Roger Penrose: "String Theory Wrong And Dark Matter Doesn't Exist"
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2023
- British mathematician and philosopher Sir Roger Penrose and American theoretical physicist Michio Kaku are two prominent figures in the scientific community. Sir Roger Penrose is famous for his research on Black Holes, and Michio Kaku is renowned for his String Theory.
However, did you know that Sir Roger Penrose strongly rejects Michio Kaku's string theory? What's more interesting is that Sir Roger Penrose doesn't even believe in the idea of cosmic inflation and suggests that cosmic inflation is nothing more than a fantasy - Věda a technologie
Comparing Kaku and Penrose is ridiculous. Penrose has done actual important work.
why do they keep saying kaku's string theory ? He worked on it but didn't like invent it
Those who can't, teach. Or the modern equivalent. Go on mainstream TV.
I agree but Penrose is wrong about physics of strings theory and Kaku is correct on strings. I have discovered scientific proof of strings is based on quantum physics
@@mukeshchauan403 Kaku is correct on strings? Name one experiment.
💯
String Theory is an unprovable cutting edge mathematical theory of how some physicists maintain grant funding and reap publishing royalties. It’s brilliant if you ask me.
It can't topple the cash cow that is climate change
Agreed!
So a grift then.
I have found the same to be true of 'global warming', now repackaged as 'climate change.' Just don't tell anyone that the climate is always changing, and be sure to leave people in a panic in such a way that they don't have time to analyze that data, and the grant money flows.
my thought exactly, they used our fear of the unknown to milk millions in research grants. String Theory has too many holes...pun intended.
I fully admit I have no deep understanding of string theory, but still I'm going to say that when you start adding lots of dimensions to your hypothesis just to make your "beautiful math" work, it kinda feels like you're more interested in keeping the hypothesis artificially alive than finding out any fundamental truths.
I mean we invented the imaginary dimension to find a relationship between exponential growth and pi + develop continuous solutions to discrete functions. Seemed like sophistry at the time with no real application but lo and behold much of differential systems, statistics and particle physics are based nowadays on that mathematics.
Upper dimensional factors to explain 3D and 4D phenomenon have been integral to physics since the 1600’s. String theory isn’t special there. As usual though our math is a bit ahead of our physical understanding, though enough current evidence of assumptions in black holes & gravity being proven true points to at least some elements of string theory being credible.
You're not wrong. But you can sometimes find things you didnt expect when you push a theoretical concept.
Eventually one theory will persist over the other
@@leolinguini260but it will always be considered theories, total waist of time and money period
Imaginary numbers (i.e. numbers that incorporate logically impossible the number _i,_ which is the square root of -1) are absolutely vital to our understanding of physics, and I think they would be subject to the same complaint if we didn't already know that _i_ was just as vital a mathematical tool for understanding the world as, say, π. Irrational numbers too were historically attacked by philosophers on a similar basis when they were discovered.
Also, on the notion of the extra dimensions. First, a confused AI probably write the script for this video. Really, string theory posits either 10 or 11 dimensions...not 26. "Bosonic" string theory, from the 1960's, required 26 dimensions, but it was largely abandoned in the 1980's with the advent of 10-dimensional superstring theory and later 11-dimensional M-theory. In any case, the extra dimensions are posited to be curled up (i.e. "compactified") and microscopic, but at that scale still accessible to the equally tiny strings that make up particles. We at our scale never interact with them, but the strings would.
A standard analogy is to imagine an ant walking along a length of yarn stretched between two houses. To people in the houses, the length of the yarn looks like a line, two dimensional. To the ant, though it can see the yarn is three dimensional (with the tthird-simensional component being cited around the yarn). The ant's path across the yarn might not just be back or forward, it can also access that curled dimension to follow a curved path around the circumference of the yarn.
@@kalegallarde6369 you do realize the computer youre using to watch the vid relies on subatomic physics theories right?
Penrose is right, at least in terms of semantics. A scientific theory is defined by its ability to predict the behavior of yet-unstudied systems. String "theory" is more of a string "hypothesis": consistent much of what we know, but not established enough to be predictive in nature.
From the little I understood about it, I always thought it was more like a hypothesis and hadn't really met the status of theory in the scientific use of the term.
String Theory is a Mathematical Theory. Science does not have any proof of its existence as they cannot see strings. I have proof of having seen strings even though they are very very small...science does not have the technique to see them...I do...
If it's not testable, it's not a theory or even an hypothesis. String theory is a philosophy based on math.
@@daveadalian4116 It is testable...it is real. The only.problem you have is to think if science cannot test it or see it means it is not real. This is the limited mindset and fallacy of science. My approach was I went against the flow of scientific research and went directly in Search of Creator of our Universe then I will ask all the questions.
Not even an hipotesis, cause it can't make testeable predictions...
Dark matter isn't an answer. It's a question mark masquerading as an answer.
jesus christ dude
@@oneneksonethe true answer
@@Crikey420 yup. it's modern-day epicycles
Agreed!!!
I always felt it was just some boogeyman they threw out there to explain away a hole in a theory
@@abbythecat7706 Well, when you come across something that needs an explanation what do you do? You try to find an explanation. There really isnt a lot of options when theory is so far ahead of experiment. Dark matter was a good theory, but needed more and more bandaids as the data started contradicting it. Plus humans are stubborn
If it's a choice between Penrose and Kaku, I'll take Penrose any day.
Roger Penrose is simply wrong on String Theory... I have the live proof of their exostence
I have a problem with Michiu. He is so full of himself, such a narcistic individuum. His whole body language, the personal „wall of fame“ in his apartment I saw in one of these videos. Humble? What‘s that?
On this one Kaku is correct and Penrose is simply wrong. I will present the beauty of strings at Arizona conference on Consciousness where Penrose will be there.
@@losmosquitos1108yeah something's going on
Fun fact: the universe is exactly the same size now as at the moment of the Big Bang; it’s still exactly 1 universe big, when measured in universes.
Fun fact: the universe is *still* big banging.
@@adraedinstay Bangin my friend
Fun fact: You are the universe.
your mom is one universe
Wooooow😲
I've never bought into the idea of gravitons. It's like chalking up a mystery to an unknown particle. You wouldn't be like, "hey inertia is weird so there's probably an unseen particle there. I'll call it an inertron!"
"fudge factor"
I may be wrong but gravitons are just the proposed photon equivalent of gravity. We have not yet experimentally proven if gravitons exist because we would require an experimental apparatus spanning a light year or some ridiculous distance (not sure what the distance is). So it will remain a theory for the foreseeable future. The part which makes sense though is comparing it with a photon. Gravitation waves travel at the speed of light, the cosmic speed limit. That means the information of space time is also travelling at that speed. So it makes sense that we should be able to quantize gravity just like we did for light or EM waves. What we can do with that knowledge, I don't know, but it could open up the possibility that every single thing in this universe is quantized. Except for whatever happens in between state transitions in fuzzy clouds of quantum mechanics. This will enable us to create a grand unified theory of everything which involves quantum mechanics and classical physics. But this is not something like inertia which doesn't need to be quantized, or rather you can quantize inertia with impulse and space-time itself, so you are incorrect about the need for 'inertion' or whatever.
The "Standard Model" is just a model, like its name says. The concept of "particle" doesn't need to reflect objective reality, the true nature of which might be fundamentally unknowable. Modelling forces/fields as particles explains observations and can be used to make predictions. Physicists (the honest ones at least) see the writing on the wall, and know better models are needed, but until they're created, everything has to be framed in the context of models that currently exist.
You should look up Quantum Inertia. It's an interesting, novel idea at the very least, and it's enjoyable to listen to the guy walk through his theory. At this point, I think we need to start exploring the fringes for ideas. Because we clearly haven't made any significant progress in the last 50 - 70 years. Time to invite the crazy uncle to dinner. We've heard all of grandpa's stories, we need some new ones.
@@SahilP2648 The experimental apparatus would be the circumference of our solar system, the particle detector size of jupiter and in process we would be creating a black hole in the jupiter.
Or, use already available black hole.
Penrose is a real scientist because he holds skepticism in very high regard. He doesn't just "believe" in things the way a lot of scientists do.
This whole sentence is a joke.
@@sixapax Of course you don't give any reasons, explanations, evidence or examples. Just a simple-minded insult. Probably the best one you could think of. Like most scientists, you just give your opinion and expect it to be taken as fact.
@@Finn_MacCool well, i just heard about academic reaction to his theories in neuroscience field and criticism of his CCC model. I do not doubt his accomplishments in science, but I would not call him a zealous skeptic, free from the temptation to believe.
@@sixapax Science isn't about "believing". It's about skepticism. You turn it into a religion when you succumb to the "temptation to believe". I suppose that is your goal though. To take control of science and turn it into a weapon for your marks-ist political ideologies.
@@Finn_MacCool well ok then idk
String theory does not belong to Kaku. He did not propose it. It's misleading to refer to it as Kaku ''s string theory.
It appears you are correct. It seems to have had numerous contributors since the late 1960's.
How come you put Penrose and Kaku at the same level? One is Nobel laureate which means his theory was proved by experiment and observation. The other is just making mathematical panthasies and making hyped so called predictions.
I was looking for Roger Penrose saying "dark matter doesn't exist" in vain. In his book on CCC, he states "In the subsequent aeon, the new "omega-bar" (my description of his symbol which looks like a lower case omega with a bar across the top) matter that comes about initially takes over the degrees of freedom present in the gravitational waves in the prior aeon. Dark matter seems to have had special status at the time of our Big Bang, and this is certainly the case for omega-bar. The idea is that shortly after the Big Bang (presumably when the Higgs comes into play), this new omega-bar-field acquires a mass, and it then becomes the actual dark matter that appears to play such an important role in shaping the subsequent matter distributions, with various kinds of irregularities that are observed today". He then goes onto say that both dark matter and dark energy (the latter in the form of a gravitational constant) are both essential components of CCC. Has Roger changed his opinion since the CCC book was published?
It is the Big Bang which first has to be discarded. A sole first entity, with no internal or external components yet existing, including darkness and light, cannot perform an action. So there can be no possibility of a 'bang' and no 'expansion' before space yet existing. Here, deferring to MV is a runaway lost case. The expansion does not define a beginning because the impactions are new and varied from anything at the beginning. It's not like a loaf of bread which can be tracked to its flour and a stove; think the bread popped up anew.
The CZcamsr has wrongly associated Sir Penrose as a Dark Matter denier. Yes, just like Hawkins, Sir Penrose and many others Inflation is a Fantasy.
This is an AI generation channel. They didn't fact check the script
Does anyone ever look at what Dr. Jamie Farnes has done?
There is no dark matter, you can quote me
The book by Roger Penrose that he was trying to write for ten years is now written. In the last chapter he proposes an origin for dark matter. The proposal emerges from a simple picture for the Big Bang: It came out of the Big Crunch of the previous "aeon" of the universe. The two aeons are joined by a three-dimensional surface ("a moment in time") where light rays travel in straight lines and space-time is flat up to a scale factor whose sign flips as you cross the boundary into our aeon from the old one. Dark matter emerges (somehow) from that scale factor as does the mass of the elementary particles. The particle physics is not in the book, but this proposal for the origin of dark matter is.
"scale factor sign flips" what does that mean?
What is it called?
@@Company_N His explanation for the big bang is very interesting. Basically, at a certain point in the very, very distant future, when everything that could possibly be construed as a measuring device(by this he means anything that gives either time or space meaning - because if you think about it, in the absence of anything besides a single particle it woould be impossible to make sense of(ie. measure) time; and in the absence of anything more than a single particle it would be impossible to make sense of(ie. measure) space) has decayed, and all that's left is...well, nothing...at that 'point in time' the universe 'forgets' how old it is and how large it is, and can effectively be seen as a pre-big-bang universe. So we get a big bang all over again.
Time and spatial size are thus relational properties: they only exist in so far as there are things - like clocks, or rulers - that also exist and which we can compare, and use to deduce time and size. Imagine a video of a billard table with balls knocking into one another. If there are enough of them on the table it's very easy to know, just by looking at the way they interact, how fast they're moving and which direction the recording is playing. If we reverse the tape it looks wrong - you have multiple balls converging on a single cue ball in a way that looks very strange
But let's remove all the billiard balls except for one. And now run the tape of it bouncing around the table. It has become impossible to tell whether the tape is playing in reverse or forwards.
Now let's go one step further - remove the table altogether, and just have the billiard ball moving in completely empty space, wih no stars as frames of reference, just complete black empty space. What does it even mean at that point to say that the ball is 'moving'? How could you say that time is passing given the absence of any other object against which to compare it? Just as importantly how could you measure the _size_ of the ball? How could you know whether it's a huge ball that's far away or a small ball up close? Remember, in this example the only thing that exists is the ball, so you can't go closer to the ball and pick it up and peer at it.
This is what a relational concept of time and space is like, and it's not just that we can't measure the time passing or the size of the ball - it's that those concepts stop making sense. That's what's meant by the universe 'forgetting' what size it is and how old it is. And it's from that period of cosmological amnesia that a 'new' universe is born in a big bang.
@@thesprawl2361 very interesting. Are you a researcher in a university
@@user-vc5qg6we3v No, just interested in the subject and in philosophy and physics in general.
Michio Kaku is the Depak Chopra of physics
Roger penrose and Sabine Hossefelder are the Depak Chopra of physics
@@ToiChutGongFlu ok cmon fellas, take it outside.
What I want to know is, what is Deepak Chopra the Deepak Chopra of?
@@mikeleoppky😂😂 caught me off guard for real.
Deepak Chopra bastardizes physics enough for both of them
I wish everyone would stop treating Time as a dimension - it's completely different, separated from the way spatial dimensions act. In fact - only "SPACETIME" exists as an inseparable "existence" - in fact - it's even wrong to think about these things as "dimensions", but better as "the only possible configuration of existence" (which always represents itself in "3 dimension").
Honestly, a part of discouraged me while studying astrophysics was how fervently the scientific community was clinging to ideas like "inflation" and "dark matter" which are clearly fantasies or worse.... are sort of patches to keep together an overarching failing view of the universe, a bit like the ptolemaic epicycles or the aether...
String theory, sure, and maybe inflation too, but thus far, dark matter is the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between most galaxies' angular momentum and their observable mass. That discrepancy is something that has been observed thousands of times. Could there be another explanation? Yes, but thus far nothing is as simple and elegant. MOND has just been disproved to 16 sigma. That's a rather large sigma, to put it mildly.
@@S0ulinth3machin3 I do not claim much knowledge on the issue, but was not "ether" the accepted explanation for electromagnetism? The simple solution to all problems in Physics is just to add another parameter and see if the experiments fit. In other words, pure guesswork, unsupported by any practical evidence
It's all coming down. Now would be a good time to come up with a new standard model because ours is broken.
This basically means we have no clue how our universe works.
It works enough for us to be here. We have a little understanding, we are small bug looking outwards towards...lol
You are right, we don’t know but God knows!
It's all theory. Which is fine. But we shouldn't forget it's theory.
Well, no that's not the case. We seem to have a pretty good idea actually. If we didn't then I'd ask you to answer how exactly we were able to predict the time drift of satellites. We have a pretty good understanding, but we do not have a perfect understanding yet.
@Philitron128 we don't understand enough eg. Newton's laws was replaced by Einstein's.
Before Einstein, we thought Newton's law was correct. In other words, a lot of our understanding of the universe could be wrong ie. not 100% correct.
"Dark Matter" is simply another term for unexplained gravity. We have a really good understanding of gravity on a planetary scale or a solar system scale. We can apply mathematical formulae based on mass calculations and make highly accurate predictions every time. But those same formulae don't work out on a galactical scale.
Basically, galaxies are producing more gravity than their accumulated mass would suggest, based on our current understanding of it. And no one knows why. So yeah, maybe dark matter isn't a thing. But there's still some unexplained force that is holding these spiral galaxies together, because based on our understanding of gravity, these spiral galaxies should be obliterated from their own rotation.
It's, what causes weightlessness. Vs. ....the heavy, gravitational pull, issue.
There is no Dark Matter.
It's just natural curvature of space.
Thank you.. Degrasse n more adresses this several times!
@@rremnar Exactly, things tend to rotate towards the heaviest objects, at the center of the universe there's probably a super massive black hole and everything is evolving around that, including other black holes. I always see it as a bunch of swirl pools, we're in one complex swirl pool and beyong the "edge" of the galaxy we have more of the same. My theory is that black holes are the actual edges, we just didn't expect them to be sphericle, but everything is trying to form into a sphere, so it makes sense. My guess is that on the otherside of a black hole we'd see everything opposite of what it does here. Instead of sucking space away, it's creating space by spewing it outward. Gravity pushes instead of pulls. Light is dark instead of light and to the inhabitant this is normal and they're trying to figure out what the hell is on the other side of their orb that pushes matter outwards at the speed of light 😂
@@timspikerIf you ever plan on writing a science-fiction novel, please do a little bit more research than what you did for this comment. Otherwise you're going to end up telling a story again that is so absurdly impossible and against all math that's been done on the subject, it'll be a real mood killer.
When your only proof is math, all you’ve proven is that you can do math
Werent black holes only theorized by mathematical equations for like a century or 2 before they found solid evidence of their existence?
"And Michio Kaku is renowned for being renowned."
Michio Kaku made an appearance on Ancient Aliens as an "expert" - that's all I need to know about this
no straight lines@@unclefester1991 :o)
Ancient Aliens pays very well etc I can't blame the man.
Anyone know the video at 2:19? I'd like to watch it.
Sir Roger Penrose is the only science communicator I still believe. The others seem to try to sell us something.
I am a physicist. I am not sure what you have mind..... In science we attach a probability to any theory. For example, we know that Newton Law, as far as the Solar system is concerned, is 99.9999% correct. So we teach it in high school like an established truth. If you compute the trajectory of Mars and it is nearly perfect. Mercury showed a little deviation even in the 19th century: Einstein theory explained that. To quote Clint Eastwood, we know our limitations in that case.
Quantum Mechanics, applied to the Atom (electric forces in particular), is in the same category. So no chemist doubts it. Only crackpots. But things get more complex at higher energies.
You need the standard model and then something better at even higher energy, ie, string theory or something else. (Higher energy also means more difficult/expensive to test).
Now string theory is unfortunately closer to mathematical hypothesis. You can teach it but you cannot honestly call it an established physical theory. So indeed, it is mathematics.
The problem is not the microscopic salary of the string theorists (a better investment to society than a Canadian moron who cannot spell his name pushing a hockey puck for 5 million $) but the large proposed experiments that some physicists view as misguided.
Science tells us not believe people
I always like a little British self deprecation in my theoretical physicists; I find certain other nationalities too much ego and not enough patient self doubt. Take James Maynard for example and his Fields medal winning work on Primes. He's breakthrough thinker but never puts his own ribbons on the cup. Always modestly anticipates the opposition getting a last minute equaliser.
@@barmouthbridge8772 I am from Québec originally and now live in Japan. So I always found British humour great and polite French humour (from France) usually boring. I think it comes to this ability to self-deprecate and also double-down on exaggeration with a poker face.
Despite being a native French speaker, educated in a European French school, I think the culture of Britain was more in tune with me than that of France at some primitive level.
The little hats always are selling something
You're jumping the gun if you say dark matter exists and the big bang is real. I'm not saying you're wrong, idk. I'm just saying you're jumping the gun, don't become dogmatic.
Slightly off the topic…I can’t help but thank gratefully all the passionate and enthusiastic people taking their time to elaborate and comment this clip sharing their knowledge and perspective. This is so inspiring and beautiful on an extra-mental level. I’ve been born in 1980 in Soviet Union with deep indoctrination of a fundamental curiosity, and I’m absolutely happy to experience such an integration.
Wellcome, citizen of the world 😊
Welcome back to indoctrination, bcuz all this things are BS.
Why dont you look at your own history instead. Soviet union space race, Lysenko etc?
@@lukullberg955 I don't think I understand your question. Can you please clarify? I look at ALL of the history of humanity including soviet (russian) segment but this separation doesnt exist in my head its just a matter of a organisation of information. Yes i believe Russians contributed a lot to all of us, including the holistic worldview usually called "Russian Cosmism" that actually inspired and formed Tsiolkovsky and Korolev and many other scientists and philosophers and writers through XIX-XX centuries, so its not just a sudden technological outbreak as one would try to picture. Instead it is a huge mental motion that led to such goal setting and expanding to space.
Extra-mental?
whats the music track in the background?
Do you know what else is a good idea, like dark matter? Whenever you get an error in your calculations, just multiply your answer by the inverse of the error and voila! No more error! It works just like dark matter! In fact it probably IS dark matter! Do you know why they settled on the name "dark matter"? That's because the name "invisible matter" was too much of a stretch! It gave the game away!
Or technically known as normalizing the data😂
"Dark" is because it isn't nice to say "black".
what are you referring to?
@@billballinger5622 normalizing data is throwing data points out you don’t like. Just make it disappear. We used to do that engineering. Scary
can you give me some examples? engineering what? @@renscience
I'm dumb, but you guys said a lot of big words that I didn't have to pay money for; so I got that going for me.
My brain thinks its smart, so I give it these types of videos to shut it up 😂
Not so smart now brain 😎 w
The fact that there is a branch of physics called "experimental physics" shows how far physics has strayed from science - all physics should be experimental based!
This comment is very shortsighted; to every Faraday, there is a Maxwell - both working in perfect harmony
Has Kaku made any significant contributions to scientific knowledge? Penrose certainly has.
Kaku rambles on TV from time to time - that's the only science that matters
Other than being the cofounder of string theory? lol
@@watchingsometube The point is that nothing has come of it. Penrose is a Noble Laureate.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Thank you.
Michio Kaku is a blight on science. I have always detested him. And yes, I'm a mathematician.
We aren't abandoning an idea by ceasing funding it to such an extent. And I'm sick of mathematicians claiming to be physicists, having never done an experiment in their lives.
Cosmic inflation seemed like it was invented in order to custom-fit a model. They needed a way to get from infinitely small to macroscopically big in the tiniest fraction of a second, so they came up with an idea called inflation, where the universe speeds up for no given reason, and then slows down, again, for no given reason.
That's exactly what inflation is: a cosmic fudge factor. They invented what they called an inflaton field (I kid you not) that supposedly decayed without a trace and expanded the universe just the right amount for their numbers to work out. I don't know how anyone can take it seriously.
Then why does the universe seem to still be inflating?
@@Philitron128 I forgot to say, they had it speed up again, but more gradually. Inflation is like someone learning to drive- pushing the gas, slam the breaks, gas, breaks and so on.
@@goldwhitedragonor is it, exdensing?
@@goldwhitedragon thats what exdensing is 😉
Dark Matter seems to be the 'Luminiferous Ether' of our day. We need the equivalent of a Michelson-Morely experiment. I am more inclined to pursue the idea of additional (or stronger than currently measured) fields, or the effects of other dimensions acting on our own 4 dimensional existence.
I don't think there were any observations consistent with the luminiferous ether and we do have observations consistent with dark matter (like gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster). There's a lot to discover and certainly a lot of things the current theories get wrong, but we need to be careful about drawing too many parallels with the past, or assuming that just because we don't understand something well or don't have enough proof yet, it has to be thrown out the window. Black holes were thought by many scientists to be a purely mathematical concept unconnected to reality - until they weren't.
@@ImVeryOriginalthe observations were first made and then found to be inconsistent with predictions so dark matter and energy were introduced as hypotheses to explain those divergent observations, so of course they will be consistent with observations. they're retroactively consistent though because they're made to fit them.
nice to see someone else to make the connection between the epistemological status of dark matter and energy and that of aether
Blackholes were like Dark matter until discovered but there is a big difference: Blackholes were named singularities (which is math) and the problem to discover them then was technical. "Dark Matter" can't be discovered even theoretically, exactly like 200 invisible massless dwarves standing on my notebook.@@ImVeryOriginal
@@SirThreepio It's funny, because out of these two (gravitational singularities vs. new type of particle or unseen primordial black holes etc.), it's the former that is less plausible to actually exist, and probably just an artifact of math - every physicist acknowledges this. And yet black holes are there, even though we are *almost certain* we have the theory about them wrong to some degree.
What is "dark matter"? Maybe it's not matter at all and some version of MOND will resolve the discrepancies. Or maybe not. Let the people who actually study these problems for a living do the work and figure it out.
When do we get language translations for video's like this ?
String theory should switch from "open vs closed" to "commutative vs associative" strings. commutative strings being like fundamental groups of circles where order of components isn't strictly defined. Then it would just be tensor arithmetic.
Penrose is in fact telling us exactly why jets are formed in every spinning black hole. What needs circumscribed is exactly why these jets appear exactly at opposite poles of spin. And that indeed these jets form during supernova collapse forming gamma Ray bursts.
You can literally look up why GRB come from the poles and find the answer. Why would one come out at like 4° down and 10° over from the North Pole and another like 30° south rather than from the poles/across from each other? It wouldn't make sense and I don't have the grasp on it fully to repeat back to you why they are from the poles, and not, say, at 90° angle from each other. Literally just look it up. It sounds like you don't know what you're even talking about here
He's getting close to hitting on what Arp discovered about galaxy formation. They aren't black holes.
this might be a dumb question but do proponents of dark matter consider there might be some sort of macro magnetism generated by all the stars when they’re trying to account for those galactic rotational behaviors
Rotational behaviors are largely caused by gravity, not electromagnetism. Stars are overall charge neutral, so dark matter is also thought to be neutral
Furthermore if there was a noticeable electromagnetic effect produced by stars it would be observable within the galaxies themselves
No. You can model galaxy spin as entirely caused by EM with negligible effect of gravity and get flat rotation curves. They do not like this because of the implications...
michio kaku is not renowned for string theory. He is renouned as a scientific educator. He was an unknown nobody as a theorist.
Are the six "curled up dimensions" at right angles to the four dimensions and right angles to each other?
Physically, yes kinda if you are looking at it from an 3D standpoint. Its hard to say exactly where a dimension is lol. But it could be curled and yet be larger than our dimension, which seems more likely, but to get to it, you would have to curl up to the size of a singularity. So while you need to get smaller to get to it, its actually larger. Physics is just weird lol
The human species has spent their entire existence explaining the universe with "this is all there is".
String theory is a product of very active human imaginations... The proponents refuse to accept the axiom of keeping things as simple as possible.
Same with singularity, too. Saying the time just stops is silly, because time is just a scale of measure.
Okay, every time I see one of these illustrations of a net in space I guess this is the strings criss crossing, good. But is there only one net going across space? Or many on top of one another? So how much distance then between each "net"? Or maybe no distance at all? I'm confused.
Thats a great question!
Here is my understanding of it...
The net in space graphics are usually to represent mass bending space time creating gravity in a 2d meets 3d fashion, you are correct though and could also imagine it as many stacks. Ultimately it (gravity) is a field so many nets or a heat map type visualization is actually more accurate just not as clean I guess.
Is it correct to say that the term dark matter is unfortunately named in that it implies the existence of an actual unseen form of matter as the cause of an unidentified gravitational effect observed in the data? So as to say that perhaps the word matter here informs on a confirmation bias presuming the apparent gravity anomaly in the data is caused by actual matter, while discounting the possibilities of model error, observational error, or an unidentified fundamental force that mimics or affects gravity. And likewise, is it correct to say that the term dark energy is unfortunately named because it implies an actual unseen form of energy instead as the cause of an unidentified observed force effect in the data which may or may not actually be energy?
Good for you Roger👍
the most gentle savage scientist out there
Love him 😊
Mr. Penrose, what did you mean by the number of dimensions being wrong ? I think there is slight evidenz for more than four dimensions.
While normal people believe the earth is flat scientists go much further and suggest the universe is flat.
Do you have an evidence or resources demonstrating, verifiably, that the universe is curved? Or is this comment limited strictly to your private prejudice?
Regardless of whether string theory is right or wrong, this video is an excellent and concise presentation of the issue. Well done.
Assume string theory is wrong till someone can prove it's worth. That's the problem. It's not right. It's pure BS, a reach by physicists to keep getting funded...
Its wrong. They knew since the collider failed to find super sym
Neutrality is not a position. Choose now.
Please supply experimental evidence foe String Theory.
Shoe laces...
Theology is the highest philosophy. The constant catch-up of materialists whilst they arrogantly discount those with faith who knew from day one that dark matter didn't exist is a travesty.
15:33 wrong. Penrose explains that there is no "expansion and contraction" in his hypothesis. Only expansion. There is a kind of "scale loss" between the eons.
Something can be mathematical and not directly observable, yet still be useful. For example, how imaginary numbers allow us to land planes.
Yea this is a great comment. The fact that i appears explicitly in the Schrodinger equation was very unnerving at the time to many physicists.
Most people don't know that Einstein said that singularities are not possible. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" he wrote "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. This is illustrated in a common 2 axis dilation graph with velocity on the horizontal line and dilation on the vertical. This shows the squared nature of the phenomenon, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light.
General relativity does not predict singularities when you factor in dilation. Einstein is known to have repeatedly spoken about this. Nobody believed in black holes when he was alive for this reason.
Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. There is no place in the universe where mass is more concentrated than at the center of a galaxy.
According to Einstein's math, the mass at the center of our own galaxy must be dilated. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for the abnormally high rotation rates of stars in spiral galaxies (the reason for the theory of dark matter) the missing mass is dilated mass.
According to Einstein's math, there would be no dilation in galaxies with very, very low mass. To date, this has been confirmed with 5 very low mass galaxies all showing no signs of dark matter. In other words they have normal star rotation rates.
This is virtual proof that dilation is the governing phenomenon in galactic centers, there can be no other realistic explanation for this fact.
You talk like you know but can you write book about your arguments?
@@igorbojceski5262 It's just relativity, dilation is the original explanation for why we cannot see light from the galactic center
@@shawns0762 no, because we don't know that much even most won't admitted. One Numble telescope can not reach that far, imperfected instruments too... There are reasons why so much theories with the same goal GOT. We know about energies, , matter but what kind 📴... Chemical elements from supernovas, qwasars, even the 'our' sun are stil alchemies... We are too busy enjoyed our humanity breakthrough that we always forget how little we known.Maybe Plato or Aristotle known about it , but 🎡 🗣 hey ¡!- who needs philosophy in this times. read what Heidegger think about Techink😨., .😤 who wãnt to be cyborg¿?
Remove “time” from every equation and you start making sense of the world.
Does Roger Penrose have an alternative to string theory that in some ways unifies QM with GR
"Science advances one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck
@@user-hy9nh4yk3p The young turks with fresh ideas eventually become those they usurped.
Do you the meaning of it?
@@zibam982 Old ideas die with old scientists.
Einstein invoked a new kind of space! He didn't call it "aether" but it can be stretched and pulled by matter just like the air stretches and pulls the air when sound vibrates it. So, I don't see the difference in claiming that matter distorts space (a still unproven theory) or that matter has an attractive force, that doesn't require space to do anything (except be empty)! I still can't wrap my head around "nothingness" warping and bending! Great graphics though! That rubber mat bending under those weights is just genius! What it proves, I have no idea!
The rubber mat is an illustration, not a proof, of Einsteins theories on mass and energy.
A winning tautology
The energy of vacuum calculated by our best models (QFT based) gives an energy about 60 orders of magnitudes above the measured, that indicate that our best present models are essentially wrong.
The "Shut up and calculate" "gang" imposed their view in the physics community, anyone that would try to understand or question QM would be discouraged. So there exist the belief that QM is the "ultimate" possible model. But QM is a very limited theory: it
doesn't even explain our classical world: we do not know exactly what and when a quantum phenomena provokes or becomes a classical one (our perceptual world is classical). So we need a theory that have both Quantum Physics and Classical Physics as limit cases: that should be the main focus of physics research. But no, we continue to develop over a not well understood model., that gives
lots of infinities and crazy results, like the energy of vacuum. But instead of focus in designing experiments that could answer the most basic: how the quantum world generates the classical world, it is easiest to think in fantasies like dark matter or inflation etc.
and to modify the infinity results with methods ad-hoc without any physical justification.
Brian Greene dying inside as he listens in the beginning lmao
I always felt dark matter is just a kludge to make our flawed models of the universe work.
One day a better model will come along with no need for a mysterious unseen mass.
With AI making such rapid advances, I bet it happens in my lifetime, and I am 59 years old.
Magic space dust that happens to have the exact properties to make some calculations work, and apparently 96% of the universe consists of this magic dust and energy
Occam's razor would agree with you. MOND is worth a look, but lower funding :)
dark matter = data fudging copium
Electric Universe Plasma Cosmology Wal Thornhill.
@capnrob97 This has always been my supposition, that it was created to make math work.
While I can absolutely imagine the existence of perhaps other-dimensional matter that is invisible and unmeasurable to us that could impact the way our observable reality functions, if you decide to go down that road, then you essentially have to throw out all the rest of science. If our understanding of reality now tells us that there are other dimensions interacting with the dimensions we can actually observe, then it means our scientific observations are ALWAYS missing an unknown and unknowable quantity of other potential variables.
Watching this video reminded me that In the novel series the Three Body Problem, scientists are lead down a fruitless path of physics by a malevolent entity that initially seemed promising in order to slow down the pace of science by humanity.
The three body problem is not fruitless. And it was solved over a century ago
@@Ryan-gx4ce The problem I was referring to wasn't the three body problem despite the title of the series, if I recall correctly it was some stuff regarding the nature of particles, the malevolent entity gave humanity some theories seemed to have potential to misdirect the efforts of their most brilliant minds but ultimately would lead to a dead end.
@@canary40 It was in the second book _Dark Forest_ where the Trisolarans used sophons (particles that used folded dimensions to introduce power AI into them) to disrupt the workings of particle accelerators on Earth, and this massively slowed the scientific advancement of Earth. The author uses this invention to explain our current blockages around the standard model in a similar way that he explained the Fermi Paradox with Darwinian notions.
The only aliens are coming across our southern border as I write this. Extra-terrestrials are hundreds of light years closer to the galactic center & don't care about us..
@@Ryan-gx4ce What do you mean by "solved"? The three-body problem is not analytically solvable, generally speaking
Roger Penrose - Nobel prize and advanced Physics.
Michio - Talks about aliens in popsci shit.
I know whose side I'm on.
Michio Kaku in nowhere near the same league as Roger Penrose. I don't usually bother saying things like this but I couldn't help myself.
This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you!
I've been deeply concerned about the idea of dark matter for over 20 years now and the more I think about it, not only does the current hypothesis's make less and less sense, but there are other better testable hypothesis's that can solve these problems it encompasses. The primary one is there is much more space/time curvature than being put into the data. This has already been proven experimentally with the Gravity Probe B satellite that verified space/time drag from rotating masses. As far as I know, this data was never added to the gravitational affects of galaxy clusters, galaxy rotation or any other area where dark matter is being used as a " bandaid ". I never even knew about the GP-B sat or the experiments it performed until a few years back, but postulated this decades ago just by simply thinking about the Field Equation... there HAS to be a space/time drag, but what are the large scale consequences? This energy doesn't just magically disappear. Just to ignore such a thing would be putting out data that violates energy conservation laws.
Absolutely agree. I think the whole dark matter/dark energy topic is the least scientific research i've seen with such support! People assume it's real, but it could be as well a calculation or modeling error.
There's no real evidence of dark matter or dark energy. Scientists have witnessed astronomical phenomena that have no forthcoming explanations, so they make up a type of matter and a type of energy, and call it "dark". When what is really dark is their knowledge and ability to explain what's really going on.
The frame dragging effect that GPB explored has nothing to do with the dark matter observations, and has been totally ruled out - it's part of GR and they have modelled those effects to death. The evidence for dark matter is overwhelming, and present in many different ways, from the rotation rates of galaxies to the lensing effects. Source: am actual physicist. I've even met Penrose. And I'm not convinced this video fairly represents his views on dark matter.
Just apply Occams razor, the far more simple explanation is our understanding and models of gravity being incomplete, compared to inventing a whole new type of matter that is conveniently undetectable.
If someone finds dark matter, I will believe in it, until then its just conjecture. Something about a tea pot in orbit around Mars.
@@spshkyros The evidence for dark matter is that there is something causing more gravity in the universe than we can explain. It could quite literally be anything. Until someone comes up with an actual theory with experimental evidence on what dark matter constitutes, it is just a placeholder term.
The problem with 'string theory' is the last word.
Relativity is a theory. Gravity is a theory. I guess we should ignore theories since they are the problem?
When you hear the explanation of super steing theory you can see why he described it as "Fantasy"
We just need good models that show how an information system managing its entropy would need to distribute itself into smaller and smaller units for contextual reasons ; as we are seeing with advanced ML coding and hardware techniques, certain things are huge bottlenecks.
String theory is a good metaphor but a better one would be JIT code that appears to do the same thing, and databasing methods that handle the huge problem that is SCALE vs ENTROPY
You seem to have convinced yourself that IT systems are an acceptable simulacrum for the physical attributes of the universe. Upon what do you base this preposterous assumption?
For the record I have not "convinced myself" of anything. I have remained open and connected dots for around a decade. I absolutely destroyed primary and high school math, became a lazy self absorbed traveller and dropped out of Engineering in the 90s.
I always found some concepts strange.. and once had a big argument with a teacher about Pluto.. funny how things turned out on that one
I seem to like logical process far more than most, and when math got abstract and complex I didn't want to go there. I learnt BASIC but when computing got very complex, that was it for me. Couldn't find anywhere near the time commitment needed to go through the process.. I knew it wasn't going to work out so I continued on as a wanderer.. trying to find my way and work out what the heck life was about.. popularity ? friends ? getting drunk ? parties ? girls ? all of the above ? apparently not.. and I led myself astray badly. As the great Prof. Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself !
Have been a gamer my entire life, my first strong memories are playing a car racing game where the cars were single pixel chunks at about 240x160 resolution. I played Doom etc etc.. then ended up getting very competitive in Quake and had my own method of muscle memory creation for mouse aiming, flick shots and more. I ended up mastering all the Q2DM1 trick jumps, many of them backwards including the triple circle jump in the mega health room.
During my Quake 2 obsession (14hrs a night, every night, for YEARS) I found myself having fleeting moments of complete immersion where I was completely unaware of ANYTHING except the game. I WAS the game character and this is where moments of ridiculous performance came from. Being an 80s kid I am still addicted to refined sugar which makes focus very hard, hence the fleeting moments and short periods of precision gameplay.. HOLDING focus is far harder than attaining it. Meditation is extremely difficult for more than a while, I used to daydream in school sometimes, but that is rare now. The body is the greatest constraint we have, and finding time for exercise as a constant thinker is hard.. so I get sporadic performance at best.
Despite being a washed up old gamer.. one night a few years ago I played some of my beloved Team Fortress 2 and had the most surreal competitive duel experience ever.. absolutely destroying a guy, rocket to feet, rocket, rocket, rocket, POP on the skybox.. and it felt like time was so slow and it was SO effortless.. I kept my focus as I heard him respawn, and rocket jump up to the platform.. and without even trying, again it felt so damn effortless and was like time repeated, popped him up, up, up splat again on the skybox.. then I realised he was going to call me a cheater.. ? appeared in the chat.. and the immersion was completely gone.
VR is great, got an Oculus Dev Kit barely used. HAD to try the rollercoaster and a few things, got vertigo and loved it. It all makes sense when you have these moments of SELF immersion. You have to experience it to understand, but there are so many parallel types of experiences, such as THOUSAND YARD STARE that many low level programmer legends apparently used to do.. when asked some complicated question they would appear to switch off and were deep in thought.
You can also explain INTUITION btw.. the iceberg deep compute.. a great lesson that never got old was if you can't solve a problem think about ANYTHING else, forget about it and later the answer will pop into your head... it works only if you don't have too tight a grip on that need to know.. maybe you could call that type of person.. hmm lets see... ADHD ? OCD ?
Very disorganized rant, feel free to use GPT to compile all my nutterisms into a book, I'll edit it, we'll go halves. Have a great day..
@@goldnutter412😮
Penrose, Kaku, de Grasse, Greene. They appear that they understood the universe well better than anyone but in fact they're just guessing wildly like everyone else. One way or another, when a new discovery surfaces, they quickly abandon their previous belief to catch up with the new one. For me, they're not too far from being compared to Politicians nowadays.
They're like sci-fi entertainers with a PhD as their foundation. My wild guess is that Kaku earns a lot of money entertaining us, and then other scientists follow suit.
(At least quantum theory actually works.)
Giving up a "belief" with new evidence is the basis of science, and what any rational intelligent person would do. Otherwise dood, you'd be watching a fire in a cave not watching a video on your pocket computer
Innovation yes that's given but i'm talking about principles if you get what I mean.
Penrose is a respected scientitist and certainly not someone that changes his mind without good reasons.
The only reason is because if he doesn't change sides, he'll lose popularity among his colleagues. Again, a matter of principles.
In the distance you could hear the Kaku ROAR in anger, that his fourty year sham has come to an end.
Michio Kaku does not have a string theory. He just is the most publicized advocate of string theory.
Great video. Unbiased and comprehensive. Exactly what we need more of in public discourse.
The ending, it seemed to me, felt a bit abrupt, especially in regards to Penrose's view of Dark Matter. Whatever anyone says (or calculates) about Dark Matter or String Theory, there is no evidence of either of them. Dark Matter as a theory is as popular as it is (certainly more than string theory) because it effectively accounts for more and explains more of what we understand more, and it does so in a very-simple way: dark matter needs only to be matter that is spread out and non-radiating (to explain why we as-yet cannot detect it) to fill a lot of gaps. That's entirely why it was hypothesised - to explain those gaps. But no one would be remotely shocked if it was eventually shown not to exist. String Theory the same. Of course it's hard to 'disprove' something that is as yet to be proved, because if you put the time and energy into it, it can be made to adapt. And maths alone of course is like magic - it can easily lead us astray.
The world of Sting theory, though clever, is like a modular thing that expects something more from its critics each time it adapts, splits or grows. And even if it eventually checks all its own boxes, what then?
It's interesting though for sure. But so is Roger Penrose.
I've held this view for more than a decade and have been viewed with disdain the whole time.
When your calculations are out and you are 'reduced' to plugging the hole with a fudge factor to make observation and model fit it CAN be valid. If you are 97% correct, then you know that "what I don't know is 3%'. That number itself might give you ideas on what the missing 3% is. When you are 90% wrong and only 10% right, it means are entire physics model just doesn't work at galactic scales. When your fudge factor is 90% of the total your idea of reality are the shadows on plato's wall.
I worked backwards form where we are to work out 'how did we get to the position where we need 90% of the universe to be driven by unseen forces and found that the principle common factor is redshift. Actually, that's just about the only thing corroborating all expansion. All other big bang proof is awfully circumstantial.
As a person who used to write market algorithms I learnt that one big trap is to fit you model to the data in a way that 'proves' the model is right. All that proves is that you did a great job at fitting model to data, not that the model is correct as new data comes in and obliterates the model.
Most theoretical physics is brilliant mathematics, but untied to reality, because we see the whole thing through the lens of redshift, and build models to fit that pile of data. JWST data comes in and ... data doesn't fit.
Here is my proposal. Redshift doesn't work the way we think it does and is giving us inconsistent data that we cannot understand.
The extra dimensions of superstring theory are not curled up and hidden but are entangled at various energetic levels...I win!
Finally I found a scientist who doesn’t just blindly repeat the mainstream and unproved theory, which is not even a theory, but a hypothesis.
видишь поток информации??? а он есть!)
my thoughts as well. physics today is full of bs and garbage.
Hating on string theory is pretty mainstream already.
So we need more hipster scientist?
The concept of dark matter has always bothered me. I of course accept that the people that hold to the theory of dark matter are both smarter and more qualified than I am. But it has always bothered me that when the aspects of the universe don't behave as we would expect with our current understanding of space and gravity, that rather than wonder if our understanding of space and gravity are lacking, we assume that there must be a mysterious "dark matter" that makes up most of the mass of the universe.
Dark matter is not a theory, it's an umbrella term for a set of unrelated observations (galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster speeds, gravitational lensing, etc) that all give roughly the same estimate for the hidden mass that is not observed by other means.
It's not real science, it's a "just so" story. They did the same thing with neutrinos but then got lucky and actually identified them in nature. Rather than seeing this as the lucky break it was, it encouraged their hubris.
Dark Matter is almost certainly a "localized" kind of matter which curves spacetime in the same way regular matter does, and not a modification of our theories of gravity. Otherwise there wouldn't be any way to explain observations like the Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-56).
It's not really assuming anything. It's saying what you're saying, that there's something going on that we don't understand. Dark matter might not even be matter.
@@lux-vacuithere is a way to explain it without dark matter. And its this..
We dont know
String theory was developed by Richard Feynman. Why are you attributing any of this to TV scientist Michio Kaku?
This is AI generated clickbait.
Michio Kaku is a famous theorist, but his large public figure and recognition, is because he is very good at presenting and explaining things. He is not a proponent of String Theory ~ he has and does explain it.
If you want someone to blame for String Theory, start with Leonard Suskind. He didn't invent it either, but he has come to be its spokesman, it's public representative and salesman.
This is click-bait. This is AI generated crap to suck in viewers.
"Space Wind" pretty much tells you everything you need to know about this channel.
It's like amber heard plays victim card.
It was a metaphor… wasn’t it?
I've got my own theory, of a 5 dimensional universe. The difference to the predominant theory is that I make space-time curvature/gravity the 5th dimension. As for what fundamental particles, I think they're made of space-time itself, as vibrations in it(especially photons), or budded off pieces of vibrating space-time, after all E = MC2, so energy and matter is the same thing. Matter is just energy trapped in a piece of space-time, and the fundamental particles are the smalles pieces that can bud off, and indeed when we release them from their larger particle groups with a particle accellerator they quickly decay, spilling their energy, and no longer being a separated piece of space-time. Photons lack of mass is because they haven't budded off, so they can travel at the speed of causality through space-time itself.
It's not Michio Kaku's string theory. He's not bright enough to come up with a theory. He just pimps it.
The biggest trouble is we can´t proof who is right or wrong anymore
I always understood that gravity only comes into play when mass hits a certain threshold... Below that point, things like ekectromagnrtic plasmas and ULF comes into play since they can cover vast stretches of space without losing energy... To me, it seems certain other models need combined with the standard model to fill in the gaps... But the current "scientific community" would never allow that, since they piggyback of other people's incomplete work, and don't want those free government grants to go away... Their "research" is proposely vague and obtuse...
It's a GRIFT...
I for one would have loved to see you fill in the gaps of the standard model with other models. But alas the "scientific community" is holding you back.
What's obvious to me is that when you have a model and you keep running into issues with that model...people just make up something to add to that model instead of backing up to the foundation of the model and make changes there. People keep adding things to the standard model just to keep funding flowing and that's a problem.
I came to listen to Roger Penrose...not a computer programed voice
“Dark matter” is not an explanation at all, it’s a postulation of something we know almost nothing about.
I have great respect for Sir Roger Penrose .He has his right to his opinion as a distinguished physicist bur many on the other side like Lennie Suskind for whom I have equally great respect for have been diligently working on string theory and ready to stake their reputation on it. I do not think they will be doing it for a grant because there are much more easier way to get a grant .As they say nothing is impossible until impossibility can be proved . Nobody has done that yet .Lets hope string theorists will succeed sooner than later ,for it will be on the scale of Einstein's theory of General relativity for it will be the physics of everything !
I think String theory can explain a lot on the quantum level and I think it will prevail in centuries to come.
It’s not far off how the Hindu’s interpret existence.
Go🎉Roger🎉Go .....
The assumption that scientists would even consider a hypothesis of theorizing the affects of how decisions, choices, and effects would even I have no idea what I’m talking about.
Wdf? This is the Penrose who the Moore-Penrose Inverse was named after? Had no idea that he was a modern era person, let alone still alive.
phlogiston squared
And then lost in the ether!
The problem with physics is trying to force everything into a statistical model instead of trying to establish causality.
If on the other hand, they tried to extend relativity to account for subatomic particles, I think this will take them somewhere
Sorry but Isn't that what quantum gravity is trying to do?
The problem is Bells Inequality which proves that there are no hidden variables in quantum mechanics
@@birdmw local or non local ?
“Curvature of spacetime” 🤦♂️
That this was ever accepted as a valid description of reality is astounding. It’s pure nonsense dressed up as complexity for Nerds to fantasise over and pretend they’re cleverer than normal people. Neither space nor time are objects. So you can’t curve something that has no shape to begin with! 🤦♂️
as for dark matter stuff, there's an hypothesis by S. V. Siparov - "Metric dynamics" that assumes that Universe could be anisotropic
Observations already show it likely/probably is anisotropic but that contradicts the standard model so it's not going to save dark matter.
I love hearing physicists say such-and-such is impossible or such-and-such doesn't exist. The next generation is on the way to bury you with some of those words.
A good cautionary example is Arthur Eddington's stubborn opposition to Chandrasekhar's model of neutron star collapse, just because he couldn't accept black holes could really exist (it would also threaten his own Theory of Everything he's been working on). Using his established position, he nearly ruined Chandrasekhar's career over this and delayed research into black holes by decades. Chandra turned out to be correct and received a Nobel Prize later in life.
Obviously, in science you're always going to have disagreements and most theories will be wrong by default, but I think one should be wary of such confident, absolutist statements.
There hasn’t been a next generation since the masters of the Solvay conference in 1929. Physics has barely moved forward since. Feynman, Bose etc yes. Dirac, Pauli, etc all at 1929 Solvey.
Thats just how it works, if your theory fails just add one more dimension to it which compensates that incomsistency.
@@ImVeryOriginal Nobodies witnessed the formation of a black hole from a neutron star collapse...
@@BumboLooks Black holes don't usually form from neutron stars collapsing though, maybe you meant a merger? And we actually did witness that recently with LIGO, detecting both gravitational waves and the light flash from the event.
Non-newtonion. You finally got to it in the last couple seconds. That's the answer, not dark matter. Been saying it for years.... think of the gravity wells of matter like the shear force of oobleck. It's not additional matter, it's the force applied by bodies acting on each other.
how do they examine a calormeter after it has been blasted by a beam? we cannot even see an atom. Just saying... jumping to a conclusion that a particle caused some rippled wave effect in a calormeter material doesn't make sense. It is still a theory.
It is interesting that at 4:18, the narrator describes that in the standard model we have particles as dimensionless points. This is know to be false. These particles may be very small but each occupies a volume (and are not point sources). The point source (dimensionless) is an approximation based on large distances. This does not require strings.
Photons have no volume.
@@watchingsometube On what basis do you make that claim? How do you know that all photons don't have volume? What makes you certain that frequency and wavelength don't contribute to a volume aspect of photons? If a photon has no volume then do photons have an infinite energy density?
String theory will never be proven wrong and that's the problem.
it's a religion, not science.