0 views
String theory lied to us and now science communication is hard.
This is just my opinion man. String theory is not bad. String theory is fine and interesting. String theory was communicated…..you could say poorly or could say deceptively.
The game is Binding of Isaac Rebirth. I wish I had saved the seed so I could post it here.
Date: June 19, 2024
This is decidedly the best video on YouTube 💯
Indeed. Is String theory even a theory? How does it qualify as a theory? Isn't it more a hypothesis exploiting media tendency to use "theory" for any random idea?
Edit: Cults and religion come to mind. Also grifting.
Edit 2: Co-dependency is the word.
Edit 3: All sounds like current "AI" bluster, and Silicon Valley bluster to get $$$$$$$$
I was here from the beginning now 1 million views later
Bravo !👏👏
Such a concise and compelling takedown of the lies of string 'theory' luminaries, all the while playing a video game and cracking jokes just made it so much more brutal, and entertaining.😂
Don't waste your time on string theory, multiverse etc, but refute all lies with your own testable theory that merges general relativity with QM. You've the nerd/geek factor, so you can do it. Don't get too stressed up about lying people (they do it all the time) and mind your blood pressure. You sound like you need a hug.
i like how you even showed "lost in math" and yet not a mention about the, at least, equaly damaging attitude of particle physicists. while it is true that string theory is a shambles and wrecked havoc upon public opinion, the tenure of a few dozen misguided researchers is completely dwarfed by the multi billion dollar proposals of new colliders to find things like super-symmetric particles, gravitons, tiny black holes and, for all i know, pixies and unicorns, not finding any of those, only to say, well, on to the next bigger thing, then. that's quiet a lot of money for very little results.
Eric Weinstein has been saying this FOR YEARS!!!!
i didnt see the connection between the string theorists and the crackpot video coming :O (you'll be sorry!! im galileo bitches!!)
38:42 … Literally made me laugh out loud. In a book about physics… "It had nice pictures and stuff, it's fine."
As an even more "Common public" person enjoys being on the cusp of new physics, technology, etc but ZERO college education and actually a high-school drop out. I did however watch a few hundred hours of the Standford University lectures on physics, astrophysics, and of course… string theory/m-theory. Now like I said high-school drop out, but not because I was stupid and Math was my personal specialty… so while I have not, and will not spend the time to learn/memorize all the formulas for all the different functions/environments/variables/etc to "double check" that all the physicists before me didn't get it wrong… I did care to follow the logic, concepts, and tangible real world demonstrations/predictions of claimed concept and how to accurately detect/interpret the results. And when I got to the String theory… I smelled B.S. a mile away. There are a couple other theories I have issues with, but admittedly most probably because of my ignorance of the lesser known details… But string theory is just duct-taping a ruler, a compass, a protractor and a calculator together and calling it a "brand new thing that explains everything" so long as you let me duct-tape any new discoveries *onto my previous contraption". Like it doesn't let us do anything we can't _already do with a different but MUCH better tool. In that long example, the string theory is the duct tape itself, yes you can infinitely incorporate any new discoveries made with other useful tools but you just make it more complicated and harder to use.
String Theory – the Hydrogen Fusion Power of theoretical physics!
A string theorist was in his office, kissing one of his students, when his wife walked in. She gasped and turned to leave. He called out, "Wait! Give me time, and I can explain everything"!
(Physics joke #6)
Finally a gaming channel for me.
The world's major string theory annual conference has just completed at CERN a few days ago – Strings2024.
Papers and videos are still being posted at the time I posted this comment.
A public outreach video is available on YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/live/Lf8h3xQMHXY?si=b60NQko7GRerW4gI
Terry Lawrence loves the rings! Made his own physics "Terryology" 😂. Oh humans.
This video should literally be the standard format of any college level theory based course. People today literally cannot function at their optimum stage without a distraction. However you might take this statement, it is fact.
Of 4 forces, we have a standard model that addresses 3. But we do that using only one, EM. EM is the core of the machinery that enables us to observe causality, and the machinery that enables us to analyze what we observe, form models that serve as hypotheses, and draw conclusions about obvious properties of nature such as the existence of only 3 spatial dimensions.
We can go further: careful analysis will lead any honest observer to the conclusion that our perception that we exist in an actual external physical reality is likely true, to an extent (call that a Roger Maris style asterisk), but our experience of continuous conscious being in that reality is played out in a purely logical internal context.
No individual experiences being in the (likely real) external context our internal model attempts to mirror. Indeed, the nature of our shared common internal models of reality betray that isolation: while the question of the origin of logic is handily answered by recognition of the process of observation of causality (so logic arises as a fundamental gift of the nature of the external reality in which we are all apparently immersed), meaning only arises within the internal common model, an artifact of the neural processes that give rise to the illusion of a continuous experience of being in an apparently real context.
Logic is external, due to the nature of nature itself, and meaning is purely internal, a set of interpretations of the observed causality that allow us to judge our intent and predict behavior from the stored memories of past experience. This is the force that propels us along the lines that define the continuous nature of our sense of being, the 'lines of our lives' that imply the familiar logic that defines the self models with which we hustle on into the future (or, if there are unfamiliar elements, give us fair warning that something is amiss, the line has somehow been diverted).
All of this is possible with just the current understanding of neural function; indeed, much of it requires no more than what James Albus was able to deduce through his study of the cerebellum way back in the early Seventies. And every bit of it relies on the complex biochemistry of the neural structures we rely on to observe, analyze, interpret, theorize, and paint verbal pictures of intent such as this.
And chemistry in action relies primarily on the interactions of electrons, reflecting the nature of different core structures only indirectly, through the way they respond to the opportunity to interact through the exchange of bosons carrying the electromagnetic force. Observe causality intently enough, over enough years, with enough bright minds painting pictures in the air with logic, and the magic of the standard model is more than likely, it's a sure bet.
None of this is a surprise to anyone who has even a peripheral interest, but that doesn't mean it's even close to a complete answer. The standard model is complete within the context we share, the current common model of reality that is so intimately converged among isolated individuals that we all can take comfort in the belief we're all really out there, together, sharing a real external reality in which meaning mysteriously arises as a attribute of nature itself, and logic is likely the invention of the human mind.
What we're willing to believe is a bit less grand. Careful consideration gives us confidence in the nature of the electromagnetic force, and the implied existence of the strong and weak forces as well, all apparently willing to act in certain seemingly well defined ways in at least three easily observed orthogonal dimensions. Gravity is apparent through a similar process of intuition, observation of it's apparent contribution to the causality we observe (that observation made through the use of processes that depend, as most do, on the activity of a sea of photons).
For most familiar with the idea of orthogonality, three dimensions seems a natural limit. Nothing could be further from the truth; there could be any number of dimensions to the solution space that defines reality, all lying at 90 degrees from every other just as the three we're accustomed to observing in our normal Euclidean universe do. It seems likely that the defining nature of that model of observed reality is due to the machinery we use to observe it, analyze and interpret the observations, construct and test hypotheses that seem to explain what we've observed, and successfully predict future observations.
If, in a universe that exists in a space defined by, say, 13 orthogonal dimensions, a force exists that operates primarily in 3 of those 13 dimensions, what kind of a world might we construct relying mainly on that particular force? How would we manage to break the tyranny of our perception of such a world, and expand our horizons to encompass all of the dimensions that define the space our 3 dimensional world seems to inhabit?
As Emmy Noether once told Bohr, "It's all there in Dedekind." We expect there's a lesson in there, somewhere. –T&K
Sunken cost fallacy all the way down
23:30 I think you’ve have miss understood what merging quantum mechanics and general relativity means. It does not mean that you have theory that describes the physics of our world. It means you have quantum mechanical theory that produce Einstein field equation as the classical limit. Superstring theory did this (in the wrong number of dimensions), but this demonstrates that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not fundamentally irreconcilable.
20:20 This chronology is incorrect the minimal super symmetric extension of the standard model predates super symmetry’s use in string theory and was primarily introduced to solve the naturalness problem with the Higgs mass.
3:15 QCD was never able to calculate the mass of Hadrons (like protons and neutrons). The quark theory was able to explain a very non-trivial relation between their masses: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann%E2%80%93Okubo_mass_formula Much more recently Brodsky has claimed to find a quite good first principles calculation for the mass of the proton using light front holography (an idea that came out of string theory). https://youtu.be/gz6tgOyp8iA?si=1KDDZZqDJVps9A3p