At the heart of modern cosmology is a mystery Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of science’s biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle.


  • It’s not theoretical physics as it has no scientific evidence. Theoretical science is theories such as evolution or particle physics which is supported by evidence. String theory is just Math, the extra dimensions allow you to basically use “dimensions of the gaps” which is like “god of the gaps” because anything is possible with string theory. If you can’t explain it, the extra dimensions did it. If you can’t explain evolution, then God did it.

  • What??? You just defined theoretical physics in the exact opposite way of what it really is. Theoretical physics, all theoretical physics, including these theories are based on scientific evidence. The laws of string theory are not willy nilly, they are based on the standard model of particle physics. These theories of the standard model are based on scientific fact of quantum mechanics, an observable reality with guidelines. String theory is based off of the standard model, you dope.

  • Are you in 7th grade? Do you like to just criticize theoretical physics without even knowing basic QM? Really, who are you to question decades of serious work done by people who spent their lives studying it? I mean, your statement about the multiverse theory doesn’t make any sense. I wonder why… Maybe because you don’t even understand the theory. Or if I’m wrong, prove it.

  • You might want to look up Lawrence Krauss and Richard Feyman, who were not impressed with string theory and they themselves stated string theory and multiverse theory is not science. It appears you indeed are in 7th grade. I remember laughing at string theory in 9th grade.

  • You might want to look up Lawrence Krauss and Richard Feynman, who were not impressed with string theory and they themselves stated string theory and multiverse theory is not science. It appears you indeed are in 7th grade. I remember laughing at string theory in 9th grade. String theory is not science and is not based on scientific evidence, it is math without any science evidence. Brian Greene has stated publicly that he does not believe in String Theory because it has no scientific evidence.

  • String theory isn’t a productive method of theoretical physics because of the reason that it predicts everything and anything, but accurately predicts the standard model, therefor giving you pieces of a puzzle but it could lead you astray, much like anything people believe in too much.
    Despite what you say or believe, string theory has helped physicists understand nature in some ways. I don’t believe string theory can really lead anywhere either because you can’t prove the theory, etc.

  • Again, string theory is just another way of looking at the standard model, but as a whole, predicting things we’ve yet to find.
    lol, you remember laughing at sting theory in grade 9? You didn’t even know how to tie your own shoes that age, how the fuck could you criticize a highly complex mathematical theory? You just know everything and poopoo whatever you want to without even knowing about the subject?
    I mean really, learn some science before you piss on it.

  • it has helped just like thinking about God has helped people come up with ways to try and disprove or to prove God. There is a way you can test string theory: build a powerful microscope able to detect strings that do not look like particles or clouds, but actual strings. Also you can test string theory by accessing the other dimensions somehow, such as with particle colliders seeing if stuff goes out of our dimension and into another (disappearing) at CERN

  • Even Leonard Susskind is aware of the fact that string theory predicts what you want and everything else. Just because humans may not be comfortable with an accurate theory doesn’t mean it isn’t the answer. But it doesn’t mean that it is either.
    Einstein wasn’t comfortable with QM but accepted it later on as an accurate description of the atomic world.
    String theory may not be correct but we get answers and predictions from it. DERRRRRRP

  • What? Thinking about god doesn’t help come up with ways to disprove god. You can’t prove or disprove something like that.
    String theory can be tested but with the energy it would take to create a string, the accelerator would have to be the size of the galaxy.
    If you has a microscope to see a string, the photons you use to see it would kick the string into a particle state because it’s interacting with the photon. Do you know any science? LOL at your different dimension thing.

  • I think its just human nature what’s happening here. Two groups, one wants to be the most powerful so they go at it. The amazing thing to me is that it’s been going on so long without one group eventually taking over and cancelling the other out.

  • Neither, it’s an abstract idea that doesn’t have a real answer. It’s just a way of thinking about a difficult mass of stuff that takes in some key properties that help you categorise it and in some limited way, sum it up. Which came first, the chicken, the egg or KFC? Clearly KFC as chicken is so tasty fried, how could it have known that without KFC? If a tree falls in the woods with a man around, is he still wrong? I’ll let Youtube ponder that one. 🙂

  • You missed the point but that’s not surprising, most people find this stuff difficult, me included of course. The point is that the earth/universe could have had a set of conditions where life could never get going. The ingredients are so many and so precise that it looks to an observer like a very organised set of rules made specifically for life and the universe to just hang there and not be all omg I’m about to dissapear because physics is unstale, no wait I exist, nope I no longer exist.

  • That’s the ratio of aheists to religious people. But it’s skewed because religious people tend to avoid science like this. If we were to see the same up/down votes on a video of god petting kittens, the ratio would be reversed. And don’t try looking, god hasn’t got a Youtube channel. But seriously, if god existed, you’d think he’d have a facebook, twitter and Youtube account and be just wowing everyone with his mad skills and ability to comment on all videos simultaneously.

  • you can disprove the christian God since the word of God says slavery is okay and mormons think black people are evil which we know is not true, therefore christian/mormon type god is a lie and proven wrong. You can’t prove a pantheistic god wrong but you can prove specific God’s wrong. You can prove Jehovah Witness God wrong because God’s word predicted the end of the world many times, and that word was wrong.

  • “LOL at your different dimension thing.”

    That’s what Brian Greene proposes too, idiot. If you actually knew anything about String theory, and if you had actually done any research on the subject at all, you’d know that Brian Greene does not believe in string theory until it makes scientific predictions that can be tested, such as the collider causing debri to go out of another dimension or for something to come in from another dimension.

  • I didn’t miss you point, you did. There’s absolutely nothing difficult about it, that’s the only mystery here; why anyone thinks it’s mysterious.
    It’s irrelevant how poor the odds of our existence look. If you roll 100 dice and look at the result and say “The odds of this are infinitesimal!” you’re simply committing erroneous reasoning. You can’t look at something after the fact and say the odds are too poor for it to happen. That’s retarded. Every roll of dice would be a veritable miracle.

  • That is tremendously subjective. We don’t ‘know’ that slavery is wrong. It’s not some objective fact that everyone everywhere agrees on. Values like that are subjective, so even though I agree with your premise that some Gods can be shown to not exist, I don’t agree that it’s because of ridiculous subjective values. Things that blatantly contradict logic however are more convincing. Like saying God is omniscient or omnipotent. These are illogical attributes.

  • it’s not subjective whether or not slavery is bad, LOL – that’s like saying it is subjective whether beating the shit out of your sister hurts your sister – some sisters enjoy having the shit beat out of them

  • Yes, it is subjective. Morality is inherently subjective. We know this by virtue of the fact that (A) without sentient organisms to assign value, there can be no morality… and (B) some people are born without any moral compass (psychopaths. When you say it is not subjective you imply that it is absolutely true, for all people at all times. We already know this is false because in the past plenty of people thought it was perfectly acceptable. Now WE don’t think that way but that it’s subjective

  • I don’t know how much simpler I can make it. I’m not missing anything. You show a bewildering lack of comprehension of anything I say. If you can’t see how my last reply is related to the subject then perhaps it’s best for you to not be commenting about it.

  • Considering you replied to me originally with something pretty obnoxious and utterly false, it’s rather amusing to see you calling me a troll.

Leave a Comment