Yes: From what I’ve heared here, we are supposed to give up EVERYTHING we thought we have understood so far, and in addition, we were able to describe our world with it’s constants and laws quite nicely, We cannot and should not give up everything, without even replacing it with some appropriate equivalent. After all, it is my understanding that our “classical” physics should be the “limit” of string theory, pretty similar to Newton’s gravity being the limit of Einstein’s relativity (in a nutshell).

The very idea to generalize all the theories and to put them under the same umbrella i.e. to explain all the forces of nature and laws of physics with one single fundamental law is fascinating. No, I don’t think so since to unify all the theories we need to rule out several blurring aspects.

I have a lens that gives a higly-magnified image when I hold it close to the object I am viewing. As I slowly move the lens away from the object, the image gradually becomes blurred and is eventually lost altogether. However, as I continue to move the lens slowly away from the object, the image becomes sharp again, but upside down. This reminds me of the aspects of string theory described in an ealier video. This makes me think that looking at the universe with string theory is like looking at fundamental truth through such a lens rather than looking at the fundamental truth directly. So when we use string theory we are never really seeing that fundamental truth – we are always seeing an image that preserves some properties of the reality but is in some ways distorted. So, to see the fundamental truth, we have to put down the lens. This might not be easy – all of our theories might be metaphorical lenses through which we see various distortions of reality. Moreover, it might not be possible to put down the lens. We cannot look at the universe from “outside”, as there is no outside. And the fabric of the universe itself might be creating these distortions (e.g. perhaps the distortions would vanish if all matter was removed from the universe). To change the metaphor only slightly, it is as if we are living inside a hall of mirrors, and the distorting mirrors are an integral part of the very structure of our universe. So, there is such a thing as fundamental reality, but how can we ever hope to see it?

Yes! Every new discovery in the field of science comes with bashing and sweeping of some concepts, which are so called fundamentals at that period of time. Feeling sorry or guilty for that action will not give us any advantage over the discoveries. Think That how Newton would look, if he travelled across the time and found that his calculus was praised by mathematicians and physicist till now and his ‘Corpuscles Theory’ regarding the concept of light is thrown in the trash by everyone. Laws of nature is not an invented one! it is just discovered. It’s always there for whole time and we just found that in the past centuries. And When giving up most of the concepts that we believed as ‘fundamental’ , We can just say that we have misunderstood for many years and goes on. So, these all actions clearly indicates that the concepts of universe according to our understandings, are evolving , toward the most precise form.The Theory That connects every dots and phenomenons to the fullest as possible

Sadly yes, feels like string theory is already winning. I understand that this is inevitable in the world of science but still as of the moment it is still hard to grasp that after decades another theory will gonna force us to changes our current understand about the nature of reality. Even if string theory not yet been proven to be correct feels like I should start accepting the new reality. But I’ll be happy if its proven to be true because it is just means that our understanding of reality is improving and we’re one step moving towards unravelling the truth.

In order to take the necessary leap ahead we must more or less gradually accept the new competitive theories.

Not at all. I think it is time we seriously look at evolving and redefining nature and the definition of fundamentality. Working theories, such as Eric Weinstein’s Geometric Unity Theory, show promise and even likely inclusion in future theories to come. I firmly believe string theory will be unified with other theories, such as aforementioned, and Robert Lanza’s Biocentrism. When the quanta/Higgs field/Akashic field/Etheric field/realm start to be viewed as all inclusive, we will create the results desired when needed most.

I think string theory is forcing us to look up everything we thought we knew for sure again. Even if string theory would not be the main theory of the world, it gave us this important fact that we shouldn’t close our minds on any principles we think we know in science.

Well, that has been the general trend in science after all. What we thought once to be true and fundamental eventually gets replaced by a better model. String theory is asking some very fundamental questions and trying to unify all laws into one fundamental law or unify physics.

Physics is the continued study of quantum mechanics it’s only natural that our answers are revised

Yes because it is only theory without any actual experimentation.

I think that other approaches such as Loop Quantum Gravity must be included in efforts to a unified theory. But the richness of these theories may lead to new chalenges and possibly, new ideas and concepts.

best

No, I don’t think so. I think having stuff that we call “fundamental” is a human prejudice that Nature doesn’t care about. We should care about how Nature is, not our prejudices.

NO.

This is a silly question.

Saying no to ‘giving up what we knew’ is tantamount to never getting beyond what we already know. When String Theory finally comes together it will either be a fully consistent a\of the Universe or just a good try.. but until it does we don’t know which. This means that we try the hardest to get to the end and see where we arrive to.

lovely course

when will the new course from vafa available ?

No

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

I do not think String Theory asks us to give up too much. Even now Einsteins Relativity is so far holding up to JWST advances. But if we need to move beyond Einsteins limits, this is alright.

Will it be law? This may take time if so, but it seems the nature of accretion material as researched by Prof. Andrew Strominger allows for other branches of previously proven work of physics to pick up slack on black hole event horizons we have not known before better technology arrived.

great idea

more than giving up on past advances, it seems to be just say a lot and write down several formulae, and the ones that don’t fit what we’re looking for just say well those are in another universe, it’s like the old dad joke me and my brother know everything, that’s one my brother knows. nice lectures but I personally am not convinced.

I cannot entirely agree that string theory requires us to give up too much of what we thought to be fundamental in order to be considered a potential law of nature. While string theory does challenge some of our conventional notions, it also offers a rich framework that has the potential to reconcile various aspects of fundamental physics.
String theory suggests that the fundamental entities of the universe are not point-like particles but tiny, vibrating strings of energy. These strings can vibrate in different modes, giving rise to different particles and their properties. This concept allows for a unified description of the fundamental forces of nature, including gravity, which is not fully incorporated in other theories.
While it is true that string theory introduces extra dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, these additional dimensions are compactified and not directly observable at our current energy scales. Therefore, they do not necessarily require us to give up what we consider fundamental in our everyday experience.
Moreover, string theory has the potential to explain and reconcile some long-standing challenges in physics, such as the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It provides a framework that allows for the consistent inclusion of gravity within the framework of quantum field theory.
Admittedly, string theory is still a work in progress and faces significant theoretical and experimental challenges. At present, there is no direct experimental evidence to confirm or refute its validity. However, scientific progress often requires us to explore ideas that challenge our preconceived notions, pushing the boundaries of knowledge in the pursuit of deeper understanding.
While it is essential to approach string theory with a critical mindset and subject it to rigorous testing, I believe that its potential to provide a more comprehensive and unified description of the fundamental laws of nature justifies the ongoing exploration and investigation. By embracing such ideas, we can expand our understanding of the universe and potentially uncover new insights into its underlying structure and behavior.

I will not be going into depth here; however, I do believe that string theory is beneficial and describes our world well and elegantly, I believe we should except what its rules are, not everything is fundamental.

String theory is not asking us to give up the so called fundamental laws of nature but questioning those laws using string theory provides some answers and more questions shows that we are constantly trying to understand the nature as it is. The journey is on.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

I give a thumbs up to the ” Journey is on” comment because it is work in progress.

Prof. Carlos Rovelli also now presents his case in his new book WHITE HOLES that talks of black holes bouncing, outide of time to become Plank stars inside the singularity beyond time, experiencing a quantum alteration within the singularity.

Prof. Greene and WSU offer us a hothouse of science and thought Nouveaŭ.

All our topic tags – quantum physics, string theory, Supersymmetry, Theory of Everything- need to be mentioned 🙂.

CLG
🍵☕🍵🍵