Do you agree wihth Penrose, Weinstein, or Greene? Let us know in the comments below! To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?TH-cam&+comment
I personally am against string theory I think it overcomplicates a simple problem quantising gravity.I believe loop quantum gravity or other similar theories are more viable and if they can be improved and corrected they might someday lead to a solution on this problem.
LQG is also an overcomplication. Gravity is a weak attraction and a relative repulsion. You need to understand subatomic physics(particle mechanics) to understand that there is only one principle and one force (spins and charges).
Why use the word string about something that they don't define as a string? Hilarious :) A string is a mechanical vibrant. The energy moves circularly around a guitar string for example, once in a vibrating state. Abstract virtualities aren't strings ,and if there are any subparticle or subquarky strings, you can be sure they must have energy or mass or similar in order to behave as a string....
No doubt his career helped him. He used his brain aggressively his whole life. That helps to keep some fatal neurological disorders at bay. Though a lot of it is just genetics.
@@Parasmunt No, no, no and no. Some counterexamples. Oscar Zariski, known for algebraic geometry died of Alzheimers, Claude Shannon, of information theory did too. Abdus Salam died of Parkinsons. What about just being gentle to yourself?.
Im just a measly engineering student, so I'm just incredibly grateful to be able to watch discussions like these for free, in the comfort of my home. 100 years ago, you would have had to go to this event in person. We can learn so much these days, with such little effort as long as we have the interest.
@@maxrebo1141 40 years ago it took me about 2 hours single trip per public transport to get to mass lectures at my university. Or look up information, only 09:00 - 17:00 hours, instead of the middle of the night.
I think Sabine Hossenfelder had a great point that, as much as some physicists seem to insist on it, there is no requirement that the math behind physics has to be beautiful. It may well be that the math behind physics is ugly and clunky.
@@dancahill9585That's a very good point by her. I think we got spoiled by Newtonian Physics and now expect every other theory to be just as beautiful/deterministic.
@@michaelhill6451to be fair the only reason why Newtonian Physics looks good, is because of Leibniz, we are using his notation. And also, Newton did not define force, he defined impulse of motion and his original definitions were ugly as hell. It was the application of Leibnizs notation and formulation of the underlying math that gave us the current form of the equations.
@5piles why would you believe weinstein the cry baby? Were you there? People live on stories. I've heard Bret and Eric are becoming cuckoo. I'm right cuz I say it. Believe me people. Why not? I
The important thing to notice here is that physical science communications are so focused on string theory and cosmology that the entire physics community is living under its shadows. We have fantastic and rigorous theoretical physics in Non equilibrium statistical physics, condensed matter physics, quantum optics, new emerging branches of physics like (Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics). There are several great experimental things going on !!! But people are kept under the rock of string theory !!
True... but no offense... we haven't even solved Ising spins, yet, so it's not like other fields of physics haven't met their theorist's breaking points early and often. The mathematicians have the ultimate example for that phenomenon in the Collatz conjecture. It doesn't take much at all to come up with very hard to solve problems. Should these things suck all the air out of the room? No, not really. I think we can agree about that.
@@lepidoptera9337 There have been breaking points in several places in many domains but you see the scope of science communications. Condensed Matter people are doing stuff that is useful in real life. They have come far from the Hubbard model and now they are using hybrid models to describe stuffs that are evident in real experiments. But people have hardly heard about Metal Insulator Transition!!! Whereas many avid scientific readers know of Bekenstein - Hawking entropy. Do you think metal insulator transition isn't fascinating? There all sorts of phase transitions happening irl which are just as much fascinating! The idea of universality classes, scaling etc. are fascinating. But their coverage in science communications is 0.
My prediction: give it a decade or two after Roger passes away and then his gravitational self-collapse theory will become the norm. Right now the theories are tied to egos and grants and we need that generation to retire... no one wants to admit that someone 'living' got the best theory. Roger's ideas seem the most parsimonious and closest to Occam's razor, and explain multiple mysteries at once. Even if it's not correct on the details, the general geometric framework solving the measurement problem is very appealing.
I agree with the conclusion and with the Occam's razor argument (because Penrose started from principles not because he gave a solution of the measurement problem). I (a mathematician) was convinced for a long time that the measurement problem is an actual problem. Now I'm extremely sure it's just not there. The Schrödinger equation just describes everything that happens if you put everything in it. You can derive the Born rule from the Schrödinger equation. You can derive non-determinism for observers governed by the Schröder equation. It's all in the mathematics. The reason I changed my mind was when I realised that the non-cloning theorem makes restrictions what observers governed by the Schrödinger equation can observe.
Fair in theory, however in practice, "that generation" (egos) tied to "that bucket of money" (grants) never sees cessation, the torch merely gets passed- a quick view of political governance should serve sufficiently illustrative. It will spiral into madness and entropy as with all things, though I assume you meant this in hope so instead may we perhaps not apply Occam's but instead Hanlon's razor here.
I appreciate Eric who suddenly goes into the esoteric problems with a fury and clarity delineating the massive issues and laying out the lock out. When someone has the courage to say what needs to be said I am all for it.
Yes but you must always be a skeptic. Don't just suck in everything emotionally as if it was true or knowledgeable. If you are like that ,you will waste your fortune or life on only entertainment (a consumer) or end up in church, or easily be tricked by money fraudsters (becoming more and more creative ; in Norway they call old ladies and say they are from the police or helping poor children in war zones, "send me all your cash". Old ladies in rural Norway grew up in an age of mutual trust and very little crime. They are easy targets). In a similar way ,the generally consuming public today is equally an easy prey for charlatans posing as scholars, for religions and extreme political groups. Most people have no training in science and skepticism. Most have a barely average IQ.
What they were doing is great in the sense that at least they find time to congregate and do some small talk purely to entertain themselves. For it is written that no human mind is capable to grasp not even a single principle of creation, the nature of the universe wasn't meant to understand by any negligible matter in it FOREVER!!! Let's go!
" I love these types of discussions...I can't get enough of these types of discussions" ? No human talks like this...both comments managed to avoid saying a single thing remotely related to the video .😂 You guys need to find a different bot farm with a better AI model because this one is SHITE!
Greene puts the cart before the horse! He says if Einstein hadn't described general relativity then string theory would have revealed it, but that's because string theory arose from an attempt to reconcile general relativity with the quantum world! Since he and others like him worked backwards from gravity and the quantum it would be extraordinary if those two foundations were NOT discovered. BUT it doesn't mean it's real or useful. I can never understand anything Weinstein says, but almost everything Roger Penrose says makes sense, and I love his books. Doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but if there is a battle I'm with Roger.
A new metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science is needed to get out of the "crisis of understanding" (J. Horgan). And to understand means "to grasp the structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). I will add - the primordial / basic ontological structure of the Reality (the Universe), which is the same for the entire system of knowledge. More than a quarter of a century ago, mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of a "Self- Aware Universe" In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set forth in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning"...
To "reconcile" quantum theory and general relativity is to cross the "hedgehog" with the "snake". Both theories are phenomenological (parametric, "effective") theories without ontological justification /substantiation (ontological basification). Any theory that claims to be called "fundamental" must be ontologically based. It is necessary to build a new metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology). A.N. Whitehead: "A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."
I love how the argument was made, that String Theory points to a suspicion, that the count of available dimensions is not a fundamental thing in the universe.
Let's do not and let's be grateful for the this snippet of fire in the community! So they discuss string theory’s effort to tackle the age-old issue of combining QP with GR, centred around gravity. Thing is, we don't need string theory for that. Let me show the community how to correctly connect QP and GR via gravity using 8 steps. Step 1) First of all, if we want to explain gravity to the full, we must distinguish and explain the 2 effects gravity has on spacetime (ST) around restmass; it causes ST to be both contracTED and contracTING at the same time. I will shortly prove the first effect is the ‘real’ effect and the second is the compensating ‘imaginary’ effect coming from QP. Step 2). There is no such thing as ‘restmass’. Restmass is a collection of trillions of vibrating and speeding subatomic particles, each individually having an effect on surrounding ST as per Einstein’s Special relativity (SR)which is the deeper underlying theory as opposed to the mere geometry of GR. Step 3) Redefine equivalence relations; Penrose always stresses we must substitute E=hf (Planck) into E=MC2 (Einstein) to get the actual equivalence relation, namely that mass fundamentally equals frequency or inversed time (or 'clock') in the subatomic world. Likewise, Energy is equivalent to inverse space (or 'Grid') in the QP world. If we understand this, we are ready so solve everything; Step 4) We now need to go back to the spacetime diagram of Special Relativity and a) draw a mass axis opposite to the time axis, next b) draw an energy axis opposite to the space axis and next c) draw an energymass vector opposite to the spacetime vector. THIS is the correct balance between the spacetime quadrant and the energymass (QP) quadrant. Step 5) what does SR now tell us? It tells us that when you speed you contract frontal space and time and you wrap this fabric in standing wave of integers or ‘QUANTA’ of windings around the speeding object thus increasing the speeding’s object mass (inverse time) and energy (inverse space). THIS is how spacetime and the quantized QP world are linked! Step 6) since restmass is a collection of UNALIGNED linear mini-ST vector contractions, this explains why ST is contracTED radially around restmass, which is half of what we needed to do. Step 7) On the other side in the energymass quadrant meanwhile, the motion vector opposite to the ST motion vector also has an effect. Here speed is defined as E/kg or [Nm/kg=m2/s2=gamma C2]. The entire motion formula thus E=MC2. Since both motion vectors must cancel out, this means the C2 speed in the Energymass quadrant must cancel a C speed in the ST` quadrant. This can only happen when we insert i2=-1 in the QP quadrant. This is why mathematics must have complex numbers. Step 8) now finally we realise that the speed vector of -J/kg is interpreted as its equivalent -m2/s2 imaginary accelerating grid contraction in the ST quadrant. This explains why ST is also contracTING around restmass. With this we have completely explained gravity as a pure SPEED related effect AND we have physically connected QP with GR / SR. Why do we still need string theory ? Good luck all!
I've always had a hard time keeping up with this stuff, but it always makes for incredibly fascinating conversation. I just hope we figure this out before I die. So get cracking guys and gals, I've only got another 40 years left or so.
@@patinho5589 Not if the singularity happens (intelligent Ai solves most problems by rapidly designing and building more exponentially powerful versions of itself, that then design the next generation)
@@michaelandrews4783 I’m privy to some ridiculous information about the universe and other civilisations. Ones with ai androids which still don’t have it all figured out.
@@michaelandrews4783 Although I do not deny the feasibility of artificial general intelligence, I predict that self-improvement will stagnate at some point.
@@mmh1922 By wrong I mean wrong. His argument that extra dimensions must have been excited somewhere in Universe was easily dismantled by Brain Greene. The statement that introducing new dimensions bring an infinite number of new parameters is self-evidently wrong. I suspect Roger is not very well-versed in ST at a technical level.
String theory gives two options: either you change testable science for maths, and pretend it to be true. Or, you accept the results of this theory, including the extra dimensions, strings and other weird stuff. Which put you again in the first option. At the end, the whole thing is a matter of faith coated with sophisticated mathematics
@@jannien4129 do you even read? string theorys math does not check out. thats the entire point of this video. theoretical science is nothing but religion with flashy numbers instead of a bible.
@@sunnydlite-t8b I do read and I do agree that its a problem towards the scientific method that string theory is not testable yet and probably wont be testable for some time. That being said its far away from any religion. The mathematics in string theory is consistent and correct so I don't know where you learnt that it doesn't check out. Edward Witten literally won a fields medal in mathematics for his contributions to knot theory and he did it by working on string theory. Why on earth would so many of the most successful physicists of our time work on a theory when the maths is wrong??? That's the difference between string theory and religion, religion is some made up text while string theory has mathematics to support a certain hypothesis which has not been proved but could be proved or disproved.
@goldwhitedragon Langan is a pseudo-intellectual fraud, his IQ is self-proclaimed and absolutely NOT verified (no credible IQ rating gauges beyond 145). His "theory" is heavily based upon him trying to shoehorn his personal belief in God into a physical model, no physicist takes it or him seriously.
@@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr Exactly my question. What is the issue Eric has with her ideas. Is it superdeterminism and, if so, how does that impact what Eric thinks?
There was a panel a couple of years ago where Sabine just mopped the floor with Eric, and on multiple occasions had dismissed Geometric Unity to his face (successfully), so I can see why he's sore. I enjoy listening to all these intellects but am trying to parse out who will eventually come out on top.
Sabine is a healthy challenge that should never disappear or get dismissed. Somehow she seems to represent that physics on that level can turn out a bit bizarre, paradox, contradicting, and disobedient to a universal consistency.
“… so we don’t lose the whole physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder and her adherents.” That’s a backhanded compliment to SH that makes her sound like the leader of an insurrection!
It almost sounded sexist to some extent. As if he's threatened by what she's doing online. Mind you, she's also a fundamental theoretical physicist like Weinstein. Or even more so than him. He's more of an entrepreneur/director now
@@Ace.D.Roger1011 You are missing his point. Physics is not just quantum theory, he doesnt like that almost all physics is just quantum theory now. Thus creating a slowdown of technology.
Penrose is the only one worth listening to. He is one of the few people can say that he does not want to get into something because it is too technical, without that being a dodge.
@@burkedestounis3818 yep the way you wrote it is how you say her name. i thought I could rather clearly hear the ‘r’ of “Sabrina” when Eric Weinstein said it at the very end of the video, and felt it was inevitable someone like OP could get it wrong because of that. Just wanted to give an FYI
Without really understanding the true nature of physical reality being revealed by quantum mechanics, it's not possible to blindly quantize gravity a la other field theories.
This reminds me of when dark matter was first introduced & I first learned about it, the harmony of space but with us not knowing what the glue was holding it together. That’s how I view string theory with GR & how Eric described the baby with the giraffe head.
I completely respect both Roger and Brian, and I appreciate Rogers position on this subject, but purely from a mathematical perspective string theory is fundamentally important to keep exploring. You simply can’t ignore the incredible mathematical works of Witten for example. Now I don’t respect Eric at all, especially since he isn’t a practicing physicist, nor has he published any actual physics or mathematical work. His geometric unity hypothesis was massively flawed and rightly criticised for its lacking of mathematical rigour. He comes across as petty and jealous.
Nice discussion, strong and clear argument from Briane Greene and good point from Eric Weinstein regarding exploration of other avenues. I wish we also get Edward Witten into such debates.
Witten and Greene are pretty much an insult to human intelligence. They are very intelligent, but they're in the wrong field of interest. I mean, string theory...
Ed Witten has studiously avoided the whole development of podcast type discussions over the last few decades, apart from one ‘closer to truth’ years ago. He doesn’t seem to want to engage beyond academic correspondences at conferences and in journals. I guess he doesn’t really feel anything more will come from other types of discussions, or at least anything that would interest him. He’s also old now so I guess he wants to focus his time carefully. I know he still puts a lot of effort into teaching which is admirable.
Penrose is the real genius here in this panel. Why in heavens name did they invite Weinstein? He's a good speaker and scientific entertainer (his own words btw), but it's like brining your cheeky little nephew to an adult conversation.
@XboxxAye Nope, it's imply personal grudge, she made him looks like a fool, which hurt his ego. By now it should be obvious that EW is not interested in science, but in satisfying his own ego.
Eric’s comment at 10:17 is interesting: “… so that we do not lose the fundamental physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder and her adherence.” What’s interesting to me (as a non-scientist and interested layman) is that ‘philosophical’ camps are forming in science just as much as anywhere else. Sabine has emerged as a strong voice against theories that seem hard to test against experiment, such as string theory or the multiverse. But as far as I can see (and it may well not be very far), she is actively building a reputation only as a self-proclaimed whistle blower against theories she labels ‘unscientific’. She does not seem to have proposed new alternative theories, or even argued why existing alternative theories need to be deemed favourable, and as such does not seem to be contributing constructively to the debate. This contrasts both Brian Greene, who has established himself in my world (that of the interested, but ultimately clueless layperson) as one of the finest science communicators in the field, and Roger Penrose, arguably one of the most original mathematical physicists of his generation.
Neither Sabine Hossenfelder nor Eric Weinstein are serious physicists. They are science trolls who made their claim to fame by criticizing things that they can't do themselves. This has nothing to do with either science or philosophy. It's simply post-truth reality tv on the internet.
@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 Superdeterminism is a religious concept. It's basically the universe showing you the middle finger. It's also completely unnecessary. Absolutely everything that has been observed at the quantum level so far fits neatly into Copenhagen. The problem with Copenhagen is that most people (including Sabine and folks like Sean Carrol for all I can tell) don't understand it because we don't teach it well in university level courses. You can take a look at standard QM textbooks like Griffith... he explicitly admits that he will teach you the how but not the why. He then tucks in a chapter at the end where he tries to explain the why a little bit and he fails completely. You can immediately tell that he simply didn't think very hard about what he wrote. Why? Because it doesn't matter to him. Teaching the why just doesn't fascinate the author and so he just doesn't put any real work into it.
Whistleblowers almost never were equal to their subject of whistles. They rather point to faults or misconduct of which most people seem to be comfortably ignorant. Just like the fable of The Emperor's new Clothes. The child who yelled "the emperor is naked" didn't have to be a master costume designer in order to be heard and agreed with.
Over the two years of 16 and 17 I read The Elegant Universe (back at the millennium when it was hip and hot), it destroyed my reading ability and the book concludes with the clear principle that the substrate of String Theory can be continuously adapted to match observations and it makes predictions until it doesn't - in conclusion Penrose Rules! and Greene Drules (and wastes a lot of time and money and fucked my reading ability - there's no offence like personal offence) I should have been reading The Emperors New Mind or something
Yes, 'The Emperors New Mind' is a great book. I remember it well. Many still think A.I. will become conscious like a human & yet humans are still for the most part unconscious and merely sleep walking through their life of action - reaction.
Eric weistein who hasn't published a single paper of relevance or any for that matter should have no say in this discussion. I feel he's there for self promotion by making outlandish claims and his frustration towards academic community.
I loved Eric here. He made such connections to both of Brian and Roger’s views, and drove the subject forward. From beauty to a more in-depth discussions of the particulars, and then from angst of the “incomplete” theory framework to a series of discussion before the motivation to tackle string theory wanes at the feet of new technologies.
No technical innovation nor technical equipment is created /innovated /maintained/ improved based on the new theoretical physics ("quantum cultism"). You can't do engineering science with abstractions.
I've always held a healthy skepticism towards Eric, he has certain character quirks and at first I suspect a lot of people can go either way with him, but I find his method of communication intriguing and possibly dare I say it, revolutionary for our internet age. For example, by doing the most extreme not-talking-down-to-the-audience and just saying things mostly with all the technical terms it creates this intrigue, for so-inclined laymen it evokes mystery, this deep blue sea vibe about mathematics and physics. I am just one example of someone who thought of mathematics as it was from school and why I hated it, there was nothing to be found really, it was following a set of instructions, what little creativity and insight there was it seemed very bounded. By listening to his stuff which had a casual entertaining exposition while dropping in all these nuggets I ended up at the age of 34 self-studying mathematics and it brought a whole new dimension to my life. I suspect even if only 0.1% of people get this same intrigue he has done probably more good than any math professor in terms of widening the net and bringing in people who will end up having interesting ideas, as opposed to the people who are 'good at math' from early school right through to phd, who are highly capable but may have quite similar backgrounds, experiences and ways of thinking about math. Unfortunately I'm not the sharpest tool in the box so it will remain a lifelong hobby for me, but even for that addition I am thankful. For really smart people who happen to be artists or creative a-mathematicians it really could help uncover some gems.
Lets be honest, string theory is the cool club - and like Eric says, a club where nothing is produced, but its cool to hang out in. We need another theory. Doesn't mean einstein is right either, too many conveniences in his equations
Think Reductionistically. If you are pushing yourself outside your comfort zone, whether physically or mentally, and the PARTICULAR think you are working on requires hard discipline, then you know that is the right path, no matter how convoluted and unpredictable it will be. Accept that the purpose is not to make use of 99.999% of all that hard work, but the purpose is to prepare your brain for that final 0.001% that WILL be useful. On the other hand, if all you do is mindless speculating, and in the case of physics: speculation without calculation, without proving theorems, without formalizing new mathematical models, then you are wasting time. So it is NOT "string theory vs no string theory". It is: well-disciplined hardwork versus lazy math-less speculation.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 sometimes the most beautiful equations are those that you see in front of your eyes - lets do more experiments, lets look at nature morr than spending time in circles doing mathematical tricks.
Eric threw some heavy jargon around, but he's absolutely on point constantly here. For instance, the conversation around GR coming out of String theory being reducible to the fundamental nature of differential geometry
I actually want someone to check his jargon. I remember he tried it in another debate with Sabine, and she destroyed him repeatedly, for which he apparently still feel sore lol. Almost feels like he is trying to suck up to both Brian and Roger to gang up against Sabine.
Nothing wrong with his statements but he utterly failed at Thiel. I interviewed at Clarium last year when they were discussing starting an equity vol-pod.
We don't need to request string theory to solve the quantum measurement problem. I would just like to see ANY detectable, string-specific prediction, or at least a mechanism that explains why we perceive just 4 extended dimensions. In this regard, nothing has been achieved by thousands of experts, working on it for four decades, despite all the original promises.
Any failed theory can be enforced to work by adding more variables. Einstein did it and in so doing showed nothing but everyone worships him, so sounds like a plan.
@@donaldkasper8346What I find sadder is these men of science think they are so smart but they fall for a pyramidal con. I dont say its obvious, but sigh.
@@carlgauss1702 The current physics is just witchcraft with magical thinking. Existence is transient. Things can go out of existence and magically reappear nearby containing all their original information because nothing holds information just like things do. Things across space can instantly communicate and synchronize and all the communication of the quadrillions to the quadrillions power particles never interfere with the communications of others. Sort of like having one trillion people on one radio bandwidth all hearing their intended recipients perfectly.
Sabine is just sensible. I guess that offends some people. String theory would catch less hell if they had presented it more like constructor theory. They should have told people that if their theory lined up with string theory then they were on the right track, instead of telling people that they were inadvertently doing string theory. That would have went over better.
Hi, Can anyone briefly explain what did Eric mean when he said " so we don't lose the fundamental physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder's adherence." What Sabine's adherence here and why Eric believes that it is not aligned with the fundamental physics enterprise.
Listen to him in other venues. He hates that a particular group of scientists have such a stranglehold on the system that everyone is required to bend to their objectives when, if allowed to free roam, those minds could be solving problems in other areas.
@@joelzablow2949 thank you for the response, though it's still not clear to me what he meant. Not sure how Sabine's followers are a threat to fundamental physics enterprise.
Regarding string theory and General Relativity I have a surprising opinion/statement as follows- "Space is infinite and space time is limited.There zero dimension can be explainable which is missing in string theory." I have my own explanations to support this statement.
Cosmology and particle physics are baroque sciences, epicycle-laden, and badly in need of a new paradigm. Until such a revolution, I advise all new physics graduates to focus on quantum entanglement, quantum metrology, and quantum computation. Those do not require a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way Galaxy.
If it is the case that physics is inexhaustible, like mathematics is inexhaustible (i.e. there will always be more to discover) then would it imply that pursuing many diverse approaches in parallel could be the most promising strategy to deepen understanding in an efficient way? Considering that every scientific theory - including those which did not, and will not stand the test of time - captures an interesting part of reality, demands different tools and methods, reveals a path that happened to be found, builds progress in creative thinking.
Thank God they're finally talking publicly about the serious problems, rather than hand waving. From evolution to cosmology. Seriously people stop making things seem like they're one thing, when they're another. They call that lying in some parts.
I don't get it, what are we arguing about exactly? What is it that we should be doing, exactly? Because, the way I see it, we're complaining about better PR for string theory than other theories. This is pretty much what this debate boils down to...
LOL. There is no viable alternative, and string theory publications are among the best ones. They are revolutionising math and different fields of physics. Only the smartest people can work in the string theory, so they are tautologically better suited than you to decide what is worth working on.
@@peceed '..string theory publications are among the best ones.' Not really. Look up the preprint archive of HEP TH. They're like a half-mad tribe in a forlorn search for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, milking those toy 2, 3 dimensions for anything like Chern-Simons theories, or those 10, 11, 12 or 26 dimensions to play around with Calabi-Yau threefolds and superstrings and supergravity.
@@peceed I'd rather see a stab at new terrain in, say, differential geometry than one more blowhard looking at Calabi-Yau manifolds in his string-theory program with yet the 12 millionth paper on 'Ashtekar variables in a new light.'
I was so exited about video right before I realized that it is only a fragment. I do not like its least put in the name that it is only segment, otherwise it is very misleading.
I agree. As far as I understand all of physics can be derived from string theory. So if string theory was discovered before quantum mechanics then everyone would say quantum mechanics can't be tested.
If it makes no testable predictions, then it is NOT SCIENCE. Science starts with a hypothesis that makes a testable prediction. String "Theory" did have a few formulations that made testable predictions. These predictions were falsified, at which point, the "String Theorists" moved the goalposts and rejiggered the variables, and claimed that only that specific configuration was falsified. Either: 1. String "Theory" made a testable hypothesis that was falsified, and String "Theory" is therefore wrong and not part of Science any more. 2. String "Theory" cannot be falsified and was therefore never Science in the first place.
@@BuGGyBoBerl physicist tend to avoid string theory because they claim it cant be tested and therefore be proven. Quantum mechanics can be tested, has been and is well accepted as proven true. My point is if Quantum Mechanics can be derived from string theory then testing quantum mechanics is equal to testing string theory. So if string theory was discover before quantum mechanics then string theory would be accepted and quantum mechanics would be considered a simplification of string theory, much like magnetism is a simplification of the electromagnetic force.
I believe the best point made here was by Penrose, who is at once able to distinguish the theoretical from the pragmatic. He points out that the universe itself is doing higher energy physics all the time (quasars, black holes, neutron stars, binaries ect...), but there is no hint of extra dimensions emerging or influencing those processes. Mike drop!
The universe is randomly accelerating stuff to really high energy, but that is not enough to do serious vacuum spectroscopy with that stuff. It has to hit other stuff in a well defined interaction volume and the resulting scattering process has to be surrounded by a nearly 4pi detector system. Without the last two conditions all we are getting are tons of by-products that don't contain the actual physical information we are after. We do have those detector systems... large cosmic ray shower experiments are doing just that. They have their uses, but they can't replace an accelerator.
Gotta love all the internet math/physics experts in the comments section who most likely spend all day on TikTok and Twitter and can't solve a basic Calculus 1 problem, telling us why string theory "is wrong".
Exactly. The real Scientific Community, like particle phiycisists, have been waiting for string theorists to provide any testable results and it has brought nothing. The media, the enthusiasts, the tiktok lovers, have wasted too much time on this useless theory. They were lied to, with lines like " in the next 10 years. we will have proof" for the last 30 years. At this point any real scientist would be embarassed.
science progresses one funeral at a time and the debates are so vicious because the stakes are so small. When egos are buried the faulty ideas fizzle out. Richard Feinman said of string theory, "they're cooking the books, science isn't done that way", he was right.
Why do people think sting theory is such a huge area of research that tries to silence others. String theory is a pretty small area with few people working in it.
You went ahead and made something that should be free for the public and made it a subscription thing… whoever made that decision should be ashamed of themselves
There seems to be an ideological component to theoretical physics that mirrors ontological liberalism and forms of conservatism with debates being around political community and the utilitarian nature of modernisation through things such as the LHC.
Do you agree wihth Penrose, Weinstein, or Greene? Let us know in the comments below!
To watch the full debate, visit iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?TH-cam&+comment
t is not weistein. it is weinstein, should be on the title.
I personally am against string theory I think it overcomplicates a simple problem quantising gravity.I believe loop quantum gravity or other similar theories are more viable and if they can be improved and corrected they might someday lead to a solution on this problem.
Thank you, was just about to ask
LQG is also an overcomplication. Gravity is a weak attraction and a relative repulsion.
You need to understand subatomic physics(particle mechanics) to understand that there is only one principle and one force (spins and charges).
Why use the word string about something that they don't define as a string?
Hilarious :)
A string is a mechanical vibrant. The energy moves circularly around a guitar string for example, once in a vibrating state.
Abstract virtualities aren't strings ,and if there are any subparticle or subquarky strings, you can be sure they must have energy or mass or similar in order to behave as a string....
Regardless of the entire discussion, it's truly remarkable to see a man like Penrose, at 92, still flexing his brain and engaging in these subjects.
Yea it's crazy. Mentally and physically, he doesn't seem much older than 70
It really belies the claim that aging necessarily involves a depletion of mental acuity.
He is a genius, but he's been nursing that toothache for like 2 years. He should really get that looked at.
😂😂@@onbored9627
Even more wise, than many who came after him
If I get to my 92-year-old and remember my granddaughter's name, I will be happy!! Dr. Penrose is a marvelous example of a great mind working!
No doubt his career helped him. He used his brain aggressively his whole life. That helps to keep some fatal neurological disorders at bay. Though a lot of it is just genetics.
@@Parasmunt, I believe his profession has a lot to do with it. I am a contemporary classical composer and hope my brain will work until my 90s.
When you overclock your brain power and have been doing it for more than half a century, it’d be an anomaly for it to be less than great
not quite
@@Parasmunt No, no, no and no. Some counterexamples. Oscar Zariski, known for algebraic geometry died of Alzheimers, Claude Shannon, of information theory did too. Abdus Salam died of Parkinsons. What about just being gentle to yourself?.
Im just a measly engineering student, so I'm just incredibly grateful to be able to watch discussions like these for free, in the comfort of my home. 100 years ago, you would have had to go to this event in person. We can learn so much these days, with such little effort as long as we have the interest.
It really is amazing.
Where can you watch this in full for free? this just a snippet
@Pedigreedotexe 20 plus years ago you would have to go to this in person to see it.
@@maxrebo1141 40 years ago it took me about 2 hours single trip per public transport to get to mass lectures at my university.
Or look up information, only 09:00 - 17:00 hours, instead of the middle of the night.
I understood next to nothing of what was discussed but I was still totally engrossed.
I think most people can attest for that lmao
way above my head but I love it
I personally think that String Theory is a cautionary tale of what happens when you mistake Math for Physics.
Nice!
I think Sabine Hossenfelder had a great point that, as much as some physicists seem to insist on it, there is no requirement that the math behind physics has to be beautiful. It may well be that the math behind physics is ugly and clunky.
@@dancahill9585That's a very good point by her. I think we got spoiled by Newtonian Physics and now expect every other theory to be just as beautiful/deterministic.
Exactly. A whole generation of brilliant physicists lost in mathematics that have no relationship to reality.
@@michaelhill6451to be fair the only reason why Newtonian Physics looks good, is because of Leibniz, we are using his notation. And also, Newton did not define force, he defined impulse of motion and his original definitions were ugly as hell. It was the application of Leibnizs notation and formulation of the underlying math that gave us the current form of the equations.
I think at this point you should just release the full video free of charge.
Charge? Electric? Color? Dollar? Other? Post the complete video, please!
String theory proves the existence of hip-hop level beef within the physics community.
Mikio kaku, Brian the science man, Sabine Hossenfelder, Neil deDoufus Tyson, have all been gunned down by rival gang "rational scientists".
😂😂😂
Brian Greene is always a gentleman, let's respect that. He's such a fantastic science communicator as well, one of the best out there.
Agreed, but with that being said, it still looks very much like he and others may have spent a lifetime chasing the rabbit down the wrong hole.
hes polite the way a mafia boss sitting on top of all the turf and funding is polite. gimme a break kid.
@@5piles lol but not actually funny for those below him in the pecking order.
What does that statement say about the video main topic?
@5piles why would you believe weinstein the cry baby? Were you there? People live on stories. I've heard Bret and Eric are becoming cuckoo. I'm right cuz I say it. Believe me people. Why not? I
The important thing to notice here is that physical science communications are so focused on string theory and cosmology that the entire physics community is living under its shadows. We have fantastic and rigorous theoretical physics in Non equilibrium statistical physics, condensed matter physics, quantum optics, new emerging branches of physics like (Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics). There are several great experimental things going on !!! But people are kept under the rock of string theory !!
True... but no offense... we haven't even solved Ising spins, yet, so it's not like other fields of physics haven't met their theorist's breaking points early and often. The mathematicians have the ultimate example for that phenomenon in the Collatz conjecture. It doesn't take much at all to come up with very hard to solve problems. Should these things suck all the air out of the room? No, not really. I think we can agree about that.
@@lepidoptera9337 There have been breaking points in several places in many domains but you see the scope of science communications. Condensed Matter people are doing stuff that is useful in real life. They have come far from the Hubbard model and now they are using hybrid models to describe stuffs that are evident in real experiments. But people have hardly heard about Metal Insulator Transition!!! Whereas many avid scientific readers know of Bekenstein - Hawking entropy.
Do you think metal insulator transition isn't fascinating?
There all sorts of phase transitions happening irl which are just as much fascinating!
The idea of universality classes, scaling etc. are fascinating. But their coverage in science communications is 0.
Listen to Roger Penrose; this man really knows his physics and extremely insightful.
My prediction: give it a decade or two after Roger passes away and then his gravitational self-collapse theory will become the norm. Right now the theories are tied to egos and grants and we need that generation to retire... no one wants to admit that someone 'living' got the best theory. Roger's ideas seem the most parsimonious and closest to Occam's razor, and explain multiple mysteries at once. Even if it's not correct on the details, the general geometric framework solving the measurement problem is very appealing.
Thank you! It is so rarely I see people agreeing with this and I cannot see it any other way. It is a matter of time at this point.
I agree with the conclusion and with the Occam's razor argument (because Penrose started from principles not because he gave a solution of the measurement problem).
I (a mathematician) was convinced for a long time that the measurement problem is an actual problem.
Now I'm extremely sure it's just not there. The Schrödinger equation just describes everything that happens if you put everything in it.
You can derive the Born rule from the Schrödinger equation. You can derive non-determinism for observers governed by the Schröder equation. It's all in the mathematics.
The reason I changed my mind was when I realised that the non-cloning theorem makes restrictions what observers governed by the Schrödinger equation can observe.
Fair in theory, however in practice, "that generation" (egos) tied to "that bucket of money" (grants) never sees cessation, the torch merely gets passed- a quick view of political governance should serve sufficiently illustrative. It will spiral into madness and entropy as with all things, though I assume you meant this in hope so instead may we perhaps not apply Occam's but instead Hanlon's razor here.
Exactly 100% agreed, a lot of egos are going to get hurt admitting Roger was right.
Interesting. Given that I have no formal background, where can I know more about Roger Penrose's theory??
I appreciate Eric who suddenly goes into the esoteric problems with a fury and clarity delineating the massive issues and laying out the lock out.
When someone has the courage to say what needs to be said I am all for it.
I love these types of discussions and environment. I can't get enough of this type of discussion.
Yes but you must always be a skeptic.
Don't just suck in everything emotionally as if it was true or knowledgeable.
If you are like that ,you will waste your fortune or life on only entertainment (a consumer) or end up in church, or easily be tricked by money fraudsters (becoming more and more creative ; in Norway they call old ladies and say they are from the police or helping poor children in war zones, "send me all your cash".
Old ladies in rural Norway grew up in an age of mutual trust and very little crime.
They are easy targets).
In a similar way ,the generally consuming public today is equally an easy prey for charlatans posing as scholars, for religions and extreme political groups.
Most people have no training in science and skepticism.
Most have a barely average IQ.
What they were doing is great in the sense that at least they find time to congregate and do some small talk purely to entertain themselves. For it is written that no human mind is capable to grasp not even a single principle of creation, the nature of the universe wasn't meant to understand by any negligible matter in it FOREVER!!! Let's go!
" I love these types of discussions...I can't get enough of these types of discussions" ? No human talks like this...both comments managed to avoid saying a single thing remotely related to the video .😂 You guys need to find a different bot farm with a better AI model because this one is SHITE!
@@zzzzxxxx341well, it may be true, but that won't keep us from trying
Give us the damn complete video!!
Right? Ten bloody minutes at a time. Excitement for 24 hours followed by 10 minutes of content. Very disappointing.
Its pretty aggravating. Really want to watch the whole thing, but theres some kind of account/paywall setup for it.
Sure. Immediately after you give your money 😂
@@eksffa TH-cam already has my money. Pony up the content.
yup, thumbs down for that
Without honest scientific debate and disagreement, we'd not have progress. Great stuff from three of the best...
Greene puts the cart before the horse!
He says if Einstein hadn't described general relativity then string theory would have revealed it, but that's because string theory arose from an attempt to reconcile general relativity with the quantum world! Since he and others like him worked backwards from gravity and the quantum it would be extraordinary if those two foundations were NOT discovered. BUT it doesn't mean it's real or useful.
I can never understand anything Weinstein says, but almost everything Roger Penrose says makes sense, and I love his books. Doesn't mean anyone is right or wrong, but if there is a battle I'm with Roger.
A new metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science is needed to get out of the "crisis of understanding" (J. Horgan). And to understand means "to grasp the structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse"). I will add - the primordial / basic ontological structure of the Reality (the Universe), which is the same for the entire system of knowledge.
More than a quarter of a century ago, mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of a "Self- Aware Universe"
In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set forth in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning"...
Actually no. String theory had nothing to do with gravity when it was first « discovered ». It was realized later
To "reconcile" quantum theory and general relativity is to cross the "hedgehog" with the "snake". Both theories are phenomenological (parametric, "effective") theories without ontological justification /substantiation (ontological basification). Any theory that claims to be called "fundamental" must be ontologically based. It is necessary to build a new metaphysical / ontological basis of fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology).
A.N. Whitehead: "A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge."
@@vladimirrogozhin7797 I agree.
@@jarodhb4138 I heard a different version, but whatever.
I love how the argument was made, that String Theory points to a suspicion, that the count of available dimensions is not a fundamental thing in the universe.
LETS PROTEST FOR A LONGER VIDEO!!!
Let's do not and let's be grateful for the this snippet of fire in the community! So they discuss string theory’s effort to tackle the age-old issue of combining QP with GR, centred around gravity. Thing is, we don't need string theory for that. Let me show the community how to correctly connect QP and GR via gravity using 8 steps. Step 1) First of all, if we want to explain gravity to the full, we must distinguish and explain the 2 effects gravity has on spacetime (ST) around restmass; it causes ST to be both contracTED and contracTING at the same time. I will shortly prove the first effect is the ‘real’ effect and the second is the compensating ‘imaginary’ effect coming from QP. Step 2). There is no such thing as ‘restmass’. Restmass is a collection of trillions of vibrating and speeding subatomic particles, each individually having an effect on surrounding ST as per Einstein’s Special relativity (SR)which is the deeper underlying theory as opposed to the mere geometry of GR. Step 3) Redefine equivalence relations; Penrose always stresses we must substitute E=hf (Planck) into E=MC2 (Einstein) to get the actual equivalence relation, namely that mass fundamentally equals frequency or inversed time (or 'clock') in the subatomic world. Likewise, Energy is equivalent to inverse space (or 'Grid') in the QP world. If we understand this, we are ready so solve everything;
Step 4) We now need to go back to the spacetime diagram of Special Relativity and a) draw a mass axis opposite to the time axis, next b) draw an energy axis opposite to the space axis and next c) draw an energymass vector opposite to the spacetime vector. THIS is the correct balance between the spacetime quadrant and the energymass (QP) quadrant. Step 5) what does SR now tell us? It tells us that when you speed you contract frontal space and time and you wrap this fabric in standing wave of integers or ‘QUANTA’ of windings around the speeding object thus increasing the speeding’s object mass (inverse time) and energy (inverse space). THIS is how spacetime and the quantized QP world are linked! Step 6) since restmass is a collection of UNALIGNED linear mini-ST vector contractions, this explains why ST is contracTED radially around restmass, which is half of what we needed to do. Step 7) On the other side in the energymass quadrant meanwhile, the motion vector opposite to the ST motion vector also has an effect. Here speed is defined as E/kg or [Nm/kg=m2/s2=gamma C2]. The entire motion formula thus E=MC2. Since both motion vectors must cancel out, this means the C2 speed in the Energymass quadrant must cancel a C speed in the ST` quadrant. This can only happen when we insert i2=-1 in the QP quadrant. This is why mathematics must have complex numbers. Step 8) now finally we realise that the speed vector of -J/kg is interpreted as its equivalent -m2/s2 imaginary accelerating grid contraction in the ST quadrant. This explains why ST is also contracTING around restmass. With this we have completely explained gravity as a pure SPEED related effect AND we have physically connected QP with GR / SR. Why do we still need string theory ? Good luck all!
They will soon upload it maybe. The debate about the multiverse last year was also like this then they uploaded the whole video after weeks.
I've always had a hard time keeping up with this stuff, but it always makes for incredibly fascinating conversation. I just hope we figure this out before I die. So get cracking guys and gals, I've only got another 40 years left or so.
There will be if not this, then other unsolved problems still extant when you die.
@@patinho5589 Not if the singularity happens (intelligent Ai solves most problems by rapidly designing and building more exponentially powerful versions of itself, that then design the next generation)
@@michaelandrews4783 I’m privy to some ridiculous information about the universe and other civilisations.
Ones with ai androids which still don’t have it all figured out.
LoL 🤣 I love it when passionate debate and discussion is on the important big questions 💯💯💯💯💯
@@michaelandrews4783 Although I do not deny the feasibility of artificial general intelligence,
I predict that self-improvement will stagnate at some point.
Penrose rebuke of String theorists was brutal.
Absolutely not, it was honest, scientific and straight to the point
@@mmh1922 And also wrong.
@@A.T.-89 by wrong you mean impolite?
@@mmh1922 By wrong I mean wrong. His argument that extra dimensions must have been excited somewhere in Universe was easily dismantled by Brain Greene. The statement that introducing new dimensions bring an infinite number of new parameters is self-evidently wrong. I suspect Roger is not very well-versed in ST at a technical level.
@@A.T.-89 Brian "Brain" Greene? Or Brane Greene?
String theory gives two options: either you change testable science for maths, and pretend it to be true. Or, you accept the results of this theory, including the extra dimensions, strings and other weird stuff. Which put you again in the first option. At the end, the whole thing is a matter of faith coated with sophisticated mathematics
Sounds like philosophy. Or religion.
@@mensrea1251 except mathematics is nothing but pure logic and truth so its the opposite of religion or philosophy.
@@jannien4129 do you even read? string theorys math does not check out. thats the entire point of this video. theoretical science is nothing but religion with flashy numbers instead of a bible.
@@sunnydlite-t8b I do read and I do agree that its a problem towards the scientific method that string theory is not testable yet and probably wont be testable for some time. That being said its far away from any religion. The mathematics in string theory is consistent and correct so I don't know where you learnt that it doesn't check out. Edward Witten literally won a fields medal in mathematics for his contributions to knot theory and he did it by working on string theory. Why on earth would so many of the most successful physicists of our time work on a theory when the maths is wrong??? That's the difference between string theory and religion, religion is some made up text while string theory has mathematics to support a certain hypothesis which has not been proved but could be proved or disproved.
Faith coated with sophisticated maths does not sound like science. Science has to submit to test and proof in finite time
Roger Penrose is probably the greatest mind alive. And he has a M.C. Escher connection
Don't exaggerate please. Penrose is amasing, but there are plenty more.
@@bengeurden1272 You talking about greatest minds alive or those that had M.C. Escher connections? Either way, I'd like to see your list.
Chris Langan, America's smartest man, has a TOE called CTMU. He says Penrose is close to his own ultimate metaformal theory.
@@hajsh67I can think of only one: Tony Stark.
@goldwhitedragon Langan is a pseudo-intellectual fraud, his IQ is self-proclaimed and absolutely NOT verified (no credible IQ rating gauges beyond 145). His "theory" is heavily based upon him trying to shoehorn his personal belief in God into a physical model, no physicist takes it or him seriously.
Eric really gotta sore spot for Sabine... I'm totally here for it. She's smart and hilarious.
What is his problem with Sabine? I need some context to understand, i watch some of her videos on youtube though
@@GustavoOliveira-gp6nr Exactly my question. What is the issue Eric has with her ideas. Is it superdeterminism and, if so, how does that impact what Eric thinks?
There was a panel a couple of years ago where Sabine just mopped the floor with Eric, and on multiple occasions had dismissed Geometric Unity to his face (successfully), so I can see why he's sore. I enjoy listening to all these intellects but am trying to parse out who will eventually come out on top.
Eric exists to feel grievances.
Sabine is a healthy challenge that should never disappear or get dismissed.
Somehow she seems to represent that physics on that level can turn out a bit bizarre, paradox, contradicting, and disobedient to a universal consistency.
“… so we don’t lose the whole physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder and her adherents.”
That’s a backhanded compliment to SH that makes her sound like the leader of an insurrection!
It almost sounded sexist to some extent. As if he's threatened by what she's doing online. Mind you, she's also a fundamental theoretical physicist like Weinstein. Or even more so than him. He's more of an entrepreneur/director now
@@Ace.D.Roger1011 You are missing his point. Physics is not just quantum theory, he doesnt like that almost all physics is just quantum theory now. Thus creating a slowdown of technology.
It's NOT a compliment, backhanded or otherwise. SH is always casting doubt on ST, and most ST scientists hate her.
@@jgrab1 True, considering that STs are just a bunch of clowns that just want grant money but are now being exposed
He thinks if her as the leader of the entrenchment, not letting others explore the rest of what's possible by her stranglehold on the community.
Of course the debate is behind a paywall.
Did anyone notice Sir Roger's laughter at 6:19 😂😂😂. Absolutely hilarious.
Weinstein scathing at the end. I love Sabine Hossenfelder, I think she is right...
Let's all take the time to appreciate scientific minds debating and still being gentlemen!
The video on your website is very slow and causes intermittent delays. You should just put the whole video onto TH-cam.
Penrose is the only one worth listening to. He is one of the few people can say that he does not want to get into something because it is too technical, without that being a dodge.
"the beauty of a child with the head of a giraffe" XD that is such a funny description of string theory.
The ending where Sabrina is cited by name is pure gold. She really became a loud voice against ST.
That was a cheap shot, given that Sabine wasn't present to defend herself. Eric is a prick.
It’s Sabine - not correcting you in particular, cuz Weinstein said it wrong in the first place 😅
@@Michael-kp4bd hahaha thanks
@@Michael-kp4bd Sounded like he said "Sa-bine-ah", which I'm pretty sure is how you pronounce the German name Sabine
@@burkedestounis3818 yep the way you wrote it is how you say her name. i thought I could rather clearly hear the ‘r’ of “Sabrina” when Eric Weinstein said it at the very end of the video, and felt it was inevitable someone like OP could get it wrong because of that. Just wanted to give an FYI
Without really understanding the true nature of physical reality being revealed by quantum mechanics, it's not possible to blindly quantize gravity a la other field theories.
I love how big minds can diverge on opinion and experiences and still not polarize the subject or take it personally.
This reminds me of when dark matter was first introduced & I first learned about it, the harmony of space but with us not knowing what the glue was holding it together. That’s how I view string theory with GR & how Eric described the baby with the giraffe head.
I do find myself agreeing with Eric and Roger, but also sense that Eric, while passionate, is also abit of a drama queen and contrarian…
A bit? He was expected to publish a paper on his "revolutionary theory" for years...
I completely respect both Roger and Brian, and I appreciate Rogers position on this subject, but purely from a mathematical perspective string theory is fundamentally important to keep exploring. You simply can’t ignore the incredible mathematical works of Witten for example.
Now I don’t respect Eric at all, especially since he isn’t a practicing physicist, nor has he published any actual physics or mathematical work. His geometric unity hypothesis was massively flawed and rightly criticised for its lacking of mathematical rigour. He comes across as petty and jealous.
Why do you continue to repost this old event over and over again?
It's advertising for their website where the full video is available.
@@BainesMkIIWell they are doing a crappy job of that as the link they posted for the full video is broken.
How old is this event?
Nice discussion, strong and clear argument from Briane Greene and good point from Eric Weinstein regarding exploration of other avenues. I wish we also get Edward Witten into such debates.
Witten and Greene are pretty much an insult to human intelligence. They are very intelligent, but they're in the wrong field of interest. I mean, string theory...
Ed Witten has studiously avoided the whole development of podcast type discussions over the last few decades, apart from one ‘closer to truth’ years ago. He doesn’t seem to want to engage beyond academic correspondences at conferences and in journals. I guess he doesn’t really feel anything more will come from other types of discussions, or at least anything that would interest him. He’s also old now so I guess he wants to focus his time carefully. I know he still puts a lot of effort into teaching which is admirable.
@@brianboyle2681 Nor should he. Debates/oral words are worthless useless, prove nothing, impress nobody, change nobody's minds.
Penrose is the real genius here in this panel. Why in heavens name did they invite Weinstein? He's a good speaker and scientific entertainer (his own words btw), but it's like brining your cheeky little nephew to an adult conversation.
No they are both good
@@nosuchthing8 Would anyone have ever heard of him if his brother didn't get booted from his university post and sucked into the Rogansphere?
@nosuchthing8 Would anyone ever had heard of him if his brother hadn't been booted from his university post and sucked into the Rogansphere?
10:12 i don't quite get the quip about Sabina Hossenfelder, anybody?
Fabulous discussion. Extraordinary brains!
Sabine catching strays at the end there for some reason
Im wondering what was he trying to get at with that comment. Still trying to figure that one out
@XboxxAye Nope, it's imply personal grudge, she made him looks like a fool, which hurt his ego. By now it should be obvious that EW is not interested in science, but in satisfying his own ego.
@@AG-ig8uf you analyzed it like you're being forced to do so bruv are you okay
Why is Eric Weinstein in the panel? Please, don't.
Eric’s comment at 10:17 is interesting: “… so that we do not lose the fundamental physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder and her adherence.” What’s interesting to me (as a non-scientist and interested layman) is that ‘philosophical’ camps are forming in science just as much as anywhere else. Sabine has emerged as a strong voice against theories that seem hard to test against experiment, such as string theory or the multiverse. But as far as I can see (and it may well not be very far), she is actively building a reputation only as a self-proclaimed whistle blower against theories she labels ‘unscientific’. She does not seem to have proposed new alternative theories, or even argued why existing alternative theories need to be deemed favourable, and as such does not seem to be contributing constructively to the debate.
This contrasts both Brian Greene, who has established himself in my world (that of the interested, but ultimately clueless layperson) as one of the finest science communicators in the field, and Roger Penrose, arguably one of the most original mathematical physicists of his generation.
Neither Sabine Hossenfelder nor Eric Weinstein are serious physicists. They are science trolls who made their claim to fame by criticizing things that they can't do themselves. This has nothing to do with either science or philosophy. It's simply post-truth reality tv on the internet.
I like this
I think she has proposed alternative, look at her video about Super determinism
@@kanishkchaturvedi1745 Superdeterminism is a religious concept. It's basically the universe showing you the middle finger. It's also completely unnecessary. Absolutely everything that has been observed at the quantum level so far fits neatly into Copenhagen. The problem with Copenhagen is that most people (including Sabine and folks like Sean Carrol for all I can tell) don't understand it because we don't teach it well in university level courses. You can take a look at standard QM textbooks like Griffith... he explicitly admits that he will teach you the how but not the why. He then tucks in a chapter at the end where he tries to explain the why a little bit and he fails completely. You can immediately tell that he simply didn't think very hard about what he wrote. Why? Because it doesn't matter to him. Teaching the why just doesn't fascinate the author and so he just doesn't put any real work into it.
Whistleblowers almost never were equal to their subject of whistles. They rather point to faults or misconduct of which most people seem to be comfortably ignorant. Just like the fable of The Emperor's new Clothes. The child who yelled "the emperor is naked" didn't have to be a master costume designer in order to be heard and agreed with.
Your man Eric, he doesn’t bear grudges, no sir
When I see a debate like this I think of positively charged atoms in the same room repelling each other.
Or if you are skeptical atheist ,you think of impostors
amogus@@KibyNykraft
Atoms are always neutral, never charged…
@@ludviglidstrom6924 Positively charged atoms exist...also referred to as ions
Eric Weinstein is really unpleasant to listen to. It seems he is channeling some sort of grudge.
eric was 🔥🔥 and Penrose is a living legend
30 years ago I thought Roger was the nut. But string theory has out wierded him.
Lmao 🤣🤣🤣
Over the two years of 16 and 17 I read The Elegant Universe (back at the millennium when it was hip and hot), it destroyed my reading ability and the book concludes with the clear principle that the substrate of String Theory can be continuously adapted to match observations and it makes predictions until it doesn't - in conclusion Penrose Rules! and Greene Drules (and wastes a lot of time and money and fucked my reading ability - there's no offence like personal offence) I should have been reading The Emperors New Mind or something
Read "the inelegant universe" , there are at least two skeptical articles by that name taking the Eleg univ apart more or less.
Yes, 'The Emperors New Mind' is a great book. I remember it well. Many still think A.I. will become conscious like a human & yet humans are still for the most part unconscious and merely sleep walking through their life of action - reaction.
String theory is on life support.
Died multiple times. We need more wooden stakes ;-)
Eric weistein who hasn't published a single paper of relevance or any for that matter should have no say in this discussion. I feel he's there for self promotion by making outlandish claims and his frustration towards academic community.
You are copying the tying mistake "Weistein" from the title.
@@bengeurden1272 ok grammer police
So, the debate is behind a pay wall. How great for science and keeping the public informed. No wonder why people loose interest.
I loved Eric here. He made such connections to both of Brian and Roger’s views, and drove the subject forward. From beauty to a more in-depth discussions of the particulars, and then from angst of the “incomplete” theory framework to a series of discussion before the motivation to tackle string theory wanes at the feet of new technologies.
No technical innovation nor technical equipment is created /innovated /maintained/ improved based on the new theoretical physics ("quantum cultism").
You can't do engineering science with abstractions.
I've always held a healthy skepticism towards Eric, he has certain character quirks and at first I suspect a lot of people can go either way with him, but I find his method of communication intriguing and possibly dare I say it, revolutionary for our internet age. For example, by doing the most extreme not-talking-down-to-the-audience and just saying things mostly with all the technical terms it creates this intrigue, for so-inclined laymen it evokes mystery, this deep blue sea vibe about mathematics and physics. I am just one example of someone who thought of mathematics as it was from school and why I hated it, there was nothing to be found really, it was following a set of instructions, what little creativity and insight there was it seemed very bounded.
By listening to his stuff which had a casual entertaining exposition while dropping in all these nuggets I ended up at the age of 34 self-studying mathematics and it brought a whole new dimension to my life. I suspect even if only 0.1% of people get this same intrigue he has done probably more good than any math professor in terms of widening the net and bringing in people who will end up having interesting ideas, as opposed to the people who are 'good at math' from early school right through to phd, who are highly capable but may have quite similar backgrounds, experiences and ways of thinking about math. Unfortunately I'm not the sharpest tool in the box so it will remain a lifelong hobby for me, but even for that addition I am thankful. For really smart people who happen to be artists or creative a-mathematicians it really could help uncover some gems.
His lot evolved to play the middleman
Lets be honest, string theory is the cool club - and like Eric says, a club where nothing is produced, but its cool to hang out in. We need another theory. Doesn't mean einstein is right either, too many conveniences in his equations
Think Reductionistically. If you are pushing yourself outside your comfort zone, whether physically or mentally,
and the PARTICULAR think you are working on requires hard discipline, then you know that is the right path, no matter how convoluted and unpredictable it will be. Accept that the purpose is not to make use of 99.999% of all that hard work, but the purpose is to prepare your brain for that final 0.001% that WILL be useful.
On the other hand, if all you do is mindless speculating, and in the case of physics: speculation without calculation, without proving theorems, without formalizing new mathematical models, then you are wasting time.
So it is NOT "string theory vs no string theory". It is: well-disciplined hardwork versus lazy math-less speculation.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 sometimes the most beautiful equations are those that you see in front of your eyes - lets do more experiments, lets look at nature morr than spending time in circles doing mathematical tricks.
Why is someone like Weinstein viewed as being on the same level as Roger Pensore and Brian Greene? I find it difficult to comprehend this.
A PhD in mathematical physics lol
Can you please indicate where can I find the full video? Thank you! 🙏
It’s folded into some extra dimensions. It’s there but you just can’t prove it.
@@mensrea1251 this comment is underrated XDDD
@@ya32233 😉
@ya32233, yours is actually.
Penrose is beyond impressive. His depth of knowledge is insane. A hard man to ever replace in the world of math and physics.
Wow, physics is one competitive field! I love seeing these leaders in science and physics. Debating different theories and ideas. It’s fascinating.❤😮
Yeah its pretty competitive to make up ideas all day with no evidence of any of it.
it used to be competitive.
Weinstein isn’t a scientist.
In the Indian culture the uninvited is always our guest u dont need to be invited❤❤🎉🎉
Eric threw some heavy jargon around, but he's absolutely on point constantly here. For instance, the conversation around GR coming out of String theory being reducible to the fundamental nature of differential geometry
I actually want someone to check his jargon. I remember he tried it in another debate with Sabine, and she destroyed him repeatedly, for which he apparently still feel sore lol. Almost feels like he is trying to suck up to both Brian and Roger to gang up against Sabine.
Eric uses jargon to make himself appear smarter than he is, to people who don’t understand the jargon. (Which is most people).
@@andybaldman I definitely don't disagree. But he was certainly correct in this instance
Jargon? He reduced Greene's argument to sht in 15 words.
Nothing wrong with his statements but he utterly failed at Thiel. I interviewed at Clarium last year when they were discussing starting an equity vol-pod.
We don't need to request string theory to solve the quantum measurement problem. I would just like to see ANY detectable, string-specific prediction, or at least a mechanism that explains why we perceive just 4 extended dimensions. In this regard, nothing has been achieved by thousands of experts, working on it for four decades, despite all the original promises.
We don't perceive 4 dimensions. We perceive a little over 3 dimensions -- maybe even π dimensions.
@@benjamindees Time counts as the fourth dimension.
Speaking in regards to adding extra dimensions and having infinite variables, would that not be considered combinatorial inflation?
Any failed theory can be enforced to work by adding more variables. Einstein did it and in so doing showed nothing but everyone worships him, so sounds like a plan.
YEEEEEEEES. I see you understand Steing theory better than string theorists.
@@donaldkasper8346Exactly bro. Fermis quote of five parameters and the elephant has been pulled below the rug.
@@donaldkasper8346What I find sadder is these men of science think they are so smart but they fall for a pyramidal con. I dont say its obvious, but sigh.
@@carlgauss1702 The current physics is just witchcraft with magical thinking. Existence is transient. Things can go out of existence and magically reappear nearby containing all their original information because nothing holds information just like things do. Things across space can instantly communicate and synchronize and all the communication of the quadrillions to the quadrillions power particles never interfere with the communications of others. Sort of like having one trillion people on one radio bandwidth all hearing their intended recipients perfectly.
Just make sure Michio Kaku is back under control.
10 minutes of argumentative content followed by a broken link. WTF?!?
Well, I wouldn't mind losing to Sabine...
Sabine is just sensible. I guess that offends some people.
String theory would catch less hell if they had presented it more like constructor theory. They should have told people that if their theory lined up with string theory then they were on the right track, instead of telling people that they were inadvertently doing string theory. That would have went over better.
is constructor theory even going anywhere? I haven't heard anything about it since its initial hype maybe 1-2 years ago (I dont quite remember)
Where is the official Michio Kaku emoticon when you need it?
What the hell is Eric's problem with Sabine Hossenfelder anyway? In another panel they were both on they seemed to agree on almost everything
His problem with Sabine is he is not Sabine.
Hi, Can anyone briefly explain what did Eric mean when he said " so we don't lose the fundamental physics enterprise to Sabine Hossenfelder's adherence." What Sabine's adherence here and why Eric believes that it is not aligned with the fundamental physics enterprise.
Listen to him in other venues. He hates that a particular group of scientists have such a stranglehold on the system that everyone is required to bend to their objectives when, if allowed to free roam, those minds could be solving problems in other areas.
Same, I didn't get it.
@@Adityarm.08 "adherents", followers...
@@joelzablow2949 thank you for the response, though it's still not clear to me what he meant. Not sure how Sabine's followers are a threat to fundamental physics enterprise.
I find string theory quite interesting and would love to do a PhD on it
Roger makes Brian REAL uncomfortable.
Regarding string theory and General Relativity I have a surprising opinion/statement as follows-
"Space is infinite and space time is limited.There zero dimension can be explainable which is missing in string theory." I have my own explanations to support this statement.
Weinstein is underrated here
Cosmology and particle physics are baroque sciences, epicycle-laden, and badly in need of a new paradigm. Until such a revolution, I advise all new physics graduates to focus on quantum entanglement, quantum metrology, and quantum computation. Those do not require a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Oh didnt know this is an old clip
the start of this video was very dramatic, kudos to the sound guy
If it is the case that physics is inexhaustible, like mathematics is inexhaustible (i.e. there will always be more to discover) then would it imply that pursuing many diverse approaches in parallel could be the most promising strategy to deepen understanding in an efficient way?
Considering that every scientific theory - including those which did not, and will not stand the test of time - captures an interesting part of reality, demands different tools and methods, reveals a path that happened to be found, builds progress in creative thinking.
it's probably inexhaustible, mostly because our systemic interfaces aren't likely to be able to measure all aspects of reality.
One big problem there chief, string theory isn't testable and has produced one single result in 40 years. It's the hype beast of theories
@@daarom3472 bingo
Thank God they're finally talking publicly about the serious problems, rather than hand waving. From evolution to cosmology. Seriously people stop making things seem like they're one thing, when they're another. They call that lying in some parts.
Eric summed it up perfectly.
I don't get it, what are we arguing about exactly? What is it that we should be doing, exactly? Because, the way I see it, we're complaining about better PR for string theory than other theories. This is pretty much what this debate boils down to...
String theory might be worth exploring but the problem is spending too much time and money on it.
Money? A few theoretical physicists working on it
Maybe let AI have a go with it
LOL. There is no viable alternative, and string theory publications are among the best ones. They are revolutionising math and different fields of physics.
Only the smartest people can work in the string theory, so they are tautologically better suited than you to decide what is worth working on.
@@peceed '..string theory publications are among the best ones.' Not really. Look up the preprint archive of HEP TH. They're like a half-mad tribe in a forlorn search for the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, milking those toy 2, 3 dimensions for anything like Chern-Simons theories, or those 10, 11, 12 or 26 dimensions to play around with Calabi-Yau threefolds and superstrings and supergravity.
@@peceed I'd rather see a stab at new terrain in, say, differential geometry than one more blowhard looking at Calabi-Yau manifolds in his string-theory program with yet the 12 millionth paper on 'Ashtekar variables in a new light.'
I was so exited about video right before I realized that it is only a fragment. I do not like its least put in the name that it is only segment, otherwise it is very misleading.
Both these groups have good points. I think string theory has value, even if it's untestable and makes no new predictions.
Ok, then pay for it.
I agree. As far as I understand all of physics can be derived from string theory. So if string theory was discovered before quantum mechanics then everyone would say quantum mechanics can't be tested.
If it makes no testable predictions, then it is NOT SCIENCE.
Science starts with a hypothesis that makes a testable prediction.
String "Theory" did have a few formulations that made testable predictions. These predictions were falsified, at which point, the "String Theorists" moved the goalposts and rejiggered the variables, and claimed that only that specific configuration was falsified.
Either:
1. String "Theory" made a testable hypothesis that was falsified, and String "Theory" is therefore wrong and not part of Science any more.
2. String "Theory" cannot be falsified and was therefore never Science in the first place.
@@ackillesbac am i missing something here? why wouldnt you be able to verify quantum mechanics?
@@BuGGyBoBerl physicist tend to avoid string theory because they claim it cant be tested and therefore be proven.
Quantum mechanics can be tested, has been and is well accepted as proven true.
My point is if Quantum Mechanics can be derived from string theory then testing quantum mechanics is equal to testing string theory.
So if string theory was discover before quantum mechanics then string theory would be accepted and quantum mechanics would be considered a simplification of string theory, much like magnetism is a simplification of the electromagnetic force.
I believe the best point made here was by Penrose, who is at once able to distinguish the theoretical from the pragmatic. He points out that the universe itself is doing higher energy physics all the time (quasars, black holes, neutron stars, binaries ect...), but there is no hint of extra dimensions emerging or influencing those processes. Mike drop!
The universe is randomly accelerating stuff to really high energy, but that is not enough to do serious vacuum spectroscopy with that stuff. It has to hit other stuff in a well defined interaction volume and the resulting scattering process has to be surrounded by a nearly 4pi detector system. Without the last two conditions all we are getting are tons of by-products that don't contain the actual physical information we are after. We do have those detector systems... large cosmic ray shower experiments are doing just that. They have their uses, but they can't replace an accelerator.
Gotta love all the internet math/physics experts in the comments section who most likely spend all day on TikTok and Twitter and can't solve a basic Calculus 1 problem, telling us why string theory "is wrong".
or right for that matter. i think the burden of proof is on string theorists anyways. atm we simply dont know.
Exactly. The real Scientific Community, like particle phiycisists, have been waiting for string theorists to provide any testable results and it has brought nothing. The media, the enthusiasts, the tiktok lovers, have wasted too much time on this useless theory.
They were lied to, with lines like " in the next 10 years. we will have proof" for the last 30 years.
At this point any real scientist would be embarassed.
Holy self-report Batman
por sentido comun?, o necesitamos un gran calculo para su satisfaccion?
Wow, so rigorous. Why did you asume I cant solve basic calc 1? Rigorous, rigorous. String theory, is wrong.
science progresses one funeral at a time and the debates are so vicious because the stakes are so small.
When egos are buried the faulty ideas fizzle out.
Richard Feinman said of string theory, "they're cooking the books, science isn't done that way", he was right.
As long as you can still get funding I'm sure it's a completely worthwhile endeavor.
lol (but kinda true)
Why do people think sting theory is such a huge area of research that tries to silence others. String theory is a pretty small area with few people working in it.
With regard to the financial investment/year, the odds are different. Particle accelerators are quite expensive, just in case you shouldn't know.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 particle accelerators are not only used for string theory research. In fact, they mostly are not.
Science advances with the death of the old guard scientists
That's the solution. Keep the discussion open. Let everyone with a reasonable hypothesis have their say.
Eric Weinstein is such a pseud. What has he even contributed to the field?
You went ahead and made something that should be free for the public and made it a subscription thing… whoever made that decision should be ashamed of themselves
I've just discovered the definition of disingenuous listening this 'live' cast.
thanks iai just where educational material belongs, behind a paywall
I'm not that smart so i just agree with Sir Roger on every thing ... which makes me smarter than most "wink"
😮 can anyone link the complete talk?
Link in the blurb on AI website ^^^
There seems to be an ideological component to theoretical physics that mirrors ontological liberalism and forms of conservatism with debates being around political community and the utilitarian nature of modernisation through things such as the LHC.
Just build an LHC larger than the Earth, and String theory will be unambiguously confirmed ;-)