Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast. 0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions: - The Prisoner Wine Company: theprisonerwine.com/lex to get 20% off & free shipping - Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit - Sunbasket: sunbasket.com/lex and use code LEX to get $35 off - BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off - SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera 0:23 - Physics vs mathematics 14:52 - Beauty of mathematics 36:43 - String theory 1:05:16 - Theory of everything 1:25:24 - Twistor theory and spinors 1:41:51 - Nobel Prize likelihood for theory of everything 1:45:37 - Simulating physics 1:49:08 - Sci-Fi, aliens and space 1:58:20 - Responsibility of scientists
I love your interviews so much I would really like the video aspect (less considered, I know) to be representative of the same quality as its content. A simple rim light would help pull your interlocutor and yourself out of the background. Allowing you to crush the overexposed highlights while keeping the black backdrop. Also, consider (in post-production) making your video in Black & White, like old school movies & TV. I think it would work well B&W is used in modern film to emphasize something that is deep and meaningful, like your content. Cheers. My DMs are open on Twitter if I can be of any help.
The whole bottom and top thing, is preciously why we as a species will never dodge all the great filters. for that is one of them. Stay humble lex and remember, put a flat fish on the tallest peak and all it will see is.
@@nolongerthere That's fair, B&W isn't necessary but the rest seems like a rationalization to me. By desaturating the image you're taking away those distractions, focusing on the content of the interview opposed to anything else. Think about Saving Private Ryan, the monochrome helps the viewer focus on what matters, in that case the severity of war, nothing gimmicky about it nor the content of this podcast and its guest. Honestly, the current video aspect of this podcast is a gimmick since it literally an afterthought and not taken seriously. That is kind of the definition of gimmick, ya know.. 10 minutes of research could remove this gimmicky video aspect of the podcast. If one takes the care to get good sound quality for a podcast with good mics, plosive screens, stands, and recording equipment, etc. Then if you are going to do a video side and it not be a gimmick, it would make sense to take the same minimal effort. Here are the basics 101 for not having a gimmicky video: The contrast between the highlights and shadows are too much. The brights are blown out and the shadows are crushed. If distraction is your thing, there is nothing more distracting than the white clipping to infinity all the while not respecting the interlocutor by having them as a part of the background and not apart from it. The disrespect makes it almost unwatchable. Perhaps it should remain audio only until a minimal effort is taken. Lastly, maybe most importantly, Lex and his guests in this podcast explore intellectual curiosity. It is a core theme. Since much of our world is based on the communication of ideas and the methods used to achieve that. As simple as 'video' may be, the tricks-of-the-trade developed over the past century should not be slept on. It is rich in the knowledge of communication imo comparable to evolutionary psychology's reframing to help us understand what we are as human. This knowledge is indispensable and since media of all sorts use this knowledge in a memetic game theoretic way to get ahead. It would be to the benefit of reason and rationality to use what has been discovered to promote the good things we all care about. Because media, and all other dominate power structures, and their narratives are not going to stop using this knowledge to promote whatever advances their own self-preservation. There are many tricks-of-the-trade in all fields that help the communication of ideas. Lex is using them for the audio portion of the podcast, one shouldn't waste that potential on the video. Otherwise, it really is all a gimmick.
@@okeyokey578 Yeah, he'll describe different things that relate to his own work, like proofs or visualizations (like particular examples of Escher's tessellations), and cite them to others, but if you take the time to look into them you realize Penrose was far more involved than he let's on; serving as the direct inspiration or even co-creator. His influence is so far reaching that it'd be hard for him to take credit for everything he cites in an interview or book without sounding like he's trying to take credit for much of modern physics. Everyone was fairly certain he'd eventually get awarded a Nobel prize, but the issue was deciding which line of research to credit him in because so many prizes lead directly back to his work. There'll likely be many to come that, if they really wanted to, they could include him in.
"It is misguided to look for answers about the deep meanings of life from a theoretical physicist". Amen, Peter Woit! Thanks for having the courage to say this.
Great to see Peter Woit interviewed here! He is a brave man and - in my view - a sort of 'whistleblower' in a field (theoretical physics) that tends to quietly discourage public discussion of problems in the community.
Theoretical physics is today in a strange position and having Peter Woit perspective is a good thing. However I find his framing as "whistleblower" unhelpful creating a caricature of a real serious and interesting situation. The string theory is still dominating the field not because it is successful but because there exist no serious contender at the moment. Also it is successful as a bridge developments between mathemtaics and physics. This reciprocal communication of idea between mathematics and physics is a potential ground for interesting future developments.
@@andreimustata5922 I have followed the situation for some time and I think it is reasonable to call him a 'whisteblower' considering how much hostility he has had to deal with, especially - and absurdly - from academics commenting anonymously on various blogs. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the interaction between results in string theory and mathematics, but I would say it remains to seen whether string theory has anything to do with any physical phenomena in our universe.
@@77Fortran Agreed. A healthy discipline would be able to acknowledge openly that the thing many of is practitioners dedicated their life to, has yielded nothing in predictive value over the standard model. All the power to people who choose to continue another lifetime in pursuing such a direction; I genuinely do admire their persistence. But we should not pretend the situation is any prettier than it is; and the sectarian bile that is sadly often the norm when pointing these things out, is unbecoming of physics.
@@77FortranThis is how I see it: We don't usually admit the role belief plays in science. That is because the final results in science are proved either true or false and all the work that goes into it, which is often supported by the belief of the scientists is unseen. With string theory we are in the unusual situation where the work of scientists expanded over decades and they where neither able to prove that they where right neither was somebody else able to come with an alternative explanation. As such you can see the beliefs of the scientists displayed openly with some of the emotional connotations which makes belief an ugly business. There are plenty of physicists which are sceptical of the string theory but so far there is no viable alternative to string theory and while there is easy enough to write a book about the theory that you have, even if it is not proven (like Brian Greene) it is more rare that you can see a book written which just underlines the scepticism with regard to a theory (like Peter Woit). The intense drama of not being able to crack a hard problem is in full display, beautiful dreams and hard honesty creating a tension to which the scientists don't answer better than any of us, so we see ugly comments and all of that.
When Peter said that he lost interest in science fiction, I felt a bit sad. Lex was trying to relight an imagination and open-mindedness in him. I love the way he does that.
I did too, but when he said that the real science was far more weird and interesting, I felt better. It just means that he’s learned enough to be directly inspired by actual reality instead of someone’s imaginary version.
@@Rob-uu8wt Yeah, it's like asking a racing driver or pilot if he likes to play sims. Reality is much more exciting than science fiction can ever be and that's a very good thing.
I know right!... Lex had his hands full with the serious mathematician who avoids frivolous thoughts that ultimately leads nowhere. While that ordered mentality probably makes him the best critic of string theory, which is arguably the most frivolous thought for the last 20 years, is the same thing that makes it difficult for Lex to connect with him on a playful open-minded level where this podcast usually shines the most.
On the other side you've got the guy who is trying to separate science from science fiction. The whole physics after Minkowsky, Einstein, and Bohr has been science fiction. We need to get familiar with four dimensions before jumping to worm holes and similar twists. Most physicians who are proposing ten, twelve, and more dimensions are only projecting them from three dimensional space and not from the space time continuum.
Peter Woit is brilliant and so solid here. He and Sabine have stood alone (well, Penrose and others have also been a voice of reason) for the survival of traditional science methods in the face of string Hype that floods the internet and media. Thanks so much for this great interview Lex!
Lex, dude you we're like a rock-star trying to get him out of his shell. I never appreciated how hard you worked at getting people to lighten up, relax and just open up a little bit. It usually looks completely natural and flowing. But today I saw clearly why you deserve to be one of the top notch podcast interviewers. We got this super serious mathematician that's just brilliant and universally respected, but he's also the arch-typical reserved, guarded, thoughtful old school thinker that takes the measure of every word before allowing himself to utter it. The brief times I saw him relax and chuckle was when you asked him whether he finds it useful to think about non-conclusive things such as if he's in a simulation. "Ahh.. Young Lex, I'm way to serious to waste my time with frivolous thoughts that are highly enjoyable but ultimately lead to nowhere serious. Every thought must have a practical end purpose behind it, otherwise, you'll be known as the thinker who seriously considers silly things, you don't want that now do we..." Tough crowd man, but I suppose his criticism makes a whole lot of sense. A structured, orderly mind like his, who has a distaste for time wasting ideas that lead to nowhere, would be the PERFECT CRITIC for string theory. Which is shaping up to be, the ULTIMATE frivolous thought you ever could have wasted 20 years of your life on. HAHAHAHA!
This is an incredible interview. One of my favorite I've seen on your show, and you've had Dan Carlin, Niall Ferguson, Neal Stephenson, John Danaher, Max Tegmark... some of the most profound and interesting living thinkers. Kudos Lex. God bless.
@@edwardjones2202 Sure it is. Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath is profound. Revealing things that have been obvious but hidden all along, that's the definition of profundity. Going deep with simple tools.
Google him and Sean Carroll together, they do not share much in scientific quantum mechanics perspectives and have said as much with their community... Peter is still a scrutinizing scientist, Sean is now more of a philosopher/priest of scientific abstraction.
@@jlljjl Sean Carroll is great. He admits his faults and is more of a communicator of physics than a practicing physicist. He states very complex ideas in succinct ways with love and passion in it as well. Is everybody for everybody? No. But Sean is valued within the physics community and an asset, as with Woit, Hossenfelder, and other big TH-cam personality physicist and mathematicians. I wish their super-symmetrical selves could be practicing science in labs AND be doing TH-cam at the same time, but alas, we can't do that yet.
@@chriskindler10 After reading The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene, I was looking for a book which would be a critique of string theory to see weather to learn more about it or spend time reading more about some other theories in physics considering quantum mechanics and astronomy. In that sense, it solved my dilemma.
Lex: But maybe it’s interesting. Peter: Not really. Pls don’t waste my time. Lex: Let’s take another bite at that string theory apple, tho. Peter: Dude, when can we get out of the sci-fi aisle & talk about spinors? Lex: That’s a funny word. Blah blah robots, Mars, Muff, Weinstein… Peter: Spinors do kinda rule, tho.
Love worked well for the Bible. Emotions are only justified in science once your theory has been proven, not as the driving force. Hopefully this way of thinking blows up the inflated universes bubbles as well.
Michio Kaku always refers to string theory as his "day job" while telling his same 10 or so old stories, but he rarely actually seems to explain string theory. Woit must've been knocking Kaku here as far as empty science.
I got the same feeling watching all those physics documentaries with Kaku where he just spits out a bunch of mind-blowing ideas but never really gets to the core of the theory.
Whether intentionally or not, he's certainly knocking Kaku with regards to dishonest science communication. He constantly presents wild speculation as if it were scientific fact.
@@1vootman Well, I suppose Woit could be called a mathematical physicist. Either way, he's not at the top of either physics or mathematics, he hasn't produced original research in like 20 years, and he's by far better known for his blog and books than research work. No one familiar with modern maths and physics, including Woit himself, would say that he's a top mathematician or physicist.
@@SoundsSilver About Sean Carroll, that's debatable. He's best known as a popularizer and for his philosophy of physics, not so much for his research contributions. He did write a great textbook on general relativity though. However, anyone would recognize that Ed Witten is one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the past 30-40 years and completely brilliant at what he does. Woit would without a doubt agree, even if he laments the time and energy spent by Witten on string theory. Even so, often enough they have the same interests, for example every time Witten has something new to present about geometric Langlands, Woit is blogging about it (like Witten, Woit tends towards mathematical physics).
Very professional - a good choice of the guest, the topics and the way of presentation, from illustrations to timestamps, making it skippable and citeable (it's annoying that they're often missing in other videos, especially long ones). Such content fills two gaps at once: 1) a frank but informed criticism of strings & other hyped ideas (e.g. by Wolfram or Lisi); 2) semi-popular science, around the level of Penrose and Susskind, speaking not like two people in the field but like people with a common denominator of undergraduate maths, having an idea of what are vectors, groups or topology, and ready to go a step further. It may be a growing genre. No regret of watching it, even though it's long and I still haven't watched some classics of this channel and of YT in general. It makes me convinced that Woit's book should be published in more countries, some of which (like Poland) having bookshop shelves filled with Kaku or other strings enthusiasts, only occasionally with bits of other theories (like LQG, NCG or Barbour's Shape Dynamics). I've already poked my friends in scientific publishing to consider a translation of Woit. The interview also inspired me to a rant about the “theory of everything” (ToE) or “final theory” brand, which I believe has gone really out of hand. I wish more people spoke about a cosmic TAP - theory of all particles, from which the whole mess flows. Taps are also more pleasant to think about than toes, at least to most people. I only wish that by the end the guest wasn't flooded with questions before answering them one by one; there's paper on the table, Lex could have written his next question down and read it in time. But luckily, Woit managed to give both his book recommendation & his alternative scenario of 20th-century Physics. Good job, good luck both to Fridman & Woit!
My only takeaway from this interview random is that this man is the perfect guest for Lex in every way. Matter of fact it would have served as a good final podcast.
Enjoyed this at many levels. The discussion of Roger Penrose's work on spinors and twisters and how they can offer a more elemental model for electrons was especially intriguing.
For me, biggest insight here is the perspective Voit shared when Lex raised some topic that he (Woit) hadn't studied so much. "Yeah man that sounds pretty cool but I'm gonna die soon and I already picked my problems". Yes.
@@NinjaofApathy i was watching it late at night and couldn't help but think that this would be how Daniel Day Lewis would sound if he played the role hahah (no offense intended). Just something about the way he speaks, it's genuine ofc, but also a little peculiar
I read that in the 00s and 10s, many physicists & physics PhD students became disillusioned with theoretical physics and ended up switching fields to AI, which is partly why we saw an explosive growth in ML/DL methods and their applications during the same period.
@@bitdribble Ah, I see. Would you agree though that ex-physicists played a significant role in the development of AI in the 00s and 10s? I'm thinking of people like Christopher Bishop.
I have a real problem imagining additional spatial dimensions and what they would do to us as we move through them. Perhaps someone could explain this in an intuitive way. Here are my thoughts: If you imagine a creature in a 2-dimensional world like a sheet of paper, but one of the dimensions is curled up and tiny, so you roll the paper until it looks like a straw. That would essentially force the creature into 1-dimensional space. It can only get anywhere by moving back and forth through the straw now. If the 2-dimensional creature is considerably larger than the size of the curled up dimension then it would be smeared around the straw several times, and overlap with itself in that dimension (unless the dimension is some kind of infinite spiral that doesn't loop). As it moves through the straw it would inadvertently move a little bit through the curled up dimension as well, which would cause it to rotate around the straw any number of times. The smaller the dimension, the more times it would loop around, at any given distance moved. Wouldn't all that looping around and overlapping with itself completely shred the creature apart, into a soup of particles? Otherwise it sounds like a great way to exercise. As long as you move in the right direction you can run a mile without leaving your bedroom. Kind of like an invisible treadmill.
This is quite interesting this picturing of how a 2d person will see a 3d space and this is actually some core thought experiments that individuals in differential geometry look at not only what the space is but how it can be deformed. Your intuition is definitely on to something. In general the additional dimensionality is not even necessarily a physical thing but a consequence of a set of effects. For example shooting a basketball into a hoop. Consider this I can create a model defining my shot by multiple dimensions or effects. I can say the weight of the ball (one dimension), the position of my hand on release( another dimension), the height of the hoop(three dimensions) and I can go on. Now we have a multi dimensional object that is defined as a basketball shot the shape of this object. These "dimensions" are abstract and might not have any clear relationship but in context of the basketball shot they are joined. Philosophically dimensionality or the study of higher dimensions as our way of modelling complex objects or events that have multiple different things influencing its outcome.
@@tonytanner3048 Ah, yes. I didn't think of that type of dimensionality. I assumed those extra dimensions in String Theory are actual physical spatial dimensions, and not just degrees of freedom in a math formula. Otherwise they wouldn't have to work so hard to get rid of them.
Hey man, just throwing my thoughts forward, but I think what your are describing is fundamentally flawed - a 1d creature can't move back and forth, a 1d being would be close to a singularity, a super fine point, with no axis for spacial movement, but it could progress through time - also the idea of a curled up dimension doesn't really make sense, because I think your basically swapping left/right with "all the way round" - which would still give you the same spacial dimensions... I think if you take your idea of a 2d (flat) creature, it would have only up down/left right OR up/down, it's width would be infinitely small, and all the creature would see is lines always at the same angle, with the only variation being length - hope this clarifies a bit?
I think section near the end "Responsibility of Scientists" should be at the start. I feel that that's the main reason Woit came to the podcast and it's his core message. I'd also have liked to know if it's a problem more prevalent in certain geographical areas. Are European or American scientists more guilty of misrepresenting the success of theories? What about Chinese scientists? And which universities and institutions are more suspicious? Are there money incentives involved?
What an interesting individual. His antipathy towards junk science is so obvious; would not be drawn on the simulation theory or even what the meaning of life might be 🤣. I can respect him, but I can’t imagine there’d be much small talk between himself and mortal humans 🤣
Can’t agree more with Dr. Woit about the String theory. The results of the theory with parallel universes and immeasurable number of outcomes is of no surprise since its based on the world of quantum physics.
Must've been recorded earlier but this paper in nature where AI/ML helped guide intuition in topology, knots is getting lotta attention. Would've been interesting to hear his take. Maybe next guest..
@1:13:54 Brilliant response. The follow up response makes me think of John von Neumann. Fundamental. It can stand on its own to be beautiful in just being. I'm glad Mr. Woit wrote books, so I can learn from him as I get closer to that level of skills.
David Hilbert independently formulated GR literally at the same time as Einstein. It's even possible that Hilbert held his results back a short time for Einstein to finish his version. Hilbert's formulation actually had something Einstein's didn't: an action principle. And If you were interested in your theory being accepted by the community it would probably be better to have a young famous physicist than a mathematician close to retiring. Einstein was the master at was reducing things to their most essential form. The statement "If you are falling, you don't feel it" is equivalent to GR given enough math. What we need more in science today are simple Einsteinian statements that taken to their logical conclusion give the right theory. The problem with fancy new Theories of Everything is how infrequently they come with a commonsense principle that after you hear it, you can't un-hear it.
anyone else think of the book, 3 Body Problem, when he mentioned running the earth and universe through a video game at around the 1 hour, 56 min mark?
Lex did a great job challenging him on string theory. I don’t think this guy did a great job at definitively disputing string theory. Alex asking the question of “why do you have to get rid of 6 dimensions” was important because there are thousands of us listeners that were wanting him to answer that. As a non physicist, he tried to slip out of it or just doesn’t understand how to explain it to the average viewer. I loved how Lex didn’t just let him get away with making carte blank statements about string theory.
I guess the main drawback of string theory is that it doesn't make novel predictions that we could sensibly test with experiments. All the predictions it makes are compatible with good old GR and the Standard Model. Even then, it doesn't account for all the phenomena the Standard Model can explain, which is your point.
He wrote a book about quantization for quantum mechanics, right? Kinda useful. You don’t find that in quantum mechanics textbooks but QFT books assumes you know about it.
Lex you should put descriptions of who your interviewing so we some what know what the conversation is going to be about that would be great thanks love the videos
Fantastic addition to the TOE serie, getting better and better. But sirs, why don't you pull a specially oriented community to discuss these things (TOEs) if you are genuinly interested of them? I mean, every interviewed person and professor tell the same story that they get so many letters to review theories, but no one has time to do it. What a shame! You could just orchestrate a community, guide proposals there, courage and promote the discussion and that way advance science even if you can't cut time yourself for the deeper discussion.
I want to disagree with the statement that quantum is a reasonable bottom level. It is based on probability and waves, both of which are emergent phenomena. If Wolfram can find automata that reproduce the wave function and its collapse, etc., that would be a huge victory. Why wouldn't geometric symmetries similarly emerge? Compactified dimensions could be down there as well. Cellular automata beneath the Planck scale seems an important domain to explore. It can be a finite system as well, thanks to everything we know being bounded.
Newton was many things: Physicist, mathematician, alchemist, priest, and philosopher. Yes, Newton did study theology and was ordained as a priest in the Church of England
There is a lot of talk about the need to "get rid of extra dimensions"; my question is why? Can there be reasons, besides assuming they are very small, that we can't perceive these extra dimensions? Why can't there be physics at play that precludes us from perceiving them naturally?
Those of us who laughed at the Priests? The Mathematicians are saying the same thing now - 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet *credo*. . . what the equations predict!'
1:29:45 Yes! YES! Everyone tries to make an abstract theory of everything with no reference to the observer. The observer IS EVERYTHING. In some very, very literal ways.
"It is actually very, very difficult at this point to say what string theory means." In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant . Consider statements (A) & (B): (A) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, the Friedmann cosmological model, and supersymmetry. (B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5, the Riofro-Sanejouand cosmological model, and no supersymmetry. Are (A) & (B) wrong? Consider 7 conjectures: (1) String theory is the only mathematically plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. (2) There are three fundamental levels of physics: classical field theory, quantum field theory, and string theory. (3) String theory is the basis for a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics. (4) In terms of theoretical physics, Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less as important as Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman. (5) String theory is of enormous economic value because it makes quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand. (6) The key to understanding string theory is explaining the empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND. (7) Relativistic MOND is essentially the simplest way of modifying Einstein’s field equations.
i was searchinf for "criticisms of string theory" and came across Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder some time back. Thanks so much for this interview. The mainstream media rarely give him time because he intelligently dismantles string theory and the nonsense that it is. I really enjoy listening to him
Mathematicians and physicists are not given usually media time. Please notice also that you make a caricature of Peter Woit position: he doesn't say that string theory is nonsense. He pointed out for example that the development of string theory by Witten led to big development in mathematics. This doesn't in any sense make it a correct physical theory but it certainly no nonsense.
There is no evidence of superstrings. No evidence of loops. But hey everybody! Wave functions seem to exist just beneath the level of observation. Maybe they have something to do with the mechanisms that make physics work!
There was no evidence of atoms/electrons until the technology needed was made .There was no evidence of the Higgs particle until the Hadron Collider (technology) found it.If these guys had not persevered until technology developed the Higgs would never have been found.It is believed, Strings (of string theory), could be proven with a humongously gigantic Hadron Collider ,but it would have to circle the entire galaxy.The Hadron Collider today would equate to a Milky Way Collider from the perspective of just 150 years ago ( horse and cart times).Peter Higgs had to wait about half a century for his hypotheses to be proven but he truly believed he was correct and never abandoned this.String theory math suggests,also, that it may be correct without real proof.This is why it won't be abandoned.
Grand Unification is published, Relativity Applications of Mass, 📖 📕. Math and machine proof manufactures by using the exact solution to General Relativity mechanically Applied. Chase reality.
@@kenadams5504 I am suggesting that wave functions really do exist and are actually made of things called gravitons (which are the building blocks of spacetime). Since a pair of quantum entangled photons would, in principle, be described by a wavefunction, then the argument goes that entangled photons have a graviton between them. You can actually perform accelerated reference frame experiments on entangled photons. So why do we care about superstrings?
NON-mathematician here with a question: When they were talking about integers and algebraic geometry--points in space and functions of space--would graphing say, a line or quadratic equation be an example of this? Or is that a totally different thing?
If you've come across polar co-ordinates, where points are represented by distance from an origin and an angle, it might give insight into how these different systems work. For example, the equation for a circle in regular (cartesian) co-ordinates is x*x + y*y =1 while it is r=1 in polar, so polar shows a really simple representation of a circle.
Maybe I missed the part that you're referring to, but yeah, graphing lines or quadratic equations is very different both from the concept of integers and from algebraic geometry, which is a huge and highly abstract branch of modern maths.
WRT the Computational perspective, perhaps it is better to think of the universe as a large collection of quantum computers that are acting concurrently in addition to the universe as a single computer/computation!
Here are the timestamps. Please check out our sponsors to support this podcast.
0:00 - Introduction & sponsor mentions:
- The Prisoner Wine Company: theprisonerwine.com/lex to get 20% off & free shipping
- Linode: linode.com/lex to get $100 free credit
- Sunbasket: sunbasket.com/lex and use code LEX to get $35 off
- BetterHelp: betterhelp.com/lex to get 10% off
- SimpliSafe: simplisafe.com/lex and use code LEX to get a free security camera
0:23 - Physics vs mathematics
14:52 - Beauty of mathematics
36:43 - String theory
1:05:16 - Theory of everything
1:25:24 - Twistor theory and spinors
1:41:51 - Nobel Prize likelihood for theory of everything
1:45:37 - Simulating physics
1:49:08 - Sci-Fi, aliens and space
1:58:20 - Responsibility of scientists
I love your interviews so much I would really like the video aspect (less considered, I know) to be representative of the same quality as its content. A simple rim light would help pull your interlocutor and yourself out of the background. Allowing you to crush the overexposed highlights while keeping the black backdrop. Also, consider (in post-production) making your video in Black & White, like old school movies & TV. I think it would work well B&W is used in modern film to emphasize something that is deep and meaningful, like your content. Cheers.
My DMs are open on Twitter if I can be of any help.
The whole bottom and top thing, is preciously why we as a species will never dodge all the great filters. for that is one of them.
Stay humble lex and remember, put a flat fish on the tallest peak and all it will see is.
@@nolongerthere That's fair, B&W isn't necessary but the rest seems like a rationalization to me.
By desaturating the image you're taking away those distractions, focusing on the content of the interview opposed to anything else. Think about Saving Private Ryan, the monochrome helps the viewer focus on what matters, in that case the severity of war, nothing gimmicky about it nor the content of this podcast and its guest.
Honestly, the current video aspect of this podcast is a gimmick since it literally an afterthought and not taken seriously. That is kind of the definition of gimmick, ya know..
10 minutes of research could remove this gimmicky video aspect of the podcast. If one takes the care to get good sound quality for a podcast with good mics, plosive screens, stands, and recording equipment, etc. Then if you are going to do a video side and it not be a gimmick, it would make sense to take the same minimal effort.
Here are the basics 101 for not having a gimmicky video: The contrast between the highlights and shadows are too much. The brights are blown out and the shadows are crushed. If distraction is your thing, there is nothing more distracting than the white clipping to infinity all the while not respecting the interlocutor by having them as a part of the background and not apart from it. The disrespect makes it almost unwatchable. Perhaps it should remain audio only until a minimal effort is taken.
Lastly, maybe most importantly, Lex and his guests in this podcast explore intellectual curiosity. It is a core theme. Since much of our world is based on the communication of ideas and the methods used to achieve that. As simple as 'video' may be, the tricks-of-the-trade developed over the past century should not be slept on. It is rich in the knowledge of communication imo comparable to evolutionary psychology's reframing to help us understand what we are as human. This knowledge is indispensable and since media of all sorts use this knowledge in a memetic game theoretic way to get ahead. It would be to the benefit of reason and rationality to use what has been discovered to promote the good things we all care about. Because media, and all other dominate power structures, and their narratives are not going to stop using this knowledge to promote whatever advances their own self-preservation.
There are many tricks-of-the-trade in all fields that help the communication of ideas. Lex is using them for the audio portion of the podcast, one shouldn't waste that potential on the video. Otherwise, it really is all a gimmick.
Physics is easy? Thank you Lex 😊... subject matter like climate change .. DARE GREATNESS 🏋♀️
Take terrance tao to the podcast
As for Roger Penrose. Still working and still enthusiastically trying to break new ground at 90 years old. What an inspiration.
i love that old man hes so humble and wise
@@okeyokey578 Good description
@@okeyokey578 Yeah, he'll describe different things that relate to his own work, like proofs or visualizations (like particular examples of Escher's tessellations), and cite them to others, but if you take the time to look into them you realize Penrose was far more involved than he let's on; serving as the direct inspiration or even co-creator. His influence is so far reaching that it'd be hard for him to take credit for everything he cites in an interview or book without sounding like he's trying to take credit for much of modern physics. Everyone was fairly certain he'd eventually get awarded a Nobel prize, but the issue was deciding which line of research to credit him in because so many prizes lead directly back to his work. There'll likely be many to come that, if they really wanted to, they could include him in.
Hmmmmm
@@woodiegreene9658 go on then woodie
"It is misguided to look for answers about the deep meanings of life from a theoretical physicist". Amen, Peter Woit! Thanks for having the courage to say this.
Great to see Peter Woit interviewed here! He is a brave man and - in my view - a sort of 'whistleblower' in a field (theoretical physics) that tends to quietly discourage public discussion of problems in the community.
Theoretical physics is today in a strange position and having Peter Woit perspective is a good thing. However I find his framing as "whistleblower" unhelpful creating a caricature of a real serious and interesting situation. The string theory is still dominating the field not because it is successful but because there exist no serious contender at the moment. Also it is successful as a bridge developments between mathemtaics and physics. This reciprocal communication of idea between mathematics and physics is a potential ground for interesting future developments.
@@andreimustata5922 I have followed the situation for some time and I think it is reasonable to call him a 'whisteblower' considering how much hostility he has had to deal with, especially - and absurdly - from academics commenting anonymously on various blogs. I don't think anyone can reasonably deny the interaction between results in string theory and mathematics, but I would say it remains to seen whether string theory has anything to do with any physical phenomena in our universe.
@@77Fortran Agreed. A healthy discipline would be able to acknowledge openly that the thing many of is practitioners dedicated their life to, has yielded nothing in predictive value over the standard model. All the power to people who choose to continue another lifetime in pursuing such a direction; I genuinely do admire their persistence. But we should not pretend the situation is any prettier than it is; and the sectarian bile that is sadly often the norm when pointing these things out, is unbecoming of physics.
@@77FortranThis is how I see it: We don't usually admit the role belief plays in science. That is because the final results in science are proved either true or false and all the work that goes into it, which is often supported by the belief of the scientists is unseen. With string theory we are in the unusual situation where the work of scientists expanded over decades and they where neither able to prove that they where right neither was somebody else able to come with an alternative explanation. As such you can see the beliefs of the scientists displayed openly with some of the emotional connotations which makes belief an ugly business. There are plenty of physicists which are sceptical of the string theory but so far there is no viable alternative to string theory and while there is easy enough to write a book about the theory that you have, even if it is not proven (like Brian Greene) it is more rare that you can see a book written which just underlines the scepticism with regard to a theory (like Peter Woit). The intense drama of not being able to crack a hard problem is in full display, beautiful dreams and hard honesty creating a tension to which the scientists don't answer better than any of us, so we see ugly comments and all of that.
I didn't mean to imply that Peter Woit wrote a book, he wrote a blog.
For me, Peter Woit's book "Not even wrong" is one of the best popular science books. I have read it twice, and still consider it relevant today.
Ditto, a great read.
And one of the great book titles of all-time.
Another truly fascinating conversation! Thanks gents
Thanks for watching ...
Send a direct msg right away,,,.,
WhatsApp±¹⁵⁵⁹⁴⁸¹⁶³²⁴
Dr. Keating next, yes please
📡💪💪💪
Am going to enjoy the No Einstein INCH equation .. Faraday lens an energy transfer .. ⚔ no contest Mechanical Equivalent of Heat.
When Peter said that he lost interest in science fiction, I felt a bit sad. Lex was trying to relight an imagination and open-mindedness in him. I love the way he does that.
I did too, but when he said that the real science was far more weird and interesting, I felt better. It just means that he’s learned enough to be directly inspired by actual reality instead of someone’s imaginary version.
@@Rob-uu8wt Yeah, it's like asking a racing driver or pilot if he likes to play sims. Reality is much more exciting than science fiction can ever be and that's a very good thing.
lol, relight openmindedness in one of the best active Theoretical Physicists, sure he needs it.
I know right!... Lex had his hands full with the serious mathematician who avoids frivolous thoughts that ultimately leads nowhere. While that ordered mentality probably makes him the best critic of string theory, which is arguably the most frivolous thought for the last 20 years, is the same thing that makes it difficult for Lex to connect with him on a playful open-minded level where this podcast usually shines the most.
On the other side you've got the guy who is trying to separate science from science fiction. The whole physics after Minkowsky, Einstein, and Bohr has been science fiction. We need to get familiar with four dimensions before jumping to worm holes and similar twists. Most physicians who are proposing ten, twelve, and more dimensions are only projecting them from three dimensional space and not from the space time continuum.
Lex, thanks for all the work you have done. You are deeply appreciated.
I second that
Peter Woit is brilliant and so solid here. He and Sabine have stood alone (well, Penrose and others have also been a
voice of reason) for the survival of traditional science methods in the face of string Hype that floods the internet and media.
Thanks so much for this great interview Lex!
Drop the weight onto check ✔ valve Mechanical Equivalent of Heat ... Labor beyond the Math of Grand Unification.
Lex, dude you we're like a rock-star trying to get him out of his shell. I never appreciated how hard you worked at getting people to lighten up, relax and just open up a little bit. It usually looks completely natural and flowing. But today I saw clearly why you deserve to be one of the top notch podcast interviewers.
We got this super serious mathematician that's just brilliant and universally respected, but he's also the arch-typical reserved, guarded, thoughtful old school thinker that takes the measure of every word before allowing himself to utter it. The brief times I saw him relax and chuckle was when you asked him whether he finds it useful to think about non-conclusive things such as if he's in a simulation.
"Ahh.. Young Lex, I'm way to serious to waste my time with frivolous thoughts that are highly enjoyable but ultimately lead to nowhere serious. Every thought must have a practical end purpose behind it, otherwise, you'll be known as the thinker who seriously considers silly things, you don't want that now do we..."
Tough crowd man, but I suppose his criticism makes a whole lot of sense. A structured, orderly mind like his, who has a distaste for time wasting ideas that lead to nowhere, would be the PERFECT CRITIC for string theory. Which is shaping up to be, the ULTIMATE frivolous thought you ever could have wasted 20 years of your life on. HAHAHAHA!
This is an incredible interview. One of my favorite I've seen on your show, and you've had Dan Carlin, Niall Ferguson, Neal Stephenson, John Danaher, Max Tegmark... some of the most profound and interesting living thinkers. Kudos Lex. God bless.
Niall Ferguson profound?😂 He's fine. I like his WW1 books but there's no profundity in history.
@@edwardjones2202 Sure it is. Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath is profound. Revealing things that have been obvious but hidden all along, that's the definition of profundity. Going deep with simple tools.
Thank you for hosting Peter Woit. A voice of reason.
Thanks for watching ...
Send a direct msg right away,,,,
WhatsApp±¹⁵⁵⁹⁴⁸¹⁶³²⁴
@@anihruthsolomon5675 @youtube pls stop these bots
I like this guy, he isn’t snarky and very humble (unlike sean carroll).
Google him and Sean Carroll together, they do not share much in scientific quantum mechanics perspectives and have said as much with their community... Peter is still a scrutinizing scientist, Sean is now more of a philosopher/priest of scientific abstraction.
@@jlljjl Sean Carroll is great. He admits his faults and is more of a communicator of physics than a practicing physicist. He states very complex ideas in succinct ways with love and passion in it as well. Is everybody for everybody? No. But Sean is valued within the physics community and an asset, as with Woit, Hossenfelder, and other big TH-cam personality physicist and mathematicians. I wish their super-symmetrical selves could be practicing science in labs AND be doing TH-cam at the same time, but alas, we can't do that yet.
Read the book 5 years ago! saved me a lot of time 😉 Thank you both for this!
@@chriskindler10 After reading The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene, I was looking for a book which would be a critique of string theory to see weather to learn more about it or spend time reading more about some other theories in physics considering quantum mechanics and astronomy. In that sense, it solved my dilemma.
@@maja.kant87 this interview had a similar effect for me
Lex : do you think this is an interesting question?
Peter : No.
Lex: But maybe it’s interesting.
Peter: Not really. Pls don’t waste my time.
Lex: Let’s take another bite at that string theory apple, tho.
Peter: Dude, when can we get out of the sci-fi aisle & talk about spinors?
Lex: That’s a funny word. Blah blah robots, Mars, Muff, Weinstein…
Peter: Spinors do kinda rule, tho.
Some unknown number of people love string theory.
lmao
Wouldn't Michio be one? :)
love G-string theory
Love worked well for the Bible. Emotions are only justified in science once your theory has been proven, not as the driving force. Hopefully this way of thinking blows up the inflated universes bubbles as well.
@@Dan-mm1yl
You dirty bastard 😂
I've seen these light cones a lot in Rogers presentations and in Hawking's Brief history of time but I've just understood what they are. Thanks Peter
Thank you for these beautiful podcasts Lex
+1
Even though I listen to these casts on spotify, I still come here to thumbs up the vids.
Michio Kaku always refers to string theory as his "day job" while telling his same 10 or so old stories, but he rarely actually seems to explain string theory. Woit must've been knocking Kaku here as far as empty science.
I got the same feeling watching all those physics documentaries with Kaku where he just spits out a bunch of mind-blowing ideas but never really gets to the core of the theory.
Michael kaku appears too much on ancient aliens so I personally think he's full of shit
@@stephenallen8671 😂
@@magellanicspaceclouds same with all science communicators really, theyre not down in the trenches and ride their notoriety built on tv appearances
Whether intentionally or not, he's certainly knocking Kaku with regards to dishonest science communication. He constantly presents wild speculation as if it were scientific fact.
I love when you get top tier mathaticians on your show.
Woit is a physicist, not mathematician.
@@jameson44k he's referred to himself as a mathatician several times in this podcast.
@@1vootman Well, I suppose Woit could be called a mathematical physicist. Either way, he's not at the top of either physics or mathematics, he hasn't produced original research in like 20 years, and he's by far better known for his blog and books than research work.
No one familiar with modern maths and physics, including Woit himself, would say that he's a top mathematician or physicist.
They're just labels. Some say tomato, some say mathatician.
@@SoundsSilver About Sean Carroll, that's debatable. He's best known as a popularizer and for his philosophy of physics, not so much for his research contributions. He did write a great textbook on general relativity though.
However, anyone would recognize that Ed Witten is one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the past 30-40 years and completely brilliant at what he does. Woit would without a doubt agree, even if he laments the time and energy spent by Witten on string theory. Even so, often enough they have the same interests, for example every time Witten has something new to present about geometric Langlands, Woit is blogging about it (like Witten, Woit tends towards mathematical physics).
Such a smart gentleman…..talking to such a smart gentleman…….what an honour to be able to hear this conversation
Thanks for watching ...
Send a direct msg right away,,,,
WhatsApp±¹⁵⁵⁹⁴⁸¹⁶³²⁴
Very professional - a good choice of the guest, the topics and the way of presentation, from illustrations to timestamps, making it skippable and citeable (it's annoying that they're often missing in other videos, especially long ones). Such content fills two gaps at once:
1) a frank but informed criticism of strings & other hyped ideas (e.g. by Wolfram or Lisi);
2) semi-popular science, around the level of Penrose and Susskind, speaking not like two people in the field but like people with a common denominator of undergraduate maths, having an idea of what are vectors, groups or topology, and ready to go a step further. It may be a growing genre.
No regret of watching it, even though it's long and I still haven't watched some classics of this channel and of YT in general. It makes me convinced that Woit's book should be published in more countries, some of which (like Poland) having bookshop shelves filled with Kaku or other strings enthusiasts, only occasionally with bits of other theories (like LQG, NCG or Barbour's Shape Dynamics). I've already poked my friends in scientific publishing to consider a translation of Woit. The interview also inspired me to a rant about the “theory of everything” (ToE) or “final theory” brand, which I believe has gone really out of hand. I wish more people spoke about a cosmic TAP - theory of all particles, from which the whole mess flows. Taps are also more pleasant to think about than toes, at least to most people.
I only wish that by the end the guest wasn't flooded with questions before answering them one by one; there's paper on the table, Lex could have written his next question down and read it in time. But luckily, Woit managed to give both his book recommendation & his alternative scenario of 20th-century Physics. Good job, good luck both to Fridman & Woit!
what a pleasant conversation atmosphere, love it.
My only takeaway from this interview random is that this man is the perfect guest for Lex in every way. Matter of fact it would have served as a good final podcast.
Wow, he is not stuttering here. Lex has a relaxing effect on guests.
I don't understand at all but it was an awesome conversation as always, Lex
how is it awesome if you don't understand? I don't understand it at all either but therefore can't appreciate the awesomeness...
@@12oq You are obviously very smart, figure it out.
Enjoyed this at many levels. The discussion of Roger Penrose's work on spinors and twisters and how they can offer a more elemental model for electrons was especially intriguing.
Thank you Lex for the hard work. I am hooked on these, very informative.
Way to go lex!
Love your podcast
Excellent. I've followed Peter's blog for years, and it was great to hear his thoughts on other topics. Great questions!
Thanks for doing this amazing Podcast.
This is great contribution and service to the public knowledge.
We meet again fans of physics
If not a Nobel Prize, Peter deserves a Guinness for # of bubbles popped per minute.
🤣🤣🤣
Peter Woit has a quality which not many of his contemporaries possess. An apparent lack of ego. Nice!
Enjoyable. I did learn that our probable limits are limiting. Beyond that, fun to listen to the ideas I do not comprehend.
Just reading the title and I'm so into it. keep going this way Lex 💣
Same lol. These physics podcasts are amazing. Tied with the philosophy ones for me.
This is why I love your podcast! LOVE science!
For me, biggest insight here is the perspective Voit shared when Lex raised some topic that he (Woit) hadn't studied so much. "Yeah man that sounds pretty cool but I'm gonna die soon and I already picked my problems". Yes.
Q❤
I might be mistaken, but this guy might just be the best character actor these eyes have ever seen
Wat?
This guy is a shill for big 4D spacetime
@@NinjaofApathy i was watching it late at night and couldn't help but think that this would be how Daniel Day Lewis would sound if he played the role hahah (no offense intended). Just something about the way he speaks, it's genuine ofc, but also a little peculiar
I read that in the 00s and 10s, many physicists & physics PhD students became disillusioned with theoretical physics and ended up switching fields to AI, which is partly why we saw an explosive growth in ML/DL methods and their applications during the same period.
@@bitdribble Ah, I see. Would you agree though that ex-physicists played a significant role in the development of AI in the 00s and 10s? I'm thinking of people like Christopher Bishop.
I have a real problem imagining additional spatial dimensions and what they would do to us as we move through them. Perhaps someone could explain this in an intuitive way. Here are my thoughts:
If you imagine a creature in a 2-dimensional world like a sheet of paper, but one of the dimensions is curled up and tiny, so you roll the paper until it looks like a straw. That would essentially force the creature into 1-dimensional space. It can only get anywhere by moving back and forth through the straw now. If the 2-dimensional creature is considerably larger than the size of the curled up dimension then it would be smeared around the straw several times, and overlap with itself in that dimension (unless the dimension is some kind of infinite spiral that doesn't loop).
As it moves through the straw it would inadvertently move a little bit through the curled up dimension as well, which would cause it to rotate around the straw any number of times. The smaller the dimension, the more times it would loop around, at any given distance moved.
Wouldn't all that looping around and overlapping with itself completely shred the creature apart, into a soup of particles?
Otherwise it sounds like a great way to exercise. As long as you move in the right direction you can run a mile without leaving your bedroom. Kind of like an invisible treadmill.
This is quite interesting this picturing of how a 2d person will see a 3d space and this is actually some core thought experiments that individuals in differential geometry look at not only what the space is but how it can be deformed. Your intuition is definitely on to something.
In general the additional dimensionality is not even necessarily a physical thing but a consequence of a set of effects.
For example shooting a basketball into a hoop. Consider this I can create a model defining my shot by multiple dimensions or effects. I can say the weight of the ball (one dimension), the position of my hand on release( another dimension), the height of the hoop(three dimensions) and I can go on. Now we have a multi dimensional object that is defined as a basketball shot the shape of this object. These "dimensions" are abstract and might not have any clear relationship but in context of the basketball shot they are joined.
Philosophically dimensionality or the study of higher dimensions as our way of modelling complex objects or events that have multiple different things influencing its outcome.
@@tonytanner3048 Ah, yes. I didn't think of that type of dimensionality. I assumed those extra dimensions in String Theory are actual physical spatial dimensions, and not just degrees of freedom in a math formula. Otherwise they wouldn't have to work so hard to get rid of them.
Hey man, just throwing my thoughts forward, but I think what your are describing is fundamentally flawed - a 1d creature can't move back and forth, a 1d being would be close to a singularity, a super fine point, with no axis for spacial movement, but it could progress through time - also the idea of a curled up dimension doesn't really make sense, because I think your basically swapping left/right with "all the way round" - which would still give you the same spacial dimensions... I think if you take your idea of a 2d (flat) creature, it would have only up down/left right OR up/down, it's width would be infinitely small, and all the creature would see is lines always at the same angle, with the only variation being length - hope this clarifies a bit?
אני אוהב את לקס!!!
👃
I think section near the end "Responsibility of Scientists" should be at the start. I feel that that's the main reason Woit came to the podcast and it's his core message. I'd also have liked to know if it's a problem more prevalent in certain geographical areas. Are European or American scientists more guilty of misrepresenting the success of theories? What about Chinese scientists? And which universities and institutions are more suspicious? Are there money incentives involved?
Super this gentleman's descriptions it's really sounds like mathematics and physics are very much the same thing with a different intended outcome
What an interesting individual. His antipathy towards junk science is so obvious; would not be drawn on the simulation theory or even what the meaning of life might be 🤣. I can respect him, but I can’t imagine there’d be much small talk between himself and mortal humans 🤣
Simplicity comes from understanding. Some things are simply complicated.
The last Q - omg u killing me him us all. literally crying ily lex
Can’t agree more with Dr. Woit about the String theory. The results of the theory with parallel universes and immeasurable number of outcomes is of no surprise since its based on the world of quantum physics.
Thanks, Lex, another thought provoking interview.
Thank you lex. Very inspiring conversation on interesting topics.
Must've been recorded earlier but this paper in nature where AI/ML helped guide intuition in topology, knots is getting lotta attention. Would've been interesting to hear his take. Maybe next guest..
@1:13:54 Brilliant response. The follow up response makes me think of John von Neumann. Fundamental. It can stand on its own to be beautiful in just being. I'm glad Mr. Woit wrote books, so I can learn from him as I get closer to that level of skills.
David Hilbert independently formulated GR literally at the same time as Einstein. It's even possible that Hilbert held his results back a short time for Einstein to finish his version. Hilbert's formulation actually had something Einstein's didn't: an action principle. And If you were interested in your theory being accepted by the community it would probably be better to have a young famous physicist than a mathematician close to retiring. Einstein was the master at was reducing things to their most essential form. The statement "If you are falling, you don't feel it" is equivalent to GR given enough math. What we need more in science today are simple Einsteinian statements that taken to their logical conclusion give the right theory. The problem with fancy new Theories of Everything is how infrequently they come with a commonsense principle that after you hear it, you can't un-hear it.
anyone else think of the book, 3 Body Problem, when he mentioned running the earth and universe through a video game at around the 1 hour, 56 min mark?
Lex did a great job challenging him on string theory.
I don’t think this guy did a great job at definitively disputing string theory.
Alex asking the question of “why do you have to get rid of 6 dimensions” was important because there are thousands of us listeners that were wanting him to answer that. As a non physicist, he tried to slip out of it or just doesn’t understand how to explain it to the average viewer.
I loved how Lex didn’t just let him get away with making carte blank statements about string theory.
I've literally got no formal education but yet I lo e watching the podcast
Thanks for watching ...
Send a direct msg right away,,,,
WhatsApp±¹⁵⁵⁹⁴⁸¹⁶³²⁴
Woit is a cool cat, we need more like him.
Hamilton Morris next :)
Great vid.
Lex is 🔥on every level
I've never heard that string theory is wrong, only that is has too little explanatory power.
I guess the main drawback of string theory is that it doesn't make novel predictions that we could sensibly test with experiments. All the predictions it makes are compatible with good old GR and the Standard Model. Even then, it doesn't account for all the phenomena the Standard Model can explain, which is your point.
I've got a testable theory of everything. I've been compiling it in my little book, experiments and all. So far, it has not failed me yet.
@Lex Fridmañ▫️ I'm assuming that's a phone number. I'll be able to call you or text on Thursday around 5:00 PM Eastern US Time.
Cool! Start a religion
@@evanstegall8454 In the future, you can tell by the character over the n, that that's a scam account and not the real Lex Fridman.
There will probably never be a final theory of everything. Any unification theory will eventually be found to be just a subset of some grander theory…
Hedgy's really leaning into it today
Your shows are wonderful bro I've just recently found your channel and everyday I seen to watch at least one video GJ👏👏👍
A difficult interview but rewarding.
He wrote a book about quantization for quantum mechanics, right? Kinda useful. You don’t find that in quantum mechanics textbooks but QFT books assumes you know about it.
Yes, Quantum Theory, Groups and representations
Happy for you both!
Great convo!
Gem of a podcast.
Thanks for watching ...
Send a direct msg right away,,,,
WhatsApp±¹⁵⁵⁹⁴⁸¹⁶³²⁴
This was a rough one 😑. This guy couldn't answer a single question the way it was asked. He would make a fantastic politician.
Lex you should put descriptions of who your interviewing so we some what know what the conversation is going to be about that would be great thanks love the videos
There's a list of time stamps in the comments. A literal breakdown of the conversation section by section
Fantastic addition to the TOE serie, getting better and better.
But sirs, why don't you pull a specially oriented community to discuss these things (TOEs) if you are genuinly interested of them? I mean, every interviewed person and professor tell the same story that they get so many letters to review theories, but no one has time to do it. What a shame! You could just orchestrate a community, guide proposals there, courage and promote the discussion and that way advance science even if you can't cut time yourself for the deeper discussion.
I want to disagree with the statement that quantum is a reasonable bottom level. It is based on probability and waves, both of which are emergent phenomena. If Wolfram can find automata that reproduce the wave function and its collapse, etc., that would be a huge victory. Why wouldn't geometric symmetries similarly emerge? Compactified dimensions could be down there as well. Cellular automata beneath the Planck scale seems an important domain to explore. It can be a finite system as well, thanks to everything we know being bounded.
Newton was many things: Physicist, mathematician, alchemist, priest, and philosopher. Yes, Newton did study theology and was ordained as a priest in the Church of England
There is a lot of talk about the need to "get rid of extra dimensions"; my question is why? Can there be reasons, besides assuming they are very small, that we can't perceive these extra dimensions? Why can't there be physics at play that precludes us from perceiving them naturally?
Sure, but the burden is on you to explain why we can't detect them
@@JoelChristophel Yes of course, I was just commenting on the tendency to get rid of the dimensions while it wasn’t made clear why.
Those of us who laughed at the Priests? The Mathematicians are saying the same thing now - 'blessed are those who have not seen and yet *credo*. . . what the equations predict!'
The universe is made up of math particles -Wolfram
1:29:45 Yes! YES! Everyone tries to make an abstract theory of everything with no reference to the observer. The observer IS EVERYTHING. In some very, very literal ways.
Whenever I don't know what to have for lunch, I postulate another dimension and imagine what I would choose there.
"It is actually very, very difficult at this point to say what string theory means." In the standard form of Einstein's field equations, replace the -1/2 by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant . Consider statements (A) & (B):
(A) String theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, the Friedmann cosmological model, and supersymmetry.
(B) String theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5, the Riofro-Sanejouand cosmological model, and no supersymmetry. Are (A) & (B) wrong? Consider 7 conjectures: (1) String theory is the only mathematically plausible way to unify quantum field theory and general relativity theory. (2) There are three fundamental levels of physics: classical field theory, quantum field theory, and string theory. (3) String theory is the basis for a unified theory of mathematics and theoretical physics. (4) In terms of theoretical physics, Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less as important as Tomonaga, Schwinger, and Feynman. (5) String theory is of enormous economic value because it makes quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand. (6) The key to understanding string theory is explaining the empirical successes of Milgrom’s MOND. (7) Relativistic MOND is essentially the simplest way of modifying Einstein’s field equations.
Thank you very much for the video.
No strings attached.
They're just stringing us along.
Grand Unification g = G Me/r^2 (1e-/+Ef/Eo) G sub c the neutrinos curve to event horizon as does the water molecule.
@@kenadams5504 appears, why would they use Grand Unification?
Can anyone tell me haw all of the time and money that gets poured into this science helps the truly disadvantage in OUR world.
Give math people white board , so they can draw examples or something.
Thank you Lex.
great question at 6:56
Hey look! Someone else who says "beautiful" as beautifully as Lex!
i was searchinf for "criticisms of string theory" and came across Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder some time back. Thanks so much for this interview. The mainstream media rarely give him time because he intelligently dismantles string theory and the nonsense that it is. I really enjoy listening to him
Mathematicians and physicists are not given usually media time. Please notice also that you make a caricature of Peter Woit position: he doesn't say that string theory is nonsense.
He pointed out for example that the development of string theory by Witten led to big development in mathematics. This doesn't in any sense make it a correct physical theory but it certainly no nonsense.
There is no evidence of superstrings. No evidence of loops. But hey everybody! Wave functions seem to exist just beneath the level of observation. Maybe they have something to do with the mechanisms that make physics work!
There was no evidence of atoms/electrons until the technology needed was made .There was no evidence of the Higgs particle until the Hadron Collider (technology) found it.If these guys had not persevered until technology developed the Higgs would never have been found.It is believed, Strings (of string theory), could be proven with a humongously gigantic Hadron Collider ,but it would have to circle the entire galaxy.The Hadron Collider today would equate to a Milky Way Collider from the perspective of just 150 years ago ( horse and cart times).Peter Higgs had to wait about half a century for his hypotheses to be proven but he truly believed he was correct and never abandoned this.String theory math suggests,also, that it may be correct without real proof.This is why it won't be abandoned.
Grand Unification is published, Relativity Applications of Mass, 📖 📕. Math and machine proof manufactures by using the exact solution to General Relativity mechanically Applied. Chase reality.
@@kenadams5504 I am suggesting that wave functions really do exist and are actually made of things called gravitons (which are the building blocks of spacetime). Since a pair of quantum entangled photons would, in principle, be described by a wavefunction, then the argument goes that entangled photons have a graviton between them.
You can actually perform accelerated reference frame experiments on entangled photons.
So why do we care about superstrings?
Thanks!
Get Graham Hancock on the pod Lex!
ty
Newton was an alchemist. His maths, physics, and philosophy were hobbies.
NON-mathematician here with a question: When they were talking about integers and algebraic geometry--points in space and functions of space--would graphing say, a line or quadratic equation be an example of this? Or is that a totally different thing?
If you've come across polar co-ordinates, where points are represented by distance from an origin and an angle, it might give insight into how these different systems work. For example, the equation for a circle in regular (cartesian) co-ordinates is x*x + y*y =1 while it is r=1 in polar, so polar shows a really simple representation of a circle.
Maybe I missed the part that you're referring to, but yeah, graphing lines or quadratic equations is very different both from the concept of integers and from algebraic geometry, which is a huge and highly abstract branch of modern maths.
There is genius in simple.
Why is the 4th dimension time, and not something like density?
WRT the Computational perspective, perhaps it is better to think of the universe as a large collection of quantum computers that are acting concurrently in addition to the universe as a single computer/computation!
Hey Lex please get John Vervaeke on your podcast. Would love to see your interaction with him.