It's a fun one to think about. You can think about how many meters into the future something will happen. (Spoiler, it's a uselessly-long number). Or how many meters long you are in time. (I'm 2.71e17 meters far along my total length, which should be about 7.8e17 meters in total. Or one thing to think about is that you are ALWAYS travelling at C. Everything is travelling at C. It's just that the slower it travels in space, the faster it travels in time.

Sure, but that just reframes the question to be "why does the vacuum have exactly that resistance"? The problem is your last phrase - "which we have measured". There is no theoretical basis for these values. Its just what the universe gave us and we have no idea why that's any deeper than the anthropic principle ("if they were much different, we wouldn't be here"). But that's not terribly satisfying either since we don't _know_ we wouldn't be here. We know whatever was here would not be exactly like humans with near certainty, but we can't really say for sure (beyond some extremes like "matter doesn't form") that "we" wouldn't be some other type of intelligent life that evolved in some other universe with other values for those constants pondering the same question about their own measurements. String theory gained such high esteem because it _did_ provide a theoretical basis for these constants. In string theory there is really only one "constant" you have to choose - the specific structure of the Calabi-Yau manifold that defines the universe. Unfortunately while it reduces the number of constants to one, that one constant also has an absurd range - on the order of 10^500 possibilities - and so far nobody's come up with a way to even know which of those possibilities corresponds to our universe, never mind trying to figure out _why_ that specific one happened to be chosen. The intractability of that problem is (one of) the reasons string theory has kind of lost prominence over the past 20 years (though the biggest reason still remains its inability to be tested, but I suspect if ST is even close to correct we'll be able to come up with a test long before we sort out the manifold issue.. not that my guess is particularly educated in this instance, just the feeling I get about the relative difficulty of the two problems).

I should say that this is more of a symptom than a source of the problem itself. The reason why the two don't work together is actually much deeper. If you want to look into it, it has to do with the fact that general relativity in "non-renormalizable" when we try to quantize it. The idea is that when we take certain classical fields and turn them into quantum fields, certain situations come up and you get things going to infinity. a renormalizable theory just means that we can patch these infinities and still have something meaningful. When we try to quantize the gravitational field, this whole process breaks down and these infinities are unfixable, so we get answers that don't make sense.

Thanks! I appreciate it!

Lol glad you enjoyed the video, man

I was laughing so hard at that I nearly choked

I haven't ever seen that, no. But good lord that sounds horrifying. Glad you enjoyed it!

@@zapphysics Yep we use once a US physics book it was fun :P

Lol I have no idea why a lot of people don't justify their use of natural units. I had always heard "it's so we don't have to drag constants around everywhere" but I agree, just throwing them away didn't feel right. Then I heard Leonard Susskind use this argument and it all made sense.

Intelligent design is a theory.

@@narfwhals7843 Darwinian evolution is an old theory, quickly debunked by modern microbiology. Smh, Honest.

@@honestarizona4301 Yes, darwinian evolution is a theory as well. Darwins original proposal was crude and the modern version, also a theory, fits the data extremely well. Intelligent Design is also a theory.

@@narfwhals7843 Oh Really Narf??? The 3 Billion base pairs of human DNA when broken down from nibbles to binary, takes at least 78 MILLION lines of code just to make the blueprint. RANDOM??? And if you're off by just one digit, you have jello, not life. ACCIDENT???? Add to this, our lack of understanding on morphogenesis and the critical necessity of our human biome consisting of at least 70 TRILLION living cells of which only 30 trillion have your DNA. The rest live on you and in you with their own DNA. AND, if you don't have them, you won't live long. Hmmm. And don't forget, we now know, your DNA has genes for all colors of hair and skin, it's just a question of what is active. SO, just these facts alone make it super difficult to believe you are a random accident. So much so it makes Darwinian theory sound like a joke. Heck even Stephen Hawking gave up on evolution before his death and speculated PANSPERMIA was the reason for life. Not to mention YOU, yourself, said his theory is changing over time. Creation doesn't and you've got a good example in the development of A.I. You can't just throw a few one's and zero's into a bucket and release it on the net, hoping it will turn into A.I. that is soooo silly. There has to be a designer or two or three. Nope Narf, what your belief really spells out, is that you'll do anything to avoid the truth so you can keep on keeping on, living your life how you want to live it with no accountability. Many in modern science want so badly for it to not be true, they dismiss any knowledge supporting creation in any way and cling to false beliefs to maintain the status quo. TRUE scientific study applies to ALL, not just cherry picked theories standing against the truth/GOD. Because the reality is, if you do have a creator, it changes everything for you. These false beliefs make it easier you to justify how you want to live. Truth is truth. Honest.

@@honestarizona4301 Truth is truth, sure. We just don't know what the truth is. So we make theories to describe systems. Long term Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. There is no contradiction there. Several theories can describe the same system equally well. Evolution is _not_ random. It is a continuous change that is guided by the environment. Each individual change may be a "random" mutation, but the process is not. "There _has_ to be a designer" is just as silly. You can't just demand that. You can argue about how good a theory each is but both _are_ theories we made up to describe the system. You'll also note that I have made no mention of my personal beliefs. But "These false beliefs make it easier you to justify how you want to live." applies equally well to all religions.