lee smolin on string theory (full version)

[gavinwince]

This is a really level headed Physicist!

[Beelzebud]

Agree or Disagree with Smolin, but he is certainly a lot more cool headed than some of his more outspoken critics, who seem to go for personal insults, rather than rebut the points he's making. Nothing he is saying should be controversial to people interested in scientific credibility and truth.

[Kostly]

Consciousness is the ultimate law. LOL

[deedubya286]

I get so used to the inane, immature, and clueless questions most interviewers ask on a subject like this that I was riveted in amazement at this exchange. I would almost call it a debate.

Who the hell was this interviewer and is he always this well prepared and knowledgeable on his subjects? I also liked the complete lack of animosity despite some fairly pointed and hard questions.

Well done to both of them.

[Devoradoptio]

I like what Smolin and Bloch/Susskind postulate about axions, gravitons, unlike to loco people, who are looking for higgs on Lo(H)Cotron (LHC). (It seems (H) means Higgsotic hysteria, very infectious disease)

[Davincidz]

@Devoradoptio oh you mean the higgs they have basically discovered with the LHC?

[Devoradoptio]

@Davincidz I mean that string theory describes hadrons’ origin. Mass of them is a result of breaking interior symmetry\interaction of different kinds of strings; only string theory has answer to Yang-Mills equation. Locotron with loco people will not have found higgs boson, because it cannot exist. However, they can lie. As for me, I clearly understand that Higgs’ theory is absolutely crackpot.

[Davincidz]

@Devoradoptio

Sure everyone is a crackpot, the real experts do their work in the comment field of youtube and not in Unis....

Now you will start blabbering on about how Einstein was a patent clerk while working on relativity and therefore it automatically follows that you are a universal genius

No... you certainly have no undertstanding o Yang-Mills theories.

Perhaps you should read the man who made them famous's "How to be a bad physicist" ('t Hoofts website)

.

[Devoradoptio]

I know enough about the worst physicists; all they have blind belief in higgs. How about their understanding of string theory, math, and, of course, Yang-Mils? They “find” higgs’ boson every month, later they have to say. Oh, “we failed” again and again. Interesting! Who are those persons, who pay for somebody’s madness? Lo(H)Cotron didn’t find symmetric higgs, now those smart people have to pay for its supersymmetric analogue. VAHAH I forgot, they (from LHC) can tell lies.

[Devoradoptio]

I have right to have my own opinion. I am not satisfied with Higgs’ mechanism, field by his name, boson by his name, tachyons by his name. No one has observed his field. Visualizations of his idea show how far this everything from science. He doesn’t have even mathematical model. Theory begins from 1. idea, 2. mathematical model, 3. visualization, 4. simulation and 5. testing. Only string theory with gravity, supersymmetry without higgs can give answer what is a mass.

[sfsoma]

Can we in the USA trade Piers Morgan for this interviewer, please?

[ChrisTheory28]

@sfsoma no you can keep Piers Morgan, fingers crossed after a few years he might apply for a American passport and then hes your problem full time lol.

The bloke is a fucking idiot who destroyed peoples lifes, when he was an editor of a news paper over here he printed fake storys to sell his paper and got caught shame they never locked him up hes a evil man with an agenda!!!

[cuevarap]

Perfect natural laws in control of a well-balanced multidimentional universe, it's all there like an assorted 'all you can eat' buffet for scientists just waiting to be discovered, selected, understood, clearly defined. Anyone reading this will not see the end of this task in his life time.

[roddiero]

Lee is certainly a likable guy. Great interview.

[boodistGeek]

The interviewer asks surprisingly good questions

[roddiero]

@boodistGeek Yes, the interviewer is no dummy. His interview with Richard Dawkins also has lots of tough questions.

[boodistGeek]

@roddiero cool thx - what's the name of the video?

[roddiero]

@boodistGeek ?v=Pm4HbqUKmY0

[boodistGeek]

@roddiero you are very excellent

[roddiero]

@boodistGeek I found it with search 'richard Dawkins hard talk'

Hope you enjoy it.

[cloffff]

Im not sure who gave the hoards of self-superior, caps-locking internetters the idea that they know best about the true nature of quantum gravity, but they don't actually know very much.

The door has always been open to other candidate theories, but none of them have succeeded in unifying quantum field theory/the standard model with general relativity. String theory is the one unique solution to that problem right now, and might well be the only mathematically possible one.

[9493760]

MR. SMOLIN RUN WITH THIS. THE REASON MATHEMATICS FAILS IS ,THAT THE WHOLE STRING OF REALITY IS,"MECHANICAL " NOT MATHEMATICAL. EINSTEIN JUST THREW OUT A THEORY , A STARVING SOCIETY ATE IT UP. NO BIG BANG, WHY EVEN STATE IT? EVERYTHING WAS HERE AND ALWAYS WILL BE, WITH ENERGY LIKE MONEY GOING WHERE IT'S NEEDED. YOU ALL TALK OF SPACE AS IF IT HAS SUBSTANCE, IT'S THE SUBSTANCES IN SPACE THAT DO THE ENERGETIC . SPACE IS JUST THAT SPACE. NO STRINGS ATTACHED. OR RELATIVE.

GIANFRANCO FRONZI.DEC.11/1

[acr08807]

@9493760 Do you really think Smolin is reading comments here? Or that, if he were, he'd waste his time on comments in ALL CAPS?

[9493760]

@acr08807 IT'S MY ONLY WAY OF PUTTING OUT MY THOUGHTS. I'M NOT PART OF THE INSIDERS , I'M JUST A GUY WITH SOMETHING TO SAY. IF SMOLIN DOES READ IT MAYBE IT WOULD HELP.

GIANFRANCO FRONZI. JAN.1/12

[stuie721]

I like Lee Smolin, he seems like a nice guy. I'm not sure whether him exploring the potentials of LQG is the best thing for his career, but each to their own. Either way, I agree with him about string theory, it is the theory of the uncreative who have a need to sound intelligent. Even MB theory, which is simple speculation, seems to have more of a real world idea than string theory.

[givemeblowjob69]

String theory and M-theory is not a scientific theory. No way to prove any of the claims! Hence non-scientific

[Yallniggasbetrollin]

@givemeblowjob69

There was no way to prove gravity till Newton figured it out. Just because we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean it's non-scientific. Claiming that is retarded.

[givemeblowjob69]

@Yallniggasbetrollin But gravity was there.... you threw a ball in the air it came down. String theory is not abiding by the scientific method. The biggest section in the scientific method is observation and experimentation. Until someone devises an experiment to prove the claims its not a scientific theory. For now its like having faith.

[sieracki001]

The issue is that the area where the controversy lies is at such a high energy that it is extremely expensive to explore this area experimentally. The LHC is only going to take us so far, probably not far enough to decide some of these questions. Frankly I can't see our society forking over the dough to eclipse LHC. We are in serious debt and the public is practically illiterate so it cannot happen in the US.

[TaoPiet]

Smolin shows what is wrong with American science and society: political correctness.

[brownaleguru]

He makes string theory sound silly just as Kaku does.

[Evan2718281828]

fuck this idiot

[sirtophamhatt]

@Evan2718281828 if by "this idiot" you mean the host of the show

[Evan2718281828]

@sirtophamhatt nope, lee smolen is a dumbass

[sirtophamhatt]

@Evan2718281828 I've only paid a bit of attention to Smolin, and he doesn't come off here as either a dumbass or an idiot to be fucked. You must have spent a lot of time listening to him to form your opinion. Either way, your comments are unnecessarily hyperbolic, to put it mildly.

[sbergman27]

Smolin's LQG has not made any more in the way of testable predictions than has ST/MT. LQG is far less ambitious than is ST. It holds far less potential. And quite frankly, I'm a little tired of listening to Smolin's constant whining about his not getting enough funding. Nobody in science gets enough funding. Produce some results, Smolin, and you'll get more funding. As it stands, ST has greater potential, and has a slightly better experimental track record.

[kyaume21]

@sbergman27 ST has equally little to show for in terms of actual results, whilst it is undeniably true that attracts far more funding than any other competing theory. I agree with Smolin's assessment about the "premature consensus". There is no proof of ST (hence no Nobel prize, even after so many years!) but an awful level of entitlement among its practictioners. The only potential that counts in science is the potential to be a theory describing the world as it is.

[Tradd20]

Experiment and observation are what science is. Without that you have nothing. This is not something that applies to physics, but all sciences.

[nicoeste8765]

could all the 11 diemsnions from the 11th dimension-o dimension , then could all the dimensions be the 11 diferent vibrations of the same string in the 11th dimension, so there is only one string in all dimensions and this string produces 11 diferent vibrations that are diferent in frequency therfore this (strings can be like DNA in the sense they contain all iformation of every universe) so there can also exist alternative strings this will mean that there are alternative time lines ot Cosmos

[drsaberkhan]

does anyone think that string theorists are getting too much power at the expense of other theories like LCQ, twistor theory or e8 (which personally i find silly) ? i agree totally that there has been a monopolization of modern physics by theorists and science needs theory to make a prediction that can be tested repeatedly, and the presence/absence of the predicted observation has to be repeatable and either prove or disprove the theory; and there was no talk of ways to test quantum gravity

[acr08807]

@drsaberkhan String theory has dominated high energy particle theory, but that's a pretty small branch of physics. Right now the flavor of the month in HEP is phenomenology, because we're seeing LHC data, and somebody has to calculate all of those backgrounds. I agree that we ought to spread the HEP budget around a lot more, but how much do we want to fund any theoretical program (including LQG) that deals with energy levels beyond our ability to test experimentally?

[drsaberkhan]

its hardtalk the interviewer has BARELY any idea about anything the interviewee is an expert in. questions are supposed to be open, closed ones are leading ones with fait accompli's, and the interviewee is guilty until he/she proves themselves innocent. its actually the most efficient way to conduct an interview knowing nothing of the subject; i agree with smolin about string theory shows pieces of brilliance ive felt this since i read it 1st when i was 12, its been 15 years..just more pieces :(

[drsaberkhan]

has anyone ever seen smolin so patient ? :) hes likeable trying to be diplomatic. however this is my take on string theory; the math suggests superstring theory describes freedoms of movement (1d string, open connected to branes, closed can just move) that `energy' has to be limited to, in order to create the `illusion' of matter and forces that create particles and fields of force that we are aware of in the universe: i think spacetime will ultimately be proven recursive

[namanthakar]

The host doesn't know the difference between a theoretical physicist and a politician.

[andrewpolidori]

You can tell at 15:42 that he is just so fed up with the interviewers lack of understanding of what it is he's trying to say.

[ridewave444]

I believe Smolin is right about string theory.

[thenewrapstyle]

host is a muppet

[cristianfcao]

I'm surprised by how well informed is the interviewer (Stephen Sackur) for such as complicated topic. Yes he interrupted a lot and maybe my expectations were too low, but I really think he did a fine job considering the subject matter.

[mtv6500]

Whether you agree with Smolin or not, one thing is certain: the interviewer is absolutely stupid. Smolin is trying to explain his point of view but this gentleman is making it almost impossible! He could try to make things hard for Smolin in a smart way, but all he does is to keep interrupting to make the most ridiculous, preposterous questions. It's almost funny if it wasn't so annoying.

[dillonfreed]

@nmphotog Einstein refused to believe in (1) uncertainty and (2) the observer effect. I believe Smolin makes a similar error - many don't believe this is an error (read his book). He believes the universe is testable--- I believe at a level it is not... This is theoretical physics which doesn't mean anything goes but damn near close. If viewers affect what they study then that changes a lot. The grosser levels - like DNA - not so much. But our understanding of the nature of man and the univers

[heethen1]

He said that ST is one of half a dozen attempts to unification. What are the other ones? Besides loop quantum gravity

[niquark]

@heethen1 there is causal set theory, causal dynamical triangulation, etc. string theory is currently the most ambitious because it tries to unify all the forces, the rests that i mentioned including LQG are attempts to just unify general relativity and quantum field theory to find a quantum theory for gravity.

[bongibong]

@heethen1

Among many approaches :

- None commutative Geometry (from the French Mathematician Alain Connes, who got some significant results during the summer 2006, by obtaining the Model Standard Lagrangian)

- Twistor Theory (the mathematician Roger Penrose)

- The group theory E8 (an Exceptionnal Simple Theory by Garett Lisi)

[dillonfreed]

I believe, Smolin has found himself stuck in an objective universe... The same block/wall Einstein hit... If human consciousnesss affects the universe - where does science go? What happens to experiment? Can we go back to the traditional scientific method?

[nmphotog]

@dillonfreed What does that even mean? Ptolemy's view of the universe was "right," until Copernicus said it wasn't. This cycle continues throughout history. Scientists probing DNA structures will hardly blink an eye, their scientific methods will not change and nor will any other branch that does science and makes discoveries about nature every single day. Your tone is philosophical. Discovery in science sometimes comes from philosophy. Most come from a good idea that actually works.

[BlankVellum]

@dillonfreed If human consciousness affects the universe? What on Earth would lead to to assert such an arrogant claim?

[mubasherjamil]

I agree with Smolin that controversy and conflict are necessary for the growth of science rather that a pre-mature concensus.

[beatsone]

LHC

[LoopQuantumGravity1]

As one can discern from my YT moniker, I totally concur with Dr. Smolin. String theory has made many claims, but none of them have been verified by experiment. Also, there seems to be a string theory snobbery of sorts. "Big Science" with its big money has settled on string theory, to the exclusion of other ideas. Loop Quantum Gravity is a viable alternative to the ST paradigm, yet the public has never heard of it. Why is that? We should be open to other models of quantum gravity.

[LoopQuantumGravity1]

@LoopQuantumGravity1

I will go further than Lee here - there is absolutely no evidence of suoersymmetry - a core requirement for superstring models. There is no evidence for extra "curled up dimensions". Indeed, string theorists have abandoned Calabi-Yau manifolds after mathematicians pointed out to them CY manifolds contain SINGULARITIES, which are devastating to their models. Yes, these are highly technical points, but points the PUBLIC never heard about! Again, why is that?

[LoopQuantumGravity1]

Respond to this video... Look, I'm just 1 physicist responding to a YT video - I'll probably never be heard. Yes, I know Witten won the Fields Medals and Greene is  more famous than I'll ever be. But that doesn't negate my objections to string theory. Luckily, science isn't a popularity contest. String theory hasn't justified its claims, and that's a fact.