This video is entirely wrong. There was never a point in time where people thought the splittings were set in stone, and further, we know for sure that the current splittings are final, because of rotational invariance.
I think one of the biggest problems is that our physics has arguably caught up with our math in a bunch of categories. We don't have closed form solutions or even foolproof systematic methods of writing infinite series approximations for all systems of PDEs. We're not even close to having mathematical tools this robust. Thus, I think it's fairly impossible to even have a roadmap forward for physics until our maths can consistently give us a finite set of symbolic expressions or schemes that could approximately satisfy everything we already know. Preferably without just adding dozens of dimensional degrees of freedom every time you hit a roadblock.
@@AfricanLionBat In case you actually want a small amount of translation here: a differential equation is a situation where we know the rate a which something occurs, but not necessarily a direct relationship between variables. A partial differential equation (PDE) is basically where that rate depends on several factors, and a system of PDEs is a conplicated mixture of rate equations that all depend on each other's variables. In other words: a horribly tangled mess. The problem is that most of our higher level physics laws are rate laws (PDEs) and our derivations and predictions about what will happen in any situation depend entirely on our ability to untangle and solve specific simplified cases of PDEs. It's like having a tablet that you think contains all the knowledge in the universe right in front of you, and not bring able to read very well. It's endlessly infuriating.
@@KitagumaIgen I personally think what we'll see more and more of in coming years is the idea of superpositions of transient solutions where we find any kinds of repeating patterns of motion to make statistical arguments about macroscopic properties of the system. Maybe we can't predict what the double pendulum *will* do after 15 seconds, but maybe we can solve for everything it *could* do and solve for the probability that it will be doing that at any arbitrary time if we know the total kinetic and potential energy. Quantum and statistical mechanics already take this general approach in a lot of places, but I could see it being expanded to aerospace and electrodynamics and, of course, double pendulums. Or maybe some people much smarter than me have already implemented this in some of these fields and I just haven't heard of it yet (I'm not a cutting edge expert in these fields, I just have intermediate coursework in them)
0:37 "The aim of physics, broadly speaking, is to understand all of the phenomena that occur in the entire universe" Well! That is certainly quite a goal lol
Just when humans think something is complete suddenly a whole new things appear so we are on the verge of a new evolution in physics and engeneering. It's on us ,who will walk the extra miles to show all of us the undiscovered world that is now out of reach or even we haven't imagined yet. So keep working!
I keep complimenting your great videos, but I'll make this one slightly superficial... I absolutely love your new look. You're looking slick! 👌 keep it up!
Watch out from 80,000 hours, if we’ve learned anything in the last years is that there’s no “free” and nonprofits are anything but... nonprofit means tax shelter and not for us
Plus, I think energy levels that are NOT included are those in the UV, IR, and uwave, etc. So, when something goes from light1 to light2 but also dropped a microwave, or IR or you get the point.
Please make a video on the answer of this confusion that if magnetic field is a consquences of Relativity,then how the spining of electron produces magnetic filed as there is only one negative charge which is spining and there are not 2 or more charges as present in wire so that we apply the concept of length contraction of protons and proving that magnetic field is a consquence of Relativity
I don't understand how electrons can instantly jump levels. Could this series of sublevels provide the answer in that the jump is more of a slight shuffle than an actual jump?
Will the energy levels keep splitting until there are onlt two electrons per discrete level? i.e. one with +1/2 spin the other with -1/2 spin as predicted by Dirac.
all electrons will have a different combination of quantum numbers (like "n", but also angular momentum, magnetic momentum and spin), as per Pauli's Exclusion Principle. How exactly the energy splits depends a bit on circumstance: external fields can have an effect, for example. All the calculations which are actually done for these things involve approximations. As far as I know, if you really want to be "perfect", the electrons and nucleus themselves create fields which will contribute to splitting. That being said, some splittings can be so mild as to be comparable to the effect of the Uncertainty Principle, so it would be kinda hard to actually ever detect them or their effects, if I'm not mistaken
The problem with modern education in Physics, is that it requires from you that you learn some subjects beforehand. For example, In classical mechanics, you can understand a lot of phenomenas using only basic algebra and intuition. But when intuition fails you, you resort into an "Analytical way of thinking"; and what I mean by that, is you do what Newton did exactly! You try to break the problem into smaller and smaller pieces and understand every piece and then put it all back to form the big picture. Newton did that exactly to found Calculus, he didn't learn Calculus beforehand to understand mechanics, but his way of thinking lead him to new mathematical discoveries. . And if you want to Learn General Relativity, you will either have to struggle with taking courses in abstract, mathematical, definitions and proofs of tensors and manifolds and you will get not physical intuition about it. Or you could do what Einstein did, you form the physical intuition first, and then invent or 'search' for the right tools, and understand how your mathematical tools fit into your physical theory. . And in that way , therefore, I don't think you have to take courses in advanced mathematics before learning General Relativity, just jump in and learn what you can learn, and if you struggle with something, you have the internet!
And in the end, I think you will learn a decent amount of GR in that way, but you'll reach a point where you can't go further without using some abstract mathematical ideas. But!!! Don't let that deter you from trying to learn GR. Good luck!
You are absolutely right. Just think about the phenomena and particles etc that are still unknown because our instruments are not powerful enough yet. Imagine People in 1000 B.C. There's no way they could've known about E.M waves. Similarly we are still missing a lot of things.
I recall from about 25 years ago that I had asked this science website "Ask A Scientist" when they think they'll figure out what dark matter is. The arrogance of the response I got would be the source of memes today. 🤣
I believe this continuation of split in energy levels are strong indication on the geometry of orbitals. It's all simple spherical based with a slit variations in size within each shell. Like how 1S and 2S are both spherical with some variation in size then it follows very closely 2Px then 2Py and 2Pz all spherical with tiny variations in size. That makes it very simple and more acceptable for atomic models.
On the other hand, I think we do know enough of physics to have improved the quality of our lives drastically and by greater leaps than people of centuries ago could have ever imagined. I think science can be proud. Too bad it can only improve the human situation and not cure the human condition; see what humans do with all that progress. Plenty do good. Plenty do not.
the sole given is experience - phenomenal consciousness. it's slightly misleading saying that atoms or quantum fields is *what exists*, or *what is*. no. we can't establish that from physics. these are hugely successful predictive models, so we can say that whatever *is*, behaves *as if* "it" is something that's quantitatively described by our mathematical theories.
Physics is a model, and no model can be complete. The only real question is whether there will always be 1. Known unknowns, 2. Unknown unknowns, or 3. both. I strongly suspect it's number 3.
I think humans didn't climb down from trees. They fell by accident. Afterwards, they explained it to themselves that it was their smartness, that made them come down.
I believe we are far from complete. The vast cosmos and the deep trenches of the sea and unexplored jungles, certain areas are yet understood or seen that could possibly flip the word 'Physics' and pioneer new specialisation. At a point of thinking we are complete, we will also be at the point of questioning the unquestionable.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. Even for the simplest systems, quantum mechanical calculations are very complex (see Parth's video "How the Schrodinger Equation Predicts Real Life" to see what I mean), so to deal with most of chemistry you would have to approximate a lot. But by approximating, you're giving up the precision that made you want to use quantum physics in the first place, so it's a bit of a paradox.
I believe the rules that govern the universe are finite. But, I believe that some of those rules may lay beyond our reach by virtue of being corporeal beings. We will reach the 99% mark,though.
Perhaps apart from limitations of measurement, we also have the limitations of the mathematical tools we are using in physics to represent the universe. How would physics look like if the average IQ were 1000?
@@nicobzz1 AKA The REAL historical foundations of math ran on Euclids Book called "The Elements" is solid. BUT Math ran on Abract reasoning such as Set Theory isn't so solid. It's clear Set Theory led us down a almost "Too Inductive" reasoning of a path. XD Nevertheless Set Theory still is useful for constucting toy logical models with as little computational power as possible via Information Compression. As long as you follow something called "The Axiomatic Method", which strictly prohibits things like "The Axiom of Infinity", "The Continuum Hypothesis", and the "Von Nuemann Hierarchy".
I think the fundamental physics is already fairly well known. However, we will probably never be finished chasing complex interactions. I suspect that most of our problems presently result from misinterpreting interactions.
most of our problems always were about misinterpreting interactions, not just presently, that's just the nature of the scientific method, interpretation is the key to getting closer to the truth. Interpretation itself is still limited by whatever tools we have to study the universe, hence why the more complex math became, the better we can interpret physical data into mathematical description of reality, but mathematics as it is isn't enough, technology is also necessary, to be able to run better experiments to expand the data we have to interpret, so there are practically problems in every step of the scientific method. As for your claim that fundamental physics is already fairly well known, that is simply incorrect, fundamental physics is where most of our problems currently lie, had we fairly understood the fundamentals, it doesn't matter how complex the interactions become, we would be able to solve them, at that point, it just becomes a matter of how good we are at math, or how good our computers are. Either way, our current models are really good at doing what they're supposed to, for the most part, it just that most of our models tend to have a point where they just break down, unifying physics was and is the goal of all physicists.
Modern science can't measure "Consciousness-In-Itself", but you can experience "IT" in a non-dual state of Samadhi. No problem. Just access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sound Choir", and "Om Namah Shivaya". Listen to each for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Science deals with dualistic observations. Go beyond that into the realm of non-dual pure Consciousness.
Suggestion: Shutoff the background music a lot quicker after your pre-intro. If I am still watching and listening after the pre-intro then YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION for just a little bit longer. Don't drown out the rest of your intro with ANY background music. Instead, try punctuating your intro with trademark sounds (buy them or make them yourself) that are ear-candy to your viewers and queue them for what's next.
I see practicing physics as more of a modern method of active meditation. We invented it by using the most intricate tool humankind has ever created; mathematics. Which I choose to view more as a language, rather than a means to exclusively solve problems. I think the idea of "completing" physics is contradictory to the entire reason it was invented. Each generation adds to it, empowering those who choose to follow. Physics is a method of perception. Can we ever cease to invent different ways to perceive things?
In 1980 they made a movie called "Raise The Titanic", 5 years later they found it! 🤣 It was missing for so long and scientists had predicted that it was in pristine condition because "there's no oxygen down there" 🤓. But we all know now that it isn't in pristine condition and that there's way more life down there than we had expected. 😂
I think phsyics is just building models that sort of resemble the real world...I doubt these can be perfect. Somebody once said that all models are wrong but some are useful. I think there is far too much complexity to predict even simple phenomena like a water droplet falling while taking into a account all the phsyics at a quantum level all the way to larger length scales. Like even if we solve all the equations of fundamental particles, i doubt it would it ever generalise well to larger phenomena because of how complicated all the interactions become. Like we can say that graviry is solved for all practical purposes yet something like teh multibody problem is chaotic. Unless I am misunderstanding by what people mean by "solving physics"...does that mean being a able to model with exact accuracy any possible phenemenom or does it mean figuring out all the fundamental particles and their interactions?
Facts are facts, interpretations differ, hence the different models.being able to create or duplicate & figuring the conditions of point zero where one phenomenon started its act
@@kyks6771 facts are of cause facts... but its debateable if we ever really do know facts..are equations facts or are they mathematical peculiarities that to some extent apply to various physical phenomena. Maybe we can model thingss fairly good even if the physics we are assuming is wrong or even unknowable.
A computer simulation of a big pile of differential equations will never be the same thing as a computer simulation of quantum mechanics. I think we need to make use of a random number generator somehow. Physics is radically incomplete.
Science is about absolute acceptance about accepting a change and fault, so we can't really say that science or physics is complete as we humans only know a small dust in the wast ocean of science
No, its not nearly complete, and it never will be, and we'll never know how close we are to completion. It comes down to unknown unknowns, which is unquantifiable. Also see Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Incompleteness is baked into our reality.
Bullshit! It is far from being complete. It will never be complete. I watched exactly 2s of this video, because title is a lie. Have no time for watching clickbaits or manipulation.
Physics can't really have a limit.... Even if we understand the physics of our universe, there may basically be an infinite number of universes that have different physics than ours....
@@shrutis that reduces one degree of possibilities, but still there's lot many possibilities, enough for humans to spend their entire time in this universe, thinking about those
your videos do not have a proper reason or structure, the title is "Physics Is Nearly Complete." but you talk about the structure of the atom, so why didn't you name the video "the workings of an atom" or something like that
You cannot "complete" physics. If we almost completely completed phsyics, then we would have very highly advanced technology compared to now, so don't get your hopes up.
@@homomorphic There's a great difference between a good model of the universe (or better parts of it) and a complete one. It is highly unplausible that we will ever have a complete model of the universe. You are making a stupid point. A complete mathematical model which describes brainfunction from the subatomic particle level up to cognition - good luck with that.
@@IsomerSoma Of course, they say that a complete model is possible. To say that a model isn't possible, would mean that the universe is unknowable, and that violates a principle tenet of science.
@@homomorphic Oh ... well you seem to special i guess. Your comprehension is aweful. What dont you get about the difference between A model and a complete model? You know nothing about science. It isnt a principle of science that absolute knowledge is possible.
Nope physics is wrong tho there are limitlis possibilities in the universe and many things we haven't discovered yet we make our own physics we only base our physics on our planet's
Hi friends, thanks for watching! Big thanks to 80000 Hours for sponsoring this video - head over to 80000hours.org/parth to find an impactful career!
This video is entirely wrong. There was never a point in time where people thought the splittings were set in stone, and further, we know for sure that the current splittings are final, because of rotational invariance.
I'm actually glad not everything is solved yet, gives me something to do when I will have studied physics.
Same
ai will render human physicists useless very soon
@Sky Gardener
I have something to work with.
th-cam.com/video/ERR82MePb4g/w-d-xo.html
@@zak2659 looooolllllllll
@@zak2659 AI isn't genius mate
I feel like it's a good demonstration of the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns
I think one of the biggest problems is that our physics has arguably caught up with our math in a bunch of categories. We don't have closed form solutions or even foolproof systematic methods of writing infinite series approximations for all systems of PDEs. We're not even close to having mathematical tools this robust.
Thus, I think it's fairly impossible to even have a roadmap forward for physics until our maths can consistently give us a finite set of symbolic expressions or schemes that could approximately satisfy everything we already know. Preferably without just adding dozens of dimensional degrees of freedom every time you hit a roadblock.
I feel like your right but I don't understand math very well so I don't understand the math part.
That task will meet quite the challenge already at the first double-pendulum.
@@AfricanLionBat In case you actually want a small amount of translation here: a differential equation is a situation where we know the rate a which something occurs, but not necessarily a direct relationship between variables. A partial differential equation (PDE) is basically where that rate depends on several factors, and a system of PDEs is a conplicated mixture of rate equations that all depend on each other's variables. In other words: a horribly tangled mess.
The problem is that most of our higher level physics laws are rate laws (PDEs) and our derivations and predictions about what will happen in any situation depend entirely on our ability to untangle and solve specific simplified cases of PDEs. It's like having a tablet that you think contains all the knowledge in the universe right in front of you, and not bring able to read very well. It's endlessly infuriating.
@@KitagumaIgen I personally think what we'll see more and more of in coming years is the idea of superpositions of transient solutions where we find any kinds of repeating patterns of motion to make statistical arguments about macroscopic properties of the system.
Maybe we can't predict what the double pendulum *will* do after 15 seconds, but maybe we can solve for everything it *could* do and solve for the probability that it will be doing that at any arbitrary time if we know the total kinetic and potential energy. Quantum and statistical mechanics already take this general approach in a lot of places, but I could see it being expanded to aerospace and electrodynamics and, of course, double pendulums.
Or maybe some people much smarter than me have already implemented this in some of these fields and I just haven't heard of it yet (I'm not a cutting edge expert in these fields, I just have intermediate coursework in them)
Numerical/Computational techniques are p much standard practice in all physics research
0:37 "The aim of physics, broadly speaking, is to understand all of the phenomena that occur in the entire universe"
Well! That is certainly quite a goal lol
Please make a video on this year's Nobel laureates in physics.
Just when humans think something is complete suddenly a whole new things appear so we are on the verge of a new evolution in physics and engeneering.
It's on us ,who will walk the extra miles to show all of us the undiscovered world that is now out of reach or even we haven't imagined yet.
So keep working!
I hope Physics drops a new DLC pack, been waiting for a new update recently
I am very inspired by your videos Parth. Thank you so much!
I keep complimenting your great videos, but I'll make this one slightly superficial... I absolutely love your new look. You're looking slick! 👌 keep it up!
Hi Parth G I am very happy for you.
You inspire me to work harder
Watch out from 80,000 hours, if we’ve learned anything in the last years is that there’s no “free” and nonprofits are anything but... nonprofit means tax shelter and not for us
but what is time anyways?
Don't electrons of different spins also possess subtly different levels of energy?
Food is ready when we think it is. Similar case for physics too
Until physics can explain consciousness, it’s not complete.
It's amazing.. It makes me wonder if it is possible to understand everything in atleast a thousand years... at all...
Plus, I think energy levels that are NOT included are those in the UV, IR, and uwave, etc. So, when something goes from light1 to light2 but also dropped a microwave, or IR or you get the point.
Make a video about how become a good theoretical physicist.
Parth you have such a soothing voice.
Please make a video on the answer of this confusion that if magnetic field is a consquences of Relativity,then how the spining of electron produces magnetic filed as there is only one negative charge which is spining and there are not 2 or more charges as present in wire so that we apply the concept of length contraction of protons and proving that magnetic field is a consquence of Relativity
It seems quantum is not as quantized as we initially thought. Each quanta is divisible into even smaller quanta. Ad infinitum?
I don't understand how electrons can instantly jump levels. Could this series of sublevels provide the answer in that the jump is more of a slight shuffle than an actual jump?
Will the energy levels keep splitting until there are onlt two electrons per discrete level? i.e. one with +1/2 spin the other with -1/2 spin as predicted by Dirac.
all electrons will have a different combination of quantum numbers (like "n", but also angular momentum, magnetic momentum and spin), as per Pauli's Exclusion Principle. How exactly the energy splits depends a bit on circumstance: external fields can have an effect, for example.
All the calculations which are actually done for these things involve approximations. As far as I know, if you really want to be "perfect", the electrons and nucleus themselves create fields which will contribute to splitting.
That being said, some splittings can be so mild as to be comparable to the effect of the Uncertainty Principle, so it would be kinda hard to actually ever detect them or their effects, if I'm not mistaken
Physics is almost complete! We have a complete and valid model for describing all the phenomena that is common to us now!
Einstein enters the chat:
I dont think physics will ever be complete, its infinite and ever expanding but that's what makes it so wonderful
Hey
Can you please help me
What are some computer or technical skills needed to be/work as a physisist?
Can't tell with 100% accuracy
Is knowing vector calculus and linear algebra enough to read “general relativity an introduction for physicists “ ?
Absolutely 🚫
The problem with modern education in Physics, is that it requires from you that you learn some subjects beforehand.
For example, In classical mechanics, you can understand a lot of phenomenas using only basic algebra and intuition. But when intuition fails you, you resort into an "Analytical way of thinking"; and what I mean by that, is you do what Newton did exactly! You try to break the problem into smaller and smaller pieces and understand every piece and then put it all back to form the big picture. Newton did that exactly to found Calculus, he didn't learn Calculus beforehand to understand mechanics, but his way of thinking lead him to new mathematical discoveries.
.
And if you want to Learn General Relativity, you will either have to struggle with taking courses in abstract, mathematical, definitions and proofs of tensors and manifolds and you will get not physical intuition about it.
Or you could do what Einstein did, you form the physical intuition first, and then invent or 'search' for the right tools, and understand how your mathematical tools fit into your physical theory.
.
And in that way , therefore, I don't think you have to take courses in advanced mathematics before learning General Relativity, just jump in and learn what you can learn, and if you struggle with something, you have the internet!
And in the end, I think you will learn a decent amount of GR in that way, but you'll reach a point where you can't go further without using some abstract mathematical ideas.
But!!! Don't let that deter you from trying to learn GR.
Good luck!
You are absolutely right. Just think about the phenomena and particles etc that are still unknown because our instruments are not powerful enough yet. Imagine People in 1000 B.C. There's no way they could've known about E.M waves. Similarly we are still missing a lot of things.
I recall from about 25 years ago that I had asked this science website "Ask A Scientist" when they think they'll figure out what dark matter is.
The arrogance of the response I got would be the source of memes today. 🤣
I believe this continuation of split in energy levels are strong indication on the geometry of orbitals. It's all simple spherical based with a slit variations in size within each shell. Like how 1S and 2S are both spherical with some variation in size then it follows very closely 2Px then 2Py and 2Pz all spherical with tiny variations in size.
That makes it very simple and more acceptable for atomic models.
i do not accept that one
On the other hand, I think we do know enough of physics to have improved the quality of our lives drastically and by greater leaps than people of centuries ago could have ever imagined. I think science can be proud. Too bad it can only improve the human situation and not cure the human condition; see what humans do with all that progress. Plenty do good. Plenty do not.
the sole given is experience - phenomenal consciousness. it's slightly misleading saying that atoms or quantum fields is *what exists*, or *what is*. no. we can't establish that from physics. these are hugely successful predictive models, so we can say that whatever *is*, behaves *as if* "it" is something that's quantitatively described by our mathematical theories.
Physics is a model, and no model can be complete. The only real question is whether there will always be 1. Known unknowns, 2. Unknown unknowns, or 3. both.
I strongly suspect it's number 3.
hi parth happy dusshra in advance!
There is a great book about three body problems I suggest everyone to read, I especially recommend people who love cosmic horror
I think humans didn't climb down from trees. They fell by accident. Afterwards, they explained it to themselves that it was their smartness, that made them come down.
Reality: 🌊
What we know:💧
Of course it will be completed, but it will take an infinate amount of time.
0:00 We've almost completely answered all physics. 7:00 We don't have the ability to measure eV at the fundamental particle level. ok
I believe we are far from complete. The vast cosmos and the deep trenches of the sea and unexplored jungles, certain areas are yet understood or seen that could possibly flip the word 'Physics' and pioneer new specialisation. At a point of thinking we are complete, we will also be at the point of questioning the unquestionable.
A curious question can we chemistry be replaced by quantum physics is that theoretically possible?
Theoretically, yes. Practically, no. Even for the simplest systems, quantum mechanical calculations are very complex (see Parth's video "How the Schrodinger Equation Predicts Real Life" to see what I mean), so to deal with most of chemistry you would have to approximate a lot. But by approximating, you're giving up the precision that made you want to use quantum physics in the first place, so it's a bit of a paradox.
I believe the rules that govern the universe are finite. But, I believe that some of those rules may lay beyond our reach by virtue of being corporeal beings. We will reach the 99% mark,though.
Physics has forgotten about consciousness. That revolution will multiply the possibilities of physics
Perhaps apart from limitations of measurement, we also have the limitations of the mathematical tools we are using in physics to represent the universe. How would physics look like if the average IQ were 1000?
We think that we know everything until something happens...
Hello from Cambodia
Personally feel Physics could be "Complete" but the Metaphysics, Philosophy behind the ideas not.
yes but our metaphysics brain is working in the physical workd, so why metaphysics can't be complete? 😛
I agree. The Physics can be completed but the metaphysics not so much thanks to Decompression vagueness
@@nicobzz1 AKA The REAL historical foundations of math ran on Euclids Book called "The Elements" is solid. BUT Math ran on Abract reasoning such as Set Theory isn't so solid.
It's clear Set Theory led us down a almost "Too Inductive" reasoning of a path. XD
Nevertheless Set Theory still is useful for constucting toy logical models with as little computational power as possible via Information Compression. As long as you follow something called "The Axiomatic Method", which strictly prohibits things like "The Axiom of Infinity", "The Continuum Hypothesis", and the "Von Nuemann Hierarchy".
Read the three body problem
How to become a physicist and what we have to do after being a physicist🙏🏻
Please make a video on this🙏🏻
❣️I really love physics and universe
I think the fundamental physics is already fairly well known. However, we will probably never be finished chasing complex interactions. I suspect that most of our problems presently result from misinterpreting interactions.
most of our problems always were about misinterpreting interactions, not just presently, that's just the nature of the scientific method, interpretation is the key to getting closer to the truth.
Interpretation itself is still limited by whatever tools we have to study the universe, hence why the more complex math became, the better we can interpret physical data into mathematical description of reality, but mathematics as it is isn't enough, technology is also necessary, to be able to run better experiments to expand the data we have to interpret, so there are practically problems in every step of the scientific method.
As for your claim that fundamental physics is already fairly well known, that is simply incorrect, fundamental physics is where most of our problems currently lie, had we fairly understood the fundamentals, it doesn't matter how complex the interactions become, we would be able to solve them, at that point, it just becomes a matter of how good we are at math, or how good our computers are.
Either way, our current models are really good at doing what they're supposed to, for the most part, it just that most of our models tend to have a point where they just break down, unifying physics was and is the goal of all physicists.
Physics is nearly complete - lord kelvin before the intro of quantum mechanics
Modern science can't measure "Consciousness-In-Itself", but you can experience "IT" in a non-dual state of Samadhi. No problem. Just access "Mahamritunjaya mantra - Sacred Sound Choir", and "Om Namah Shivaya". Listen to each for 5 min per day for at least two weeks. Science deals with dualistic observations. Go beyond that into the realm of non-dual pure Consciousness.
Suggestion: Shutoff the background music a lot quicker after your pre-intro. If I am still watching and listening after the pre-intro then YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION for just a little bit longer. Don't drown out the rest of your intro with ANY background music. Instead, try punctuating your intro with trademark sounds (buy them or make them yourself) that are ear-candy to your viewers and queue them for what's next.
I see practicing physics as more of a modern method of active meditation. We invented it by using the most intricate tool humankind has ever created; mathematics. Which I choose to view more as a language, rather than a means to exclusively solve problems. I think the idea of "completing" physics is contradictory to the entire reason it was invented. Each generation adds to it, empowering those who choose to follow. Physics is a method of perception. Can we ever cease to invent different ways to perceive things?
In 1980 they made a movie called "Raise The Titanic", 5 years later they found it! 🤣
It was missing for so long and scientists had predicted that it was in pristine condition because "there's no oxygen down there" 🤓.
But we all know now that it isn't in pristine condition and that there's way more life down there than we had expected. 😂
Nearly 2 centuries ago people believed the same. Guess what.
I would like to argue that physics is always complete.
I'm not getting religious but the universe at tiny levels seems very much designed...
I think phsyics is just building models that sort of resemble the real world...I doubt these can be perfect. Somebody once said that all models are wrong but some are useful.
I think there is far too much complexity to predict even simple phenomena like a water droplet falling while taking into a account all the phsyics at a quantum level all the way to larger length scales. Like even if we solve all the equations of fundamental particles, i doubt it would it ever generalise well to larger phenomena because of how complicated all the interactions become. Like we can say that graviry is solved for all practical purposes yet something like teh multibody problem is chaotic.
Unless I am misunderstanding by what people mean by "solving physics"...does that mean being a able to model with exact accuracy any possible phenemenom or does it mean figuring out all the fundamental particles and their interactions?
Facts are facts, interpretations differ, hence the different models.being able to create or duplicate & figuring the conditions of point zero where one phenomenon started its act
@@kyks6771 facts are of cause facts... but its debateable if we ever really do know facts..are equations facts or are they mathematical peculiarities that to some extent apply to various physical phenomena. Maybe we can model thingss fairly good even if the physics we are assuming is wrong or even unknowable.
@@matthewernstzen7521 equations are models.. it's all tested in creation..obviously energy levels come to picture
I dont see how we will know whether the observer sees reality
A computer simulation of a big pile of differential equations will never be the same thing as a computer simulation of quantum mechanics. I think we need to make use of a random number generator somehow. Physics is radically incomplete.
Science is about absolute acceptance about accepting a change and fault, so we can't really say that science or physics is complete as we humans only know a small dust in the wast ocean of science
nice story
You never know what's unknown
It’s a trap to believe a theory is the last word on a phenomena.
I sure hope that physics never is complete that would be so boring.
nice stache G
No, its not nearly complete, and it never will be, and we'll never know how close we are to completion. It comes down to unknown unknowns, which is unquantifiable. Also see Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Incompleteness is baked into our reality.
>>>The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds.
Yes it already is
It can never be complete, as long as you keep asking why.
A dog barking up the wrong tree may have a toilet - but it'll never ascend the heights of the correct tree.
Bullshit! It is far from being complete. It will never be complete. I watched exactly 2s of this video, because title is a lie. Have no time for watching clickbaits or manipulation.
Physics can't really have a limit.... Even if we understand the physics of our universe, there may basically be an infinite number of universes that have different physics than ours....
what if in future, we find out there are no multiverses
@@shrutis that reduces one degree of possibilities, but still there's lot many possibilities, enough for humans to spend their entire time in this universe, thinking about those
How many times have they said the title of this video across history lmao
Dozens! Tee hee
Hi .....
Universe is huge and human no nearly about 1% of it.
please keep the beard as before🥺
We don't really know anything lol.
Hariom
This looks like basic harmonics.....
Do you believe in God? A creater?
your videos do not have a proper reason or structure, the title is "Physics Is Nearly Complete." but you talk about the structure of the atom, so why didn't you name the video "the workings of an atom" or something like that
You cannot "complete" physics. If we almost completely completed phsyics, then we would have very highly advanced technology compared to now, so don't get your hopes up.
Saying a physical model of the universe will never be complete is the most non-scientist thing ever said.
Uhm no?
@@IsomerSoma uhm yes. No actual scientist believes that the universe cannot be modeled.
@@homomorphic There's a great difference between a good model of the universe (or better parts of it) and a complete one. It is highly unplausible that we will ever have a complete model of the universe. You are making a stupid point.
A complete mathematical model which describes brainfunction from the subatomic particle level up to cognition - good luck with that.
@@IsomerSoma Of course, they say that a complete model is possible. To say that a model isn't possible, would mean that the universe is unknowable, and that violates a principle tenet of science.
@@homomorphic Oh ... well you seem to special i guess. Your comprehension is aweful. What dont you get about the difference between A model and a complete model?
You know nothing about science. It isnt a principle of science that absolute knowledge is possible.
no, absolutely not
Physics cant be complete because it is consistent. Or vice versa.
Nope physics is wrong tho there are limitlis possibilities in the universe and many things we haven't discovered yet we make our own physics we only base our physics on our planet's
First
Physics will never be completed