What's wrong with that?

Criticism is a valid form of discourse. If you see something you think is wrong, you can point it out.

@@ian_b he’s just making assertions. Its not actually constructive, valid criticism with logical arguments or supporting evidence.

@@joshhastey9051 You mean like you just did?

@Walter Morris Its normal, since Newton physics dont change for 300 years, then Einstein and Quantum mechanics , now I expect até least 200 years of more of the same until the next great Discovery

which part of the video did he mention the isospin?

@@longhoacaophuc8293 1:57

Your accidence is wanting: check the declension of the verb in your relative clause (the comma preceding the pronoun is superflopus, by the way.) Details are important in syntax as well as in accidence- without them there is no language, no communication. Not unlike science, really.

@@opabinnier What is accidence?

@@arnoldbr8418 Syntax is how words are put together to form meaningful utterances: different languages of course have different conventions; Accidence is analysis at a finer resolution: how individual words mutate to express number, person, tense, case, voice, mood... chid/children, he/him/his, sing/sang/sung, go/goes/went... erc.

@@arnoldbr8418 she refers to the difference of ,do‘ and ,does‘ in her superfluous comment

@@opabinnier Hello, how have you been doing?

It seems to be that its more likely to turn out to be simplistic than complicated. Complexity decreases the likelihood of repetition. Since reality itself is built on repetition and expected results it is suggestive that simplicity is the fundamental structure. We see most structures are emergent due to core properties and complexity decreases the probability that emergence could possibly take place. One particle out of place could destroy an emergent structure.

And our brains evolutionary guesswork model of it very simple. We do try to fit it all in to a cosmic game of football with these particles whatever they are.

I am sure you will find enough about my ideas in case you are interested. Unfortunately, when scrutinized the details, there is not much that remains from the "fantastic accuracy" everybody is parroting, I recommend, e.g. books by Pickering or Taubes. I have tremendous respect for important contributions to physics, but respect is not for free in this channel.

@@TheMachian Have you ever stopped to think that maybe you and your community of self-proclaimed free thinkers outside of the physics mainstream uncorrupted by “groupthink” actually got it wrong? It seems that you are extremely far down the rabbit hole so that you cannot meaningfully engage with anyone uttering a different opinion.

does not make sense!

You mean, you have no clue what he's talking about, but you like watching a dog fight.

@@dmitryshusterman9494 I know exactly what he is talking about idk where ya got that from what I said and I presume you're someone who would enjoy watching dogs fight since you smelled blood simply because the fellow above posted a negative reply so you thought you would as well LOL. Go ahead my dude, project some more about how you don't understand what Penrose is saying and would rather just fight.

@@inkland2003 What don't make sense? It means currently physics has a problem where most would simply tow the line instead of pushing the envelop like Penrose is more then willing to do. We have a SERIOUS problem. We act like we got it almost entirely figured out when the reality is our best Physics only accounts for less then 5% of all matter and energy in the Universe. We have attempted to understand this using known physics for about 100 years almost and yet we have gotten no closer to understanding WTF is going on. No one wants to throw radical new ideas out because there are HUGE incentives not to. Thats a shame.

I agree with you, Penrose is definitely one of the few that still seems to care about the fundamental problems.

Arguments about the Standard Model will never be published in “Peer Reviewed” journals. Just the claim that there is something wrong with the Standard Model will be rejected out of hand. It is like questioning “Jesus” historicity at a Christian institution. Jesus’ historicity is well established and all “expert”s (many of whom are Christian) agree. Right? . The real question is what is the evidence supporting Jesus to be historical. What is the evidence supporting the Standard Model. I think he raises some good questions about fundamental physics. These are just questions and quite frankly, other scientists have raised questions about the SM. Besides, SM has no gravity and a ton of constants and it is a real mess. Many physicists agree....who knows? Maybe its how the Universe works. I doubt it.. is it so bad to raise questions and let your opinion known? Someday, some young kid may watch this video and ask himself, why is this guy so critical of the SM? Should he be critical?

@@pedrosura nop, science is not like politics or freaking religions, there is no world conspiracy about the standart model

@@BRunoAWAY The point about this video, is not that it is a conspiracy, but that it is bad Science.

@@pedrosura its not bad science, its grow Man physics, not child estetic driven nonsense

@@pedrosura physics is hard and sometimes ugly and dirty, this Guy from this Channel is actually a crybaby

I have asked the same question for years. No one answers it. Whose clock was running during inflation?

Curious. Feel free to contact me via ChannelInfo

what happened

@@flyingspaghettimonster2925 somebody shot him! crime- overhyped opinion!

@@flyingspaghettimonster2925 noone has seen Matthew ever after...

@@sergeysmyshlyaev9716 haha 😆

He failed high school😂😂😂😂😂😂

Yes those are the important questions. Fancier school == more correct.

medium.com/@aunzicker/five-years-of-gravitational-waves-a-chronicle-of-strange-coincidences-7d22be19319d

@@TheMachian thank you I appreciate you, I really do!

The word “spokesperson” is universally used in large collaborations as a synonym for “group leader”. It’s not a personal preference of an individual.

​@@rubenanthonymartinez7034 Have you considered doing any science writing yourself?

That is precisely the superficial view that needs to be challenged.

@@TheMachian What is incorrect about my statement? He also predicted the energy required to make gravity fit a unified theory in the '70s and three different studies confirmed his prediction since 2000. 10,000 trillion times more energy than we can produce. Your use of the word "superficial" with no other statement of fact is useless, other than an attempt to magically create some presumed authority. Didn't work. No offense.

@@TheMachian What superficial is your series of videos. Look up the one on Bohr. You could not simplify the units of angular momentum . That is superficial knowledge.

We're they? Or was the data manipulated to show the numbers he predicted? Do you have a massive particle accelerator to independently verify. Whole atoms have been falsely claimed to be discovered until others couldn't find them with the same experiment

@@SunShine-xc6dh Your first word is bastardized. Incorrect. "Were" is a four letter word and it is beyond your understanding. They FOUND THE PARTICLES in the Atlas detector and they are listed on the standard model of particle physics. Your last sentence is a fabrication and is also incorrect. What can I learn from you?

Salam was at Imperial when I was there and generally held in very high regard. Certainly in higher regard than Gilbert & Sullivan; do try Purcell or the later Handel works, or Britten if you want the best of the British operatic repertoire.

Your argument about the semantics of "charged/neutral weak currents" is just plain silly. Is that all you can come up with as a criticism? It's empty of any valid points. Just pure empty rhetoric.

Tree's/plants . . the early terra formers for life on Earth , are double layer plasma's in cold mode now , that hold the dendritic arc mode form that formed them , above ground as well as below immediate . . from a thunderbolt electric

@@benwinter2420 Electricity alone wont stand for long same as plasma, to make sense the 4 forces must be at play not other way.

@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace What four forces

@@benwinter2420 Gravitational,electromagnetic, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force.

@@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace You are describing the EUT . . electric

The point is that from standard model or string theory you don't get the masses of the particles as a result. You need to use experiments to fix the coupling with the highs field. I saw this because I have a master degree in theoretical physics and I found it very bad to see. I think we should go back to the basis.

@Lovely Douche Its an over convoluted mess of imaginary hypotheticals

Weinstein is a smart guy, yet I think he hasn't got to the bottom of the problem yet. Physics needs to be reconstructed from around 1930.

@@TheMachian I don't think he quite has it, either, but I like looking at these GUTs and TOEs; he has a very convoluted way of describing things that make it nearly incomprehensible, but his idea is one that I feel like I can actually follow and get some real sense out of. The difference between Geometers and Astronomers: Astronomers have to take smudges and smears and specks from across the universe and study them and describe them competently and bring them down to Earth so that everybody can see and understand. Geometers take the basic structures of reality and make them as abstract and convoluted as possible to challenge other geometers to decode their formulae, with no will to make anything plain or simple for the general public.

from the small to the big stive went and helped to form the standard model but they cant match the small with the big not the standard model not the atom theory show gravity so both are a quadruped standing in 3 legs so then how could they make sence when both models hardly stand in place?

I do not know what you mean by "binary mechanics" but I have general doubts whether the concept of "quantization" is a useful one. The role of h in nature is still not clear at all.

How can any one quantize space since it is not a thing as well time? energy might be a thing, to me matter may change from one state to another so creating turbulance that could be seen as energy, lets say gasoline in liquid state in a gas car when it changes from liquid to gaseous way to fast might move the piston but maybe is not energy what moves the piston but the heat from the change of state. the above is my guess nothing more.

"Have you considered full quantization of space, time and energy, as implemented in binary mechanics?" I bet you smoke pot.

That's a separate, funny story, but I would not consider them physicists worth mentioning.

@@TheMachian good for a schadenfreude laugh maybe-someone asked what happened before the big bang I said bogspiracy-

I think the slide at 10:20 pretty much justifies it calling a mess. If you want a more detailed discussion, you will find it here: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249 But since you appear to be easily offended by such critique, i do not really recommend it..

I'm not offended. I'm just expressing my criticism because I was given a link to this video by someone who said that you "shredded" the Standard Model, but I see know shredding or debunking here. I see no flaws of the Standard model pointed out and/or corrected here. You don't say how it's wrong, why it's wrong, what it gets wrong and how to correct it. I can't make out the small letters of the slide at the marked time stamp, but it just seems like it's describing the Standard Model rather than debunking it. The Standard Model has been mathematically predicted and empirically verified. It's very accurate in its predictions and I think you should know that already because of your backround. It works really well so far. It's predictions so far are very accurate and match our observations.

@@TheMachian, I can't make out what that slide says well, but it kind of seems like it explains thes "unexplains parameters" you're talking about.

Ok. That's what could be done in 15 mins: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrR_lLymkqfco30.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rqqIisidyLm2eGg.html. As I said, I wrote in more detail elsewhere. However, if all the complication and arbitraryness of the SM has never raised any doubts in you, I don't think you are ready to digest such a fundamental criticism. I recommend a historical approach, such as the book by Andrew Pickering "Constructing Quarks". Also David Lindley's "the End of Physics" is a good start.

I doubt he is interesting enough even for this series.

@@TheMachian lol fair enough but he did spend a lot of time popularizing string theory and got a whole generation of kids like me thinking it was the next big thing before I learned about Popper and Kuhn and learned to think critically about falsifiability

If you cannot stand critique, science is not for you.

I contest that this was a genuine prediction, rather expecting the next lamppost in the street... I recommend Pickering's book who dissects these claims.

@@TheMachian Yeah, I see your point.

The matter-antimatter time reversal idea is not bad I think. Goes back to Feynman (not appealing to his authority, but in that case I agree with him).

@@TheMachian Maybe we can talk some day. Thanks for your reply.

Who got to a dead end as it looks are the late physics with out a way to go and they look not wiling to change direction so what can we aspect of them?

You can contribute in some very basic philosophy of physics,to understand or modify the physics theory rather than thinking of getting famous, you can really do

What math? He just says that all physicists are idiots. No math here.

Any frame that might try to answear how the cosmos work must to have levels just like light-matter other wise it will make no sense.

Whether Weinberg's humility was true or fake I don't know. I just quoted something from him I did not dislike.

Thanks again for this interesting personal view.

Weinberg approaches physics with the mind of an accountant. The unknown deep underlying laws of physics manifest behaviors that can be categorized into groups. People can play with the groups and get PhDs but as Weinberg admits , real understanding is yet to be discovered.

This is a misquote of what Weinberg actually wrote (on the 6th page) of his essay "Without God" included in the book, where he was talking about the development of Science in the Muslim world. He first noted that there are Muslim scientists in the western world who have made great contributions especially the co-recipient of his Nobel prize, Abdus Salam, but he noted that in a 2002 survey in Nature reported that the Islamic world produced excellence in just 3 scientific applications: desalination, falconry and camel breeding, which is something that Muslim world itself recognizes requires improvement. The citation was made in a particular context examining the utility of religion and inspiring science, but Schlesinger has both garbled the quote and mangled the context. As for why Weinberg was allegedly reluctant to sign your book, I imagine that it's because he considered it strange to be randomly approached by a grown man and asked for his autograph, akin to a 12 year old meeting the shortstop of the Boston Red Sox. I'm surprised Dr. Unzicker didn't fact check this misrepresentation, then again, I guess he can't run down every comment made by every crank

His original research is not bad science. Yes, he parrots a lot, but he is not enough of a heavyweight in this respect.

DIE SCHEU DER PHYSIK VOR DER GANZHEIT Stell dir vor es gäbe etwas in der Elemente-Natur das sich -erstreckt- wie furchtbar! Es wird verzweifelt gestritten darüber wie groß nun ein Atom sei, es geht um nichts geringeres als der Dritten zahl hinterm Komma. Dabei streiten diese aber nur über jenen Elektronenring um den winzigen Kern. Also erstreckt sich dort auch nichts, sondern flottet ein Pünktchen im Keis herum. Viel tiefer in der Winzigkeit, im Kern, dort endlich behaupten diese Gelehrten dass sich dort tatsächlich endlich was -erstrecken- würde. Dort wären die Quarks zuhause, deren Kraftfelder sich endlich als ausgedehnte Wölkchen präsentieren dürfen. Auf solche Pünktchen- Fanatiker haut die Natur hemmungslos drauf und demonstriert Gleichzeitigkeit auf weiteste Entfernungen. An Ausreden nicht verlegen wird argumentiert dass dort aber keinesfalls Information übertragen werden würde, denn das verbietet Einsteins Lichtgeschwindigkeits Dogma. Die Natur interessiert sich aber nicht für Information, was auch immer damit gemeint sein könnte, sie reagiert halt Zeitgleich an entfernten Orten, womit bewiesen ist dass sich eine Einheit durchaus erstrecken kann, denn sie hat dieslbe eine information auf der gesamten Länge der Ausdehnung an beliebig vilen Stellen auf diese Linie vorliegen. Das ist magie pur, ohne allen zweifel. Es ist aber unbedingt in der Natur erforderlich, damit diese um überhaupt etwas individuelles, eigenständiges hervorbringt, welches wirkungen auf anderes haben kann. Denn Pünktchen treffen sich nie und von all jenen päckchen die die teilchenphysik verschicken will, ist werder geklärt wie sich solche päckchen ablösen sollten, noch wie diese eingefangen werden sollen. Eine entscheidenden Vorteil hat diese Päckchen verschick Modell, es kann berechnet werden, ohne eine 3-D-Darstellung präsentieren zu müssen, zu welcher die Physiker der Vergangenheit ohne Computeranimation gar nicht in der Lage waren. Was sich erstreckt und nicht nur hin- und her wetzt, das ist seiende Ganzheit und sonst gar nichts. Beim Rennen vom Hase gegen den Igel, dort gewinnt immer der Igel, denn der ist am Start genauso vorhanden wie am Ziel. Ein solches Rennen könnte auch mit Adler gegen Schlange veranstaltet werden. Die Rennstrecke ist nur 10 Meter lang und die Starter dürfen mit ihrem Ende an die Startlinie heranrücken. Nun ist die Schlange aber 11 Meter lang und befindet sich somit am Start- sowie am Ziel zugleich. Gewonnen! Ohne auch nur einen einzigen Schritt gemacht zu haben. Mit Ganzheit muss aber in der Natur gerechnet werden, sie kann ja nichts anderes als da sein, tut ja ansonsten gar nichts, ist halt so passiv, so dass deren Kinderschar ihr aus dem Gesicht geschnitten sein muss und selber auch von völlig ganzheitlichem Wesens sein müssen. Auch wenn diese regungslos verharren und so ebenfalls genauso am Start lagern, wie am Ziel schon vorhanden sind. Sie sind ungeboren und somit auch alterslos. Ewig jung bleibend, aber zugleich auch ewig alt. Ganzheit ist was für Philosophen, aber die wurden ja aus der Naturwissenschaft hinauskomplimentiert, oder trefflicher, als hoffnungslos naive Naturromantiker abgetan. Seither geht über allen Wipfeln der Punk ab und ist keine Ruh.

THE SHYNESS OF PHYSICS BEFORE THE WHOLENESS Imagine there would be something in the element-nature which -extends- how terrible! It is argued desperately about how big an atom is, it is about nothing less than the third number behind the decimal point. However, they argue only about that electron ring around the tiny nucleus. So nothing extends there, but a dot floats around in the nucleus. Much deeper in the tininess, in the nucleus, there finally these scholars claim that there actually finally something would -extend-. There the quarks would be at home, whose force fields may present themselves finally as extended little clouds. Nature hits on such dot fanatics without restraint and demonstrates simultaneity on farthest distances. Not at a loss for excuses it is argued that information would not be transferred there under any circumstances, because Einstein's dogma of the speed of light forbids it. But the nature is not interested in information, whatever could be meant with it, it reacts just at the same time at distant places, with what is proved that a unit can extend absolutely, because it has this information on the whole length of the extension at arbitrarily many places on this line. This is pure magic, without any doubt. But it is absolutely necessary in the nature, so that this at all brings forth something individual, independent, which can have effects on other. Because small dots never meet and from all those packages which the particle physics wants to send, it is neither clarified how such packages should detach themselves, nor how these should be caught. A decisive advantage has this package sending model, it can be calculated without having to present a 3-D representation, to which the physicists of the past were not able at all without computer animation. What extends and does not only scurry back and forth, that is being wholeness and nothing else. At the race of the hare against the hedgehog, there the hedgehog always wins, because he is present at the start just as at the finish. Such a race could also be organized with eagle against snake. The race track is only 10 meters long and the starters are allowed to approach the starting line with their end. But now the snake is 11 meters long and is therefore at the start as well as the finish line at the same time. Won! Without having taken even a single step. With wholeness, however, must be reckoned in the nature, she can be nothing else than there, does otherwise nothing at all, is just so passive, so that her child crowd must be cut from her face and must be also of completely holistic being. Even if these remain motionless and so likewise just as at the start camp, as at the goal are already present. They are unborn and therefore also ageless. Eternally young remaining, but at the same time also eternally old. Wholeness is something for philosophers, but they were complimented out of natural science, or more aptly, dismissed as hopelessly naive nature romantics. Since then the punk goes off over all treetops and is no rest.

Einstein & Weinberg & Hollywood etc are dullard money lender clan . . buck stupid due to inbreeding their bible is a joke . . all efforts by them turn to shit

He predicted three new particles that were confirmed. Is that good enough for you?

@@dmitryshusterman9494 We found resonances that have never been observed to do what he claimed and more importantly can't do it because they are too short lived and too short ranged, and can't come from nucleons without violating conservative of energy.

starbing with not consistent brain food?

Agree on stings, but neutral currents are not much better. I recommend Pickering's book.

Standard model has nothing to do with inflation, dude

Do not read rubbish

Don't waste time, study physics instead

@@gilgameshuvakhshatara9926 LOL. The cult members make me want to read more dissidents, not less.

Modern Physics is is like a woman putting the make-up on. In trying to cover all the patches (due to its fabulous dreams) the final result is something which has nothing to do with reality. Something amorphous and arbitrary.

R u aware that besides being famous TV host,Carl Sagan was in fact a very very weak physicist? He got countless times refuted on many of his conjectures like:Iraqis burning oil wells in Kuwait and triggering the next ice age or something like that! He never ever done a real physics,and even when it did as post-grad his performances were bellow average! There was a recent interview with Sheldon Glashow in which he(probably unintentionaly as he is quite old),recalled how young Sagan which at the time was under NASA grant was running them all the time and asking them to solve his "problems" as he was rather innept at math.

@@stormtrooper9404 Sagan was a part of the rabid anti science clique main stream that vicious & underhanded attacked Immanuel Velikovsky. . who has been proven correct as our correct can be

Not bad. Go and study epicycles next.

@Lovely Douche I could list several aspects that are "wrong" but the main point will be that with the more adequate theory the better benefits for the whole humanity not just for some. So I will quote the answer from Unzicker him self "if you are happy with the epicicles let it be" ✌

Some how i have come to a conclusion that positive, negative and neutral are just a difference of heat, lets say that plasma is the neutral part just like stars are to me made of plasma, the light that stars emmite is the negative or hot state, this hot light sooner or latter will be refracted back by the systems electromagnetism and will return in cold state. We may see in somany picture that realy matter and light get reffacted back just like the quasars light that is one of the strongests,

Well, I agree :-) Consider reading "The Mathematical Reality- why Space and Time are an Illusion"

@@TheMachian Hi there, question, in your opinion its possible individual particles have a halo of darkmatter like galáxies have? Or darkmatter exist in the void between nucleos of an atom and the electrons? All the best from Portugal

@@nunomaroco583 I don't think that's a promising approach. Dm is just a name for sth we do not unsertand in galaxy dynamics. I recommend the book by Robert Sanders.

@@TheMachian Thank you for your recommendation.

@@TheMachian Thanks for answer, im just a curiose, not an expert, can you give me your opinion about Hawking points proposed by Mr.Roger Penrose, in CMB. Realy interessant Conformal Cosmology Constant.

Are u sure about what you write.

@@kamrupexpress I am as sure as one can be about personal claims. May I know why you ask?

I am a professional mathematician with a love for physics. Do you think what Dr Unzicker claims. Does he mathematically prove his claims. It is not so easy to say that Weinberg was a joke. You need to validate your points mathematically or through evidence. Has he done that and published his results. Do educate me on this.

@@kamrupexpress I don't have the expertise to educate you on the matter, as I am like you, a mathematician with an enthusiasm for physics. But now I think I better understand your previous question. The reason I said what did in my first comment is my observation of a high degree of healthy scientific skepticism in Unzicker that I find fundamentally lacking in public-facing physics -particularly from public theoreticians such as Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, and the like. To be sure, they are all brilliant, but it seems to me that they, along with all those in their school of thought, are not doing physics because the grand theories they posit are fundamentally not falsifiable. And this is something that troubled me deeply as a high school student, and at just the time when I needed to make the decision between being a mathematician or a physicist. I hoped that someday some-one, or some group of individuals, much smarter than myself would finally start a new revolution in physics, and that if this came to pass, perhaps I could best serve the revolution as a mathematician, and until then, I would wrestle with my own questions in pure number theory, metamathematics, and algebraic topology. All that said, as a boy, my father had nurtured a passion in me for science and the method of experimentation. I will never forget him saying to me as a kindergartener "the scientific method is very important; you should memorize each step; and I will help you do experiments." That was all the encouragement required to inspire in me a love for physics. Yet, my father was a mathematician, so his own love for mathematics was passed on to me (at times to his chagrin). Thus, I followed in his professional path. I do not regret this choice, as I love mathematics, but perhaps with the right direction or nurturing of Unzicker's skepticism, I might've made a better physicist than mathematician.

Great to know you. I am a Professor of Mathematics in fact I am completely obsessed with convexity

Most of those alive around since 1990 are indeed.

@@TheMachian yes, sir, I completely agree! Btw, your videos are fantastic. I love every one of them.

Bear in mind that Einstein, Schrödinger, Dirac etc considered themselves philosophers, albeit trained with the experimental method. There is good reason for why I list some guys as "overhyped". Compared to the geniuses in the early 10th century, they have achieved nothing.