I'm here because Eric Weinstein said: "I am terrified of this man!”

This man could easily be a Sherlock Holmes villain. The way he speaks, moves his hands....an eerie calmness

I love how this man talks. No filler sounds (like 'ummm' and 'ahhh'), no repeating of words a few times during a sentence. Just clear continuous talking.

The fact that this man got a bachelor's in history (minor in linguistics) and went on to become one of the greatest physicists in human history is absolutely wild to me.

I saw him walking through the halls of my campus one day. Dude is so imposing even without speaking. What a legend.

"To the best of our present understanding." This is the most important part of the entire conversation. Humility drives scientific discovery exponentially faster than arrogance. -me

When he is saying we understood all 5 string theories are different aspects of the same theory, he means HE understood and then shared with the world

Please more of Prof. Witten on the channel; he’s greatly elaborate, very precise, and uncanny at foreseeing what questions might be forming in one’s head 👍🏻👌🏻🙏🏻

what a treat to listen to (arguably) the smartest guy on this planet! 👏

I could listen to Dr. Witten talk ad nauseum. Fascinating mind and how he can convey incredibly complex topics in terms relatively understandable to others. More Dr. Witten please :)

He is truly mesmerising, his voice is so soothing. I could listen to this beautiful man all day.

I'm glad we've got Dr. Kuhn to ask the questions.

OMG, Dr. Witten is so clear, concise and comprehensive! He gave us a 1000 foot view of the landscape of String/M Theory in 12 minutes! And he completely destroyed his critics in the process. It might take a hundred years for everyone to appreciate what an incredible body of work he’s developed.

I didn't think somebody that smart could dumb down his thoughts simple enough for us normal people to grasp - well done! :)

What an amazing human. I absolutely love his almost religious notion of "our present understanding" knowing well that science is an iterative process that takes a long time to deliver the goods, so to speak.

Listening to Prof. Witten is an adventure in common sense thinking. I could listen to him all day. Thanks for posting.

A universal truth was spoken at 12:20 - the one about critics of a theory not working hard on a competing theory or suggesting one. That said, the subject of the interview understands the importance of peer review.

I wish he was my teacher. Brilliant mind with gentle soul.

I love listening to this man talk!!!

I am bamboozled but entertained, educated and in awe at the same time.

I watched this video without understanding anything being said. I knew this after only a couple minutes, and continued to watch regardless, as well as knowing that I wouldn't understand the rest.

5:09 I love that "Oh. Ok."

Me too. Following this to some extent. Realizing I’ll need to repeat many times. Amazing.

I met a guy very similar to Witten at a social event. It was just an informal gathering of strangers around the same age there to find/make new friends. He was sitting off to the side wanting to join in but he was intimidated. I introduced myself and 'attempted' to start a conversation - talk about difficult. Everything was math, his work, his teachings, the advanced math/calc/physics books he's had published for college students etc. I wanted to help make him feel comfortable so I asked if he could teach me some baby algebra. (I hate math) he looked up, with one of his of books in hand and said, "I'm not sure I can". Turns out he was right. He lost me at the letter x. There was an interesting article asking Air Force fighter pilots if they could fly a Cessna 172. Three said no and one said he could probably do it but not safely. It's crazy how the math professor and pilots were so advanced they couldn't do the fundamental basics of their profession. * of course they could fly the small plane once they were familiar with it. And obviously my arithmetic instructor could figure a way to stoop down, way down to my pea brain level and convey those horrific rudimentary algebraic formulas.

This guy and his father practically put a halt to the progress of physics. If you're in the know, you get it.

Edward is less of human and more of a mathematical expression himself ...the iron man of maths.

Wonderful, thank you!

6:15 "One theory, many solutions.. The universe is described by one solution to this theory. Roughly speaking there are some equations and you solve them...A solution is an approximation to a quantum state which really describes the universe." This is was the most important statement in the interview, IMHO, because too often theoretical physicists don't talk enough about theories and their relationship to other moving parts of the physics endeavor, like solutions and experiments.

This man is the reason why I am not worried about the world domination of super intelligent AI. He's at least GPT-11 level

Interesting and worthwhile video.

This viewer might not understand any of this but is just content and grateful to witness genius articulated so masterfully

Great interview. Very interesting to watch, though admittedly a lot of it was over my head. That mic drop at the end though!

No way I could ever have a conversation with this guy.

one of the few (if not only) Theoretical Physicists that is equally adept in mathematics. That is powerful given he not only has imagination as a physicist but the tools via math to explore his own theories

We really need to get Witten and Weistein together to talk, debate, prognosticate, whatever. Please

His first degree was in history and linguistics, and he wanted to be a journalist and politician. Perhaps why he's so good at framing a narrative and bringing people to his way of thinking.

A well spoken man that masks the fact that partical physics hasn't come up with anything meaningful since 50 years. "Models and theories" that can't be experimentally falsified.

He explained things very well easy for a average person can comprehend Thanks

Please get more interviews with Edward Witten

This guy is hypnotizing to listen to. So clairvoyant.

I love how matter of fact and unassuming this man is. For him, it really is all about understanding how nature works, there is no inkling of self-praise or even the notion that he deserves credit. When he says in 3:25 that “we” understood the 5 theories to each be special cases of an underlying theory, well, there is very little “we”, and a lot of “I” in this statement… . M-theory is one of Ed’s great contributions to string theory, and yet he makes no reference to himself. I love listening to this man, even though I never understand more than the first few words of what he is saying… 😂

This man is a noble soul. His clarity of speech and his analogies are mesmerising. Please bring him on again fora 3 hour discussion on string theory and its possibilities

Thank you

Imagine sitting in that study on a slightly rainy day with the blinds drawn, looking out on a small town with large trees gently blowing in the wind, just reading your favorite science fiction book series. Abject tranquility in my opinion.

One of those people I would want to meet and just listen to.

very interesting stuff

Really inspirational to see the smartest person. I bought the Little Book on String Theory by Gubser.

I like his last sentence 😄

Watching it after Eric Weinstien video with Joe Rogan. Eric says "Edward Witten is the Michael Jordan of Theoretical Physics if only Michael Jordan could play better basketball".

fascinating stuff

Every time I hear this man speak I get the impression that somewhere deep down he has nearly all the answers, he's just very careful about which parts he's willing to share with us mortals.

This man is very intelligent.

This is the only KZfaq video I’ve watched, and I slowed down to .75 to get a tenuous grasp

Fascinating

Thank you two a lot! 4:53 used to say it was magic mystery or matrix but really M was for membrane it was just a question of whether membranes are one facet of the theory which I think is what most people believe or the whole theory should they derived from membranes which it competing (Bob: how would it be membrane what is a string relative to a membrane because the string is one dimensional) membranes in the sense were supposed to be two-dimensional surfaces. 5:18 the term M theory is really used in two senses so we now understand that there's an overaching theory that has the five traditonal string theories as limiting cases and that theory is often called M theory. 6:39 more complicated than that, a solution is an approximation to a quantum state which is what really describes the universe but anyway the idea would be that um there's one theory but what the universe actually looks like depends upon which solutions of the equation is appropriate for describing (okay let's talk about the number of solutions because we hear this term banning about 10 to the 500 that's 10 with 500 zeros, which is a number we don't have a name for so which is hugely more than the number of particles in universe etc so because that has to do with the geometric shapes?) 7:18 so, first of all the standard model of particle bit physics is a little complicated actually the ideas are simple but the implementation that we see in the real world is a little complicated with a lot of bits and pieces and the only reason that something simple as simple as string theory can reproduce the complexity of the standard model is that there are extra dimensions and the topological complexity of the extra dimensions generates the details of the strandard model ( 7:49 okay) so ❤💚💙the theory really would not work without the complexity of the extra dimensions but the complexity of the extra dimensions turns out to be such that there are vast vast numbers of possibilities to the best of our present understanding for what form the extra dimensions might take. 8:04 Bob: and these are topological uh is structural (EW: a very large part of it is topological let's think of it as topological) EW: I'd like to make an analogy however Einstein's theory is one theory but it doesn't predict the details of the solar system to get the solar system you need to know the masses and composition really or the planets and the sun and the asteroids and you also need to know the initial conditions 8:29 so nobody really asks Einstein's theory to predict exactly what the solar system would look like we only use Einstein's theory to predict how the solar system will evolve, given what we observe as the initial conditions because we understand that the solar system depends on the initial conditions and by now we've been able to take make observations of distant solar systems so we know there are different solar systems out there and you couldn't really I mean without feeding in the fact that we're in this particular one you wouldn't know which solution of Einstein's equations you wanted to take now the traditional view of physicists is not to think of the whole universe in that way 9:05 so Einstein instead very much that there should be a unique answer determined only on logical rounds for all dimensionless numbers that measure in nature now again your viewers might not know what I mean by dimensional's number some things you measure depend on the units where you measure them like it takes a year for the earth to go around the sun that's a very interesting number because it just depends on how we define the year 9:29 now a more interesting number is that it takes about twice as long for Mars to grow on the sun is the earth and that does not depend on the unit in which we measure time there's a factor of two between the period of the orbit of Mars and the one of the earth that's a dimensionless number but it's a dimensionless number that depends on the solar system and the difference in different solar system 👍to get something a little more interesting we might take the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass either mass by itself as a number depends on the units in free measure mass but the ratio of the electon to the proton is one of those dimensionless numbers for which Einstein said there should be a completely unique answer Einstein imagined that the universe should be described by a unique system of equations that would have a unique answer for all obserbable dimensionless quantities now what we have in string theory with the present understanding is a unique system of equations but it's not close to having a unique answer with our present understanding at least 10:31 we're not absoutely sure that our present understanding is definitive but the best understanding we have now does not point to an unique answer so it points to something a little bit more like the solar system Einstein's theory is unique but it had many solutions 10:47 Bob: ... personally I think that having discovered how quantum mechanics and gravity can work together consistently it's our duty to explor it more if string theory had not been discovered I personally think taht I would not have tried to discover something like it because I would have no idea where to begin in reconciling quantum mechanics and gravity but it's kind unnatural to ignore the fact that there's an extremely rich theory that people actually have discovered that can make this work and it doesn't just make it possible for gravity and quantum mechanics to work together but it forces them upon you if you start trying to use string theory to describe a quantum theory that you think maybe doesn't have gravity gravity is literally forced upon you because of the way it pops out of the equations so it's extremely unnatural not to notice this and not to take it seriously that doesn't mean it to the everybody's cup of tea or that everybody should work on it with that said though I've noticed that generally speaking the critics don't seem to try very hard to work on the competing theory or to suggest one. יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵים לְךָ שָׁלוֹם

Witten uses String Theory to address one fundamental question about Particle Physics, which is (on my very humble opinion): what is /are the real shape / shapes of what we call 'Particles'? Considering them as dimensionless points (as the Standard Model does) makes Math stumble, and this is a fact. So, even if I'm not a big fan of Complex Geometries, I recognise that answering this question looks like a pivotal point in our understanding of the Universe. Is this feasible? Is it beyond our reach? Is Math the best (the only...) way to explore this aspect of reality? A great week to everybody 😊.

AMAZING VIDEO 💗💗💗💗💗💗

First time learning anything about this and i swear i somewhat understand it 🧐

This man is legendary

Witten’s explanations are very simple and clear - a byproduct of having a very well-organized, internal structure for thinking through these ideas. I was a little surprised by hearing him say the “M”, for membrane is 2-dimensional. I’ve been trying to fathom what a many-dimensional membrane would be for along time. I imagined that it would be 10 (or 25…?) dimensional for string theory (n-1 dimensions for a surface), but I tried to fathom it as an n-dimensional “function” of geometric structures. In just the way a cell’s membrane is a 2-dimensional interface that can connect to other 3-dimensional cells, I’ve been trying to imagine (n-1)-dimensional “surfaces” that connect n-dimensional objects: universes in the case of string theory. In any case, I like thinking about it, because I imagine the Universe as a black box of “parallel” computation, and a membrane for it - similar to a cell’s membrane - could be a sort of inter-universal communication modality that permits the synthesis of higher forms out of Universes. The fact that our Universe has organisms that think about higher math and generate algorithms leaves me with the notion that models like string theory can be conceived as data points for transcendental processing, solutions in the enclosed computation of our Universe that can be funneled into the megaplex of a trans-Universal synthesis… A fun idea - obviously outside the scope of realism - but it gives a voice to the nagging background chatter that any good math-oriented metaphysician must have that any metaphysical organizing principles we suppose to exist are embedded in a deeper space of possible organizing principles. It’s hard to even ask the question of how the latent space of possible category-nerves (or whatever high-level concepts of math organization we are inclined to use) can funnel discrete organizing principles into the production of a Universe. There is no reason whatsoever to think our Universe is geometrically or topologically unique, which means it’s every bit as likely that Universality Classes exist for the geometric patterning of Universes. There is also no reason to believe that systemic closure for our Universe is absolute. But it opens all sorts of twisted questions about what kinds of influence extra-Universal “inputs” might have on our Universe’s patterns of expression.

I wish Witten would explain why I get a grasp of string theory while he's speaking and then do a mind dump within a moment. That is the real M Theory that needs explanation! 💫

This guy is brilliant and modest. He credited others many times but avoids taking credit for his own contributions, but uses the royal “we” as much as possible, unless precipitated by the interviewer. And he is right to do so, many of his contributions relied upon the work of others or collaboration with others. Nevertheless, it took a brilliant mind to bring those ideas together and build upon it.

He asked the question I was wondering if anyone asked Ed Witten.

String Theory hasn’t made any prediction. Neither has it made a singular version that is our Standard Model.

Great man

Best episode yet🐦🐦🐦

It's amazing the levels of thinking and thought that humans can reach. And the variability between people. This guy sounds like ai, yet another person can sound like a toddler.

Theories that have no base in reality are the best.

So next time I think I easily figured something out, I shall listen to this interview and remind myself to be happy that I can put my trousers on in the morning without falling over 😬

During his lectures I never heard so many accurate. Correctly connected multi facited coplex equation So eloquently unified. A great great mind

I appreciate this dudes attempt at asking this guy questions. I think I would just stutter into a stupor.

Brian Green says M is actually an upside down W for Witten

I want the whole world to listen to this man and be quiet for 5 minutes.

I really love all the experimental confirmation of the uh, the er, the um. . .

I agree with everything he said, but I thought of it all first and better.

Love Ed Witten. No chaff!

Dr. Kuhn, It would be extremely valuable to science if you could facilitate a dialogue between Eric Weinstein and Ed Witten. This may be extremely difficult, but the internet is making rapid scientific breakthroughs possible by bringing people together. Brian Keating may be able to help as well.

I worked a w a guy at Amazon who looked like a younger version of him and he always said things don’t change unless by force

I wish i understood this and could talk with him about it

Everyone is stroking his ego. Let his work speak for itself

Weinstein called Witten the Voldemor of Physics - the one everyone terrified about (and ruined careers of many physics by luring them into String Theory which seems to be a dead end)

Imho - the great ‘breakthrough’ in theoretical physics occurred between the years 1979 and 1981 - when Richard Buckminster Fuller wrote and published two volumes of his working mathematics of a lifetime and called the work ‘Synergetics’. It balanced tensive and radiative effects at all levels and provided an identical geometrical description for both energetic and crystallographic modes of nature’s expressions. This essential continuity was provided for by replacing the cubic grid-system as an ultimate ‘all-space-filling’ volumetric reference point by one which alternated tetra-hedra and octa-hedra. The four planes of the tetrahedron came to replace the three planes of the cube (though they are integrated within it); the most relevant angle for natural coordination became 60° instead of 90°; ‘honeycomb’ hexagons replaced square-grids; and - within this - a primary identity was offered for the tetrahedron-photon-quantum. The elaboration of this is made in this work and satisfies in taking in and explaining many phenomena from this single all important initial change in outlook.

I can't wait for the spin-off Young Edward. His Memaw must be a piece of work!

They lost me with "String Theory is obviously a major breakthrough in physics. . . "

After 10 secs my brain started to melt. I hear the words he's saying but have no understanding of what he's saying.

String theory sounds pretty exotic. Yet, most of us would approach the idea through the principle of "vibration". The ultimate question however is what's vibrating? Literal 'strings'? Or is this another example of a mathematics in multiple dimensions that simply has no basis in ontological reality? Is "string theory" simply another story we tell ourselves (epistemology)? OR, is there a mechanism at play in the cosmos that literally consists of strings acting like "springs" transmitting vibration through space as energy or entangled with itself into "particles"?

Nice

Don't interrupt him...let him talk! There's absolutely nothing you could ask or add that would be worth the lost seconds of his consciousness stream.

It should have been called W theory for Witten!

This man is so smart,! He rarely does interviews because he has to dumb down his theories and calculations for us mortals! If aliens ever visit us,this is the guy you want representing our planet!

Wow… What deep and thoughtful explanations. Witten changed my perspective and understanding of the current state of physics more in a few minutes than after many many hours of listening to the usual suspects’ attempts.

Guys not show why string Theory are itself true. Though phich Law string Theory not show up true reality. It is more questions than anwers in phich.

Im here after Rogan. I wanted to see the real Professor X. I tried my hardest but I dont have enough wrinkles in my brain to understand what I just watched.

Id like to know when(what year) were these videos recorded? So as to get an idea about the relevance of these opinions.

"The Universe is a Carrier Wave" ....a foundational principle for string theory

I believe this is the current maximum level of brain attainable in a human body.

I often wonder if we focused on other areas of physics the same way that string theory has been in focus. What would be different?

That floor is trippy!!!

The short answer is NONE or no breakthroughs since Schroedinger.

As long as string theory has no experimental validation you cannot call string theory a breakthrough or even a theory but more a speculation/hypothesis. I am sorry string theory fans but the emperor wears no clothes.