Nobody is doing that. Who can make that happen? I think that's what the point of the critique is.
@@matthewdarr574 Thanks for the positive comment. I have been to conferences where different viewpoints regarding quantum gravity are represented. So these conferences actually do take place, but I can't imagine how that would decide things. Perhaps you can fill that out more?
@@orsonzedd He is defending _accurate representation of reality_ and pointing out weak points and factually unsupported generalizations in Collier's video
@notanemoprog "guys guys if we just had a particle accelerator 2AU in diameter we could prove that the universe is made of strings and that means absolutely nothing"
Congratulations Phil. Science Communication should mimick Scientific Research in the sense that it should be held to the highest possible levels of scruitiny. Your video is clear and well supported. I just hope "the algorithm" gives it enough love as it gave the original video. Love what you do. Cheers from Morocco.
thanks so much
One of the things that I really like about Phil's approach is that he exemplifies the principle "Be the change you want to see in the world" ... especially for social media and popularizing science
I object to the use of the word 'lie' to include unknowingly spreading false information. That usage only clouds this discussion. Angela didn't show that they were lying. At best she showed they were in accurate in their near term predictions about string theory. It's hyperbolic in a very similar way she's accusing string theorists of being.
but did she even do that? Greene was very clear in my opinion, that it could take a century or more to truly know if string theory is right.
3:37 "You lied!"
@ In my opinion, Greene was not clear. For example, I think you are giving him too much credit for a single "can" in a block of text that pretty much says "Einstein would have liked this but would have had concerns".
As the guy who never wrote a book said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool."
Is string theory falsifiable in theory? Yes or no. If yes, how? String theory predicts the existence of certain masive particles we don't observe due to experimental limitations. But is it falsifiable in any way? That seems to be the root of all of this.
@@rachelfey 100%
This was answered in the video. He stated clearly how it is falsifiable in principle
@@DanielDennett-l9n Although. Everything is falsifiable in principle.
Grand Unified Theories predicted things at much higher energies than we can access with particle accelerators, even today. It was falsified by some extremely clever, delicate experiments.
@@capnmnemo Russell’s teapot, invisible dragons in the garage and Sam Harris’s diamond the size of a refrigerator are all examples of things that aren’t falsifiable in principle, but that’s not really the point, because Warner didn’t use a woolly philosophical argument which could apply to anything, he gave specifics which apply to string theory
31:32 sigh. My dude, she just said EXACTLY what she means by a theory. Stop equivocating.
That "debate" between Rovelli and Gross perfectly illustrated why people hate string theorists. Gross's condescending attitude was appalling.
I think that much of the point of this video is to try to get beyond such stereotypes and blanket condemnations of a large group of people ...
@ Yes exactly my thoughts.
Actually gross went like knife through butter and he won
Exactly who are these "people"?
It's funny how many people who have no understanding of fundamental physics for some reason have very strong opinions on string theory.
Nice fallaciuous ad-hominem attack.
is she playing the binding of isaac while talking about something this technical???
I think so
What a queen I love her so much
I like her videos so much. She has a great sense of humour (in my opinion).
What are her contributions to physics?
@@Olgird You can read her papers.
Well, scientists are disappointed about ST effectiveness in solving our unanswered questions up today over the last 70 years. You cannot deny this. Maybe its central initial idea was correct but its development after 30 years is discouraging. IMO after the LHC CERN's failure to discover SUSY over the last 14 years the theory was already dead or the theory is too advanced and came up too early for our era. They should try again after 50-70 years were we will by possible more technologically advanced and can do the string experiments.
I agree that was a disappointment. But would you have said the same about the failure to find parallax for the heliocentric theory?
The same argument could be made about ignoring black holes in 1783 (John Michel) or 1917 (Karl Schwarzschild)...
I don't think string theorist will disagree that we might be 50-70 years too early, but this arguably holds for any theory of quantum gravity. Furthermore as Nicholas implied ST isn't just a theory of quantum gravity, but a broad framework for thinking about theoretical physics in general. Our modern understanding of quantum field theory owes quite a bit to the excitement of the 80s and 90s.
@@helburr Thank you ... that is precisely the point about string theory.
@@helburr Exactly ... and string theory has given the first and only cogent set of (at least partial) answers to the Information Paradox. (There are claims that loop quantum gravity gives answers to the information paradox , but these claims are overhyped, and nowhere near the level of the work in string theory).
At the very first point, she's quoting the book, and she's not wrong, superstring theory did NOT successfully merge GR and QM. Then you quote from another version, now that's being disingenuous.
Angela's team here
"from another version, now that's being disingenuous"
No. She quotes page xxi (2014 edition) and this video proceeds to show "a bit more from this introduction." Now, Greene did write "Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics" and everything that comes after that is surely seen by the reader as a deeper explanation of that point, but not as its essential refutation. So Greene did make a big big doo doo here.
She is wrong and superstring theory DID successfully merge GR and QM ... as far as we have been able to test this assertion theoretically. And we have make a huge number of such computational tests.
GR has definitely been merged with QFT, just not the Standard Model yet. Is that what Angela is trying to say?
@@helburr What I believe: String theory merges GR and QFT, and it contains the Standard Model + a lot of other stuff. I am not certain what Angela believes here
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zx You're right, I may be confusing it with the issue of constructing de Sitter vacua. As for Collier's belief I think she would say that the sheer preponderance of possible solutions is a problem for the framework, not sure though. Funnily enough there's a paper called "A Quadrillion Standard Models from F-theory"
I think the crux of this discussion is hype vs lying and the social aspects of science as a whole. As stated in the video some people do hype/lie for human reasons and I think that is the main point of both discussions. I think the rest of the analysis obfuscates from this point. A similar dynamic arises when considering the opposite of hypers, skeptics.
Now how much hype/lying should be attributed to them in pop science pieces is probably left to the viewer. Some people enjoy hype others enjoy skepticism and we are seeing both extremes play out in this debate.
This is a fair take. I guess the question I'd ask is where we draw a line between hype and dishonesty. If I'm an actor in a hamburger commercial and I say, "THIS IS THE BEST BURGER IN THE UNIVERSE," everyone immediately recognizes that as hype-- I'm clearly making an unreasonable claim for the sake of rhetorical impact in a space where everyone knows exactly what I'm doing.
But what if I'm a famous... Burgerologist?... (let's pretend that Burgerology is a serious science, for a moment) and I'm in a seemingly serious interview, being asked to opine on what actually is the best burger? And I say, "Well, actually, there's a good chance that this particular burger is actually the best burger in the universe- even if it may not be- but it could take a century or more for us to figure that out." Is that hype? Am I lying? Am I just overstating a position I'm passionate about?
@ Great points. These are exactly the types of questions each viewer has to decide for themselves and their answers may change from subject to subject.
I don’t think there is a way to have societal prescription or best practice because on the other hand what if they were right and we did have a theory of everything by 2025, would anyone look back and deride them for being too hyped in the 80s?
Clickbait is "hype" or "lying"? That's the question, because String Theory popularizers did make a lot of clickbait TBH.
I don't hate string theory, as I cannot hate something that doesn't exist. Still waiting for the promised huge advancements or, at least, some hard data in support. They only have an invisible dragon in the garage.
Sadly the universe does not give a damn about us humans and what we wish or hope for.
"I cannot hate something that doesn't exist ..." I am sure you can if you try. A significant number of people hate God, for example. More seriously, string theory does exist ... disputing its existence is like arguing that electromagnetism doesn't exist. I think you need to say what you mean with greater precision.
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zx you are write. String theory exists. I don't think that strings exists, though. And, seriously, I wouldn't go so far to say that the electromagnetism doesn't exist - you, sir, are engaging in strawman-ing me.
@@adalbertred Not straw-manning, just trying to understand your perspective by illustrating possible interpretations... There is no observational evidence for string theory and so we do not have evidence that strings exist, so to that extent I agree with what you say here. However, if one asks how to build a viable quantum theory of gravity, then by far the best candidate is string theory ... given that you need to make a choice
@ what if there is no quantum theory of gravity?
Thank you so much for making this. You guys are phenomenal science communicators. Angela's video ironically made science communication harder.
You are welcome. Appreciate the comment.
just tell me what the string theory predict. New particles huh, then what is their mass? Super-symmetry? we haven't seen any thing that can proof SUSY.
I'm only at the beginning of the video. But I think you're already putting a red herring out here.
At least in the first part it's about:
Did string theory (Brian Green) lie or was he misrepresented in the video?
You're comment is more about:
Is string theory unlikely true as theory of reality given the evidence now? That's a different question.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos exactly, the video is about two main claims 1 string theory lied 2 this has led to a big drop in the trust of science. I maintain that neither is true, or at best, they are not shown to be true in Angela's video. if anything the evidence I looked at shows they are clearly wrong.
Their mass is 10^{19} GeV ... that is, the Planck or String scale.
@@PhilHalper1 How many millions of dollars have been invested in string theory?
Has the physics actually profited from all of the decades 'wasted' or money invested ? Compared to other 'theories'?
I think most people talking about this 'theory' is about the financing the physics.
@@schm00b0@schm00b0 Research in string theory is pretty cheap, is my guess.
Good video, it was interesting to hear your comments, I do watch Angela's videos and she is good when talking about physics and often funny too, and she also gets into some social issues. So I do like her channel but I also enjoyed your review.
thanks
I quit watching her video after a couple of minutes because of that silly game she kept playing. It was way too distracting. It's hard to pay attention to someone when they aren't paying much attention themselves, so I'm glad you did pay attention and were able to shed some light on the subject.
Here's what grates me though: Greene writes an introduction to a book by Einstein. There is no particular reason why that would have to include a section on how Einstein would have liked ST, *unless* you want people to associate ST with the success of GR, and make them expect that ST will be just as successful. It is slimy.
Adding the cans and coulds, as Dan Olson has it, gives off the "same energy as “no copyright infringement intended” in the description of a complete upload of Dances With Wolves to TH-cam".
If string theory was the cause of the observed decline of trust in science between 1970 and 2010, surely it would have affected liberals as much as conservatives?
exactly. Although the distrust in the last survey is more recent, there is no evidence of a decline between 1970 and 2010 that I am aware of , but if you have some, I would love to see it.
@@PhilHalper1 It is from memory, so it could be a garbage article for all I know. Let me consult my Zotero.
@@PhilHalper1 OK; seems it's a news item from 2012 in phys org called "Study: Conservatives' trust in science has fallen dramatically since mid-1970s". Make of it what you will.
@@capnmnemo ah ok thanks , thats very interesting.
I mean, I don't think she ever said it was the ONLY contributing factor... And it has affected liberals too, they're just not completely braindead to obvious stuff like climate change and vaccines.
You mentioned scientists taking shortcuts in science communication, and while I understand that's necessary because science is bloody complicated, it's a breeding ground for inaccurate information. Acadmeics will often speak to the public with more certainty than they speak to each other. Historians for example usually need to be pushed to talk about the fact that their work is probabilistic. It's something they all know, but when they communicate to the public they tend to be like 'well this is what happened' rather than 'this is what probably happened given the information'. It's a subtle difference but an extremely important one when it comes to public trust in academia.
You are right ... shortcuts can be dangerous. When I use them I am also prepared to dive deeper to avoid confusion but such deep dives will make the material much harder to watch/read. As you point out, there are levels of confidence that might need nuance. I will happily state the theory of evolution or the expansion of the universe as "fact" ... no nuance needed. However, with ideas like fuzzballs, or string theory there is a much greater need for nuanced statements
@@NicholasWarner-wc9zxIt's a tough line to walk, but it's worth walking.
Zigactly
How would you criticize string theory philosophically?
I just sewed up a small hole in my coat where the down was ploofing out and getting all over the place. In sewing it back together I had to use my best understanding of string theory!🤪😁
Dad stahhp
@@shassett79 No, I really did sew up a hole in my coat. The quantum strings forced me to write that! It was quantum-gravitational!
The 4 forces can not frezee into just one - but maybe with the union of the 4 forces gravity is made as the 4 cancel each other - electro and magneto are one pair, the strong force and the weak force is another pair, this 2 pairs meet at the center of systems say galaxies that is what you call a BH.
From my perspective on Greene's remarks, it's either true that String Theory is "paving the way to the final explanation of everything" or it's one plausible avenue of research that might yield fruit at some point in the next century, if it's not just wrong.
I guess maybe it's just an issue of tone-policing, and maybe some are misinterpreting Greene's genuine excitement on the topic as a more formal pronouncement of the theory's validity from an expert but, to me, it's pretty clear that he was speaking carelessly and in a way that will confuse a lay audience. Which, I think, was Collier's point?
Don't you think her point was that he lied? Is that the same as being excited?
@@PhilHalper1 There are, of course, different sorts of lies if we're willing to acknowledge the subtlety of language. I get it if you're simply interested in defending Greene's honor, but a perceived misrepresentation can colloquially be referred to as "a lie" in many contexts and I'd say this is one such.
Both Greene and Collier are excited
Bummer string theory was a red herring; just how science goes sometimes.
I disagree ... string theory was not a red herring. It simply does not have effects that can be seen in the current generation of particle accelerators
If she'd read more by him (Brian Greene), I highly doubt that she'd have so easily misunderstood him.
We all talk/write in different ways, even scientists.
My own personal intro to theoretical physics was via his excellent books "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and coincidently "The Elegant Universe" (a pretty good summation of string/superstring theory:-)
Yeah, I mean, I just didn't get the impression from reading his books that string was a done deal or it will be done in a decade. Rather, it's an idea that excites physicists and might pay off, but it might not.
I definitely got the impression from reading Fabric that ST was the real deal and just a matter of time. But I had to reread the Bell's theorem chapter five times and still din't understand it, so I am perhaps not one to trust.
@@capnmnemo I guess that was not my impression. In fact, I recall him mentioning Loop Quantum Gravity as an alternative. possibility, which meant that isn't a done deal, very far from it.
@ I took LQG as being used as contrast to the wonderful strings, but it's been two decades, I can't swear to anything.
@@PhilHalper1 Exactly. As you both go on to mention, his statement/inference was that it was theoretically/mathematically valid.
Pretty obvious that it wasn't, or isn't, experimentally conclusive - otherwise, we certainly would have heard about it.
mmh as a Angela Subscriber i will listen to those two string sympathizers. but skeptically :D
This seems fair.
If you are sympathetic to what she says can you provide some evidence to back up the claim that people no longer trusted physicists in the 2010's?
I'm sympathetic to the idea that string theory might be right, that is all.
@ no
Dude if shrink Theory had any predictive power you wouldn't have to be the one defending it. String theorists could do that @@PhilHalper1
While I essentially think that string theory (directly not in its methodology) as a model of reality is dead
and while I think it was never shown to be a promising candidate (in a statistical learning sense - so we should have been more sceptical than whatwas communicated),
I also think Angela missed her own criteria in the first point you raised very clearly.
Most comments sympathetic of her video so far seem to be emotionally along the lines of the first two points and as a general sentiment towards string theory not about the quality of her video itself (measured by her own standards).
Admittedly, I don't recall the specifics of Collier's video because I watched it nearly two years ago. That said, I think she overstated the claim clipped here (i.e. that Green lied) even if I agree with what I recall being the thrust of the content: that Greene and others have done a public disservice by vastly overstating the successes of string theory while ignoring or smoothing over its many issues, and that this probably provided fodder for further distrust in the physics community on the part of lay people.
@@shassett79
So your point is essentially my point two?
I think that point and the problem I see here addressed with this video (a bad case of science communication by her own standards) is completely independent from eachother.
I don't think you can count that as lying btw..
I don't think Green or others are aware of the statistics of model fitting. Other than that at that time and especially with the scientific training given (model fitting by philosophical criteria instead of maths) I don't think the shortcomings were obviously serious problems. They seemed at the time (before low energy SUSY was ruled out ...) only to be mathematical technicalities.
We ignore those technicalities (Haag's theorem in QFT and the standard model for example) in other established theories even.
I wouldn't phrase it as lying or misleading but more along how Sabine H. expresses it:
We should learn why string theory failed and learn from it (so essentially learn model fitting criteria). [Btw. a lesson Sabine herself hasn't learned in thinking superdeterminism is something we should pursue. I however don't think she does this on purpose. It's just not so easy. We should not judge so hard.]
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos Fair enough!
@@shassett79 any evidence of a big decline in trust in science caused by string theory? I haven't seen any, and Collier didn't provide any.
What you call BH its just the electromagnetic union part of all the stars forming a galaxy - There is a diagram shown in the video HALTON ARP: SEEING RED in you tube.
Erm...
hypothesis
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Philosophy
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
theory
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
Small look at the channel shows she has a beef with males in sciences and some theories without looking deeper. Dwindle down the theories. Like use the variants you can also construct 3+1 versions. More dimentions acceptable if used to explain entanglement and such. Brian green is a good orator, but has clear religious bias sets showing also. With the bias sets they also come with bias blindness too.
The anti male and pshing against some science and theories. Shows she is trying to set herself up as a victum when people come to challenge her thought in ways. She is not framing it all within a honest talk about things. Some variants of string theory have been falsified, but there is not just one theory. String theory has variants and some are still viable. It's nice to see people critical of theories, but when you have a whole class of theories. It's wise to know the details of them all before judging them all for one subset.
How many people do you know going over the pros and cons of theories and viability. The pros and cons of QFT+G vs. string theories vs loop vs twistor, ect..
Besides M-theory you have K-theory also for viable versions. Or at least thats how I see it.
If you want something to think on. All these theories ( string, TOE, GUT, twistor/icing, ect. are hidden variables variants when you think about it. Anothrr thing they are not talking about is. What contribution does gravitational waves have on quantum foam if any.
I like some of the theories, but string does have some problems when framed certain ways. ( quantum eraser delayed choice, the 3 polarization trick, getting the universe as a natural cutoff, ect. ). Though the story of the big bang and inflation have problems also. No FTL in a vacuum seen. No Quantum foam/flux/scalar spike seen even close to what's needed. The superstructures that directly conflict with homogeneity, ect.. 38:08 They did put up theories and some got shot down from results, but not all. I.E. constraints ruling out models. Similar to constraints on dark matter and dark energy. 41:57 Exactly.
43:36 The multiverse theories linking to quantum or manyworlds theory gets shredded by occums razor. 45:08 You talked about the next universe over. At least thats more likely, but means it's a crazy disyance over and for a type of prebang theory. Planck as a lower bound for white hole and the universe as a natural cutoff from a larger event and spiked ring distribution like you see from quantum systems. That gets to artifacting in the universe to get probabilistic universe over. But nothing we will ever see. Might be good for students and dealing with large numbers. 54:32 Suskind seems good. He puts his religion on his shoulder and goes after the theories. I can't say that about a lot of other orators.
1:05:05 Hahaha I agree. Mitchio, Sean Carrol, Brian Green, Penrose all show religious bias sets. Mitchio even said onstage/video. Put up or shut up and his string theory version is broken. XD bad move in a way. Other teachers are better for framing possibilities from known stuff. 1:11:01 I'm more annoyed so many orators not having good honest debates about a few things. Good example isthe non problem and colapse theory. They have 2 perfectly fine solutions older than me. A couple more recent and ones just a variant of the older. So more like which one to use or argue some point. Schrodinger time dependant equations for Hydrogen and Helium but starts to go wrong/get more complex as the atomic numbers go up. ( 3 body problem expanding in completely as atomic numbers climb higher. ). But even that points towards hidden variables variant or combination. 1:22:49 The point might be no good counter argument and flawed info not hashed out in her circles. No arguments of broken symmetries and one handed neutrinos and why we need that to exist. It may sound like I'm aginst string theories. I'm not, but wish there where good talks about some of it. 1:28:26 Does she not know that person wrote a paper on a version of string theory? I don't watch that show and know that lol. 1:31:07 Witten gromov.
1:32:29 Hawking radiation amd black hole evaporation and Plank limit and end of black hole life. The radiation ramp up before it pops out of existance. A black hole is a future event cloaked in time. That version even obeys censorship. Though I've never seen people talking about some things. Fluidic neutrinos condensing into a black hole before degeneracy/melting. The virtual infinity that comes from time dilation factors that can push the core further forward in time( locked away before joining the larger space time of the universe. Also the universe being one of a few limits for black holes as weird as that may sound.
1:43:43 You don't see people arguing foliation or FTL in a medium and cherenkov radiation production and gravitational melting or counter wave or such and plankian black hole universe 12.5 light year diamiter with error bars or such. Flows, phase changes and things like the coldest becoming the hottest. 100% nuclear burn vs nuclear bombs and super novas. Antimatter and it's valley of stability.
Good talk on the person and part of the field. Keep up the good work
She’s not “anti male” and you saying that is an example of the idiocy that many women have to face from men in physics and science in general. Drop that bullshit.
Shouldn't the "fact-checker" first come up with the FACTS before he/she rants about stuff that is not fact-checkable yet?
we arent claiming string theory is a fact if that's what you are referring to. The claim I focused o, are that the claims of lying are false , that the evidence that this led to a big decline in the trust of science is either false or(based on the data I could find) or at least isn't supported by anything in Angel's video and the claim that this disillusionment led to the cancellation of the SSC in the 1990 is impossible.
@@PhilHalper1 "i dont know if there's a forest but look at these trees"
The standard model is not that standard cause comes with out gravity same as relativity not to say any other like string etc.
i've always loved science, i still have my "O" level physics book i stole from school when i left in 1970, i used to watch those OU programs at 2AM and i have worked as an animator on ESA projects and the 2000 BBC series "the planets". i spend more time on youtube than tv, but instead of watching everything avidly as i did a few years ago, now i tend to watch the first five minutes of a show, angela's, sabine's, brian's, penrose, cox - whatever, i give them five minutes then go off to do something else, cos why bother? i'll probably hear about one day when you have figured out a unified theory, or made your minds up if it's strings or dark pea soup or whatever - these programs never tell me anything new. in fact it's turning into "let's criticise someone cos we have no new content" which is not science at all. i mean, it really doesn't matter who is saying what cos none of you know for sure what you're talking about.
Thanks for your comment, we dont claim to know and that is kind of the point
@@PhilHalper1 i love your shows, but get back to me when we know what's going on.....
Nothing is true, all people are equally confused: these are consistent world views, but do not accurately capture the state of science
12mins in and ive seen you two picking nits so far.
i hope you enjoy the nits, i guess?
I've only seen the first point so far. But that's not nit picking to me. That's a clear misrepresentation.
It would be a lie the way she stated and interpreted it, but it was just a true statement the way it was actually stated by Green.
I don't think you can count something as nit picking if the answer to the title of the video flips completely.
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaosthat the people that spoke of string theory were misspeaking and not capable of representing things properly to laypeople is one of the biggest parts of her critiques
that two-non-layfolk can understand the books to defend him 2 decades after the book came out doesnt change how it'll come across to hobbyists/kids/lay people that want to hear aboutedges of science
it's the entire point of her video.
theyre picking nits
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaos exactly , thanks
@@markd.s.8625
All you need is basic language skills. You don't have to be an expert in the discipline.
The misrepresentation used was even contrasted by Green himself in the same text as he explicitly said experiments are not there yet.
How can a layman that understands English then misinterpret it in the stated way?
@@tofu-munchingCoalition.ofChaosnot at all basic language skills, ive taught english as a second language and youre not right there at all.
the content of words, could be literally true and yet still provide a mood that cant be kept up, there is a such a thing as being able to hype something up unduly without ever uttering a statement that is a lie.
but the outlook it gives on string theory not just by itself but also pushed along with how it's spoken elsewhere where it's more driven by the profit motive.
No boy, I am with Angela on this one. Cheers.
Did you watch our video?
@marcosgonza Does that mean you think she substantiated her claims and that any reasonable person would understand and agree with her reasoning?
@6:18 You are not responding to Collier's actual point by saying "Brian Greene never claimed string theory was tested." You are just splitting hairs about the definition of lying. This is not a fact-checking video at all.
@@nonobviousbeing that's was one her major points
"not even wrong"
Disappointing that Angela has decided to go down the tabloid science route, but we know why this happens it pays better.
I mean... the video they're replying to is nearly two years old. If you think it represents Collier delving into tabloid science she decided to do it a long time ago.
@@shassett79 why does that matter?
@@PhilHalper1 It matters only insofar as @nrosko bemoans what they imply is a recent decision on Collier's part.
@@PhilHalper1 And now you've pinned this attack on Collier's character? Really? You're better than that.
@@shassett79 guilty as charged, i did think it was more of a recent direction.
30:00
The problem of quantum gravity is that it totally ignores the best proven theory ever: General Relativity, and wants to start again from Newtonian scratch because of reasons... "quantum reasons". That's not how you do science, sry.
She's sort of in the same category as a more science literate flat earthier!
Chase those grants
Tankyo fill tong revel sting thery inventored scienceman do befuddled tac tic deny wisdom crater
This is junk. I don't understand why these two characters are laughing the whole time? This was a legitimate critique of String Theory by Angela Collier. Oh....yeah, I do know why, but just like string theory, I understand it but I cannot confirm it.
How is her claim that SSC was canceled in 1993 because of disillusionment with string theory in the 2010s legitimate?
@@PhilHalper1 I was also very disappointed when the SSC was cancelled. If we built the SSC, then we could have discovered the Higgs 20 years earlier and also abandoned supersymmetry and string theory 20 years earlier.
@ That does not answer the question I asked.
@@PhilHalper1 I love your channel. And also @acollierastro. This is a hit piece. I think that you and I might both agree that the community needs a conference to work out what direction we are going to go forward. Loop Quantum Gravity is not it. And String Theory isn't it either. Someone of influence should get the minds together to at least carve a path. Nobody is doing that. Who can make that happen? I think that's what the point of the critique is.
@@matthewdarr574 Thanks for the positive comment. I have been to conferences where different viewpoints regarding quantum gravity are represented. So these conferences actually do take place, but I can't imagine how that would decide things. Perhaps you can fill that out more?
I can't even listen to her voice, the sarcasm is worthless..
There is no problem … she becomes part of the problem … 😂
Listen I've loved your content over the years but I can't be subscribed to a person who defends string theory
He actually defends ethics in science journalism
@notanemoprog And defending string theory is unethical, HTH
Well that’s dogmatic
@@orsonzedd He is defending _accurate representation of reality_ and pointing out weak points and factually unsupported generalizations in Collier's video
@notanemoprog "guys guys if we just had a particle accelerator 2AU in diameter we could prove that the universe is made of strings and that means absolutely nothing"