The Search for a Theory of Everything - with Yang-Hui He

[@lucapontiggia3123]

Yang was one of my collaborators on a few papers I wrote in my Ph.D. Funniest and most spirited person I had met in the physics community. We shared a plate of eating mopane worms in South Africa a few years ago. It was really awesome to watch this talk. His way of delivering physics to a public audience is exactly what got me into physics in the first place! Great stuff

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@vhawk1951kl]

You never actually use you mind , do you? You certainly do not use it to question- for example, what is or might be " everything"- on any view it can only be a vague generalisation , a species of idea and thus the theory of an idea is gibberish, but plainly your mind is not up to that, it never even crosses it to wonder what exact notion the word " everything actually caries for you, but not to worry you'll get the hang of using your mind one day with help.

[@Kinvesu]

lol you came to the wrong place to lie and get e-fame. Stop making up stories. You are too old for that. We know none of what you said is true.

[@Rr45100]

Mr. Pontiggia can we talk about Quantum

[@sonarbangla8711]

I was shocked not to find Perelman not mentioned.

[@AngadSingh-bv7vn]

Yang-Hui He you are so childlike in your excitement while being very eloquent and capable of granting the history of science its due reverence, it is very enjoyable watching your talk :)

[@JustLabz]

He taught me functions vectors and calculus and he’d go on tangents bout napoleon and left handed ppl being devil worshipers etc 😂. Lovely guy

[@theasian6941]

Yeah he taught me FVC too. Very passionate man who cares deeply about mathematics.

[@andycordy5190]

I would defy anyone to find a single person with less mathematical aptitude than me. I was completely enthralled by this talk. That's how good it was!

[@monty3854]

2 words. Me

[@ManuelBasiri]

@@monty3854 That is 2 "letters"

[@koori3085]

Hey, remember math is racist now, you might be asking for lefty attention!

[@andycordy5190]

@@koori3085 Ok. I'll bite, just this once. How is Math racist?

[@antman7673]

@@andycordy5190 I have also heard about “racist math”, but it is so weird, I don’t remember the bad argument.

[@crimsonkhan3815]

I watched lots of "string theory physicist" presentations, first time i watched the same idea in the eyes of a mathematician..was informative and elegant..thanks RI.

[@gateme3247]

❤️

[@kahekiliyung6956]

are there recorded versions somewhere of these presentations?

[@Procksy]

It's so nice to see a presentation from within the Royal Institute again!

[@BlueScreen28]

Indeed. And what if art tells more about Universe than physic? Plot twist 🙃

[@slyy4096]

very unoriginal info. At our office we dont even hire perfect talker who uses other peoples thoughts and words.

[@nationalheritagenaturepark6651]

Your wonderful talk has added new dimensions to my enjoyment of life. Thank you so much.

[@hungrytomato]

Some people cry at the shear beauty of music or a piece of art. This lecture made me cry at the beauty of mathematics, physics and the Universe. Thank you, and all those who came before for making these ideas comprehensible enough to my feeble mind to at least get a glimpse of that beauty.

[@jme_a]

As others have said, I'm so glad to see these events happening in-person with an audience. Added to Watch Later!

[@DH-bf9xb]

"I'm not a philosopher" Talks about the relationship between beauty and truth for 20 minutes.

[@Ewr42]

The biggest confusion ever was changing natural philosophy to science

[@BalvinderSingh-uh3my]

For someone like me a lay person. I find his style of educating very engaging.

[@philtinn3015]

“Equations are to be enjoyed like art.” 😌

[@Danny-hb1zb]

One of the best presentations I’ve seen on the channel.. brilliant 👌🏻

[@BlueScreen28]

I'm shaking too only while listening, I don't even mind about staying there and speaking.

[@piercebros]

This was brilliant. Thank you so much!

[@beachcomber2008]

Sparkling, and encouraging. Thanks.

[@vast634]

The most amazing thing is that they can move that desk.

[@clairecadoux471]

Yes. Totally agree. We still cannot fully understand how it does not float away. What is gravity? All we can do is explain its behaviour.

[@esod6527]

I absolutely love this channel for so many reasons. But the “Theories of everything”, IMO, are exercises in futility. It’s hubris. We will always keep learning more. There is no theory of everything just the best we can do at the moment.

[@adamphilip1623]

Very good talk! I'm uncomfortable with comparing science to religion or religious experiences, not only because I feel it's wholly inaccurate but in this era of science denial, accusations of reliance on belief and dogma are rife among those seeking to discredit the scientific process and we really don't need to be giving those people ammunition.

[@vhawk1951kl]

Since you plainly have no idea what you mean by either science or religion and define neither, there is nothing to compare.

[@QuantumLeapResearch]

Tomato/Tomatoe Potatoe/Potato same thing

[@Avenged666]

To deny science on an internet forum is proof of how idiotic science deniers are. Without science the internet would not exist. Also, The Humans evolved for over 2 million years living together, no religion, without wiping each other out. Yet, We are struggling to reach 2 thousand years surviving together under the recently formed religions [2,000yrs]. Humans will never learn. I dont see other life on Earth praying to Gods and they seem to survive just beautifully.

[@vhawk1951kl]

@@Avenged666 Whose "science" of what?

[@denisvalente6844]

really interesting lecture and fantastically delivered too

[@ThePaulTM]

Thank You ! The Theory of everything using mathematics can also be illustrated using Quad Step 288 Helical Order and Quantum Sequence which is very simple to understand.

[@AzimuthAviation]

One day I hope to breath the air of this hallowed ground and enjoy a lecture with the spirits of legend...

[@edwinburggraaff7251]

32:12 I dream to grow up and be all grown up later, then still talk like my current age. love your input math wizzzard!

[@anmolagrawal5358]

16:18 Maybe because at that time, there might have been an implicit assumption that all that exists is what can be seen by the human eye. Because, in essence, the mass based divide is the factor that separates them. So the roots of that difference might lie in Human Perception

[@dragovian]

Great Vids! keep up the good work! Please, and I think I speak for everyone, start uploading in 4K!

[@rickm5853]

“In the beginning”. There, it has already been given to us like everything else.

[@johndef5075]

Brilliant presentation. Really drew me in.

[@maartentoors]

@ 37:11 would love the explanation of the experiment conducted by CERN about this.

[@your_local_dummy4137]

Very interesting talk. When it comes to fundamental contestants of the universe in determining the Plank length I wonder why the hyperfine structure constant (1/137)is missing? Given this value may change with age of the universe especially in the early phases it may add some interesting ideas about the evolution of the early universe.

[@mridul2846]

Yeah I agree early phase of universe may include the entities whose properties could be derived by adding this constant.. it would create intersting and wondering results at the same time.. so ofc looking forward to it if it'll be used in near future ( ╹▽╹ )

[@ME-lf7by]

What an interesting lecture! Need to find that interview with Sir Penrose that Yang mentions

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Thank you for this.

[@Danny-hb1zb]

Would love to see him on your show Curt 🤞🏻

[@roelrovira5148]

Yang-Hui He, the Theory of Everything in Physics is now possible because we now have a working Quantum Theory of Gravity that is testable and complete with reproducible empirical experiments with the same results if repeated over and over again and again, confirmed by empirical observations in nature with 7-Sigma level results, guided by empirical laws and physical/mathematical equations that are predictive and precise. FYI: Quantum Gravity or Quantum Gravitation have three types that are equivalent to and manifested by Quantum Gravitational Entanglement - a Quantum Entanglement in Macroscopic Cosmic Scale namely: 1. Quantum Anti-Gravity = Spin Up Quantum Entanglement State; 2. Quantum Neutral Gravity = Superposition Quantum Entanglement State; and 3. Quantum Gravity = Spin Down Quantum Entanglement State. More detailed information could be found on the published papers 2 years ago in London, Paris, and Zurich, online and at the two scientific Journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or alternatively, you can google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA

[@marc-andrebrunet5386]

This, there, here, that..., are good example of words "not to use in" a TV or multimedia presentation.✋ Please don't use lasers, it's counterproductive. A complete description is better then this here or that there. Lasers will never take the place of words 🤝😁 Thank you, it was a very interesting subject.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

CIG Theory is the Theory of Everything that you are looking for. The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.

[@kirtg1]

thanks for the video. still digesting. i saw a recent video in which the presenter showed the same scence of the office and the black board from a different angle which has a better focus in which the equations can be read...

[@playerraja2483]

I was searching for this and found it was uploaded 20 mins ago

[@mrcollector4311]

i honestly think after looking at all these stuff from a multi-disciplinary point of view ...it turned me from a materialist to idealist(Objective idealism : Specifically Analytic idealism)...like the second that realization dawned on me i sat down outside my house and just simply observed my environment contemplating the depth of reality like DANG!...sat there for almost 2 hrs .... it has made me more excited to continue my venture into the physics field and i think once this ontology of objective idealism gets mainstream(which i think it will as materialism is honestly quite dead ..its just dragging on because we can't accept such a hude paradigm shift even if empirical evidences suggests so, also i think string theory and multiverse theory and so on..are just new epicycles of materialism...the last desperate attempt before whatever that paradigm dies ) it will open up a whole new avenue of science

[@schmetterling4477]

Modern physics isn't materialist. People like you simply don't understand modern physics. ;-)

[@randomousjam8590]

Thanks for the history lesson.

[@Philoreason]

Do NOT mention Calabi-Yau manifold in party unless your goal is to NOT being invited into any parties for the rest of your life

[@thehappyatheist1931]

I enjoyed this. I think this guy is painfully smart but I can't follow what he's talking about. Starting to realize why I didn't do well in school.

[@audiodiwhy2195]

Excellent presentation.

[@Robinson8491]

Great talk, very fun

[@SkyDarmos]

Not all tests of GR are rigorous. G is not a constant. It depends on the material. The ability of experimenters to ignore this fact is pretty astounding.

[@BassGoBomb]

I've often wondered why there might be or should be a 'Theory of Everything' ... As we discover through science we seem to find more complexity than less. Perhaps culturally we seek some 'answer' .. 'single proof' .. written in stone .. that sort of thing. Many of course don't think like that at all and like an umbrella appreciate that the brain works better when 'open'

[@brunovandooren3762]

In simple terms: because 'reality' is 1 thing. When you have 2 particles, whatever they do, the result of their interaction has a specific range of outcomes that ultimately has to be the outcome of the combination of all forces / fields / theories. Right now we use one theory for 1 thing, and one theory for another. And we pretend that the other one doesn't exist. But that is incorrect. Both exist, and both affect the outcome. And if both affect the outcome through their combined effect, then it should be possible to formulate that, somehow.

[@edgregory1]

Perhaps as humans we're too obcessed with symetry/beauty to discern objectively.

[@Giggledoorsfunny]

We goin’ up or down with this one🔥🔥

[@tsforero]

I’m curious why we always talk about the only interaction point between quantum mechanics as gravity as being in the extremes? (Black holes and the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang) Since these both exist in the same universe, interacting with the same matter, don’t they interact indirectly all the time? They are a part of the same universal physics

[@fastman119]

Awesome talk. You get the distinct feeling that everything we can't explain about the universe lies in the gap between those two equations. Why wouldn't there be one unifying equation when everything being studied takes place on the same stage? Epic.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for the single unifying equation,etc.

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Great explanations! Thank you! I hope you take a look at CIG Theory.

[@zebra3962]

This guy arrived and started to talk like he just ran a full marathon.then continue to talk like he is on a treadmill! Someone please give this guy some oxygen 😂

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Would you say that there is Beauty in the MTS Equation? What would Dirac say? Comments Please.

[@anitareasontobelieve378]

Yes..what's perturbating it all? Now we supposedly see gravity waves in the CMB? How is that possible? Could there be something huge all of Laniakaia is going toward that is sending out perturbations?

[@laholambda2148]

I believe that any paradigm based on the assumption that C is Constant and it is maximum speed in Vacum is wrong ... and.....

[@eastafrika728]

Everything is not a theory, it is physical reality, meaning it did not wait for European scientists, it already and always was.

[@saxenapawan5716]

he's not excited, he's nervous and i can remember my day when i went to podium the first time, heart beating very fast, fumbling in my speech and taking fast uneven paced breaths.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Agreed. ☝️

[@sagarthebodkhe]

Don't agree. He has no need to get nervous. He is not afraid of people who know so less about the reality and universe than him. He is just super excited, lost in the beauty of mathematics/reality. As he concluded at last: Truth=Beauty He just living that philosophy.

[@saxenapawan5716]

@@sagarthebodkhe Bodke.....chill man.... it's democracy :)

[@tobiasactually]

I think the first Maxwell equation is wrong. It should be "div E = ρ / ε0" (55:00)

[@tobiasactually]

The electric field has a source, the charge. But the magnetic field does not.

[@radostingeorgiev7716]

As he mentioned, these are the vacuum Maxwell's equations, meaning the charge sources are zero.

[@tobiasactually]

@@radostingeorgiev7716 Ok. Thanks.

[@brothermine2292]

A quibble... you need more than just equations to describe the universe, because you also need a state (for example "initial conditions") to which the equations are applied. That state is described by a model. Modeling wasn't eliminated when Newton published his equations of motion.

[@Orion15-b9j]

You got the point. The truth is that "TOE" exists already - Just search in Amazon books for the book title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" and you will find the truth.

[@brothermine2292]

@@Orion15-b9j : (1) Are you just trying to sell your silly book? (2) What was the "point" that you say I got?

[@loganx833]

@@brothermine2292 😂yt theorist

[@brothermine2292]

@@loganx833 is a troll who has nothing useful to say.

[@jason8077]

welcome back! RI!!

[@jason8077]

btw are there many exercises in the book?

[@jayakarjosephjohnson5662]

I think it’s time now to move towards a new science to find solutions for the unresolved.

[@fflv_irn]

best one in year.

[@pstotto]

What's missing from the above is the image world and the geometric facts of the visual field because one cannot have anything other than height and width across it and thus all visual culture is subject to the transcendental pictorial context of perspective geometry. It's a big thing to miss out when in actual fact, that is a theory of everything and one that proves atheism has no philosophical basis.

[@stylis666]

HAHAHAHA! First of all, I love Yang-Hui He. I figured I write his whole name because I have never had the pleasure of having the chance to ask him which is his last name. I imagine that with his passion he writes it the traditional way, but he also publishes so it makes sense to put his surname last. Anyway, I would love to have him as my teacher. He sees the universe and us in it in pretty much the same way I do, and that's what makes me laugh so hard! He is so happy and passionate and he tries so hard to convey this thought, please, if only for one second, can you try and imagine what the universe looks like, seen through my eyes, it is so beautiful! And the audience is like: **crickets** HAHAHAHAHA! XD I bet that some of the younger ones will see in their dreams: birds flying from a blossoming tree, turning into fractals with black holes and universes and then zoom back to Earth where some people are dancing and holding hands, and then think to themselves while sleeping, you know what, he was right, the smaller and the bigger scale have to be explainable with one equation because all the basic principles are everywhere in our, perhaps, finite universe, with infinite complexity and beauty. If they tell their parents, they'll probably just think their child has a fever and... "it's almost religious", I would say it's spiritual, but yeah, it's not far from being under the influence of drugs or having a fever dream. I don't think that many people get it how amazing it is that we can explain so much of the universe with mathematics. Is it really just physicists and mathematicians that see that? I wonder. I share this passion and happiness that Yang-Hui He shows and I wish I could just show someone, anyone, if only for one second, what I see in this universe. I worry that after 4 centuries of reductionism, many people, even adults with degrees, feel that reductionism takes away the romance and value by explaining it mathematically, and might never see that it's exactly the opposite. Just four quantum fields, and look at how beautiful and complex a butterfly is and how amazing it is that it too enjoys the flowers, that the flowers are now seen in your way and the butterfly's way, that the butterfly doesn't know it helps you and itself get more flowers, all through physics. The universe is poetry in motion and understanding it only give more ways to appreciate it. A wise man, not Sam Harris but someone way cooler, was once asked what his basis is to consider human well being as valuable. His answer was as simple as it is elegant: I value their experience. I was like, yeah, and _then_ some! I find it so amazing that I, as one person, can see things only from certain perspectives that I'm familiar with and even if I don't talk to people, they still see things from their, different and unique perspectives, solving challenges with their unique combinations of experiences and views that are still based in the same physics and every part of us can be seen in something else and be explained mathematically, but the whole of a person always has another unique combination or characteristics and priorities and passions and as a group that all adds together. If only for one second, can you imagine what that feels like to see the universe that way?

[@Someone-cd7yi]

What do string theorists think of the Diósi-Penrose model? Please note that I'm not a physicist. Just an amateur.

[@tfoxwa]

Upper left Maxwell equation is wrong. The Divergence of the E field is the charge enclosed by the boundary. Seems a silly mistake or do I misunderstand the notation??

[@fcsheldon]

The divergence of E is proportional to the charge density. When you add up the divergence in a volume, you get that the E field penetrating the surface of the volume is equal to the charge inside. It's the difference between the integral and differential forms of Maxwell's equations which, as you said, is just a notation difference. Wikipedia should have a little table of both forms!

[@tfoxwa]

@@fcsheldon Video location 56.45 Equations The divergence of the E field on any closed boundary is equal to the charge enclosed by that boundary. I have never seen this equation = 0. If you have, please direct me to it so I can learn. I have been teaching E&M Field theory for last 20 years. I would hate to think I have deceived that may students.

[@fcsheldon]

@@tfoxwa Ah, sorry I didn't see this reply this morning and I couldn't find the point in the video before so I took a guess. He is showing the equations in vacuum where there are no source terms and they are particularly symmetric. Otherwise, they will be non-symmetric because of the nonexistence of magnetic monopoles.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Physicists and mathematicians had often thought they have found theory of everything. When will they learn that human consciousness need cosmic consciousness for everything to be. This theory is called divine design.

[@jps17183]

There is a line missing! Philosophy line... Where is Pythagoras, Euclid, Descartes, Leibniz?

[@Orion15-b9j]

You are spot on my friend, The ancient philosophers was understanding the World better than we. The truth is that "TOE" exists already - Just search in Amazon books for the book title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" and you will find the truth.

[@charliekim2939]

Of 10**500 possibilities, finding a right 4-dimensional space-time, which could be the one and only one universe we live in, would be a daunting task. It is not like a "paper or plastic?" question at grocery check-out. I would rather try to find an answer elsewhere.

[@dg7780]

Fantastic lecture indeed! Following are my humble questions to you:- 1) Do you think that "ToE" will be enough to know the "Mind of GOD " and hence the origin of consciousness and the purpose of any creation in the universes including human life? If so, is everything predictive?

[@schmetterling4477]

You were touched by god. That's not a good thing, though. ;-)

[@Eztoez]

Is this the same Yang as Yang Mills ?

[@vincentrusso4332]

Remember folks, the math, time and geometry units we use to this day were lifted from cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia...if there was a TOE it probably would be on a cylinder seal somewhere....

[@davidabulafia7145]

What about super asymmetry.?

[@kyaume21]

These people did their work in Cambridge, not in London. Any city can put a placard or monument for someone, but the real honour should go to the place that nurtured them.

[@stylis666]

Yeah, looking for tiny dimensions that might have complex geometries that, if we wish to see it to verify the maths we need a resolution way smaller than a Planck length is gonna be hard. It would already be amazing if you can show a "shadow" of such a dimension that can only be explained with more dimensions, but that wouldn't be proof yet that those dimensions actually exist or just seemingly arise from quantum mechanics. But what if we can stretch a dimension to a size way bigger than a Planck length? I'm just spit balling, but, for one, don't electron orbits look a lot like a cross section of standing waves to you? And what if paired/split particles stay connected through a smaller dimension that is perhaps stretched when the particles are "separated" from our perspective in our 4 most familiar dimensions? If I was working at Cern, that's what I would try first, even if just to exclude it from the possibilities, simply because at those scales you can actually do some testing with relative ease.

[@davidrandell2224]

Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics classicalized QM in 2010. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@SkyDarmos]

No, only everything dead can be described by those two sets of equations. Living matter cannot be described by it. Also, in quantum gravity, GR becomes largely obsolete.

[@Vian770]

Heartbreaking presentation

[@YogSoth]

?

[@davidabulafia7145]

What about loop quantum gravity

[@CobraQuotes1]

There will never be such a theory

[@zebra3962]

At 39 minutes... those last three on the right are fidget spinners 😂😂

[@CDoggC]

the theory of everything is the Human Body. Godlike. Imagining anything without the Human Body is what proves again the Theory of everything.

[@jamesblank2024]

It is possible to construct a mathematically beautiful self consistent model that does not describe reality. That would be called a "Theory of Nothing."

[@travisleith1146]

Strictly speaking, that is not a p value, that is 1 minus a p value. Not sure why people like to present p values like this. It perpetuates the misunderstanding that a p value tells you the probability that a model is wrong or right.

[@Calyrekt]

What’s a P value if it’s not how it’s described in this presentation?

[@travisleith1146]

@@Calyrekt a p value is the probability of observing a signal if you assume it is purely due to chance. So a p value of 99.9% means your model is completely useless.

[@Calyrekt]

@@travisleith1146 thanks for the refresher, i got a D in statistics 😂

[@georgeso4364]

And P Hacking is cheating in Stats

[@Calyrekt]

@@georgeso4364 P hacking?

[@robinparsons8836]

"Everything IS One" That's THE answer BTW WE (Humanity) Do NOT Know That - Just Yet and Probably Will never Know It as we cannot Know Everything Not in the Manner that That answers This Question ~ O.K.? Thanks For Your Time

[@robinparsons8836]

BTW NO SUCH THING AS "QUANTUM GRAVITY" DOES NOT EXIST GRAVITY IS a Force Coupled/bound To Heat = Expansion AND Contraction ~ in Forming Neutrons ~ which bind the rest together

[@kyaume21]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The quest for beauty goes wrong as often as it goes right. We only remember the cases where it went right, but discard the ones where it went wrong (like the Platonic solids model of the solar system, or, more brutally, the theory that held that the Earth was flat - is there anything more beautiful than a flat Earth, so simple!). All the successful beautiful theories were eventually experimentally verified within a limited time. We have been waiting for string theory to deliver for more than 50 years! And when you have to apply the ultimate ugliest theory of all (Big Data) to make your theory work, where's that beauty gone?

[@smlanka4u]

The speed of light depends on the density of space. So the energy (E) is not equal only to mc^2. It should be mc^2/(density of space in the Planck volume)^2. It changes the units of energy. The unit called Joule Is not energy. Volt is energy, but there is an unkown unit called Ampere (A). There is way to find the actual units in Ampere. That is how the theory of everything works. It is already discovered.

[@AngadSingh-bv7vn]

what are you talking about dude?

[@smlanka4u]

@@AngadSingh-bv7vn, I'm talking about the theory of everything. Guess who discovered it.

[@mattagamer98]

@@smlanka4u who?

[@smlanka4u]

@@mattagamer98, You don't know about him. That's me.

[@c-djinni]

@@smlanka4u lol

[@craigcapen1728]

A very good talk, but unless you are a physicist or know topology, do not buy his book which he mentioned in the video ("Topology and Physics.") I've been reading "descriptive physics" for years and have even started into self-study of Quantum Mechanics to see the math, but this book is unintelligible to me.

[@thecentralscrutinizerr]

The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.

[@seanjackamarra6854]

string theory is the small's forme (as in formation) of particles in the universe. It is the skeleton of the universe. I call it structure. For if there is no structure then light can not travel through the universe. I am a Charle Darwin type of scientist. Who is creating a Charle Darwin science Certificate for the universities and I'm almost there?. For 26 years I have been working on this and I support string theory.

[@Simonjose7258]

2:38 Fantastic!

[@jimany3965]

He is full of it!

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks!

[@slyy4096]

1687 is not just a number. For example 1670-1715 more than 80% of people died in my country due to hunger, plague and North war

[@hochathanfire0001]

the search would go on ad infinitum 💃

[@anilkumarsharma8901]

Indian language are the key factor for theory of every thing

[@Autists-Guide]

5:50 The 1687 split (before and after) is ok but better is 1859... BC and AD: Before Charles; After Darwin.

[@jennifertate4397]

Wonderful! But no, Newton did not INVENT Calculus, he DISCOVERED a lot of Calculus as did Leibniz and probably others. I imagine that there are other intelligent beings out there somewhere who've also DISCOVERED what we have decided to call "Calculus".

[@ishumishra7472]

summary : ubi materia ibi geometria

[@dungbeetle.]

I managed to stay with him until around 37 minutes in and then he started talking about ten dimensions. It was at that point that my poor brain lost traction completely and skidded off into a ditch! :D

[@kashu7691]

hang on! it’s worth it

[@davidrandell2224]

One principle underlies it all : expanding electrons.” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon done in 2002: where have you been?

[@brankozivlak3291]

The theory of everything was written in the 18th century.

[@davidrandell2224]

@@brankozivlak3291 Why gravity no understood?

[@brankozivlak3291]

@@davidrandell2224 Let's reformulate your question. Branko Zivlak Why most people gravity no understood? Because Newton understood gravity, many of his contemporaries and some today. The main reason for the misunderstanding is the so-called "Newton's Universal Gravitational Constant, G", which some who thought they were smarter than Newton added to his Principia ...

[@aaronbrown200]

Really enjoyed this talk, Ive mainly read / watched physics-related material (as a lay-enthusiast) and I was under the impression that String Theory was pretty out-dated and falls down on the inability to ever be tested. Hence I found this particularly interesting that Mathematicians all love it - but is any science real science if it cannot be empirically tested?

[@joebloggs396]

Maybe that's asking is mathematics in itself a science?

[@Philoreason]

@@joebloggs396 It is not... Maths is about studying pattern, logic and exploration of an imaginary but internally consistent world of what's possible. Whether it has relevance to the physical world is not of relevance. Science, on the other hand, is about the study of the physical world.

[@anmolagrawal5358]

The guy is completely feeling it! Although, the feels, the pleasure of knowledge of a particular things in itself is a bias when see from a bigger perspective

[@tedgrant2]

Eventually we will have an explanation for nearly everything.

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

Why nearly?

[@tedgrant2]

@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 I don't think we will ever have an explanation for the ultimate explanation of everything.

[@tedgrant2]

@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 Daddy, why are you shaving ? Well, sweety, because I want to look smart in work. Daddy, why do you want to look smart in work ? Well precious, it's important to look smart in work. Daddy, why is it important to look smart in work ? Sorry, baby, but I have to go to work now ! Daddy, why do you have to go to work now ? See you later honey.

[@hecticnarcoleptic3160]

@@tedgrant2 What if there IS no explanation? That's seperate from if we can know it or not. That's a scary thought....

[@Orion15-b9j]

@@tedgrant2 There is - The truth is that "TOE" exists already - Just search in Amazon books for the book title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" and you will find the truth.

[@doodleman1830]

He's smart, super-fun and really cute :)