Next weekend, Micho Kaku and Sabine Hossenfelder will be coming to speak at HowTheLightGetsIn London (23rd-24th September). Come and see them live, debating topics from the Standard Model to gravity and time, at the world's largest philosophy and music festival. Get tickets here: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?TH-cam&
The key to finding a ToE is not in some new super beautiful theory. It is recognizing the flaws in the old theories we take for granted. Correlation we found. indeed. But not correct causation. May I present to you the most valuable remark a Nobel Prize Laureate made in the past 100 years; Sir Roger Penrose time and again stresses; '....yes we have E=MC2 (Einstein). But we also have E=hf (Planck). Substitute one in the other and you get mass equals inverse time; if you have mass, you have a CLOCK in the QP world...' I want all of the distinguished panel guests to please pick a side. Is Penrose correct to call Mass fundamentally equal to inverse time ( and as a direct consequence, energy equals inverse space) , or do you say mass fundamentally equals energy. Both can't be right at the same time. You see the pickle Penrose presented ? Do you really? spoiler alert; Penrose is right and Einstein was not. Now think what this does to Special relativity. Pls dear panel, stop these endless debates. The answer is far more simple.
I am not interested in listening to a liar like Hossenfelder who has stated “… I no longer have faith in science…”. The wording of that statement indicates that she is deliberately appealing to the anti-science,flat earth and religious brigade.
I'd bet you'd be surprised, because behind closed doors - Sabine really doesn't have a problem with String Theory proper. She's just saying we can't confirm it now so let's put the brightest minds on practical physics instead of theoretical because we simply are running out of time.
I think it is not fair to have Sabine vs other 3 physicists who follow these ideas of mathematical beauty. I don’t think it is true that the cosmological constant was added to make the equations more elegant. It was added to avoid a practical problem that Einstein thought exist with his initial equation.
In my opinion 99% physicists do not think about this problem at all. They simply do not deal with anything fundamental enough. When you use established laws of physics to solve a problem, you are not concerned whether they are beautiful at all.
@LorneABrown True. Mathematics is beautiful, but mathematical beauty was never the driving force behind physics discoveries (in my opinion). However, no doubt that our best theories are expressed by beautiful equations. In other words, mathematical beauty comes as a by-product. I might be defeating my own argument, but I don't think many likes the equations that describes the standard model with all these parameters although they fit experiment so well.
@@abdouabdel-rehim8537 I agree with you. In fact, my desire for mathematical beauty is exactly what compelled me to decide to be a pure mathematician instead of a theoretical physicist! 😁
@@donavenmusic He is not to me , so your claim is a demonstrable and silly lie. You sound like the sort of person Hossenfelder is deliberately trying to appeal to, given she stated that “…I no longer have faith in science…”.
Micho is the world's brightest used car salesman, except that he does not have to sell cars to make a living. The secret to being a good string theorist is to know how to get grand money year after year, which Is Micho's forte.
These scientists showed so much respect towards each other. They didn't speak over and humbly agreed/disagreed. We can also be nice as listeners. The edge of fundamental physics is fuzzy.
I think that is too much. Michio Kaku is passionate about string theory. And string theory is not a theory like Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein. It is a true scientific theory and which was developed in the traditional way. And we should study string theory, because it answers a lot of math questions. But I agree he goes sometimes too far and hypes things up. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study string theory. And Sabine Hossfelder agrees with this. Also, there was good reason to study string theory, because it is the only theory that gets rid of infinities. I am not sure if you work in the field. This is a huge problem! And string theory is the only theory that has solved it.
Even our most accurate theories fall short. Atleast String theory ticks more boxes. I think guys like winstein constantly having a crack at string theory just do it to collect fans boys for their youtube channels. You are one.
The first speech of Michio Kaku, saying that you can't critic a theory if you don't bring up a better one at the same time, is a joke : so, if you don't like a movie, you can't tell nor explain why, unless you're a movie maker ? In a restaurant, you can't dislike a plate because you're not a cook yourself ? And if you're not a writer, you have to love bad books ? That's a really poor statement.
Every time I hear him, I feel he is trying to sell something … seems he has the same answer for every question. I guess that is his universal theory, but these other experts don’t seem convinced.
Yes, it was merely a rhetorical trick to try to paint String Theory as the "default" position. It isn't. The default position is "we don't know." "We don't know" is a better theory than a theory (String Theory) which has continually failed to be proven by experiment.
It is ad ignorantiam fallacy. The ad ignorantiam fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that something must be either true or false because it hasn’t been proven to be one way or the other. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. A common example of this type of argument is, “I can’t prove there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, so there must be one”
Noone of the participants gave the magnificent answer from Feynman on whether there's a GUT or not... Putting in a simple words, Feynman's answer was along "I don't care. if there is so be it, if there is not so be it again. I don't care, and I like it that I don't care. In the meantime I enjoy searching".
if someone believes in a theory... they likely will call it beautiful. So, the question is: What comes first? Do we like beautful things or do we find beauty in things we like?
'...is in the eye [mind] of the beholder'. The point about symmetry is well taken, though. It's a known significant factor in sexual attraction. So if a physical theory turns you on, you know why, lol
Sabine is right, because Kaku has been doing a bad thing for physics for years (especially for string theory). Kaku used to write good professional books, but over time he turned into a person who promotes science poorly. Sabine continues to write scientific papers, but over time she also became more of a popularizer of science.
@@amihart9269 Sabine knows though that if a topic of research isn't fruitful the best thing is to drop it and move on to a different in prospect rather than reinventing the lost cause.
Watching this signifies one of the issues I believe continues to plague the scientific community is certain individuals that feels the need to grandstand and take up much of the oxygen in the room. They also focus and control much of the means by which funding is distributed.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov String theory is still a cul-de-sac which has wasted 40 years of our smartest physicists lives. I think Ed Witton knew this, I think he was employed by multiple entities to keep research stagnant
Sabine calls out String Theory Cultists as "staring a a pretty wall and getting nowhere". Immediately after, Micho shows his wall and how pretty it is, and magically thinking of how the wall will disappear one day.
@@gbormann71 It's kinda how physics work in the early years when the methods of testing the hypothesis are rare and limited. Theories typically come out first, trying to explain things in reality and only get confirmed many years later. The problem with string theory is a big part of it is unfalsifiable. That makes it a faith. It's not necessarily the approach. It's the ingredients that's problematic.
they could have skipped Michio Kaku's invitation in my opinion. He only seems to bring the obligatory commercial salespitch for whatever sponsor of the show has asked for it (excepts that he's his own sponsor and the show doesn't get anything back from it). I really like to give his ideas a chance, but there doesn't seem to be something substantial coming from what he says. 😕
I'm here for Sabine and Max. I love their work. I became disillusioned with Kaku a bit before I did with Tyson - very intelligent, however they're best at talking.
That closing statement by Sabine was incredible. I've come to almost the same philosophy at this point in my education, and that's the direction I will probably start to take my research in my career. In the meantime... back to work lol
“I think where we're going to see the most progress come from is probably Quantum technology because there's such a lot going on there like with Quantum Computing, Quantum Optics, Quantum information, Quantum Metrology, Quantum sensing…there's so much going on I think sooner or later they're just stumble over something that they don't understand, and then they'll come and ask the theorists, how do you explain that and then I think from there we will develop a new Theory. It goes together with my belief that it's a mistake to try to put the blame on gravity when it comes to the unification of Einstein's theory. Quantum theory people have tried to doctor around with a gravity, try to quantize it. I think our problem is that we don't really understand the quantum part of the question, so this is why I think this new technology is going to help us make progress happen again with the foundations of physics.”
@@fadingintent I've watched her music videos. I don't believe that the Myers-Briggs types do a good job of explaining how people are. I've seen Sabine use facial expressions when she's in unscripted conversations.
0:39: 🔬 The debate explores the relationship between science, faith, and physics, questioning whether some assumptions in physics are akin to religious beliefs. 5:28: 🤔 Is mathematical beauty a guide to truth? 11:06: 💡 Mathematical and physical consistency are guides to truth in fundamental theory. 15:21: 😊 The power of generalization in physics theory lies in its ability to describe a lot of data with minimal information, allowing for new predictions and discoveries. 20:34: ! The video discusses the inconsistency between special relativity and the Schrodinger equation, and how string theory was proposed as a solution. 25:14: 🌌 Dark matter may be a presence of supersymmetry, which is a legitimate physical symmetry of the universe according to String Theory. 30:14: ✅ The fact that some predictions of a theory can't be tested does not make the theory non-scientific as long as it predicts other testable things. 34:54: ✨ The speaker believes that gravity should be unified with other forces and that there is evidence for the unification of couplings in gauge theories. 39:23: 🔬 String Theory is a theory under construction that has had successes in understanding perturbation theory and certain spacetimes, but is not yet complete and cannot describe certain situations like the beginning of the universe. 44:18: 🔬 String theory has a double identity, one as a theory of gravity and the other as a theory of ordinary matter, but it also presents the landscape problem of potentially infinite universes. 49:18: 🔬 Progress is being made in the development of string theory based on consistency and exploring new ideas from other areas of physics. Recap by Tammy AI
You meant General Relativity and QM? Special Relativity is already succesfully married to QM through Relativistic QM with major contributions from Dirac.
I feel motive of science is not beauty but truth. Beauty is just human construct while science is for any sufficiently evolved consciousness. I believe biggest question (may be in philosophy domin) is - why does universe follow a set of rules and so mathematics?
Seeing Michio in the panel begged the question whether this video would be a waste of my time. Physics' idea that a simple equation is beautiful encourages physicists to pile assumption upon assumption driving clarity for the outsider down the rabbit hole.
It doesn't matter whether something is beautiful if it doesn't explain reality. Beauty is subjective and people do not agree what is beautiful so how to generalize when there is no agreement in the method to look for knowledge.
Yes, I quite enjoyed what he had to say. He was the only one of the "mathematical beauty" camp who actually gave a definition of what he considers "mathematical beauty" to mean. Additionally, he seems quite grounded. Meanwhile Kaku and Tegmark seemed to just wax poetic about their fantasies that one day String Theory will be proven, despite its failure for 40+ years.
@@whitemakesright2177 i dont think its a failure. even if the string theory itself is wrong, we will have learnt how not to do it. theres a saying like success in failure. its like edison who invented light bulb failed the first 2000 times.
Maldacena's book spines suggest he reads his book rather than rely on audible, etc. Very cool! Tegmark on the Universe work was brilliant. Superb Panel. More of these, please?
is reading books really... that rare or something? i have always found audiobooks a bit awkward as i have the tendency to reread sections and having the text and visuals infront of me is helpful. I obviously listen to podcasts and such while I am doing something or walking etc
@@eishuno fair question, I have little time for pleasure reading and have had to reduce my reading to audible books. I, too, must reread sections at times when my imagination takes control, and you can rewind portions of audio books. Even so, I do not retain the audio book details as well as I do reading. I suspect there is little to no cognitive benefit to passive listening, especially compared to reading.
One can be economical with conveying ideas, but still be wrong. Hossenfelder is so stuck up with herself as the queen purveyor and self-appointed gatekeeper of what physics is primarily from yes laymen to her absolutely boring and non-expanding blogs.
Someone will need to convince him that he's on the Titanic. He even said so. Put up or shut up. I'm just a curious bystander when it comes to science, but I clearly understood that remark.
@@d.e.7467string theory has been beaten to death over the last few decades. Everyone keeps showing him that the water is rising, but he just rearranges the deck chairs and calls it a pool. He staked his career on string theory. His name is forever linked with it. If he gives it up now, he might as well just retire. Plus, as the flat earthers have shown us, theres a lot of money to be made peddling a failed theory to a public that wants to believe.
Interesting and I have said this before. If you understand how a human is grown, then you can begin to understand truth and create real solutions to understanding the relationship between our environment, consciousness and our biological being that drives us to think through sensory input. I’m gonna stick with Carl Sagan’s quote. “For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring” Great video!
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH: The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word. Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down. A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering. For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute. It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent. Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed. Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.' Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good. However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul. When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law). The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit). Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability). This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter. Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything. If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth. OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”. For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being. So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth. “In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are. We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is." ************* “God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This. So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness. The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.” Roger Castillo, Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015. “I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”. Lord Jesus Christ, John 14:16 and 8:32.
What's very strange is people talking about beauty as a criteria for truth without much reference to aesthetic theory, or to the now reasonably well mapped neural substrates of aesthetic experience, or to the emerging body of thought linking strong aesthetic experience to the experience of reverence and mystical experience, that's a lot to leave out. Particularly if you're interested in bridging science, philosophy and religion. And the basic science suggests that contrary to the notion that the experience of beauty is some kind of ethereal cognitive process unrelated to baser concerns like survival, in relationship to physical beauty - what we consider to be sexually attractive - it is clearly a proxy for reproductive fitness which explains why a sense of beauty is selected. This fundamental survival relevance extends to the ability to appreciate beauty in nature, where the detection of a beautiful scene is intimately related to the ability to detect environments that support fecundity and thriving and diverse life. All these considerations are omitted but they explain why mathematical beauty is seductive and possibly a component of Truth, but certainly not any acid or most critical test. The biggest problem is that both many wrong and many right theories turn out to be beautiful so it's really not a sufficiently selective criteria. There's not a single person from neuroscience or psychology in this group, although Sabine is clearly the most knowledgeable panel member in relationship to those scientific domains. But you can't leave out the science of aesthetic experience and talk about beauty as a criteria and expect not to miss large amounts of relevant material. I wish however that this was an uncommon mistake instead of it being a common one.
Well the debate is about how physicists consider beauty to be relevant in their work. Not a neurological, psychological, or sociological explanation for why beauty exists.
It may seem irrelevant or ridiculous to notice the worn and consumed books behind Mr. Maldacena, when I remember that many politicians, theologians and academics show off a brand new library, as if they only had it for decoration.
What a great show! It is amazing to finally see that a relatively large number of people have displayed a real understanding of what physics truly is, and, more importantly, how close the modern physics is to the reality of the physics that is governing the universal realm of which we are all currently parts of. Of course, I am not at all referring to any of those four sad faces I have frozen on the screen of my monitor. I am actually referring to the many people who have finally managed to point their surprisingly deep and clear comprehending ability to discern where the contemporaneous science of physics genuinely is. You are the real stars of this show. Your comments have not only made my day. They have managed to restore my faith in humanity, even if briefly this early morning. Thank you. I bow before you all.
If one argues that mathematics is invented, rather than being an ontologically 'real' thing, then the sense of 'mathematical beauty' becomes even more suspect. It's also worth adding that equations only really tell you that some quantity is 'equal' to some other quantity or quantities....without ever actually telling you what the things being quantified fundamentally actually 'are'. A world of mathematical physics in which everything is described in terms of everything else only really describes relations between things, and somehow skips over where the 'stuff' and the rules come from. To me the real acid test for physics is whether a scientist who had never heard of universes and hadn't first had a peek at our one could come up with today's physics.
Mathematics is invented, but it was invented along the lines of physical observations. Ordinary mathematical logic was derived from the observations of the behavior of finite collections of classical physical objects and their immutable properties. Your deep confusion about the matter stems from this trivial piece of science history that you don't know about. ;-)
Sabine's closing idea that quantum gravity may not be the answer, and it may be that we don't understand the quantum mechanics side of things, is interesting. It certainly seems that the assumptions so far in pursuit of a "theory of everything" have focused far more on relativity being wrong than on our interpretations of the quantum realm being wrong. There's plenty of reason to question both.
Agreed. I'm currently trying to classicalize quantum mechanics. To violate Bell's inequality, we either need nonlocality, indeterminism, or statistical dependence. GR allows for wormholes connecting distant particles, which represents a "nonlocal" connection. That's what ER=EPR is about. I say we keep determinism and add "nonlocal" wormholes. No clue why this didn't become the dominant interpretation after ER=EPR stuff was researched.
@@PerpetualScience perhaps because ER=EPR hasn't been broadly accepted as accurate yet. I'm afraid I'm not yet familiar enough with it to form a position on it, and the issue of wormholes generally is far from settled science. Probably most physicists accept their theoretical possibility but question their attributes and implications, and probability of occurrence in nature. Much as was once the case with black holes themselves.
Sabine and Juan are the only one who properly give credence to the arbitrary and human-derived concept of beauty. Finding a beautiful answer is, almost by definition, an answer that will be best understood by humans. Beauty can also be inspiring towards new ideas. That is a noble pursuit, that has value in and of itself. But just because some humans find an idea beautiful or easily understood is not evidence that it is a more complete or accurate description of the truth.
I understood physics as the discipline that tries to catch reality in a model/theory so that the theory fits reality and we can make predictions with it, that can be useful (or sometimes are only interesting). But it turns out that some have an opposite view where they have beautifully consistent theories and they try to fit reality into that theory. I don't think it's directly useful, but I can accept the usefulness (or maybe just the beauty) of that viewpoint. It's certainly a nice (and for some, an elaborate) thought experiment. But I equally question if we can put that kind of thinking into the bucket of physics. It looks more as a philosophical experiment, then a physics one. (allthough the usefulness of trying to put everything neatly in our abstractly created buckets, is questionable on its own, so I don't know if we need to. It's just that Michio Kaku doesn't seem to bring much to the table except for this philosophical viewpoint that turns the goal of physics on it's head; but he brings this view not that elaboratly and in a quite messy, repetitive and commercialy looking packet, which makes me wonder about the value of it in many conversations, as it often gives the impression of devalueing conversations to a level which keeps spinning around the same surface ideas)
it is very simple, this is how it goes ................................................................................................................. what? Are you still waiting? 😯😏 I really did like this video, specially to hear from Tegmark. Sabine and Kaku are inspiring figures to today everyday physicist debates, and they deserve the rightful limelight on these matters. Thank you Mary-Jane. es muy sencillo, así es................................... ................................................. ....................... ¿qué? ¿Sigues esperando? 😯😏 Realmente me gustó este video, especialmente escuchar a Tegmark. Sabine y Kaku son figuras inspiradoras en los debates físicos cotidianos actuales y merecen la atención que les corresponde en estos asuntos. Gracias Mary Jane.
41:41 that's a good point and also what I've always thought. Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does. Still, a competing thought of mine I simply can't neglect is the simulation hypothesis. A lot of things may indicate that the universe doesn't "work" at all but just fools us into thinking that it does...
Standard model is the low energy effective field theory of the more fundamental qft. Physics is bound to search for a more general qft at higher energies, indefinitely. This is akin to drawing a picture of a mathematically fractal at a certain scale. Scientists are yet to discover "renormalization group" for mathematical logic.
>Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does. How do you know its an approximation w/o knowing what reality is? Physics needs a philosophy of the focused mind.
@@TeaParty1776 if I *knew* I wouldn't say "maybe". But I have a feeling the math is what keeps us from finding the true nature of the universe. I like the approach of Prof. Wildberger's from Australia though I don't know if that's the answer to everything. Since if it's all a simulation like thing your guess is as good as mine.
On which time, speed and size scales are your theories valid? What assumptions are wrong on other scales? What degrees of freedom do the "dimensions" (free parameters) in string theory correlate to?
The Born-Oppenheimer-Approximation is the basis for all quantum chemical calculations - differentiating the time scales. Is something similar at other scales?
Degrees of freedom for vibration, rotation, translation and excitation are not about multiverses at all. All formulas should works for all time/size levels. Mathematics and Physics are only models to reality not reality itsself
I cannot help but look at Michio and what he says with incredulity. How can he say: "put up or shut up" when it is the theory he works on that hasn't put up, it comes of as ingenue and combative. He holds a dull knife yet still brings it to a gun fight. I am not saying we need to ditch string theory, however something needs to change regarding the mindset of its researchers. Why 'chase the high' trying to explain what came before creation when the theory cannot predict fundamental particle interactions. It feels like a sales tactic, not science. I would like to close by saying that me and many others (perhaps even Sabine) would like nothing more than for string theory or another unified theory of everything to be proven true, however all we currently have are numbers on paper.
When Dr. Kaku mentions "power", he seems to be using it place of "utility". Because we don't really select things based on power but mastery over a given utility. Because what variable substantiates what is powerful?
The issue with the great GR theory is that it assumes 4 dimensions, one being time. However, time is not a dimension. There is only matter and motion. We would do better to explain what actually is electro-magnetism, let alone strong and weak force, and gravity. Just writing down maths that describe their behavior does not explain what they are.
I love how Sabine has evolved towards the quantum vs relativity issue: very explicit in her last comment, maybe it's the quantum part what we don't understand well enough yet. And this brings me to one of Maldacena's observations (BTW, typo in his surname in the captions) about maybe strings being chains of gluons. Not sure if that's the answer but got me truly intrigued and would like to learn more about that: the strong nuclear force is so underrated and potentially so important into unification!
We understand quantum mechanics perfectly well. Quantum field theory is perfectly relativistic and has been since the 1930s. You might want to catch up on science history when you find the time. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 - No. We don't understand a lot of QM, for example why particles have the masses they have, why there are three generations of fermions or many other things. And nope: QM is not general-relativistic, at best QFT married a narrow segment of QM to Special Relativity, which is not general enough to be considered a good marriage. You are the one who has to catch up, including watching the video and what Sabine, a real physicist with quite a good brain, has to say.
@@LuisAldamiz There are no particles. Massive fields have an effective mass term with a running coupling (logarithmic) that depends on the coupling to the Higgs and the other fields. Is this an effective field theory? Yes. That doesn't mean we don't know how the theory works. We just don't know how it behaves at the high energy end because we don't have a machine larger than LHC. There is a difference between not knowing the experimental data and not understanding the theory... a difference which you clearly don't understand. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 - That's QFT rather than the Standard Model and, as I already said, QFT only marries parts of QM to parts of Relativity. It's not the final answer, even if it is a good inroads. Particles are necessarily a thing in all versions of QM because QM is based on the particle-wave duality and "quantization". "Particle" (Lat. "particula") only means "small part" but everyone uses it in the sense of Newtonian-style point-particle, Feynman himself was very clear that he thought that particles are point-like but of course it's a matter of contention, an open question. I was watching Maudin, probably the best philosopher of science alive, and he claims that the issue of wave-particle duality has only three possible answers: wavfunction collapse (Copenhagen), pilot wave (Bohmian mechanics) or that crazy idea of Many Worlds Interpretation (which he considers legit but I do not). I don't know if there are other possibilities but in any case there is an issue with that wave-particle duality that granted Einstein his only Nobel prize. Personally I find that indeed the wave-particle duality may be not fully right for bosons, after all the photoelectric effect only implies that electrons (fermions) absorb a quantized amount of light's energy (measured by momentum, i.e. frequency) and not that photons as such exist as individual particles but I may be wrong on this (not-an-expert). I have the gut feeling that treating bosons and fermions as if they'd be the same, especially as no gauge boson is actually directly detectable, only inferred, may be a legacy burden of QM. I also suspect that the three generations of fermions (and their unexplained mass values) may be hiding clues about a possible simplification of the Standard Model and the secrets of mass, and thus gravity (relativistic gravity: how mass curves space-time, not the imaginary and irrational proposed "graviton"). But again not-an-expert (certified by no-university non-diploma, like Tinubu of Nigeria), so feel free to have a different opinion than mine. Only thinking freely (within the bounds of experimental and observational science) can produce results and advace physics beyond this two-headed little monster we have now.
@@schmetterling4477 - PS: I also recommend you to watch what Sabine has to say about larger than LHC wastes of money and resources. Bigger is not necessarily better and there are absolute limits to what we can build anyhow.
People forget that beauty was actually the byproduct quality of a sophisticated system rather than the sophisticated system itself. People chose to focused only on one specific quality while simultaneously not realizing that the beauty was merely a visual byproduct of a sophisticated system rather than the system itself.
Mass and energy are two fundamental properties of matter that appear in different phenomena. By applying the principle in a correct way we can easily make a unified model for the whole universe. This will condense the whole literature of science to some simple equations and understandable rules.
51:39 Sabine: "“I think where we're going to see the most progress come from is probably Quantum technology because there's such a lot going on there like with Quantum Computing, Quantum Optics, Quantum information, Quantum Metrology, Quantum sensing…there's so much going on I think sooner or later they're just stumble over something that they don't understand, and then they'll come and ask the theorists, how do you explain that and then I think from there we will develop a new Theory. It goes together with my belief that it's a mistake to try to put the blame on gravity when it comes to the unification of Einstein's theory. Quantum theory people have tried to doctor around with gravity, trying to quantize it. I think our problem is that we don't really understand the quantum part of the question, so this is why I think this new technology is going to help us make progress happen again with the foundations of physics.”
Max is right. (Sabine is my favorite talking head, so you can't accuse me playing favorites. I am only after the truth.). FYI, What Max Tegmark is talking about is called "Kolmogorov complexity". Put very simply, it is the measure of the length of the shortest computer program that is equivalent to the thing you are trying to measure (in this case, a physics theory). I pointed this out about 12 years ago (because at that time I was doing my graduate studies relating to Kolmogorov complexity), many many times on the Internet and TH-cam (to the point where people still, to this day, talk about Kolmogorov complexity on TH-cam often indirectly quoting my original posts).
Kaku is too used to speaking to people with little if any experience in physics, when speaking on a panel like this, he comes off as a bit too condescending and aggrandising...
@@garageliftrunner similar to another commenter somewhere in the comment section, i initially liked Kaku because he did a great job in promoting physics to general public. But as I studied more physics and later on watched Sabine’s TH-cam content, I am now more supportive of her viewpoint. Sabine said in this video to the best of her knowledge string theory has not been proven to solve the inconsistency they were discussing about. I am no expert in string theory, but the fact that Kaku did not refute her on this made me thinking she is right. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, string theory can not make falsifiable prediction. This is a fatal blow to a theory because it cannot be called scientific if it can’t event make falsifiable prediction.
@@zyzhang1130 ah yes. Hey, I respect your beliefs. It's too charitable, at least I don't have physics education. So even to say what a falsifiable prediction is like. And even for particle/emergent physics, what exactly are we talking about? Maybe it is also possible in that side to say particle physics, is an approximate reading and that discrete physics isn't even the thing that's closest to reality. Really it has the same "otherness" or "missingness" to it. I think these debates are more pragmatic, from that lense. But it's also guiding, in that guiding is huge for ensuring the correct topics like this are talking.
You could argue that Plato defined beauty 2500y ago by the sensible and aesthetic manifestation of proper logos. That's not an innovative question, but it lacked a bit of proper philosophical introduction.
I think she's the only one up there without any significant contributions to the field, no? Other than being a "popular" youtuber. If you want to call that a contribution.
So disappointing to hear such a prominent science communicator as Michiu Kaku say people should "shut up" and not point out issues with String Theory unless they have a better alternative. That's the worst kind of appeal to authority. Throughout all of history, people challenged the assertions of strict religious groups even though the scientific method had not yet been established and they didn't know the answers... but under Muciiu's idea of the world, everyone should "shut up" unless they have a better theory. Pathetic.
I think you miss the context of previous panels he's been on with Sabine or possibly others, where they kind of gang up on him or might be interpreted as ridiculing some of the more questionable quantum theories of today. I think he was being preemptively defensive in making boundaries clear. If you are going to tear something down, you'd better have a more suitable alternative, because the scientific method doesn't care. Challenge the assertions all you want, but until you have a better solution, it is all meaningless. That's how the scientific method works, and has worked so well. Look at the Higgs Boson which took decades to be proven, all the while people criticized it, but they had no better alternative, and in the end they were shown to be fools.
@johnjingleheimersmith9259 What you are saying is demonstrably wrong. The scientific method is the steps of Observe, Question, Hypothesis, Test (Experiment), Analysis & Conclusion. If someone's hypothesis is falsified, then it's falsified; whether or not you can propose a better alternative. In fact there are many pure experimentalists who just test theories and don't put forward their own theories. What you are promoting is theology... as it's the same thing religious people say about God e.g. "if you can't give a better explanation than God for origin of universe, then God must be answer". So I totally reject your idea and people absolutely have the right to ask whether string theory is falsifyable or not, and if not, whether or not it's really scientific at this stage or just a really interesting set of math exercises. Kaku and his ilk are now becoming emotionally attached to string theory as its promoters and not objective and in worst case unscientific and holding back progress in fundamental physics.
@@benk79 You're welcome like anyone else to provide a theory that satifies as much or as more as string theory, and test it. If it yields better results, you'll be quite popular very quickly. I don't see that happening though. The point is, the opportunity is there for you to truly "debunk" it, by legitimate means. you seem to only have a partial understanding of how things actually work, which does explain quite a bit. There does exist a near limitless body of information right at your fingertips though. I encourage people to use it for more than just entertainment purposes.
@johnjingleheimersmith9259 You're patronising tone explains why you're a fan of Kaku. You don't even understand what the scientific method is, so perhaps learn some basics before giving any lectures. You did not address my core point... so let me say it in simple words for you. Explain please how you falsify string theory... and if you can't, is it really scientific?
@@benk79 I'm not really a Kaku "fan", though I do have some level of respect for him. I did not address your point because it wasn't worth addressing. I have multiple degrees in science, conducted actual experiments for scientific studies, and published in real, scientific literature. The most scientific thing you've probably done is probably mix ammonia and bleach in your toilet. Have you even taken a basic physics course? And by the way, Kaku already has answered your question, so perhaps if you actually tried to listen and learn, you wouldn't be asking me. You don't actually care though, as your kind of issues are borne out of emotional, parasocial relationships from digesting media entertainment. It's all a bit plebeian and "basic" as the kids say. But I'll let you know if I ever need a project manager to do some organizing and send emails and take notes or whatever. Though I think the software's getting good enough that it's probably unlikely.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING: For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism. For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is: S+o = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace) Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as: E= A͚͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness) For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history. To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 “The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓 P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India): 🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉 Chandogya Upanishad 3.14 (‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’. “Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence. There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).
It isn't always obvious how to apply Occam's razor. Sometimes it is a but ambiguous over which assumptions are actually simpler. For example, take hidden variable theories. We could treat quantum mechanics as an incomplete theory due to lack of knowledge about hidden variables, and in some sense this is a simpler interpretation because it fits in well with previous assumptions in all other fields of science without having to make an arbitrary exception for quantum mechanics. But nobody has ever discovered these hidden variables, so you might argue it's simpler to just say they don't exist because they're not needed to explain observations. Which approach is more parsimonious?
I once bought an old banger which stalled after just moving around the corner. When I look back, the seller suspiciously looked more and more like Michio Kaku. Could he be the one? I want my money back with interest.
And all of these "fakes" can lead to the greatest of achievements when carefully examined and properly utilized. After all, beauty is just another human construct.
Love how the two not as famous scientists are humble and open to explore theories, compared to Michio and Sabine who seem a bit too certain in their theories.
Lols, Sabine wasn't peddling any theories, it was only Michio doing that. Sabine was the one to honestly and forthrightly challenge him on it. Max at one stage also tried, but in a lukewarm over-polite manner.
I wonder how useful AI would be in science.... Self-improoving ai that can get all these theories, create its own, test out new theories on its own... i think we as humans need to allow ai to research and test its theories. We should also build ai capable of doing this anyway....
I don't know much about theoretical physics, but I do know about beauty and applied physcis whenn it comes to sound. Garbage in, Garbage out: I'm an artist, architect, and an autistic savant / musician, I love it when spoken audio is clear, undistorted, even, unclipped, and intelligible. Good microphones, proper mic screening, vocal technique and placement, room acoustics and level setting are pre-requisites for decent vocal reproduction. A tiny bit of reverb, EQ, and careful use of audio compression can polish up a fundamentally good vocal recording, making it easier on the ears and more intelligible. Sabine's audio feed sounds best. Note also that she's the only one properly monitoring herself using closed over-ear headphones. You'd think the smartest people on earth would understand the physics of sound, and use proper audio equipment, but alas.... Unfortunately, Zoom style video conferencing feeds always have terrible audio because of ANOTHER kind of compression. The horrid lossy digital compression Zoom and other streaming software use to bit-crush both audio and video to reduce bendwidth. Now, add in the various hardware and software used by each guest to participate and aggregate their feeds through this same lossy digital flattening, plus TH-cam's own lossy compression, and audio compression alone might help normalize the VOLUME of the resulting audio nightmare, but it's still gonna sound like a bunch physics geniuses gargled with broken glass before the show. As an autistic person, bad sound litterally hurts. It's too bad, because there's some great content that I simply can't watch / listen to because of painfully bad audio. The audio here gets a C - which is actually pretty good given the format.
@@Thomas-gk42Tegmark also writes scientific papers that you seem to have never looked at. How good someone is in their field depends on the scientific papers and professional books they wrote, not because of popular books and podcasts.
When Kaku equates beauty to symmetry he really only thinks of visual beauty. And furthermore he treats beauty as something absolute, which it isn't: our sense of beauty changes over time. Is he really claiming that asymmetry can't be beautiful? Which means that he discards Picasso, and almost all modern painters. And how does symmetry cover music? Strange that someone who claims to play (mental) strings seems to discard beauty in music altogether. He has a very narrow sense of beauty.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
It sounds like you're talking about topological solitons! I suspect particles are just topological solitons of the metric tensor field too. I'm currently investigating Kaluza-Klein theory to see how well it can represent various gauge fields if there are copies.
@@PerpetualScience Thank you for the kind response. They are very rare these days. I would be interested in seeing your research, if that is possible. Do you have a website which shows your work?
@@SpotterVideo Not yet, but I should soon. I'm a PhD grad student at FAU and I'm part of an interdisciplinary lab(MPCR lab). We have a site and we're in the process of adding stuff so that lab members can make posts about our research. When that's done, I can add my current work there and comment the link here! I'm hesitant to share too much without having my name attached to my work in an official capacity.
There’s always patterns in the data if your theory is correct, beauty is subjective so using ‘beauty’ as a standard is stupid. Your theory should be 1) testable and 2) be consistent with the results of these tests, if you want it to be true. String theory has not been experimentally confirmed
I agree with the testable and consistent. But sometimes you prefer "beauty" as in "more compact information" or even "wrong but close-enough approximation". Example 1: when solving Maxwell's equations for wires, it's useful to alter to a Cylindrical Coordinate system, where the integral calculations are more "elegant" (as in the terms are shorter/compact and more intuitive than in other coordinate systems). Example 2: For simple Newtonian Problems you even make assumptions that deviate drastically from the truth (Car = dot point in center of mass, Planet = perfect sphere or even straight line). Hell we still use Classical Physics for these practical problems even though we have the Standard Model and General Relativity, because their solutions are "nicer" and are considered "close-enough" to the domain of their application. That doesn't mean that "nice" should replace "truth", but it helps a lot in understanding the concept, even when using gross assumptions that deviate from it. In the end, all physics are just models because our brain can only make so much sense of the surrounding stimuli. Sure, some models "stronger" (as in more general/fundamental) than others (with some completely wrong), but all just that; models (of our current understanding). My view is that String Theory is not yet even a theory yet; It's a physics inspired idea for a math project and will remain such until it can predict something measurable (if ever). But at the same time, I don't believe we should be so harsh on people working on it, at least to people that admit that it might lead to nowhere (humble like Max instead of arrogant like Michio).
Next weekend, Micho Kaku and Sabine Hossenfelder will be coming to speak at HowTheLightGetsIn London (23rd-24th September). Come and see them live, debating topics from the Standard Model to gravity and time, at the world's largest philosophy and music festival.
Get tickets here: howthelightgetsin.org/festivals/london?TH-cam&
The key to finding a ToE is not in some new super beautiful theory. It is recognizing the flaws in the old theories we take for granted. Correlation we found. indeed. But not correct causation. May I present to you the most valuable remark a Nobel Prize Laureate made in the past 100 years; Sir Roger Penrose time and again stresses; '....yes we have E=MC2 (Einstein). But we also have E=hf (Planck). Substitute one in the other and you get mass equals inverse time; if you have mass, you have a CLOCK in the QP world...' I want all of the distinguished panel guests to please pick a side. Is Penrose correct to call Mass fundamentally equal to inverse time ( and as a direct consequence, energy equals inverse space) , or do you say mass fundamentally equals energy. Both can't be right at the same time. You see the pickle Penrose presented ? Do you really? spoiler alert; Penrose is right and Einstein was not. Now think what this does to Special relativity. Pls dear panel, stop these endless debates. The answer is far more simple.
the inconsistency is in our heads- that was great
I am not interested in listening to a liar like Hossenfelder who has stated “… I no longer have faith in science…”.
The wording of that statement indicates that she is deliberately appealing to the anti-science,flat earth and religious brigade.
❤
I have an idea for another video: put Sabine and Michio together to talk about what they agree on! I’d watch the whole 10 seconds!
😂😂
I'd bet you'd be surprised, because behind closed doors - Sabine really doesn't have a problem with String Theory proper. She's just saying we can't confirm it now so let's put the brightest minds on practical physics instead of theoretical because we simply are running out of time.
Team Sabine!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣💯💯💯💯💯
Sabine was the only one who respected the 2-minute mark every time. She's also the most based.
She talks the less, but says the most.
Germans.
Sabine is the physicist for the conservative-type mob.
the most biased how?
@@BenjaminGoose they said “based” which is slang for blunt honesty
Hossenfelder & Kaku both on board, I should've made popcorn for this.
That was so awkward. I have second hand embarrassment.
😂 😂 😂
I think it is not fair to have Sabine vs other 3 physicists who follow these ideas of mathematical beauty. I don’t think it is true that the cosmological constant was added to make the equations more elegant. It was added to avoid a practical problem that Einstein thought exist with his initial equation.
In my opinion 99% physicists do not think about this problem at all. They simply do not deal with anything fundamental enough. When you use established laws of physics to solve a problem, you are not concerned whether they are beautiful at all.
@LorneABrown True. Mathematics is beautiful, but mathematical beauty was never the driving force behind physics discoveries (in my opinion). However, no doubt that our best theories are expressed by beautiful equations. In other words, mathematical beauty comes as a by-product. I might be defeating my own argument, but I don't think many likes the equations that describes the standard model with all these parameters although they fit experiment so well.
@@abdouabdel-rehim8537 I agree with you. In fact, my desire for mathematical beauty is exactly what compelled me to decide to be a pure mathematician instead of a theoretical physicist! 😁
I love watching Sabine’s expression wherever Micho speaks 😂
He’s unbearable to listen to almost every time he speaks lol
Why would any rational person care about what you say?
@@donavenmusic He is not to me , so your claim is a demonstrable and silly lie. You sound like the sort of person Hossenfelder is deliberately trying to appeal to, given she stated that “…I no longer have faith in science…”.
I died with her face when he said that 'we physicists take this multiverse idea very seriously' (45:14)
They are both like watching Christians arguing about denominations 😂 you want us to take you serious but none of yall can agree on anything
Micho is the world's brightest used car salesman, except that he does not have to sell cars to make a living. The secret to being a good string theorist is to know how to get grand money year after year, which Is Micho's forte.
These scientists showed so much respect towards each other. They didn't speak over and humbly agreed/disagreed. We can also be nice as listeners. The edge of fundamental physics is fuzzy.
He always talks like he’s on a documentary. I hate it
I think that is too much. Michio Kaku is passionate about string theory. And string theory is not a theory like Geometric Unity of Eric Weinstein. It is a true scientific theory and which was developed in the traditional way.
And we should study string theory, because it answers a lot of math questions.
But I agree he goes sometimes too far and hypes things up. That doesn't mean we shouldn't study string theory. And Sabine Hossfelder agrees with this.
Also, there was good reason to study string theory, because it is the only theory that gets rid of infinities. I am not sure if you work in the field. This is a huge problem! And string theory is the only theory that has solved it.
Even our most accurate theories fall short.
Atleast String theory ticks more boxes. I think guys like winstein constantly having a crack at string theory just do it to collect fans boys for their youtube channels. You are one.
@@devalapar7878actually string theory is more of a mathematical philosophy. Traditionally science needs to be testable
The first speech of Michio Kaku, saying that you can't critic a theory if you don't bring up a better one at the same time, is a joke : so, if you don't like a movie, you can't tell nor explain why, unless you're a movie maker ? In a restaurant, you can't dislike a plate because you're not a cook yourself ? And if you're not a writer, you have to love bad books ? That's a really poor statement.
Every time I hear him, I feel he is trying to sell something … seems he has the same answer for every question. I guess that is his universal theory, but these other experts don’t seem convinced.
Rather like people saying, 'if you don't vote, you have no right to complain'. It's just Gaslight.
Yes, it was merely a rhetorical trick to try to paint String Theory as the "default" position. It isn't. The default position is "we don't know." "We don't know" is a better theory than a theory (String Theory) which has continually failed to be proven by experiment.
yes he sounded arrogant and defensive at the same time trying to hush objections against his theory
It is ad ignorantiam fallacy. The ad ignorantiam fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that something must be either true or false because it hasn’t been proven to be one way or the other. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. A common example of this type of argument is, “I can’t prove there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, so there must be one”
Noone of the participants gave the magnificent answer from Feynman on whether there's a GUT or not... Putting in a simple words, Feynman's answer was along "I don't care. if there is so be it, if there is not so be it again. I don't care, and I like it that I don't care. In the meantime I enjoy searching".
Max puts real heart and love into his physics.
if someone believes in a theory... they likely will call it beautiful. So, the question is: What comes first? Do we like beautful things or do we find beauty in things we like?
The answer is both, in no specific order.
'...is in the eye [mind] of the beholder'. The point about symmetry is well taken, though. It's a known significant factor in sexual attraction. So if a physical theory turns you on, you know why, lol
Sabine😂 trying to casually hide her outrage against Kaku's claims with German self-control 😂 so funny to see
@@SRCX.ClimateResearch I love me some physics drama
Sabine is right, because Kaku has been doing a bad thing for physics for years (especially for string theory). Kaku used to write good professional books, but over time he turned into a person who promotes science poorly. Sabine continues to write scientific papers, but over time she also became more of a popularizer of science.
Both don't publish many papers and both promote very opinionated pop "science" and their own strange personal theories.
@@amihart9269 Sabine knows though that if a topic of research isn't fruitful the best thing is to drop it and move on to a different in prospect rather than reinventing the lost cause.
Teutonic fury, eh?
I believe that Sabine can defeat me in any "try not to laugh" challenge
😂😂😂
That woman is made of far sterner matter than we.
And?
Michio Kaku worth MILLIONS! Sabine jealous mostly.
🤣🤣
Watching this signifies one of the issues I believe continues to plague the scientific community is certain individuals that feels the need to grandstand and take up much of the oxygen in the room.
They also focus and control much of the means by which funding is distributed.
Michio Kaku just does marketing for his books at this point, he is like a robot or sth 😂
Same ilk as Avi Loeb. Click-bait science.
Dream peddler..
He found the money and lost interest in the science
What does your emotional reaction has anything to do with physics?
Love the way Sabine is giving Michie a Dirty Harry stare
Great episode Sabin Hossenfelder & Max Tegmark loved the beutiful straight honest answers . Thank all of yall for you tome and knowledge
The key to physics is moving on from the String Theory cul-de-sac, it’s been 40 years guys
we are on the cusp on AI-Assisted Theoretical Physics research... we don't have to move on from anything. Instead, we can expand our search.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov String theory is still a cul-de-sac which has wasted 40 years of our smartest physicists lives. I think Ed Witton knew this, I think he was employed by multiple entities to keep research stagnant
Consciousness as primary is what's next
@@purelife8559 consciousness is not primary. Meta-language is.
@@dmitryalexandersamoilov keep searching for phlogiston and aether?
Sabine calls out String Theory Cultists as "staring a a pretty wall and getting nowhere". Immediately after, Micho shows his wall and how pretty it is, and magically thinking of how the wall will disappear one day.
It's a Solutions-looking-for-problems approach. It is a satisfying approach in itself but it ain't Physics.
@@gbormann71 It's kinda how physics work in the early years when the methods of testing the hypothesis are rare and limited. Theories typically come out first, trying to explain things in reality and only get confirmed many years later. The problem with string theory is a big part of it is unfalsifiable. That makes it a faith. It's not necessarily the approach. It's the ingredients that's problematic.
in all honesty, this would be my perfect panel for such question.. LOVE this conversation.
they could have skipped Michio Kaku's invitation in my opinion. He only seems to bring the obligatory commercial salespitch for whatever sponsor of the show has asked for it (excepts that he's his own sponsor and the show doesn't get anything back from it). I really like to give his ideas a chance, but there doesn't seem to be something substantial coming from what he says. 😕
I'm here for Sabine and Max. I love their work. I became disillusioned with Kaku a bit before I did with Tyson - very intelligent, however they're best at talking.
That closing statement by Sabine was incredible. I've come to almost the same philosophy at this point in my education, and that's the direction I will probably start to take my research in my career. In the meantime... back to work lol
She is kinda what I’d imagine a female Einstein to be in the modern world.
@@Awesomes007
A female Einstein?
Yeah like Einstein mentally ill daughter.
“I think where we're going to see the most progress come from is probably Quantum technology because there's such a lot going on there like with Quantum Computing, Quantum Optics, Quantum information, Quantum Metrology, Quantum sensing…there's so much going on I think sooner or later they're just stumble over something that they don't understand, and then they'll come and ask the theorists, how do you explain that and then I think from there we will develop a new Theory. It goes together with my belief that it's a mistake to try to put the blame on gravity when it comes to the unification of Einstein's theory. Quantum theory people have tried to doctor around with a gravity, try to quantize it. I think our problem is that we don't really understand the quantum part of the question, so this is why I think this new technology is going to help us make progress happen again with the foundations of physics.”
Thank you iAi - so excited when I saw this Topic and great Team to talk about it!
Sabine always happy to be there as usual.
I guess she finds it tolerable, or her rider is good. 🤷🏻♀️
@@fadingintent I've watched her music videos. I don't believe that the Myers-Briggs types do a good job of explaining how people are. I've seen Sabine use facial expressions when she's in unscripted conversations.
The least miserable German
0:39: 🔬 The debate explores the relationship between science, faith, and physics, questioning whether some assumptions in physics are akin to religious beliefs.
5:28: 🤔 Is mathematical beauty a guide to truth?
11:06: 💡 Mathematical and physical consistency are guides to truth in fundamental theory.
15:21: 😊 The power of generalization in physics theory lies in its ability to describe a lot of data with minimal information, allowing for new predictions and discoveries.
20:34: ! The video discusses the inconsistency between special relativity and the Schrodinger equation, and how string theory was proposed as a solution.
25:14: 🌌 Dark matter may be a presence of supersymmetry, which is a legitimate physical symmetry of the universe according to String Theory.
30:14: ✅ The fact that some predictions of a theory can't be tested does not make the theory non-scientific as long as it predicts other testable things.
34:54: ✨ The speaker believes that gravity should be unified with other forces and that there is evidence for the unification of couplings in gauge theories.
39:23: 🔬 String Theory is a theory under construction that has had successes in understanding perturbation theory and certain spacetimes, but is not yet complete and cannot describe certain situations like the beginning of the universe.
44:18: 🔬 String theory has a double identity, one as a theory of gravity and the other as a theory of ordinary matter, but it also presents the landscape problem of potentially infinite universes.
49:18: 🔬 Progress is being made in the development of string theory based on consistency and exploring new ideas from other areas of physics.
Recap by Tammy AI
You meant General Relativity and QM? Special Relativity is already succesfully married to QM through Relativistic QM with major contributions from Dirac.
14:00 😂😂🤘 Big shout out to Mary-Jane! “Michio Kaku has thrown down!” Love it! Best host ever!
I feel motive of science is not beauty but truth. Beauty is just human construct while science is for any sufficiently evolved consciousness.
I believe biggest question (may be in philosophy domin) is - why does universe follow a set of rules and so mathematics?
Thank you for this conversation. I hope you will also have Peter Woit, Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli more often!
Wolfram too
Rovelli is the best.
Juan is such a pleasure to listen!
No way you got Maldacena on the show💥💥💥💥
Way
Seeing Michio in the panel begged the question whether this video would be a waste of my time. Physics' idea that a simple equation is beautiful encourages physicists to pile assumption upon assumption driving clarity for the outsider down the rabbit hole.
It doesn't matter whether something is beautiful if it doesn't explain reality. Beauty is subjective and people do not agree what is beautiful so how to generalize when there is no agreement in the method to look for knowledge.
Maldacena's first "2 minutes" was brilliant.
Yes, I quite enjoyed what he had to say. He was the only one of the "mathematical beauty" camp who actually gave a definition of what he considers "mathematical beauty" to mean. Additionally, he seems quite grounded. Meanwhile Kaku and Tegmark seemed to just wax poetic about their fantasies that one day String Theory will be proven, despite its failure for 40+ years.
@@whitemakesright2177 Tegmark was clearly being elegant about it but whatever
@@whitemakesright2177 i dont think its a failure. even if the string theory itself is wrong, we will have learnt how not to do it. theres a saying like success in failure. its like edison who invented light bulb failed the first 2000 times.
Maldacena's book spines suggest he reads his book rather than rely on audible, etc. Very cool! Tegmark on the Universe work was brilliant. Superb Panel. More of these, please?
is reading books really... that rare or something?
i have always found audiobooks a bit awkward as i have the tendency to reread sections and having the text and visuals infront of me is helpful.
I obviously listen to podcasts and such while I am doing something or walking etc
@@eishuno fair question, I have little time for pleasure reading and have had to reduce my reading to audible books. I, too, must reread sections at times when my imagination takes control, and you can rewind portions of audio books. Even so, I do not retain the audio book details as well as I do reading. I suspect there is little to no cognitive benefit to passive listening, especially compared to reading.
Hossenfelder's 'Existential Physics' is an interesting read.
Thks, Great conversation!!! Damm beauty, Always in the middle Of things!
I took an anthropology course at UVA about the world of academic physicists over 20 years ago that asked questions along these lines.
One can be economical with conveying ideas, but still be wrong. Hossenfelder is so stuck up with herself as the queen purveyor and self-appointed gatekeeper of what physics is primarily from yes laymen to her absolutely boring and non-expanding blogs.
I wonder if Micho Kaku’s pride will ever allow him to try and save himself by abandoning the Titanic.
he IS the titanic. science advances one funeral at a time.
Someone will need to convince him that he's on the Titanic. He even said so. Put up or shut up. I'm just a curious bystander when it comes to science, but I clearly understood that remark.
@@d.e.7467string theory has been beaten to death over the last few decades. Everyone keeps showing him that the water is rising, but he just rearranges the deck chairs and calls it a pool. He staked his career on string theory. His name is forever linked with it. If he gives it up now, he might as well just retire. Plus, as the flat earthers have shown us, theres a lot of money to be made peddling a failed theory to a public that wants to believe.
@@DrinkyMcBeer sunken cost too huge at this point
Thank you all for this very interesting conversation
Thank you Juan for saying the quiet part out loud! String theory is not even a theory yet.
Lets take it seriously when it becomes one...
Interesting and I have said this before. If you understand how a human is grown, then you can begin to understand truth and create real solutions to understanding the relationship between our environment, consciousness and our biological being that drives us to think through sensory input.
I’m gonna stick with Carl Sagan’s quote.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring”
Great video!
Excellent job moderating.
"Truth may seem, but cannot be;
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be... "
(William Shakespeare)
🐟 03. CONCEPTS Vs THE TRUTH:
The term “TRUTH” is a grossly misused word.
Anything which has ever been written or spoken, by even the greatest sage or Avatar (incarnation of Divinity), including every single postulation within this Holy Scripture, is merely a CONCEPT and not “The Truth”, as defined further down.
A concept is either accurate or inaccurate. Virtually all concepts are inaccurate to a degree. However, some concepts are far more accurate than others. A belief is an unhealthy and somewhat problematic relationship one has with a certain concept, due to misapprehension of life as it is, objectively-speaking. Attachment to beliefs, particularly in the presumption of individual free-will, is the cause of psychological suffering.
For example, the personal conception of the Ultimate Reality (God or The Goddess) is inaccurate to a large extent (see Chapter 07). The concept of Ultimate Reality being singular (“All is One”) is far more accurate. The transcendence of BOTH the above concepts (non-duality) is excruciatingly accurate. However, none of these concepts is “The Truth” as such, since all ideas are relative, whilst The Truth is absolute.
It is VITALLY important to distinguish between relative truth and Absolute Truth. Relative truth is temporal, mutable, subjective, dependent, immanent, differentiated, conditioned, finite, complex, reducible, imperfect, and contingent, whilst Absolute Truth is eternal, immutable, objective, independent, transcendent, undifferentiated, unconditional, infinite, non-dual (i.e. simple), irreducible, perfect, and non-contingent.
Absolute Truth is the ground of all being (“Brahman”, in Sanskrit), and is prior to any mind, matter, name, form, intent, thought, word, or deed.
Good and bad are RELATIVE - what may be good or bad can vary according to temporal circumstances and according to personal preferences. For example, there is absolutely no doubt that citrus fruits are a good source of nutrients for human beings. However, it may be bad to consume such beneficial foods when one is experiencing certain illnesses, such as chronic dysentery. 'One man's food is another man's poison.'
Because of the relative nature of goodness, anything which is considered to be good must also be bad to a certain degree, since the extent of goodness is determined by the purpose of the object in question. As demonstrated, citrus fruits can be either good or bad, depending on its use. Is drinking arsenic good or bad? Well, if one wishes to remain alive, it is obviously bad, but for one who wishes to die, it is obviously good.
However, beyond the dichotomy of good and bad, is the Eternal Truth, which transcends mundane relativism. Therefore, the goal of life is to rise above the subjective “good” and “bad”, and abide in the transcendental sphere. A qualified spiritual preceptor is able to guide one in the intricacies of such transcendence. Such a person, who has transcended mundane relative truth, is said to be an ENLIGHTENED soul.
When making moral judgments, it is more appropriate to use the terms “holy/evil” or “righteous/unrighteous”, rather than “good/bad” or “right/wrong”. As the Bard of Avon so rightly declared in the script for one of his plays, there is nothing which is intrinsically either good or bad but “thinking makes it so”. At the time of writing (early twenty-first century), especially in the Anglosphere, most persons seem to use the dichotomy of “good/evil” rather than “good/bad” and “holy/evil”, most probably because they consider that “holiness” is exclusively a religious term. However, the terms “holy” and “righteous” are fundamentally synonymous, for they refer to a person or an act which is fully in accordance with pure, holy, and righteous principles (“dharma”, in Sanskrit). So a holy person is one who obeys the law of “non-harm” (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and as the ancient Sanskrit axiom states: “ahiṃsa paramo dharma” (non-violence is the highest moral virtue or law).
The ONLY real (Absolute) Truth in the phenomenal manifestation is the impersonal sense of “I am” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit).
Everything else is merely transient and unreal (“unreal” for that very reason - because it is ever-mutating, lacking permanence and stability).
This sense of quiddity is otherwise called “Infinite Awareness”, “Spirit”, “God”, “The Ground of Being”, “Necessary Existence“, “The Higher Self”, as well as various other epithets, for it is the very essence of one's being. Chapters 06 and 10 deal more fully with this subject matter.
Of course, for one who is fully self-realized and enlightened, the subject-object duality has collapsed. Therefore, a fully-awakened individual does not perceive any REAL difference between himself and the external world, and so, sees everything in himself, and himself in everything.
If it is true that there are none so blind as those who don’t WANT to see, and none so deaf as those who don’t WANT to hear, then surely, there are none so ignorant as those who don’t WANT to learn the truth.
OBVIOUSLY, in the previous paragraph, and in most other references to the word “truth” within this booklet, it is meant “the most accurate concept possible”, or at least “an extremely accurate fact”.
For example, as clearly demonstrated in Chapters 21 and 22, it is undoubtedly “true” that a divinely-instituted monarchy is the most beneficial form of national governance, but that is not the Absolute Truth, which is the impersonal, never-changing ground of all being.
So, to put it succinctly, all “truths” are relative concepts (even if they are very accurate) but the Universal Self alone is REAL (Absolute) Truth.
“In the absence of both the belief 'I am the body' and in the absence of the belief that 'I am not the body', what is left is what we really are.
We don't need to define what we really are. We don't need to create a thought to tell us what we are. What we are is what TRUTH is."
*************
“God is not something 'out-there', 'looking-in', but God (or Source) has BECOME all of This.
So, God is the Underlying Principle of all of this - the Energy or the Consciousness.
The (psycho-physical) manifestation has arisen within Consciousness as an imagination in the mind of Source.”
Roger Castillo,
Australian Spiritual Teacher, 15/07/2015.
“I am the TRUTH...” “...and the TRUTH shall set you free”.
Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:16 and 8:32.
What's very strange is people talking about beauty as a criteria for truth without much reference to aesthetic theory, or to the now reasonably well mapped neural substrates of aesthetic experience, or to the emerging body of thought linking strong aesthetic experience to the experience of reverence and mystical experience, that's a lot to leave out. Particularly if you're interested in bridging science, philosophy and religion.
And the basic science suggests that contrary to the notion that the experience of beauty is some kind of ethereal cognitive process unrelated to baser concerns like survival, in relationship to physical beauty - what we consider to be sexually attractive - it is clearly a proxy for reproductive fitness which explains why a sense of beauty is selected. This fundamental survival relevance extends to the ability to appreciate beauty in nature, where the detection of a beautiful scene is intimately related to the ability to detect environments that support fecundity and thriving and diverse life.
All these considerations are omitted but they explain why mathematical beauty is seductive and possibly a component of Truth, but certainly not any acid or most critical test. The biggest problem is that both many wrong and many right theories turn out to be beautiful so it's really not a sufficiently selective criteria.
There's not a single person from neuroscience or psychology in this group, although Sabine is clearly the most knowledgeable panel member in relationship to those scientific domains. But you can't leave out the science of aesthetic experience and talk about beauty as a criteria and expect not to miss large amounts of relevant material. I wish however that this was an uncommon mistake instead of it being a common one.
Well the debate is about how physicists consider beauty to be relevant in their work. Not a neurological, psychological, or sociological explanation for why beauty exists.
It may seem irrelevant or ridiculous to notice the worn and consumed books behind Mr. Maldacena, when I remember that many politicians, theologians and academics show off a brand new library, as if they only had it for decoration.
What a great show! It is amazing to finally see that a relatively large number of people have displayed a real understanding of what physics truly is, and, more importantly, how close the modern physics is to the reality of the physics that is governing the universal realm of which we are all currently parts of. Of course, I am not at all referring to any of those four sad faces I have frozen on the screen of my monitor. I am actually referring to the many people who have finally managed to point their surprisingly deep and clear comprehending ability to discern where the contemporaneous science of physics genuinely is. You are the real stars of this show. Your comments have not only made my day. They have managed to restore my faith in humanity, even if briefly this early morning. Thank you. I bow before you all.
If one argues that mathematics is invented, rather than being an ontologically 'real' thing, then the sense of 'mathematical beauty' becomes even more suspect. It's also worth adding that equations only really tell you that some quantity is 'equal' to some other quantity or quantities....without ever actually telling you what the things being quantified fundamentally actually 'are'. A world of mathematical physics in which everything is described in terms of everything else only really describes relations between things, and somehow skips over where the 'stuff' and the rules come from. To me the real acid test for physics is whether a scientist who had never heard of universes and hadn't first had a peek at our one could come up with today's physics.
Mathematics is invented, but it was invented along the lines of physical observations. Ordinary mathematical logic was derived from the observations of the behavior of finite collections of classical physical objects and their immutable properties. Your deep confusion about the matter stems from this trivial piece of science history that you don't know about. ;-)
What I learned is that there is nothing more fundamental than what we can't avoid assuming.
Sabine's closing idea that quantum gravity may not be the answer, and it may be that we don't understand the quantum mechanics side of things, is interesting. It certainly seems that the assumptions so far in pursuit of a "theory of everything" have focused far more on relativity being wrong than on our interpretations of the quantum realm being wrong. There's plenty of reason to question both.
Agreed. I'm currently trying to classicalize quantum mechanics. To violate Bell's inequality, we either need nonlocality, indeterminism, or statistical dependence. GR allows for wormholes connecting distant particles, which represents a "nonlocal" connection. That's what ER=EPR is about. I say we keep determinism and add "nonlocal" wormholes. No clue why this didn't become the dominant interpretation after ER=EPR stuff was researched.
@@PerpetualScience perhaps because ER=EPR hasn't been broadly accepted as accurate yet. I'm afraid I'm not yet familiar enough with it to form a position on it, and the issue of wormholes generally is far from settled science. Probably most physicists accept their theoretical possibility but question their attributes and implications, and probability of occurrence in nature. Much as was once the case with black holes themselves.
@@crawkn That would be a good explanation as to why!
Sabine and Juan are the only one who properly give credence to the arbitrary and human-derived concept of beauty. Finding a beautiful answer is, almost by definition, an answer that will be best understood by humans. Beauty can also be inspiring towards new ideas. That is a noble pursuit, that has value in and of itself. But just because some humans find an idea beautiful or easily understood is not evidence that it is a more complete or accurate description of the truth.
I understood physics as the discipline that tries to catch reality in a model/theory so that the theory fits reality and we can make predictions with it, that can be useful (or sometimes are only interesting).
But it turns out that some have an opposite view where they have beautifully consistent theories and they try to fit reality into that theory. I don't think it's directly useful, but I can accept the usefulness (or maybe just the beauty) of that viewpoint. It's certainly a nice (and for some, an elaborate) thought experiment.
But I equally question if we can put that kind of thinking into the bucket of physics. It looks more as a philosophical experiment, then a physics one. (allthough the usefulness of trying to put everything neatly in our abstractly created buckets, is questionable on its own, so I don't know if we need to. It's just that Michio Kaku doesn't seem to bring much to the table except for this philosophical viewpoint that turns the goal of physics on it's head; but he brings this view not that elaboratly and in a quite messy, repetitive and commercialy looking packet, which makes me wonder about the value of it in many conversations, as it often gives the impression of devalueing conversations to a level which keeps spinning around the same surface ideas)
String theory is good for tying shoes and tangled fishing lines,etc.
Nah that's topology mate, string theory can't even do that at the moment.
it is very simple, this is how it goes ................................................................................................................. what? Are you still waiting? 😯😏 I really did like this video, specially to hear from Tegmark. Sabine and Kaku are inspiring figures to today everyday physicist debates, and they deserve the rightful limelight on these matters. Thank you Mary-Jane.
es muy sencillo, así es................................... ................................................. ....................... ¿qué? ¿Sigues esperando? 😯😏 Realmente me gustó este video, especialmente escuchar a Tegmark. Sabine y Kaku son figuras inspiradoras en los debates físicos cotidianos actuales y merecen la atención que les corresponde en estos asuntos. Gracias Mary Jane.
41:41 that's a good point and also what I've always thought. Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does. Still, a competing thought of mine I simply can't neglect is the simulation hypothesis. A lot of things may indicate that the universe doesn't "work" at all but just fools us into thinking that it does...
Standard model is the low energy effective field theory of the more fundamental qft. Physics is bound to search for a more general qft at higher energies, indefinitely. This is akin to drawing a picture of a mathematically fractal at a certain scale. Scientists are yet to discover "renormalization group" for mathematical logic.
>Maybe our maths is nothing more than just an approximation to what the universe actually does.
How do you know its an approximation w/o knowing what reality is? Physics needs a philosophy of the focused mind.
@@TeaParty1776 if I *knew* I wouldn't say "maybe". But I have a feeling the math is what keeps us from finding the true nature of the universe. I like the approach of Prof. Wildberger's from Australia though I don't know if that's the answer to everything. Since if it's all a simulation like thing your guess is as good as mine.
@@flatisland I have a feeling that mysticism is a product of an unfocused mind.
@@flatisland > math is what keeps us from finding the true nature of the universe.
Stop using your mind for a few days and report back.
On which time, speed and size scales are your theories valid? What assumptions are wrong on other scales? What degrees of freedom do the "dimensions" (free parameters) in string theory correlate to?
The Born-Oppenheimer-Approximation is the basis for all quantum chemical calculations - differentiating the time scales. Is something similar at other scales?
Degrees of freedom for vibration, rotation, translation and excitation are not about multiverses at all. All formulas should works for all time/size levels. Mathematics and Physics are only models to reality not reality itsself
Chris Langan's CTMU accounts for rescaling.
1:38 (referring to Juan Maldecena) no lie, thought that was for a moment lol inky 1:38 in so far❤ looks like a good discussion. Thanks for uploading
Well done moderator, you are the star of that show 👍
I have enjoyed this talk. Thank you.
Sabine rox.
I cannot help but look at Michio and what he says with incredulity.
How can he say: "put up or shut up" when it is the theory he works on that hasn't put up, it comes of as ingenue and combative. He holds a dull knife yet still brings it to a gun fight.
I am not saying we need to ditch string theory, however something needs to change regarding the mindset of its researchers.
Why 'chase the high' trying to explain what came before creation when the theory cannot predict fundamental particle interactions. It feels like a sales tactic, not science.
I would like to close by saying that me and many others (perhaps even Sabine) would like nothing more than for string theory or another unified theory of everything to be proven true, however all we currently have are numbers on paper.
Yet nobody has the final bullet. Disgraceful I agree, but it is what it is.
When Dr. Kaku mentions "power", he seems to be using it place of "utility". Because we don't really select things based on power but mastery over a given utility. Because what variable substantiates what is powerful?
I think, imo he was a bit awkward trying to refer as something akin to "being able to operate immediately"
😊 Very funny discussion. I often notice the same people talking about the same things, addressing the same silly questions... The show must go on!
Yes, I changed my eye color to match that of an Autum leaf without any help but being reminded of the Fall.
The issue with the great GR theory is that it assumes 4 dimensions, one being time. However, time is not a dimension. There is only matter and motion. We would do better to explain what actually is electro-magnetism, let alone strong and weak force, and gravity. Just writing down maths that describe their behavior does not explain what they are.
I love how Sabine has evolved towards the quantum vs relativity issue: very explicit in her last comment, maybe it's the quantum part what we don't understand well enough yet.
And this brings me to one of Maldacena's observations (BTW, typo in his surname in the captions) about maybe strings being chains of gluons. Not sure if that's the answer but got me truly intrigued and would like to learn more about that: the strong nuclear force is so underrated and potentially so important into unification!
We understand quantum mechanics perfectly well. Quantum field theory is perfectly relativistic and has been since the 1930s. You might want to catch up on science history when you find the time. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 - No. We don't understand a lot of QM, for example why particles have the masses they have, why there are three generations of fermions or many other things. And nope: QM is not general-relativistic, at best QFT married a narrow segment of QM to Special Relativity, which is not general enough to be considered a good marriage.
You are the one who has to catch up, including watching the video and what Sabine, a real physicist with quite a good brain, has to say.
@@LuisAldamiz There are no particles. Massive fields have an effective mass term with a running coupling (logarithmic) that depends on the coupling to the Higgs and the other fields. Is this an effective field theory? Yes. That doesn't mean we don't know how the theory works. We just don't know how it behaves at the high energy end because we don't have a machine larger than LHC. There is a difference between not knowing the experimental data and not understanding the theory... a difference which you clearly don't understand. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 - That's QFT rather than the Standard Model and, as I already said, QFT only marries parts of QM to parts of Relativity. It's not the final answer, even if it is a good inroads.
Particles are necessarily a thing in all versions of QM because QM is based on the particle-wave duality and "quantization". "Particle" (Lat. "particula") only means "small part" but everyone uses it in the sense of Newtonian-style point-particle, Feynman himself was very clear that he thought that particles are point-like but of course it's a matter of contention, an open question. I was watching Maudin, probably the best philosopher of science alive, and he claims that the issue of wave-particle duality has only three possible answers: wavfunction collapse (Copenhagen), pilot wave (Bohmian mechanics) or that crazy idea of Many Worlds Interpretation (which he considers legit but I do not). I don't know if there are other possibilities but in any case there is an issue with that wave-particle duality that granted Einstein his only Nobel prize.
Personally I find that indeed the wave-particle duality may be not fully right for bosons, after all the photoelectric effect only implies that electrons (fermions) absorb a quantized amount of light's energy (measured by momentum, i.e. frequency) and not that photons as such exist as individual particles but I may be wrong on this (not-an-expert). I have the gut feeling that treating bosons and fermions as if they'd be the same, especially as no gauge boson is actually directly detectable, only inferred, may be a legacy burden of QM. I also suspect that the three generations of fermions (and their unexplained mass values) may be hiding clues about a possible simplification of the Standard Model and the secrets of mass, and thus gravity (relativistic gravity: how mass curves space-time, not the imaginary and irrational proposed "graviton"). But again not-an-expert (certified by no-university non-diploma, like Tinubu of Nigeria), so feel free to have a different opinion than mine. Only thinking freely (within the bounds of experimental and observational science) can produce results and advace physics beyond this two-headed little monster we have now.
@@schmetterling4477 - PS: I also recommend you to watch what Sabine has to say about larger than LHC wastes of money and resources. Bigger is not necessarily better and there are absolute limits to what we can build anyhow.
4:50 í 10:05 -·¹ 10:50 -·- 14:23 ·__ 14:47 ~·
12:00 23:22 26:29 27:21
People forget that beauty was actually the byproduct quality of a sophisticated system rather than the sophisticated system itself. People chose to focused only on one specific quality while simultaneously not realizing that the beauty was merely a visual byproduct of a sophisticated system rather than the system itself.
Mass and energy are two fundamental properties of matter that appear in different phenomena. By applying the principle in a correct way we can easily make a unified model for the whole universe. This will condense the whole literature of science to some simple equations and understandable rules.
Maldacena is the biggest brain in the room
@@ipadasher they’re all in different rooms. 🤔
Its Mandelbrot, fractals. All this talk of patterns, super symmetry etc are that. Hopefully they connect the dots one day...
Paul Dirac: Suffering From Success
51:39 Sabine: "“I think where we're going to see the most progress come from is probably Quantum technology because there's such a lot going on there like with Quantum Computing, Quantum Optics, Quantum information, Quantum Metrology, Quantum sensing…there's so much going on I think sooner or later they're just stumble over something that they don't understand, and then they'll come and ask the theorists, how do you explain that and then I think from there we will develop a new Theory. It goes together with my belief that it's a mistake to try to put the blame on gravity when it comes to the unification of Einstein's theory. Quantum theory people have tried to doctor around with gravity, trying to quantize it. I think our problem is that we don't really understand the quantum part of the question, so this is why I think this new technology is going to help us make progress happen again with the foundations of physics.”
Max is right. (Sabine is my favorite talking head, so you can't accuse me playing favorites. I am only after the truth.). FYI, What Max Tegmark is talking about is called "Kolmogorov complexity". Put very simply, it is the measure of the length of the shortest computer program that is equivalent to the thing you are trying to measure (in this case, a physics theory). I pointed this out about 12 years ago (because at that time I was doing my graduate studies relating to Kolmogorov complexity), many many times on the Internet and TH-cam (to the point where people still, to this day, talk about Kolmogorov complexity on TH-cam often indirectly quoting my original posts).
I'm ignorant. Is this similar to as how compression works in a .rar ?
Kaku is too used to speaking to people with little if any experience in physics, when speaking on a panel like this, he comes off as a bit too condescending and aggrandising...
I don't agree, Michiu Kaku is both a physicist and public speaker, and has worked to bridge philosophy and physics.
He's very well grounded.
@@garageliftrunnergrounded in what?
@@zyzhang1130 hard to say, physics would be a logical guess. Given he's a physicist. What else am I doing for you?
@@garageliftrunner similar to another commenter somewhere in the comment section, i initially liked Kaku because he did a great job in promoting physics to general public. But as I studied more physics and later on watched Sabine’s TH-cam content, I am now more supportive of her viewpoint. Sabine said in this video to the best of her knowledge string theory has not been proven to solve the inconsistency they were discussing about. I am no expert in string theory, but the fact that Kaku did not refute her on this made me thinking she is right. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, string theory can not make falsifiable prediction. This is a fatal blow to a theory because it cannot be called scientific if it can’t event make falsifiable prediction.
@@zyzhang1130 ah yes. Hey, I respect your beliefs.
It's too charitable, at least I don't have physics education. So even to say what a falsifiable prediction is like. And even for particle/emergent physics, what exactly are we talking about? Maybe it is also possible in that side to say particle physics, is an approximate reading and that discrete physics isn't even the thing that's closest to reality.
Really it has the same "otherness" or "missingness" to it. I think these debates are more pragmatic, from that lense. But it's also guiding, in that guiding is huge for ensuring the correct topics like this are talking.
Would I be mistaken in equating beauty and Ms Rubinstein or is that entirely subjective on my part?
She's hot.🔥♨
Interesting discussion, I think though that when it comes to ticket pricing the IAI is applying Sting theory!
I really don't get this "beauty" argument. How can it be a guiding scientific principle when it is extremely subjective?
It doesn't. What guides science are facts.
i think "elegance" or "simplicity" is the sort of beauty they mean.
You could argue that Plato defined beauty 2500y ago by the sensible and aesthetic manifestation of proper logos. That's not an innovative question, but it lacked a bit of proper philosophical introduction.
@@schmetterling4477 what drives science aren't always facts. Greed can be involved. Etc.
Sabine looks so deadpan and bored whenever michio speaks 😂
😂 😂 😂 Seriously
I think she's the only one up there without any significant contributions to the field, no? Other than being a "popular" youtuber. If you want to call that a contribution.
So disappointing to hear such a prominent science communicator as Michiu Kaku say people should "shut up" and not point out issues with String Theory unless they have a better alternative. That's the worst kind of appeal to authority. Throughout all of history, people challenged the assertions of strict religious groups even though the scientific method had not yet been established and they didn't know the answers... but under Muciiu's idea of the world, everyone should "shut up" unless they have a better theory. Pathetic.
I think you miss the context of previous panels he's been on with Sabine or possibly others, where they kind of gang up on him or might be interpreted as ridiculing some of the more questionable quantum theories of today. I think he was being preemptively defensive in making boundaries clear. If you are going to tear something down, you'd better have a more suitable alternative, because the scientific method doesn't care. Challenge the assertions all you want, but until you have a better solution, it is all meaningless. That's how the scientific method works, and has worked so well. Look at the Higgs Boson which took decades to be proven, all the while people criticized it, but they had no better alternative, and in the end they were shown to be fools.
@johnjingleheimersmith9259 What you are saying is demonstrably wrong. The scientific method is the steps of Observe, Question, Hypothesis, Test (Experiment), Analysis & Conclusion.
If someone's hypothesis is falsified, then it's falsified; whether or not you can propose a better alternative.
In fact there are many pure experimentalists who just test theories and don't put forward their own theories.
What you are promoting is theology... as it's the same thing religious people say about God e.g. "if you can't give a better explanation than God for origin of universe, then God must be answer".
So I totally reject your idea and people absolutely have the right to ask whether string theory is falsifyable or not, and if not, whether or not it's really scientific at this stage or just a really interesting set of math exercises.
Kaku and his ilk are now becoming emotionally attached to string theory as its promoters and not objective and in worst case unscientific and holding back progress in fundamental physics.
@@benk79 You're welcome like anyone else to provide a theory that satifies as much or as more as string theory, and test it. If it yields better results, you'll be quite popular very quickly. I don't see that happening though. The point is, the opportunity is there for you to truly "debunk" it, by legitimate means.
you seem to only have a partial understanding of how things actually work, which does explain quite a bit. There does exist a near limitless body of information right at your fingertips though. I encourage people to use it for more than just entertainment purposes.
@johnjingleheimersmith9259 You're patronising tone explains why you're a fan of Kaku.
You don't even understand what the scientific method is, so perhaps learn some basics before giving any lectures. You did not address my core point... so let me say it in simple words for you.
Explain please how you falsify string theory... and if you can't, is it really scientific?
@@benk79 I'm not really a Kaku "fan", though I do have some level of respect for him. I did not address your point because it wasn't worth addressing. I have multiple degrees in science, conducted actual experiments for scientific studies, and published in real, scientific literature. The most scientific thing you've probably done is probably mix ammonia and bleach in your toilet. Have you even taken a basic physics course? And by the way, Kaku already has answered your question, so perhaps if you actually tried to listen and learn, you wouldn't be asking me. You don't actually care though, as your kind of issues are borne out of emotional, parasocial relationships from digesting media entertainment. It's all a bit plebeian and "basic" as the kids say. But I'll let you know if I ever need a project manager to do some organizing and send emails and take notes or whatever. Though I think the software's getting good enough that it's probably unlikely.
Having a model that obeys Occam's razor and is inspired by physics experiments is the key to physics.
THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
For the past century, theoretical physicists have been endeavouring to discover the so-called “Theory of everything”, which will unify seemingly-disparate understandings of life as perceived by the human organism.
For three decades, I have been exploring this matter, and I am pleased to announce that the solution is both elegantly simple, yet extraordinarily profound, and here it is:
S+o = ∞BCP (The Subject and all objective reality is Infinite Being, Consciousness, Peace)
Alternatively, and more parsimoniously, expressed as:
E= A͚͚
(Everything is Infinite Awareness)
For a thorough explanation of the above equation, refer to the fifth and sixth chapters of my book, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which are the most authoritative, accurate and profound spiritual precepts so far in human history.
To obtain a free copy, Email me with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
“The gateway to KNOWLEDGE is ignorance”. 🤓
P. S. Obviously, I cannot take credit for the above theory, since the oldest extant spiritual teachings state the same thing, in the Sanskrit language of ancient Bhārata (India):
🕉 सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्म 🕉
Chandogya Upanishad 3.14
(‘sarvam khalvidam brahma’ teaches that ‘All this is indeed Brahman’.
“Brahman” is a Sanskrit word referring to the TOTALITY of existence.
There is nothing but Eternal Existence, Consciousness, Bliss!).
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
Let's just remember that Occam's razor isn't a law to be 'obeyed’. It’s a rule of thumb and it’s fallible.
It isn't always obvious how to apply Occam's razor. Sometimes it is a but ambiguous over which assumptions are actually simpler. For example, take hidden variable theories. We could treat quantum mechanics as an incomplete theory due to lack of knowledge about hidden variables, and in some sense this is a simpler interpretation because it fits in well with previous assumptions in all other fields of science without having to make an arbitrary exception for quantum mechanics. But nobody has ever discovered these hidden variables, so you might argue it's simpler to just say they don't exist because they're not needed to explain observations. Which approach is more parsimonious?
I once bought an old banger which stalled after just moving around the corner. When I look back, the seller suspiciously looked more and more like Michio Kaku. Could he be the one? I want my money back with interest.
Fairy tales are beautiful. Lies sometimes are beautiful... so string theory is very beautiful.
And all of these "fakes" can lead to the greatest of achievements when carefully examined and properly utilized.
After all, beauty is just another human construct.
Love how the two not as famous scientists are humble and open to explore theories, compared to Michio and Sabine who seem a bit too certain in their theories.
Lols, Sabine wasn't peddling any theories, it was only Michio doing that. Sabine was the one to honestly and forthrightly challenge him on it. Max at one stage also tried, but in a lukewarm over-polite manner.
Both beauty and elegance are very subjective concepts rooted in culture. Nature, I opine, knows no such bounds.
I wonder how useful AI would be in science....
Self-improoving ai that can get all these theories, create its own, test out new theories on its own... i think we as humans need to allow ai to research and test its theories. We should also build ai capable of doing this anyway....
I don't know much about theoretical physics, but I do know about beauty and applied physcis whenn it comes to sound. Garbage in, Garbage out: I'm an artist, architect, and an autistic savant / musician, I love it when spoken audio is clear, undistorted, even, unclipped, and intelligible. Good microphones, proper mic screening, vocal technique and placement, room acoustics and level setting are pre-requisites for decent vocal reproduction. A tiny bit of reverb, EQ, and careful use of audio compression can polish up a fundamentally good vocal recording, making it easier on the ears and more intelligible.
Sabine's audio feed sounds best. Note also that she's the only one properly monitoring herself using closed over-ear headphones. You'd think the smartest people on earth would understand the physics of sound, and use proper audio equipment, but alas....
Unfortunately, Zoom style video conferencing feeds always have terrible audio because of ANOTHER kind of compression. The horrid lossy digital compression Zoom and other streaming software use to bit-crush both audio and video to reduce bendwidth. Now, add in the various hardware and software used by each guest to participate and aggregate their feeds through this same lossy digital flattening, plus TH-cam's own lossy compression, and audio compression alone might help normalize the VOLUME of the resulting audio nightmare, but it's still gonna sound like a bunch physics geniuses gargled with broken glass before the show.
As an autistic person, bad sound litterally hurts. It's too bad, because there's some great content that I simply can't watch / listen to because of painfully bad audio. The audio here gets a C - which is actually pretty good given the format.
All seemed quite clear to me. Maybe you or your equipment has a problem?
Michio Kaku is one of the best History Channel physicists out there.
😂
Ha ha, true Listening to occasional interviews with him over the years on Discovery Channel, I've found him akin to a magical thinker.
Sabine, you once again perfectly align knowledge, wisdom and culture as beautifully as yourself or any equation.
I'll also throw in at this point that her ending on "make progress happen again" appears to be a postmodern Nazi dog whistle.
@@veronicatash777 Or it means exactly what it means... theoretical physics has been stuck for decades and needs to make progress.
except when she tried to qualify capitalism. Not her field, sad premisses and sad conclusions
Hossenfelder an engineer. Kaku a storyteller. Maldacena and Tegmark the physicists.
And iai plagiarized the title from Roger Penrose's book.
My estimation: SH is the physicist, Maldacena the engineer. Kaku stands for faith and Tegmark for phantasy.
@@Thomas-gk42Tegmark also writes scientific papers that you seem to have never looked at. How good someone is in their field depends on the scientific papers and professional books they wrote, not because of popular books and podcasts.
@@Thomas-gk42 Sure the last 2 shouldn't be the other way around?
@@ronaldrussel1158 My statement was about thinking, not about publications
There's a very useful procedure ( when used properly ) called compression, that smoothens unevenness in volume.
Especially useful in conversations...
QED is so beautiful I wanna gouge my eyes out
beauty and intricacy both deceive and motivate, so it's a difficult game to not get a massive complex about it
SYMMETRY If something works, it's beautiful ... if something is beautiful, it doesn't necessarily work. but it works for me because it's beautiful
Anxious to see a quantum pc x
When Kaku equates beauty to symmetry he really only thinks of visual beauty. And furthermore he treats beauty as something absolute, which it isn't: our sense of beauty changes over time. Is he really claiming that asymmetry can't be beautiful? Which means that he discards Picasso, and almost all modern painters.
And how does symmetry cover music? Strange that someone who claims to play (mental) strings seems to discard beauty in music altogether. He has a very narrow sense of beauty.
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics.
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles?
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
It sounds like you're talking about topological solitons! I suspect particles are just topological solitons of the metric tensor field too. I'm currently investigating Kaluza-Klein theory to see how well it can represent various gauge fields if there are copies.
@@PerpetualScience Thank you for the kind response. They are very rare these days. I would be interested in seeing your research, if that is possible. Do you have a website which shows your work?
@@SpotterVideo Not yet, but I should soon. I'm a PhD grad student at FAU and I'm part of an interdisciplinary lab(MPCR lab). We have a site and we're in the process of adding stuff so that lab members can make posts about our research. When that's done, I can add my current work there and comment the link here! I'm hesitant to share too much without having my name attached to my work in an official capacity.
There’s always patterns in the data if your theory is correct, beauty is subjective so using ‘beauty’ as a standard is stupid. Your theory should be 1) testable and 2) be consistent with the results of these tests, if you want it to be true. String theory has not been experimentally confirmed
I agree with the testable and consistent. But sometimes you prefer "beauty" as in "more compact information" or even "wrong but close-enough approximation".
Example 1: when solving Maxwell's equations for wires, it's useful to alter to a Cylindrical Coordinate system, where the integral calculations are more "elegant" (as in the terms are shorter/compact and more intuitive than in other coordinate systems).
Example 2: For simple Newtonian Problems you even make assumptions that deviate drastically from the truth (Car = dot point in center of mass, Planet = perfect sphere or even straight line).
Hell we still use Classical Physics for these practical problems even though we have the Standard Model and General Relativity, because their solutions are "nicer" and are considered "close-enough" to the domain of their application. That doesn't mean that "nice" should replace "truth", but it helps a lot in understanding the concept, even when using gross assumptions that deviate from it. In the end, all physics are just models because our brain can only make so much sense of the surrounding stimuli. Sure, some models "stronger" (as in more general/fundamental) than others (with some completely wrong), but all just that; models (of our current understanding).
My view is that String Theory is not yet even a theory yet; It's a physics inspired idea for a math project and will remain such until it can predict something measurable (if ever). But at the same time, I don't believe we should be so harsh on people working on it, at least to people that admit that it might lead to nowhere (humble like Max instead of arrogant like Michio).
The physical constants are derivable from Schrödinger's equation? Anyone have a reference?
Beginning and end are only semantic problems, David Hume already recognised this. Time only takes place in our heads.
These big brains speak with such high density of words, I cannot keep up past 10 minutes of such videos.
Then get lost lmao 😂
@ I did 😂 then I read up a bit and came back and got through it in the end
Sabine ROCKS! Stays on topic, doesn’t sound like a salesman and does not need fantasy and comic book fodder to stir interest!