RIP to a great mind 😢

He gave until the end, a great man, a great life. And yes he will be missed.

😢♥️

Perhaps there is no death in theory.

that one is surely of more that 10-12 years ago

I think it's more from a conceptual POV that they're going to make something that's typically hard to understand (blurry) and make it clearer. From a purely aesthetic POV a fade in from black might look better though.

Isn't it awesome even Newton could be wrong. Science: it works, bitches ; - )

Taking quotes from smart people out of their context is not a very smart idea. Now you know less than before, when you didn't even start thinking about these questions. Atoms are plasma like, but particles doesn't revolve around nucleus, nothing resembles solar system since we don't have quantum gravity theory.

@Ali Talei Many thanks for the reply to my post. In that case it means we will remain frustrated in our attempts to explain eveything (G.U.T.), until science is able to understand the function of dark energy.

String theory is just a general field of mathematical speculations, other gifts to humanity from same kind of people are big bang, inflation, black holes, gravity waves, Higgs boson,... every idea that can't be directly observed or verified by any experimental means. This is not science, it's ideology, based on convincing hypothetical models meant to bring scientific understanding closer to primitive cultures, by trying to explain how divine miracles and magic might be possible to understand in a new global mental framework.

@@xspotbox4400 I fear that at the end the only good thing we will get from the String Theory is Sheldon ....

Let’s be clear 🐰 a theory is an principle substantiated by data…however by no means proven

@Soul Seeker the orange juice merged with various food remains, giving quantum patterns as the keys are collapsing due to background stickiness

Can you derive mathematics back from 42 is the answer?

@@xspotbox4400 reason back from 42 to numbers to mathematics, unless did not understand question correctly

It Will be not too difficult to find the explanation of the Fundamental Law - It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Yes. His doctoral student John Preskill too tweeted about it.

QFT doesn't incorporate gravity. Sure, there is a versions of QFT in curved spacetime, but spacetime in QFT is always a fixed background. Steven Weinberg wrote 3 volume book named Quantum Theory of Fields. It's very complex reading. First volume with subtitle "Foundations" has 609 pages and you already need to have excellent foundation in advanced quantum mechanics and deep knowledge of mathematical and theoretical physics to be able to read it with understanding.

String Theory is indeed considered a QFT, there are many theoretical frameworks let’s call them that qualify, or meet all the requirements, for membership into group classification as a genuine QFT. You will see many skeptics and idiots these days who, with no formal training or education, simply go against string theory but mostly do so just to be different, to look smart and edgy. The fact is, they don’t understand the enterprise, or the game of theoretical physics. They can use fancy words all they want like unfalsifiability, or say that science is evidence based etc. well no shit of course it is, but that doesn’t stop THEORETICAL researchers from introducing new types of objects with various properties, throw them into toy model universes and see what happens to its logical end, that with various abstract objects equipped with certain properties and parameters which govern or restrict their behaviors, the rich structures that may naturally emerge can be studied as much as they desire. It so happens that with strings, a rich enough structure emerged that at least seemed to be able to fit gravity into a quantum mechanical framework seemingly naturally, and therefore it would be quite obvious as to why they would want to continue researching these objects, and to believe in its potential in that at the very least they may have been on some sort of right tracking of thinking. The parrots of course will say “but you can’t probe strings!” oh so since our technology is not yet able to resolve any of these objects it therefore means it’s not real science, because it cannot be tested experimentally? There is a distinction between things that cannot be tested experimentally due perhaps to insufficient technologies or as yet undiscovered strategies and ideas, and those which cannot even in PRINCIPLE be tested experimentally. A proposal for a theory which could never possibly be tested experimentally, not even indirectly, well something like that could very well be argued as a dead end. However, entire frameworks which have been constructed by talented experts within the field, which are not in principle untestable, and at the outset at a minimum seem to be not only good candidates but also steps in the right direction of thought itself in seeking answers to some problem, in this case the problem of quantum gravity, yeah there’s no way something like that could just be put aside and not explored.

Hi Valentin, I'm interested in new scientific theories and I'd like to read this book. Is it possible to download a pdf version of it on some website?

@@maciejchrapkiewicz2548 I can send you a PDF, just give me some address

If atoms could be intelligent and self-aware, why do we have so large and complicated brains?

good one !

Love it:)❤️

It actually is.

Everything is the law.

Don't be surprised! - The final theory exists! - It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

I don't believe you, prove it, give us some description of your concept, provide links to your work, or you're only yet another delusional fool.

fancy ways to say "I dunno"

Quantum electromagnetic force field.

The light globe!

Certainly not God!!!

Actually, It is reverse, When you cut a dot you will get a string which is the most fundamental and deepest basis of everything.

@@kartikjoshi1035 can you prove that....a theorem or something likes that?

We're not riding anymore; we're surfing.

The same can be said of your existence, so good luck with that vantage point

@@Robinson8491 Confused, if not inapplicable. You must be the only person here that doesn’t understand, “I think therefore I am.” That I exist is in fact the only thing I can prove.

@@lr2357 yes Descartes ruminations are the pinnacle of metaphysical reasoning. This was the time before Newton etc. I think you could say there has been some advancements in the counter reasoning. I always dislike people who say 'you can't prove it'. They remind me of the high school bullies who had no real arguments except that comment. And felt they were winning because of it. Empty retoric. Let's say I don't look at the moon. I ask you 'do you see the moon'? You say yes. I trust you, therefore I accept the moon exists without me looking at it. If you want to argue with this, you need to argue the definition of 'existing' and 'proving'. For instance, does it need to be expressed mathematically? Good luck with untangling this rhetorical jungle. Also many philosophers claim the 'I' that Descartes refers to is an illusion, as well as identity, so the I claiming to do the thinking would be an illusion. Can you prove this is not the case? Therefore Descartes conclusion is also dubious. Etcetera etcetera infinite regress Also you say you can prove you exist because you think. I don't trust your authority as an individual, as I cannot prove you exist (because like you said, it is impossible for me to prove the world exists). So your proof is only a private one for yourself; useless to me. So what is the value of your private proof to me? You could be a philosophical zombie just making statements. So for me it is impossible to prove you exist just like I can't prove the world exists. I exist according to me. But I or me could be an illusion. Pfff there is a reason why nobody likes to argue metaphysical bullies. Because in the end you get stuck in a loop I can go on for ever on this slippery slope of empty statements in reply to yours that started it

@@Robinson8491 Right. I am one of the things in the world that you can’t prove exists, Descartes or no Descartes. I have no idea what bullies saying “you can’t prove it,” would even be referring to. Having said that, I didn’t get bullied because I’m not one of the dorks.. the very dorks that turn people off of science, as nobody in their right mind would want to be associated with the kinds of kids that tend to be into science. And this is kind of my point, (speaking from the gut) people like Dawkins and Krauss are going to tell me about human consciousness when they don’t understand being human well enough to tell a joke, bust a move, talk to girls, or dress themselves. No wonder they think the universe is rigid and not self-aware-they aren’t even self aware, and they project this onto the world at large. In fact i suspect that it is this very “nerdiness” that prevents many scientists from progressing. They’ve taken us far, but lack the imagination and creativity to comprehend the very abstract, new scientific territory we’ve entered into. And this sentiment has been echoed by Frank Wilczek in the introduction of “A Beautiful Question.”

Peekaboo...

They didn't revealed the nature of death yet??

@@suatustel746 "Weinberg died on July 23, 2021, at age 88, at a hospital in Austin, where he had been treated for several weeks" - from Wiki.

Yes, that was just speculation. If you are interested to know the final theory, you can find it in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Wow, a lot of common points with my perception. Thanks.

That's not comment, it's poetry. And a bad one, if i may say so.

Please explain it to me.

Maybe you think you can, because you experience euphoria about those problems for some reason, but you actually can't.

I want that drugs you take...

@@matusfrisik3887it's very embarrassing to think someone out there is so delusional as to think they can improve sting theory off the top of their head

Bong talk.

@@Goettel Just go troll somewhere else. You have nothing to contribute here.

You are a wise person! - The Universe really contains three physical and three non-physical components -(The Law of Physics. The Information and Consciousness) If you are interested to find the final Theory, it is in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

@@valentinmalinov8424 You guys were made for eachother.

@@Goettel have fun living in your little narrow minded delusional bubble...

Probably is exactly like that. They pretending that the final Theory does not exist! - Wrong! - Just type in Amazon books the book title - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" and You will find out the truth!

You're confused about the difference between the roots theōros and theos. To be brief, "theory" does not include any god.

Nope

It is not an illusion but is a reality. The complete geometrical diagram of the Universe you can print on your tee shirt. The theory exists - Just find the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" The diagram is there!

Illusion?

What if my t-shirt is in Size: 14 billion lights years!

Are the intellectuals steering our world in a good direction these days? I say not. So, to give them credence over an intuitive and common sense view is not high on my list. Intellectuals should be considered, obviously, but they simply do not deserve unquestioned oracle status.

English: do you speak it?

Just write what you think in your native language, if you can't improvise global English, so people can use automated translators if they're interested in your opinion.

🤡

And theists and atheists are equally annoying with their lying claims of "I know God does [or not] exist." The fact is no one knows, and a real scientist will tell you they are agnostic.

The kicker is Light and dark are one in the same.

@@S3RAVA3LM yeah!!

@@S3RAVA3LM everything is a wave - sort of. Not even the trained quantum physicists really know.

gAwD dUn iT

@@CeezGeez It was evolution what dunnit innit

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 actually yes

@@CeezGeez I dont have enough faith to believe in the unguided developement of life from non living matter to a single cell capable of reproducing itself all the way to human its a real stretch of the imagination people seem willing to believe without knowledge and understanding let alone proof its just an idea.

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 we don't know how life originated true but at least that's more honest than claiming some intelligent mind was behind it all. There's absolutely no proof of a 'god' because it's all faith and emotionally based.

There is such a theory. It is in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

Big brain 🥴