Added: 4 years ago
From: ogniank
Views: 177,826
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (213)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • whats the name of the cello piece of music shes playing?

  • I totally recommend to read brian green´s books if you´re interested in this topic.

  • "if we can only master"...

    You should seriously consider why he said that-for this is exactly the problem of humanity-They keep seeking endlessly how to USE things,yet...Check for WHAT they are using it all-and the way they use it is eventually for growing bigger/stronger/faster and so on,or just to satisfy their stupid emotional craving,or simply for the goal of Total dominion of everything.

    I believe the problem with science resides within the people who explore it-for their goals are empty.

  • Yep... Ed Witten murdered a guy.

  • Odd responses on this video once more.

  • I think this section includes the best basic summary I've ever seen or read.

  • I am so fucking confused...

  • So strings are made of energy? Is there any smaller building block?

  • Its amazing that in sting theory music has made up life!!!

  • 3:18 a guy!

  • Oh NOVA how do I love thee? Let me count the ways... I love you in the first dimension, I love your image in 2D, 3D you are all around me, 4D you are with me always. ... 5D you are here again, and in 6D you're fucking i dunno I can't wrap my head around you...

  • A truism of this is that it is irrational to consider fundamental particles as, well, fundamental. Why would scientists having discovered the atom, then the nucleus, then the proton and neutron and then the quark, ever assume that this was the limit. Dogs have small fleas upon their back which do annoy and bite them, and small fleas have lesser fleas, and so on ad infinitum.

  • @Huttate1 Not really, an infinite series of matryoshka dolls ' ad infinitum' isn't rational. In fact maximum length planes were defined long ago. A plank length is pretty much as small as we believe you can go.

  • Comment removed

  • i think the theory of everything all goes back to time travel...i just dont see where else it would fit. they are fucking around with time lol

  • *Head pops*

  • They make Ed Witten seem like a fucking serial killer. "This.... is ED WITTEN!" que freaky music

  • @MuteHelperComments LOL BRO U ARE SO RIGHT LOLOLOL he looks like the murderer from the movie doctor patch adams.

  • @MuteHelperComments Weird. Here's *exactly* what happened:

    A few minutes into the video I happen to casually glance at the top comment. I read it again as it is interesting. I recognize having seen the name previously somewhere in the video. I think "sh!t, i'll have to go look for it now, and that's going to be difficult to find". I was trying to remember some reference point, for a few seconds while the video is still playing, when the exact part (creepy intro) played at that very moment.

  • This is why I could Never ever be a physicists. I just couldn't sit in a attic spending hours and hours accomplishing nothing. That would drive me insane.

  • @vampov

    A lot of them do it for the same reason gamers play games. Even if they know they won't accomplish anything they do it because physics holds their interests.

  • @vampov Never played a computer game or a board game. Read a book or done some art or modelling? These people do it because they enjoy it.

  • WITTEN, Whitman (???)

  • Whitman - smart or not - what a dick

  • @bryanebrown27 Why?

  • Music of the spheres...

  • Ed Whitman, heavyweight champion of physicist's.

  • gotta love all the oversimplified models they give you. My fav was the baseball one

  • does this means that if we could learn how to change strings vibrations we could create objects from the air?????? :O

  • @Romavolov Well...they already know how to do that...but what kind of equipment would you need to do such a feat? Or if you could xD meditate enough as to change they way the energy that makes the atoms in your body be whatever they are...then you could change your very structure. Wich starts to be more of a philosophical matter because what is exactly that wich makes you a human. For now...i'm only text in a screen for you...for someone else i'm a body living...vibrating. So yeah...

  • 3:07 he cracked me up

  • the Hindu Bagavadgita mentions this string? or vibration? in Brahman?

  • The song is Bach's "Prelude to Suite Number One in G Major (BWV 1007)"

    Shouldn't the "M" stand for "membrane"?

  • Apply Law Of Attraction and they would have it tomorrow!! 

  • The String Theory: The Only Good Thing About the Eighties.

  • I guess nothing on youtube is immune to senseless arguing

  • I don't understand how billions of tiny oscillating energy strings could compose particles of solid matter. Also, how can their frequencies determine things like charge? and on that matter, are these strings also subject to the law of duality?

  • @sgb1223 Everything is vibration. And these strings are what they are interpreting as the vibration. EVERYTHING IS VIBRATION! Einstien said it first... but it has always been so.

  • "Well we all think we're very smart,but he's so much smarter than the rest of us"GOD DAMMIT WTF DOES THAT MAKE ME!A MONKEY??

  • This is why we keep Theoretical physicists in some form of laboratory environment, so they get a better grip on reality. they take perfectly fine models such as the quark models and literally tie them up in knots.there's no experimental evidence to prove string theory, it does'nt matter how beautifull or elegant the theory is if it does'nt agree with experiment, its wrong.it gets way too much hype, don't get me wrong i love theoretical physics but this is just too theoretical.

  • A 1 followed by 105 zeros thats the number of strings in our known universe but even thats a drop in the bucket next to the infinitverse

  • its good but in additation of the 11th diamentation this theory changed

  • You are just a vibration

  • i wanna bang the cello player

  • what vibrates strings

  • @vlatin1 energy and the extra dimensions.

    god, pay attention.

  • @shoshanish

    What energy? Do you mean, you think it 's coming from the other dimensions

  • @vlatin1 no, the other dimentions being there AND the energy that is in EVERY particle.

    god, it says it all in the first few vids!

  • @shoshanish

    You must be a child, you are not making any sense, the other dimensions being there??? and how would energy within matter vibrate strings.

  • @vlatin1 dude, im just repaeting what they said in thhe video, got it?

    god, you like my classmate who doesnt get something until the teacher tells him like 20 times.

  • @shoshanish dude, just fucking rewatch the show.

  • @shoshanish do you lack common courtesy? This isnt 2x=1. Its string theory. Without asking questions, how can we progress even further? for every 1*10^99 questions asked, atleast one of them are bound to be a revolutionary one. Imagine how many times these guys with nobel prizes have asked themselves 'stupid' questions. its part of the process!

    "god, you like my classmate who doesnt get something until the teacher tells him like 20 times." i'm worried that this bothers you.

  • @neomerik A. wasnt talking to you, butt the fuck out.

    B. shutthefuckup, did you even read all my comments, im just reapeating what was said in the video, if one does not get the video, one shouldnt be trying to watch this stuff.

    S.T.F.U

  • @neomerik ALSO, BLOCKED.

  • @shoshanish haha, you are obviously joking. either that or you got some sort of disorder. whatever floats your boat i guess.

  • @neomerik no, im not, im just saying what the past 2 parts of this episode said.

    god, wtf is so fucking hard?

  • Does another universe use something else then the strings?

  • i need to smoke what that nigga be smoking

  • 3:35 Brian's a creeper...

  • So, God is a musician - Faithless are right: "God is a DJ" :DDD I wonder if we shrink to the size of strings, how the world will change, and do we really see strings in black space like in animation here, or in white light, or anything else imaginable..

  • i like cake!

  • @DoublePines Ur a f@g yet agian

  • wait. quarks ARE strings? or inside the quarks, are strings?

  • @greatestwhoeverlived

    quarks are the strings

  • @bdwilson1000 quarks make up protons, but even smaller are the strings, much much smaller

  • I like it, logical

  • I think we need to steer away from the word god, personally.

  • @Elsweyr666 I think we need to steer away from dispraising someone for being christian, atheist, muslim, jew or whatever, personally.

  • want to hear a funny joke? "god did it" hahahahaha

  • don't start.

  • ah...the never stoping quarrel between idiots and seekers - we are all almost equaly blind to the truth. But...is there a truth? And if there is - can we comprehend it from were we are right now ? One thing for sure...I rather be a seeker of truth rather then an idiot. The movie rocks btw , it was a pleasure to watch :)

  • The cost is more than the gold is worth once you've turned lead into gold. Same with turning a turd into a diamond.

  • 5 theory perhaps there is more, but how can light be divided into rainbows ?

  • It's called refraction, bending of light, like shining a beam of light at a prism at a particular angle which refracts the light.

  • @skylineer288 If light is divided by refraction and that is how we see different colors. Is the universe the color of one big white light, but our eyes ( being refractive ?) help us recognize the divisions? I wonder is this what Adam and Eve saw? :)

  • th string is flexible, strong, weak, tension, beautiful, ugly like thought.

  • soo if we could manipulate these hypothetical "strings" and change elemts could we theoretically thrun lead into gold?

  • You can already turn lead into gold. Don't need string theory to do that.

  • What song is played on the cello around 1:27 ?

  • its Bach's first cello suite The first movement - Prelude!

  • And the second one?

  • lol... good question.. sorry mate!

  • @italia300 Thank you so very much the other night I was working with some equations and while I was looking for the value of the variable this popped into my head and it drove me crazy that I didn't know the name of it! TY! ^_^

  • @italia300 yes, yes it is. and considering the fact that a comment about bach is the highest rated on this video, one can make the assumption that those curious about science, math, and philosohy (the big subjects) also enjoy bach's music, therefor suggesting a relation beween the two. i think its safe to say that bach is the music of the intellectual mind.

  • @italia300 Before watching it I knew what you mean. XDD that is played in that American Express Ad!

  • `Time`..`Beginning`..`End`..`I­nfinite`...these are all terms created by Man.The fact of the matter is, we don`t yet fully understand the absolute scheme of things...whatever that may be.

  • No shit.

  • Is the universe infinite? if it is, then it is as infinite large as it is small, so how can we even begin to say this is the smallest of the small?

  • Theres no number called infinite. Its just a concept like a circle.

  • Id say its more like it has no center like a fractal, if it doesnt have a center and u say its like a circle then no matter how far I travel in space I will always end up in the place I started, we have to understand that center, start and end are concepts made by us, the same goes for size and others I think.

  • by abandoning the notion that spacetime is a continuum.

  • they are only saying it is the smallest of the small that they currently know of, or have a theory for. and as for the universe being infinite that's not entirely true. the known universe is indeed finite, it's just expanding.

  • Its theoretical.

  • Well that's just the point. Basically, think of the days when man standardized clothing into what's called small, medium, & large sizes to create unifomity among soldiers. Standardized clothing was invented. The same can be said about theories. Scientists go out and search for a 'suit' or theory to best describe or 'fit' what they percieve. In this case reaserchers came back with a suit called string thory- it's just a model that seems to work until a better suit is found.

  • Relativity was just a model- a model that was incomplete but worked enough to be verified by experimentation. That is the key- Experimentation. Ultimatly if it can't pass the test of experimentation or until then you can consider it to be philosophy or mathematical literature and nothing more! Proof is the ultimate goal throughout science!! Without that it's merely literature.

  • Ultimately, slowdub, yours is the ultimate infinite loop- the biggest problem in physics- past, present, future!! Ultimately researchers get tired of that and try to force a 'new' theory down everyones throat. They come back with the newest red suit called string thory!! They merely ignore the obvious- if strings are the ultimate fundamental 'particle' then consists of its' building blocks?!!

  • Do you not understand there is no beggining, or end there just is existance of time infinite.

  • You don't understand the tautology of your own statement. To say that there is not beginning or end but only time infinite is a total contradiction of your very statement!! Ha,ha, ha!! Sorry, I just find that amusing! I'm sorry your statement is not well thought out and is unfortunately irrelevant.

  • and could you explain how his statement contradicts itself? everyone can say everything is wrong but you need evidence to prove it wrong

  • The simplest answer to your quesiton is that there is 'time' is to also say there is a beginning and end because that is what time is- a beginning and an end. That is the very definition of time itself. If there is no beginning and no end then you are no longer speaking about time!!!!! You are speaking about something which you haven't bothered to define!! I hope that answers you quesiton! It should answer your question because it is a total and complete answer to your question!!!!

  • Time or the temporal in physics is just a word that describes intervals of change, it has nothing to do with beginning and end. In relativity it's called spacetime they are non-categorically differentiable, one of the effects of which, in the case of time, is non-simultaneity (which *is* evidenced and used in modern technology namely GPS systems) proving "time" or simply the interval of change an object goes through is utterly relative to each respective object's velocity.

  • I respectfully disagree with you. When someone refers to intervals of "change" this implies a start and a stop, hence beginning and end if for nothing more the 'interval' itself. Additionally, you can refer to spacetime as much as you want which proves nothing except the language relativity refers to in respect with time. Since relativity bar far falls short of being a comprehensible explanation of reality it's use of the concept of time is by far the final word.

  • I'm aware of the spacetime concept, however I consider this to be a 'fudge' element. A faux pas in physics. It's a seductive concept but I believe it is more of an obstacle to our path of understanding reality than it is a help. Much like Microsoft windows is to computers!!! Lol!! I've said it before, relativity is the MS windows of physics- it works at 'some' level, calculates some stuff, but still full of bugs and incomplete.

  • The pendulum hasn't made it full swing yet. When it does I think we're going to find MS windows actually slowed mankinds progress and like wise relativity!!!

  • no beginning and no end is the basis of what infinite is? how is that a not well thought out statement if something is infinite you cant pinpoint its beginning or its end?

  • Time is not infinite; it must have defined parameters or it isn't time. To say that something is time infinite is a contradiction within those two words. "Time infinite" is undefined and therefore meaningless.

  • who says time has to be finite? who says that is not a "line"? big bang - creates universe

    who creates big bang? god? then who created god? one way or another there is always an infinite theory im sry if i offended your religion

  • Time is not infinite because infinity is not infinite! Really we're dealing with an undefined term!! When you say time is infinite you are actually superimposing two non congruent frames of reference and assuming they are one single frame of reference. Ultimately, the problem is not one of time or infinity but confusion between what is a question and what is an answer. You are mixing the two. You do not know which is which. This confuses you.

  • i agree with you. i feel jelous of people that have faith in a greater being.

  • The physcisists prooved that the M-Theory created the big bang and the distance between the memberanes or (M), increases, this is the dark matter that means the universe is infinite....

  • @xisoxstew411 When I refer to God I don't necessary mean of a religion or a bible. I am referring to a creator of the universe. ENERGY is the creator of the universe. It can not be created or destroyed. It has no beginning and has no end (eternal). If you see the similarity in the definition for GOD then you can draw your own conlcosion.

  • an unintelligent force created intelligence, systems,...cycles and the intellectual complex mind that sets up governments and policies used to govern an entire planet? I'm sorry but that just sounds stupid once you reason on it. Seems like ur in some sort of denial about an intelligent being starting the whole thing.

  • @oneworldkingdom Well do you know how He looks like and what he is made of? You just assume everything about Him right? If you don't believe in evolution then you are on a different track of understanding the universe. After comparing the definition of both, I made my own conclusion but I'm not here to argue the conclusion of others.

  • What did i assume? Then why are you arguing with me? Don't be a victim of what you see. Because 99% of existence is what you have never seen or ever will see.

  • @jeffaquarius I never argued, you did. I have only 3 questions for you to answer to understand your point. Your first reply to my comment deserves an answer.

  • why not?  it's very possible.

  • what mrperseus2009 i think meant was that technically there is no begging or end because time is just a measurement of events and happenings in our perceived world like the night and day measuring the sun setting and rising. its a way to keep track of happenings and planning what happens next since there is no actual "time" that implies that everything happens at one instant time just anoother measurement we percieve granted we wud be lost without it

  • 3:34 sketchy!

  • Also these cycles would be patterns, so the vibraton would always be the same for each kind of string. This would account for different kinds of strings with different vibrations.

  • Since there are 10 dimensions explained in string theory, maybe the energy overlaps these curved dimenions, and they keep redisributing the energy in an endless cycle.

  • If strings can't be true due to their need of energy, where do atoms get their energy? I don't see any difference there. If energy can't be created out of nothing and it can't be destroyed, why the hell the strings couldn't be true if neutrons and protons are?

  • if strings are the basic particle,then all the energy we get is due to their movement or vibration.. nw since energy can neither be created or destroyed,from where these strings get energy to vibrate?

  • AH FUCK! I GUESS THEY DIDN'T THINK OF THAT. Okay, let's inform string theory central they're out of business.

  • they vibrate in 10 dimensional space, meaning that momentum is transferred in ways that seem paradoxical: energy can be passes to a string from any point in 10-D space, either from our universe or others.

  • well by that i can conclude strings r not mass..they dont look as its shown in the video.. they r quantum of sumthing which can travel time and do any thing lyk gng to any dimention.&they r soo small that r laws of physics cant hold true for them

  • "they r soo small that r laws of physics cant hold true for them "

    Well, our macro physics laws don't hold true for them, but some of our quantum laws hold true for strings.

  • Its like newtonian physics cannot predict the curvature of space....

  • exactly if its paradoxical remember that at the quantum level everything is unpredictable, if everything is unpredictable at the quantum level, imagine in other dimensions where our laws of physics don't apply?

  • Energy was given to them at the beginning of the universe: during the big bang. That's when all of the energy was created/released and put in to objects. More energy in the universe cannot be created, but that doesn't mean objects can't have energy to begin with. And that energy is transferred from one substance to another. The only time energy is lost is in the form of heat.

  • Energy can be turned into mass and vica versa

  • they dont waste energy by vibrating so the question remains the same

  • if the strings were like the strings on an instrument, then wouldnt diffrent frequencies have to be diffrent length? I doubt vary much that they would just vibrate diffrently...and, that said, what causes them to vibrate??? They cant possibly contain free energy. Any thoughts???

  • we live in a multi verse,with infinite dimensions.universes with no begining no end.the whole fabric of the universe is nothing more than mathematics manisfested physicaly.mathematic integers before and after zero are infinite.

  • Math can't lie. It might not always tell the whole answer, but it cannot lie.

  • varialproductions they are aparrentlry made of pure energy

  • whats the sting made of?

    ah thank you!

  • Superstrings lol

  • also, 1 dimension is created by atoms, and the "second" dimension is created by sequences of particles from the 1st dimension, now the 3rd dimension is created of particles from the 2nd dimension. In other words, all dimensions are connected some how. My theory is that in our dimension, we have all 4 parts of matter, but in other dimensions, it may not contain all for and therefore, it can not create a virtual image of the dimension. Also, who says that the dimensions follow our rules of physics

  • before i say anything, all that i have to say is that im only 13 years old.... so, my theory is that to us, humans, there are only 3 dimensions, considering that we are 3-D creatures. Therefore, only 3 dimensions are visible to us. However, for instance, an ant can explore more than us thereby, that may be capable of visiting 4+ dimensions. Also, the strings have infinite movements or "degrees of freedom", therefore, let's say 100k of those movements represent 1-D, and so on.Istillhavetoworkonit

  • you are a very knowledgeable 13 year old. Very articulate, but no... 4th dimention can be ROUGHLY explained as TIME, or Movement of the objects of the universe... its... strange, but thats what i know it to be.

  • yeah i admit, that part of my theory seemed quite wierd... i have gotten more knowledgeable on this topic and have some other thoughts.

  • ok i still havent heard where these strings came from mand how they explain all that is whats the problem?

  • Get a physics degree then start conducting research if you think knowing everything is so simple... You could be remembered by the human race for thousands of years for your contribution

  • no they should explain it but they cant

  • I want to punch the host in the face with a meat grinder.

    Only if that was possible....

  • if it's a theory of everything i would assume that it would have every flavor, no? lol...

  • Never thought Attraction from females wearing G-strings is one of the Greatest theory in the world.

  • wiki says strings would be 10 ^ -35 metres and quarks 10 ^ -18 metres in size.

    So if a quark was scaled up to 100 metres a string would have the equivalent size of the nucleus of an atom.

  • are you talking about Wikipedia? What I hear is that people can edit Wikipedia and put in wrong information. You can say that the strings are the size of your house or something.

  • Completely untrue. Wikipedia is a collection of resources and references.

  • Yes, Wikipedia is so reliable.

    That's why when there was an article about "Snausages" (No longer an article there) I made a claim that my dog was the one used for the mascot, but it fell down the stairs so they used a cartoon one instead.

    That was listed as "true" on Wikipedia for two years.

    How reliable that source is!

  • Except you did not reference it.

    Wikipedia most likely has a referenced fact on the currently theorized size of strings.

  • Dude. Anybody can post something on wikipedia. It doesn't have to be backed up. I saw an article for a flying car. They made up a model number and everything.

  • Not anyone can reference a fact.

    Why are you so fucking stupid?

  • Have you ever heard of a fake website? You can reference those too, idiot. Not everything on the internet is real dumbshit

  • Of course not, but there are certified people on Wikipedia who can be trusted to make claims.

  • and who are these certified people

  • People with actual physics degrees

  • We're going in a huge circle right now. The point i'm trying to make, is that PEOPLE CAN FUCKING PRETEND THEY HAVE A PHYSICS DEGREE IF THEY WANT TO. ITS THE FUCKING INTERNET.

  • You have a disappointing amount of faith in your fellow man.

  • that's why his name is "drone", he'll just continue to be like that. :)

  • why all the vulgarity? You are both made up of the same strings.. find common ground.

  • why did i recieve your comment

  • because i think you are all taking things in the wrong direction.. if its not a direct attack its passive aggression

  • oh, lol. i thought this comment was in response to my other one. my bad.

  • hahahaha best comment

  • actually there's a flying car.

  • ...alright