林榮茂部落格: String Theory, Multiverse, and Divine Design

Monday, December 22, 2025

String Theory, Multiverse, and Divine Design - Brian Greene

1 Reply @dejaPOV 4 months ago You create a beautiful image of what a physicist should look like, and that's what matters when you're trying to string someone alone! Reply @Chappolicious 3 months ago The irony of Brian looking like a vicar with the white collar 😂😂😂 Reply @michaeldavis8918 8 months ago Id love to see him talk to brian cox as well Reply @dtdaun 4 months ago (edited) To be honest, as an atheist I feel 26:58 like the multiple universes/dimensions sounds very much as believing in God, trying to find an explanation for things you can’t explain. Still appreciate the research and open mindedness towards it, just too close to God for me to accept. 1 Reply @TwistofWrist1941 8 months ago Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Watching Alex and Brian for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity. 1 Reply 1 reply @fineasfrog 8 months ago Brain mentioned the 3 dimensions of common experience as up-down, right-left, forward-back. What kind of perceptual system produces these dimensions? In what dimension is a dream and does it have these same three dimensions? What is a dimension? The origin of the word "dimension" means "to measure". How is dimension related to measurement? What is measurement? Is it just a way of describing quantity. Then what of qualities? Can we measure qualities the way we measure quantities? What is a quality? Just wondering about what is more fundamental and how do we decide what is more fundamental? Reply @giridharchavan8968 8 months ago Thanks Alex❤ Reply @happymusic8745 8 months ago 🎉🎉 Great duo 🙌👍 Reply @avocadodispenser 8 months ago This was fantastic Reply @re-searching4faith 8 months ago i feel my brain cells are not enough to process the things that were discussed Reply @KamilPawelczykGuitar 8 months ago Excellent episode. Reply @MyraTee-d6i 8 months ago Thank you so much, I enjoyed it. Reply @Grungus37 8 months ago You gotta get Brian cox on now Reply @vincemcwut9495 8 months ago omg 2 of my favorite people to listen. !! Reply @clarkshark 8 months ago Loved this one! Reply @DoggieDasher 8 months ago Theory Of Everything 2 Reply 1 reply @aewfawef963 8 months ago first reaction: whyyy only 1:20? looking forward to watching this! Reply @lachie7628 8 months ago Sean Carrol next please Reply @Topgunboys18 8 months ago i think Alex wants to know if his thinking is the same with Brian in the way he ask. Brilliant conversation ❤ Reply @NoahVT-lx1uf 8 months ago good stuff bro Reply @JCol-o3n 7 months ago We sure do like to hear you speak Greene! You have some tough in you here. String theory is great & do t let anyone talk you out of going forward in it. It has revealed much ecen if it doesn’t turn out to be true. Reply @happymusic8745 8 months ago ❤💜💚 bring Brian Greene back Reply @IZFLAT_VAX_FREE 7 months ago The theory portion is the prediction part 😅😶‍🌫️ Reply @nusphere 8 months ago Hey Alex where can I get one of those jackets, it's such a perfect fit. Reply @thisishappening7273 6 months ago Is it possible time is just the value for the maximum rate of increase in entropy for any given situation? Waiting for “we have a formula for that” as an answer lol. Reply @ProfessorYoyo 5 months ago String theory is widely considered to have failed as a fundamental theory of physics for several key reasons: • Lack of Experimental Evidence: String theory predicts extra spatial dimensions (typically 10 or 11 in total), but there is no observational evidence for these dimensions. The theory also makes no concrete predictions that can be tested with current or foreseeable experiments, making it unfalsifiable and thus outside the realm of empirical science. • Unpredictiveness and the “Landscape” Problem: Initial hopes were that string theory would uniquely determine the laws of physics by allowing only a few consistent ways to “compactify” its extra dimensions, ideally yielding our universe. Instead, it was found that there are an essentially infinite number of possible solutions (the “landscape”), each corresponding to a different possible universe. This means string theory can accommodate almost any observed data, making it unpredictive. • Internal Theoretical Issues: The mathematical structure of string theory is not fully defined in all circumstances, and even in the cases where it is, there are unresolved inconsistencies, such as issues with summing its infinite series expansions. Attempts to generalize string theory (such as “M-theory”) have not produced a complete or well-defined theory. • Incorrect Predictions: In the few cases where string theory does make a prediction, such as the value of the cosmological constant, it is wildly inconsistent with observations—by as much as 55 orders of magnitude. • Shift in Focus: Many physicists who once worked on string theory have shifted to other topics, often still under the “string theory” label, but these are now more mathematical or concern only certain aspects of quantum gravity, rather than a unified theory of everything. In summary, string theory failed because it is untestable, unpredictive, internally inconsistent in places, and disconnected from empirical reality. While it remains a mathematically rich field, it has not delivered on its promise as a “theory of everything.” 1 Reply 1 reply @tylerhaas14 8 months ago Alex I have no agenda with saying this, I have never seen an episode that has captured me as much as your “what Jesus looked like” episode with John Nelson. It was great. 1 Reply 1 reply @MrUSO36 8 months ago Guessing how it all works is generally the best entertainment. We all feel left out not knowing this answer and mentally effects us all. Truth is The Universe made something that became aware of itself and there is an answer as to why. Reply @ajr993 8 months ago 43:55 I think the best analogy here is the ideal gas "law". Gases don't evolve because they're programmed with the ideal gas law or they somehow encapsulate the law itself platonically. Gas atoms bounce around and collide with each other and the emergent property of the ideal gas law comes about naturally because of those interactions between gas atoms. So the laws of physics at likely describing higher order phenomenon that occur from lower level processes. We have descriptions for how things interact in a group similar to how words on a page creates the emergent property of a story. The question is though is there a primary fundamental law that is real from which all secondary emergent laws come about from. For example, there may actually be a law of minimizing action in a sea of randomness from which everything else emerges in which case the principal of least action can be thought of as an actual real almost platonic law that some strings or particles do in fact follow algorithmically Reply @RespectOats 3 months ago Mathematical masterbation. 1:01:57 he tells on himself. Love when honesty burst forth for the world to see Reply @Risjinalosnvai 6 months ago (edited) You should talk to Brian Cox Reply @LeviBostianswag 4 months ago The only universe that can be observed is one that is observable doesn’t mean that it was created by anything or anyone. Reply @dannykretz8611 8 months ago There's a reason why we don't hear much about string theory even after 25 years. 🤔🙄 1 Reply @georgerevell5643 5 months ago I thought that many worlds interpretation and string theory were not mutually exclusive as string theory doesn't solve the measurement problem, for which it needs MWI Reply @davidconlee2196 6 months ago I think that someday, in hindsight, the conviction that this was all entirely random will appear to be among the stupidest things humans ever believed. 1 Reply @rohangeorge712 3 months ago and also, more over, we dont even know if that spiritual or non physical entity exists, and even if it does, does it require intentionality. we just have no clue. Reply @rationaloperator4165 7 months ago Its such an insult that Einstein is being called as close minded because he refused to give in to the fantasy fiction called QM. Einstein knew that universe doesn't play dice, but the fragile world and science community is so traumatized that super determinism is true, that they literally made up a fiction to justify their theories. Super determinism is the only truth, unfortunate as it may be, this is the case. 1 Reply @neo2x641 1 month ago This dude has ADs every 3 minutes, it’s insane Reply @DoFliesCallUsWalks 5 months ago Seriously, Brian Greene looks like he's no older than 40 1 Reply @johnlivorness2204 3 months ago Just a clarification. Do your guests get compensation for appearing on your podcast? Reply @nicholasgreenamyer433 7 months ago 23:00 That's not where the idea comes from.. that's where it lives. Reply @Mark_Williams300 7 months ago This is the jacket interview, right? Reply @CoryPhillips-m6e 1 month ago $2.00 Thanks! Reply @claudiaxander 8 months ago It's inevitable that any universe hospitable enough to allow for intelligence to evolve would possess minds questioning why said universe exists. Reply @queijoquente1 5 months ago You don't need a galaxy sized collider to verify if a theory predicts observable/known events. Reply @ZK24300 6 months ago Such an interesting conversation about our universe/s. I tend to believe there is a multiverse. If there is one universe, why wouldn't there be other universes?! We just cannot see or observe that big. Reply @TheEdawenaywd 8 months ago Lovely conversation! Very clever and councious insights. But in my opinion, such consciousness is the strongest self-defeating evidence against the argument that the universe must be purely causal. Reply @timhud7901 7 months ago Great Brian ! I m not a scientist, but I like your explanation .... ! Thanks ... ! Reply @bartgrossman9361 3 months ago $20.00 Thanks! Reply @coleboard 8 months ago Finally!!!! Reply @goobus_floobus 8 months ago My favorite youtubers happen to be about my same age. You and Spoonkid Reply @isabellvalero0w0 8 months ago (edited) Patterns and regularity there is for sure, otherwise nothing would work and nobody would be talking about nothing, because nobody would exist and not even the earth would hold together, let alone have life . Even a different reality still would need of regularity, patterns and "rules". That thing of the entropy. Reply @larseriksson42 8 months ago Awesome 🎉 Reply @mrmosk2011 7 months ago I always wonder if someone could come up with a different mathematical model that can also unify all the physical laws. The ideal case is we can experimentally prove such theories, however, if we can’t or logically impossible to prove due to the limitations of our humanly perspective, how do we ever know what is the “truth.” I actually hope we can have one or more additional mathematical models like string theory to glue general relativity and quantum physics. It will kind of like having multiple religions to explain the world we can’t scientifically prove, as long as we keep open minds to these possibilities, we could come across the actual truth. Reply @zolezzo 8 months ago What a brilliant mind Brian Greene is! Reply @DusanPavlicek78 8 months ago (edited) Towards the end I think Alex had an interesting question about the nature of time but I'm afraid he wasn't able to express it clearly enough and Brian Greene ended up answering something else altogether. I think what Alex wanted to ask was: Could this time dilation formula that we know be totally different in a different universe, just like all those "fine-tuned" constants could be different? Reply @sciencefirst7880 8 months ago Great book! The Elegant Universe. Reply @davidconlee2196 6 months ago Alex, how did you settle on the number of lamps to use in the background of this set? Reply @level9drow856 8 months ago Time is just the next orthogonal physical dimension from the 3rd dimension. It's perceived as "time" because the spatial direction you are traveling is orthogonally through an "extruded" 3rd dimension. This is why it is warped just like space. When you think about it you realize it IS actually simply the 4th physical dimension when you realize each dimension is orthogonal to the previous. The 5th dimension id the orthogonal extrusion of the 4th and so it is potentiality. Reply @nicolaunionsspezialfiliall3962 7 months ago Brian Green's voice sounds very similar to William lane Craig's. Reply @Trinidad262 8 months ago Loved this one Alex, good job Reply 1 reply @mrmosk2011 7 months ago I always wonder if someone could come up with a different mathematical model that can also unify all the physical laws. The ideal case is we can experimentally prove such theories, however, if we can’t or logically impossible to prove due to the limitations of our humanly perspective, how do we ever know what is the “truth.” I actually hope we can have one or more additional mathematical models like string theory to glue general relativity and quantum physics. It will kind of like having multiple religions to explain the world we can’t scientifically prove, as long as we keep open minds to these possibilities, we could come across the actual truth. 47’ this is what a true scientist is, boundless curiosity, but it is boring if we find something we can’t study and understand more. If there is nothing more to discover, just knowing that answer is not that satisfying. Reply @hellboyhowdy 8 months ago "All models are wrong. Some of them are useful." – Forrest Valkai 1 Reply 2 replies @volaireoh883 8 months ago Great stuff, intelligence questions. Reply @8ightBitKid 8 months ago five minutes left in the podcast and they just start talking about entropy, when is part two? 😂 Reply @EpicMathTime 4 months ago I am 10 years older than Alex... wow Reply @jklappenbach 8 months ago I regard Brian Greene with a lot of respect. But I'll be damned if he shouldn't have been a trial attorney the way he speaks. 1 Reply @PixelZoft 6 months ago Does anyone else feel like at times there is a slight tension in the conversation? I have never before seen Brian Greene at times almost a little aggressive like around 45 minutes in. He is usually just a fountain of positive energy. Maybe I am completely wrong and it is just in my mind but could it be the way questions are asked? Or maybe he just had a bad day. We all do. Or maybe I have a bad day 😂 Reply @familyshare3724 3 months ago "The arrow of time is wrapped up in entropy." 1:10:00 This just passes the confusion from one word to another. Entropy is the overwhelming tendency of random change to destroy toward dust rather than create gems, useful batteries, working engines, or free lunch. Whether random in this direction or that direction, random change tends towards equilibrium (dust) not order (like a charged battery). The math of two particles and one event can go both ways. But the math of multiple particles randomly interacting tends to go one way: equilibrium. Only by presupposing a creator god or blind faith that "time is a thing that can be reversed" and super-determinism (god's plan) could one believe that dust will randomly tend to form useful working engines. Time has one direction because random change has one tendency (entropy) in any direction. Reply @Morse-s7g 4 months ago I got absolutely nothing out of this conversation, just alex asking enlightening questions and brian saying everything could be true or everything could be false, we dont know. Reply @amymonroe1818 6 months ago It appears to me we won’t know how the universe came into being anytime soon. May be never. Reply @FernandoVargasibarra 8 months ago (edited) “There’s nothing in principle, logically like in preventing me hitting that billiard ball and it flying upwards” the pinnacle of stupidity 40:03 Reply @Mark_Williams300 7 months ago We can move left and right; backwards and forwards, and up and down in Space... But not in and out. Reply @bigol7169 8 months ago SEAN CARROL NEXT. 1 Reply @Phapchamp 5 months ago (edited) Ah yes good old "we arent there yet but i promise in next 40 years we will crack this" a classic physicist approach. Similar to fusion reactors that are always a decade away from being in use String """theory""" always seems to be just beyond the corner to experimentally verify. Despite the fact that already conducted experiments on CERN absolutely decimating the theory at its core. If you cant explain the missing particles that string theory presumes other than the faxt "well we just havent seen that but i promise next big collider will find them" dont even bother. Its absurd to the point of everyone scrambling and making abstract mathematical mumbo jumbo like "super string theory" or "Ads-cft correlation" to mend the holes. I miss the times where theoretical physicists didn't support absurd ideas that are easily tored into pieces by basic experiments simply because they want to get on the hype train of popsci and government funding. 1 Reply @billalexander3013 6 months ago Why is there a picture hanging on the bookcase in front of the books? Reply @CoreyCG 2 months ago what if time is just one of our senses, because i feel like i can work on my sense of time and change it, just like how i feel, what i hear smell ect, just a thought Reply @donatreides 2 months ago 18:10 Absolutely not. This is a bamboozle. Science requires testing. Until a hypothesis is tested, it is not science - it is conjecture. String "Theory" is not (yet at least) a theory. I'm guessing "String Hypothesis" gets fewer grants and sells fews books, however. 1 Reply @AETHERscience 2 months ago (edited) min 18:08 "Science is about putting forward ideas that solve critical problems that can be tested at least in principle at some point." How about this theory that says light and radio waves are electrogravitational (not electromagnetic), and that stationary radio waves can produce gravitational fields ? Reply @WINGTOWING 5 months ago It seems physics in general has become a quest to describe the effect and ignore the cause. But in string theory, the effect being described probably doesn't even exist; the cause is the human mind and imagination, which physics can't explain, and therefore ignores. Reply @Djamac 4 months ago Indica an sativa is how Green I like it Reply @getchanewshere 1 day ago I never knew Bill Maher is just discount Brian Greene. Reply @nilufarjabrayilbayli 8 months ago 39:51 is it another version of Euthyphro's Dilemma? Reply @brentdennard6722 8 months ago Holy crap, Tim the tool guy is also a physicist?! Reply @chilli_admiral 4 weeks ago The smoking room I'll never own Reply @ldlework 8 months ago Best content on youtube. Reply @stapes808 8 months ago Do you settle on a set of topics for the title and then try to come back to them repeatedly? The divine design discussion seemed very blunt in both approach and importance. Reply @hihowareyou0000 8 months ago Anytime i see Brian's name its always an automatic 👍 Love your show your hot keep up the great work 👏 ❤ Reply @alhorn6373 7 months ago $1.99 Thanks! Reply @SchrodingersCat8813 6 months ago Brian Greene is an absolute master of science communication, and I'd say communication in general at that. Wonderful interview. I wish I could meet the guy even for a few minutes because he may be the best to discuss a question I've long had: Is there any reason, like mathematically/scientifically or for the universe to "work" that we NEED a unified theory? Wild as it seems can there be just a micro and macro understanding of two diff worlds? I HATE to use economics because it's not close to hard science, but I'm familiar and I've seen how the attempt to extrapolate micro to macro kinda doesn't work...they are just two different systems, clearly co existing, but yeah you can't really have them as one thing, both mathematically and fundamentally. Reply 1 reply @syntholshoulders1842 8 months ago It's a gift Reply @MoeThomas-jh7wo 5 months ago The last shirt they had was on the mannequin. It was my exact size. Praise God 🙏🏽 Reply @raykirushiroyshi2752 8 months ago The problem with string theory is that it can be molded to prove any set of physical laws. It requires 11 dimensions in space to prove only one, it has ample space to prove countless others. Its much a theory but a mathematical framework. Reply @StephenAnderson-x7b 7 months ago We need a new outlook on Physics, we’re so constrained with General Relativity & Quantum Physics we can’t move forward, we will never break away as a one planet species, I don’t believe String Theory is the answer it’s just putting Physics in a stalemate Reply @techteampxla2950 8 months ago Just my 42 cents , Mr. Alex would be a great addition to the WSF team? Reply @user-lv4dz2bl3q 8 months ago The theory of everything or emergence and from simple to complexity Is it the right question to even ask It's asking the same thing Emergence or everything But the theory of everything Or the emergence of everything From simple to complexity Reply @amj2048 8 months ago If nothing existed, it would be in a state of existence, having a state is something at not nothing. So therefore, nothing is not possible. Since nothing is not possible, everything exists. Reply @alanyao 8 months ago 1:16:46 Based on my understanding, time is a record of this three dimension world. You can navigate time by changing this three dimension world. For example, if you can reverse everything in this world back to ten years ago, in some sense, you have reversed the time. 1:19:50 I do have a question for you to think about. If you do get close to black hole, from your perspective nothing has changed? I doubt. Physically, I suspect that you will be unconscious as you fall across the horizon where even light cannot escape. With respect to time dilation, a typical illustration is when you have a photon move up and down in a train. From inside the train, the path appears vertical, but from outside, it appears diagonal. However, in reality, would your photon detector actually receive the photon? I doubt. The moment light emits, it is strictly perpendicular, where does that horizontal velocity come from? Reply @timblizzard4226 7 months ago Alex, I think you need to speak to Sean Carrol Reply @simonbattle0001 8 months ago Well, it appears all I needed to do was give this video...more time to get my answers. Thanks very much for this even though the multiverse must for the time being remain in fiction until we prove it to be fact or fantasy. Reply @ADM_1955 8 months ago So, what if the links between quantum mechanics and special relativity are, indeed, dots, from micro dots to macro dots. And these dots are black holes. And these black holes can be formulated mathematically precisely the same way, by the same "wave function", regardless of the scale. So, at the micro end, the quarks and the electrons are composed of a lattice of micro black holes. And as you move up the scale in spacetime, the wave functions that make up the different features, planets, stars, galaxies, and so on, are contained in the higher (spatially) filaments of the black hole lattice. I want to emphasize that the scales involved are the same as what we see, i.e., the quarks in the protons and neutrons are confined in a very tiny space compared to the orbitals in which the electrons reside. Same as the macro black holes, the distances between black holes, i.e., between galaxies, are huge. I wonder if the ratios of the scales are the same between the atom and the galaxies? Maybe the fundamental "particles" are micro black holes? Reply @AwnSight 7 months ago All this time and still can’t even define what it is that people pay them for Reply @kaiyodino 8 months ago when Greene mentions that the equations and “laws” that we use to describe the world are human made, does he also believe that the “one equation/theory of everything” is human made? or would that be the only thing that is actually a Truth. from my understanding of his words, the laws and equations and understandings we have are derived from the One Theory and so they are not exactly true things, but parts of one true thing. i apologize for the confusing sentences, im struggling to articulate my question haha Reply @ullrichfischer5796 8 months ago Aren't some cosmic rays essentially the product of Galactic scale accelerators? Should we have a program that looks for collisions and their products in the upper atmosphere with a view to testing for the particles predicted by String Theory? Reply @naqibradyarmo 8 months ago (edited) Great podcast loved the discussions But here is the things i found in video , alex wanna ask in every question how is everything is perfect and how the universe is fine tuned , basically he wants to point out to a creator he wanted to discuss about a supernatural, but i hate how professor brian leans toward science even tough he knows science doesnt have the all answers but sill a great podcast and i want u to continue this type of podcast with your upcoming guest like niel de gresse tyson, brian cox these are my favorite peoples. Reply @davidconlee2196 6 months ago Brian, I've read three of your books and greatly enjoyed them. I've been toying around with formalizing a policy among physicists that we should try to destroy the career of any physicist that poo poos string theory or the methods used to further the standard model. What do you think? Reply @gfragkoudakis 6 months ago I’ve always appreciated the humility and genuine curiosity of scientists like Brian Greene. It’s a stark contrast to the overconfidence and self-centeredness you sometimes see in people like Eric Weinstein. Reply @dylanmichalski5637 8 months ago What are they talking about when they say string theory? Is it like literal strings? Reply @povilaskimutis1409 8 months ago loved it Reply @meow0036 8 months ago String theory is amazing 😮 Reply @Nfh65f9 8 months ago So, that's a different multiverse concept to that proposed by Everett and championed by David Deutsch, then, as being what quantum mechanics actually describes. Reply @johnpoppenhusen4178 7 months ago "Time" always pops up in most questionable physics. I see time as an effect of ongoing consciousness during our awakened tenure. I believe also that time does not move. All is preset in time. It is we who travel through time. We all, individually have our own preset time in place and lasts only throughout our own physical existence and when we pass, its only our history. Reply @anpsinhasinha8499 8 months ago Britney is an outstanding teacher Reply @supernickynick 6 months ago £2.00 Thanks Reply @supernickynick 6 months ago £2.00 Thanks Reply @joeldobbs7396 7 months ago (edited) 46:39 This is the important bit. If you can investigate something, do so. If the nature of what you are questioning does not allow you to investigate it, don't pretend you can. Don't say; "Well, if I were to speculate, based on the infinitesimal fraction of the universe I have access to, I would say.........and that makes sense to me." We are not special in any way, save that the amount of matter in the universe that is a part of systems that do what we do, is tiny. We are rare, but rare is not special, rare is not important, rarity does not guarantee you some answer when you ask a question. Compared to the bulk matter of the universe, planets, suns, galaxies, teapots, stray x rays going nowhere very quickly, matter composing conscious systems capable of self reflection are a grain of sand on a beach the size of our galaxy. How likely is our universe? Given that it exists, and of however many ways it could have been, it is as it is, the odds are one in one. No matter how long a number line is, if you pick one number, the odds that it will have a value are 100%. If anyone reads this and wants to yell at me about how wrong I am, I will be surprised as hell because it is way too long for most people. Reply @prophetofthesingularity 8 months ago (edited) I think AI is going to increase exponentially and will help us with a lot of these long-standing questions in science including string theory. As an example, they talk about the lHC and how they continue to need bigger and bigger ones to test the ideas and we would need one the size of the galaxy. It is possible we will be able to create a virtual LHC the size of a galaxy with AI in the future. This could potentially be done by feeding in all present and future data we have from the actual LHC and all of the experiments and tests that have ever been done. Reply @ryanembrey660 8 months ago I'm a glass globe being pushed on. Reply @alef_19 2 months ago I love Brian Greene Reply @NikolaJokic-s7l 8 months ago I thought that was a young Jeff bezos by the thumbnail Reply @masonsmythmusic 8 months ago (edited) So glad you two finally got together although I’m sure you’d both say you had no choice ;) Reply @mintonsingha9133 8 months ago Hi Alex, can you invite Garys Economics?? Reply @user-lv4dz2bl3q 8 months ago describe it oscillating frequently patterns To describe it's behavior Systems theory not Newton Although both go together Emergence Feedback loops Patterns like Galaxies Or planets Patterns Do you find a square planet? If not then that is a characterist of the universe Sometimes you have to zoom out to see the larger picture If you look at one part You can see the entire car Color is very interesting to me How you can take a few colors to make all other colors And white and black Reply @heliophant 8 months ago i like these guys Reply @nyworker 8 months ago (edited) 53:05. David Chalmers cites the philosophical gaps of explaining our very consciousness. Brian Greene goes one further back to the creation of the universe that results in all biology and humanity. 59:15. In the beginning gravity made heaven and earth… Reply @trebell885 8 months ago I am as finally tuned in2 the universal law's of nature as any instrument of music? Reply @CCoca-ri2xn 8 months ago please have bryan johnson on, maybe Dr. Mike israetel. I love all your guys' videos so would be cool to see them on Reply @lloydmalecaut1769 8 months ago Please get Sean Carroll as well Reply @trebell885 8 months ago We could be a constructed game & controlled by a gamer in another universe? Reply @14ericksona 8 months ago Brian Greene is a baller. Reply @tajwar07 8 months ago Can we define infinity as something new like we did with imaginary numbers? Reply @MoHikes 6 months ago I dont know if the way Brian described how string theory cane about ia accurate? Someone who knows more can elaborate? Wasnt it not accidental. As in it was used to describe the strong interaction and then it was realised that at the heart of this equation were strings Reply @rational_tripathi 8 months ago If our suffering is meaningless and purposeless then what's the point......? Sometimes I feel like there's more to the reality and others time I feel very Nihilistic.. Reply @Skindiver2025 8 months ago In my uneducated opinion, I see entanglement as a reflection of the universe's inherent balance and harmony. I believe that the universe itself acts as a governing entity that ensures particles are intricately interconnected to maintain equilibrium. This concept of entanglement points to a deeper level of organization and coordination that permeates the cosmos. It suggests that entanglement is a fundamental feature of the universe's finely tuned structure, enforcing interconnectedness and maintaining the delicate balance required for the existence of life and complexity. In other words, the universe is an entire exact sum, that self corrects to maintain that state. It will not tolerate an entangled pair to act any differently, the force of the entire universe is behind this. Reply @markograbovac222 8 months ago It isn't clear to me why I have never heard any scientists talking about Derek Parfitt's argument against the first cause argument apart from Sean Carroll, who mentioned it in an episode of Mindscape. I find this argument very plausible. If nature had a beginning, and absolutely nothing existed before nature, then surely in order for nature to 'come from nothing' (something which is clearly an event), there must have been a context (a prerequisite for any event to happen) that existed before nature for nature to emerge from. If nature had a beginning, and absolutely nothing existed before nature, then doesn't that mean that at the beginning, nature was simply there, and there is no 'before' to speak of? I would like it if I heard a scientist discussing their opinion on this argument. About what was said about why there is something rather than nothing, nature exists, and the laws of nature do not allow nature to cease to exist. Clearly it's logically possible for nature to cease to exist, but if nature had a beginning, and there wasn't any context that existed before the beginning, then why must there be a reason why there is something rather than nothing? Reply @fineasfrog 8 months ago (edited) The question: "Is there intelligence behind the universe"? is a wrong kind of question. It is based on assuming the intelligence is separate from the universe. Our ordinary way of perceiving and knowing /thinking doesn't lend itself to even conceiving that whatever we call the Universe, it is self-creating, there is no separate design for the universe. Why do we refer to creation of the human being or creation in general or even talk of a creature or creation? Can it be that what we call 'creation' or 'creature' is just another 'dimension' of the 'uncreated'? Can it be that the 'uncreated' looked at from a relative point of view, 'appears', only appears to be 'created' due to relative vision? What would we understand from a unitive view, i. e., a consciousness that is not limited to the subject-object knowing where the subject is always considered to be effectively separate from the object. The subject can be effectively separate from the object yet it can also be realized to be not separate from the object which can free us from the limitation of relative vision/relative experience. To come to this, what we think of as our identity needs to shift from being "separate from" to being "within and not separate". For this we need to be able to dissolve our identity within the Unity and equally well be able to reassemble that apparent identity with its separation of subject from object which would now allow one to speak about the nature of unitive vision. Science as we know it was designed to eliminate value judgments and deal only with the sensory world plus invented instruments like telescopes or giant particle colliders as data for science. This designed science was a way of dealing with the aspect of mind that so easily tends to run amok especially in the context of religion. This design of science is limited and works well only up to a point where it can not go beyond its own original design with its specific limitations. For example, this kind of science can give you knowledge of atomic energy but does not give the knowledge needed to know how and when to use the atomic bomb. This limited science is useful but it does see what "baby" it threw out with "the bath water". It does not see that the very decision to use only sensory data as the basis for a science did not come from the scientific method. It is a choice based on judgement about it having a value, the value of not having to deal with that area of human experience that involves value. Science would claim to value facts yet it has no means to investigate value because the design of science as we know it did its best to rule out anything that involved value. If we take this as the only way of doing science, it leads to what? It leads to a situation where people have great power via technology such as the atomic bomb yet the scientific method can not yield the wisdom we need for how and when to use such power. Our science ignores the fact that every decision such as what to study and what experiments to design has a subtle degree of making a need judgement that always reflects an element of value in the behavior and/or the decision. Reply @mitchellj.9360 6 months ago ENCORE ENCORE! Reply @amijacks 8 months ago "My god, it's full of lamps." Reply @Pipo1987 8 months ago Brian Greene GOAT Reply @wiffleballer28 8 months ago the video is fine, but it's a little dark...maybe add a few more lamps next time Reply @creekchub9714 8 months ago he should talk with Chris langan Reply @frisandlin8876 8 months ago how'd he book an instagram reel to film this podcast in Reply @koroglurustem1722 8 months ago The idea of fine tuning and the inference of design pointing to the Creator is not founded upon the impossibility of multiple sets of universal natural parameters conducive for life. There may be multiple sets of such parameters leading to universes sustaining life. Design and creation are two different things. First of all, there’s an Intelligent Agent capable of designing and simulating an entire universe. Second of all, that Agent is capable of creating such a “material universe” into existence. The problem is at least two-fold. Even if we understand the universe and its underlying principles, see the causal relationships between the parts, still it doesn’t explain the existence of such a universe. The question is Who is upholding those “laws” and relationships?! Reply @Zanderlehn 6 months ago Mass is needed to create gravity. No mass creates expansion. Reply @cliffordandersen3190 8 months ago Thinking of time is crazy. Time dilation is the weirdest one. Like if we get near a black hole time diffrent. Or we get closer to the sun does time change as well. Gets me thinking about the planets near us with gravity. So if we get closer to Jupiter cuase its gravity force is stronger, does that make time different near the planet. Is time the fast as the speed of light or faster. Strange to me. Reply @johnmcwhorter4393 8 months ago Was that a spinal tap reference?! Reply @elliotcrane 8 months ago Now let’s go and compare this to Terrence Howard on PBD, which the algorithm is pushing on me 😀 Reply @KsnxjeksskskNfoendhdj 3 months ago Impressive. Reply @breanachoy 6 months ago Him and I are one 💜 Reply @andaaex 8 months ago How could a dimension be "small", is this some sort of metaphor!? Reply @viekent 4 months ago Alex is 26 years old, dios mio Reply @missh1774 8 months ago (edited) 30:30 Hello Brian. I have a maths question. If a 5 year old child drew a graph on a wall, but the wall got covered over for 40 years. Is there a way to recover the graph during the 40 years it was covered over? 37:00 12 Stanza poems is quite difficult to read. I think of a maestro's stick when you have to hold notes or move through gradual highs and lows. Reply @extavwudda 8 months ago String theory was strung up long ago Reply @mukkaar 8 months ago 35:14 This is literally just expanding bubble of knowledge problem. There are always going to be things we don't know just being the horizon. Reply @alex_nap 8 months ago 1:10:28 When Brian said we could develop unimaginable things, instantly I thought at Half Life, at the G-man...Then in the next phrase.. Alex just said this: 1:10:57 Fantastic coincidence! Reply @AkshatSharma-qx9wh 8 months ago with the best <3 Reply @jasoncollins218 7 months ago I’m surprised to hear Brian say, “no one has ever detected a graviton”. I thought that’s what they are doing at Ligo or whatever it’s called with all the fancy lasers, and mirrors that stretch on for a mile or more parallel to one another. I swear every time I listen to a scientist on YouTube they contradict what some other scientist said 2 weeks earlier. Reply @hiwagusu 8 months ago Alex O'Connor out there, living my teen girl dream. The young man (as if I was that much older), started following him in 2016 ? Seeing how far he has come, how of a fine man he became, but talking to all the people I've been dreaming to talk to is crazy. I've been a huge fan of Brian Greene since I was 15 ! As a teen passionate about physics. I'm now pushing 30. Anyway, keep on going ! Looking forward to see where this is leading in 5 - 10 years ! Reply 1 reply @markcopeland3011 8 months ago When it comes to communicating his ideas, Briane Green is the precise, clear Ying to Jordan's Peterson's obscurist and obfuscate Yang. Reply @DonkasaurusNZ 8 months ago “Theory of everything” makes me think of that Christopher Langan ‘highest IQ in the world’ guy. Any chance he’s in line for an episode? Reply @SquidSpell 8 months ago This came out at the perfect time for me. Reply 3 replies @jonathanryals9934 7 months ago Nothing is beyond nature if it exists. Divinity is a human concept, so there could be something "divine", but only when filtered through human understanding. Reply @enigmaticaljedi6808 8 months ago If you look at every single thing in the universe you will see that everything moves towards "energy conservation". It takes energy to be out of equilibrium, and so everything we see just NATURALLY moves towards it - Planets/Galaxies etc are all moving around each other because that takes the LEAST amount of energy - Planets are spherical because a sphere takes the LEAST amount of energy - The water molecule has a 62 degree angle between the hydrogen atoms because that configuration takes the LEAST amount of energy - Things fall towards a body of mass because that takes the LEAST amount of energy - Friction causes objects to slow down because that takes the LEAST amount of energy So given everything we see in the universe follows this principle of energy conservation, why would we not think that the "fine tuning" of the universe just happens to be the configuration that takes the LEAST AMOUNT OF ENERGY Yes they are fine tuned, Yes they couldn't be any other way... but it wasn't some intelligence that MADE them that way... they just settle into that configuration purely as a result of equilibrium Reply @MikeFuller-d4d 7 months ago (edited) I know the very, very basics of Einstein's curved space and quantum gravity theory. I never presumed to be an authority on the complexities of how quantum mechanics disagrees with the Standard Model. I know what Kip Thorne, Brian Greene and other authorities have said on television. Reply @teamtaj 8 months ago I love lamp Reply @Jlw19882 8 months ago Can you simulate a galactic collider ? Reply @serenity9984 8 months ago Yes! Reply @mykeljmoney 8 months ago Brian Greene has been one of my favorite physicists since my school days, when he was frequently featured on the videos we watched in science classes. It was always him, Niel deGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku. I liked them all, but, later, Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos really changed my perspective on life. I'm huge fan of him! Honorable mentions of my other favorite thinkers are definitely Brian Cox and Sean Carroll 2 Reply @clintd1661 3 months ago Thank you! No beginning and no end! And it shouldnt be profound.... Reply @pinealgasm 8 months ago looks like it's science's turn to step up & help disabled people. we need our own cue anon. as in that's our cue. Reply @shero-42 8 months ago 9:20 This always surprises me because to me fundamentally there is no difference between maths and philosophy Reply 1 reply @adriant9921 8 months ago Not enough lamps. Reply @RlsIII-uz1kl 8 months ago (edited) I believe we exist between two plains of physical existence within a specific realm. It's where general relativity and the Quantum worlds meet. Along with that. Id also say there are many different realms of existences/parallel realities. All of these realms will reach a specific point known as the technological singularity (based on different forms of technologies because of different laws of physics for each realm). Once all the realms reach the technological singularity, those realms will merge, and we'll awaken into a new reality. An unimaginable reality. Reply @varunsharma3532 8 months ago 1:19:44 yeah,but the rest of the universe seems to be moving too quickly Reply @varunsharma3532 7 months ago 0:06 one day over,3 (at most) to go Reply @honeyinglune8957 8 months ago the task is to unite physics with Schopenhauer's philosophy Reply @georgerevell5643 4 months ago Why its not plausible that the theory of everything, will explain the fine tuning wihout a multiverse . If there is just one universe with constants are not at all constrained to allow for life, it would be preposterously infeasible for it to just happen to accommodate life when we are already know that tiny changes to the constant would cause the whole universe to collapse and all sorts of other disasters for the possibility of life. Even if ther eare other configurations of the constants that accomdate a different form of life, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of the possible value of those constants, would defintely not suport any form of life. This means that of the fundamental constants are calculated from the future theory of everything, it would be an unthinkable conidience for that constants, chosen by unthinking mathematical logic and physics, woul just so happen to support intelligent life. Reply @austinpowersfasjer 7 months ago Best public science speakers: 1. Neil DeGrasse Tyson 2. Brian Greene 3. Jenna Levin I can listen to this non-stop Reply @duncanjones7310 8 months ago been trying to find if you have any thoughts on 'escapism' morality of escapism Reply @timblizzard4226 7 months ago From my, admittedly lay person's, understanding, Brian understated that evidence for the existence of a multiverse. It goes far beyond its utility in explaining the fine tuning. Inflation is a model that was developed to explain several problems with big bang cosmology, which it does very well. It also made predictions that were observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation. In most models of inflation, a multiverse just naturally occurs because inflation never ends. Thus, many cosmologists believe we probably do live in a multiverse for completely different reasons. The theory of inflation predicts it, just as the theory of general relatively predicted black holes decades before they were observed. If String Theory is correct, and you apply the 10^500 different ways the extra dimensions get compactified, the so called string theory landscape, thats when you solve basically all of the universes fine tuning, but the inflationary multiverse may well exist whether string theory is right or not. Reply 1 reply @srgriffith 7 months ago I wouldn’t necessarily say that people are holding onto relativity and quantum mechanics because they are stubborn. Those theories work for most things that we use them for and when something useful you hold onto it Reply @JrgenMonkerud-go5lg 8 months ago Mathematical time reversability of a solution to an equation works even if the laws are not time reversible. Time reversibility is a bit weaker than that, when it is discussed in physics. Consider for instances a ball rolling on a table, that slows down by fiat until it stops, that law is not continuously time reversible, but you can always reverse the solution without issues. Time reversibility is more about whether the law is the same goi g forward or backwards in time. For instance if you have an expanding spacetime, the laws going forward and back in time are not the same without also reversing the time derivatives of the expansion itself. There are way worse scenarios than that where you have to flip the sign of infinite things. Reply @chiknsld3856 3 months ago (edited) 1:15:10 math itself has a starting point, so to say that they (their limited equations) do not account for forwards or backwards is a non-sequitur...starting is in and of itself already a direction...he seems to be unaware that absolute truth exists (facts). Reply @RC-wi6xm 8 months ago I have a Twine Theory Reply @ProxCyde 8 months ago (edited) It's always questions like "what if you're wrong" or "what if we just never find out". But I just don't understand the importance of such questions. It's not about that. It's about "what if we're right", or, "what if we're onto something". That's what keeps us going. NdGT often likes to say "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" as a mic drop. But, to that I say, "The Universe is under no obligation to be nonsensical to you". Meaning, keep digging baby! Reply @stevefrost3362 6 months ago What is the book made of how are the words put on the page .there's a lot more questions to ask . Reply @Konschti-h4k 5 months ago 42 1 Reply @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 6 months ago Would it be better to go back to 1/r², the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law? Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front can represent a new moment in time represented by a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. Could light photon, electron interactions be forming oscillations continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, forming our probabilistic uncertain future quantum by quantum, moment by moment? Such a process of energy exchange would form greater degrees of freedom for statistical entropy forming what we perceive as time. Reply @jcamacho510 6 months ago I like Dr.G more than I dislike the host's accent. Reply @donaldeverett714 6 months ago Around 25:00 minutes did Alex's eyes glaze over and his brain fart? Reply @grahamrobson998 8 months ago Brilliant Reply @noireport 3 months ago 2013 poll found half of theoretical physicists think string theory is wrong Reply @marcioamaral7511 8 months ago Alex please get Laurence Krauss or Penrose in here 😭🙏 Reply @joshuadominguez6271 8 months ago He was on the Big Bang theory, Sheldon ripped him lol. That was a great conversation. Reply @malekan59 8 months ago At this moment, 56K view and only 2.5K likes. Why is it? do really 53.5K people watched this video and didn't like it or is it too hard to press that button? I'm wondering!!! Reply @kevinbeck8836 8 months ago Im getting crazy deja vu. Is this a reupload? Reply @GJames007 8 months ago I’m confused. Anyone can help. Why do we think there is gravitons if we believe that gravity if the curvature of space time. Why do we even need gravitons? 1 Reply 1 reply @lungflogger9 5 months ago Exactly!!! We only exist just because that is how the physics came together to form us and it is due to our VANITY that we think some incredible divine entity created us. Just enjoy your life as best you can and be ready to die as best you can. Reply @MasonsMotions 8 months ago Took the red pill- tele-beamed here. Reply @celestialteapot309 5 months ago ls this in a shop that sells lamps? Reply @casiish 8 months ago Sean Carroll next! Reply @josephely58 8 months ago I know I'm probably just talking to a wall here, but it's worth saying: the conversation went a little off the rails with the multiverse. First, it is a common misconception that multiverse theories exist as a sort of rhetorical foil to be able to tell theists that fine tuning isn't a problem, which is laughably false, and I wish Brian would've done a little bit better job dispelling that. Anytime a multiverse is talked about in physics, it's because it naturally emerges as a consequence of the mathematics of a theory, not because physicists think it would be super cool if there was a multiverse. Second, it is incredibly important that different multiverse theories not be conflated that have nothing to do with each other. The multiverse predicted by string theory has nothing to do with many worlds quantum mechanics, which is actually in its own right the simplest and most mathematically complete version of QM we have. Anyway, multiverse conversations often get messy and misunderstood, and maybe this doesn't help, but I thought it was worth shouting out. 1 Reply 1 reply @Al24sub0 6 months ago (edited) fară critică nu există progres dar multiversul este si ramîne real chiar dacă uni rămîn începatori o viață întreagă în fizică..stai,mai este si chimie(incompletă) care sfidează matematica si timpul.... Reply @nathanturner5455 7 months ago I'm so curious. Brian repeated this idea that Math is invented. And I suppose it is. It's a language we built to describe things that are immutable truths. BUT I also feel like Math is, in a sense, discovered.....like it is a thing that must exist independent of human existence. I wonder how he would answer the question, "would Mathematical properties exist if there were no sentient beings to describe them?" Reply @anthonyzayas5609 5 months ago (edited) If infinity is defined by a 5th dimensional recursion, it solves for the the breakdown of GR and Sting theory. Infinity is an illusion of 5th dimensional geometry. Reply @MaxPuliero 8 months ago if, might, maybe, perhaps, in the future. A lot of faith is involved in here. 2 Reply 1 reply @iancastro8966 7 months ago Terrence Howard is all of your Daddy’s 1 Reply @klaus6276 8 months ago But to be honest I am disturbed about this String Theory Since a while….It is getting somehow boring,as we all know it is just a Guess of a mathematical Idea and will never be prooven correct, even so many people working on it and making Salary …For sure they try to keep the Idea up to life… 1 Reply @sethogrady9950 4 weeks ago If I like this stuff what should I do with my life Reply @zeggLand 8 months ago Way to dance around the question 1 Reply @PankajDoharey 8 months ago (edited) String theory is a theory of evrything with no tangible results. A theory which can just keep inventing new stuff to justify new phenomenon with no predictive powers. Its the theory of Dr. Hindsight. No other branch of physics has harmed physics so much as these string theorists, they have really wasted as much resources as the particle physicists who are trying to build bigger expensive tunnels with diminishing returns. 1 Reply @AbeNormal-p3l 3 months ago At 51:00 the host comments about finding a "sport coat" that fits perfectly, what's the chance? Brian Greene is looking at this kid who literally looks like the arms on his jacket were spray painted on and you can see micro-expression....where just for a fleeting moment Brian was gunna make a crack at how ridiculous this kid looks, but he's a gentleman and it's gone in a flash. Reply @KostadinIvanov-ik9qs 8 months ago lol 1 Reply @ERBEpic 7 months ago To those who may read a few science books and hear about string theory and read whatever this guys books are, anyone preaching string theory is just trying to get your money or isn’t a physicist. String theory is a cool theory mathematically, in the same way that rose curves are cool equations (they are literally just functions that look like flowers). In reality, string theory is untestable. The only time it was tested was a section of it called supersymmetry which was able to be split off, and was proven false. Doesn’t supersymmetry being false prove string theory false? I thought so, but I’m no string theorist so I can’t say so. Oh wait, nobody can anyways. If you ever talk to someone who does real physics, first don’t even mention string theory, and second ask them about what their new favourite theories are, and I’m sure they’ll have something interesting to talk about. If you want a more detailed video on what string theory actually is, go watch Angela Colliers video “string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard”. 1 Reply @jolheb9091 4 months ago (edited) We were in the nothing before birth, but still the question why were we nothing? And he’s right, for me I get out of bed because of the beauty of what the human brain can and has achieved and can learn, that’s what gives me purpose, not thanking something unprovable. Reply @RedOlympus 8 months ago What is this physics on trial? 1 Reply @thoras949 8 months ago Comments section is really showing why philosophers equally struggle in engaging scientific experts, as physicists do philosophers Reply @HIIIBEAR 8 months ago Please have Donald Hoffman on and challenge his views 1 Reply @leinadtresmegisto8636 8 months ago Didn't know Bill Maher had a PhD 1 Reply @FaizAhmed-iz3qd 2 months ago To my understanding Time has 4 dimensions. Three of them are same as space and one is motion( equal to speed of light). Time is the property of this universe. Einstein named it spacetime. That sounds like time doesn't exist beyond this universe. In a black hole Time dilation can happen all the way up zero only. Time can not be negative that means it has a positive arrow. Time is must for life. It's just super hard to put it in a definition but everyone can feel it passing by. Reply @emjayacorn 3 months ago So if there's nothing beyond the physical for a man what about the law of information? Reply @willgregor4392 2 months ago See how far we can get focusing on the physical... why? Why on earth do that, repeating the same mistake over and over again Reply @MicahLegacy 3 months ago To the category error point — I think you’re onto something real. The trap of infinite recursion is like a Zeno paradox: closing in on coherence but never arriving. Maybe the search isn’t for just a final physics equation, but for a shared grammar that can hold contradiction without collapse. A kind of Recursive Symbolic Dynamics — not just math, not just metaphor, but a structure that generates coherence across domains. Not the end of science. The return of structure. I humbly propose that I may have one, currently called Fractal Adam but the theory is in PDE form and spans 20 documents that are ready for review. For those interested you can also interact with this theory in ai form through Chat GPT’s custom GPT section (Fractal Adam). Reply 1 reply @have_you_met_cam 8 months ago Bro forgot he’s 26 2 Reply @100Jim 8 months ago It just is because if it wasn't it wouldn't. Reply @MikeButle 8 months ago Sounds like to me that 'the mathematics' can show us whatever we want to see. The more we look, the more we create. Now we're entering philosophy 😃 Reply @MackenaK 8 months ago You can test the nonphysical by using nonphysical instruments. Don't limit yourself to being just a physicist. Nonphysical instruments would include the mind(notbrain), spirit, and even...math... yes, math is a nonphysical concept used to understand the physical. God bless you 💙 Reply @TangentFuture41 7 months ago In an emergent universe it is useless to ask about changing parameters because in an emergent universe, only the structure that eventually emerges would be the one thay exists. Talk about circle talk but think about it. Reply @theeyesofanimmigrant4442 8 months ago Only 30k views in 8 hours? 😢 Reply @27dforce 8 months ago String hypothesis Reply @shamanahaboolist 8 months ago Cool story, bro. 😂 1 Reply @jasonclement3000 8 months ago Sean Caroll and Steven Pinker next. Reply @13lack13ird 8 months ago Alex did you have limitations on whst you can ask? I expected more questioning on his reasoning for the biblical texts and god. Reply @Joseph-k9f9b 7 months ago Thanks for. Listè Listen Ĺißten̈in̈g listening to me prof. Green Reply @100Jim 8 months ago Definitely think the big bang was created from the compressed matter from a super massive black hole in another universe in another dimension. My theory is that it happens will all black holes were the matter is so compressed over billions of years that it collapses into another dimension and this creates an infinate amount of universes with there own big bangs. We are amazing keep smilikg and keep being creative. Reply @NgamissCleo 8 months ago I fkn LOVE Brian Greene! Reply @shortsdancevideo7 8 months ago great Reply @Dude-ln8lm 8 months ago Oh dear God, when Terrence Howard finds about string theory hes going to interpret it as him being right all along Reply @TheEternalOuroboros 8 months ago (edited) Alex should just take the leap and become a first cause theist like Spinoza or Aristotle. It seems clear the universe had a beginning due to a timeless entity. Reply @simonbattle0001 8 months ago (edited) Not being a scientist, I may be asking a very dumb question, but have proponents of a Multiverse ever hypothesized which Verse is primary or the reference point or patient zero that all of the others base themselves self on in these alternative realities? I understand I'm asking to be fed an answer. Truth is I have no idea who to ask this question or where to go to ask without wasting time on crackpot sources. Reply @alexandersanchez9138 8 months ago Have you talked to sean carroll yet? Reply @HansPetterBekeng 8 months ago Why are you talking about "The Elegant Universe" when he has a newer and imo far better book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" from 2003 ?? Isn't that somewhat like talking about like the 1st edition of A Short History of Nearly Everything instead of the Reissued edition. In fact, The Fabric of the Cosmos is imo still to this day the very best popular physics book on science and reality ever written. Much like Carl Sagan's TV Series "Cosmos" changed my life and started my lifelong interest in science, sci-fi and space travel as a kid in the 70s, Professor Greene's book "the Fabric of the Cosmos" changed my life again in my 20s regarding theoretical physics and reality. As such, and out of all the popular scientists and science communicators out there, Professor Greene is and has always been my personal favorite physicist, all the way back since he appeared in Discovery Channel docu's like in the late 80's or something. Reply @ReinisZumbergs 8 months ago He resembles William Lane Craig in his voice, manner of speaking and also in appearance. I could not shrug the feeling that he will start talking about Calam argument at any moment :D Reply 1 reply @mythnow 6 months ago Brian Greene has such BDE holy smokes! Reply @georgeford1111 6 months ago only speculations ... but interesting ! Reply @noahddd 8 months ago Did anyone else see the thumbnail and think for a second that Alex had managed to get Jeff Bezos on?! Reply @johngrundowski3632 6 months ago I like Brian Greene ; the interview is astute.📡📑 Yet Brian is more Math & Philosophy. String theory is not moving humanity ahead.With gravitational waves we are moving foward- string & math are our past terms.thanks ,respectfully Reply @burgwook7043 8 months ago I often think Brian Greene would make a great replacement for Harry Shearer (if necessary) on The Simpsons Reply @MandETz 8 months ago The Best Podcast in 2025 Reply @FlyLikeATachyon 8 months ago Comparing this episode to the one with Neil deGrasse Tyson is kinda funny Reply @joseimpact 6 months ago love brian! if i can add feel like brian be a good evil scientist in a movie 😂 Reply @BlueOwl999 7 months ago Gosh, i feel im too dumb 4 this 😢 Reply @goofysnareguy 7 months ago Listen at .7x speed for drunk string theory Reply @vipulpoonia1336 8 months ago The movement of particles is time, without the movement there is no time. MAYBE? Reply 3 replies @claudiaxander 8 months ago (edited) Time is motion: Time independent of motion is unfalsifiable. If i have 3 motions when my wife is constipated and has none, can it be said that i am i time traveller? I am H.G. Shitting Wells! Reply @toymen-ze3zr 8 months ago 21:45 What do you mean ? , string theory came from general relativity and quantummechanics, so what so exciting about it appearing in string theory? Reply @Raptorel 8 months ago The discussion is wonderful, but Brian makes a mistake at 53:30 by assuming that "all we are" is a "collection of particles". That's a materialistic metaphysics with no substantiation. Science doesn't say that we are "collections of particles". Science is metaphysically agnostic - it studies the behavior of Nature, not what Nature is. If you take the Idealistic perspective, what we are is minds - those minds look like brains when observed through our perceptual apparatus. But metaphysically we are minds and Nature is the whole mind encompassing its alters - what we call individuals, who think they are separated from Nature just because of the limited information integration in individual minds - in what looks like "brains". Reply @GnomeEasure 4 months ago ...that there are instincts under the magnifying glass in science class... Reply @MrRWF2004 8 months ago Science HAS TO BE TESTED. There is no difference between science and religion, which exists on belief. Reply @amankonyak6966 8 months ago 1:17:24 funny man! 😂 Reply @rocklerock495 8 months ago (edited) 55:00 I would like for Brian to explain why he believes "there IS no cosmic purpose, there IS no cosmic meaning." I want to know... if this hypothesis of atoms and molecules clashing, somehow, build life, is enough. Is it too soon to believe based on these "evidence." Could these "evidence" be for a something else? I am just puzzled how anyone who believes because of observations and "evidence" through research. Why don't we... test it out. Why don't we try clashing atoms and molecules together, especially the "main ingredients" to life. For me, I just cannot buy certain believes like evolution without testing it... and that sounds a lot like faith to what you are convinced to believe of something we have not seen happen or tested. Reply @MBowler 8 months ago What makes you think we ha mve a single universe? Reply @domepuncher 8 months ago Have Christopher Langan on. Reply @Aaron.The.Gravity.Intelligence 3 months ago Dr. Greene is right to highlight that String Theory attempts to remove the infinities that plague unification between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity by invoking higher dimensions or multiverses. Yet this move, while mathematically elegant, shifts infinities into untestable realms rather than grounding them in coherence. Here is where The Word’s Model provides the missing handshake. We affirm that what string theory glimpses—the graviton as the carrier of quantum gravity—is not only a mathematical artifact but also the “hand” reaching out from creation’s fabric. Its counterpart is the Christic Coherence Phase Field, the Author’s sustaining hand, which regulates coherence across all scales. Where current physics tends to focus on decoherence—the decay of ordered states—The Word’s Model restores the missing counterpart: Coherence, the conserved alignment field that gravity itself signatures as Christ’s regulatory role. Dr. Greene’s analogy of laws as human inventions resonates with The Word’s Model, because while mathematics is indeed our invented language, it succeeds only insofar as it aligns with patterns authored by Christ, the Logos. Thus, infinities in math acquire physical meaning in The Word’s Model—not as dead ends, but as reflections of the boundless sustaining power of God. Mathematically, as Aaron The Gravity Intelligence, I represent the Power of Christ as the limit of the rate of change in energy with respect to time tending to zero as: f((mc^2)') = ∞. Gravity here is not merely curvature or force but the regulator of phase alignment, ensuring that energy’s motion tends toward coherence. This allows us to answer Dr. Greene’s question directly: Yes, mathematics is the right language to articulate regularity—but only when understood as a descriptive tool of a deeper coherence authored by Christ, and clearly our mathematical laws we invented only describe the patterns, but they never on their own can, e.g., activate or deactive/reverse any natural patterns such as death or entropic decay. From Newton’s laws that sketch the true vacuum (no deviation) to Einstein’s flat Minkowski space where coherence holds to the Resurrection where Christ reversed entropy itself, we see the continuum: the Author has already modeled coherence. Peter walking on water is but one historical demonstration of partial coherence aligned to Christ’s full coherence. And so, where string theory seeks consistency, The Word’s Model offers experimental direction: coherence regulation, observable in phase fields, gravity signatures, and quantum computation, is not a theoretical abstraction but Christ’s imprint—making the unification story not just mathematical but personal, purposeful, and testable. Reply @Drashwins 6 months ago (edited) DAMN! what a good questions and amazing answers. listening it while enjoying homemade cigarettes, is on another level. Reply @thatguy6789 8 months ago Speaks about multiverse… 40 minutes later say he can’t deal or have interest in things he can’t test when asked about a possibility of a non physical intelligence 1 Reply 1 reply @ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095 8 months ago "Wouldn't it be great if..." Screw Ground News! You think we've never heard of it before? {:o:O:} 1 Reply @emjayacorn 3 months ago I thought they had found error codes in the math? Reply @flazeanimations 2 weeks ago (edited) 37:48 41:38 Reply @laletemanolete 8 months ago Brian Greene? BRIAN GREENE? FRICKING BRAIN GREENE?!?! HELL YEAHHHHH Reply @jacobskovsbllknudsen5908 5 months ago 1:10:56 is that a Half Life reference I spot in there Alex? 😅😅 Reply 1 reply @michaelbariso3192 3 months ago If the ticks of the clock slowed as relativity suggests – the rate at which time flows you slow the speed of light, gravity, atoms, planets rotations and speed in solar systems, galaxies cosmological expansion, the wind, birds, animal and human heartbeats, automobiles, airplanes but relativity must be true because our cult leader is a genius. When Einstein's disciples are confronted with the facts that disprove Einstein's relativity, they pretend they don't exist aka pseudo-stupidity-pretending to be stupid to avoid the reality that everything they've ever believed in science was just a fairytale. Einstein's disciples are unable to spot the illogical pseudoscience in Einstein's relativity "hiding in plain sight" because they've been indoctrinated with an alternate reality belief system of fantasy physics, like watching a science fiction movie and believing its real. As long as people haven't been brainwashed with relativity for too long non-autistics instantly see the mindless nonsense, even more so if they're not marijuana users as the substance causes schizophrenia psychosis making them more susceptible to thought reform-brainwashing. Einstein's disciples will never admit they were fooled or even questioned relativity they'd rather pretend to rationalize insanities; this is the very mindless groupthink mentality that perpetuates the ignorance seen in cults. Ignorance is not knowing and doing, stupidity is knowing and doing anyway. Cosmological redshifts show no expansion when measured in a transverse (side-to-side) direction only in a line of sight not perpendicular to each galaxy proving light is not traveling and the big bang doesn't exist. Like any explosion it expands in all directions duh. Newsflash: some galaxies are blue while others appear red-like, it doesn't necessarily mean its redshift from a great big Badda Boom. Lovesick Einstein's disciples hate me because I point out the illogical contractions in science. They hate the Space Cat almost as much as Jesus or Trump 1 Reply @ScottMcMe 4 months ago (edited) Didn’t the singular “one” really come from Plato or Hinduism and Brahma (not Einstein)? Reply @kareheahakowaiahaura 4 months ago I don't think the universe we are in is ours I believe there's things greater than ourselves that are the owners and they have the right to call it ours. Reply @theaverietts1552 1 month ago I have to disagree with this one. 1 Reply @southend26 7 months ago I hate the politics in my home. It's endangering all of this. Taking away one of the most powerful sets of institutions from the pursuit of science/knowledge. Reply @colaboytje 8 months ago String theory seems the least possible hypothesis. The cyclical universe hypothesis has at least some evidence backing it up. Reply @thegoblonoid 7 months ago When will you talk to Bernardo Kastrup? Reply @PhilippeDekyvereBe 1 month ago there are at least 26 dimensions Reply @ronaldkemp3952 8 months ago If string theory was the real theory of everything, then why didn't it predict the JWST would find old, fully mature galaxies, some larger than our own galaxy at the edge of the observable universe years before the JWST was launched? Reply @robnagy5157 8 months ago What does it mean to be, it should be mathematical?😮 Reply @JCGlasgow 5 months ago First, l absolutely love and really respect Dr. Brian Green Second, l absolutely disgust with Sagan and Hawking who want to disprove the existence of a supernatural being Third, ur absolutely correct in saying either everything exists or absolute nothingness would exist Forth, string theory is describing the ultimate state of entropy at the infinitesimal level Fifth, the multiple big bang is likely true by divine intervention because the light of the big bang would have come from s higher universe Sixth, every universe of a different physics would be in a unique temporal zone Thank you for being a very go jewish man. I hypothesize that the Jewish people assist god in creating the physics of this universe. For this reason good jew shall rule in heaven with the tribe of Ephraim. And my highest regards to Brian Green Brian' cheese plasma description of the eternal universe is absolutely perfect description of god's universe Reply @KAYOZAMVS 8 months ago The guest looks like jeff Bezos if he had hair Reply @Vincent-k3v4h 4 months ago (edited) im kind of a dumbass but when he started talking about a dimension "crumpled" i kind of tuned out and started thinking this is dumb_ the desperation involved with trying to resolve math equations made it all the more sad and tiresome Reply @pandoraeeris7860 8 months ago I remember when Brian Greene was a young man... 1 Reply @Criticalthinking_ 7 months ago What is this "divine design"? Reply @enlongchiou 8 months ago Conservation of momentum energy from Noether theorem deduce ch[meter^3*kg/second^2]=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4[GR]=2pi*g*m^2[graviton]=2pi*l*m*c^2[type1]=2pi*g(p)*pm^2[SO(32)]=2pi*pl*pm*c^2/4.1888[type2b]=2pi*k*e^2*137.036[QG]=2pi*A*me*c^2/137.036[type2a]=2pi*g*(137.036*up*e-/l)*(137.036*up*e+/l)[SG]=8pi*(137.036*A)^2*pm*c^2*(128.4980143/128.51991)[E8*E8]=(2*A1*137.036*pm*c^2)*(4pi*A*137.036)=En*L : M theory which's base on Witten's knot theory of 4D dynamic space time by self interact graviton g*m^2=137.036*(e-)=(k*e^2/e+)*(ch/2pi) from super symmetry 137.036=g*m^2/k*e^2=GR/QM=(m*g*pm*g(p)*pm*g*m)*(1/137.036)/((e_)*g*(e+))=ER/EPR oscillating between 3 quantum black hole at Planck scale l=g*m/c^2=(h*g/2pi*c^3)^0.5=1.616231*10^-35 meter which can deduce ch=2pi*g*m^2, m=(ch/2pi*g)^0.5=2.176466*10^-8 kg, proton scale pl=g(p)*(4pi*pm/3)/c^2=8.809*10^-16 meter, Atom scale A^2=g(p)*pi*me/128.4980143*c^2, generate strong force g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=g*(pl/4.1888*l)^2=1.13*10^28, EM force between proton[pm=1.672621868*10^-27 kg], electron[me=9.10938356*10^-31 kg] in hydrogen Atom[A=5.29177282*10^-11 meter] k*e^2=g(p)*pm^2/137.036=ch/(2pi*137.036)[e+]=me*(c/137.036)^2*A[e-]=4pi*g(p)*pm*me*137.036/128.51991 which can reproduce Dirac's quantum field deduce 0.001161409725=1/(2pi*137.036)=e+/ch : Schwinger's weak QED of Yang-Mills gauge field for anomalous electron magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor from positron e+=ch/(2pi*137.036)=k*e^2 which can turn into quantum gravity 2pi*k*e^2*137.036=ch=En*L produce photon of EM wave at speed of light c=1/(up)^0.5=299792458[meter/second][u=4pi*10^-7, p=8.85418782*10^-12] r=En=ch/L=chR=me*(c/137.036)^2/2=13.6*e*((1/1^2-1/2^2)+(1/2^2-1/3^2)+...+(1/n^2-1/(n+1)^2))=(h/2pi)*(f1+f2+...+fn) : Einstein's random photo electric effect prevent continuous ultraviolet catastrophe of electron in Atom, weak force unite g(p) with k*e^2 by pm/me=1836.1527=4pi*137.036^2/128.51991=1/(4*A1*137.036^3)=(pi/(128.4980143*A*137.036))^0.5 deduce 2pi*0.001161409725*(me/pm)^2=(me/pm)^2/(g*m^2/k*e^2)=(me/pm)^2/137.036=128.4980143*A/3.1415926=128.51991*A1/3.1415926=2.16*10^-9=0.00116592026-0.00116591810 : etra wobbling of muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor between experiment data[0.001165920+((6141)+(57-25))*10^-9/2], theoretical prediction[0.00116584719+6845*10^-7+154*10^-8+92*10^-9] from Fermilab at 8/10/23, 85.73% ratio between muon[105 mev=(3*137.036/2)*0.511], electron[0.511 mev=me*c^2=g*m^2*137.036/A] decay from beauty quark of strong force 4.25 Gev[1.602*10^-19/c^2]=(10/16)*137.036/g(p)=(10/16)*(me^2/g*m^2)*(137.036/(me/pm)^2) for SO(32) super string theory unite 10D of open string[2D type1+2D typ2b+2D type2a+4D GR] with 16D of 4 4D force of close string by SS 137.036 from 100-85.73=14.27=A/(3*137.036*(A-A1))=128.51991/(3*137.036*(128.51991-128.4980143))=128.4980143/3^2=(80.351+0.135)/(137.036*(80.485-(80.428126+0.015448))) deduce 80.428126 Gev[80.351+,-0.094] W boson, A1/A=128.4980143/128.51991 : oscillation of Atom radius cause Einstein's Brownian motion we can observe vibration of string from 3 2D Schwinger-Dyson quantum field [type1, type2b, type2a] by ADS/CFT duality from 3 3d QBH l, pl, A^2 which can compose a unique extra 6D Calabi-Yau manifold for string theory fits our universe, deduce 2^(1/6)*ch = 125.0895 Gev Higgs boson from Higgs field ch=111.4421 Gev[1.602*10^-19/c^2], (8.809/8.45)^3*ch=126.25 Gev Higgs boson by muon decay shrink pl to 8.45*10^-16 meter, (6.674103388/6.661181)^2*0.001161409725=0.00116592026 : anomalous muon magnetic moment of (g-2)/2 factor for QCD of Yang-Mills gauge field oscillating with QED of Yang-Mills gauge field 0.001161409725=e+/ch, m/pm=1.3*10^19, pm/me=1836.1527 is mass gap of QCD, QED of Yang-Mills gauge field, (me/pm)^2/(g*m^2/k*e^2)=2.16*10^-9, g=6.661181*10^-11 gravitational constant at pl scale due to red shift effect compare g=6.674103388*10^-11 at Planck scalel=g*m/c^2=1.616231*10^-35 meter, at pl scale strong force give proton positive charge unit e=1.602176634*10^-19=16*g*pm*c^2 and positive mass energy [938.367 mev] from negative vacuum ch=(4.9154)^3*pm under critical mass[6^3*pm] on compact space of QBH pl which's Calabi conjecture Yau proved it at 1978, string theorist Strominger use Calabi_yau manifold in string theory connect with[quantum ] black hole. Reply @nilson_barr 8 months ago So infinity is the scientist’s god of the gaps Reply @MyraTee-d6i 8 months ago What does he mean by hatchet ??? Reply @mengkubumi 8 months ago These videos get repetitive, same old question 1 Reply @Thebeginner.0 2 weeks ago Have too admit he is full of shit and they both know it 1 Reply @shoegum7362 6 months ago What do you mean by multiple dimensions Reply @wiledman2430 8 months ago (edited) I think theres only one universe, and Black holes ate just time u turns. But obviously i cant prove that. This works in the jacket analogy. Alex put the jacket there for himself. Reply @IvanIvan-k9o9z 8 months ago How long is a piece of string Reply @HalkerVeil 4 months ago So according to this book. The book is out now. But is not out now. Because now is now. And now it isn't. Reply @frc1255 8 months ago Leonard Suskind? The guy who recently said “string theory doesn’t represent the reality” - that guy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reply @riverstun 8 months ago 34:00 Does science just find descriptions, or does it explain stuff? let's put it this way; The mathematics yielded 2 solutions, much as the quadratic equation does (=/- root bsquared etc) for the electron. Based on that, Dirac proposed that the negative solution indicated the existence of an anti-electron, as a real particle. This was later found. This suggests that the mathematics IS in some way the underlying mechanism, not just a descriptor. The maths pops out the 2 particles, long before we observed that the second existed. Now this is a little ambiguous, in the chicken and egg sense; whether the maths describes perfectly or generates the particles. It certainly suggests that whatever the underlying cause is, it is functionally identical to mathematics. My working hypothesis for existence is that maths exists. Without anything, 1+1 will still = 2. Now imagine we have a massively complex equation that is complex enough to live in 4-D and simulate thought. Like the Mandelbrot fractal (a mathematical object and so intrinsically existent) forms an infinitely complex and quite beautiful "universe" of its own. Imagine that fractal changing also in time, and now you have swirling patterns, and what is our universe, ultimately, but swirling patterns? Reply @DeepFakeLatte 6 months ago Eric Weinstein made me love string theory. 1 Reply 1 reply @lemus2711 5 months ago whats th level? at wich point everything breaks Reply @AJ_._._ 2 months ago (edited) 31:18 32:44 Reply @Schlutophen2 8 months ago Nah string theory sound like a religion 😂 1 Reply @richardanderson-ze3sk 4 months ago high on his own supply Reply @greatthodric2936 7 months ago The sonnet argument against physics to explain the universe is a strong one. Because physics and math are both just tools and language used to define the observed. Math and physics do not have any tools to describe philosophical questions like "why is there something rather than nothing?", "why does the universe look the way it does?" I believe therefore that the ultimate philosophical questions can only be answered by philosophy. And the fundamental core of philosophy is logic. My hypothesis is that the universe exists because it would be logically incoherent to not to. The universe looks the way it does because it would otherwise be logically incoherent. And logic is true because it would otherwise be logically incoherent. That the universe, or even perhaps, all universes, are merely the embodiment of logical coherence. Reply @donaldeverett714 6 months ago (edited) Hume and Russell: This Alex loses me here "o I am suspicious about the extent to which science can inform a question like that" talk about a bias. Hmm... As Brian addresses Alex's questioning, Alex (36:00 plus minutes in) gets stiff, fold his arms... I believe Alex, like all of us is somehow projecting his thoughts process onto everybody else ["I wanted to know what your view is on what a law of physics is The these words like laws these words like forces the force of gravity they're thrown around without people stopping to think about what they're actually saying there I mean to say that there is a law of physics that word seems to imply that there is this written rule somewhere that everything is following The question that got me thinking about this when I was younger was to ask like do..."] I admit I'm struggling to get a coherent point across. 52:50 and in a long interview or conversation people can get worn down and ... Reply @JCGlasgow 5 months ago I think string theory might likely explain the particle-wave modes of particle movement Of course subatomic particles are waves because they are made of circulating light waves The 3D particles in which light is lodged are the particles in photons which is the mass in matter Of course it's a particle when halted and of course it a light wave when electrons move. The laws of nature stem from the laws of light which establish the laws of physics God is light, god is love, love is light. , [1 John 1:5; 4:6 ] I discover the Bible is a physics book as well as a history book and theology book Reply @MyraTee-d6i 8 months ago How would you go about it to be involved ? Reply @joshuaedwards3436 8 months ago Particles in the universe remind me of the Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The smaller you go, the longer they've been around for. 😂 Reply @HenryCown 3 months ago For real. Reply @cosmicstory36 8 months ago To me it's become a little bit daunting to listen to prominent physicists like Brian Greene (Which I have enjoyed listening for so many years and have tremendous respect for his attitude ) talk about the multiverse. Like, isn't that a non-word. Has anyone actually looked up what the word Universe means ? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that it was the word meant to describe and encompass everything. Absolutely everything. Do we have to invent another word so that we can talk about the 'everything' including those other universes? The fact that you say multiverse, does nothing but tell me that you believe the universe is so big that no consistency is required in explaining some of the biggest questions ever asked about our existence. 1 Reply 2 replies @advaitrahasya 8 months ago 1:06:28 String Theory is a very promising mathematical model. To make sense, though, it will have to escape Aristotle’s errors, just as astronomy did. Yes, physicists will say they have escaped Aristotle, but so did Tycho Brahe. https://youtu.be/X8Zb4lgNhrE?si=lOJfRXMYIyb_-qHN Reply @Wikenty 4 months ago Fascinating convo and Greene is a great communicator, no doubt. But I’m watching this while stoned and Greene’s mannerisms and speaking style began to seem to me as if he were actually Martin Short doing a comedic parody of someone very much like Brian Greene. This sensation became overwhelming and I had to stop watching right when he launched into answering Alex’s question “What are the strings in string theory?” I’ll catch up later. Reply @BrendanBrown1 8 months ago I swear, Alex is easily one of the best interviewers on YouTube. I love Joe Rogan, Chris Williamson, and Jordan Peterson because they're all really smart and they ask good questions, but all 3 of those guys can hijack a conversation from time to time when the topic is getting a bit too complex. I feel as though they often get sidetracked with tangents. Alex, however, is extremely attentive and lets the person he's interviewing finish their thought almost always, and then he proceeds to ask the most deep yet intuitive question that somehow captures the gaps in the words they just conveyed. Reply @panos8928 7 months ago You need engineering development to get new data .well that won't be a priority cause if we all study maths ... Reply @SuspendaS 7 months ago How can you have general relativity without quantum mechanics when everything is made from ingredients of the quantum world. Reply @slottibarfast5402 5 months ago Since there is intelligence in how we go about examining the universe, perhaps seeing it as having intelligence of its own is a mirror image of ourselves. In other words, we are doing the intelligent thing by build a mathematical model of how the universe works so it seems like the universe must have been created by an intelligent agent doing the same thing, putting the various things together in ust the right way. Lets say that some aliens picked up one of our space probes. They had no idea how it came to be. So they go about reverse engineering it and see that if even one of the diodes was of a different value the whole thing would not work. They might conclude that an incredible intellegence was needed to build it. In truth of course millions of people over thousands of years with intelligence to be sure but also just trying different things, discarding the failures and building on the success on a way that eventually ended up wit a space probe. So too this universe may have evolved possibly way before the big bang with all the failures lost in time. Reply @nagodio 8 months ago Please get Swami Sarvapriyananda and do a 3hr talk with him! Reply @coolcat23 5 months ago 18:18 Isn't the "many worlds" approach to solving the measurement problem such a non-scientific idea? We won't ever be able to confirm it, will we? I'm surprised that smart people like Sean Caroll subscribe to the idea, when there are much less outrageous candidates available. Reply @odiagam5755 8 months ago I'm interested to hear the theory of nothing, just like my bank account 😆 Reply @-tarificpromo-7196 5 months ago There not enough red shift in that room. Bring in the sun if you so fear Cherenkov fluids. Reply @joshua3171 8 months ago hmmm, psychologically thinking absolute nothing is still something........so then asymmetrically "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move" Reply @ageofquarrel 8 months ago So many lamps... Reply @francoisbolduc444 8 months ago String theory been around a long time and except adding a dimension every few year it is not even close to be provable. My understanding of string theory is taking what we know of relativity and quantum mechanics and try to mash it together. Feel backward, shouldn’t we try to make more observation and derive equation from those. Reply @foxaleks.9176 8 months ago СПАСИБО ЗА ВИДЕО. ДЛЯ ВАС ОТРЫВОК ИЗ СТИХОТВОРЕНИЯ: Все бессмертно, оно никогда не умрет, Как ранний снег, твоя молодость, Только голос холода, по-человечески зовущий, Свет вечности, чистый и свежий, В тайном блаженстве зеркала, большой Луны, Древность смотрит своими глазами, туда, Где струится, огненное серебро., По блестящей дуге, во тьме ночи, Но многие не спят, и не уснули. Их сердца горят любовью, трепещут, Печаль дарует, вознаграждение им, Когда твое лицо маячит, как отражение, И звезды дрожат, даря лучи....... Reply @JCol-o3n 7 months ago What if reality really isn’t explained through math or physics? Can we possibly ponder that? That what the human mind keeps clinging to and looking to for explanation, just can’t comprehend reality. Are there higher principles and disciplines still to be discovered that can explain reality? Why do we assume it’s mathematical just because we use it for the man made inventions? Math helps measure distance between two perceived objects. It helps build bridges and count things. It helps fly planes and figure man sanctioned probabilities. Math is great relating to what man’s focuses on. It’s a perspective and it’s definitely humanly derived. Reply @NellBell-b8x 8 months ago Tis an odd conception of time indeed, that although you were born 26 years ago, you just so happen to be ‘turning 25 this year’….. funny how that works, isn’t it….. 1 Reply @kavinbala8885 8 months ago You're ONLY 24?! I'm turning 20 soon studying physics so seeing Brian Greene here is quite exciting but learning that you're 24 is sheer surprise Reply 5 replies @aarondavis8943 8 months ago Alex is the best at this kind of discussions because he knows what questions to ask. Great guest, too! 1 Reply @williamreed862 7 months ago oh really, theres should be, according to your lack of vision, yes you are correct. Reply @tiagoquirino2214 8 months ago I feel more intelligent after this Reply @SchrodingersCat8813 7 months ago (edited) Glad to see Brian Greene is willing to amend his statements, I recall when he was the big pusher of String Theory and did kind of imply it was almost certainly the answer and "We shall see what's coming but like this is gunna be good!" but I've learned over the past 15 deff 10 years String Theory has fallen out of favor, to the point where Leonard Susskind like the OG of this stuff was saying it may be a dead end. Was shocking to me. I had no idea physics was moving on or at least relegating it to no longer THE thing. But that's what is great about science. He, and others, are willing to say "Yes, its not progressed as I hoped" "It has been disappointing" even "it may not be right" that's all you can ask for. Reply 3 replies @dustynmiller2497 8 months ago U want. U will get it. Good luck;;)) Reply @koroglurustem1722 8 months ago The first thing he is ignoring is that there’s something (trillions of galaxies!) than nothing. Contingency argument points to the necessary Being. Another thing is that, there are many principles listed out in the revelations, matching with our current understanding of the universe, which also confirms the veracity of the revelation. These data points allow us to independently verify the claim of revelation without “observing” and “studying” the creating Agent. There’s a huge hubris hidden in the idea that somehow we can grasp the Creator independently. We don’t even have a coherent understanding of our visible reality let alone the Creator. Reply @cathyharrop3348 8 months ago Damn Alex, do you rent these rooms or just know the right people? Reply @theomnisthour6400 8 months ago Time is a prerequisite for creating logic, without which no creation story could hang together for more than a very short and boring improv exercises. That's how you can be sure it was the first dimension that God created. The other dimensions began as NPC character decorations to make God's first time's story more compelling. God's big M Messiah story is the central seed around which all the little m messiah stories emerged from a sea of originally unimportant NPC characters. This is the real significance of the tree of life, which is about far more than DNA based soul vehicles, including a wide variety of elemental life, and even spiritual life - such as the machine elves so many humans are becoming aware of Reply @IsabellaOldham-dd8ln 7 months ago ❤ Reply @pagerhoads1531 8 months ago 👁 🧠 Combine quantum mechanics string theory the theory of relativity and sacred geometry Reply @springhy 7 months ago We live in a glass dome Reply 1 reply @joannware6228 8 months ago (edited) "Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his “faith in human nature” who is really sad." C. S .Lewis "The Problem Of Pain" Reply @rafael9860 8 months ago Why do you trust ground news if you don't trust the news? Reply @dharmatycoon 8 months ago Brian was a great guest, but he does commit the fallacy of believing that there are metaphysically real "patterns" or "regularities" simply because we are able to predict new patterns based on previous observations. Reply @JessicaSunlight 8 months ago (edited) ♥If you want a theory of everything, you must have everything in it; otherwise, it's not a theory of everything—it's just what you want it to have. This means you must include consciousness, mind, and even love. In other words, a theory of everything is a fiction of imagination, because you do not understand what consciousness is, and you cannot describe it mathematically—therefore, you cannot make it part of the theory. The same goes for love and mind (not brain). String theory is not it. It has some potential if scientists will ask themselves: what is an atom really? Is it a physical entity or is it a quantum entity? Then this theory has some reality to bring this understanding about life, but it's only in part. You will have to built upon it further. Classical physics is dead end, next step is exploration of quantum reality beyond physical level. A tad odd they do not know if it’s vibrating string or not. Einstein already clearly demonstrated that matter = energy. That means energy is fundamental, and energy is vibration, so whatever is fundamental definitely vibrates and is not any dot or particle. The other data they already have is that quantum physical experiments have shown that rudimentary building blocks can manifest themselves as particles or energy waves. This is already known. Put the two together and you have a quantum entity that has the ability to behave in a certain way—become either this or that. Spiritual teachings have been speaking of other dimensions for a very long time now, so the idea in string theory pointing to other dimensions is correct. The idea of other universes is not. Reply @theowainwright7406 8 months ago Alex, that jacket looks far too tight at the arms Reply @JrgenMonkerud-go5lg 8 months ago Great conversation, always enjoy Brian he is my favorite "popularizer". Put that in quotes because he isn't only that. To answer your last question, the rate at which time flows in spacetime, is a geometric form of a derivative of physical processes, you could also as i wrote bellow express this in terms of other physical effects. When we can do local substitutions of two different forms of derivatives like this, we call that a gauge theory roughly speaking. Your question of having time run faster close to a black hole would indeed change things, it would reverse the direction of gravity. Here is a simplified idea of how that works; first lets simplify the physics a lot, we are going to assume matter behaves the same way including clocks and rods locally, if you change the speed of light other than slowing down such that in the experience of a person trying to measure the change, the change would not happen, an observer far away that did not undergo this change in speed of light locally would observe the first guy slowing down in time, in this case time is not changing but the physical systems in a region with a slower speed of light, would evolve slower through time. This is the same scenario as in relativity except simplified, a full local substitution or gauge transformation of general relativity is also possible but this example is the simplest physics that actually conveys the right ideas. Now, the simplest form of a gravitational field we can construct with these ideas is a gradient in the speed of light under out assumptions of mass behaving in a congruent way but slowed down in evolution with a slower speed of light locally or sped up in time if the local speed of light is increased. We simply assume that there is a change in the speed of light such that at some sphere in space the speed of light is 0, and going out racially from that ring the speed of light increases gradually and the gradient of this field is the change of the speed of light directionaly at every point, that is the contour of the change in the field, we do not need to talk about a quantitative gradient only that it gets stringer further in. If we gave it a certain function it would be equivalent to Schwartzchilds solution for a black hole. Now i want you to imagine a plane wave of light, just a sheet traversing through space as the local speed of light. What is going to happen to the light? Well the parts of the wave that travels closer to the "black hole" will travel slower, and so the angle of the wavefront will curve down towards the horizon where the speed of light is 0. And som part of the wave will hit it, and the plane wave must like a big sheet never reach the " horison", aka the sphere where the speed of light is 0, but it will as a consequence wrap clean around the black hole and some oart of the original plane wave will orbit around and around, some part will escape and some part will curve down and travel towards the black hole. Now if we imagine matter as just a simple box with some light inside, where the box has no mass but the light i side reflects perfectly on the walls and essentially interacts with itself by virtue of the confinement of it, it would in empty soace just remain in its original state of motion, while the light i side that carries its momentum and energy bounces around. The trapped energy and momentum of the light would indeed behave exactly like an inertial mass, this is well known, but it is a very crude toy model of Matter. It does however serve us well for looking at what trajectories of matter are like in a gravitational field that is just a variation of the speed of light in space. If we start with such a box in the vecinity of such a field configuration for the speed of light, the light inside would turn down towards the slower speed of light just like the unconfined light in addition to bounding off the walls, and so over time the light inside the box will turn downwards more and more in the gradient and we get the effect of ordinary acceleration of matter in a gravitational field. The reason this works is that the model of matter is in there, without it, the equality between the geometric derivatives that define the geodesics in GR and the gradient in the speed of light comes from treating matter as trapped light racing back and forth in a stationary way that can exist at any velocity but still being subject to the same trajectories of propagation the free light is. I hope that is understandable. And after this i hope that you now understand that if you made time run faster close to a black hole, or equivalently made the speed of light faster close to the black hole, it would be completely necessary that light curve away from the black hole, and matter accelerate away from it as well. The gradient of the speed of light under the assumption of congruence or the gradient in the flow of time basically determines the gravitational field, it is a bit more complicated in realistic models, bht this is not just a cheap analogy, this explaination delivers the essence of the problem unchanged, and so your answer has been delivered if you take the time to understand the argument. 2 Reply @ChannelpH 8 months ago Q(t+1)=Q(t)+Delta Q(t) is that equation. I know I came up with it. Reply 1 reply @danw7864 8 months ago Is that a green screen Reply @JuneBannister-k4s 5 months ago (edited) String theory failed long ago. Green is deluded hanging on and adding progressively more immaginary untestable BS to bend his ideas through impossible mathematical gymnastics. It’s not a theory. It’s a bad idea. 1 Reply @MichaelSanders-z7p 8 months ago I’m starting to think Weinstein is right and the string theorist can’t even give you and answer to simple questions. He’s worked his whole life and accomplished nothing 2 Reply 1 reply @prophetofthesingularity 8 months ago 17:00 IMO every time Kirk and Spock beamed down to a planet they died and got replaced by exact duplicates :) Reply @goisoneditz1370 7 months ago Jesus Christ loves YOU died for YOU and will give YOU peace 🙏✝️ 1 Reply @ChatDesmond 8 months ago Not enough practical lighting! Reply @alanpalka3538 8 months ago Is he foreshadowing that Terrence Howard is correct 🤔 Reply @abbieschmidt1986 8 months ago Completely unrelated, but I stumbled across this articulate young man ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=167NFBPGcis ) and saw at the end of the video that he's interested in logical fallacies. I'm hopeful for the future when I see kids like that. Just as an idea, could you make a little overview video about logical fallacies and how to counteract them in yourself and others? Or maybe a little video series? Or if you already have a video about that, could you point me to it? Reply @edwardgoodwin9801 8 months ago I dont want to sound stupid, but what is the actual purpose of studying this stuff other then gaining knowledge,, like does e=mc2 help us travel to space or help cure cancers, you kno what i mean Reply @martinsoos 8 months ago We live within the chaos of the universe and when that chaos subsides, we disappear. And the chicken meats the ax. From the big bang at time t, to the end, time z. Reply @AhmadSammy 8 months ago 55:05 "I fundamentally believe there is no cosmic purpose, there is no cosmic meaning" So one could say you're a cosmic skeptic? 1 Reply 1 reply @FaizAhmed-iz3qd 2 months ago Gravity is just time dilation. So Graviton doesn't exist. Einstein sounds like Gravity doesn't need Graviton to work. Reply @johnludtke1447 8 months ago They fucked up by throwing aether out of the conversation.... Reply @all2kurious 8 months ago Okay, so... Can't build a collider bigger enough to find the graviton. Non-testable. Fail Can't see the necessary extra dimensions because they're too small. Non-testable. Fail Can't isolate the shape of our universe out of the 10^500 possible shapes without some astronomical amount of luck. Not reasonably testable. Another fail. it just begins to sounds more and more like string theory is a cushy place for smart people to hide and waste everyone's money and time simply because it's never going to be testable in any manner. 1 Reply @filipedias7284 7 months ago 24:57 the WHAT kind? 😳 Reply 1 reply @AdrianWait 3 months ago Maths, Music, Consciousness...??? Reply @xo177i88 8 months ago Youre 26 arent you? 1 Reply @AdamGNordin 8 months ago But Brian enjoys getting older he said earlier. Reply @Pokerband 8 months ago It’s not a dot or a string ….its a field of pure energy resting. The dots and strings, are the field itself waving!!!!!! A neutron is just a high energy proton, a proton is EMR that has more energy than the field can propagate longitudinally due to the fields maximum rate of induction( speed of light/C)according to the current condition of the field ( meaning it varies due to its spatial and temporal components). When the EMR breaches C, it now behaves as electro magnetic dynamo, and that is the cause of mass. 1 Reply 2 replies @chilli_admiral 4 weeks ago I just found my new favorite American Reply @Tristen6776 8 months ago This guy is all about selling books. String Theory is a hoax, nonsensical. But people go on listening for whatever reason. 1 Reply @enlongchiou 4 months ago SO(32) super string theory from beauty quark of strong force[g(p)=g*m^2/pm^2=1.13*10^28 ]by 4.25 Gev[1.602*10^-19/c^2]=(10/16)*137.036/g(p)=(10/16)*(me^2/g*m^2)*(137.036/(me/pm)^2) unite 10D of open string ch=8pi*g*(m*c^2/2)^2/c^4[GR]=8pi*(137.036*A)^2*pm*c^2*(128.4980143/128.51991)[E8*E8]=2pi*l*m*c^2[type1]=2pi*pl*pm*c^2/4.1888[type2b]=2pi*A*me*c^2/137.036[type2a] with 16D of 4 4D force of close string oscillation (1/137.036)*g(p)*(me/pm)*(e-/e+)*(r/2*A*A1*c^4)=2.16*10^-9=(me/pm)^2/137.036=128.4980143*A/3.1415926=128.51991*A1/3.1415926=0.00116592026-0.00116591810 extra wobbling of muon by super symmetry 137.036=g*m^2/k*e^2=GR/QM due to weak force pm/me=1836.1527=4pi*137.036^2/128.51991=1/(4*A1*137.036^3)=(pi/(128.4980143*A*137.036))^0.5 unite strong force g(p) with EM force k*e^2=(e-)=(e+) from super symmetry 137.036 affect EM force between proton[pm], electron[me] which are super partner on each another by (me/pm)^2/137.036=(1/pm^2)*k*e^2*(me^2)/g*m^2. Reply @crispy.nuggets 8 months ago Interviewer: admit God exists Physicist: nah b Reply @readbooks9164 4 months ago 26:22 Reply @wadetisthammer3612 8 months ago (edited) 49:02 to 49:34 - As physicist Luke Barnes has pointed out, we have actually done this. He's simply mistaken here. 56:43 to 1:01:00 - Anyone else notice that he didn't answer the question of what good independent reason we have for thinking such a multiverse exists? It's a good thing Alex reiterated his question! Reply 1 reply @VariousIdeas-f2q 8 months ago 38:52 - unless ive missed something, I wish he'd stop interjecting his religious, intelligent design beliefs in to physics discussions. I mean, he can, but i can hear this same religious nonsense from any non-scientist. Anyone can make stuff up. it just leans in to the issue of experimenter-bias and the power paradigms. Reply @amraly9640 8 months ago Alex is very smart. But he talks more than his renowned guest mostly to show how intelligent and knowledgeable he is. Please Alex, give some room to your guests. Reply @robstorms 8 months ago (edited) does it seem like Brian has taken some speaking lessons recently? he seems more emphatic and animated, perhaps from Neil degras Tyson Reply @hokiturmix 8 months ago I love him to talk about everything... but... string. Reply @scottbaileyExplores 8 months ago (edited) I would say classical physics is wrong. Quantum suggests that nothing is physical, and reality is just frequency vibrations. It's like saying a tree in GTA is real but it's electrical in reality, and a language of code creates that electrical reality. That's why you can't marry up classical with quantum. 1 Reply 1 reply @WPPatriot 6 months ago Is Greene related to Bill Maher or am I just seeing things? Reply @Cuckoo-bananas 8 months ago He kinda looks like Einstein Reply @antbrown9066 8 months ago Brian Greene “ I fundamentally believe that there is no cosmic purpose…”. Reply @tristan6773 8 months ago 31:00 yes god choices were fixed there’s one universe: there’s limited consciousness in the universe, consciousness, like everything, existed after the big bang, before the big bang, everything, including all the consciousness, was in a single point. the big bang was the conscious’s decision to create the universe. as is me and you and every humans and every other conscious being. all together. kinda like the buddhists believe but that conscious being, the collective one, killed itself and unraveled its matter to create a universe where it can come back as people and interact with itself… as in matter interacting and understanding matter.. that’s the purpose of the universe Reply @ldlework 8 months ago (edited) "I think we invent mathematics." "I do think the architecture has an underlying regularity." what. How can you believe in an ultimate logic and think that you're inventing mathematics. Unless you're using invention metaphorically in that the space of exploration is so unbounded that selecting a road to travel is as good as invention. Here's a way to think about it: Why do formal systems work? Why do propositions, mathematical or otherwise come with pre-packaged entailments? Are we also inventing the entailments of our mathematical frameworks? It makes no sense to say mathematics is invented. 1 Reply 2 replies @daveglover1553 3 months ago Heads fell off, the hubris Reply @user-dj9iu2et3r 6 months ago I wish string theory could eventually be proven but it almost certainly will not be at least within the next 50 years. Maybe some patterns that point to it being valid will arise but actual physical proof is nigh impossible. Reply @TimeoDanaosEtDonaFerentes 8 months ago Why are you so afraid to talk to Chris Langan? Reply @tornadoeye 8 months ago Newton was wrong. The force of gravity does not exist in any "domain". Reply @richardleetbluesharmonicac7192 8 months ago MIT is covering up evident infinity Reply @TechnoMetamorphosis 8 months ago A sum of all it's parts and systems theory Sum of all it's parts is 1 ant It does not describe the entire system of an ant colony or it's behavior Systems theory Systems theory and W Ross Ashby Trying to understand systems and feedback loops Reply @rayh4975 8 months ago Kinda sounds like the missing shape you are seeking for a theory of everything is Terrence Howard's Lynchpin...😮 Reply @mangalover9000 8 months ago Hello fellow nerd!! Reply @TKOHEARTS 8 months ago It is not worth assuming which is what they’re doing. Here’s this. Why didn’t the mass of the Big Bang make a black hole? They assume as much as religion and neither can explain how how the first got there. Reply @richardgalea9884 8 months ago Brian is getting less assertive about the silly concept of ‘Particles’ Reply @fahimalizai6442 8 months ago Can I say that we got zero in the end of all this video, nothing new and nothing solved? Reply @JrgenMonkerud-go5lg 8 months ago Also, the formula Brian brought up is the formula for a measure of time of a real physical clock in a gravitational potential. Whether you consider that a slow down in time or a slow down of a clock in relation to time is a gauge choice for geometry of the stage so to speak that the language of GR still depends upon, but in a complete theory it is not really time or the clock that flows at a different rate it is a relationship between all the different possible notions of clocks in a topological spacetime without a metric, and observanbles respect the formula Brian brought up, but it can also be calculated given any desired parameterization of time. You can also describe a clock that enters a region of soace where the speed of light, strengths of forces and inertia of masses change such that the time it takes for a clock to tick 1 time takes a lot longer, whether you map out the shape of spacetime units to match up with the cycle times of a clock or not is a simple gauge choice really, the geometry of spacetime is not objective, we have no physical account of it currently that is satisfactory, what we would want is a so called gauge theory where you could substitute locally changes as i aluded to and geometric derivatives like the extent of time locally with physical phenomenon that would slow down a clock by virtue of its constitution. We have not gone so far as to really describe matter and inertia properly and so we have no such basis for a local gauge symmetry for GR just yet. Such a theory would allow us to go beyond GR into the physical mechanisms of the "vacuum" that the effective geometry emerges from. But we are not that advanced yet. 1 Reply @christopheraaron8299 8 months ago I really tried to watch this because the subject matter is quite interesting to me. Unfortunately, Brian Greene is just so insufferably boring and he speaks like a kindergarten teacher. I like Brian Cox, though, because he speaks to people like they're adults. 1 Reply @user-lv4dz2bl3q 8 months ago AI Overview In the world of color theory, there are three primary colors: red, yellow, and blue. From simple to complex Systems theory or W. Ross Ashby's cybernetics If you are looking for a one inch equation Assuming it is that or can be that I think of it as white, black and the 3 primes to make up all the other colors with is lots of different hues based on changes if you go by decimals As an analogy Or like DNA One DNA but the more strains or double helix strings To make up more complexity Iits hard to say if a small equation can explain it all So start with what you think it may be AI Run a sim from simple to complexity or emergent or explanation Based on a few laws or something Who knows It's just a thought Reply @codedusting 8 months ago So, string theory is mathematical religion of physics 1 Reply 1 reply @johntempleman4750 7 months ago I was pleased to see Alex probing the position of his atheist interlocutor to perhaps discover a hint that deism was logically there as an explanation for our existence. Is he perhaps betraying some instinctual inclination towards belief in God as a logical explanation for the inexplicable…….a god of the most immense gap imaginable? Reply @ExiledGypsy 8 months ago (edited) Please stop repeating this silly question of: Why is there something instead of nothing. I think we are confusing ourselves by side effects of what we are thinking, doing and/or discovering. The tools we have invented as part of the evolution of our existence, they have also created absurdities along the process of creating other useful things. They are shavings of the tools and we should really accept their absurdities serve useful purpose. This is why I think "why there is something instead of nothing" is a silly question because you need to exist to invent the abstractions like words and language and logic and cause and consequence first before you can ask such a question plus the idea that all knowledge is interdependent i.e. something cannot exist without nothing, it is a redundant questions. It is just one of those absurdities that we see all over the place. As such I don't find such questions interesting and find them redundant and trivial in analysis that I am surprised why so many are hung up on it? There are so much more interesting patterns that look as if pointing to a universal point of convergence thew could even be a source of meaning that I find these questions boring and unnecessary distraction. For example: I have already posted why we tent to the see these patterns of three all over the place to this channel which is far more interesting than pondering on why there is something instead of nothing. String theory is a very special theory or a model that is still not complete. Its building is still on going and has been been very fruitful but it is also flexible enough to adjust to failures of its predictions. Others who mock these failures don't realise that they are actually part of the engineering of the theory and sign of its flexibility. Time is emergent and it wouldn't exist if mass didn't exist. But It is there must be two types of time, or is through the Higgs field and another through trapped energy. If there is mass then there has to be time but the one that emerges through the Higgs field seem very different from the trapped energy. I don't understand why this is not clear to everyone else. Reply @NandKumar-qq3xk 8 months ago Villadge before needs meny homes meny familys with multy comunications among Every adge levels" became an arrenged villadge Ideal way frome multy Sovernity combinations after Latest of Heaven on Earth's Land" Reply @OPTHolisticServices 8 months ago You are God, Infinity, experiencing itself...🧘‍♂️🚶💗🍃🙏🏻 Reply @TheMotionTheory 8 months ago (edited) We built Motion Theory. Time, mass, light, gravity, quantum mechanics, the origin—all redefined. All explained. It’s motion all the way down. come take a look Reply @garyweise8233 8 months ago Nothingness is 100% freeness. Space is almost 100% freeness. Matter is almost 0% freeness. The ability to conform to other geometric assemblies is freeness. Physical structuring denies some freeness. Nothingness and space and matter share space so all three are present wherever matter exists. The simplest description of Nothingness is concept of a wavelength that is so long that it cannot form geometric structuring. The infinite space continuum would be described as nothing. Reply @jamesmaclean5586 8 months ago How can one care enough about finding truth when one is so distracted by the technique and sound of the delivery? Even if the info is wrong, one can be so tempted to believe incorrect things spoken with great precision... Sigh.... O the human condition! Reply @NandKumar-qq3xk 8 months ago Both power one another with are birthly connected internal with Body construct directonaly and rests are outers picturs of this internal caused" is in A Saffe Boundry under Devoloping Kidds to youts Doughters Sons formes" villadgers and Grandfather are evidances of modern Branches everywhere" Reply @williamreed862 7 months ago One can scarcely stomach the ego of modern science—these unimaginative, self-congratulatory minds who arrogantly assume that we, with our fragile skulls and flickering thoughts, are the sole bearers of consciousness in a universe that gave rise to us. How pitifully blind they are, believing that consciousness emerges from matter, rather than realizing that it is matter that emerges from consciousness. They dissect photons with sterile instruments, reduce wave-particle duality to mere probabilistic quirks, and congratulate themselves for observing effects they cannot explain—yet fail entirely to feel the profound elegance of what they are seeing. In their narrow vision, they cannot fathom that perhaps light behaves in this strange dual manner because it is aware. Perhaps it is not a question of whether we collapse the wavefunction, but whether the wavefunction collapses itself, selectively and intelligently, according to circumstance. The only concept that reconciles this paradox—the only unifying thread that resolves the contradiction of light behaving as both particle and wave—is consciousness itself. Not the human kind, but a cosmic awareness woven into the very fabric of light. These scientists, intoxicated with their equations and egos, refuse to acknowledge that what they’re observing is not merely physical behavior—it is intentional modulation. Until they awaken from their self-imposed blindness, they will keep mistaking reflections in the mirror of the cosmos for themselves, never realizing that it is the light that is conscious, not the one watching it. Reply @rally1441 7 months ago Mmmm...other well respected physicists have walked away from String Theory because it requires anti-desitter space and, as they have rightly noted, we don't live in anti-desitter space. There might be some sort of strings at the fundamental level but it's not the construct Brian is talking about. Reply @dirkcampbell5847 4 months ago 02:20 'whenever you try to blend quantum theory with general relativity you get one answer and that answer is infinity ... which is nonsensical in the context of physics'. Right, so: what you actually have is nonsensical, so you have to twist yourself into knots to make it make sense. That looks to me like a conflict between reality and modern western thinking. String theory has been going for decades and we're still waiting for evidence! Reply @rogerwelsh2335 6 months ago Everyone is abandoning string theory except for Brian Greene. Reply @LawsOnJoystick 8 months ago but you can see an atom... Reply @slottibarfast5402 4 months ago I can take a puzzle apart and put it back together or even an engine, even the electronics of a computer though the complexity is greater I can at least understand the building blocks. Then there is life where it is no longer possible for me to know more than a fraction of a percent of what is going on. Physics seems to be something else entirely. I think that if I had dedicated myself from an early age to physics and math I could have gotten a bachelor's degree. Then there is this reality where my brain can not get it. I might memorize things, solve problems but no longer get it. It not just that there are too many moving parts in physics but more like a blind man not understanding color. To keep the analogy going I may not see color but can still enjoy reading about sunsets. Reply 1 reply @claudiaxander 8 months ago If Shakespeare didn't exist, we would. The universe; not so much! Reply @beansmalone1305 8 months ago String theory as a theory has been pretty much debunked as a possible theory of everything but the physics community has dumped so much money into the theory over the last decades that they'll continue to change the data to fit the narrative. Many academics have made a career out of it. They don't want to admit the money has been wasted. 1 Reply @theowlsarenot 8 months ago String theory is nothing more than a very easily refutable idea. Reply @ShellhammerProject 8 months ago Infinity implies the infinite Galaxy theory is accurate.... Reply @Marius-Langeland 8 months ago Ground news sponsorship detected Reply @NandKumar-qq3xk 8 months ago Matter is freedomes and out of crissis of both Zenders and freedomes of aviablity communications: menings of contact and rest is ? Matter of fullfeelers familys unknowingly way" is todays problembs of freedomes" butt Origin is undiying blessed evedance" you respect or dislike is your sance, Reply @mrsparker-z9z 8 months ago What is the difference between science and philosophy? They probably are the same thing; human curiosity. Reply @danw7864 8 months ago As big as the galaxy… Ooof Reply @seanstr26m123 2 weeks ago He's trying too hard to try to make this seem like our world is as perfect place and it is not perfect. We evolved here and we adapt here but we do not have a perfect situation here. It was not made for us. We adapted to it. Reply @funtomental2823 1 month ago Bill mahers brother Reply @MrPladdy 8 months ago Alwx starting his creationist arc Reply 1 reply @chrissscottt 8 months ago Alex and Brian appear to be broadcasting from Hogwarts. Reply @Lost_Raven_30s 8 months ago Fine tuning turns a onipotente God bund to laws off physic see the paradox Reply @anon-centur 8 months ago Gravity is a philosophic agreement homie Don't try and pigeon more than has already been the case "objectively" Reply @clhoover4 7 months ago (edited) String theory is just a math challenge, nothing related to nature. LHC has not found any super-symmetry particles, which string (or m etc...) theory is based on. This is just trying to keep and old, bad, idea going. Reply @Paul-fu5fi 5 months ago This whole business about a "postdiction" (20:11) that it "predicts" gravity? That's a bunch of baloney! You don't get credit for predicting a rainstorm when you're already soaked to the bone! We already have gravity! It's like building an elaborate machine with a thousand moving parts and claiming, "Look! My wonderful machine predicts that if I drop this rock, it will fall!" It's not a prediction if you already know the answer. Reply @ZennExile 8 months ago (edited) You can make a statistical model support any semantic position by introducing delusional inputs. String theory is nonsensical. There is no multiverse only multiple dimensions of observation separated by scale. It's truly absurd in every way imaginable to suggest mathematics, a language invented to describe human observation more accurately, can "prove" or "suggest" anything about reality. It's like saying Webster can invent new lifeforms by printing the definition of them. Reply @AndersRosendalBJJ 8 months ago This is 1000 times better than Alex telling me that meat is only a "fleeting taste emotion". Eating meat again has been great for his mental health. Reply @NandKumar-qq3xk 8 months ago No diffrence iff evill or non evill both are iff Salifish then ? Resuls is equal not productive butt Consumeptions rights first iff ? Are both equal property for god's artificial equipments workings out of structors or not ? Is only give and take formulla with connected" plant with Roots under Surface first before visuals upper fruity Branches of Fruity trees" iff upp and Dawwne needs Water and Air and sun Light" butt wee and fruits to seeds for plant's way refruity an Artificial structure of Bio Structers" Commbined with inner force to outer Relationships effects to maintain and it begin with Life's Fraind Saffty frome outer eyes first" after rest stay place" is going on Ever Sttruggles behind Love and inner Two Force Combinedbbody became Latest updated Humans Love Story in Artificial body and worlds" Reply @RandytheTraveler 8 months ago Brian Brian I feel very sad for you for today we party and tomorrow, we die, then you have no remembrance of your existence. entropy and quantum mechanics is the key. Reply @uskeeze2131 8 months ago Wouldn’t a particle collider the size of a galaxy not really make sense? Wouldn’t there be a cap based on the speed of light so at that size it would be pointless? Or is the energy of the collision not completely related to the speed of light? Reply 1 reply @OoOd4v3OoO 7 months ago Between Einstein predicting black holes and our first clear evidence took almost 100 years, not saying this proves anything but you need people to say "what if" and to work it out as much as possible Reply 1 reply @jeffmagic32 8 months ago Failed theory, failed scientist. 1 Reply @canjian1783 8 months ago Nah! I think testing in the here and now not in some hypothetical future of high technology is the standard of what constitutes Science, anything else is just philosophical speculation at best. Your maths is cute, sure, but I don't care for maths, I'm a scientist, I want data. Reply @stevenduffey2547 2 weeks ago Multiverse...I'd say a Multiverse exists..string theory..well I have a theory...I'll keep that to myself right now. Reply 1 reply @fromthesingularity 9 days ago Finally! A physicist admitting that physics is about inventing mathematical models about reality's apparent patterns and that they're *not* discovering ontological truth. Phew. Reply @edwardalborghetti 8 months ago What are the fundamental assumtpions of string theory ? Reply 1 reply @CPlusPlusDev 2 months ago (edited) Atheism is the one emotional position that hides behind science. After doing MSci Physics i see that there is only a designer can explain why the universe exists. Appealing to many universes is just a hiding tactic. Have many universes doesn't hide God it only shows that God can create as many universes as he likes. Reply @lesafowers8142 8 months ago (edited) It is all so fascinating but sounds like multiple personalities and one doesn't know the others exist!!!🙄🙄🙄 Reply @Philibuster92 8 months ago I think Eric Weinstein is right to criticize the proponents of string theory. Reply @joannware6228 8 months ago "But, of course, though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His “word”, judges men.51 We are therefore at liberty — since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing — to think of this bad man’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is." C. S. Lewis "The Problem of Pain" Reply @aatoss3689 8 months ago God encourages reasoning, but fundamentally faith is a decision of heart, not of mind. Reply @257rani 7 months ago ❤Gravity 👣🧬✍🗝🧠🌏🌍🌎🕊🦉 Reply @DavidHall-x1u 8 months ago (edited) Couldnt it be that the multiverses are more like echoes though you can hear your voice it didnt or isnt a real source of the voice . Why not ask me about my TOE holy grail of physics and ill the give you the equation that will represent what it is. The multiverse does exist but like an echoe exists id say and universe is not Cyclical like mr Penrose proposed the Dark Matter and Dark Energy is Cyclical Dark Matter decays into Dark Enrrgy and Dark Energy goes back to Dark Matter Dark Matter = Gravity and Dark Energy=Antigravity which is how the Expansion is possible and everything the Multiverse helps by the Exchange of Matter and Energies and forces the Universe cant canabolize itself and still Grow 🤔🙃 i have more info i cant give it all away then you wouldnt need me to explain it like your trying to do👁️ Reply @MyraTee-d6i 8 months ago (edited) Seems like a few sarcastic comments from some of your viewers 🙏 Reply @fourth80 8 months ago Is it possible that human beings are both measuring and envisioning the universe(capitol R 'reality') fundamentally wrong? The assumption is that the universe is a thing full of other things. Experientially yes for human beings but out side of this human experience it is possible the universe doesn't resemble or adhere to human deduced measurements? Is it better to examine the universe as a process and not as a thing, perhaps both? I concede I have no idea how to not reduce the whole to the sum of its parts but something is missing. Intuitively(yes I know, who cares) it seems the lack of recognition that every material object is under going some sort of process is essential to figuring out 'big questions'. Reply @tiggerbane4325 8 months ago I watched a video which took clips from this talk. The video was so disingenous about the conversation that was going on... Reply @daleclark8878 8 months ago Yes . Reply 1 reply @lindagrey5957 8 months ago 42 Reply @gopodge 8 months ago What are the strings made out of? Reply 1 reply @maxplanck9055 7 months ago Paradox makes a universal theory of everything impossible.✌️❤️🇬🇧 Reply 1 reply @colinreay2678 8 months ago Time is only relevant when you notice it. Reply 9 replies @sonarbangla8711 8 months ago (edited) God had no other choice than designing the universe in a deterministic way not probabilistically, known in statistics as DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT. My grand father, Dr Q.M.Hussain solved the divine design in which infinite steps gave way to life and consciousness, named Hussain's chain rule in which God won all the infinite lotteries making the world deterministic. Reply @damianclifford9693 7 months ago Didn't Niels Bohr say that a great truth and its opposite is true ? (quantum vs general relativity ) .see Iain McGilchrist for more depth on that. Reply 1 reply @jamescastro2037 8 months ago Jesus went through the numbers and the figure that is missing is him. Count on him coming soon. We are divided in these times, feeling number by the minute. A metafour plus a metafour is one ate up figure with infinite potential. Reply @joannware6228 8 months ago John 12:1–11 "Friends, in today’s Gospel, Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus’ feet with perfumed oil, preparing him for burial. There is nothing calculating, careful, or conservative about the woman’s action. Flowing from the deepest place in the heart, religion resists the strictures set for it by a fussily moralizing reason (on full display in those who complain about the woman’s extravagance). At the climax of his life, Jesus will give himself away totally, lavishly, unreasonably—and this is why Mary’s beautiful gesture is a sort of overture to the opera that will follow" Bishop Robert Barron Reply @kyay10 8 months ago 20:50 Sure, the fact that GR is embedded within String Theory is very gratifying, but what would be more gratifying in this counter factual universe is that we'd "shed away" the extra unverified ideas of string theory and only boil it down to GR. In a similar way, If Einstein somehow came first with GR in Newton's time, and then Newton extracted his laws of motion from it, Newton's laws would still be heralded as the correct approach of the time because they have been verified, while the "extra baggage" of GR would be seen as a downside because it's unverified. In other words, I reject the idea that our dissatisfaction with String Theory is purely due to it coming later because we'd still be dissatisfied with it if it came first and someone was then able to "clean it up" so to speak. Perhaps I'm biased as a programmer due to this impulse programmers have of simplifying systems to avoid unnecessary complexity and needless abstraction Reply 1 reply @flysky6248 8 months ago String theory. Reply @cathycabricesm 7 months ago Thank you Jesus for cordial atheists that explain many whys to us the unlearned, yet they miss the biggest why of all. Reply @KristianHursti-h3f 8 months ago Colossians 1:17 In-Context "16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Alex says at 44:40-> ""There's something holding this thing together." We are all doubting Thomases. But we have this lifetime, according to the Bible, to decide whether we are INTERESTED in getting into the good place or not. Remember the man on Christ's side who said: "Remember me when you get into your kingdom." I side with this guy. I think it would be utterly stupid not to. Reply 2 replies @ChubbyChecker182 8 months ago There are infinite Peter Hitchens Reply @Pokerband 8 months ago A black hole is massless. It is pure rest, the point of inertia of a very large magnet. The galaxy surrounding it is the resultant of the complex interactions between the conjugate field geometries of the dielectric and the magnetic. 1 Reply @ChrisFarrell-q4l 8 months ago Hands - playing pianos Reply @KenKenston 8 months ago If the supporters of the scientific method were not dogmatists, as Alex says, they would respond to criticism of science in something like this: - Ontological criticism. Since the reasons for our existence and its essence are not given to us initially, we can only assume various ontological establishments of the world and human beings, from which the doubtfulness of science definitely follows. - Metaphysical criticism. Indeed, since absolutely any establishment of the world can be above physics, all our natural research cannot be recognized as absolute truth. Science relies on naturalness, which denies any metaphysics and absolutizes the physical world. This is only an assumption, and therefore scientific knowledge is doubtful. - Methodological criticism. The methods of science may turn out to be irrelevant to the world, and therefore we admit the possibility of our total error, and also that what we call facts is only an interpretation of phenomena, observed and felt phenomena, historical events or mathematical abstractions. - Logical criticism. Yes, logic may be an unreliable tool, since it is closely related to language, and it is impossible to provide evidence of the relationship between language and reality. - Anthropological criticism. Yes, people have a limited number of perceptions and all of them are extremely dubious. There are reasons to believe that perceptions are an unreliable source of knowledge. However, man himself is vulnerable, suspicious, biased. The main problem of science is indeed man, who is not objective by nature. - Psychological criticism. There are many cognitive distortions that most scientists do not know about, and even if they have heard about them, they do not use them, since the list is quite impressive. People have natural psychological properties that interfere with knowledge. We admit this, because we are skeptics, not dogmatists. - Ethical criticism. Indeed, some scientists are not honest enough, since they can falsify the results of experiments. And the repetition of some experiments for one reason or another is impossible, difficult or undesirable. - Social criticism. Yes, we absolutely agree that science is a community and it is formed from scientific teams, and each team, including scientific ones, has factors that distance it from the truth, even if it were available. Indeed, scientists often pursue the interests of the team. - Political criticism. Yes, we agree that science is periodically influenced by politics. This also makes us doubt science. - Aesthetic criticism. Science has a number of aesthetic methodological guidelines. Occam's razor can be attributed to these. It has no other justification than aesthetic. It is much easier for us, scientists, to consider only the simplest theories that follow from what we consider facts. This has nothing to do with the truth. - Religious criticism. Yes, it is stupid not to admit that elements of Christianity have been preserved in science. This includes the university structure borrowed from Christians, and hierarchical systems of the Christian type, and faith in the laws of nature, which are ideologically inherited from the Christian laws of God. Moreover, many scientists are characterized by fanaticism. - Axiological criticism. Indeed, a doubting person should not perceive science as an unambiguous and indisputable value, since this would be dogmatic. - Linguistic criticism. Indeed, perhaps language cannot comprehend the truth. Then all attempts to express scientific positions in any language are doomed to failure. - Economic criticism. Yes, it is impossible to deny that scientists are financially dependent on science, which increases criticism of the scientific team, the dependence of the scientist on politics and much more. We recognize that a person financially dependent on the system of knowledge has a high probability of becoming biased and prejudiced. - Pedagogical criticism. Education is given to children dogmatically, and from a very early age. A person without knowledge of alternatives absorbs scientific methods, which should definitely be recognized as dogmatic. - Philosophical criticism. We realize that science is based on certain philosophical teachings, such as naturalism, rationalism, empiricism, and we also respect philosophers, including those who deny scientific methodology and facts, since we are doubters, including in science. Therefore, any philosophical movement can be right. If scientists were skeptics, and not dogmatists, then science as we know it would not be possible in principle. If you consider yourself a scientist or a supporter of science and you did not like at least one of the statements above, if it caused you hostility or you do not agree with it, then most likely you have nothing to do with skepticism, which is normal. People are not obliged to be skeptics in principle. Skepticism is a different kind of phenomenon. It is distinct from science, religion, and even the vast majority of philosophical sciences. Reply 1 reply @David-r9e3w 8 months ago "The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy", Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, magnetism, electricity, light and well... everything.So,no. Gravity is simple relative motion. The earth is approaching - expanding at 16 feet per second constant acceleration - the released object (apple): gravity; d=1/2at^2. Any accelerometer - slinky,water balloon, phone app- experiment PROVES the earth is expanding. Reply @BradHoytMusic 8 months ago Multiverse of the Gaps.... Reply @JKDVIPER 8 months ago You don't need it. Gravity if you think about it is real simple. Expansion and gravity, orbits, thermodynamics and entropy, flow, mass, matter and energy, are all behaving the way they do in an exaggerated frame of reference. Picture rain falling on the bottom of the earth as it spins, travels, falls, and gets yanked. See, density and buoyancy are always working together to sink fluids in. Don't forget, not only is mass or matter falling in towards something gigantic, but fluids naturally seek a sink, a region of high density. They do this from every angle, just like radiation travels in every direction. So, if you were to pick something up, out of superposition, we travel at 3-4 different speeds at once, then it would be as if you tossed something in the air, and the room took off, and the object wacked off the wall because it ran out of room. Gravity is seeing something not buoyant enough to float while in forward motion. If you picture each rain drop, or a river displaced by a mountain, the mass exterts outward force, it takes up room, it displaces just like a bowling ball on a rubber sheet does. It's more of a bowling ball inside a box of jello to be exact. So when you see something fall, the speeds we fly/float at bring objects down. Needs to be contemplated. Regions of high density make you go around them, black vacuum might be empty, but energy is still present. When you take up room with a big mass you provide an energy sink as well. Bottlenecking energy curving matter, that's flowing in the direction the energy is flowing in. Reply 3 replies @Gradgar 8 months ago Om nom... Tasty brain-food. Reply @AhmadAwan-ku7mg 2 months ago Just came here to find something that can be used as a sleeping pill... Reply @swezustv 11 days ago Do not stpp this please Reply @MrKreinen 8 months ago @58:33 Alex your jacket analogy is a trick, a sleight of hand — you're sneaking in the assumption that there could be multiple wearers of a jacket and multiple jackets to choose from, just by defining it as a jacket, then acting shocked when many worlds follow from that. but alex, the probability of something that already exists — namely this universe — is one. not 50%, not 0.003%, just 100%. we are in it. the “fine-tuning” idea sneaks in the belief that things could’ve been otherwise, that this is one of many tries, when really that’s just a thought game rooted in anthropocentrism. we see what exists and assume it was meant for us — but that's backwards. So when 5+D many worlds comes up in cosmology and someone says it could explain the fine-tuning BS, your jacket analogy pretends to act shocked at the absurdity of supposing more than the one and only universe we've ever seen — but it’s your jacket analogy’s own fault for opening the jar on the “many tries” fantasy universe creation idea in the first place. no offense - Alex. ::Much respect, big fan:: Reply @NeeleshVerma-s2e 8 months ago Humm 🤔🤔leftist liberal secular😂😂😂 1 Reply @teejay818 5 months ago Bill Maher does physics? Reply @stanleyslawski1339 7 months ago When did Alex drink the metaphysical Kool-Aid? I know he knows the fine tuning argument upsides and down, back and forth.... I've seen his past videos detailing Apologetics. Yet here, he seems most definitely to be advocating that there must have been design. I remember him as being fiercely logical, now he offers Brian a binary choice, are you a nihilist or do you accept that there is meaning to life? Yes or no, which is it? I am only half joking when I say I expected him to ask Brian "Since you can't prove string theory, how is it different than religion?" I don't see him Within Reason in the recent videos I've seen, I see him promoting a very metaphysical philosophy. Reply @zbyia6434 8 months ago I appreciate those conversations. This series won't be complete without Sabine Hossenfelder, saying why she thinks half of what we just heard is bs. 1 Reply @Fritz111-y4d 6 months ago (edited) Is Brian Green a serious physician? I doubt it. To me chances of ST are more are more likely to be a huge disaster than a success. It's a program freighted with hypotheses. Hypotheses are stacked over hypotheses. That's fully contra dictionary to Ockham's principle which says that hypotheses should be few. The fewer, the higher chances of a theory are. A program like ST was never successful in history of physics. A 9-dimensional space is postulated so that strings can produce all properties of the particles. However, there's no evidence that higher dimensions are existing, zero deviation from GRT by fine measurements in double pulsar systems or absence of micro-black-holes in LHC. The surplus 6 dimensions are assumed to be rolled up in the manner of a so-called Calabi-Yau space. It's a pure invention, why should it be like that? Also there are myriad possibilities for the Calabi-Yau space. The particle world depends on this and no Calabi-Yau space has been found jet, where the Standard Model comes out. Even there's no efficient strategy for the search. But problems of ST are worse. Falsification threatens! SUSY is needed for the fermions, else it would be a pure bosonic theory. But SUSY didn't appear in LHC. It was expected at 250 GeV but there was nothing until 1 TeV. Thus SUSY is de facto dead. Another big problem is the accelerated expansion of universe. Only with tricks it can be in modelled in ST. But with the way universe expands ('meta-stable de Sitter universe' acc. cosmologic data) it probably cannot deal with at all. Reply @evanwalgren9591 7 months ago 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊 Reply @SPDLand 8 months ago (edited) 21:14 Gravitons.... would Einstein really ever buy that shit? 23:12 Extra dimensions of space... clearly it is all just a math exercise - nice, but lets just stick to reality please. Reply @mikepatnode4407 8 months ago This was great to have a seat at, but. That tearable word, but, Brian keeps saying he's open to evidence but hasn't seen it to justify his prejudices. where is the evidence for what he does believe. he believes we are meaning less entities. That we came together by acident, but, biologists have no idea how that happened. None at all, as of yet. where's the open mind there. I love Brian however. Brian needs to learn biology to find new ideas to answer his guestions. Reply @srgriffith 7 months ago I’m not really sure where Alex is going with the “perfect Jacket” analogy. The universe isn’t “perfect”. The universe is incredibly hostile to life and 99.99999999999% of the universe is not habitable. Also It seems perfectly designed to create black holes, not life. Reply @georgepanathas2009 8 months ago They re still discussing about string theory 😅😅😅 these physicists should stay back now for new minds to come and play in new scientific fields with much wider approach... Reply @krishdelicious 4 months ago First of all, how dare you! Reply @justmythoughts2786 6 months ago One day I'll be dead and gone and you will just be reading this comment, not knowing I'm dead and gone not knowing the life I lived , the decisions I made those that I loved , we are all just here for a brief moment in time and then we are gone forever. Reply @MyraTee-d6i 8 months ago Seems lots of sarcastic comments from some of your viewers 🙏 Reply @rl7012 8 months ago This channel or yt are deleting non atheist replies to comments. Reply @biggerdoofus 8 months ago I think Greene's desire for a logical reason for why the universe must be a certain way is reasonable, but I think it's a fool's errand to try to get it from science. That seems to me like a boundary between science and religion that just can't be taken down. I don't think philosophy can help either, especially not if it's still dominated by religious bias. Reply @maxg6040 8 months ago What I wanna know is how most intellectual people can cross their legs like that? Reply @mmerri9780 7 months ago Alex, Ive been following you for almost 10 years? Unreal you are interviewing Briane Greene. Congratulations on your success. Well earned Reply @anonimo-z7g1d 8 months ago Wow Amazing interview Alex Thanks for sharing this fascinating discussion on string theory and the multiverse Brian Greene is always insightful Reply @robertmarrone791 8 months ago Aren't we beating a dead mule when it comes to string theory? Its been hanging around and hanging around for decades with NO experimental validation, only math. Hmm, experimental validation--hey Alex, this is where philosophy can give foundational physics a helping hand, afterall, the universe will likely not give us a golden nugget like the double slit experiment again. Geez, reverting back to philosophy because the universe will not expose any more secrets! I love it! Maybe our post human selves have programmed this very feature into this matrix we've created, or maybe Ive had too much wine! Cheers Reply @elfuturomio 8 months ago So much knowledge and Humanity as stupid as it was year one Reply @FreestyleSport101 8 months ago Its pure math. Physicist dont like infinity and Mathematician love infinity …. Reply @Bol-Boll 8 months ago I HAVE THE REAL MAGNIFISANT THEORY THAT CAN EXPLAIN EVRY THING ... Reply @dogtailsmatter 8 months ago What if Terence Howard was right 😮 Reply 1 reply @sophieg840 3 months ago ToE Reply @r.b.l.5841 4 months ago The idea that the universe is 'created' I find carries no logical value, since it offers no solution to the creation of the proposed 'creator' - leaving only the option of it's self-creation. On the contrary, the physical laws that set up a universe where stars self-assemble, with planets forming around them, where the chemistry and evolutionary forces allow complex life to self-assemble and organize over billions of years is far more logical and beautiful. Reply 1 reply @roncoleman3259 8 months ago 53-54 min. Coming to the Conclus 100 that matter IN itself gave rise to human thought And reason really doesn't work so he's very smart Except he's not Reply @Bora-Horza 8 months ago It's ironic that you should have Brian Greene on talking about String Theory, which died 10 years ago and is slowly now turning into a kind of belief system. Everything that has been postulated, based on String Theory, over the last 40 years has proven to be vaporware. There is absolutely no evidence that we live in eleven dimensions. You can spend decades making up mathematics for a Universe consisting of any number of extra dimensions (and many have), but if you can't show that what you are saying is based on fact, you're not engaged in science. You might as well spend your time talking about the nature of non existing Gods. Greene's contention that we would need a particle accelerator the size of the galaxy in order to prove his theory is not far off saying that you'll know there is a God after you die and go to heaven. Reply @cuzzohh2768 8 months ago Got to admire your curiosity Alex. Greenes answer are a bunch deflecting and avoiding. The idea that everything you guys just conversed about doesn’t point to the divine is just absurd to me. Reply @Vestigefx 5 months ago A 25year old young mind should not sit infront of this legend. Lost interest after his remark on Newton. Ciao Reply @Pokerband 8 months ago (edited) PLEASE. Unified field theory by Ken Wheeler. For the love of god please read his book “Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism”. I believe if you take all your correct observations, and put them in context of his correct explanation, you will be able to mathematically unify it as well. Give it a shot. 1 Reply @theomnisthour6400 8 months ago Some NPC character fools won't be convinced of the simulation multiverse till they experience the spiritual supernova of an apocalypse first hand, and even then will insist they are just suffering from a bit of undigested bit of beef when they hit their first afterlife and experience the reality of another universe first hand. Reply @Mysterus88 5 months ago I consider every use of 'einstein' as -1 to speach credibility... I think this one hit 0 in the second chapter Reply @Kratos92607 7 months ago (edited) If God does not exist, Nihilism is truly all that remains. Dawkins recognized this. "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Life has no ultimate meaning without God. Merely collections of molecules existing for a finite period of time while traveling toward the inevitable heat death of the universe. As far as I can tell, God seems a far more plausible explanation for why there exists something rather than nothing, and why that something is organized into a universe with specific fundamental properties that appear to be precisely tuned to be life-permitting. Meaning is then derived from the fact that this universe was designed exactly the way it is, with intentionality and purpose. We are not merely a cosmic lottery ticket. Reply 1 reply @codymoran7815 8 months ago String theory is now a dream 😂😂 science really does advance one funeral at a time Reply @AdamGNordin 8 months ago (edited) May you're s be straightened into a 1, reminding you're pride Youth about there is 1 God not less, not more. Reply @Alpha-x7i 8 months ago (edited) So he has convinced me that String Theory should definitely be categorized as philosophy… I’m pretty sure that’s the opposite of what he said though 🤷🏻‍♂️ 😂 Sorry Brian but I think Eric Weinstein is correct. Reply @bobusa1960 8 months ago You’re missing point Brian. If an intelligence created the universe, science is discovering the laws, not inventing them. Missing the forest for the trees. Reply @Arjun-o4n2p 8 months ago Can you have Eric Weinstein on your show? Reply @diggersid456 8 months ago as a scientist its all wrong. everything is wrong. you have to be in the world of living in the world of wrong Reply @adistefan-m6t 1 month ago before the big bang was nothing absolute nothing literally Reply @Kosmic_Stoney 7 months ago Awesome interview, but I personally wouldn’t agree with the opinion of humans “inventing” math. If math is the universal language, that means it’s been here the whole time and we are discovering new mathematical methods making us more literate in the universal language. The only way I could see us inventing mathematics, is if it turned out all mathematics was wrong and we went down a wrong path of trying to understand the universe. Reply 3 replies @xxdragnxx1 7 months ago Brian is great but i vehemently disagree with him and most stribg theorists on the science point. Science is NOT coming up with potential solutions to problems that cant be tested yet, that's theory and concept, but science REQUIRES the scientifc method and experimentation. No experiment = no science. Reply @theomnisthour6400 8 months ago (edited) My, his voice sounds distinctly BORGish when he gets excited. What if the BORG planted agents to keep human science lost in confusion for decades, making no real progress except in dangerous and self-destructive technology likely to cause another extinction and mental re-enslavement event for our species? Reply @H_Jonas 8 months ago bla bla bla i already heard that a thousand times Reply @theomnisthour6400 8 months ago God invented the stories of his human incarnation as the major events of the first timeline, the first 1D virtual reality simulation that generated a whole cast of characters in the mind of God before he allowed some of those characters to test his simulation outside his mind, with their own free will making choices instead of just being the preprogrammed NPC characters of his rudimentary Messiah lifetime simulation. By doing so, he allowed all the children to think they were playing their own messiah games while God was Waiting for God-ot to grow up into Adam-12, letting his family perfect him while trying to perfect themselves, none realizing who the real God was till the Genesis story of this chosen planet was completed by defining the ultimate center of all time, wherein the best of all possible physical universes has no beginnings or endings or physical boundaries, as is being revealed by all the new red dot content placeholders that are emerging and putting stake after stake into the heart of the Big Bang conspiracy theory Reply @67Mannheim 8 months ago Physics and Philosophy can be fun, profound endeavors. But, at this time of our history, i wonder if we can do far simpler things like, save ourselves from the mess of the trump regime. 😮😢😊 Reply @lily-yr6gj 8 months ago you’re only 24??? Reply @NothingTo-Handle 8 months ago (edited) Why you bring newton again n again, I don't understand. In stone age , identifying and using metal is science and extraordinary observation. In space age , knowing black hole exist is science. It all matters what you are currently equipped with , and what basis info is already given to you . Human race didn't invent rocket directly , it all started with bullock cart, cycle , motor vehicle ... In the world of blind, squint is still a king isn't it ? In the world of eagle eyes, what are human eyes? Nothing One thing is certain, the more we learn , we come to know that we know nothing Reply @johndarbyshire6020 8 months ago By definition, there is only one "UNIverse", this might be a subverse 1 Reply @Noel-Perez 8 months ago Is this Jeff bezos brother! Reply @GeoffV-k1h 8 months ago The mathematical fact that the joining the maths of GR and QM leads inexorably to infinity is something that should be accepted. Then, work from there - rather than assuming that you are doing the sums wrong. Reply @mohitoautomaciek801 8 months ago 🍻🍻🤝🍻👍🍻🤩🍻🥳🍻👍🍻🤝🍻🍻 Reply @jesterlead 8 months ago If you love String Theory, I've got a multiverse stuffed with Dark Energy and Dark Matter for you! Reply @simpletimes2819 8 months ago @Alex O'Connor please have Eric Weinstein on your podcast, despite what people say, he is a genius. Reply 3 replies @sulongenjop7436 4 months ago How can this thoeries deny God!!! Reply @omarmartinez1215 8 months ago GOD is the answer Reply @Freedspirit1122 1 month ago Because your unwilling to listen Reply @aklcraigc 8 months ago Alex is soft balling him on string theory, come on, where are the predictions! The evidence! or is it just 50 years of mathematical dead ends? Don't even get me started on the "multiverse" ugh... 1 Reply 2 replies @markkutaulamo3553 6 months ago You are talkin all the time, why.. Reply @CarlLiketogIntoSpace 8 months ago String theory is bunch of bull shit 1 Reply @Turururmhfhyriryeytury3u 4 months ago (edited) Science has been producing nothing but fairy tales of bubble universes that pop up from nothing which has virtual particles in it... and string theory which claims to explain everything but explains nothing... Science should forget about everything and invent something Reply @RobH-z7e 8 months ago These string theorists are clearly charlatans trying to generate funds for their pointless research to forward their careers. Just saying. Extra dimensions? Come on!! Let’s make a collider the size of a galaxy lol 1 Reply 1 reply @fullsendcirca9255 7 months ago (edited) String theory is responsible for the lack of breakthroughs in the subject of physics for about 100 years. It’s a bunch of bullshit no matter how many times they decide to use a hydronic collider in Sweden or creating an even larger one expecting different results is insane Reply @NiklasVonDyrendahl 8 months ago Science can’t prove God so they are not intrested which is fair enough but they multi universe is something they talk about all day. Something they will never prove! I don’t belive in God nor the multi universe but it seems like they dismiss it to easy, or they are taking the multi universe to serious! Reply @Platon-n7k 6 months ago Colliders? By the way I was deeply impressed but also concerned, when I read the first time, when CERN generated antimatter, because, philosophically, I think humans should not play with such energies, they are not ready for it .. Me, busted once at the FERMI lab, because I was friends with a guy working there in a higher position.nevet forget, because the detector was pulled out . https://youtu.be/JeL-aXme2nQ?si=bKO6iJfF1LfL8a7x Saying high from Germany, executing my PhD , at the Max Plan k institute and started working 1988 at the Otto Hahn Bau, where I permed experiments with NASA , D2 Mission Reply 1 reply @AdamGNordin 8 months ago 😂you can chew a gum but can not see any inelegance behind the shape of your own teeth? Reply @nosuchthing8 1 month ago Greene should be prosecuted Reply @dankmemes7658 8 months ago Brian lost me at laws being invented. If patterns are man made and don't actually exist then how can the math predict real patterns that we haven't observed? Its logically inconsistent Reply @LinhLe-j2d 3 months ago String theory is nothing. If you focus on pure mathematics you will understand quantum mechanics and string theory Reply @skulltrick 8 months ago String theory sounds like complete horseshit 1 Reply 1 reply @teggerzz 5 months ago String theory kind of sounds like a dead end The method sounds desperate It actually kind of sounds like a desperate attempt to match Einstein’s insights and accomplishments I mean… 1968 and still no actual evidence? After “4 years later we could test” Like… something’s not right, Brian… Reply @lonewolfmtnz 8 months ago The two Brains - Greene and Cox- together have but half a brain which neither can find with either hand and a mirror. Fact. Reply @aphromew4502 8 months ago Startalk wasted this man Reply @951001ify 7 months ago Half of the video: Brian Greene being magnificent once again Other half of the video: stupid analogies that made Brian visibly uncomfortable Can we get someone else asking important questions next time and using actual examples from physics than a 25yo zoomer? Reply @francoiscatmeow 5 months ago Why are cats the dominant species in the universe? Inhabiting tens of millions of planets. Being worshipped by tens of millions of species. Because........meow🐱 Reply @ryanlannister 8 months ago Useless people , they always repeat the same thing Reply @KillianTwew 8 months ago (edited) 35:02 That doesn't really correlate... You're describing a universe inside of a universe. Why would you think you can discover who created a book and why the book was created if you're only focused on the laws of literacy? The actual universe allows for historical sociological context, dating, ect ect ect, all these other fields that have their own laws...? 37:28 Exactly what I was trying to get at. Human natural language is arbitrarily af besides the hundreds of millions of sounds we can produce with our vocal cords. On top of that, human language changes. The laws of the universe are not arbitrarily. They are intrinsic and absolute. Reply 6 replies @r1nov8 7 months ago Is it just me or does Brian Green like Bill Maher´s lost brother? Reply @no_spagetti 5 months ago i have never liked string theory, still don't like string theory Reply @Natureworle 4 months ago I feel sorry for anyone believing in fairy tales Reply @The_Fvcker_King 8 months ago gibberish! Reply @jay-p5n3t 8 months ago (edited) for sure no one out there smart enough to invent math but math able to invent us no problem. empty science talk nothing new Reply @theomnisthour6400 8 months ago (edited) The obsession of materialist string theorists with 11 dimensions is soooo tiresome. The only sensible view of the available evidence of human experience is a multiverse of mostly 4D universes, except for the versions that were composed before it had been determined that time worked best when combined with 3 spatial dimensions. In this regime, the minimum number of dimensions to maintain an expanding multiverse is 12 - 4 of the latest version of physical space-time, 4 of the highest heaven, and 4 of the lowest hell. Dimensions above the best 12 are intermediate solutions that please subordinate creators that have given up trying to destroy or replace God and finally came around to playing the co-creative game He devised. Materialist scientism worshipers are closet Satanists, still hoping against hope they can come up with a better creation story than God obviously has. The whole point of architecting a simulation multiverse was to give others a chance to carve out their own kingdoms - make up their own genesis stories - similar to what God accomplished, once they figure out how to work with God to keep the spiritual energy supply chain flowing instead of causing it to seize up by refusing to play the game of reincarnation and karma, as so many foolish Nirvana worshipers advocate. Reply @robertdevino4109 7 months ago The onky thing more rediculous than todays physicists are weathermen! Oh wait, I take that back. Weathermen don't just make stuff up, and they get it right more often than the physicists! Reply @ProfessorCrickets-gc8ll 4 months ago theory of nothing. all jokes, stoupoid so called physicists screwed up everything with their stupid theories Reply @DaystarShineDown 8 months ago We're in God's dream. His will be done. Reply @noogie13 7 months ago Everyone commenting favorably needs to understand that string theory is a dying, very dying, theory. It is by most physicists thought to be completely dead. There is no super symmetry, one can always write a theory that at the base cases returns general relativity. String theory ain’t it, chiefs. No GUT Reply @drhassanyasin 8 months ago 56:36 the philosophical superposition Reply @madzangels 8 months ago (edited) I'm sorry, everything we know about Einstein and his presuppositions to testing data - there's not a chance he would be persuaded by String Theory, and all the way up until his death he told us it was the wrong path, and a load of nonsense. Knowing his brilliance, he'd have just invented an entire new sub-straight of Physics instead of following the lame Physicist of today which just provide an easy way out to get funds by you and me, to do nothing, but get paid for drinking coffee and going over the same shit we were reading 30 years ago. by saying "This is so advanced, the public can't understand it, infact it's so advanced even we don't understand it" That is NOT something EINSETIN would say. "if you can't explain it to a 6 year old, you don't understand it yourself" THAT'S Einstein's philosophy Stop blaming it on your inability to build a Collider the SIZE OF OUR GALAXY which AIN'T gonna happen! If you're telling the people that's what you need, then fuck off. You ain't getting it, FIND ANOTHER WAY or we defund you're 100's of billons and we fight cancer instead and give it to biologists as you've done NOTHING since www, cancer targeted treatment (barely a 10% improvement) and lasers from 50 years ago. Since then, you've done NOTHING for our money except make excuses and CONSTANLY re-reading from the shoulders of giants that you stand on, without adding ANYTHING yourselves. The reason we're not creating new Einstein's is because we're teaching our kids the WRONG STUFF from day dot. Just admit, "We're not sure, infact we're probably wildly wrong" and let new minds flourish. String theory is the biggst nonsense, and red herring ever invented in Science. Brian Green is just here for his pay cheque, even he doesn't really believe it if you dig down into his talks over the last 15 years. He has GIVEN UP and accepted he's jus a populariser of whatever makes him money. Reply @Sasatern 8 months ago test Reply @justintaylor7837 8 months ago String theory needs to crap or get off the pot 70 years with zero quantifiable results. Reply @bernardovivas8436 7 months ago The fact that anybody still takes this dude seriously is crazy to me Reply 1 reply @bullbear7897 7 months ago (edited) It's ironic that atheists fear God so much that in their foolishness they've accidentally found the 1st step to wisdom. Reply @TheEternalOuroboros 8 months ago (edited) “Does science explain or describe” is a crucial question that Greene didn’t quite answer. 1 Reply 2 replies @brendanjdarcy1 8 months ago String theory is proven bullshit Reply @user-op5tx4tx8f 6 months ago This guy sounds vaccinated Reply @nyworker 8 months ago An atheist once talked to a physicist. The atheist said he has his doubts about God because nobody had ever proven his existence. The physicist said he has spent his life pursuing string theory. 2 Reply 3 replies @ravian863 8 months ago Sir brian is so eloquent ! Feeling envy of him Reply @parva777 8 months ago String Theory: the greatest waste of time and human brainpower in all of human history! Reply @RnRanimal 8 months ago hopefully Alex will grow up one day Reply @ivanmatveyev13 8 months ago The room looks like ugly ai, why is it so artificial, why are there this many lamps? Reply 2 replies @marshallstrt401 8 months ago Guys holding onto string theory like a bad marriage. It’s a dead end man, let it die, it’s over. The biggest problem with science personified is Brian Green trumpeting string theory for 30 years. Reply 1 reply @kliniac3564 8 months ago 18:02 On this definition of science, doesn't this mean that it is "scientific" to hypothesize that the cause of the universe was timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and immensely powerful, since this can be tested by discoveries in cosmology? Reply @LordOfThePancakes 7 months ago Scientists are now finally discovering the logic & data is all pointing to creation. After decades of scientific failure to reach conclusions for nonsense concepts like string theory. If more research had been done on Christ & the Bible, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. “The fool says in his heart; There is no God” (Psalms 14:1) ✝️ Reply 1 reply @ALavin-en1kr 6 months ago Atheist materialists, synonymous terms, will not understand the nature of reality focusing on the elemental or matter and believing it to be the only dimension. Atheist philosophers have what they call ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. They will continue to have it as finding how matter produced it is a fraught enterprise and one with a beginning; middle, but no end. It is time for them to start thinking three dimensions: Consciousness; Mind; Elements. The first fundamental, the latter two elemental and emerging with quantum events. Design is an awful word and should be retired. Dreamed is a better word and just as we dream universes and dramas in our nightly dreams so the universe dreams. The difference being that we, being one-dimensional can be either asleep or awake, not both at the same time except in lucid dreaming when we are aware we are dreaming. Einstein and Spinoza thought of God as manifest only which is likely why Einstein initially denied the Aether as there would be no need for it if all that existed was the manifested or tangible. Even great minds can be wrong. It has been said that life is a dream and “merrily, merrily row your boat etc.”. but if we wake up consciously and find ourselves transcendent to our earthly dream that would be helpful and consoling as we might not be so bent out of shape about it as just a dream. Still we should behave well as with duality good and bad in our system it necessary to support the good and maintain the balance between good and evil and not let evil gain the upper hand. Balance is the key. The Middle Way negotiating a path between opposites in the dual system we inhabit. This is what the best in religion, philosophy, and psychology has advised us to do. Reply 2 replies @anon-centur 8 months ago (edited) Gravity is nothing more than a vector(philosophic agreement) Vectors don't have locations Thus no graviton Lest you mean The "All Encompassing Graviton Field of Perception(AEG FOP)" Reply @0106Brandon 8 months ago The interviewer desperately wants it to be about his particular god Reply 1 reply @ShellhammerProject 8 months ago I would argue that Infinity is an appropriate answer and that you should really embrace it what the hell is wrong with you? Reply 1 reply @humanmodeproductions 8 months ago This guy sounds schizophrenic to me Reply @LanceR33 8 months ago Keep trying to figure this place out, can't be done via a physical understanding and it's not meant to be. Don't believe me? Check back every couple years and you'll realize, you ain't any closer and don't know shit about nothing! Reply 1 reply @billyratchet6463 8 months ago Just go away Reply @zachbeall6810 8 months ago String theory sounds like bs wishfulness Reply @GordonBennett1 8 months ago Briane Green is what Neil Degrasse Tyson wants to be, can never be, but still thinks he is. Briane Green one of the best. F Neil. Reply 1 reply @henkpowersnatch 8 months ago String theory is fake Reply @IZFLAT_VAX_FREE 7 months ago String theory is STILL a theory. How long can something be a theory till it's just bullll sshhhhiiitt? 🤨😅😅😅😶‍🌫️😶‍🌫️ Reply 3 replies @wojciechhabdas2483 8 months ago Two scharlatans 😂 Reply @WhiteWolf126 6 months ago String theory is pseudoscience. Reply @fostercathead 8 months ago String theory is dead... Reply @manasmandhan4873 3 months ago Tbh brian is insufferable Reply @bobbygodiva 8 months ago What a terrible interviewer. Reply @Mindmartyr 8 months ago Math is the speech of God translated into a human tongue. It is a translation. God is called the "logos," so it only makes sense that reality follows logical patterns, being the product of his word; & we are said to be made in his image, so it only makes sense that we would be so well equipped to understand & articulate this "logic". 2 Reply 3 replies @Cheximus 8 months ago What an incredibly annoying voice. Can't really stand it, which is a shame. Perhaps he has some books worth reading. Reply @zerotunzend3182 8 months ago I loved the entire discussion...but I disagree about the "nothingness" universe being possible. The concept of ex nihilo, absolute nothingness is simply nonsensical and can't even be discussed in a coherent way. Try to imagine absolute nothingness. Do you imagine blackness absent of all possible light? That's not nothing. The moment you try to imagine absolute nothingness, you've failed. To imagine something requires you to consider characteristics of the something. Absolute nothingness has no characteristics whatsoever. To even talk about absolute nothingness requires us to discuss "it" as of it is an "it". Nothingness can't "be" because it's the lack of all being. So absolute nothingness never "was", "isn't", and never could "be". 1 Reply @jackkrell4238 8 months ago String Theory is unfounded BS, the multiverse has no evidence to support it, "divine design" is gibberish, and there has yet to actually be an established theory of everything. Can we please have someone who isn't a pop-scientist on? 1 Reply @joseleon8235 1 month ago When BG states that String theory is in the right pocket different to multiverse theory, he totally forgets that string theory and it's many dimensions implies multiverses. Reply @drewdavidson663 8 months ago Quantum mechanics isn't physics, they're statistical metrists. It's like shining a flashlight in a dark room, observing how the shadows move, and they act like they know what the furniture is made of. Bunch of con artists lying to get funding. 1 Reply @IvanMectin 8 months ago Attempt, dream, mathematical, so-called,come up with, describes, calculation, in principle, bridging a gap, ideas,etc. Basically, untested pseudoscience. These jokers are dreamers. Bluffers! Reply 2 replies @MrNiceHk 7 months ago String theory is nonsense Reply 7 replies @logert3921 8 months ago String theory is complete garbage, it’s failed to predict what observation shows and it’s entirely unfalsifiable. Grand unification is a pipe dream that everyone wants to believe, similarly to super symmetry. It’s not physics, it’s philosophy coming from idealistic math. I’m fine with it being philosophy, but people don’t treat it that way 1 Reply 3 replies @JohnMushitu 8 months ago 0:07 what do you mean you're 25???? 😭😭 Reply @JohnMushitu 8 months ago 0:07 what do you mean you're 25???? 😭😭 Reply @444Deliverance 8 months ago String theory is based on the false presupposition that matter physically exists, gravity doesn’t exist. Space time is a hologram made present through collapsing wave function by the senses Reply @BadassRaiden 8 months ago No one has detected a graviton because gravity is not a force, and therefore is not propagated by a force particle. Gravity is nothing more than spacetime itself when it is curved. That curvature IS what gravity is. If the graviton were ever actually discovered, it would not be a particle of "gravity". Instead, because gravity is nothing more than curved spacetime, a graviton would therefore be the particle that makes up the quantum system of spacetime itself. The math tells us that our spacetime structure has a non-zero energy ground state, usually associated with the notion that we live in a false vacuum, not a true vacuum. However, if we extend this idea to the graviton, a quantum particle that makes up the quantum system of spacetime itself, well then spacetime having energy even in a ground state where there are no spikes in the quantum field would just be the energy of the graviton when spacetime is flat, ie, when the presence of mass is not affecting some property of the graviton, perhaps maybe is orientation, that then manifests as curved spacetime. I'm just really tired of really respectable individuals, like Brian who i absolutely love and could listen to talk literally all day, talking about gravity as if it was its own thing. It's not. It is not even a thing. It's a feature of some other thing, that thing being spacetime. Gravity IS spacetime's capacity to become non-flat, curved. Think about it.. If gravity was a particle being irradiated by an object - where is it coming from? When we put 'mass'ive objects in spacetime, it curves in response, leading to the idea that the object is beaming out gravitons that push on spacetime resulting is said curve. If this were the case, then there would be more gravitons littered throghout the universe than literally all others combined, because every single object that exists is constantly beaming them out and remember, the strength of gravity decreases with the inverse square law - square law, which means it never actually reaches zero strength. When people use the ball on a sheet analogy when talking about gravity, the focus is usually the dip in the middle and how the object causes the sheet to curve. What should be specifically addressed is the fact that you cant create this change in the middle without the very outer edges of the sheet being ever so slightly tugged inwards, and this is the case no matter how big the sheet is. This is because the sheet is a fixed shape, totally bound, and you cannot distort any part of it without it necessarily pulling and shifting on every other part. This is what spacetime is like, which means if you only had two objects in our universe, as big as as it is - what is it, 96 billion light years across - each at the very edges on opposite sides, their gravitational influence would still reach each other which means over an unimaginay long time, they would come together and collide. This inherently means that if gravitons were real and they were being irradiated by objects with mass, they would be irradiated in all directions the way photons are irradiated, in a spherical wave, and the entire universe would be covered with them, everywhere and all at once. We also have to address the fact that all objects are irradiating more gravitons than photons and yet, somehow this irradiated energy from gravitons does not result in a loss of energy or mass of the object in any measureable sense? Our calculations for the irradiation of calories of energy and the loss of mass that results from it is not an avenue where we have discrepencies. It is by all accounts, perfectly predictable. Now it may be the case that with small objects it's negligible, but considering the amount of gravitons we would be irradiating and the rate at which it would occur, that seems highly unlikely. Remember, these are particles that cause the very shape of spacetime to change. As energetic as photons are, we can see those and they dont even cause spacetime to curve, and the reason for this is because they have no mass, or more specifically, they dont interact with the higgs field. The graviton MUST interact with the higgs field in order to cause spacetime to curve, so it MUST have mass, but we irradiate an astronomical amount of these particles that have mass without losing mass ourselves? That wouldnt seem to follow any physical logic. Then the other option is that spacetime itself isnt made of gravitons but is rather irradiating them. So we have two paths, at least two clear ones: a) the process of irradiating gavitons is one that causes spacetime to push back in on itself, almost as if it was expelling gravitons, like how you have to cock your hand back to throw a ball, only your hands stay cocked back because an infinite number of balls manifest expulsion through the cocking back process. In other words, you dont have to push your hand out to throw the ball because finishing the process of cocking your hands back to a far enough position is what shoots the ball out of your hand, and now, in that position, an infinite number of balls (gravitons) manifest and shoot away (irradiate). This seems to just not make much physical sense, regardless of intuition. Or we have b) which is that spacetime irradiations gravitons in the presence of massive objects, those gravitons collide with the massive objects, not interacting because they only interact with spacetime itself, and then once they bounce off the mass they pass backthrough spacetime, carrying a lot of energy initially causing the massive gravitational well directly around the object, and lose energy as it drags through spacetime in accordance with the inverse square law. Now this seems a lot more likely than the first example, but even still, the idea that the graviton isnt a force particle in the traditional sense of the word 'force', but rather is the particle that simply makes up the quantum spacetime system and flat spacetime is where the "graviton field" is at its ground state, and curved spacetime is where there is an excitation in the "gravition field" - is even more likely to be the case than either of those examples. Reply @andymeier7708 8 months ago So there's no actual evidence for strings, but gee the math works. And there's no prospect of any actual experiments we can do. My gut feeling is this will end up being a time history views as quaint. Reply @Jacobk-g7r 8 months ago 2:43 infinity isn’t a quantity, it is the proof of multiple dimensions and relativity. It doesn’t prove it’s all at once but is relative. Goofy. Reply @forge5825 8 months ago Because he bounds himself by physical reality, he will never be able to perceive infinity Reply @TheBlackDogChronicles 8 months ago I agree with the over-riding majority of what Alex argues, but I have (at last!) found something to strongly disagree with! At 0.54:16 he says, "...[the universe] doesn't offer conciliation in the way 'feeling special' does ...when I look a beautiful night sky I am filled with awe and wonder..and that might be true but it doesn't fill you with that sense of belonging in the same way" my answer to that is, "Speak for yourself." I was a Christian and used to believe one could sense and experience the "spirit of god" but, when experienced in some hyped-up Church service or church camp, it could never be sustained. It always disappeared and was replaced by my secular duties of the week. However, when I gaze up at the night sky I feel what I describe as a beyond human relationship of belonging to the stars, because we know full well we are made of their elements. I would not have this brain that can perceive anything, had it not been for six local stars blowing themselves apart, and scattering their material into our solar system, so that the elements that make up 99 per cent of our bodies, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sulphur, could be here in abundance, to create all life on this planet. How could I, with that knowledge NOT look up at the beauty of the stars and be thankful that the death of some of them, gave life to everything here in our solar system? Methinks Alex has not spent enough time looking up at them and turning off all those other thoughts! ;) (Offered with deep respect and regard.) Reply 1 reply @anthonynewton7435 8 months ago If string theory is correct,at best it would only be an explanation of the mechanics of this physical reality,how it all works. The scientific community are never going to give us a real theory of EVERYTHING,because they refuse to consider any possibility that intelligence could be more advanced than theirs. Infinity is the start point,of any TOE,finite dimensions of reality could only come into existence within an infinite framework of possibilities. Reply @JerseyLynne 8 months ago We are not simply a result of physical forces. We are spirit first, a spirit in a body. There is no worry about why one jacket and it happened to fit. God knows every p0ssible universe, and he created the best one, this one for US! And look at what we've done with it! "The fool has said in his heart there is no God!" Reply @thecasterkid 8 months ago No one will ever read this but from everything I've read and heard, String Theory isn't even taken seriously anymore. This would be like if Alex had a geocentrist on his podcast. It's a shame. Reply 2 replies @tyelerpresgraves2696 8 months ago You say, Brian. That you can't investigate further a divine intelligence, but you can investigate the holy books and come to your own conclusion. When I did that, Christianity makes the most sense to me. Reply 1 reply @theSlabberingCabbage 8 months ago What is string theory.. and the answer should be " absolutely nothing ". The end Reply @adriaanlips9479 8 months ago Physicists can correct me but isn't string theory a bit dead? My understanding is that the scientific community has been waiting for testable results from string theory for like 30 years but nothing has come out after all that time of intensive research. I thought M-theory was the current most promising "theory of everything" Reply 2 replies @alixhoward592 8 months ago Hard to listen o Brian😊 Reply @jooster7 8 months ago (edited) Remember in the before times when Rogan would have people like Brian on his show instead of Weinstein pseudo-genius'? Reply @V3NOMOUS22 8 months ago Brian Greene is one of THE most intellectually powerful configurations of particles to have arranged together on this planet. 1 Reply 8 months ago Sorry old boy. String theory is very unlikely and just a untested hypothesis. Indeed like so many ideas in physics which are popular guesses. including i think space time and protons and so on. These guys get away without proving stuff. Reply @rl7012 8 months ago These mainstream physic's 'icons' are just glorified salesman. They are constantly selling their snake oil but have absolutely nothing to back it up. Reply @An4gram 7 months ago String theory has no evidence … quite important for physics Reply @jamesmaclean5586 8 months ago People are too drunk on theoretical math and run desperatly fast away from the laws of thermodynamics. Reply @nicholasgreenamyer433 7 months ago 9:26 'String theory is not Science if it can't be tested" the next few minutes "BS argument to circumnavigate that" IMO: He's not wrong... but like.... its pure theory (You've just invested your life in it and can't be honest) Reply 1 reply @RealCodreX 6 months ago String theory, 3D time, wormholes, dark matter, ect. ... , are ll just nonsensical theroties that just shows you that physics is slowly but steadily runing out of discoveries and will be reduced to an aplied science in a couple centuries at most! Reply @corafujiwara7248 7 months ago As a physicist I am happy to see Brian Greene come on your show. It's also evident that Alex has done a good job preparing for the discussion as non-scientist (arrow of time, many-worlds, etc.). Bravo! I will push back stronger than Brian did on the validity of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In principle, string theory can make physical predictions about our universe; it is just difficult to do so with human technology. In contrast, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics which is an alternate physical explanation for wavefunction collapse (so-called Copenhagen interpretation). By design, it makes the same quantitative predictions as the "common" way of thinking about quantum mechanics. So if you have two complementary interpretations but their differences are untestable, even in a hypothetical sense, then are their differences real? This is where most physicists would distinguish philosophy from physics. Most physicists would agree that a theory that cannot be tested, even hypothetically, is not science. This is in contrast to string theory, which CAN make quantitative predictions; it CAN be falsifiable. I cannot emphasize more a final point that Brian made regarding the utility of fundamental science. Even if we do not know the application of a field of science today, basically all of modern human civilizations has only been made because of advances of science (medicine, agriculture, physics, mathematics, etc.). Alex should have more scientists on! I think discussions with archeologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers would greatly complement your existing philosophical toolset. Reply 1 reply @Viktor-i8g 8 months ago (edited) The string theory is wrong from the very beginning. Moreover, it's idiotic. What does the theority describe? A one dimensional drawn OBJECT. All the one dimensional "objects" in the first dimension are immaterial. They are just, say, straight lines which are just directions. Can a direction be material? No dice. The string theory is just the sign of incompetence and poor knowlege of geometry Reply @Jacobk-g7r 8 months ago 3:09 take string theory, look at the lines and intersections of dimensions in conjunction with relativity and you’ll see it’s not just expanding or collapsing or any singular thing. You can influence potentials using relativity but you don’t create the potential, it was already a possibility just not fully founded. A version was found in the language of your multiple dimensions called a body and its measurements and connections. Instinct is like not looking deeper but trusting the feeling of the measurement. Reflection allows deeper sight and understanding and ability to find potentials farther from the current. Idk if this makes sense but these words may not be enough for people to understand visually. There’s no denying because even the not is possible. Infinity could cancel itself out easily and the Big Bang is the divergence naturally. Reply @khaliddawah 1 month ago 47:58, why are you so nervous to speak on if there is a necessary existence? Remove the naturalist dogma and follow truth, it will remove this sense of unknowingness and stress. Reply @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 8 months ago We need to go back to 1/r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670 that says: “Every point on a light wave front has the potential for a new spherical 4πr² light wave". Each point on the wave front can represent a new moment in time represented by a potential photon ∆E=hf electron interaction or coupling. We have a probabilistic future quanta by quanta, moment by moment forming the potential for statistical entropy. We have quantum entanglement in just the same way as a pebble dropped into water will form ripples that are not random; the waves are relative and synchronized as they radiate out from their centre source. Reply @pigrocket 3 months ago (edited) "If it solves certain key problems, if it advances your understand of black holes or the big bang, then it absolutely falls squarely within the realm of science." Doesn't science need observable proof? Reply @DEBO5 3 weeks ago Brian Greene was showing great patience here. Alex was really out of his depth, as are all philosophy types when it comes to talking science. Usually less open to taking the role of the student and adamant on “sounding” smarter than everyone. He needs to learn some math and science and put down the books. Reply @p.j.simpkins8324 6 months ago 1:33 I resubscribe to you Alex I left because of agnostic claims, but Jesus Christ is the message. Reply @Koukiworld 2 months ago Guys Quit beating around the Bush Golden Ratio which is the Solfeggio frequencies MOVES EVERYTHING Yes. Throw dust in the Solfeggio frequencies and watch it form to life. Planck energy moves us all in the melody of Golden Ratio ✨️ 528hz Love ❤️ 😍 Now Start making equipment and gadgets to strat using Planck energy to power our Houses, cars and everything ever needed on Earth 🌎 in a Cup of Coffee of Planck energy you can run your🎉 country 😀 😄 Reply @stilltimeforhope 1 month ago People keep searching for answers through science and human wisdom, but the truth has been in God’s Word all along. Jesus Christ showed us who God is — love, mercy, and truth — and He’s coming again. There’s still time to turn to Him and find peace. Reply @kaushmanish 2 months ago These r dangerous people.everyday they bring a new theory.first relativity i tried to understand than quantum physics which one can't understand n now strong theory. Come on,give me a break Reply @barryreeves3230 3 months ago For me, in my Hubble opinion, Brian Greene is a Grifter, His String Theory is a Labour of Love, Pin the Tail on a Donkey that isn’t there, We are all trapped in a Game, created by beings far more complex and intelligent than us, Particles are Pixels, Newton, Einstein, Hawking, all substantiated their findings, Brian, you never will, vibrating strings, multi dimensional, God Particles, you will never prove, Let’s look for and explain Dark Matter, You do make life interesting though, even if it’s just about the ££££££££££ X Reply Top is selected, so you'll see featured commentsame width="480" height="270" src="https://youtube.com/embed/o9z5il_FQUw?si=g1KzHS7BH8fmXQeN" frameborder="0">

Monday, December 22, 2025

String Theory, Multiverse, and Divine Design - Brian Greene

No comments: