@@everything777 He did Eric's podcast "The Portal"a few years back, and they've been on these kinds of talks together a few times. I think Penrose respects him, but he is indeed 90 years old and still doing these events
@@AntithesisDCLXVI Not really, all new theories are motivated by observation. String theory has just yet to make any prediction. At any rate, even string theory has no application in physics it is rare that math won't find a home else where for practical use.
@@memegazer why defend a theory/framework/model that consistently fails in predictive ability? When I was growing up string theorists were arguing that they were on to a theory of everything, now what do they have to show for it?
@@danstanP I don't feel like I am defending it as theory that will yield predictive merits. But it is not uncommon that pure mathematics can turn out to have some other use at some point down the road unforseen by anybody at the time.
String theory summarized: Fred: I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy was made of tiny vibrating strings. George: Ok. What would that imply? Fred: I dunno.
Well it would imply that it’s a song first and foremost, and from there one tries to find who/what is playing the instrument (even if the instrument is playing itself, any possibility is a possible answer)
It is actually possible for many high intellectuals to get trapped into a "framework" of thought. They get so caught up in the process, and any number of shared biases, they don't notice they have strayed into conjectural space and persist there due to intellectual inertia; not being able to turn around. But that's just my take.
It's that intelligence is not just one pillar but many different pillars, the ability to admit you are wrong is in fact a pillar of intelligence, lacking it, can see you desperately use your intelligence to justifies your own delusion.
Yeah, take the gravitational model of the universe. 94% of the universe is not detectable, but we know it's there because the model says so. Model driven reality?
@@hipsterkennyrogers909Have u ever seen a good description/explanation of what this external reality actually is ? Not from the perspective of any given perception but a truly external description & if not, personal opinion on what it is ?
This! Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that realizes there are people making 100's of thousands of dollars a year to make up believable Sci Fi. Then there's the straight up fiction novels being preached as religions. Our societies are governed by the kids on the debate team, and what's popular is dictated by the drama students. Meanwhile the jocks shoot each other with assault rifles. And why do we do it all.....in hopes someone or something bigger than yourself might tell you you did a good job.
String theory only works if every you know about phyics is forgotten about. Too much money has been thrown in to String theory. A theory is supported by evidence. Its String Hypothesis
@@leprozorijc7988 I have seen their talks (Penrose and Haneroff) about Orch OR and it convinced me. Why? Ask yourself what is true randomness or true entropy in this universe devoid of life- it's quantum mechanics. Now add life in the universe and ask the question again. Now the answer is- quantum mechanics, life and higher order decision making (consciousness inclusive). If you get the best super computer in the world, it cannot predict with 100% certainty what an Amoeba is going to do in the next second. An Amoeba or any living organism will move at least in part completely randomly. And it arises from quantum mechanics- the only source of true entropy in our universe. If this logic makes sense to you, then Penrose claiming human consciousness is non-computable (using classical computers) also makes sense. That's also why I believe the only way to achieve AGI is using quantum computers as the model's foundation. Not to mention there's some reason the collapse of the wave function exists. If we didn't interfere with quantum mechanics in some way using our consciousness alone, a 'conscious observer' could never collapse the wave function.
Eric's backhanded compliment... or was it a forehand with a backhanded insult?... was funny. But Penrose just napping through the whole thing is priceless.
They've had 40 years to produce results. At least to propose something that could lead to incorporating gravitation into the standard model. Without getting magic involved like some of the present on that stage seem to be gravitating to.
His complaint is that one discipline is soaking up all the great minds and producing nothing. Think of it as if all the worlds top athletes drifted to one single sport, but they just practice, and workout, but never play a game. He's basically calling it "globetrotter math."
@@TheChuckFina a good counter can be that's what the smartest minds decides to do. Is it reasonable to say all the smartest minds might be making a mistake together?
I think a lot of people misinterpret what Eric is trying to do. He is trying to take some of the glamour or higher importance on String Theory. I do wish that more sectors would get more recognition instead of the rockstar mentality of String Theorist. So yeah, I do agree with him there.
It's true in any discipline, arrogance is a lazy man's refuge. That being said, you don't have to be a genius to use simple logic, so it's easy to see why people critical of scientific theories often find their scrutiny unheard when the peer review system seems to demand ostracism of those deemed unworthy to comment without ever taking their criticisms at face value.
@@arnavrawat9864 Yes, quite a few years ago. I worked with some brilliant people but saw that they still made mistakes. The "dumb" mistakes were all the dumber for being made by such intelligent people, while other mistakes became case-studies once they were finally discovered. Intelligence doesn't make anyone right. It is a tool that, in conjunction with hard work and real understanding, makes it more likely you may be right. We remain human, though, and can always find ways to be wrong.
@@richardchurchill5181 I can understand that. I knew your quote indicated a deeper understanding of intelligence. It makes sense you have some experience with it. I agree. A person I follow on quora said that "Thinking is a tool" and I also think about that at times.
String theorists have wasted their intellect on untestable theories that cannot make predictions, and so, cannot be refuted. In short, they have not been doing science. String theory is just Astrology with attitude.
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 He had his pet theory, which makes all of this quite ironic. Basically he tried to contribute to an area of physics called spin statistics. Nothing wrong with that, however his work on "spinors" (spin 1/2 particles caller fermions) was not quite right... at all. He failed. Then someone else got it right. He wasn't even close. Ever since then he acts like he's been robbed becausr the derived equations looked like they had some similarities to his own. Really though.... he was just wrong and has been a salty quantum gravity denier ever since. It's a shame because he's not stupid. He's quite intelligent, but he was too childish and arrogant to recover and perhaps contributed something. Instead of getting over it, and having some humility he just hangs out with Joe Rogan now.
Einstein also said: "If you can not find a reliable source in my own writings or in testimonies of those who have met or known me, then better do not claim that I said that." And then he went on and said: "Internet memes and self improvement books do not count as reliable sources BTW."
Every person that is working on the edge of information, always has crazy hair. No crew cut, no shaved heads. Just wild ass hair that grows any which way
He commented on it, but he didn't criticized it. He commented on it to express his frustration with all that intelligence being wasted to work in the wrong problem.
The silly word is “Theory” which in science means a well substantiated explanation incorporating laws; hypothesis; and facts. Theories such a Evolution; Gravity etc. But the flat earthers and others of their ilk say “But its only a Theory”! Currently String ‘Theory’ should, I think be called String “Suggestion or Proposal”. Otherwise its use as a term weakens the actual well evidenced “Theories”.
Theory has no status of substantiation. A theory isn't something backed by evidence or a hypithesis. It's neither. A theory is an explanation. Theories explain how something works, whether it's real or delusional is irrelevant.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 No. Theories, like that of evolution, or gravity are the best explanation of various phenomenon. Are they absolutely correct? No, however they work and are useful. String "theory" does neither.
@@Smitty65721 String theory is as much a theory as theory of gravity is. Its correctness has no bearing on its status as a theory. Theories are not things that are verifiable. Theories are explanations of models. Music theory is an explanation of musical patterns and language. Music theory is not something that you can prove or disprove. We created it as an explanation for the music language and a set of observations. The purpose of a theory is to explain something. The multiverse theory is something that cannot be tested, confirmed or denied. Many worlds theory even more so. These theories only explain a model of reality. They do not verify anything. And they're full on proper theories just as the theories of gravity or evolution are. You're misrepresenting what a theory is.
@@b.6.7.f.h.theories are after the hypothesis stage. There isn't a known possible way to do experiments on fundamental strings like we can gravitational waves and subatomic particles. String theory has math to support it but as far as I know, not much else if anything. Theories are not the same as facts because theories are more like the best thing we currently have to explain something like fundamental scales of space.
Edward Witten is very, very, smart, but dogmatic and unyielding, and very probably wrong. Read the foreword to 'A Mathematician's Apology' which describes how Newton's dogmatic definition of mathematics kept Britain in the dark ages of mathematics for two centuries. Witten has had the same effect on physics.
@@consciousobserver1905He thinks way beyond Eric but is also humble as hell. He's the one with the actual Nobel prize that Eric believes should be his.
@@nickolasgaspar9660no, he’s not too into facts. This argument is old at this point (and most people have started looking away from strings after super symmetry “failed”) he just likes to hear himself talk.
Our sustainer, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, revealed string theory to scientist's brains The strings are his infinite noodley appendages divided to form the foundation of the Universe R'Amen
Wow didn't know much about this guy but seems like he may have decided he was going to eject from this earth. Sounds like JE, JM and PT all got sad together.
Problem is that the breakthrough in particle physics by finding particles at higher energies did not occur. The silence was deafening. ref LHC. This left W theory puzzled, as to why some lower energy particles it predicted was missing.
It may be a clever limited hangout devised to direct the multitudes into a loop that vibrates, missing the unified field theories actual answer, keeping us bound to earth never manipulating and creating Gravity, Spiral around and in the loop quadiminsionally fractal ing the harmonic tapestry.
That’s because you were missing a dimension which functions somewhat like an inverse of time. It’s not a direct, inverse mind you, but you are essentially seeing things that have been fully created within a time dimension that we don’t participate in It is 12 around one.
You can find Brian replying to these kinds of criticisms pretty easily if you look for him in these group talks... he's always very gracious, humble and respectful, and restrained about what string theory is and what it isn't. He is adamant he is a physicist, not a string theorist, and he admits it has not developed in the way he thought it would, but that there is still reasons to be optimistic about it. My feeling is that he's a bit disappointed about string theory, and remains optimstic, but there is no other promising directions atm.
@@iridium1911the only reason you know Brian Greene’s name is because he was hired as a post grad in the 80s when the hype around string theory was so large that anyone who touched string theory in their grad research could get a faculty position.
@@johnvantuyl5072 He got his PhD from Oxford and was a full professor at age 33 at Columbia. However exciting it was in the 80s, Columbia isnt handing out full professorships to nobodies. The guy was obviously a super talented academic, and whether you agree with his research or not, I dont think you can argue he got to where he is because of string theory hype. His books are amazing, he has a talent for teaching, writing and explainign physics (not just string theory, but also cosmology) and it appears his fellow popular physicists respect the hell out of him too.
Eric: "What it is, is that too many of what it's been known to be as stereotypical scientists are caught up in beyond what could be called the threshold of standard discovery, regardless of what the common peoples' attributes lend the overall discussion's turning points towards" Penrose: *Thousand-Mile Stare* Brian: *Nodding respectfully*
I've always maintained that anything you believe you have proved mathematically has to have a real-world evidentury path. I'm electrically trained, and we frequently design circuits using the square root of (-1)... I understsnd how that sounds crazy, but note that it actually works *in reality.* At that point, you have to give _crazy_ a pass. Until that point, however, be skeptical... even doubtful.
I recently had a Mandela Effect-like experience where I was sure that Roger Penrose had died a few years back. Turned out that he only appeared to be dead.
“Misspent intelligence” That’s so true. We’ve been spinning our wheels probably since 1970 (?) wasting the brain power of the Institute for Advanced Study and CalTech, etc. on strings.
I didn't think there was anything new in this. Its only good because trying to prove it tests so many other theories that point to the circumstances that point to string theory. Its like having a lot of receipts that show you have x in the bank but accounting does not show x but shows y so you develop a way to check the receipts and accounting to see how you can get the same answers and find where you are going wrong.
But isn't it the best model we have to date? This model most aligns with other axioms and laws of physics. I understand it doesn't answer all questions, but until someone brings another point that more perfectly fits the mold then who cares if it's a theory or construct or whatever.
The problem with theories like this is when they're proven wrong, they're scrapped entirely and dismissed. With the fact is there's parts of that theory that did work and were accurately able to predict certain outcomes. We shouldn't scrap the whole idea, we should use the parts that worked and implement it into the working parts of other theories. People are so focused on validating their own theories, that they won't even consider some one else's
Its not "one theory". Its a whole lot of mathematical tools, where some can help in certain fields. But that does not prove the actual theory of a string universe that can also explain gravity is true.
Nice. Social manipulator's version of the 'Look here' magic trick. 'Go there' version. **I don't know much about string theory, I was pointing at the value of the argument.
There is one tiny bit of validity at the base of string theory, if you squint. But all the rest of it is baseless speculation. I read one of Brian Greene's books over and over again, and thought it through carefully. Then I threw that book away.
I just like to think time is intimately linked to scale, let’s say our experience of time at our scale is point “0”, as you get smaller the point shifts to -10 and the perceived speed of time accelerates, when you scale up to 10 the perceived speed of time decreases, I’ll call this scale “X scale” I believe that there’s some kind of “universal ratio” of natural forces that expresses themselves at strengths relative to their specific point along the x scale. Let’s say at point zero we have our 4 fundamental forces which already exponentially scale up based on size, at point -10 at the size of atoms, the gravitational force gives way to the electromagnetic, further down still this gives way to the strong and weak forces, I think that at some point down this line that new forces will emerge that are more powerful and shorter range than all known forces and may only be detectable in very small time frames. I feel like these ratios would descend down with infinite curvature until finally resting in a state so information dense and simplistic (as the meta patterning of high stability energy arrangements decreases the further down you would go). I also believe the same is true going up the x scale, the further up you go, the weak and strong nuclear force give way to meta patterning of the electromagnetic and then this gives way to the meta patterning of gravity, I think there are forces beyond gravity in the positive scale, I think it’s possible that at extremely large scales that gravity starts to loose out to new forces which may only be detectable with extremely precise data of the movement of galaxy clusters over large time spans. In a nutshell I think the universe is essentially an infinite Russian nesting doll of forces all interacting at different scales which give the ‘unique painted appearance’ or display differently with each layer.
He's played a clever trick. "Oh you're very smart, but you're wrong because nobody is smart enough to keep you in check." And what about you, buddy boy?
He actually makes a really good argument here and masks it as a joke. The string theorist are definitely smarter because that was the most popular job when physicists were choosing their majors. String theory essentially gobbled up most of the talent and has nothing to show for it.
"I am one of the fathers of the string theory. But I guess I am a bad father, because I don´t believe in it any more." - Holger Bech Nielsen - Danish physicist
Love Dr Penrose 😂 he’s just downloading the latest update from the higher dimension.
He's thinking "why am I sharing a stage with this guy"
Spot ON!!!
He is dreaming about how the unicorns cause function wave collapse.
@@everything777 He did Eric's podcast "The Portal"a few years back, and they've been on these kinds of talks together a few times. I think Penrose respects him, but he is indeed 90 years old and still doing these events
I will believe Penrose respects him when I hear him volunteer it himself.
The energy dog ate my energy homework 🤣
Yeah, string theory is math, but it is not true there is no empirical motivation for using that mathematical hypothesis.
@@memegazer The empirical motivation is a bunch of Hermeticists trying to prove their religion true.
@@AntithesisDCLXVI
Not really, all new theories are motivated by observation.
String theory has just yet to make any prediction.
At any rate, even string theory has no application in physics it is rare that math won't find a home else where for practical use.
@@memegazer why defend a theory/framework/model that consistently fails in predictive ability? When I was growing up string theorists were arguing that they were on to a theory of everything, now what do they have to show for it?
@@danstanP
I don't feel like I am defending it as theory that will yield predictive merits.
But it is not uncommon that pure mathematics can turn out to have some other use at some point down the road unforseen by anybody at the time.
String theory summarized:
Fred: I just had an awesome idea. Suppose all matter and energy was made of tiny vibrating strings.
George: Ok. What would that imply?
Fred: I dunno.
How is it we imply that SU(n)
Well it would imply that it’s a song first and foremost, and from there one tries to find who/what is playing the instrument (even if the instrument is playing itself, any possibility is a possible answer)
@@willcutler9060i um...... i dont think thats what it implies.
@@willcutler9060music note
I can’t help but wonder if Ed Whitten was purposefully misleading physics with his indiscernible math.
My guy having a nap
Roger is just bored. He's heard enough word salading from the likes of Weinstein, Peterson et al.
my guy is in his 90s and has a bad neck
@@boogiedahomeyyeah, he is so bored, he agreed to sit there on stage with Weinstein
@@boogiedahomey it must be true if you say so right? You cant listen with closed eyes i forgot that
but roger Penrose usually does this type of thing lol
It is actually possible for many high intellectuals to get trapped into a "framework" of thought. They get so caught up in the process, and any number of shared biases, they don't notice they have strayed into conjectural space and persist there due to intellectual inertia; not being able to turn around.
But that's just my take.
It's that intelligence is not just one pillar but many different pillars, the ability to admit you are wrong is in fact a pillar of intelligence, lacking it, can see you desperately use your intelligence to justifies your own delusion.
Yeah, take the gravitational model of the universe. 94% of the universe is not detectable, but we know it's there because the model says so. Model driven reality?
@@hipsterkennyrogers909Have u ever seen a good description/explanation of what this external reality actually is ? Not from the perspective of any given perception but a truly external description & if not, personal opinion on what it is ?
In any other field, theyd call that straying as "mission creep"
This! Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one that realizes there are people making 100's of thousands of dollars a year to make up believable Sci Fi. Then there's the straight up fiction novels being preached as religions. Our societies are governed by the kids on the debate team, and what's popular is dictated by the drama students. Meanwhile the jocks shoot each other with assault rifles. And why do we do it all.....in hopes someone or something bigger than yourself might tell you you did a good job.
Nobody should discourage beautiful ideas
Beautiful ideas that let others (tax payers) pay for it, without much to show for after decades. There is the problem.
@@vast634 How many years do you think the Grand Canyon took to look like what it is today, starting from a level ground.
Dr. Penrose nods off, wakes back up, asks, "Y'all finished?" and then schools everyone.
not going to happen....there are no data.
String theory only works if every you know about phyics is forgotten about. Too much money has been thrown in to String theory. A theory is supported by evidence. Its String Hypothesis
Penrose having to endure another Eric rant never gets old. Eric thinks in absolutes...zero sum game for him and those who bother to listen to him.
Is it that guy who says that there is quantum computing happening in our brains?
@@leprozorijc7988 I have seen their talks (Penrose and Haneroff) about Orch OR and it convinced me. Why? Ask yourself what is true randomness or true entropy in this universe devoid of life- it's quantum mechanics. Now add life in the universe and ask the question again. Now the answer is- quantum mechanics, life and higher order decision making (consciousness inclusive). If you get the best super computer in the world, it cannot predict with 100% certainty what an Amoeba is going to do in the next second. An Amoeba or any living organism will move at least in part completely randomly. And it arises from quantum mechanics- the only source of true entropy in our universe. If this logic makes sense to you, then Penrose claiming human consciousness is non-computable (using classical computers) also makes sense. That's also why I believe the only way to achieve AGI is using quantum computers as the model's foundation. Not to mention there's some reason the collapse of the wave function exists. If we didn't interfere with quantum mechanics in some way using our consciousness alone, a 'conscious observer' could never collapse the wave function.
Roger Penrose has left the chat
Nope, he in fact made Eric a mod.
Thought we were losing him 😂
Eric has that effect on people
At 87, he's allowed some nap time inbetween
His just refreshing the connection.
Eric's backhanded compliment... or was it a forehand with a backhanded insult?... was funny. But Penrose just napping through the whole thing is priceless.
They've had 40 years to produce results. At least to propose something that could lead to incorporating gravitation into the standard model. Without getting magic involved like some of the present on that stage seem to be gravitating to.
Backhanded in what way?
Didn't he say intelligence is misspent?
His complaint is that one discipline is soaking up all the great minds and producing nothing. Think of it as if all the worlds top athletes drifted to one single sport, but they just practice, and workout, but never play a game.
He's basically calling it "globetrotter math."
@@TheChuckFina a good counter can be that's what the smartest minds decides to do.
Is it reasonable to say all the smartest minds might be making a mistake together?
@@arnavrawat9864not when that's the only sect gets all the funding as much as we love discovery modern humans might love money just a bit more
Even if it’s a dead end it wasn’t entirely wasted, the methods used to test and study it have produced numerous other results
He was complaining about intelligence misspend, not "entirely wasted". Yes, just "mostly"/"significantly" wasted, not "entirely"
What I like here is that he emphasize the way scientists as human subjects interact with their work shapes it as much as the work itself.
String Theorists: We have to stop Eric Weinstein!
Cameraman: I can make him cross eyed
😂
I thought Weinstein is a biologist?
@@panicbuyflax3461 That's his brother. This one is a mathematician
Is he and Harvey Weinstein related? Lol
I think a lot of people misinterpret what Eric is trying to do. He is trying to take some of the glamour or higher importance on String Theory. I do wish that more sectors would get more recognition instead of the rockstar mentality of String Theorist. So yeah, I do agree with him there.
It's true in any discipline, arrogance is a lazy man's refuge. That being said, you don't have to be a genius to use simple logic, so it's easy to see why people critical of scientific theories often find their scrutiny unheard when the peer review system seems to demand ostracism of those deemed unworthy to comment without ever taking their criticisms at face value.
The primary thing intelligence does for anyone is to make their mistakes more interesting.
That's a beautiful quote. Did you come up with it?
@@arnavrawat9864 Yes, quite a few years ago. I worked with some brilliant people but saw that they still made mistakes. The "dumb" mistakes were all the dumber for being made by such intelligent people, while other mistakes became case-studies once they were finally discovered. Intelligence doesn't make anyone right. It is a tool that, in conjunction with hard work and real understanding, makes it more likely you may be right. We remain human, though, and can always find ways to be wrong.
I love this. Explains much of the presocratic philosophical theories of natural science
@@richardchurchill5181 I can understand that. I knew your quote indicated a deeper understanding of intelligence. It makes sense you have some experience with it.
I agree. A person I follow on quora said that "Thinking is a tool" and I also think about that at times.
Penrose next to Eric looks like he is trying to imitate Steven Hawkins without the special chair.
Tragically it turns out that a library worth of excellent maths does not necessarily *mean* anything.
For now, it is also true that a lot math did not become relevant until much later in human history.
😂🎉pure mathematics is no different from fantasy
@@subhuman3408 1 + 1 will equal 2 no matter how many gods we pray to.
If they secretly think it they are doing a really bad job of keeping the secret.
I love how this guy produced Entourage
Eric Weinstein saying strong theorists have wasted their intellect on incorrect theories is hilariously ironic.
Not really, no.
String theorists have wasted their intellect on untestable theories that cannot make predictions, and so, cannot be refuted. In short, they have not been doing science. String theory is just Astrology with attitude.
@@lord_haven1114Lol yes. He is so salty.
It would be of you could explain why it is the case
@@benjaminlquinlan8702 He had his pet theory, which makes all of this quite ironic. Basically he tried to contribute to an area of physics called spin statistics. Nothing wrong with that, however his work on "spinors" (spin 1/2 particles caller fermions) was not quite right... at all. He failed. Then someone else got it right. He wasn't even close. Ever since then he acts like he's been robbed becausr the derived equations looked like they had some similarities to his own. Really though.... he was just wrong and has been a salty quantum gravity denier ever since.
It's a shame because he's not stupid. He's quite intelligent, but he was too childish and arrogant to recover and perhaps contributed something. Instead of getting over it, and having some humility he just hangs out with Joe Rogan now.
Einstein said , "If you can't explain it to a five year old, you don't understand it!" 😅
Einstein also said: "If you can not find a reliable source in my own writings or in testimonies of those who have met or known me, then better do not claim that I said that."
And then he went on and said: "Internet memes and self improvement books do not count as reliable sources BTW."
He never said that
@@Puerco-Potterwhoosh.....
@@gravybluewhooshing in 2023 wow.
@@samirahmad6904 . Completely missing the satire in 2023. Wow!
Every person that is working on the edge of information, always has crazy hair. No crew cut, no shaved heads. Just wild ass hair that grows any which way
Dr. Penrose looks like he is ready to talk about Twistor theory. The audience will not be ready for Twistor theory.
The irony of Eric Einstein commenting on ANYONE assuming they're the smartest person in the room is laughable.
As they say, "Takes one to know one."
This
He's the epytom of arrogance and smug
Ha, thank you!
He commented on it, but he didn't criticized it. He commented on it to express his frustration with all that intelligence being wasted to work in the wrong problem.
I like how there is "conspiracy theories" in actual science😂😂
Ok, the end got me
Guy in the red wakes up and yells out-“large size that, please!”
The silly word is “Theory” which in science means a well substantiated explanation incorporating laws; hypothesis; and facts. Theories such a Evolution; Gravity etc. But the flat earthers and others of their ilk say “But its only a Theory”!
Currently String ‘Theory’ should, I think be called String “Suggestion or Proposal”. Otherwise its use as a term weakens the actual well evidenced “Theories”.
String Hypothesis
Theory has no status of substantiation. A theory isn't something backed by evidence or a hypithesis. It's neither. A theory is an explanation. Theories explain how something works, whether it's real or delusional is irrelevant.
@@pasijutaulietuviuesas9174 No. Theories, like that of evolution, or gravity are the best explanation of various phenomenon. Are they absolutely correct? No, however they work and are useful. String "theory" does neither.
@@Smitty65721 String theory is as much a theory as theory of gravity is. Its correctness has no bearing on its status as a theory. Theories are not things that are verifiable. Theories are explanations of models. Music theory is an explanation of musical patterns and language. Music theory is not something that you can prove or disprove. We created it as an explanation for the music language and a set of observations. The purpose of a theory is to explain something. The multiverse theory is something that cannot be tested, confirmed or denied. Many worlds theory even more so. These theories only explain a model of reality. They do not verify anything. And they're full on proper theories just as the theories of gravity or evolution are. You're misrepresenting what a theory is.
@@KristianRobertsenthis!
What annoys me the most is that it’s called a theory, it just doesn’t fit the definition at all
What’s the definition of a theory that string theories don’t fit?
@@b.6.7.f.h.A theory has to be falsifiable through experiments i think
String hypothesis doesn't sound as good.
@@b.6.7.f.h.theories are after the hypothesis stage. There isn't a known possible way to do experiments on fundamental strings like we can gravitational waves and subatomic particles. String theory has math to support it but as far as I know, not much else if anything. Theories are not the same as facts because theories are more like the best thing we currently have to explain something like fundamental scales of space.
I want to hear you give this talk to Edward Witton.
Who??
He is terrified of Ed Witten and he admits it himself.
That would be interesting to hear. I wonder what his response would be.
Edward Witten is very, very, smart, but dogmatic and unyielding, and very probably wrong. Read the foreword to 'A Mathematician's Apology' which describes how Newton's dogmatic definition of mathematics kept Britain in the dark ages of mathematics for two centuries. Witten has had the same effect on physics.
Witton is am intellectual titan but Penrose would give him a hard time with string theory
Also, dude on the stage next to him looks like he ate the bag after getting pulled over
That's Roger Penrose. He's 92 years old, so he's probably just tired.
@@consciousobserver1905He thinks way beyond Eric but is also humble as hell. He's the one with the actual Nobel prize that Eric believes should be his.
Eric loves words, especially when they come out of his mouth.
And facts.....String Theorists don't really care about those.
@@nickolasgaspar9660no, he’s not too into facts. This argument is old at this point (and most people have started looking away from strings after super symmetry “failed”) he just likes to hear himself talk.
@@eugenemartone7023like a lot of scientific speakers with charisma do. Whats your point?
😂 I’ve noticed that too…
@@glazednbased Only the one I already made, didn’t you get it?
Our sustainer, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, revealed string theory to scientist's brains
The strings are his infinite noodley appendages divided to form the foundation of the Universe
R'Amen
You'd think Peter Thiel would've paid for those warts to get removed by now.
Wow didn't know much about this guy but seems like he may have decided he was going to eject from this earth. Sounds like JE, JM and PT all got sad together.
Low blow 😂
Problem is that the breakthrough in particle physics by finding particles at higher energies did not occur. The silence was deafening. ref LHC. This left W theory puzzled, as to why some lower energy particles it predicted was missing.
Everyone that has ever played a video game should know that mathematics can describe a multitude of fictitious realities.
It may be a clever limited hangout devised to direct the multitudes into a loop that vibrates, missing the unified field theories actual answer, keeping us bound to earth never manipulating and creating Gravity, Spiral around and in the loop quadiminsionally fractal ing the harmonic tapestry.
Release the full video without the fucking paywall.
my brother in christ, you are watching the shorts feed.
@@Reiman33 go watch the whole interview, they cut it in half and make you pay for the rest of it.
My brother in Christ 😂😂😂😂.. nice one
it's a short, dimus-witus
@@Kube_Dog the full interview is cut short and you have to pay to see the second half, dullard.
That’s because you were missing a dimension which functions somewhat like an inverse of time. It’s not a direct, inverse mind you, but you are essentially seeing things that have been fully created within a time dimension that we don’t participate in
It is 12 around one.
I want to know Brian Greene's response
You can find Brian replying to these kinds of criticisms pretty easily if you look for him in these group talks... he's always very gracious, humble and respectful, and restrained about what string theory is and what it isn't. He is adamant he is a physicist, not a string theorist, and he admits it has not developed in the way he thought it would, but that there is still reasons to be optimistic about it.
My feeling is that he's a bit disappointed about string theory, and remains optimstic, but there is no other promising directions atm.
@@iridium1911the only reason you know Brian Greene’s name is because he was hired as a post grad in the 80s when the hype around string theory was so large that anyone who touched string theory in their grad research could get a faculty position.
@@johnvantuyl5072and you know, the books he wrote
@@johnvantuyl5072 He got his PhD from Oxford and was a full professor at age 33 at Columbia. However exciting it was in the 80s, Columbia isnt handing out full professorships to nobodies.
The guy was obviously a super talented academic, and whether you agree with his research or not, I dont think you can argue he got to where he is because of string theory hype.
His books are amazing, he has a talent for teaching, writing and explainign physics (not just string theory, but also cosmology) and it appears his fellow popular physicists respect the hell out of him too.
Eric: "What it is, is that too many of what it's been known to be as stereotypical scientists are caught up in beyond what could be called the threshold of standard discovery, regardless of what the common peoples' attributes lend the overall discussion's turning points towards"
Penrose: *Thousand-Mile Stare*
Brian: *Nodding respectfully*
And there's Roger Penrose looking like he's babysitting the precocious child (apt?).
I've always maintained that anything you believe you have proved mathematically has to have a real-world evidentury path.
I'm electrically trained, and we frequently design circuits using the square root of (-1)... I understsnd how that sounds crazy, but note that it actually works *in reality.* At that point, you have to give _crazy_ a pass. Until that point, however, be skeptical... even doubtful.
Sir Roger takes a well-timed nap while Whinestein wears out his soap box again.
silly attack. what about the substance of his statements?
@@the_obvious8336 that was the substance of my statement.
Dr. Sheldon Cooper partially agrees with his argument
It's always important to ask questions, Brian Greene would be the 1st to welcome questions.
Roger Penrose doesn't sleep. He waits.
All matter is energy vibrating
I recently had a Mandela Effect-like experience where I was sure that Roger Penrose had died a few years back.
Turned out that he only appeared to be dead.
“Misspent intelligence” That’s so true. We’ve been spinning our wheels probably since 1970 (?) wasting the brain power of the Institute for Advanced Study and CalTech, etc. on strings.
"If this works we'll disprove string theory, that will make my day." -Freeman's Mind
I didn't think there was anything new in this. Its only good because trying to prove it tests so many other theories that point to the circumstances that point to string theory. Its like having a lot of receipts that show you have x in the bank but accounting does not show x but shows y so you develop a way to check the receipts and accounting to see how you can get the same answers and find where you are going wrong.
Priceless
Thrust into that good night with the light of knowledge , and know you have thine friends of knowledge adding to your glowing embers of intelligence
When Roger Penrose just pops over for a nap...
I truly hope Eric never gets mad at me because after young lashing like that I might have to move to the mountains and change my name
I'll bet thig guy is the half life of the party no matter where he goes.
why because he can spot a philosophy parading as science?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 exactly
But isn't it the best model we have to date? This model most aligns with other axioms and laws of physics.
I understand it doesn't answer all questions, but until someone brings another point that more perfectly fits the mold then who cares if it's a theory or construct or whatever.
Eric Weinstein in the biggest intellectual huckster alive today
And so many people don’t see through his bullshit.
Who's the biggest intellectual huckster that he is in?
@@MrLee-cy1pw Huh?
grifter status
He's only interested in politics, not science.
Eric’s right eye went rogue at the end of this.
The problem with theories like this is when they're proven wrong, they're scrapped entirely and dismissed. With the fact is there's parts of that theory that did work and were accurately able to predict certain outcomes. We shouldn't scrap the whole idea, we should use the parts that worked and implement it into the working parts of other theories. People are so focused on validating their own theories, that they won't even consider some one else's
Its not "one theory". Its a whole lot of mathematical tools, where some can help in certain fields. But that does not prove the actual theory of a string universe that can also explain gravity is true.
Nice.
Social manipulator's version of the 'Look here' magic trick.
'Go there' version.
**I don't know much about string theory, I was pointing at the value of the argument.
Eric Weinstein saying string theorists have wasted their intellect on incorrect theories is hilariously ironic.
True! How does string theory account for this super massive self awareness black hole?
String theorists basically keep their jobs because they do something people want to see, and they seemingly can't be evaluated in any meaningful way.
That is a got damn FACT!
You double posting this bullshit interpretation for likes is pretty ironic too
@@NikNakNaj
😄
I think what he's saying is string theory is a home for extremely brilliant hucksters and con men.
Find someone who loves you as intensely as Eric Weinstein hates String Theory
Where is this entire talk?
there is a woman moaning in the background when he said experimental.
do you hear her?
Making enemies into friends with compliments.
I’ve always thought that however, I’m a moron so take that with a grain of salt 😂
He's right, string theory has some brilliant people like Fields medalist Ed Witten, but man has he led people down some blind alleys.
Sir Roer Penrose just got back from Kensington 🧟♂️
Take your dad to work day, falling asleep in the background.
Makes perfect sense to me!
Just doesn't explain the knots and tangles...
I agree with everything Dr Penrose said in this short video
I think the “that’s not how it works” (you’re not smart enough) comment is politely understated
How to say you stupid without using the word stupid. Some scientists level sarcasm. 😊
Mr. Weinstein is so correct 💯
Brian takes the high road...a respectable man.
Very few people make me feel stupid like Eric Weinstein does…
Weinstein over exaggerates to make a point. Doesn't go over well for him, no matter which way string theory goes.
There is one tiny bit of validity at the base of string theory, if you squint. But all the rest of it is baseless speculation.
I read one of Brian Greene's books over and over again, and thought it through carefully. Then I threw that book away.
I just like to think time is intimately linked to scale, let’s say our experience of time at our scale is point “0”, as you get smaller the point shifts to -10 and the perceived speed of time accelerates, when you scale up to 10 the perceived speed of time decreases, I’ll call this scale “X scale”
I believe that there’s some kind of “universal ratio” of natural forces that expresses themselves at strengths relative to their specific point along the x scale. Let’s say at point zero we have our 4 fundamental forces which already exponentially scale up based on size, at point -10 at the size of atoms, the gravitational force gives way to the electromagnetic, further down still this gives way to the strong and weak forces, I think that at some point down this line that new forces will emerge that are more powerful and shorter range than all known forces and may only be detectable in very small time frames.
I feel like these ratios would descend down with infinite curvature until finally resting in a state so information dense and simplistic (as the meta patterning of high stability energy arrangements decreases the further down you would go). I also believe the same is true going up the x scale, the further up you go, the weak and strong nuclear force give way to meta patterning of the electromagnetic and then this gives way to the meta patterning of gravity, I think there are forces beyond gravity in the positive scale, I think it’s possible that at extremely large scales that gravity starts to loose out to new forces which may only be detectable with extremely precise data of the movement of galaxy clusters over large time spans.
In a nutshell I think the universe is essentially an infinite Russian nesting doll of forces all interacting at different scales which give the ‘unique painted appearance’ or display differently with each layer.
What does SHELDON COOPER have to say about it?
My neighbour , is sleeping there
If it is not testable it is not science, it is faith.
What if this was his answer when someone asked him what he wanted for lunch?
He not asleep he just stoned listening
He's played a clever trick. "Oh you're very smart, but you're wrong because nobody is smart enough to keep you in check."
And what about you, buddy boy?
He actually makes a really good argument here and masks it as a joke. The string theorist are definitely smarter because that was the most popular job when physicists were choosing their majors. String theory essentially gobbled up most of the talent and has nothing to show for it.
It's Loop Theory.
Roger is ASLEEP PEOPLE 😴 😂😂😂
mental gymnastics are truly a problem. sometimes people cant move on from silly scenarios.
If there's anything I hate more than String Theory, it's any Weinstein speech.
"I am one of the fathers of the string theory. But I guess I am a bad father, because I don´t believe in it any more."
- Holger Bech Nielsen - Danish physicist
I don't think attacking string theory is any good, rather we should attempt at finding another way to solve the big questions
I actually love it when Eric goes hard
You know you can tie string together with a knot, it may not be wrong it may just be incomplete
My misspent youth - sex, drugs, fast cars, and string theory 😢
Commenting for the alg
Nobody
Mike meyers - Mooooooooole
"That level of intelligence has been miss spent!"