I only have surface level knowledge of String Theory, but my understanding is that strings vibrate in simple harmonic motion and that different frequencies correspond to different particles. Since idealized springs are simple harmonic oscillators, you could perhaps say that, in some sense, the strings in String Theory are springs.

But maybe that’s what inspired your question. If you’re asking why they can’t be springs in a more literal, geometric sense, then I would speculate that it’s related to the world sheet that a spring would trace out as it propagates through spacetime. A world line describes a trajectory of a point particle not just through space, but through time as well - thereby describing the history of the particle’s motion. In quantum field theory, these world lines are used in Feynman diagrams to describe interactions between particles. However, these diagrams always have sharp interaction vertices. In other words, the interaction occurs at a specific point in spacetime, which is problematic in terms of relativity (different observers should not need to agree on when a spacetime event occurred). For reasons I don’t understand, this can give rise to infinities (ultraviolet divergences) when doing certain calculations. These have to removed through renormalization, but apparently this doesn’t work when trying to develop a quantum theory of gravity.

In the case of a one-dimensional object like a string, instead of tracing out a world line, it traces out a two-dimensional surface called a world sheet. A consequence of this is that the sharp vertices of Feynman diagrams disappear: while an interaction did occur globally, it did not occur at a specific point in spacetime (different observers will see the event occur at different times, so no relativity issues). This eliminates the ultraviolet divergences and the need for renormalization (again, apparently), allowing for a full quantum theory of gravity. If you were to change the geometry of the strings to something more spring-like, my guess is you would no longer get this nice behavior.

This is the first I’ve heard of the effect Mars has on Earth’s Milankovitch cycles (unsurprising, given that the paper is recent and the effect is quite small with a very long period). Earth presumably has a similar effect on Mars, but measuring this would be quite difficult. Keep in mind that we’re able to do this for Earth by analyzing drill cores (that paper uses data from 293 scientific deep-sea drill holes), which we can’t really do for Mars currently. Using other methods, we’ve been able to measure the effects of axial tilt and precession for Mars, but the effect from orbital interactions with Earth would be much more subtle. I’d be surprised if you could find anything on it in the literature.

I also would not expect the Moon to make much of a difference. The Earth-Moon distance is <1% of the Mars-Earth distance even at closest approach, so the Earth-Moon system is essentially a point mass to first order. Additionally, the mass of the moon is ~1% that of the Earth, so the effect there is quite small as well. As I mentioned, measuring Earth-Mars Milankovitch cycles is already difficult for Earth (we apparently only recently did so) while likely infeasible for Mars (currently), and detecting the effects from the Moon would be harder still.

Depending on what you use on your TV, SmartTube may be an option. It even blocks sponsored segments within YouTube videos.

Most experimental research in matter under extreme pressures is concerned with recreating conditions within the interiors of planets and stars (the latter falls under the field of high energy density physics). The temperatures involved therefore tend to be very high. However, there’s no inherent conflict between high pressures and low temperatures, it’s just that temperature tends to increase when you compress something. Compress an ideal gas, for example, and it will heat up. Let it sit in its compressed state for a while though, and it will cool back down despite remaining under high pressure.

This is true for solids and liquids too (putting any phase transitions aside), though they are much less compressible. The core of the Earth will eventually cool too, though it’s currently kept at high temperature by the radioactive decay of heavy elements. Diamond anvil cells, however, can reach pressures exceeding those at the center of the earth in a laboratory setting, and some DACs can even be cooled to cryogenic temperatures. This figure on Wikipedia suggests cryo-DACs can be used to reach pressures up to 350 GPa at cryogenic temperatures. As an example, a quick search turns up a paper (arxiv version) that makes use of a DAC to study media at liquid nitrogen temperatures and pressures up to 10 GPa (~3% the pressure at the center of the Earth). Search around and I’m sure you can find others.

Yes, he’s right that bringing the poles of two magnets together puts the system in a state of higher potential energy. And, yes, you could use this as an explanation for “why” the magnets repel by invoking the principle of minimum energy. You can even show that this results in a force, as a gradient in the potential energy is mathematically equivalent to a conservative force. I do think, though, that you can give further justification for the principle of minimum energy than he gives in the video, as it follows from the second law of thermodynamics (see Wikipedia article). Regarding the exchange of virtual photons and using this to explain how the electromagnetic force arises: I would avoid this entirely.

One side nitpick though: I wouldn’t say that the energy came from “the chemical bonds in the food [you ate]”, but rather the formation of new bonds as you digest the food. Chemical bonds are states of lower potential energy, so breaking them in the sense of separating the constituent atoms requires energy. It’s just that different bonds can have even lower potential energy and therefore release energy when they’re formed.

N2 is (mostly) inert when it comes to respiration. What your body needs is oxygen and low concentrations of anything that might also be metabolically active. For scuba diving, N2 is used to dilute the oxygen and is used specifically because of how non-reactive it is. At high concentrations though, it can result in nitrogen narcosis - helium is sometimes used as the diluent gas instead to mitigate this.

As far as habitability is concerned, atmospheric nitrogen is essential for life on Earth at least, as it’s a major part of the nitrogen cycle (specifically, nitrogen fixation). Without it, we wouldn’t have nitrogen-containing organic compounds like amino acids (and, therefore, proteins), at least not nearly in the same quantities that we currently do. This doesn’t mean it’s essential for life outside earth, but it is for life as we know it, so its presence should increase our credence (if only a little) for whether a given planet is habitable or not. However, when looking for signs of life, it’s better to look for atmospheric signatures that are heavily influenced by life, rather than just those that facilitate it. The oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere was largely produced by life, and so its presence in the atmospheres of other planets would be a good (though not definitive) indication of habitability.