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
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ( ╹▽╹ )
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.
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.
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??
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!
@@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.
@@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.
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?
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...
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'
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
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.
Mass is just concentrated energy right? If energy stays in one place relative to one frame of reference for long period of time ( for example binding energy staying within proton relative to the frame of reference (other protons or neutrons of nucleus) is called as mass right?
No. Mass is mass and energy is energy. Mass is how much stuff is there and energy is how much potential a system have to do work. But both mass and energy bends space-time, and both mass and energy have weight. Meaning that both a planet that have mass and a gravitational wave that have energy bends space and slows down time. Also meaning that a charged battery that have more energy than a drained battery weights more. Yes, they are equivalent, but not the same. But a charged battery doesn't have more molecules (i.e. stuff) than a drained battery. Energy is not a "thing". Energy is how much work a system can do. For example, a boiler full with steam if connected to a gas turbine has the energy x Joules that can run the turbine for y hours. On the other hand, that same boiler full of steam inside a building full of steam have zero energy, because the steam in the boiler can't do any work if the temperature difference is zero. In a universe full of hot boiling steam the energy would be zero because not a single system can do any work, because the temperature is uniform in the entire universe. What we call energy is basically a difference from hot temperature to cold temperature, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Inside a proton the energy is in the gluon field that is interacting with itself. Basically, gluon pairs are popping in and out of existence between the quarks and qluons are exchanged between the quarks, causing the quarks to change color charge. This energy of the gluon field between quarks in the proton also bends space-time and have weight, just like mass. You can think like in an electric field photons are popping in and out of existence between electrons, but photons don't change electric charge since they don't have electric charge. Gluons on the other hand have color charge and they change the color charge of quarks. In addition, the quarks also interact with the Higgs field, creating the inertial mass. But this is like 1% of the total mass (=inertial mass + energy of the gluon field). If I have something wrong please correct me. But this is how I understand this all.
@@holz_name In particle physics though energy is not associated with work. It is defined as E=sqrt(m^2+p^2) where p is the momentum of the particle. This basically says energy is a combination of mass and momentum. In the rest frame of a particle energy = mass and they're one and the same. Op is not quite right because it doesn't have anything to do with how long energy stays somewhere, mass is indeed concentrated energy but mass comes about because of the interaction between the particle and the Higgs field. Photons have energy because.. they just do. Photons don't interact with gluons
@@wan3839 An equal sign doesn't mean the same. I can write an equal sign between the kinetic and potential energy, this doesn't mean kinetic and potential energy are the same. One is the energy of movement and the other is the potential in a field. Energy and mass can be related by an equality, it doesn't mean they are the same. No, mass is confined energy. Einstein demonstrated this. Two mirrors that bounce a light photon between them weight more on a scale then without a photon. The photon have energy but no mass. The energy of the photon is confined between those mirrors hence the system weights more. The energy doesn't have to be concentrated, the mirrors can be lightyears apart. We also have to be careful between mass and weight. They are equal but not the same. In the mirrors experiment with a photon it weights more but doesn't have more mass. A photon doesn't have mass. What you talk about is just like 1% of the total mass. The 99% of the mass is because the quarks interact with the gluon field and the gluon field is confined inside a proton. The energy of the gluon field is confined and thus it contributes to the mass. PS: I'm not a physicist.
@@holz_name In the rest frame energy = mass by definition, this is how you define the mass of a particle. Some would write rest frame energy ≡ mass. Who told you the mirror system would weigh more with a photon bouncing between them? Unless photons are shooting downwards towards the scale, in which case they push the scale down by radiation pressure. If the photon is bouncing between the mirrors I don't think the system would weigh more at all because after all photons are massless. I think you're saying 1% of the total mass of the proton comes from the 3 *valence quarks*. I don't think your figure is quite correct.. I recall about half the mass of the nucleon comes from sea quarks, the rest comes from gluon interactions. Yea macroscopically a lot of the mass is interaction energy, but what I'm saying is fundamentally, the elementary particles in the Standard Model have mass because of Higgs mechanism.
@@wan3839 *In the rest frame energy = mass by definition, this is how you define the mass of a particle. Some would write rest frame energy ≡ mass.* Yes, equals or equivalent. This doesn't mean it's the same. If it were the same then the equations for mass and energy would be the same. And it would behave the same. Mass and energy is clearly something different. We have actually a symbol to say "the same" :=. A := B means A is defined as B. *Who told you the mirror system would weigh more with a photon bouncing between them? Unless photons are shooting downwards towards the scale, in which case they push the scale down by radiation pressure. If the photon is bouncing between the mirrors I don't think the system would weigh more at all because after all photons are massless.* The same reason why a charged battery weights more than an empty battery. The same reason why a winded up clock that ticks weights more than a wound down clock that doesn't. Energy warps space-time like mass do. The photon have energy and it's entrapped in a system. Hence the system have more energy and thus weights more. I could find you a source for this, but it's basic -special- general relativity. *the elementary particles in the Standard Model have mass because of Higgs mechanism.* Sure, but that's like 1% of the mass of the proton. The other 99% comes from the gluon field. The 3 quarks masses added together is like 1% of the mass of the proton. A proton is about 1 GeV mass. The top and bottom quarks is about 2*2 MeV + 5 MeV, about 10 MeV. That's just about 1% of the mass of the proton. It's basically three mirrors bouncing a photon, if the mirrors were the 1% mass and the bouncing photon were the other 99%. (the mirrors would be the quarks and the photon would be the gluon field). 99% all of your weight (or mass, if we talk about inertia mass) comes from energy trapped or confined in the gluon field. Btw, there are basically 4 concepts we talk about and they are not the same. Energy is the amount of work a system can do. Weight, which is how much you weight under a certain gravitational field. Higgs mass, i.e. 1%. Inertia mass, that is how much resistance you give to acceleration. Einstein says that energy, Higgs mass and inertia mass are all equivalent. It means that they all bend space-time and make you heavy under a gravitational field (i.e. create weight). Inertia mass = Energy + Higgs mass. PS: nobody says "inertia mass". We just say "mass".
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....
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
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 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.
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.
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.
I am 13 and have a solid understanding of quantum physics including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as well as quantum fluctuations and quantum electrodynamics. I do, however, have a feigned understanding of quantum field theory as well as symmetries in the universe. Can give me a watered down explanation
It is possible to construct a mathematically beautiful self consistent model that does not describe reality. That would be called a "Theory of Nothing."
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 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.
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.
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?
"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
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
@@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 ...
🤦You don't mean Chenning Yang behind Yang-Mills theory aka gauge theory, which is the theory of strong interaction, weak interaction as well as gravity?? Yang got a Nobel prize for parity violation and that's not even the thing he's most famous for.
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".
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.
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.
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
Are you VEGAN? 🌱
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.
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.
Mr. Pontiggia can we talk about Quantum
I was shocked not to find Perelman not mentioned.
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 :)
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
Yeah he taught me FVC too. Very passionate man who cares deeply about mathematics.
It's so nice to see a presentation from within the Royal Institute again!
Indeed. And what if art tells more about Universe than physic? Plot twist 🙃
very unoriginal info. At our office we dont even hire perfect talker who uses other peoples thoughts and words.
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.
❤️
are there recorded versions somewhere of these presentations?
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!
2 words.
Me
@@monty3854 That is 2 "letters"
Hey, remember math is racist now, you might be asking for lefty attention!
@@koori3085 Ok. I'll bite, just this once. How is Math racist?
@@andycordy5190
I have also heard about “racist math”, but it is so weird, I don’t remember the bad argument.
Your wonderful talk has added new dimensions to my enjoyment of life. Thank you so much.
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.
"I'm not a philosopher"
Talks about the relationship between beauty and truth for 20 minutes.
The biggest confusion ever was changing natural philosophy to science
As others have said, I'm so glad to see these events happening in-person with an audience. Added to Watch Later!
For someone like me a lay person. I find his style of educating very engaging.
Sparkling, and encouraging. Thanks.
The most amazing thing is that they can move that desk.
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.
One of the best presentations I’ve seen on the channel.. brilliant 👌🏻
I'm shaking too only while listening, I don't even mind about staying there and speaking.
This was brilliant. Thank you so much!
“Equations are to be enjoyed like art.” 😌
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.
Since you plainly have no idea what you mean by either science or religion and define neither, there is nothing to compare.
Tomato/Tomatoe Potatoe/Potato same thing
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.
@@Avenged666 Whose "science" of what?
really interesting lecture and fantastically delivered too
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
@ 37:11 would love the explanation of the experiment conducted by CERN about this.
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.
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 ( ╹▽╹ )
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.
One day I hope to breath the air of this hallowed ground and enjoy a lecture with the spirits of legend...
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.
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??
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!
@@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.
@@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.
btw are there many exercises in the book?
Great Vids! keep up the good work!
Please, and I think I speak for everyone, start uploading in 4K!
I think the first Maxwell equation is wrong. It should be "div E = ρ / ε0" (55:00)
The electric field has a source, the charge. But the magnetic field does not.
As he mentioned, these are the vacuum Maxwell's equations, meaning the charge sources are zero.
@@radostingeorgiev7716 Ok. Thanks.
Brilliant presentation. Really drew me in.
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?
What an interesting lecture! Need to find that interview with Sir Penrose that Yang mentions
Thank you for this.
Would love to see him on your show Curt 🤞🏻
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...
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!
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'
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.
Perhaps as humans we're too obcessed with symetry/beauty to discern objectively.
“In the beginning”. There, it has already been given to us like everything else.
I was searching for this and found it was uploaded 20 mins ago
Thanks for the history lesson.
Excellent presentation.
Is this the same Yang as Yang Mills ?
What about super asymmetry.?
What do string theorists think of the Diósi-Penrose model? Please note that I'm not a physicist. Just an amateur.
Would you say that there is Beauty in the MTS Equation? What would Dirac say? Comments Please.
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
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.
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.
@@valentinmalinov8424 : (1) Are you just trying to sell your silly book? (2) What was the "point" that you say I got?
@@brothermine2292 😂yt theorist
@@loganx833 is a troll who has nothing useful to say.
There is a line missing! Philosophy line... Where is Pythagoras, Euclid, Descartes, Leibniz?
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.
welcome back! RI!!
Great talk, very fun
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.
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
Modern physics isn't materialist. People like you simply don't understand modern physics. ;-)
What about loop quantum gravity
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?
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.
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.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for the single unifying equation,etc.
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?
You were touched by god. That's not a good thing, though. ;-)
I believe that any paradigm based on the assumption that C is Constant and it is maximum speed in Vacum is wrong ... and.....
best one in year.
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
Great explanations! Thank you! I hope you take a look at CIG Theory.
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.
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
We goin’ up or down with this one🔥🔥
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.
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.
Agreed. ☝️
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.
@@sagarthebodkhe Bodke.....chill man.... it's democracy :)
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.
Juliana Mortenson website Forgotten Physics classicalized QM in 2010. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
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 😂
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.
Heartbreaking presentation
?
I think it’s time now to move towards a new science to find solutions for the unresolved.
Everything is not a theory, it is physical reality, meaning it did not wait for European scientists, it already and always was.
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.
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.
what are you talking about dude?
@@AngadSingh-bv7vn, I'm talking about the theory of everything. Guess who discovered it.
@@smlanka4u who?
@@mattagamer98, You don't know about him. That's me.
@@smlanka4u lol
Mass is just concentrated energy right? If energy stays in one place relative to one frame of reference for long period of time ( for example binding energy staying within proton relative to the frame of reference (other protons or neutrons of nucleus) is called as mass right?
No. Mass is mass and energy is energy. Mass is how much stuff is there and energy is how much potential a system have to do work. But both mass and energy bends space-time, and both mass and energy have weight. Meaning that both a planet that have mass and a gravitational wave that have energy bends space and slows down time. Also meaning that a charged battery that have more energy than a drained battery weights more. Yes, they are equivalent, but not the same. But a charged battery doesn't have more molecules (i.e. stuff) than a drained battery.
Energy is not a "thing". Energy is how much work a system can do. For example, a boiler full with steam if connected to a gas turbine has the energy x Joules that can run the turbine for y hours. On the other hand, that same boiler full of steam inside a building full of steam have zero energy, because the steam in the boiler can't do any work if the temperature difference is zero. In a universe full of hot boiling steam the energy would be zero because not a single system can do any work, because the temperature is uniform in the entire universe. What we call energy is basically a difference from hot temperature to cold temperature, because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Inside a proton the energy is in the gluon field that is interacting with itself. Basically, gluon pairs are popping in and out of existence between the quarks and qluons are exchanged between the quarks, causing the quarks to change color charge. This energy of the gluon field between quarks in the proton also bends space-time and have weight, just like mass. You can think like in an electric field photons are popping in and out of existence between electrons, but photons don't change electric charge since they don't have electric charge. Gluons on the other hand have color charge and they change the color charge of quarks.
In addition, the quarks also interact with the Higgs field, creating the inertial mass. But this is like 1% of the total mass (=inertial mass + energy of the gluon field).
If I have something wrong please correct me. But this is how I understand this all.
@@holz_name In particle physics though energy is not associated with work. It is defined as E=sqrt(m^2+p^2) where p is the momentum of the particle. This basically says energy is a combination of mass and momentum. In the rest frame of a particle energy = mass and they're one and the same. Op is not quite right because it doesn't have anything to do with how long energy stays somewhere, mass is indeed concentrated energy but mass comes about because of the interaction between the particle and the Higgs field. Photons have energy because.. they just do. Photons don't interact with gluons
@@wan3839 An equal sign doesn't mean the same. I can write an equal sign between the kinetic and potential energy, this doesn't mean kinetic and potential energy are the same. One is the energy of movement and the other is the potential in a field.
Energy and mass can be related by an equality, it doesn't mean they are the same.
No, mass is confined energy. Einstein demonstrated this. Two mirrors that bounce a light photon between them weight more on a scale then without a photon. The photon have energy but no mass. The energy of the photon is confined between those mirrors hence the system weights more. The energy doesn't have to be concentrated, the mirrors can be lightyears apart.
We also have to be careful between mass and weight. They are equal but not the same. In the mirrors experiment with a photon it weights more but doesn't have more mass. A photon doesn't have mass.
What you talk about is just like 1% of the total mass. The 99% of the mass is because the quarks interact with the gluon field and the gluon field is confined inside a proton. The energy of the gluon field is confined and thus it contributes to the mass.
PS: I'm not a physicist.
@@holz_name In the rest frame energy = mass by definition, this is how you define the mass of a particle. Some would write rest frame energy ≡ mass.
Who told you the mirror system would weigh more with a photon bouncing between them? Unless photons are shooting downwards towards the scale, in which case they push the scale down by radiation pressure. If the photon is bouncing between the mirrors I don't think the system would weigh more at all because after all photons are massless.
I think you're saying 1% of the total mass of the proton comes from the 3 *valence quarks*. I don't think your figure is quite correct.. I recall about half the mass of the nucleon comes from sea quarks, the rest comes from gluon interactions. Yea macroscopically a lot of the mass is interaction energy, but what I'm saying is fundamentally, the elementary particles in the Standard Model have mass because of Higgs mechanism.
@@wan3839 *In the rest frame energy = mass by definition, this is how you define the mass of a particle. Some would write rest frame energy ≡ mass.*
Yes, equals or equivalent. This doesn't mean it's the same. If it were the same then the equations for mass and energy would be the same. And it would behave the same. Mass and energy is clearly something different. We have actually a symbol to say "the same" :=. A := B means A is defined as B.
*Who told you the mirror system would weigh more with a photon bouncing between them? Unless photons are shooting downwards towards the scale, in which case they push the scale down by radiation pressure. If the photon is bouncing between the mirrors I don't think the system would weigh more at all because after all photons are massless.*
The same reason why a charged battery weights more than an empty battery. The same reason why a winded up clock that ticks weights more than a wound down clock that doesn't. Energy warps space-time like mass do. The photon have energy and it's entrapped in a system. Hence the system have more energy and thus weights more. I could find you a source for this, but it's basic -special- general relativity.
*the elementary particles in the Standard Model have mass because of Higgs mechanism.*
Sure, but that's like 1% of the mass of the proton. The other 99% comes from the gluon field. The 3 quarks masses added together is like 1% of the mass of the proton. A proton is about 1 GeV mass. The top and bottom quarks is about 2*2 MeV + 5 MeV, about 10 MeV. That's just about 1% of the mass of the proton.
It's basically three mirrors bouncing a photon, if the mirrors were the 1% mass and the bouncing photon were the other 99%. (the mirrors would be the quarks and the photon would be the gluon field).
99% all of your weight (or mass, if we talk about inertia mass) comes from energy trapped or confined in the gluon field.
Btw, there are basically 4 concepts we talk about and they are not the same. Energy is the amount of work a system can do. Weight, which is how much you weight under a certain gravitational field. Higgs mass, i.e. 1%. Inertia mass, that is how much resistance you give to acceleration.
Einstein says that energy, Higgs mass and inertia mass are all equivalent. It means that they all bend space-time and make you heavy under a gravitational field (i.e. create weight). Inertia mass = Energy + Higgs mass. PS: nobody says "inertia mass". We just say "mass".
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....
5:50 The 1687 split (before and after) is ok but better is 1859... BC and AD: Before Charles; After Darwin.
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
hang on! it’s worth it
One principle underlies it all : expanding electrons.” The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
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.
What’s a P value if it’s not how it’s described in this presentation?
@@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.
@@travisleith1146 thanks for the refresher, i got a D in statistics 😂
And P Hacking is cheating in Stats
@@georgeso4364 P hacking?
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.
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.
I am 13 and have a solid understanding of quantum physics including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as well as quantum fluctuations and quantum electrodynamics. I do, however, have a feigned understanding of quantum field theory as well as symmetries in the universe. Can give me a watered down explanation
There is another Royal society talk on Quantum Fields : Building Blocks by David Tong. Might be worth checking out
@@fahdhussein6760 that's a great video.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
At 39 minutes... those last three on the right are fidget spinners 😂😂
He is full of it!
It is possible to construct a mathematically beautiful self consistent model that does not describe reality.
That would be called a "Theory of Nothing."
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?
Maybe that's asking is mathematics in itself a science?
@@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.
2:38 Fantastic!
Please share my two brief videos with other people. Thanks!
There will never be such a theory
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.
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?
the theory of everything is the Human Body.
Godlike.
Imagining anything without the Human Body is what proves again the Theory of everything.
Very good.
"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
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
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon done in 2002: where have you been?
The theory of everything was written in the 18th century.
@@brankozivlak3291 Why gravity no understood?
@@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 ...
He had to include an obscure token oriental to the eight scientists to qualify himself. 🤣
🤦You don't mean Chenning Yang behind Yang-Mills theory aka gauge theory, which is the theory of strong interaction, weak interaction as well as gravity?? Yang got a Nobel prize for parity violation and that's not even the thing he's most famous for.
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".
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.
summary : ubi materia ibi geometria
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.
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.
You should know Copernicus did not originate the heliocentric concept.
Who was it then?
@@georgeso4364 Aristarchus of Samos (c.310 -230 BC); Copernicus most likely read about this when he was studying Greek.
James Collins So he’s a contemporary of Pythagoras of Samos?
the search would go on ad infinitum 💃