Stop fishing for compliments. Use of "theory's" in this context is wrong. Start with learning the basics of grammer first. Thanks to joy for correcting my typo.

First of all, how dare you talk #$^! to a young man enjoying physics content. Absolutely pathetic. Get lost. @@reimannx33

2nd, keep it up man. I'm 39 and have been teaching myself physics for over 10 years now. I would suggest that you keep exposing yourself to the highest level content you can sit through, and don't shy away from looking at the math any time it's shown, even if you don't know what it all means at first. I can tell you for a fact that these subjects start to really take shape in your mind over time either way, and it is possible to even get intuitive understandings for aspects of the math over time, with or without the ability to do a calculus problem on paper. But if you ever feel the desire to jump into the math, don't let anything hold you back. Especially grumpy idiots like ^ that guy with a chronic case of backpfeifengesicht, no doubt. (probably also don't start with string theory though, in terms of math, lol)

Oh yea, and something that helped me a LOT. Whenever you hear a statement that creates a question in your mind, or you don't understand something but you are able to formulate that confusion into the form of a question, ---- write it down! ---- You will be shocked at how often and quickly those questions get answered over time, if you have the wherewithal to jot them down or at least ask them out loud when they pop up. Sometimes I can be struggling with a concept or a line that a physicist says that throws me, for an hour, and then within 60 seconds of writing it down, my brain clicks and says "you already know the answer to this one, you just forgot x y z aspect of it" or "don't you remember so and so was explaining this in that video you saw 3 weeks ago, go find it." It's also educational fun to look back at your own questions from 1 year ago, 2 years ago, and you will realize just how much more interesting they have become over time, as you add to your base level knowledge.

@@pseudocalmYou are a rambling, over the hill, "pseudo-physics" student rolling in past failures, and trying to convince self that denial is the best strategy. Quite the comic.

Hard to imagine anyone doing a better job of this interview.

You mean these nonsense and unproven bogus speculations? None of what they are discussing has been proven in a lab. Green is an outspoken atheist, who’s gone on public record stating how he sees no place for God , Christ & the Bible being taught in public classroom. So why should be allow you Brian’s “theories” to be taught as fact? Atheism is being taught as standard religion in the classroom today, where young students are brainwashed into such concepts like “big bang” -A magical explosion which came from nothing, or that all humans are just holographs on a giant TV screen, or how we should spend our time workshopping men like Richard Hawkins, instead of Christ. (Richard Hawkins publicly stated how he wishes for the cross on the Bible to be replaced with a picture of himself… let that sink in for a second…)

do you want to help me find a reason to discredit an idea to unify gravity. I have had no luck finding one yet. so far everything fits.

​@@atticuswalker8970Einstein's theory of gravity is just not consistent with quantum mechanics. And can't be made most probably because the underlying principles in both the theories are radically different.

@@Blue-ik8ij but the observations as fact. do support most of the current theory. so people have faith in them. forget to stay objective. refuse to consider my idea that fits everything we can observe.

@@Blue-ik8ij I can tell you how it works and you can reject it on principle. but not with reason or observable fact. odds are you will just stop trying to use faith to persuade me. or just not respond out of fear of feeling stupid if you are wrong. call me stupid. like Republicans do. when I am just trying to help

I'm not sure how to interpret your question, so I'll just mention some impressions strengthened by the interview. I've come to regard quantum to cosmic phenomena as ubiquitously emergent experience of boundlessly evolving complexity. In other words, probabilistic quarks underlie everything from energetic potential to materialization hosting wildest imaginings. Both his ADS/CFT equivalence and the holographically entangling ER = EPR realization point to this. Juan's elucidation of complexifying black holes strikes me as vividly describing ubiquitously emergent quarks, underlying all of perception. Universal emergence is detectable as the forces of nature. Among them gravity, readily observable in macroscopic specificity, attenuates to undetectability at probabilistic quantum scale. The holographic imagery inspires a lucid vision of the emergence of the evolving complexity of universal experience. Tom Murphy

I'm with you! These World Science Festival videos are educational and many are exciting to learn from. You do not have to have the "mathematical formalism" to learn from this particular video. That's the point.

@@EdruezziHow quaint of you, or is it simply pure narcissism?.

Well said. But that's the price of anonymity.

HI @Robinson9714 ! What do think of my idea? Gravity = The Spaceless and Timeless Vacuum Energy State of Matter!!! :)

Both Scientist are awesome Thank you

@@brendawilliams8062 I absolutely concur

Get out of here ...

Technically, you learned it after him. You might have learned it at an earlier age, but without time travel you did not learn it before him.

Science is defined new mythology. Mathematics formula the mantras.

So, as an axiomatic starting point, one might propose two experimentally differentiable symbols A, B such that when measured dA*dB>=c, where c is some constant. c represents an admission of some amount of unknowability, however small in comparison to the scales of A and B. I think this admission of a non zero c in physical logic is essential to engaging in the most precise, comprehensive scientific reasoning. I suppose the idea I'm playing with is that Heisenberg's insights have deep metaphysical meaning - it gets to the heart of observability, which is critical to experimental verification, and quantitative differentiability, or the ability to be interpreted. In a way, it describes science as a game of chasing a will o' the wisp of unknowability. It's the paths described by the chase that are the product of this activity. Catching a will o' the wisp was never going to happen, that wasn't the point. We knew it was this kind of game when we started, or else it would have been a solved mathematical problem, instead of a scientific problem.

"Nature has always been proven to be simpler to what we believe it is" - uhhhhh... quantum superposition/fluctuations, wave-particle duality, dark energy, chaos theory, epigenetics, consciousness... what comparable theories are these concepts "simpler than"?

Actually, if you take my words the other way - if you define a zero-gravity isosurface, then, if I am correct, it proves that your projection on it with relativistic math used as a projection function will eliminate gravity, keeping everything else /in tact/.

it is insane to think *anyone* could get that impression from this.. also, string theory *is* fantastic...

@@Intact-gf5zz Someone could get that impression. That impression does not make me love these men less. More the opposite.

Each twin traveled a different interval of 4D spacetime between the departure and reunion -- where and when they are both at the same location in spacetime. (They traveled a different distance in time basically.) That's always the answer to these so-called "Twin Paradox" scenarios. In your question, _somebody_ needs to turn around. (At least one twin, but this still works if both turn around after different amounts of time and distance.) If nobody turns around, the twins will drift apart forever and never meet again. Two straight lines can only intersect once in a flat manifold. You need a closed path, like a triangle. Two sides of a triangle are always longer than the third side. One of the twins travels along one side of the spacetime triangle, and the other twin travels along two sides of the spacetime triangle. These are different amounts of time and space, so each twin's own clock counts a different number of seconds between their departure and reunion. To travel along two sides of a triangle, each side of this triangle represents an inertial reference frame if I didn't already mention this, that twin needs to change inertial reference frames. For a material object, a change in velocity is acceleration. There you go. One twin accelerated to turn around, and the other didn't. That breaks the symmetry. You can also do this with triplets rather than twins, have everyone stay on inertial paths, and then each sibling synchronizes their clocks when they cross paths, and you will still get the same differences in the amount of elapsed time when comparing everyone's clocks to each other.