We May Have the Key To the Theory of Everything... Let me Explain With a Model 

Wrap it up, we're done here. Part 2 is unnecessary 😜

The Meaning of Life

But what is the question?

Good book, but it's actually 137

You beat me by 31 minutes.

It’s very interesting that some people are made so uncomfortable by how much humans know about the universe And uncomfortable about the idea that maybe we could understand it all, with the help from computers

Most of our 'science' is understanding observations; but we have NO CLUE how it really works, like gravity, magnetism and life force. We cannot see the 'end' of the universe, or smaller than a certain size, and all that probably by design.

IDK but my hypochondria has sent me to some very dark places lately and I needed to hear this comment for solace. Thank you.

Interesting, how people interpret things absolutely differently. I for example, find solace in the total opposite, not in the vagueness of it all but in the absoluteness of the last consequence in the universe: the big rip. Whenever I feel overwhelmed, I feel a deep sense of calm and contentment in the imagination, that hopefully one day, everything will come to an halt, no interaction with any subatomic particle will occur and finally there will be eternal quiet.

Bro we still don't know practically anything

That’s why GAI will go beyond our puny intellect.

We all know Dogs know everything just spell dog backwards and you get god who knows everything. that makes enough sense to satisify every dumb person.

I also have a great explanation.

Definitely will do

I don't see much difference between the crazy small and the very large. It honestly looks exactly the same. Every paper saying otherwise seem crazy.

@@kevinroberts781 Then why do subatomic particles behave so differently from atoms and on a larger scale Solar Systems? I ain't got a clue myself.

@@kevinroberts781As above, So below. It’s very true for everything and leads onto everything else

I also want a part two three or however long Alex wants to take to explain this in full.

Where is part 2?

Me too

No it really isn’t. It’s laden with mistakes. The author doesn’t himself have an accurate enough understanding of existing theories to be able to teach them to you let alone make up his own. Go and watch PBS Spacetime or Fermilab. Those guys are qualified professional academics.

@@ralphclarkdon’t forget @CoolWorlds … By far and away the best!!!

Can you be a bit more specific when you say "mistakes"@@ralphclark

@@openboxtherapy1010 do you understand the phrase “not even wrong”?

👍 agreed ❤

The matter that makes up the stuff that your memories are made with is all still there, more or less, localized to your current planetary space time.

@@ascarylobster Thats called a spirit, but you know, modernists love to make up new fancy names while scoffing at the dumb ancients. 😇

@@Guyjharrison okay Jehovah’s Witness person

​​@@ascarylobsterjehovas witness person 😂😂😭😭😭

Since the universe can’t have contradictions there must actually be a common relationship. Whether we are able to discover it or not is another matter.

> I'm not completely convinced there has to be a robust theory of everything There does have to be one. Every pattern can be described if we have enough information about it, even pure randomness (through statistical methods). The question is whether its one we mere mortals will ever be able to decipher the pattern and translate it into a mathematical language that we can understand and teach to future generations. > the universe has such a massive range of scales That's actually not a problem. We use laddering to deal with that - for example we (mostly) only consider the electron shells when dealing with chemistry rather than the full quantum mechanical nature of atoms, and we use fluid dynamics to describe liquids and gases rather than tracing out the state of each molecule, etc. As long as we have a regime where a "small" and a "large" theory overlap, we can say with fairly high confidence that we can continue on with the "large" theory at larger scales and the "small" theory at smaller scales. Nobody is going to be building a bridge by computing the quantum interactions of every single iron atom. The problem with a theory of everything - any theory of everything - is that the top of our ladder (the theories) is currently way, way higher than we're currently able to climb (the experiments). IIRC the scale we'd need to hit is something like a million times more power than the LHC can produce. Absolutely absurd energy levels. But we know those energy levels exist - we can see them in black holes and magnetars and other massive cosmological objects, and scientists are certainly trying to collect as much information from those objects as they can in hopes that something will lead to a new theory. We don't exactly get to control a black hole the way we can control the LHC though, so we're stuck just waiting on luck to lead the way and give us an appropriately interesting observation. That could be a long wait (but perhaps not as long as waiting to build a 10^6x larger ring collider!) Back here on Earth the only real hope is that someone finds a way to generate extremely high energy outputs with a significantly lower energy input than our current linear or ring colliders can manage. If we ever do find a true room-temperature superconductor for example we'll be able to get a lot closer very quickly as much of the energy input on current accelerators is the cryogenics required to maintain superconductivity in the magnets. I'm not sure that alone would get us all the way to a 10^6 boost but it would likely be a good order or two of magnitude closer. (Of course no one knows yet if such a thing is even possible - there's certainly a lot of hope still as the recent LK-99 fiasco showed - but hype alone is certainly no proof.)

@@captainwatson Trouble is, "I think" doesn't lead to testable predictions (and usually doesn't even cover the data we've already collected from the couple centuries of experiments we've already done). Everybody has a thought on the matter (or two or three or ten), myself included. Few people put enough effort into their thoughts to convert them from random musings into actual scientific hypotheses. Fewer still have the ability (or simply funding) to test their hypotheses with real experiments. And at the end of the day, the experiments are what really matter - to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson: Nature is under no obligation to make sense to us. Its certainly convenient when it does, but that rarely occurs when we're dealing with scales far outside human experience so we can't rely solely on intuition - we have to prove to ourselves (and to others) that our intuition is actually correct. And be willing to discard our intuition should the experiments prove us wrong.

@@altragI don’t agree. A researcher friend of mine who studies quantum physics told me a very funny analogy. Think of the universe like a video game, where the trees and backgrounds in sections of the map that the player cannot enter are visible but if the player were to somehow reach those background locations it would be rendered poorly because the game makers did not expect the player to ever get there. This is exactly how God made the universe - it has some inherent ‘contradiction’ baked into its very existence such that when you reach the quantum level you find that God was too lazy to ‘render’ things because he thought humans were too stupid to reach that level. That’s the essence of quantum probability. Even though this is obviously a humorous analogy, I think there’s a deep truth to accepting that contradiction is inherent and maybe even necessary for the existence itself of our universe. To make you think, consider how everything (logically) must have a cause and effect - what is the cause of all causes then? I’d say this is the fundamental contradiction of existence itself from a philosophical standpoint, and it is the starting point for belief in God (or whatever you wanna call it, just know some of the greatest scientists of all mankind understood that science cannot and will never explain everything not because of human limitations but because God himself made the universe incomplete)

@@aumi5958 > Think of the universe like You're already doing it wrong. One of the big "problems" with quantum mechanics is that it doesn't work "like" anything we've ever experienced on a human scale. We can analogize all we want but every analogy will break down because there simply is nothing truly analogous in anything we can experience. That's why the math is so important when coming up with theories - human brains just don't have the capability to "I think" our way to the answer. (Heck even things we can experience we do pretty poorly on with "I think", historically speaking. Look at any number of theories of the universe or biology or basically anything other than pure geometry from the ancient Greek world where they believed experimentation was beneath them and reason alone could answer the questions of the universe.) > This is exactly how God made the universe You can't understand quantum mechanics, but you understand how God made the universe? That's an impressive gap. > God was too lazy I don't have a witty response. Roasting God requires none. > That’s the essence of quantum probability. Its really not. Even if you want to go with a creator theory, the creator is also under no obligation to make sense to you. What makes you believe that God is just as bad at probability than we are? Perhaps He didn't design it that way out of laziness, but because He understands something about it that you simply don't? > consider how everything (logically) must have a cause and effect Why? Who says that has to be true? It certainly appears to be true, but that is not the same as saying it must be true. One can absolutely imagine universes where this is not the case (and there is lots of sci-fi doing exactly that). If we mere mortals can imagine it there's no reason to believe God couldn't have created it and just decided not to. > what is the cause of all causes then? Who knows. But not knowing something doesn't mean its not knowable with enough investigation. And not knowable also doesn't mean not true. Whether you believe in one of the myriad creation stories various cultures and religions have invented over the millennia, or you believe one of the various creation stories physics has cooked up over the past century, there are only two options: Either _something_ was the cause of all causes, or the universe is truly infinite in time (and maybe space). We have no way of knowing which of those generalizations is true, never mind which specific cause (in the first case) is true. But there is no third option so it must be one of those. We certainly have theories that we prefer to believe for various philosophical reasons, but philosophy is not physics. Believing in something is not the same as proving it. > some of the greatest scientists of all mankind understood Less than everything. Nobody has perfect knowledge of all subjects. See all the physicists and geologists making absolutely idiotic claims about biology and medicine during covid. And even if they somehow had perfect knowledge of every field, that still doesn't tell us anything because no field of study - religious, philosophical or scientific - has the answer yet, so perfect knowledge of all of those things still doesn't provide it and not even the greatest, smartest person in all of history can know something they don't know. "Yet" is an extremely important qualifier though. We may find a theory of everything tomorrow. We may find it 1000 years from now. We may never find it. The only thing we can say for sure is that we haven't found it yet.

Totally agree with your comment, consciousness once (if ever) being understood is the key to the Universe.

I love the way people can communicate globally. I am both excited and nervous to see where AI takes us in making these connections more real.

Been laying in bed thinking about it. I dont think its strings, but whatever force that makes them vibrate may be the key

Science creates models to explain mathematics.

It's just fancy math. String theory makes no falsifiable predictions, it's not science.

That is just the narrative you've been told. And it's nonsense from A to Z.

@@RenoLaringo What's your evidence for that claim? Because if your counter narrative involves Eden, Atlantis, or Aliens, then it's just the same boring nonsense we've all heard. But if you have something more interesting then people might like to know.

@@RenoLaringo It's also what has been discovered by scientists and archeologists and geologists, so I don't know what to tell you there buddy...

@@Skaevsno it hasn’t. You’ve just been lied to. Look up gap theory

@@Arcadianx98 that has to be the dumbest thing I've ever read, and it totally explains the religious mindset. You actually have to a literal imbecile to think that makes sense. Absence of evidence in no way proves God's existance, it just means we don't know something yet, just like we didn't know so many things in the past that we know now and the answer was never God. Gap theory is a desperate example of wishful thinking and information bias. You're so desperate for God to be real, that when things are again and again proven to have nothing to do with God, you start seeking gaps where God *could* be. That's not logical, that's incredibly soufght after and wishful thinking. What I said about science and archeology remains true.

Keep in mind that in this video he is explaining his interpretation of what's going on, rather than trying to explain something that all scientists generally agree on.

Mass and time are both dimensions. A velocity (or vector) change in one dimension changes the values of the others. That's why velocity in time changes when things have a high velocity in our familiar three dimensions or are very massive. It's also why our three dimensions change their shape around massive objects. It's all described in Einstein's math. Even earlier, Lorentz described how high speed in one dimension changes that dimension's shape. Einstein went on to explain that mass changes in that case, as well. Lorentz's work showed that even our most familiar three dimensions are affected by motion, although they act a little weird in that only the traveled dimension seems to be changed, (at least in one respect,) and not the perpendicular ones. It may be possible that extra dimensions are responsible for entanglement - that idea would be strengthened if we can prove that it is possible to force a particular state on one half of an entangled pair. I haven't studied that branch of science. But it would eliminate the "spooky action at a distance" argument. Angular momentum is linear momentum being acted upon by tension from a central point. That is why it can easily be converted from one to the other.

Supersymmetry was not found at the LHC. SS is a big feature of many string theory models.

He did go into it in this video

It’s seen more as a stepping stone into the next big theory.

Watch acollierastro’s video on string theory - basically string theorists are unable to produce bc of the unprovability, but continue to make promises of a breakthrough that they can’t keep

Wow I wish I was smart like u

Me too :)

what was the ratio?

You are not alone! The famous physicist Richard Fainman says "Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics if somebody says that he understands it I will call him a charlatan" ...but I think that I can help you understand it. There is a simple book for which academia doesn't want to talk about. Its title is - "Theory of Everything in Physica and The Universe" Read it and then everything will start make sense.

@@valentinmalinov8424 my first response to you has been removed by the RU-vid marxists, I must have used a word that triggered them. I’ve ordered your book!

I don't think there is any such thing as gravity to be honest. I think gravity is just an illusion that emerges out of the bending of space time, or even just time itself. :)

Death wouldn’t be a theory… it would be a law. It’s factually proven to happen no matter its condition.

Most intelligent words I've heard. The government has nothing to offer, you’re Actually right but can you help me out with some hints you sounded like you have experience.

‌I wanted to invest or buy a share but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price, without the knowledge you will lose money probably all your money.

I perceive her strategies are really perpetually, I have also heard of her on investmentcon now I’m convinced. Because I never knew I’ll come across people talking about Von.

Von was obviously the best I invested with her and I have made a profit of 3times of my investment Her success stories are everywhere I'm a living testimony of Mrs Von Amelia Investing my money with Expert Mrs Von has being a game changer for me.

How do i get in touch with her?

Hello, first of all I am not a physicist but I would like to give a try on the interpretation of c^2. Let's start from distance (m), then we have velocity (m/s), then we have acceleration of an object in one dimension (m/s^2). Now we may be stuck but... an area is in m^2 units. Is it something like it's an acceleration of an area (m^2/s^2)? Quite an abstract concept, but maybe not that stupid...? I'd also like to add that E=mc^2 is just a simplification of a more general equation. Because if photon has no mass, it couldn't have energy, but it does! And that source of its energy is momentum. If I'm not wrong, the full equation is: E=sqrt(p^2m^2+m^2c^4)

Some really dislike when people try doing things like that

@@BrandonMcCurry999 The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

Your intuition is bringing you very close to the truth. If you want to find the details, just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@@valentinmalinov8424 ok, thanks. i will

The photon is such a weird little critter. It's like the universe tries to trick us with a "We think we have it worked out, then the photon gotcha gets thrown in" lol That little photon has cost me endless hours of my life lol

That’s what she…