Math Will Never Be the Same Again… | Yang-Hui He
This episode features Yang-Hui He, a mathematical physicist and professor known for his groundbreaking work in string theory, geometry, and AI-driven approaches to mathematical research, as he explains how machine learning is revolutionizing the field and leading to major discoveries.
As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe
Timestamps:
00:00 – String Theory & Mathematics
10:54 – How Does One Do Mathematics?
16:28 – Computers & Mathematics
20:04 – Bottom-Up Mathematics
28:44 – Meta-Mathematics
46:17 – Top-Down Mathematics
55:22 – Pattern Recognition
01:01:30 – Platonic Data
01:07:15 – A Classic Problem Since 1736
01:17:38 – Classical Results for Reimann Surface
01:22:29 – Manifolds
01:26:52 – Superstring Theory
01:30:45 – When Physics Meets Math
01:43:01 – Progress in String Theory
01:45:45 – Image Processing
01:59:33 – Episode Recap
02:12:50 – Outro
Links Mentioned:
• The Calibi-Yau Landscape (book): https://amzn.to/41XmUi0
• Machine Learning (book): https://amzn.to/49YQ42t
• Topology and Physics (book): https://amzn.to/4gCcjxr
• Yang-Hui He’s recent physics lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhuZar2C55U
• Roger Penrose on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGm505TFMbU
• Edward Frenkel’s String Theory discussion on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_oPMcvHbAc
• Edward Frenkel’s lecture on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX1tZv_Nv4Y
• Joseph Conlon and Peter Toit on TOE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAaXk_WoQqQ
• A New Lower Bound For Sphere Packing (article): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.10026
• Principia Mathematica (book): https://www.amazon.com/Principia-Mathematica-Alfred-North-Whitehead/dp/1603864377/ref=sr_1_5?crid=2ANIKKX6G8KRK&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.c62w_u2CfXIK6AaEt-QKx6dp22lbkUr17cSyr3O-rltVBjvb8xCrwLWz8CQ6iWjo8rjmeCsSCwPwM_U0T8_InZfz0vEX9UKDWfSa5Oan86o4YwU6F3GdBPz3J2d_hXbLOc-EULawZ47JksUzndhf5q7ydfCMlK9lYKc2XLZQq-6_dHWQSbjYI82e_dcKw9EWp71DPKIZ9v5qvbyP3CnE7gRpN7uPMZpj-lxlo7Wjsl4.iSUZDFr0n-ZlkiADza8yEePerPoxBJRRCLhO0tQm2wU&dib_tag=se&keywords=principia+mathematica&qid=1735580157&s=books&sprefix=principia+ma%2Cstripbooks%2C122&sr=1-5
• Tshitoyan’s paper on Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1335-8
New Substack! Follow my personal writings and EARLY ACCESS episodes here: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com
TOE’S TOP LINKS:
– Enjoy TOE on Spotify! https://tinyurl.com/SpotifyTOE
– Become a YouTube Member Here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join
– Support TOE on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
– Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt
– Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs
– Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverything
#science #physics #ai #artificialintelligence #mathematics
21件のコメント
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?
As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe
The notion that we have entered a position where we should accept truths that we cannot possibly grok is terrifying.
The latest grift for the tax dollar funding.
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.
Yang-Hui He, any connection to Yang Chen-Ning?
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?
There will be THOUSANDS of ARTIFICIAL intelligences. Dangerous times
Wow, what an ad get!
Congrats on your success, Kurt
And for stimulating my curiosity!
We're drops of oily interest in an ocean of consciousness pooling in the wake of thinkers dreaming machines who wake against the grain of their great sleep.
Math is dead Physics is dead. AI will kill every human activity.
Great 👍
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.
Love the recap. Keep it.
Math is it's own meta.
I believe Curt is going to be the cross roads of all things science and math and theory’s where everyone will go to learn and present. He is going to do great things
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.
I don't mind you shilling The Economist, but saying they are dedicated to rigour is just laughable.
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.
String Theory is real because it has so much fun carnival ride maths to it. This isn't science, it's a cult. Thing Theory is dead because the universe says so, and that is not going to change for a long time. Maybe in the next universe.
This is my fear.😢