ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
String Theory, A Theory Of Anything
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Following on from the „History of String Theory“ video, we’re taking a look at the achievements and shortcomings of string theory and ask the question: has string theory failed?
Content:
0:00 Intro - Failure?
0:57 Failure to be Physics - Theory without Evidence
3:58 Failure of Prediction - A Theory of Anything
6:33 Failure of Acceptance - Always just out of Reach
9:58 Failure in Communication - Hype and Hubris
12:58 The Eventual Usefulness of a Failure
Sources and Influences:
[1] Baggott, Jim (2013)
„Farewell to Reality“
How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth
[2] Conlon, Joseph (2015)
„Why String Theory?“
[3] Gubser, Steven S. (2010)
„The Little Book of String Theory“
[4] Hawking, Stephen (2001)
„The Universe in a Nutshell“
[5] Hawking, Stephen (2015)
„The Illustrated Brief History Of Time“
[6] Kragh, Helge (2015)
„Higher Speculations“
Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology
[7] Mohaupt, Thomas (2022)
„A Short Introduction to String Theory“
[8] Rickles, Dean (2016)
„A Brief History of String Theory“
From Dual Models to M-Theory
[9] Siegel, Ethan (2016)
„What Every Layperson Should Know About String Theory“
bigthink.com/s...
[10] Siegel, Ethan (2019)
„Why Supersymmetry May Be The Greatest Failed Prediction In Particle Physics History“
www.forbes.com...
[11] Smolin, Lee (2009)
„Die Zukunft der Physik“
Probleme der String Theorie und wie es weitergeht
{Engl.: „The Trouble with Physics“}
[12] Vafa, Cumrun (2021)
„Das Universum in Rätseln“
{Engl.: „Puzzles to Unravel the Universe“}
[13] Weinberg, Steven (1993)
„Dreams Of A Final Theory“
The Saerch For The Fundamental Laws Of Nature
[14] Witten, Edward (2015)
„What every physicist should know about string theory“
Physics Today 68 (11), 38-43
[] Woit, Peter (2007)
„Not Even Wrong“
The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics
xkcd.com/
Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...)
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
String theory is our modern "add another epicycle". Yes, technically speaking, adding another epicycle will eventually describe any possible trajectory, but without elucidating any of the reasons the trajectories take place. In a sense, that's somewhat useless, because you cannot falsify this model too. But the reason it works mathematically is a very good tool, the Fourier series.
To parapharse Fermi, give me just five parameters and I'll model an elephant.
Bro just sprinkle in 7 more dimensions, add branes, a multiverse, and a bunch of crap Brian Greene books and you should be most of the way to string theory. Easy.
Very good point. Extra dimensions are the modern version of extra dimensions.
Not bad, Vandal. I think of it a bit differently: you have a bunch of fools sitting around wondering about the problems of weightless, sizeless "particles," and then one half-wit sez "OK, we'll just make them all into little itsy-bitsies."
Then, since we've been playing with waves and normal distributions for maybe 4,000 years without a hell of a lot of care about empirical fact, it's pretty easy for Idjit Number Two to say "Yes, and they're all vibrating strings."
It's obvious.
Nuthin' to do with how the physical world works: it's all about how the human mind works, particularly in groups.
Dr. Kaku has a great gig on the History Channel doing alien shows now, at least.
The final endpoint of all great edutainers.
Yeah, shame. He used to be a respectable physicist once...
Really? untill he opened his pie hole? sorry, i dont believe that.
:O
@@physicsbutawesome I disagree. His entire career was a complete waste and makes a mockery of actual physicists. What he has done undoes whatever contribution he may have made.
Ed Witten: This is a speculative enterprise.
Everyone: Now you tell us?
string theory was more a failure of science communication than an actual failure of math and physics. as a theory it stands on the same level as other competing theories of "everything", but it was marketed as the next big thing in physics to the public.
loved the video, btw.
As communication it was more a success than a failure: it succeeded in gathering money and funds for research in this field more than in anything else (in theoretical physics...)
It was not a failure of math and physics because it is not physics at all and the math is not a failure in itself.
Saying that string theory is physics is like saying that describing a planet sized bacterium is biology.
And as to being a failure of "science communication", you do realize that science is not about marketing right? Also, science has ALWAYS had bad communication. I don't think it's a problem, it's more of a logical consequence. To understand scientific breakthroughs you have to study them, not just hear an "explanation".
To get better pick up by the TH-cam algorithm, I'd suggest changing your title to 'Failure of string theory | a theory of anything'.
A speculation of nothing😮
Why not just "String theory: a failed theory of everything"?
Nice overview. This reminds me of an article that I read when I was starting my PhD appeared in PhysicsWorld titled "Stringscape." The author summarizes it as "string theory has gone from a theory of hadrons to a theory of everything to, possibly, a theory of nothing."
Yeah, a more sombre view has set in, thankfully.
When I first read about the landscape and the anthropic principle, I thought people were kidding...
I like the way you add more information than other commentators (like the needed mass of the lightest super symmetric particles).
Yeah, I try to go a bit deeper whenever I can...
String Theory Epitaph: "It's not even wrong."
As an experimental physicist myself, I can’t say I’m sad that we have string theorists right now. Pretty much all physicists agree that the path to string theory, laid out in the late 60s by Veneziano and others, seemed like a pretty natural progression. While I don’t think that we should keep throwing tons and tons of money at it, at least we gave it a few decades of time from the world’s brightest minds. As a theorist, you know better than anyone how sneaky Mother Nature can be sometimes 😂 cheers!!
"On the road to the Theory of Everything, the potholes must first be filled with the dashed hopes of string theorists."
Isn't it fascinating how the masses of "predicted" super-symmetrical particles scale in precisely the way that a new, even bigger particle collider has to be built? ;)
Nice video. I like this down-to-earth-remember-what-science-actually-is mindset. Strong Hossenfeld-vibes.
This guy really gets it.
Yeah really fascinating. Especially if you are really studiying theoretical elementary particle physics and really see why it makes sense for the masses to be on a larger scale than the ones of the standard model.
Try studiying it and convince yourself, it may come convienent for the "collider industry" or what ever you would call it, but there is a scientific justificiation for building bigger collider.
Addtionally, there are different approaches to high energy physics that dont rely on kilometers of high tech devices, but they are in research.
"If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."
chapter 7, “Seeking New Laws,” p. 156 [as presented in edited book]
- Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
Absolutely.
Lovely presentation, bringing all points (and more) that I realized as a bystander. Seen it all coming, exploding and imploding. Still when will they admit it is mostly useless? And apolguise to those they kept down and under?
The start of the video is a bit jarring for me. The set-up just didnt work for me, but I got the need to watch the other video.
Also, it may be worthwhile to switch the title up to note its the 2nd episode?
String Theory Ep1 What is it? (and what was it?)
String Theory Ep2 A Theory of Anything
Etc.
Okay, but then what happens when are no more experiments that you can do at all that are immediately accessible (or our current theories already explain all results of experiments that are currently accessible) and any possible new theory designed to solve remaining mysteries are just out of reach experimentally, at least for the foreseeable future? How does science progress then?
That's a hypothetical. It's not like there are no other open problems in current physics except quantum gravity... there's plenty other stuff to do.
@@physicsbutawesomeI feel your argument sounds like “we should probably not try to fund more quantum gravity research programs because we are still way behind in experimental energy scales/other ways”.
But this is very myopic imo. It is pretty clear imho from the theoretical physics research that we lack the mathematical tools and formalism to tackle modern theoretical research so defunding or shifting focus will only result in further delays in our understanding of physics.
Ok, two things.
First, string theory is a theoretical field, so the only funding is for some dudes with a blackboard.
Second, if you have no experiments to work with, all you can do is spitball ideas... and this will never produce physics. If your argument is that we need new maths to get ahead in physics, sure, I'm all for new maths.
@@kapoioBCSif a theory totally lack experimentability it doesn't just mean we are not at his scale yet, it also means your theory doesn't predict any small isignificant changes in the scales we master. If your theory add thousands of dimension and particles and literally not a single small pathetic effect is derived from all this you can understand your theory is not even wrong, is a bunch of factoids. To understand: you may think this happens to qft too but qft predict and explains macro effect like the polarization paradox, you can do it yourself.
@@physicsbutawesome kinda disappointing and shallow answer, but ok
Props to all those mathematicians who got tenure for inventing an untestable system of math. Almost enough to make particle physicists blush.
I think either I don't understand what you're talking about or you don't understand what you're talking about. I'm not sure which. Math is not physics. There are no experiments that prove math. Math exists whether it's useful to physics or not. The two fields exist on two completely different bases. All math needs is internal consistency. Science needs to explain the universe we live in. Math doesn't.
@@kentix417 Its a normalization joke. If the math is wrong we can just remove those data points.
@@kentix417 *stats professors in the back start sweating.
@@Name-ot3xw Okay, cool. Like I said I couldn't tell if it was me or you. I have been out of school for a long time but I took some pretty heavy math and physics back in the day. Never had anything to do with normalization though. That I remember. Like I said, a long time ago and I didn't go into physics. I did take astrophysics and probably quantum mechanics and differential equations and lots of stuff I kind of didn't quite fully, fully grasp and only have vague memories of now.
@@kentix417fair enough, but his complaint is close enough. Like bringing a knife to a gun fight, they brought mathematicians to a question in physics.
2:35 “With current technology, it would take a particle collider roughly the size of the solar system to reach the energies required.”
i’ve heard descriptions of a similar megastructure from some other science channels, yet none of them have explained _where_ that figure comes from, or what precisely it is (as an actual number in somethingmeters). i assume there’s some equation somewhere relating the radius of a particle accelerator to the maximum force or force-per-space it can produce. and i suspect that there’s some special threshold, when the force variable is equal to some special number (possibly a planck unit or similar natural quantity), and the radius is then close to the semi-major axis of neptune or pluto-charon or the kuiper belt. but i don’t know what either of these are.
A lot of predictions have failed. Like how the universe started. Is the big bang even right. Most likely not. Or perhaps the rules of physics we have are not accurate. Perhaps the plank scale is not the smallest size. We can not see strings or verify them one way or another right now. Once we can test for the exzistance of them or rule them out then we can say if it is good or bad. Without testing everyone is just giving their opionion. Math is a good indicator of the possible. The jury is still out. Perhaps we will find some other unifying theroy. Or perhaps the fact that the theories do not unify means one of them is wrong. Is quantum mechanics wrong?
Quantum mechanics isn't wrong, it's incomplete, just like relativity. How do we know this? Because one can't combine the math of quantum mechanics with the math of relativity. Does it mean either of it is wrong? No, both theories work remarkably well inside their domains.
Actually both theories are so good that they lead to the misconception that - as you wrote - "math is a good indicator of the possible". Is it though? Where does the assumption come from that just because something is mathematically possible it must also exist? Relativity allows superluminal particles (Tachyons). Does that mean they exist? Probably not. It there any evidence to assume they might exists? None at all.
That's the important lesson: Maths can be fascinating mental gymnastics, but without evidence, it's not physics.
The main motivations behind the fields medal awarded to Witten are the positive energy theorem in general relativity and his work on knot invariants. To say that the fields medal was for string theory is misleading
As ST predicts 10^500 worlds, can we ask the question, of those worlds, which of the string theories predict the world we actually see, and from there further ask what phenomenology do those models predict?
They predict literally everything but what happens in reality
That's the problem, right.
Some string theorists have proposed the so-called anthropic principle, but I think this is an embarrasing non-solution. Vid incoming, but it'll be a couple weeks.
@@physicsbutawesomethe anthropic principle is maybe an embarrassing 'out' for ST, but it does have some value in metaphysical discussions like the fine-tuning argument. It's not unique to ST, after all. In practice the principle is a statement of philosophy rather than science, similar to the Boltzmann brain argument, but that doesn't make the argument weak per se.
But what does it actually say if you have so many parameters to adjust. Compare it to fitting a n-1th order polynomial to n obervations. You will fit exactly one curve but what does the polynomial actually say about reality? From a machine learning perspective you can call fitting too many parameters too well overfitting. How much confidence do you on the points on the curve outside of the observations? A model with 10^500 possible fits doesn't really say much, even if only one fit holds true.
I can kinda go with that line of reasoning, I just don't see how it can be considered an "answer".
It's not strictly a tautology, but it's certainly a trivial statement, so I see very little explanatory value in it.
We gave them 50 years to solve some of the deepest and difficult problems in physics and they still havent delivered. God damn. Whats going on. I can put noodles in my microwave and theyre done in 2 minutes. Ffs. Solve it already.
If they solve it the grant money dries up and they have to think of a whole new scam to run. Why put in that much effort when the scam you already have is still working. 🤷♂️
@@SebastianKrabs how one can be so clueless about something and still talk is beyond me 😅
@@kapoioBCS String theorists big mad. 😂 Should I do dark matter next?
@@SebastianKrabs you can produce any kind of stupid comment you want, the reality is that you have zero knowledge on these subjects
@@kapoioBCS Ironic... that's word for word what I tell Dark Matter cultists. 🤔
String Theory got entangled and turned into the Gordian Knot.
Great video all said, but I would encourage some gentle investigation of your decrying "the universe is the way it is because it has to be" as the form of the theory as if that wasn't the draw of having a mathematically provable theory of the universe in the first place
This sentence of mine was specifically a criticism of the anthropic principle.
(Quote Wikipedia): Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations.
I will elaborate in a future video (because it irks me so much...)
In software development we call this “over engineering”.
Once reaching this result we like to keep it, but rarely want to go back to simpler models.
The principle of String Theory is simple but theoretical mathematicians are not simple minded.
A good break-down of the issues that alot of theories face.
I just like string theory for the math (but then I like theoretical math lol). I do also think that we should start letting the universe tell us more about how math works than using our math to tell the universe how it should work, if you get my drift. Kind of like how Alain Connes (I think?) suggested a way for physics to either prove or disprove the Riemann hypothesis.
A theory of everything that explains multiple universes is "not useful". Newsflash, a theory of everything should blow your mind and not necessarily cater to your specific universe, in a multiverse that's potentially infinite.
How depressing. Amazing hawking could be drawn into this.
Great video! Congrat!
Or course String Theory hasn't failed. Failure would require it to have had some predictive power to begin with.
So what you are really trying to tell us is that just like flying cars, teleportation will not on the menu either..
the universe is vibrating with massive gravitional wave at all times. can string theory explain
“Prediction”
Was worth watching if just for that. 😂
Does the actual way the Universe works have to be accessible to us through any form of science???
No.
Parts of it does, apparently.
Science has a small chance of understanding the universe, any other known method has zero.
Talking of solar system sized accelerators, can cosmic rays from exploding stars, super massive black holes etc provide the required energy scale evidence ?
I‘m not an Astrophysicist, but I reckon there is a number of natural phenomena out there that could potentially work- if you could get close enough and live to tell the tale 😅
So for the time being, a system-sized collider seems more plausible…
Not everything???
Great video
You have some really interesting content, especially the random az title card songs.
Thx 🥲
(ofc there will be string instrument music in a video about string theory, no?)
Yes, String Theory certainly unraveled.
Why did the string theorist cross the road?
To get to the 10th dimension.
How did the string theorist hide from the experimentalist?
By curling into a tiny ball.
What did the string theorist buy for dear SUSY?
A bigger particle accelerator.
How many string theorists does it take to change a light bulb?
Ten to the 500th power.
String theory, like QM and GR and Newton's classical theory doesn't provide a complete theory, yet it suffice if we can comprehend what is incomprehensible. String theory helps us comprehend what is inside of an unseen BH.
ABBRVs FTW BTW.
no, you got it completely wrong. Stop believing the madness, use your senses.
@@ddtt1398 like the senses which lead us to an _idea_ that earth is flat, sun goes around it and lightning is caused by a big man tossing stones? ..those senses?
Well at least witten got a math prize.
I totally agree with him. Theory do not explain nothing without expermental
I wouldn't say it's a failure in math...
The "in math" part is important.
I would certainly agree, the math it has produced can certainly be useful in future!
Music?
"Bridge Time" by Ashoka
3:31 Theory alone can never be proof. I 100% agree. This is my problem with Hawking radiation. The math checks out, but there is no test we can currently run.
Yeah, but that's FINE... the only problem is if somebody pretends it has already been proven.
Not surprised
4:00 was that a book or a pamphlet?
Flabbergasting that he doesnt elaborate at all on what experiments would be needed to prove it as fact.
"Constantly oversold..." = Absolutely 💯
Similarly is the "science" exploring the materialistic origin of life that is required to complete Darwinian evolution.
It's unbelievably misunderstood, distorted and hyped! 😮
Love it! Thank you!
"Hey look! If we postulate 26 dimensions, the theory predicts a field which looks like gravity. We're on the right track." doesn't sound like good science to me.
That is not how the 26dimensions came to play
I think it is, at least for now, failure. But, I have open mind (not as New vawers, who also tell us the same).....
04:42
When the particles are SUS(Y)
You know why? Chemistry. Chemistry messed everything up.
But also solved societal problems, so yeah.
Wait, what?
@@physicsbutawesome cus its confusing and far away from math
Like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.
Like, carbon dioxide should poison us, not carbon monoxide.
*Takes a hit from the bong* "Hey bro, I've got this new theory. It's called Pink Elephant Theory, man. So like, what if the entire universe is made of tiny pink vibrating elephants. I'll spend the next half dozen decades bending the maths to fit this theory. When the math breaks down we'll just add, like, infinite universes and extra undetectable dimensions and stuff. Best part dude, this theory won't predict anything specific and it's totally unfalsifiable."
Yes, that is essentially what string theory is.
It's coming. I pinky promise.
"No refunds!" ~String theorists
"There is no experimental evidence for string theory" could still have used at least a little elaboration on why there isnt and if there have been any attempts at getting any or something (although I'm sure he elaborates in the other chapters).
He does. It's just a perfect opportunity for a practical joke, and he took it.
The book is not critical of string theory, btw, Conlon himself is a string theorist, and he makes a cse that it is useful. He just acknowledges the shortcomings, too.
String theory has been actually pretty successful. Several people have made a living studying it!
Loop quantum gravity FTW!
Same limitations!
@@physicsbutawesome 4d and no susy
Ok less theoretical baggage, but same issue with evidence.
@@physicsbutawesome could you wait 100 years :)
@@neomatrix4412 will do!
In short: 'string theory' fell apart, in practice (not 'theory'), because while projecting a material universe of warp and woof and web and weave (rather than strictly countable - quantum - blobbity blob-blobbs and their blobbits of 'blobb' = replaced by a mathematical figure < ? > for equations < within predictive and predicated values ( ! ) > etc) it tried to do so .. without a loom, upon which it could rest (while being worked out, in practice, and thus demonstrating the theory).
Sort of like some impenetrable Copernican maths given the Galileo treatment ('I say I saw .. "it", as more or less predicted' stuff) and then failing the dratted question put - and answer delivered - by the Inquisition (aka observing the 'natural sciences' at work):
'But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.' Bellarmine to Foscarini on the Galileo Affair.
Note well, dear fellow science-lecture lovers (with me at an extremely amateur level), the observations of stellar parallax demonstrated that Galileo and Copernicus (and Bellarmine for that matter) were in a way both correct and in error = our star is not at the centre of the cosmos but a moving part in it, however our planet does, in turn, move around this star, and moreover it is true that the sun does in fact still rise stably and fall predictably over our heads, as ever it did quite regularly, and sufficiently so for poets and scientists to make a mark of it.
Yey! ;o)
P.S. If you ask me .. which, thank the good Lord, no one would be daft enough to do .. the 'loom' upon which quantitative 'string theory' would have to rest .. if it could do so, would be much more like a folk dance, qualitatively, with a metronome rather than a slide-rule for its observable measure (i.e. as a rule - too simple to be understood, much like a Rose Nyland story in 'The Goldie Girls' .. or whatever that US American comedy was called).
Weaving Dance (on TH-cam)
th-cam.com/video/bXJWl3znlUk/w-d-xo.html
Had to leave this video about the third time you smarmily sneered "predictions." I'm no physicist, have no dog in this race, but that kind of attitude really repels me. 'Bye.
Yeah, fair enough, I see how you can feel that way.
Still, thanks for leaving your feedback!
IF they had been right it would have been cool. Oh well
We need more monkeys n typewriters
Apparently, gravity is no longer a fundamental force. It is merely a property of quantum interactions. We’ve had a unified theory for a long time now already.
This is far worse than I imagined. I thought we were waiting for higher energy particle accelerators. I didnt know one prediction after another failed and they just kept fine tuning things.
So can someone provide a better theory then to replace it…
The catch is of course that NOBODY has access to the desired/required data…
@@physicsbutawesome I mean neither do the string theorists, not having the experimental means to verify a hypothesis shouldn’t discourage you from proposing a theory. It took years before Einstein was proven correct. Like as always in history as soon as a better theory comes along people will adjust, so just come up with a better theory if you don’t like string theory.
@@ny3793 Be honest - did you even watch the video?
I said I don't really have an issue with string theory being unfinished yet (no evidence, no predictions), my bone of contention was that it was sold very much otherwise, especially to the public. 😉
Also, in the cases where they would make predictions which were later falsified (SUSY at LHC), they basically ignored that.
@@physicsbutawesome having a problem with how certain science communicators share their opinions on a theory is one thing, certainly anyone who says String Theory is a fact is wrong but having a problem with the theory itself is a different issue. I actually think most string theorists are reasonable and cautious with how they view the theory. SUSY wasn’t disproven, the symmetry could just as easily have been broken and be found at higher energies, obviously at some point you reach the point where you can abandon it all together but we certainly aren’t there yet.
I wouldn’t call Hawking, Susskind or Greene just some „science communicators“ 😂
And while I agree that most string theorists have a much more subdued tone these days, it used to be VERY different…
love the title
"I say that as a theoretical physicist... who has integrity."
Ya it never made sense to me
Sabine Hossenfelder criticizes the super string theory and the SUSY assumption.
Excellent - no jargon
Please stop walking at the camera. Other than that, enjoyed the topic.
😂😂😂
Why?
It is irritating. Otherwise great content! ❤
@@ivorobic7041 I agree. I do enjoy _what_ he is saying.
@@physicsbutawesome Probably, Misokinesia. Not sure if it is that, but something like that.
“Our universe” with the Big Bang never made sense to me. The universe looks too young compared to the age of the Earth (just factor 3). Thinking further, even 13.5 trillions (instead of billions) of years don’t make sense. We are somehow in a local bubble, either isolated or will see other Big Bangs one day. Either next to our, or even within our universe!
It will be interesting what JWST and its successors find.
👉In that way the super string theory shouldn’t be seen as a failure. And neither as over engineered.
Physics selling papers , thats was string theory
Unfortunately, "selling papers in physics" is not a viable business model 😬
(i.e., you don't make money this way)
@@physicsbutawesome The public perception (me included) is that those papers wouldn't exist if they weren't getting grant money. It's not that they're getting paid to write papers as much as they're getting grants for questionable things and publishing papers
I don't know if that's correct or not, but I think it's what he was getting at and it's also my impression
@@EuphoricDan it is not
"a theory of *nothing"
imaging studying all youur life a bunch of fantasies...
What would they care all the paychecks cashed just fine. They've all got big houses and lots of food in the fridge. They probably got a big savings account in their kids college already paid for as well. String theorists like all authors of fiction just want their work to be read in cold hard Cash.
Great. So a whole generation of physicists made their careers feeding us BS.
At this moment the Marvel Multiverse seems more realistic to me than String Theory (it is not even a hypothesis at this point as it is missing a H₀) 👀
Do you even have any formal theoretical physics training with at least QFT and GR, or just repeating what other say as a trend?
Well explained. 🧫🔬🧪🧭
Fail of the theory which you not able to understand and don't know what it actually is