String Theory for the Scientifically Curious with Dr. Amanda Peet

[tampananogirl]

Great talk ,,,thamks , As a 45 year old woman who loves quantum physics and was taught to be a good housewife type .we need more giis exposed to the wonders of science

[estegy]

the video has stopped 11:03

did any one have the same problem ??

[63Hertzi]

@estegy just refresh it

[exiledregiment]

"we really understand this shit"

[kingddot]

great talk! lol at the guy who kept rubbing his hair dont know if anyone noticed :L

[robbiez777]

New Zealand. Win.

[Tuberinio1949]

I can't believe the ignorant and stupid comments here. The woman isn't here to entertain as if this is reality TV and her personality is completely irrelevant. to her subject. She's a high energy physicist with more education than most of you clowns can ever in a million years aspire to.

[johnmair]

@Tuberinio1949 high energy physicists can be dicks too, and this one is a dick.

[fzelenko]

@woshy0 I can tell by your comment you should probably not try arguing with adults

[fzelenko]

@drsaberkhan great job at missing the point and even better job at making yourself sound like a full fledged academician.

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator personally i do feel that a manifold (container of some shape) beyond our 3d world needs to exist where energy can change from one form to another, cuz energy conversion is much like a magicians trick where a rabbit comes out of a hat. that hidden hat is like 3 hidden dimensions right? the other possibility is its infront of us in 3d and we cant see it. now its possible for matter-energy and the like but gravity:space and speed:time relations point to the magician again

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator ok if youre fine with that, spacetime itself is a field of energy. why? cuz if you change speed, time changes. change gravity (which is based on mass which is based on energy) and space changes. so reduce it all to spacetime is a field of energy. the qn is, where is all this conversion happening ? if energy produces all these forms, its like the elephant and the 3 blind men. wheres the elephant? if were not blind and cant see the elephant is it in the 3 dimensions ?

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator its proven that electricity creates magnetism and mass creates gravity. and what are gravity and magnetism? theyre fields (geometric things, with a specific amount of area, a shape, and a border). and everyone knows mass is a form of energy (e=mc(sq(2))). and electricity is a form of energy. so energy creates magnetism, and gravity, and its also responsible for the 2 other forces, and their fields. so its natural to assume there must be some theory to connect em all right?

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator thank you firstly, its hard to find good behavior on YT sadly :) and your question isnt stupid its actually over 100 yrs old :) some think of it an escape, like saying `its invisible to us higher dimensions cant be studied awww well gues you cant prove my theory wrong' and that is true it certainly can be a copout. at the same time, lets think about stuff we can touch and force right ? newton didnt believe there was a field of space. maxwell and einstein proved that wrong.

[drsaberkhan]

amanda peet is an honest researcher, and yeah she lacks social graces but shes not arrogant. some of the qns asked at the end would piss anyone off believe me, cuz the characters she's asked about did have the SSC cancelled and you wanna see arrogant watch smolin talk he writes nicely but that guy is arrogant. im on amandas side here yeah she shouldnt have gone after the guy but the girl RAN thru 90 yrs of physics, and theyre asking her what she THINKS of ap physicist? thats rude too bros

[drsaberkhan]

i think trying to condense red shift to d-branes made amanda lose whatever comic timing she had, and ive never seen her over-represent string theory ever. and id like to find ppl who have as much as grasp of LCQ as ppl have of superstring theory. leo susskind had the same dry humor btw, but the old man pulls it off-he was part of the rat pack with dick feynman smoot hawking. as i said i feel if one of those guys or greene who gave the lecture ppl wud luv it so maybe it is somewhat amandas fault

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator my critique or the theory ? well the truth is compared to **** loop quantum gravity or bloody e8 or twistor theory superstring theory is still a bloody masterpiece, those ones, i mean i dont think smolin could tell LCQ's head from its ass. the best things proving string theory are black hole entropy (theoretical) graphene modeling (theoretical) being mathematically sound (not as sweet as before) i believe SUSY is pretty close to the answer just not TODAY'S recipes...

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator here's my reasoning. time is a field effect of energy, and it changes based on speed. how come that CHANGE isnt causing a time hole ? know what i mean ? too much gravity=changing space too much=black hole. so too much speed=changing time too much=nothing? this may be symmetry breaking, but until someone proves that, i believe that some higher plane must exist. is it string theory's 6d ? dunno. but the math suggests some extra dim's. hope that made sense.

[drsaberkhan]

wow her attempts at comedy are tragic! she just unified greek theatrical dichotomy even if she couldnt unify gravity and QM :) i think if she slowed down, and someone like greene or tyson or even me gave the same lecture with some oomph, it could be pretty good but she compressed everything and the jokes have zero inflection :( sometimes the comedian matters more than the comedy

[drsaberkhan]

@HyperBorealOperator its really lots of math, and the math barely hangs together by a string :) the bosonic model has been disproved, the attempt to explain graphene's been tossed out, HE theory mixes elements from M-theory and the bosonic model and a lagrangian chiral field theory requires R-symmetry and zero gravity just to prove a ground state. its not THAT elegant even as math anymore, i'll stick to GR and QCD for now, only LCQ and the standard model are uglier as math

[drsaberkhan]

IMO dr. peet tries to be social but uses her own lens to see how well she does-i used to have that problem, maybe i still do. now a michio kaku's charismatic, sp it makes her seem quite bi**** by comparison but he doesnt work in the field. even personable ppl like greene and tyson get pissed. im not saying this was an entertaining (or even that educational) for non-scientists) but most scientists get asked the same queries so much its a little annoying. richard dawkins OTOH is truly arrogant

[drsaberkhan]

peet sucks as someone trying to evangelize scientific knowledge for the common man. that doesnt mean shes not a good physicist (about 80% of physicists and mathematicians' jobs are publishing dead ends so thats not a huge compliment btw) but compared to greene she seems like sheldon from big bang theory :) and neil d. tyson is untouchable but lets face it astrophysics is easier to explain than theoretical physics. the KING was feynman, unfortunately he never touched any GUT stuff

[fzelenko]

The only thing that a Phd indicates for sure is that a person has the ability to absorb and regurgitate all the information that they are fed. It basically comes down to how well you can regurgitate the rhetoric that is currently popular with the "priesthood". A Phd will never help you to think the way that is required to discover a truth.

[drsaberkhan]

@fzelenko :D PhDs differ acording to fields. in say architechture you need to sum up what others have done and just put together whats called a metastudy, studying what others have studied and giving your own opinion. in theoretical physics math economics you need to at least throw a new valid viewpoint on old established theories or off observed facts. experimental physics can be based on a fluke though

[woshy0]

@fzelenko certainly you do not have a PhD, or if you have it THAT comes from a null university!

[fzelenko]

@g0oey if we were in ancient Egypt you would say: based on the negative comments here, I take it that everyone commenting here has several apprenticeships and priest statuses at the temples of horus and luxor. I just got my Phd in theoretical physics. Multiple degrees Phd's and doctorates, letters before and after your name are not indications of intelligence or the ability to reason creatively.It is not an indication of important work accomplished and new and interesting ideas created.

[drsaberkhan]

@fzelenko what was your dissertation on bro ? a masters or a bachelors dont need any new thinking sure, but a PhD in theoretical physics (im assuming particle physics) needs somethign new unless youre advisor or committee have the hots for you or you .. exchanged some other forms of equity. you got by on a meta-analysis on current existing theories or something ?

[elvis633]

i have a two inch flaccid penis

[lilth501]

Kiwi Physicists Abroad Amanda Peet

[channalDEyoungKEET]

i love how 14 ppl sit down on their laptop ...and youtube "string theory"...and get a hour lecturor on it ..and ofcorse ..not just flip to the next vid..but be like..."hey, this dosent have any cats doing funny things....DISLIKE THUMBS DOWN!!!"

[JarJar88forever]

@HyperBorealOperator Are they really? Or do they just sport the studied I-don't-care-about-my-looks hair.

[JarJar88forever]

I was about to watch this again, but I'll skip it. Of all you folks defending Dr. Peet's attitude, I ask, do you have AS, ADD or any other disorder that would make you fail to address questions directly? I think Dr. Peet may.

[Tradd20]

Nice non-technical talk. Gotta cringe at some of the lame jokes though.

[ajthrax1]

disrespectful to the questioners. She feels her theory CANT be wrong... a fatal flaw in science

[Evan2718281828]

@ajthrax1

you're an idiot

[ajthrax1]

@Evan2718281828 and you're the reason science is moving at the pace it is... because you are unable to look at things from multiple perspectives.

[Evan2718281828]

@ajthrax1

you realize an intelligent design proponent could say the same thing right? I can look at it from multiple perspectives, and I have the sense to see that one of them is obviously correct.

[icecold99]

This video continues to lag! .. very upsetting. i only get audio. interesting, but very one sided

[seanmPWH]

The universe may not be expanding, Red shift can be explained by light traveling through particles in space, the further an object is from us the more particles between us and distant objects therefor red light. See the video: "Big Bang's Been Disproved Now What?" Particles in space take care of the CBR as well.What's more, anytime we get greater resolution on deep space images we find the predicted undeveloped galaxies are not there.

[MurdaZen]

fuck this, keeps gettin to 5 seconds and fuckin up

[AutoBahnForever]

The jury is still out.

The ability of Science to say " we just arent sure that this is the answer and we are still working on it " makes it so powerful and credible.

This is what we know to date and what leading thinkers are focusing on........a great update.

[Cosmodot256]

She mentions the entropy of a black hole supporting the ST models, but has that actually be observed? Black hole radiation? Don't think it has. I'm not saying Hawking is wrong. He's certainly more qualified than I am in the field, but none of this can be seen anywhere but on paper. I'm not saying ST is wrong, but neither was Newton. He wasn't completely right either...

[JarJar88forever]

@ allTRIPLE1: How can her attack of the Indian guy be called "blunt"? BTW, Judge Judy needs her ass kicked.

[JarJar88forever]

@lefthandovRA: ST can NOT be proven by experiment. According to the Scientific Method, ST is not science.

[allTRIPLE1]

She is a tough and smart Physicist. She reminds me of Judge Judy with her personality. They, both are very blunt. Anyhow, her talk was interesting.

[philm2004]

she is actually a bit rude, but obviously extremely intelligent.

[GotenMaxwell]

I can't wait to prove religion wrong. But it has already been done... :(

[thraxman]

Great video, much enjoyed.

[TheDAT573]

This woman is extremely rude.

[AAAjMMMiRRR]

i feel uneasy listening to the jokes

[ladyboylizard]

oh gosh so rude. she doesnt like chinese people

[mycargoship]

She is giving us a BAD NAME> I hope this gets taken off youtube before people think all of us are like her! LOL-- Gee Lenny will poop his pants when he sees this? WOW- I have taken many Susskind classes and he is not like this at all. I PROMISE. He respects everybody. Please someone stop her via email please. I love Lenny he is cool. This girl is a freak! WOW Great entertaiment quality tho!

[sparkloweb]

Haha, when she got all defensive, casting insults and ranting about SCIENCE in response to basic questions about uncertainty, I thought I was watching a climatologist!

It really harms credibility when an expert responds to common questions like that. Combined with the fact that she hardly even discussed string theory, the people still had plenty reason to be skeptical at the end. Who cares about the random guy's standard of proof - what is the standard that string theorists hold themselves to?

[FukPhysics]

lol, all her jokes are for like graduate student nerds.

[Qulopuaa]

So strings gets fatter with energy and then moves into a black hole" .

[Qulopuaa]

When the Universe exploded into existance where did the recoil go ?

[sbergman27]

@Qulopuaa The BB was (and is; it's still happening) a uniform expansion of space. Space expanded uniformly, and the matter was carried along with it. Depending on your preferred way of thinking, there is no center, or we're all at the center because the center is everywhere. There would be no "recoil". Alternatively, you could say that it's everywhere, like the CBR. You are standing at the site of the BB, as is every point in this Universe.

[Qulopuaa]

@sbergman27 .I don't conqur.Space might not have expanded uniformly since it became into existance in a medium of something. We -namely everything is getting diffused by nothing that expands us and wants everything to be just nothing and it will win. Well if this media was vacumenery then the very small universe must have be subject just to that points current interactions where the universe was formed.

[sbergman27]

@Qulopuaa I'm not sure what you are saying. But I'll note that space has *not* expanded at the same rate throughout its history. There was a short burst of rapid "inflation". We do know from observation that the Hubble Law and constant are valid in every direction we look. Space is expanding. Objects bound by forces do not expand with space. You, me, planets, stars, even galaxies, are bound by gravitational and EM forces. That remains true until you get past about the level of "galaxy cluster".

[Qulopuaa]

@sbergman27 .You are so shure we not expanded into something that already existed-maybe the recoil is the dark energy, anyway I think the matter is explained by you.

[sbergman27]

@Qulopuaa You might enjoy this video about "The Expanding Universe":

youtube . com /watch?v=MoTNGmlOO2g

It does a pretty good job of illustrating the expansion. Also note that if space had an "edge" which was expanding into something, that something would have to lie well past the boundary of our observable Universe, forever hidden from us. "Under the rug", so to speak.

Also note the similarity between this question, and the question of what, exactly, a light wave "waves" through.

[parakmi1]

the universe is a big vr program with lots of random number generators in its code.

[Qulopuaa]

@parakmi1 .My thought also-I grasped the concept that but i lost it....

[perfectidius1980]

jarjar has an unparalleled grasp of string theory: quantum gravity is only about rocks falling to earth

[JarJar88forever]

For those of you that are slow, an experiment proving ST proves quantum gravity would be like; "In accord with String Theory, this rock must & will travel towards the center of Earth when I release it. This result can be duplicated by any qualified Sring Theorist."

[JarJar88forever]

1:21 Peet; "what standard of proof...?".  Set up & duplicate a predicted outcome of an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothysis? ST proves quantum gravity? Set up an experiment to prove that & predict result.

[JarJar88forever]

Chick isn't used to being questioned. Wonder what her man is like...

[81388jason]

i love your attitude your so cool fuck them retards that want to bad mouth you they can go to hell dont ever change im adhd and learning comes hard for me but you made me understand as much as i can i wish you could help me devide polynominels

[81388jason]

i love your attitude your so cool fuck them retards that want to bad mouth you they can go to hell dont ever change

[drandersw]

I hate her use of the word sexy. Did she never have any? All her attempts at humor spoiled the lecture.

[JohnnyRock2000]

10 times more information than anyone could really absorb. Brains explode. Rapid fire education doesn't work with humans.

[sooperfukker]

seriously, what the fuck is wrong with that dyke ?

[0urGaia]

Excellent presentation and a little peak into politics of science at question time which obviously frustrates many scientist. thank you/

[g0oey]

Based on the negative comments here, I take it that everyone commenting has phds, several fellowships and world renowned theories? Of course..I mean, as we all know, the Youtube underbelly is such a well adjusted, educated lot.

[matThaHatter]

@g0oey oh hey, u are close mind eleat ist jerrky-jerk face

[sbergman27]

@g0oey Well, while I tend to agree with your general analysis of YT commentators... in this case, I have to note that Amanda needs to take a chill-pill. The criticisms made of String Theory by audience members were reasonable and based on fact. But Peet threw a fit. Other String Theorists acknowledge their field's difficulties gracefully, exhibiting an inner confidence in their work. Peet acted alarmingly defensively, as if she lacks confidence in ST, in her heart of hearts.

Time will tell...

[JarJar88forever]

@g0oey I don't need a PhD (not phd), & several fellowships to know when somebody gets overly defensive & hostile when they are asked what experiment can prove ST.

[BigMTBrain]

@JarJar88forever - In fact, I think she's lucky that, as far as I know, statements made on video are not considered libelous, as are written statements. (That's quite interesting as they are both a record of what was said.)

[lefthandovRA]

@JarJar88forever the discovery of broken symmetry can prove ST...

[PixelMischief]

@g0oey Our lack of comparable credentials in Physics does not in any way disqualify or devalue our observations as they pertain to Ms. Peet's social graces. While she appears here to be intelligent, educated, decorated, and productive, she also shows herself to be somewhat vulgar, terse, indelicate, and intolerant. Given the former, I can easily forgive the latter.

[DasKrabbe]

@PixelMischief

Well... Not if you're having lunch with her.

[NathanaelSaintCyr]

@PixelMischief Well done. My thoughts precisely. 

[Mayhemm007]

Ok.....Totally not who I was expecting.

[music9167001]

At 1:20:15 "Its absolutely fundamentally wrong that there are no testable predictions of ST".

At 1:21 "Can you then give an example of a testable prediction?"

Answer (1:22:12) : Uhhhh.... Why do you bother to come to the talk?

Her voice sounds like a cheap imitation of the way Ed Witten talks.

[CliffStamp]

@music9167001 She did not handle that overly well which was interesting as that would be the obvious question as that has been around since the theory itself, Feynman was very vocal on that being his position as critical on string theory. Saying we can calculate something, however we can not actually check the calculation, really is not a testable prediction. To be fair though, it is like asking Einstein if general relativity was testable while he was still developing it.

[sbergman27]

@boxingnews247 Read Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativlity of Wrong". Once you read it and understand it, you'll stop saying things like "theories are always proved wrong". In general, theories which have gained our confidence through experiment are not "proven wrong". They are shown to be incomplete. e.g. Relativity simplifies to Newtonian mechanics for velocities gravitational fields which are not almost unimaginably extreme. Newton's physics are as correct today as they were before Einstein.

[boxingnews247]

@sbergman27 In the bigger picture we know very little- cause of the big bang, why we are here, dark energy, dark matter, black holes. Until these are answered we know very little.

[sbergman27]

@boxingnews247 That's bit of faux-wisdom is simplistic and trivial. We know a great deal. The fact that there is much more to discover doesn't change that. And in general, successful theories are not thrown out, but extended, sometimes in rich and surprising ways. e.g. Newton's gravity -> Relativity. I note, in particular, that you think Dark Matter is a fundamental mystery? How so? What don't we know about it? That's a serious question for your consideration. The answer might surprise you.

[boxingnews247]

@sbergman27 I am stating the obvious and the fact that you are disagreeing with me is rather silly and perplexing at the same time. We clearly do not know a great deal if we still do NOT understand the basics of the Universe. In relation to Dark Matter there is NO direct evidence of its existence or a concrete understanding of its nature.. so what are you arguing about?

[sbergman27]

@boxingnews247 We know a great deal about DM. We know that it interacts with baryonic matter only gravitationally & maybe through the the Weak force. We have actual maps of it. We know from the bullet cluster data that it's not due to modified gravity, and that it doesn't interact with other DM either. We have its most interesting properties down. What we lack is a particle name and various quantum numbers to put in a table. It's a weakly interacting particle, like a neutrino, but more massive.

[atheistkyo]

@boxingnews247 Don't talk shit about things you understand nothing of.

[boxingnews247]

@atheistkyo shut your mouth you gimp retard what do you know trolling around Youtube

[boxingnews247]

Respond to this video... Your probably some dumb student who thinks "yeah man this is it"

[kalejut]

@boxingnews247 String theory is very legit

[lefthandovRA]

@boxingnews247 not necessary every theory have one of these destiny 1)it is wrong in some area therefore i cant explain all the things 2)it is correct.....so u cant say all theories are proved wrong in time...

[boxingnews247]

@lefthandovRA Who said "every" or "all" theories are proved wrong in time?. I think you need to read what I wrote again! It is clear that throughout history many ideas have proved to be wrong when science has advanced to the stage where it is able to test theories. Any way I do not understand what you are saying..

[lefthandovRA]

@boxingnews247 //Many excepted theorys today are always proved wrong in time.// thats what u said....and if u didnt understand what i said then how did u reply??

[1stCainite]

@boxingnews247 "Many excepted theorys today are always proved wrong in time."

First: It is spelled accepted.

Second: "Many things today" cannot "always be [something] in the future". Grammar, learn it.

Third: Wow, you're psychic?

[boxingnews247]

@1stCainite You little idiot! You clearly understand what i wrote so what's your problem? I do not have time to check spelling and grammar unlike u.... whats funny about your comment is that you wrote the word "spelled" when you should have wrote "spelt". GO SOME LEARN GRAMMAR GIMP BOY

[1stCainite]

@boxingnews247 Touché. You found one in a paragraph. I took out a sentence and found three.

As for the rest of your first post: How does she have a bad attitude? Compared to your attitude in your last post, I wouldn't think you had anything to say about her.

[boxingnews247]

@1stCainite Like i said i do not go over what i wrote so inevitably there will be mistakes... so what? My point is why not comment on what I have said rather than be childish and point out spelling or grammar errors. I may have overreacted to your silly comments but are you trying to tell me that physicist doesn't have a bad attitude?

[1stCainite]

@boxingnews247 Grammar is a pet peeve of mine. i apologise.

I actually don't think she have a particularly bad attitude, no.

She is a bit bad at making jokes, but that is common in people with slim fields of interest with limited social interaction. The rest of her presentation seems like a pretty standard lecture.

[PREM00SE]

@1stCainite Hmmm... bad grammar is your pet peeve? "I actually don't think she have a particular bad attitude" She have? HAS!!! You also said "i apologise" We'll leave the spelling of apologise alone since I understand differences between British and American spelling, but one might say that proper capitalization is correct grammar. Get over your pet peeve, since your so hypocritical. You understood what he said. Just like I still understood what you said.

[1stCainite]

@boxingnews247 Also. Proved is the preterite to prove. Proven is the adjective you want to use here.

[sirdelrio]

@boxingnews247 it's too bad that you want a particular theory to be proven false because you dont like the proponent. that is as childish and inmature as it can get.

[sirdelrio]

@boxingnews247 all i see is a rather geeke girl. beyond that, it's you the others that thumbed your comment the ones with the hatefull attitude. why is she close minded? at least she is a scientist, she has earned a right to speak about this subject. it is the mouth that spouts poisonous feelings that should be shut.

[addis11100]

I think she is rude for not acepting the question asked at 1.26 by the lady and she is

also rude for insulting people who are against string theory she is close mind.

[FallofDarkness55]

@addis11100 String theory, or more appropriately M-theory, is like the only explanation for our universe's existence in the pre-big bang realm. It also explains why our universe's expansion rate is speeding up right now. It seems logical that an outside force is acting on our universe's expansion via a collision, so to speak. The multi-verse and 11 dimensional hyperspace is very convincing for the deep mysteries of what we call "reality"!

[drsaberkhan]

@FallofDarkness55 not really bro, actually the expansion or anti-gravitational effect, actually breaks dynamic supersymmetry breaking in all forms of string theory. and since symmetry breaking is an observed fact, the fact that the universe is expanding is described only by general relativity once the cosmological constant einstein used to renormalize it is taken out

[LordNapalm]

Great talk. Also got the feeling that you don't want to be on Professor Peet's bad said. Rawr.