Musical Harmony of Five Strings makes Mmmmmm

While I was thinking about my BIG toe (Theory of Everything) I came across some interesting transcripts. Three of them in fact and they belong to a three hour presentation that can be watched on the internet called the “The Elegant Universe”.

If you’re into big grand theories, but don’t want to worry too much about the actual mathematics involved, then I can only highly recommend it. Below are the three links to the entire three hour transcript of the presentation.

Hour 1: Einstein's Dream
Hour 2: String's The Thing
Hour 3: Welcome to the 11th Dimension

It’s Magnificent… Miraculous… Massive… Mysterious… Mother of all theories… My World Wonderfully turned upside… Whacky… Wicked… Wittenly Written… just like Wowwwwwwwww! Einstein once said that he only came to realizing his theory of relativity when he was playing the violin. String theory was first conceived about a decade after Einstein’s death.

To think that the five strings of the violin are like the five string theories makes musical harmony of the entire universe.

Here is a small extract from the final part of the program.

BRIAN GREENE: In 1995, string theorists from all over the world gathered at the University of Southern California for their annual conference. Ed Witten showed up at Strings 95 and rocked their world.

EDWARD WITTEN (Institute for Advanced Study): I was really trying to think of something that would be significant for the occasion. And actually, since five string theories was too many, I thought I would try to get rid of some of them.

BRIAN GREENE: To solve the problem, Witten constructed a spectacular new way of looking at string theory.

JOSEPH POLCHINSKI: Ed announced that he had thought about it, and moreover, he had solved it. He was going to tell us the solution to every string theory in every dimension, which was an enormous claim, but coming from Ed it was not so surprising.

BRIAN GREENE: The atmosphere was electric because, all of a sudden, string theory, which had been going through a kind of doldrums, was given an incredible boost, a shot in the arm.

LEONARD SUSSKIND (Stanford University): Ed Witten gave his famous lecture. And he said a couple of words that got me interested...and for the rest of the lecture...I got hooked up on the first few words that he said, and completely missed the point of his lecture.

NATHAN SEIBERG (Institute for Advanced Study): I remember I had to give the talk after him, and I was kind of embarrassed to.

JOSEPH LYKKEN: Ed Witten just blew everybody away.

BRIAN GREENE: Ed Witten blew everybody away because he provided a completely new perspective on string theory. From this point of view, we could see that there weren't really five different theories. Like reflections in a wall of mirrors, what we thought were five theories turned out to be just five different ways of looking at the same thing. String theory was unified at last.

Witten's work sparked a breakthrough so revolutionary that it was given it's own name, "M-theory," although no one really knows what the M stands for.

S. JAMES GATES, JR.: Aah, what is the M for?

BURT OVRUT: M-theory.

STEVEN WEINBERG (University of Texas at Austin): M-theory.

DAVID GROSS: M-theory.

JOSEPH LYKKEN: M-theory.

GARY HOROWITZ (Institute for Advanced Study): The M-theory.

STEVEN WEINBERG: M-theory is a theory...

BURT OVRUT: I don't actually know what the M stands for.

STEVEN WEINBERG: Well, the M has...

BURT OVRUT: I've heard many descriptions.

STEVEN WEINBERG: Mystery theory, magic theory...

JOSEPH LYKKEN: It's the Mother theory.

STEVEN WEINBERG: Matrix theory.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: Monstrous theory? I don't know what it...I don't know what Ed meant.

EDWARD WITTEN: M stands for magic, mystery or matrix, according to taste.

SHELDON LEE GLASHOW: I suspect that the "M" is an upside down "W" for "Witten."

Comments from Yahoo 360

(3 total)

• Kim

I've always had a fascination with the violin.. It is the one instrument I still wish I could play....beautifully elloquent! Great post...

Saturday 24 March 2007 - 08:48PM (EDT)

• Phil-…

Thanks Kim. When the violin is played well it produces some of the most amazing sounds. It's a fascinating instrument and I do wished I had been born with a musical talent. Still, nevermind, maybe next time in another life or another dimension I can play with the strings of life.

Sunday 25 March 2007 - 04:36AM (GMT)

• Sai

i have not listened yet, I promise... I will..

but right now i am thinking that strings R not the issue...
missing the guided light of your moon
has you grasping for Straws!!!!

Sunday 25 March 2007 - 12:41AM (CDT)

Mind your P&Qs: A Test of Faith.

Here I will give you some insight into what goes on in the Mind of Phil and his Quirky Quartz

Q: So Phil, do you believe in God?

P: Well there’s gotta be summit out there. I mean summit doesna cum outta nuffin does it?

Q: It seems that is what some atheists believe.

P: I know! Can ya baleeve it! I aff t’admire t’enormuss fayth t’em’atheists av fer believin wer’all made frum nuffin!

Q: Some might call it blind faith. They say you can’t see ‘nothing’ so to put your faith in the idea that from nothing came something is a very blind thing to do.

P: Them’athiest boffins says they proved it scientifically wiv a bit a maffs n all!

Q: Yes, they have a concept called symmetry and shown that all laws of physics are based on symmetries.

P: Theyze relly stoopid then! They orta luk at’em selves in t’mirror like, then they’ll knows wot symmetry is!

Q: Hmmm, one of these guys is a man called Victor Stenger, he’s written several books claiming that science clearly shows that there is no God. He says that out of the void of emptiness came the universe we know today, one full of mass and energy. He explains that something is more stable than nothing, so nothing had to turn into something. I know that’s it’s true that all things in the known universe behaves naturally in the direction from instability to stability.

P: An there wuz ah thinkin I’m men’ally unstable. Ah got sum ’ope then that ah gonna get more stable wen I’m alder. Am confuze cuz ah thot ah wuz gettin worse!

Q: Only, I learned later that his definition of nothing doesn’t actually mean nothing in the absolute sense. In his book “Has Science found God?” he explains very well the concept of symmetry and how it applies to all the well known laws of physics. He explains the concept of the void as best as he can in terms of empirical physics and readily admits that if we were to talk about nothing as “no” thing then it has no properties, but what he talks of as the ‘void’ he explains that it has the same symmetrical laws that also applies to the laws of physics.

P: An so wot yer sayin is: t’nuffin state in t’sense ov uh void is unstable n cun only b’cum sumfin cuz its more stable.

Q: Precisely Phil. He uses this natural symmetry concept to illustrate that you don’t need God as a component ‘force’ to have made the orderly universe because the creation of ‘order’ is a totally natural progression supported by all the known laws of physics and are based on symmetry. I enjoyed reading about this symmetry concept and for once I found it a concept that is not so difficult to understand.

P: Don ya jus luv uh genius oo explains thins’ n a way ah cun’understand. T’is brilliano!

Q: Yes only it’s not so ‘brilliano’ as you put it! Stenger uses the symmetry concept to dismiss the idea that there is a God. In my view, he could be right to the point that it removes certain conceptions of how God has created the universe. In fact, he is presenting very logical and convincing arguments to show what God is not. I would go as far to suggest that what he has shown might actually be a physical attribute of God – that is all things material within the known physical universe behave and happen naturally according to the laws of physics.

P: OMG Q! Ya deserve uh Nobel Prize fa realizin that!

Q: Let’s not go that far! I think Stenger’s books do make very worthwhile reading and he is capable of presenting intelligent and convincing arguments to dispel many a myth of Judeo-Christian-Islamic concepts of God along with the many ‘dreamed up’ and non-scientific theories that attempt to explain alternative medicine and the existence of psi and so on. But he’s wrong if he is trying to dismiss the whole caboodle of God. What he has done is shown that physical laws can never ever be used to prove the existence of the ‘supernatural’ or the metaphysical because all physical phenomena occur only according to the natural order of things. The metaphysical and the supernatural can never ever be reproduced in a scientific laboratory ever.

P: Ya goin by t’argument that Science n God don’t mix ain’t ya!

Q: And never the twain shall they meet! So Phil, do you believe in God?

P: Hey Q! Is this menna be uh test ov ma fayth?

Comments from Yahoo 360

(4 total)

• moonl…

Nice discussion, thanks Phil!

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 08:40AM (CDT)

• Moon

Zezz..., u r like a gecko with full of colours :-P (will explain by request later). Anyway - good blog my dear! X

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 02:07PM (GMT)

• Roo

You should talk to yourself more often, it's very enjoyable.

Thursday 22 March 2007 - 02:15PM (EDT)

• Phil-…

Athiests are an irony. Without them we would not know some of what we know today. I say "Thank God for Athiests!"

I am also humoured by athiests. It's like they strip a piece of bark off the tree and they say this bark does not exist.

Sunday 25 March 2007 - 04:45AM (GMT)