Toggle light / dark theme

String theory is uniquely derived from basic assumptions about the universe, physicists show

If you could take an apple and break it into smaller and smaller parts, you would find molecules, then atoms, followed by subatomic particles like protons and the quarks and gluons that make them up. You might think you hit the bottom, but, according to string theorists, if you keep going to even smaller scales—about a billion billion times smaller than a proton—you will find more: tiny vibrating strings.

Developed in the 1960s, string theory proposes that everything in the universe is made from invisible strings. The theory arose as a possible solution to the problem of “quantum gravity,” the quest to align quantum mechanics, which describes our world at the smallest scales, with the general theory of relativity, which explains how our universe works on the largest scales (and includes gravity). Researchers have tried to reconcile the two theories—asking, for example, how gravity behaves in the quantum realm—but their equations go berserk, or in mathematical terms, go to infinity.

String theory is a mathematical solution that tames the unruly infinities. It purports that all particles, including the graviton—the hypothetical particle believed to convey the force of gravity—are generated by very small vibrating strings. The math behind string theory requires the strings to vibrate in at least 10 dimensions, rather than the four we live in (three for space and one for time), which is one of the reasons some scientists are not convinced that string theory is correct. But perhaps the biggest challenge for the theory is the ultrahigh energies required for testing it: Such an experiment would require a particle collider the size of a galaxy.

String Theory Emerges from “Almost Nothing”

Developed in the 1960s, string theory proposes that everything in the universe is made from invisible strings. The theory arose as a possible solution to the problem of “quantum gravity,” the quest to align quantum mechanics, which describes our world at the smallest scales, with the general theory of relativity, which explains how our universe works on the largest scales (and includes gravity). Researchers have tried to reconcile the two theories—asking, for example, how gravity behaves in the quantum realm—but their equations go berserk, or in mathematical terms, go to infinity.

String theory is a mathematical solution that tames the unruly infinities. It purports that all particles, including the graviton—the hypothetical particle believed to convey the force of gravity—are generated by very small vibrating strings. The math behind string theory requires the strings to vibrate in at least 10 dimensions, rather than the four we live in (three for space and one for time), which is one of the reasons some scientists are not convinced that string theory is correct. But perhaps the biggest challenge for the theory is the ultrahigh energies required for testing it: Such an experiment would require a particle collider the size of a galaxy.

What is a physicist to do? One way they can probe the theory is to turn to a “bootstrap” approach, in which researchers start with certain assumptions they believe to be true about the universe, and then see what laws emerge out of those assumptions. In a new paper titled “Strings from Almost Nothing,” accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, Caltech researchers, and their colleagues at New York University and Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies in Barcelona, have done just that. From a couple of basic assumptions about how particles should scatter off one another at very high energies, they derived the elements of string theory.

Amino Acid Patterns Help Scientists Distinguish Alien Life

Dr. Fabian Klenner: “We’re showing that life does not only produce molecules. Life also produces an organizational principle that we can see by applying statistics.” [ https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/30534/amino-acid-pat…ien-life-2](https://www.labroots.com/trending/space/30534/amino-acid-pat…ien-life-2)


What methods can scientists use to correctly identify biosignatures, aka signs of life beyond Earth? This is what a recent study Nature Astronomy hopes to address as a team of researchers from the University of California, Riverside (UC Riverside) and Israel investigated a new pattern-based method for identifying biosignatures. This study has the potential to help scientists develop new methods for finding life beyond Earth, which could narrow the scope for both how and where to find life.

For the study, the researchers used mathematics to suggest that instead of looking for specific molecules when searching for biosignatures scientists should instead look for organizational patterns. The primary motivation behind the study was to challenge longstanding methods regarding how to search for biosignatures, which have traditionally been focused on finding individual and specific molecules. In the end, the researchers found that the amino acids in biological (biotic) samples exhibited a much larger range of diversity compared to non-biological (abiotic) samples. These could shape a new generation of astrobiology, which is the study of searching for life beyond Earth.

“We’re showing that life does not only produce molecules,” said Dr. Fabian Klenner, who is an assistant professor of planetary sciences at UC Riverside and a co-author on the study. “Life also produces an organizational principle that we can see by applying statistics.”

This Physicist (Unexpectedly) Derived Gravity from Information

Sponsors: Accelerate your efficiency. Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at http://shopify.com/theories Sign up for Claude today at http://claude.ai/theoriesofeverything and checkout Claude Pro — which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today’s episode. I personally subscribe to The Economist. FLASH SALE to May 18: 50% off annual (double the usual!) No other podcast has this! https://economist.com/TOE

What if gravity is just entropy in disguise? Professor Erik Verlinde joins me to argue that gravity isn’t a fundamental force—it’s thermodynamic, emerging from quantum information the way gas pressure emerges from molecules bouncing around. We explore why spacetime may be stitched together by entanglement, and how dark energy and dark matter both pop out automatically without extra particles or parameters. Verlinde explains why the cosmological constant problem is a red herring, and why there may be no final theory of physics. When asked where the universe comes from, his answer is one word: chaos.

SUPPORT: Support me on Substack: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/su… me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkou… Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_… JOIN MY SUBSTACK (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9… TIMESTAMPS:

  • 00:00:00 — Thermodynamic Gravity and Information
  • 00:06:35 — Beyond Effective Field Theory
  • 00:13:08 — Turtles All The Way Down
  • 00:25:41 — Entropy as a Force
  • 00:36:31 — Entanglement and Spatial Connectivity
  • 00:47:31 — Deriving Inertia and F=ma
  • 00:56:41 — De Sitter Space Challenges
  • 01:02:01 — Dark Matter and Milgram
  • 01:11:51 — The Emergence of Time
  • 01:21:01 — Statistical Gravity Fluctuations
  • 01:27:01 — Quantum Computational Complexity
  • 01:36:01 — Physics Intuition and Mentorship
  • 01:47:31 — Beauty, Garbage, and Chaos

LINKS MENTIONED: Papers, books, websites:

Videos:

  • • A 2 Hour Deep Dive into Entropy
  • • The Mathematics of String Theory [Graduate…
  • • The Debate That Divides Physics: Is the Un…
  • • The Physicist Who Found Quantum Theory’s U…
  • • Retrocausality & The Transactional Interpr…
  • • The Physicist Who Proved Entropy = Gravity
  • • The Physicist Who Says Time Doesn’t Exist
  • • The Most Astonishing Theory of Black Holes
  • • The (Simple) Theory That Explains Everythi…
  • • The Crisis in String Theory is Worse Than…
  • • Dark Dimensions: NEW THEORY Unifying Dark…
  • • MIT Scientist’s Discovery: “Black Holes Mi…
  • • The Woman Who Broke Gravity | Claudia de Rham
  • • Solving the Problem of Consciousness | Ste…
  • • Frederic Schuller: The Physicist Who Deriv…
  • • The Loop Quantum Gravity Debacle: Carlo Ro…
  • • An (Elementary) Introduction to Quantum Co…
  • • Can Physics Explain Its Own Laws?
  • • The Nobel Laureate Who (Also) Says Quantum…
  • • This Cosmologist Discovered Something Stra…
  • • Michael Levin: Consciousness, Biology, Uni…

SOCIALS:

  • Twitter: / toewithcurt
  • Discord Invite: / discord

Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science.

JOIN MY SUBSTACK (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com.

LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9

TIMESTAMPS: 00:00:00 — Thermodynamic Gravity and Information 00:06:35 — Beyond Effective Field Theory 00:13:08 — Turtles All The Way Down 00:25:41 — Entropy as a Force 00:36:31 — Entanglement and Spatial Connectivity 00:47:31 — Deriving Inertia and F=ma 00:56:41 — De Sitter Space Challenges 01:02:01 — Dark Matter and Milgram 01:11:51 — The Emergence of Time 01:21:01 — Statistical Gravity Fluctuations 01:27:01 — Quantum Computational Complexity 01:36:01 — Physics Intuition and Mentorship 01:47:31 — Beauty, Garbage, and Chaos.

AI is the Great Filter

Artificial intelligence is now finding planets human astronomers missed and scanning for alien signals 600 times faster than ever before.
Yet the more powerful our search tools become, the louder the silence from the cosmos grows.

This video explores why the same technology helping us look for extraterrestrial life may also explain why we cannot find any.

We examine the Great Filter hypothesis, the mathematics of self-replicating probes, and the growing consensus that any aliens out there would be machines, not biological beings.

From Matrioshka brains to the aestivation hypothesis to the Dark Forest, the universe may be hiding minds we cannot recognise, or warning us about a test every civilisation faces.

Chapters.

00:00 — Intro.

How Unknowable Math Can Help Hide Secrets

Perhaps the most famous example comes from a theorem by the logician Kurt Gödel’s celebrated result — one of two “incompleteness theorems” he published in 1931 — established that for any reasonable set of basic mathematical assumptions, called axioms, it’s impossible to prove that the axioms won’t eventually lead to contradictions. Though mathematicians continued their research much as they had before, they would never again be certain that their rules were self-consistent.

More than 50 years after Gödel’s theorem, cryptographers devised a radical new proof method in which unknowability played a very different role. Proofs based on this technique, called zero-knowledge proofs, can convince even the most skeptical audience that a statement is true without revealing why it’s true.

These two flavors of unknowability, which originated decades apart and in different fields, were long considered completely unrelated. Now the computer scientist Rahul Ilango (opens a new tab) has established a striking connection (opens a new tab) between them. While still a graduate student, he devised a new type of zero-knowledge proof in which secrecy stems from the fundamental limits of math. Ilango’s approach gets around limitations of zero-knowledge proofs that researchers have long thought insurmountable, pushing the boundaries of what such a proof can be. The work has also spurred researchers to explore other intriguing links between mathematical logic and cryptography.

Mathematics is All You Need 2 — Sign-Stabilized Behavioral Fibers in Transformer Residual Streams

Mathematics is All You Need 2: Sign-Stabilized Behavioral Fibers in Transformer Residual Streams This volume presents a pre-registered empirical investigation of the residual-stream geometry of frozen transformer language models, anchored by a four-test decision sprint executed on 2026/05/09 and a six-experiment tier-0 lockdown battery, with full reproducibility manifest. Empirical findings. Cross-architecture transfer of behavioral readouts from Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct to Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B yields mean AUC retention of 0.749 across 75 probe-layer pairs over 10 seeds (BCa bootstrap 95% CI [0.7466, 0.7577] from 10,000 resamples; permutation test 10,000 permutations p < 10⁻⁴; significance survives Bonferroni correction at α = 0.05). Causal steering of the target architecture using a probe direction trained on the source architecture produces strictly monotonic probe-output deflection on 29 of 29 held-out prompts (median Spearman ρ = 1.000, intervention range α ∈ [−3, +3]). Gauge-flexibility of the underlying low-rank substrate is established at high statistical power: 100 random orthogonal rotations of the projection basis produce retention standard deviation σ = 0.0096. The intrinsic dimension of the behavioral substrate is shown to be 1–4 for the majority of behavioral traits tested, with single-direction (r = 1) retention of 0.897. The angle between the rank-1 output highway direction and the centroid of trained probe directions at proportional depth is measured as 85.59° on Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct at layer 13, independently reproducing a prior internal measurement of 85.5° to within 0.1°. Theoretical synthesis. The Two-Channel theorem: the residual stream of a frozen transformer admits a decomposition into a high-variance rank-1-dominant output channel read by the unembedding head and a low-rank near-orthogonal behavioral channel supporting both readout and causal cross-architecture steering. The architecture-invariant object is established empirically as the sign-stabilized SVD subspace itself rather than any specific basis within it; the canonical-basis specificity hypothesis is formally rejected by pre-registered ablation (T2). Convergence with prior work. The geometric near-orthogonality result provides a measurement-side mechanism complementary to the training-side finding of Huang, LeCun & Balestriero (LLM-JEPA, arXiv:2509.14252, 2025) that embedding-space training objectives improve LLM performance without altering generative capabilities. The two results describe the same underlying functional separability of latent structure and generation in transformer residual streams via independent methodologies. Scope and limitations. The empirical foundation is restricted to a single source–target architecture pair (Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct → Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B), both decoder-only instruction-tuned transformers in the 7-8B parameter class. The headline T4 causal steering result is on one probe (language_id) at one layer pair (qL13 → hL15). Cross-family extension (Mistral, Phi, Gemma, Yi, Llama variants), multi-probe causal steering benchmarks, full d-model space angle measurement, and the PLATINUM-probe leakage audit are queued for the cluster reproduction sprint as a 15-pipeline validation matrix. Several claims from the prior volume Mathematics is All You Need (Napolitano 2026) are explicitly retracted or demoted to conjecture in Part VI of this work. Compute and reproducibility. Total wall time for the empirical foundation: approximately 9 hours on a single NVIDIA RTX 5090. Reproducibility manifest, replication recipes, and full numerical results are included as appendices. Keywords. Mechanistic interpretability; representation engineering; activation steering; cross-architecture transfer; linear representation hypothesis; transformer residual stream; behavioral probes; gauge invariance; pre-registered evaluation; Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures. Models and datasets used. Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct; Hermes-3-Llama-3.1-8B. Datasets: HumanEval, MBPP, MATH, GSM8K, ProofNet, WritingPrompts, ROC stories, Wikipedia. Companion volume. Integrates and supersedes the unreleased internal report CYGNUS 2: Information Field Theory and the Geometry of Machine Consciousness (April 2026), included as Part II. Access. Distribution prior to public-release date is restricted to identified academic reviewers and partner research labs under signed NDA. Public release is scheduled for 30 days after the priority date of associated U.S. provisional patent applications. Source code, model weights, cached residuals, and intermediate artifacts are proprietary property of Proprioceptive AI, Inc. License. Text under CC-BY 4.0; source code and artifacts proprietary. ORCID. 0009−0000−1927−8537

Godfather of AI: How To Make Safe Superintelligent AI

The co-inventor of modern AI and the most cited living scientist believes he’s figured out how to ensure AI is honest, incapable of deception, and never goes rogue. Yoshua Bengio – Turing Award Winner and founder of LawZero – is disturbed by the many unintended drives and goals present in today’s AIs, their ability to tell when they’re being tested, and demonstrated willingness to lie. AI companies are trying to stamp these out in a ‘cat-and-mouse game’ that Yoshua fears they’re losing.

But Yoshua is optimistic: he believes the companies can win this battle decisively with a single rearrangement to how AI models are trained, and has been developing mathematical proofs to back up the claim. The core idea is that instead of training AI to predict what a human would say, or to produce responses we’d rate highly, we should train it to model what’s actually true.

Learn more & full transcript: https://80k.info/bengio.

Yoshua argues this new architecture, which he calls “Scientist AI,” is a small enough change that we could keep almost all the techniques and data we use to train frontier AIs like Claude and ChatGPT. And that the new architecture need not cost more, could be built iteratively, and might be more capable as well as more honest.

Until recently, the biggest practical objection to Scientist AI was simple: the world wants agents, and Scientist AI isn’t one. But in new research, Yoshua has extended the design and believes the same honest predictor can be turned into a capable agent without losing its \.

Quantum Entangles the Heavens

As the United States, Europe, and China compete to shape the future of the Earth-Moon corridor, strategic advantage will depend not only on launch capacity or lunar infrastructure, but also on advances in quantum technologies. Just as secure systems are critical on Earth, satellites and space-based systems underpin high-value, high-impact operations from financial transactions and navigation to scientific discovery and classified military missions.

Quantum technologies, which enable new levels of speed, sensitivity, and security, are emerging as critical tools to improve existing extraterrestrial systems. Modern digital communications are secured by encryption built on math problems that are extremely difficult for regular computers to solve, but that sufficiently advanced quantum computers could eventually crack. Quantum communications technologies could add a new layer of protection by making it easier to detect when someone is trying to intercept sensitive information. Quantum sensors can measure position and time with an accuracy that GPS only approximates. Lastly, quantum computers could unlock new capabilities beyond current computational limits, from designing advanced materials to optimizing increasingly complex satellite networks.

Countries are racing to match their space and quantum ambitions with national strategies. The White House is reportedly drafting an executive order to strengthen US competitiveness in quantum technologies. The rumored draft directs multiple US government bodies, including NASA, to develop a five-year roadmap to expand quantum sensing and networking capabilities. The EU’s 2025 Quantum Europe Strategy highlights “Space and Dual-Use Quantum Technologies” as one of its five strategic focuses, and China’s 15th Five-Year Plan has called for expanding the country’s ground-to-space quantum communications network.

/* */