ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Superstrings
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ม.ค. 2015
- The quest to find the ultimate building blocks of nature is one of the oldest in all of physics. While we are far from knowing the answer to that question, one intriguing proposed answer is that all matter is composed of tiny “strings.” The known particles are simply different vibrational patterns of these strings. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains this idea, using interesting and accessible examples of real-world vibrations.
Related video:
• The Standard Model
This series is so well presented...I appreciate the pacing, the articulation; the pauses are just long enough to grasp each phrase. Visually clean, simple and effective. Bravo!
Fermilab I agree with Patty; this is excellent material for the parlour.
Agreed. I’d like to see a bigger course going a little deeper into fundamentals but keeping the same overview emphasis.
Hi sexy
Ahh! The analogy of the paper in the hoop finally made it all start to make sense. The need for extra dimensions is starting to sink in. Thank you.
Superstring theory might not be totally correct but it at least presents us with something every scientist needed--motivation. For example, if all we had were lens microscopes, then studying water or gas is virtually impossible. This will lead the community to conjure up crazy theories--one of which is bound to be right. And in the pursuit of these theories we're bound to stumble upon that one right theory that predicts H2O successfully. Superstring theory & other unifying theories help us by fueling our frustrations into pushing us to not be content with merely a standard model but to go deeper into truth. :)
This channel is super. I'm happy for stumbling on this channel. Incredible explanations.
ok
null hypothesis:
creating two entangled particles is really just creating A SINGLE string (or changing an already existing one in such a way) that, since strings vibrate in multiple dimentions, it only comes into contact with our brane in two locations, now these two particles are really just the manifestations of the single 11D string into our 3d universe, hence, they do not have spooky action at a distance, in fact, if it's a single string that is circular;
*mental image*
imagine it being a literal string piercing through a paper(our universe/brane) if you twist the string clockwise near the right hole in the paper, all on its own, it will spin counter clockwise near the left hole in the paper.
and hence, quantum entanglement isn't particle telepathy, magic, spooky action at a distance, or pre-programmed planning within the particles, it's the natural result of a string vibrating in more dimentions than we perceive. it's a more accurate representation of a tesseract than the tesseract itself.
furthermore, I'd go as far as to say that all particles in the standard model are mere manifestations of strings, except, they vibrate in different frequencies, dimentions, and orientations, affecting different fields, would make perfect sense because: you see mass can transform into energy, to us it's magnificent, but in string, it's just a string changing the note it's playing.
This comment will help. a lot. I promise.
lovely theory. absolutely. I'd like to hear why it shouldn't be regarded as possible. very fascinating, thanks for this one
!
this IS interest(r)ing!!
but.. you know.. a ton of Math needs to be done to support any brilliant idea.
Well, how does that relate to the way they are created?
In a few years we can start wondering if it is alive or dead.
So glad that I found this channel today. Can't stop watching! :D
This the most interesting video in this channel I've seen so far. Well done and thank you.
I have to know: where DO you get such cool tee-shirts?
Thank you, sir, for the info and for what you do. This stuff is actually starting to make sense. Of course, this might also mean that I've got something horribly wrong. Alas, this is what learning is all about...
Me 2 🤭🤣
Thanks a lot for the subtitles in English, they make the google translator very easy for other languages.
Thank you for this! It was really interesting, and simple to understand. I truly enjoyed it.
One could say that for the 4th dimension describing the location of the paper on the hoop in the example, it technically is limited to the location of the hoop itself, so this could help to separate the 4th dimension from the more well-known 3.
Unless of course, I'm misunderstanding Dr. Lincoln's explanation myself :)
I like the way you are honest in your videos, like saying the ‘theory has zero proof but it is cool’; but we all know it is not exactly true; I can think about many cooler theories (“everything is made of ethereal chocolate …”) with zero proof either. String theory maybe cool, but it is studied because it has a very, very solid mathematical base.
I agree, pepole currently working on this theory are some of the best mathmaticians of our age.
I am a bit late. String theory has a really a good mathematic basis. But that's the problem (and I am a mathematician), math is a bitch. The extra dimensions form a Calabi-Yau space and if string theory is true, then our Universe is one of them.
But do you know how many non-isomorphic Calabi-Yau spaces we can find ? An infinity. Yes, really. And that's the problem. The major problem. Even worse : we don't have a classification for these spaces.
when using quotes, please be accurate.. he said "currently a very cool mathematical idea, but there is exactly zero experimental evidence" ... he already did acknowledge that it has a mathematical base... he also did not say anything about proof.. he said absence of experimental/empirical evidence (which is the foundation of scientific method) ... so your entire post was pretty unnecessary
I understood him perfectly fine and recognized that he was paraphrasing Don. For example, a mathematical proof is different that experimental evidence but he used the casual sense of the word "proof". We're just people on youtube and holding laymen to your level of criticism is unfair and pedantic.
Someday the math will prove quantum and gravitational principles.
The complexity in the salt on the vibrating plate arises from a circular phenomenon, vibration, is being constrained by a square plate. Because the ends of the square are essentially free to move, its shape influences how patterns emerge. The circular vibrations reflect off of the square edges and combine to create the complexities. If I am correct using a circular plate should not exhibit these complexities.
the patterns formed arise from the 2 dimensional vibration modes that the object can vibrate in. Each object has many vibration modes, and those modes can be excited by resonating the object with a frequency corresponding to that mode's resonance frequency. It happens with circular objects, and objects with all shapes in general, you can see an example here upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Drum_vibration_mode12.gif
Good job Dr. Don! and all the team at Fermilab!
Always good teaching.
It is only necessary to understand the legitimacy of the construction methods of the available materials, (substantiation by occurrence of quantized time), and how/why. I make this suggestion because then the literal function of time is inherent, and obscure definitions are not required. So all phenomena is described mathematically, if not observably.
Then the derivation of this proposed limit of calculation of strings etc automatically justifies the world we experience, because we have a practical understanding that works for us. So putting all the bits together this way, I'd be happy to accept the super string is the ultimate point of mathematical uncertainty. (?)
Ie, it is a universe of calculation, from this super string point of view, with no absolute size, only relative duration of connected/harmonic calculation in perpetuity.
(?).. Trying to make the best use of a lot of valuable work on strings..., but the string concept is only a particular mode of the Quantum Fields, that are arranged in every possible mathematical state of Eternity-now superposition-probability, substantiated by duration in existence.
Because even the projected objective of the singularity, wherever it appears to be in calculations, is indeterminate, IMO therefore, ST is dealing primarily with the harmonic heirachical states of the First law of Thermodynamics structure, because each phase transition implies a straight line connection, singly or collectively and continuously in eternity.
Luckily I have no credibility to protect, so a world full of science students who want something to do can satisfy their own understanding of what the theory means.
To find strings it might help to slice time into small pieces such as planck time, as strings may vibrate in three time dimensions of past, present and future with each having three spatial dimensions, or three 4D slices / blocks of space-time. Since gravity is curvature of space-time, strings vibrating in space-time twelve dimensions at quantum level could describe quantum gravity.
Good mathematical advice, the equivalence of the illustration of Q Foam as the envelopes of wave packets, has a string-like (skipping rope) structure, that is sufficiently similar to the oscillating node principle, of gas/point in a bubble.
The solidity of an object such as particles, strings and shells, is a product-connection of relative-history duration. Fundamentally, it's a measure in terms of phase-locked phase-states of QM-Time duality of something nothing dipole probability in possibly, that is most definitively experienced by mathematical perceptions.
Relationships are concentric gradients of duality-duration 1-0D from solid eternal duration empty/liquid now, temporal superposition. So the products of infinite combinations of connection at instantaneous zero are the sequences of zero pivotal axies, radial-tangential geometrical objectives and interpenetrating fluid conduction of virtual states within potential, mathematically eternal related states. It's a quantized-numerical cascade of phenomena from flat-geometric eternal states to instantaneous-emergent "chemistry" of QM-Time, apparently dominated by the 3D+T topology of something-nothing existence.
Human under-standing, (being here-now under the circum-stances of this particular environment), is the world of perceptions. We can't force physical reality to be comprehensible on or terms, we accumulate relative histories of empirical evidence and experience, sometimes in a "take it or leave it" semi-detached methodology of science. (?)
In-form-ation defines-states the boundary of existence, 1-0D dipolar duality-duration, so if mathematical circumstances of possibilities are established, there is no further reduction of the temporal spinfoam-superposition connection continuum beyond this QM-Time virtual projection, ie, it's basic.
finally got the 11 dimensions stuff
the "thinking about something very big, very small, or lunch" made me think that a punch of particle physicists should get together and make a fast food chain called Quark Galaxy or Quark Universe or something. Serving up such specialties as the Strange Burger, the Strong Nuclear Milkshake, Quasar fries, and, of course, the very spicy Supernova Chicken Sandwich.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
As someone once said "if you can't prove or demonstrate it using an experiment then it's not science but just philosophy.
Can you demonstrate this someone saying that?
That person is a little hasty. Suppose one day we find/construct a theory that unifies various theories into one logical whole, but we have to postulate the existence of 'dwirknarpholigs' that are unobservable in principle. The theory predicts nothing that we did not already know and has no specific experimental confirmation (i.e. experiments that distinguish it from the collection of previous theories). Still most people would consider this part of progress in science, and not of philosophy. The distinction between science and philosophy is not as clearcut as one might think.
Maybe one day we will discover preons that are smaller then quarks but much bigger the super-strings that make up all quarks. Super-strings might be the final theory and the smallest things in the universe. It might be easier to test if there are smaller things that make quarks then to test for the smallest things that are super-stings.
Brilliant don!!!
05:58 - It is only "complex", or more exactly "complicate" idea, as long we don't recognise that these "DIMENSIONS" are essentially "MATHEMATICAL DIMENSIONS", so "MATHEMATICAL ABSTRACTIONS". They indeed only refer to THE EXPRESSION OF THE CHANGE OF QUANTITY IN A CERTAIN QUALITY OF CHANGE OF THE STRING.
Indeed, we should first not talking of DIMENSIONS but of "DOMAINS" to be less confusing. Second, it's like The Most General (but trivial here) Definition if a VECTOR:
- a series of ORDERED VALUES FOR EACH DOMAIN WE WANT TO EXPRESS POSSIBLE CHANGES IN VALUE, "domains" we call "DIMENSIONS" in Mathematics, so the confusion.
But these DOMAINS may be such things like the temperature of a classroom, the number of students in it, its number of windows, the thickness of its thermal insulation, et cetera. So, would You say that because we use a vector with "n" (MATHEMATICAL) DIMENSIONS that we are talking about any "new space dimensions"?!
Said that, Very Clear and Efficient Video, in term of Data communicated by unit of time; as used to :) (y)
I thought it was ten dimensions - 1 time and 9 spacial plus an eleventh which defines a membrane that constitutes our location / universe versus other membranes or branes for short?
If we could make some kind of accelerator from pressor and tensor fields, etc., then we could imagine an accelerator that can detect possibilities at the Plank Length, i.e. Large Hadron Collider, Super conductor super collider accelerator, and accelerator around the equator of the moon, etc., an accelerator around the solar system, and accelerator around the Oort Cloud, and so on, and so on and so on hence imagining an accelerator that can detect possibilities at the Plank Length. One book says that to work at these Plank Length would require an accelerator with a minimum of a 9 light year diameter, etc.
Would reaching very high speed make the string flat? If so, mass on the string would bounce slightly but the string around it would be flat. You would need to slow down to observe the vibrations. Light is therefore also vibrating at a very high speed because it would move along side the string, that makes it look flat until it gets distorted by incredible mass. Inside a black hole, light would get trapped by the speed of the anomaly but would keep it's own maximum speed inside. you would then see all the vibrations appear but it wouldn't start with 1, it would start collapsing until eventually you would have 0. Then by leaving the singularity you would see them start vibrating again as the string gains speed as you exit, until reaching max speed and becoming flat again when you're completely out of range of the singularity. The reason why light can't escape a black hole is because the black hole has more speed and light cannot go faster than the speed of light. I think the force created with the bounce due the vibrations has to be involved in the process of gaining the singularity that much spinning speed. Maybe that's where your other theory comes in, quantum gravity. Also the reason why light behaves differently when observed is because the process happening is just going way too fast for any equipment to measure so we only measure what we can. We can't tune in to the frequency of it yet and thus mess the process up by observing it incorrectly so it collapses. Tell me what you think, I was just throwing some ideas out here.
Here's a scientist after my own heart!
What does make the strings to vibrate?
And this is the whole basis of Science. Hard Evidence defines belief!
that is called knowledge, not belief.
Very informative! With the dimensions, I wonder if a 5th dimension would be probability. It may explain how particle-waves go through both slits and interact with themselves, and also how they go through every Feynman diagram possibility. If a 0D is a point, 1D is the connection of divergent points (a line), 2D is the connection of divergent lines (an area), 3D is the connection of divergent areas (a volume), and 4D is the connection of divergent volumes (a movement in time), then could 5D be the connection of divergent movements in time (a probability)? And could higher dimensions be probabilities of probabilities?
You forgot to mention that superstrings also offer a description of how gravity works, which is something that the Standard Model lacks.
Mr. Don - in fact what you forgot to say is that the string theory eliminate (on paper of course) the fundamental contradiction between quantum mecs and gen relativity, plus it integrate the gravity; this why is so intriguing; but i can understand your "frustration", its incredibly complicated in math terms; another not mentioned aspect, String Th is the base for M Theory or maybe ToE. Correct, dr. Don ? Cordially yours
What if strings aren’t vibrating string loops, but rather particle orbits?
The natural first (Occam’s) assumption to explain how or why a particle like a photon (or electron, etc) might behave as an uncertain location particle while also like a polarizable axial or helical wave ''packet'', given that everything in the universe from electrons to solar systems are in orbit with something else pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves depending on the orientation of their orbits as they travel thru space, and given that we know we’re in a sea of undetectable dark matter but don’t know where it’s disbursed, is that they’re in orbit with an undetectable dark matter particle pulling them into polarizable axial or helical apparent waves as they travel where the speed of their orbit determines the wavelength and the diameter is the amplitude which would explain the double slit, uncertainty, etc. No?
excellent work -the whole series- BRAVO!!!
Q: Is there some kind of deeper link between superstrings and QFT? It seems (at the notional referential context) that QFT corresponds to the ultimate level of "building blocks" sequence in the same manner as SupStrTh does, with the same [re-]structuring principle (ie linking particles to energy fluctuation induced oscillation); QFT seems closer to intuition (?)
String theories have versions. Bosonic (v1) string theory only explains bosons and requires either 26D or 10D. Fermions cannot exist in 26D. So the super (v2) string theories introduce the concept of super-symmetry to explain fermions and eliminates 26D option so only 10D remains. But there are 5 versions of super-string theory. M-Theory (v3) adds an 11th dimension and merges all 5 super-string theories into 5 special cases of a single M-theory. Next version (v4) is expected to provide experimentally verifiable predictions about string-composition and string-interaction of either electron (easiest elementary particle to experimentally manipulate) or top-quark (most massive single string producible in LHC - more massive (in GeV) than even higgs string).
Good show loved the props !All We have to do is go back I believe we all really Know.
Another great video, Don. Thanks. I believe in M-Theory. I'll going to search your videos to verify, but I don't recall any other videos on strings. If not, I really hope you do another on this topic and go into detail about all (currently) 11 dimensions.
Yes, I side with Dr. Don here with regards to Super Strings or any String Theory, in general. If it can't be experimentally proven, then I can't give it an ounce of belief that it is must be correct.
String Theory just makes a lota sense … very cool … !
I meant "String theory" in general … besides … I've got >>> THE BURN … !
You increase the vibration more the string gets divided into smaller particles vibrating independently but increase it more it divided so much that it is no more divided and vibrating as a single line and no more vibration is visible as the vibration is so small
In unified field theory, strings believe in you!
So brilliantly and clearly explained, even I almost understand it.
Thank you for mentioning PETER Higgs. Nobody ever even mentions his name or tells his story. NOBODY EVER even mentions this individuals name. This is the first time I've seen his name mentioned since the discovery.
Much of i don't understand but the little i understood was very interesting and i liked.
Quantum world and Human world are different.
Which doesn't really means that the behavior of the string is also the same in quantum world.
if you have a KTP crystal that is making entangled photons you could have a ring of them pass through a ring filter that have a certain energy. the uncertainty is when they are emitted. hmm that isn't a lens though and what is a black hole like? and what does that mean about the polarization of them and the polarization in terms of where they exit the circle filter? there's some kind of leopard thing... and it dies but anyway something about solving the wave equations for elemental atoms using entanglement.
Hello, I heard that there is a fundamental principle called of the ‘information conservation’. Where is the information conserved? Where is stored? Is that in the past? If information, whatever it is, should remain forever, and ourselves and our conciousness are information, what happens when we enter a coma, fall aesleep, or die?
Space is expanding. The extra dimensions could be the 3 spatial ones we know at a different scale.
Dr don Lincoln, this presentation was very good. you were more honest about model not being correct. the current model is correct about electron orbit nucleus, the nucleus is round. the rest are incorrect. accelerators will not give structure of matter. just like smashing two eggs against each other and the from the vaporised content trying to workout the physiology of Caterpillar, chrysalis and butterfly. your world dose not want to know, because your government as well as UK know past 40 years I have the correct version but they hope to steal it rather allow me to present it to the world. MG!
MG1 please tell me your secret. I promise not to tell anyone.
Even if Superstring Theory is true, there is a little problem. Superstrings are small.
How many (pre-)*preons it would need to correctly predict before it can test something? How many rival hypotheses would there be by that time?
It's hard to make concrete predictions while not being able to test anything. However mathematicians dig much deeper and still find gold quite often, so there is a hope.
I like your presentations. very good
So, if Superstrings vibrate in our normal 3 dimensions plus 7 other dimensions, does this mean that matter can and does exist in these other 7 dimensions? And if this is so, could it also be possible that Dark matter exists solely in any or all of these extra dimensions?
+Edward Cabaniss I think you have misunderstood the usage of the word dimensions here. Its more of a measurement of a quality of the string. Like height or length is a dimension in 3 dimensions.
+Edward Cabaniss That's the idea - that all particles exist in 11 dimensions in total - 4 of the "regular", "big" dimensions (cartesian dimensions) and 7 "small", "curled up" ones (polar dimensions).
What about dark matter? I don't know of anything about dark matter that's been done in string theory.
i think hes mentioning dimensions as more of vibrating fields for matter,etc
Yes that’s true, but dark matter is witnessed in our normal 4 dimensions, unless dark matter is extending across more than the 4 dimensions.
6:49 Exactly zero experimental evidence supporting superstring theory.
There's a joke I heard.
There are physicists and then there are string theorists.:-)
Superstring hypothesis just doesn't sound as cool.
this is a problem associated to the field of theory physics, so there's no experimento to prove the string theory actually, is a theory
Kort Beck No, it's a hypothesis, not a true theory. You do realize that by calling it a Theory you imply it is in the league of Gravity and Evolution, right? Even the people who work with String 'Theory' admit that the name is not earned.
yes you're right sorry, so a "Theory" it's relacionate to relative physics and a hypothesis to physics with lower scale like quantum physics?
what i mean is what actually the string theory can't be be tested with any experiment, so which field of physics does belong the string theory?
Another good way of being able to think about more dimensions only being able to be seen up close is to think of someone holding a pencil. Imagine someone holding a pencil right in front of you. When the pencil is close you can see that it is 3 dimensional. But should that same person take a pencil to the other end of a soccer field, you can only see the length and height, not the depth, which means at a distance that pencil only appears to be 2 dimensional and not 3.
please give thought about the beginning of time and distortion.
Stephen Wolfram is working on an interesting idea where our universe develops by applying a simple rule over and over again. I recommend you to check it out (Wolfram Physics Project)
Thank you. Nice and jovial explanation.
As for string theory, theories evolve. Previous theories of the cosmos have more or less led to a tangible whole, and accurately predicted and explained our observations at least for practical purposes: when will the moon god arrive? The moon god may not exist, but the patterns of the lunar orbit are included into the theory. Many ancient cultures had accurate celestial calendars, whatever they believed of the objects they were observing. As we evolved we got ever more accurate about these theories, like the adoption of a leap year during the days of the Roman Empire. The empire simply existed long enough that someone detected an error in the predictions vs real observations. Eventually we got to Ptolemy, Galileo, Newton and so on. Newton can get you to Pluto and back if you have enough fuel, and time!
Likewise, String Theory is perhaps comparable to Ptolemy's theories of the cosmos - perhaps we'll discover it isn't strings at all, but some other mathematical model will emerge. The basic patterns and relationships will remain, despite the possible paradigm shift in the thinking. It points in the right direction but it is likely not the final truth.
And then there will naturally be a question what the strings are made out of, and there we go deeper into the rabbit hole again :)
Pure energy? Whatever that means? XD
In my opinion those strings could be pure probability. Imagine a very unlikely event. You can plot it's chances to occur on a probability-density-function. Lets say it's a classical bell curve. On the edges, lets say we plot over time, those chances are very small. At the top of the curve the event is most likely to happen but before and after not so much. Since we assume that everything we observe exists we can also assume that the space under the curve ads up to 1. This just means it cannot not happen because our axis are infinitely long. Probabilities happen to interact and exclude each other and since 11dimension enclose everything (mathematically) possible those probabilities would oscillate between chance and reality and connect every other possible outcome to the reality of 4 dimensions we live in. What i don't get is whether the 11 dimensions are the spatial dimensions of probability-space or just happen to be 11 for the math to add up. And furthermore, I'd like to know why those dimensions have to be small when they can just extend into directions we can't access like different worldlines, different initial setups and so on.
...Is it possible for objects at 10^-35 to be divisible?
Have you discovered the "strings" already? If no why are you talking about superstrings?
Thanks.
+ joeylawn36111
Nobody has proven that. Planck length is just the smallest length that makes sense in contemporary physics. But that doesn't mean we will never discover something smaller.
Are these 7 other dimension spatial or temporal?
What are strings made of?
If one wanted to draw an analogy between a touring machine computed universe and a universe of strings would it be safe to say one bit of information is analogous to one superstring? The bit corresponds to the smallest/indivisible "thing" in the realm of information while the superstring is the smallest/indivisible "thing" in the realm of geometric space. Does that make sense?
Sometimes I think the string theory makes the most sense. Strings that can curl up and be a particle or unravel and be an energy wave. Nothing else really explains the to and fro conversion of Mass and Energy.
CLearly there's a lot of math I'm missing, but I don't really see how QFT doesn't account for the particles. Fields exist insofar as they are a model to explain a "physical" thing which, when excited, give particles. Are superstrings an attempt to "physically" explain these fields?
THIS MAN DESERVES A NOBEL PRIZE. I love you!!!!
Is it possible for 3D space to be slices of planck length one behind another, with planck times stacked one on top of another? As one moves from past to present to future up the stacks of planck time, also move planck length front to back in 3D space?
7:25 "Why do scientists study this idea that is so hard to prove?"
I think I can freely quote JFK here:
"We choose [...] do the [...] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
reality is stranger than fiction we might find something even more interesting than we can even imagine
karam jnah I know 🖖
When you say that you don't believe in strings, do you mean that you disbelieve the idea (I.e. believe it to be false), or just that you don't have a belief that it is true?
Actually, there is one other way to prove a theory besides experimental observation - And that is technology. Yeah we're probably decades and even centuries away from basing technology on super-string theory mathematics - But once we build a machine upon these principles and it actually works, that's some pretty strong evidence on it's own behalf...
+Amir Mittler That is still experimental evidence. It is just a different kind of experiment, one that is much harder to design.
In physics I some times wonder if absolute the smallest thing is impossible I think it is.
Calling a dimension smál or if seems silly. Time is not small or big, neither is left or right or up an down.
I try to believe in them on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The math and theory are good, but at this point, it is theoretically possible. Who knows what lays down the road. Within the next couple of hundred years, it is possible that progress in particle accelerators may be such than CERN maybe something used in highschool physics. I would very much like to know if it is possible to order any. Thank you.
One string vibrating various ways in 11 dimensions? Wouldn't that make more particles than the 3x4 fermions and a vague number of bosons?
What if things like charge are pertibtions in these other dimentions? Like gravity is in our known four, just into those teeny-tiny ones.
Does String theory make any testable predictions about our Universe, within reach of our current or future technological abilities that no other well established theory can, such as the Standard Model? I know the Multiverse is probably not testable, how about some new particles, or perhaps something about black holes? Didn't someone use string theory to show that Gravity was an emergent force, and can this be tested?
+Sean Rhoades Yes. Difference in quantum gravitational interaction between prediction and experimental results.
Description of discovered particles that the standard model would/does fail to describe, such as the graviton, which unites quantum physics and general relativity, and is predicted and described in string theory already.
Experimental data confirming black hole models in string theory (made Hawking re-think his theory and come up with the idea of black hole "hairs", due to the holographic principle in string theory).
Actually it does not make any predictions not covered in the standard model and the rest right now is totally unsupported experimentally, it lives only in the math and even that is not 100% at this time.
This leaves me with two questions. First: what started the string vibrating in the first place? ie. it was motionless at the beginning of time, and then god 'plucked' it to get it vibrating?? Second question: If strings are soooo small, at the Planck length, which is so many orders of magnitude smaller than even an electron, how could they POSSIBLY have ANY physical effect on matter that is that many orders of magnitude above them? There's this unimaginably huge gap between strings and sub-atomic particles yet strings can somehow reach across that gap and define the physical characteristics of particles??? How?? What am i missing?
Carlos Bonilla - Okay, I can understand that.. but what about my second question? WHY are they vibrating? What set them "vibrating" in the first place? Why can't they just be still and motionless? When referring to closed loop strings, can they stretch and eventually snap as a normal rubber band would?
+Tom P. Im no physicist but i dont think they mean an actual string vibrating the way we experience irl. Its more of an analogy. Quantum physics is very counter intuitive as our brains are designed to perceive only 3 dimensions. From what i can understand, the vibration is what we perceive as energy. And every piece of matter in the universe contains energy in the form of force fields and interacting energy. Similarly every string contains energy that causes its "vibration". As far as i can understand anyway.
How does superstring theory help theorise quantum gravity as mentioned in the quantum gravity video
From what I see a dog acts like a dog, a cat acts like a cat and a bed wetter acts like a bed wetter.
3:15 reminds me of the 'turtles all the way down' anecdote
...well explained...
Superstrings could be a particle around a quantum wave.
What if instead of strings, hollow spheres, which can have even more complex vibrational modes?
Damn! My string vest has gone missing.
_Maybe it's gone to some other dimension?_
For me the 4 dimension is the disintegration of matter, maybe it is not a dimension it is a state of matter
I know string theory is just math now. But what justifications or links to existing known principles has it provided thus far?
Why don't you use I button
1:47 Synchron Hand pose
How many more times before we land Captain?
Does string theory require supersymmetry? Are the two concepts related at all?
Can't you just observe particles at the plank length by looking at distortions in quantum foam?
Thank you sir.
I'm taking something else from this video, this way of thinking: 'I don't believe in x, but I like to think about it.'
+José Carlos Lazarte Aspíllaga It's 100% pure mathematical theory.
It makes very much sense, based on existing physics which is proven, and mathematical logic which is based on proven axioms, in the own reference frame of mathematics. String theory is built on those mathematical axioms - it uses existing physics and mathematics to create new ideas, and show they make mathematical sense - not violate anything based on existing mathematics.
But just because it makes sense logically, doesn't mean that it's true.
A theory needs to describe something. If that something doesn't exist, the theory is not a theory - it's a story that describes something fictional, that doesn't exist.
How do strings vibrate in many dimensions?
Sir why don't you make a video on the origin of gravity and inertia???
And on What is time??
Please make a video on time at least
yes, there is something simpler. It call in theuniverse there is something call being and will and opening an atom to put matter in charge is nuts.
Surely some of the string theorists could come up with ideas that are testable that could point towards correctness or not of string theory.
+Ashwin Bhat There already are, like if the graviton were to be proven - seeing different in predicted results of gravitational interaction and results from experiment.
The string theory explanation to that would be that the energy "escaped" to other dimensions that we can't measure.
Just for example.
It could be that it'd predict the existence of the graviton is such a way that the standard model doesn't predict, and string theory predicts it in a certain way, and when it's discovered, that string theory described it exactly.
Sir,
What is the difference between subatomic and elementary particles ?