Is string theory still worth exploring? | Roger Penrose and Eric Weinstein battle Brian Greene

The problem is that the invective that was launched from your community towards the other communities is the part that is ignored. Obviously, a large community of thousands of researchers will have a large bell curve of those who can play well with others and those who cannot. Oh, I mean, the problem is that they claim it's such a beautiful

theory

, as far as I can see, it's a big mess. I mean, you have the wrong number of spatial dimensions, you have an argument to try and argue. that you don't get enough energy to excite the Extra Dimension and I think that argument is actually incorrect because the amount of energy is for the entire universe, it is not just the accelerator of your construction, it seeks to reach a certain energy if it is beyond the level of that accelerator that is not the point at which you have so much energy and throughout the universe there are things with a large amount of energy and there is no reason why this should not excite these additional Dimensions.

I think there's just a misconception there, um, no I don't want to go into it, but it's a little technical, but I think it's a misconception and in a sense there are too many theoretical physics communities that have wasted their time on this area instead of pursuing what I consider to be even more interesting topics. The question of quantum gravity that has been raised here, uniting quantum mechanics and gravitational

theory

, is surely something very important, but, in my opinion, quantifying gravity is fine, it is an interesting exercise, but it is not the important thing. . In my opinion, what needs to be put together and put together is to explain why quantum theory works.

Quantum theory works for small things, if you want, but when you do what is called making a measurement or think about talking about big things, it doesn't work. String theory does not at the moment answer the question of the quantum measurement problem and I agree with Roger that that is a critical question that has faced quantum mechanics since its inception, so I agree that there is open questions that even

string

theory as it is currently formulated. no does not address Did Roger address it with his approach that aspects of general relativity will be vital to the collapse of the wave function?

It is a powerful and interesting idea. I have studied it. I'm

still

not convinced about it, but This is one of the many ideas that have been presented by the people who were working on this Arena. I'm glad people are working on this key question in quantum mechanics, but in terms of the importance of quantifying gravity, I would take a somewhat different perspective than Rogers' quantum mechanics. an established part of the way the world works general relativity is an established part of the way the world works if they cannot work together if when you combine them you get meaningless results, which was the situation before the theory of

string

s would give us a potential So your physical description of the world is fundamentally inconsistent and I don't think the universe is inconsistent and therefore it is vital that we find a way to put the pillars of our previous understanding in harmony with each other.

Eric mentioned that there might be others. fantastic ways to do it. I am open to those ideas, but string theory at least is an approach that does that and it is important that it is vital and string theory not only achieves this, but to the question of beauty let me propose the following: quantum mechanics of a string without any knowledge of general relativity and only through the process of studying that quantum mechanical description of a string does the description of general relativity emerge that is imposed on you comes straight out of mathematics if Einstein had not discovered the force of relativity general that there is studying the quantum mechanical motion of a string I would have found general relativity within the formulation itself, that's beautiful, that's impressive, this is really strange, the later addiction to general relativity, uh, let me do general relativity , take the scalar curvature and integrate it, okay, that rediscovers general relativity. in terms of taking the LaGrange equations and it took less than five seconds, this is not a fair way to approach things, now we are having the conversation about beauty and ugliness, a giraffe is beautiful as is a three year old and if I cut off the head of a three-year-old child and so on, the head of a giraffe which, in a certain sense, is beautiful in two different ways if I take space-time and put a triple, uh, complex, triple collaboration at every point that you have the feeling of a baby with a giraffe head there is a certain way in which it is beautiful, particularly at the level of analysis, so what I hear Roger talk about very often with Twisters is a much more algebraic view and geometric that I hear Brian talk about.

This beauty is the beauty of a massless, renormalizable spin 2 field that emerges from the quantization of a string. These are different worlds that are stitched together in a very ugly and unconvincing way. uh, I don't want to steal Brian's statement. that there is Beauty because there are tons of Beauty in the theory, there are also tons of ugliness and artificiality in the theory, as happens in general relativity where the equations in the Lagrangian are beautiful but the energy restriction concessions are ugly and have an origin different. keep Einstein out of trouble, so what we have is a situation where I feel like the audience never hears a debate about the underlying nature and we stay at the surface level where we talk about it's beautiful, it's ugly, it's nonsense . predicts this, the real crux of this is that Brian and Roger are right and they are not fighting in front of an audience for reasons that actually escape me.

I was trying to say that all these extra dimensions are wrong. and that's central to the theory, surely that's the breakthrough if I ever thought about them, isn't a loggerhead turtle a very polite loggerhead turtle maybe um no? I mean, it goes completely against the way that string theory went away, I mean, originally when I heard The idea of ​​string theory in spacetime had the right number of dimensions, three spaces, and I once thought which was a very good idea and seemed to indicate that things could be finite, which would otherwise give rise to divergences, etc.

Ideas of Riemann surfaces and Mathematics that I like. I like the idea. I thought this was a great place to go, but then they decided it doesn't work unless you have 26 dimensions, so I said, "Okay, you can work on that." In real physics, I mean the reason they present that these extra dimensions have to excite all these degrees of freedom. I think that argument is not correct to have a theory that involves a space that has more dimensions, the number of additional parameters is infinite, I mean, it is not like adding an additional parameter in the theory, if you consider the mass of the material that composes the Large Hadron Collider, there is enough energy there to excite the w and z bosons, why did you have to turn on the machine? actually creating them is a matter of focusing energy, so I don't know, I don't know why we disagree on this point, but clearly there will be a message that doesn't answer the question about what you're saying. what you're saying about 26 Dimensions, well, 26 and 10 at the same time, well, for two different string theories, I mean, no, you're talking about Sonic and it's not consistent, you think the problem is with string theory .

As I understand it now, it's actually not a proper theory, well they usually say that eventually it's not a proper theory, it's a framework, but that's a good way to approach it, yes, yes, that's how they avoid having to impose the same restrictions. themselves when they are placed above each other and you know, even in the situation where you are talking about those Dimensions because it is Lorenzian, they are actually two less than that, so they are 24 and 8 and these are autonionic dimensions, one of the three three octonian spaces generates all the large groups exceptionally it's an extremely interesting idea the fact that this doesn't work is a different argument and what Brian is saying is true you know we can't feel neutrinos in this space thank God because they are us passing through everyone. in body and soul, but the fact of the matter is that with enough care we can find the world that is hidden.

I think what Roger is saying, the way I interpret it is correct because he is here, that's why everything we can't see. keep talking about how you also have the right to a place outside our umvelt and therefore 40 years later, it's not actually 30, it's 39, 40 years almost after the cancellation of the anomaly, you have accelerated everyone, we are super excited and we are left with a practically North Korean level Narrative of the first string Revolution of the second string then Juan found the equivalence between gauge theory and string theory and it is as if we were waiting and the problem is that everyone has accelerated and people have lost interest in other basic concepts The theories and people are going to move on to quantum computing and AI, and we are going to be researching this for 50 years, why the strain theory community maybe not does something before that happens, like holding a series of conferences called chains, what went wrong, we were listening to who else is out there and bringing in other communities so that we don't lose the fundamental physics Enterprise to Savannah Hasenfelder and her adherence to continue watching this video, click the link at the top left or in the description. below or visit iai.tv for more debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers on today's most important ideas.