Math Will Never Be the Same Again… | Yang-Hui He

Curt or Yang-Hui He, I have a question at the end. I’m fine if neither of you wants to answer it, and I don't blame you if decline. But I’ll ask anyway.

Particle physicists first uncovered string-like vibrations in the late 1960s. The cause, though unclear then, proved boringly simple: protons, neutrons, and similar particles contain the universe’s smallest strings. These “hadronic” strings are the bungee-cord-like orbitals of quarks bound by color-electric charges. Their quantized vibrations were the sources of the string-like vibrations observed in particle colliders.

Other than one brilliant young physicist who died tragically in a climbing accident (his rope snapped), I’ve never encountered a string theorist who admits in public that “super” string theory originated with physical, particle-and-force quark orbital strings. These days, many prefer to pretend that Witten came up with the idea entirely on his own.

The actual origin is that two fellows later grabbed the hadronic string math, discarded the physical particles and forces, and rescaled the resulting no-longer-physical math to be 20 orders of magnitude smaller and 20 orders more energetic. The nominal goal was to construct point-like particles such as electrons.

My question is this: If string vibration math is as fundamental as many claim, why does the math no longer include the particles and forces needed to implement physically meaningful strings at the new energy scales?

The notion that we have entered a position where we should accept truths that we cannot possibly grok is terrifying.

All things in the universe are subject to change, evolution. Things are dynamic. Not static. Does that include math? Is math eternal? Unchangeable? Or is it a byproduct of our level of reality? …where causation lives. Perhaps math is just a reflection of a deeper truth. Or of a deeper form of math that allows the math rules themself, to bend into new maths.

Thanks for sharing! I'm looking for advice on sending USDT from my OKX wallet to Binance. I just get 12 words: clarify cash circle pretty surprise supply slide club solid area wear case. Anyone can help?

Wow, what an ad get!
Congrats on your success, Kurt
And for stimulating my curiosity!

Math is dead Physics is dead. AI will kill every human activity.

Thank you Curt for another interesting video!
In the future I would personally prefer if You drove the "interviews" and topics of disussion and did not allow quasi lectures.

Math is it's own meta.

44:18 It looks like the horizontal axis represents each separate IMO competition, with the bars signifying the number of no/bronze/silver/gold medalists in each. Nothing to do with Terrence Tao "retaking the test," lol.

It appears that String Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the fine structure constant, which is a dimensionless number which is found quite often in combination with π. 50 years of mathematicians marking their own homework. I've got a mark for progress on this question 1/10.

This is my fear.😢

future of authorship:-
Automated by AI Model X, Supervised and Fine-Tuned by Expert Team Y from University Z and Company X

Of course that Random Surface theory has been the recently past , the present and by a long time to come …the future of theoretical physics .No doubt on that !. It is a pretty interplay of Functional Analysis (of functional determinants of Elliptic Operators defined on ) AND Bosonic Algebraic geometry and SUPER algebraic geometry of Bosonic and Fermionic Riemman surfaces respectively ! However the branch of Random Surface theory applied for grand unification of all interaction on Physics, although fascinating is very far to become …THEORETICAL PHYSICS! . But what is apparently the"Flaw" on String theory for grand unification ("The USA-UK random Surface theory") ? .Well String theory needs CRITICAL DIMENSIONS to be well defined which turns them very different from the usual "Kaluza Klein " quantum fields theories in higher dimensional spaces .Here , on string theory for grand unification , one considers a well defined string theory in – let me say and to exemplify -; restricting myself to the bosonic case .Here we have string theory well defined on 26 EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS and thus compactify 22 and say that the string theory is ok as a relativistic quantum field theory in the RESULTING extrinsic space FOUR DIMENSIONAL … : It may be wrong! . I think that one must first prove as a mathematical theorem that the new compactified string theory HAS NOT its OWN CRITICAL DIMENSION wich may be quite different of four .May be , (and a great may be here !) ,CRITICAL DIMENSIONS MAKING STRING THEORY WELL DEFINED , DOES NOT "COMMUTE" WITH COMPACTIFICATIONS!. I have done some trivial calculations on compactifications of string theory (on 1986 in Rome UNiversity as a Pos doc of deceased Prof M Virassoro) to a circle and get Thouless Kosterlitz Phase on the intrinsic two dimensional string space with the NATURAL fixing of the compactified radius !. If these calculations make some sense , may be that string theory compactified in the intrinsic space time has dynamical mass transmutation on its EXTRINSIC geometry and thus fixing dynamically (by quantum corrections) the size of the compactified space regarded as new string coupling constant! .But May be I heve been deadly wrong on "Compactified" string …. ("compactified dimensions are bosonized representations of fermionic string "Color" charges!) . Curt , Sorry by the length of the comment! .From a "Constructive Field Theorist-Functional Analyst " which has been working as a Theoretical Physicist on Random Surface theory applied in non perturbative QCD for 40 years.