why 496? and im sorry i just dont believe that all life and everything that has ever existed or still exists is only made up of 4 forces. i believe the string part because in order for matter to exist, you need infinite amounts of energy that fit into the smallest subparticles. but in no way do those 4 laws cover everything. synapses in the brain? love? emotion? consciousness? there are so many things these scientists overlook. try to fit those things into one of the 4, and it makes no sense.
@AcousticDude17 love, emotion, consciousness, has nothing to do with this, that is just humain perspecive, is no love in Atoms..so you so wrong make me laugh hahaha.. and yes it make sense, so much. but you dont!
@pulsare21 do you even know how to speak proper english? i feel like im talking to an asian immigrant or a child. Yes, those are all separate functions, but if you say that the universe is described in "4 forces", then technically, youre saying that anything having to do with emotion, consciousness, or anything like that HAS to fit within those laws. which makes no fucking sense because how are you gonna describe a synapse, or being embarassed from tripping in public based on those 4? you cant
@AcousticDude17 No i said Human emothions have nothing to do with Atoms and particuls and energy. thats only a Human thing. you seam to mean that scientists overlook that part, thats why i said that.
@AcousticDude17 lol? These 4 forces describe how our universe works, not how something as inconsequential as emotions work. Here is a reality check. Everything you think and know is within your brain. Your brain is made of cells that are made of molecules and atoms. Every change in your brain is a consequence of a chemical or electrical reaction (actually its both if you study the brain cell). So, actually, in a way, these 4 forces in nature do describe everything.
The problem being is that in order to see strings, we would need a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way Galaxy so seeing an actual string Is very ulikely
Why do we even need a theory of everything? We know now that the world of the big and the world of the small behave as polar opposites. So why would both worlds share the same laws?
@LapisGarter because both the very big and the very small coexist in the same universe, which operates under a certain set of laws, so even though different forces apply in different scales, essentially all these forces / objects share the same universe with no physical boundry between them. it's just a matter of how far / close you're looking at things.
Don't forget that there are at least predicted objects that are microscopic in size while having at least multiple stellar masses, i.e. black holes. As far as I know, they're likely to exist, similar objects were observed, and the current forms of these laws are incompatible. The same goes for the first moments of the universe's existence. Without a "Theory of Everything", there are unknowns in the observable, physical universe.
@Jaxuhe you're totally right, and that's why we need a comprehensive theory that can explain simultaneously the very big and the very small, not separating them at all, just adapting the one universal theory according to the object's scale or mass, because if you can have an object the size of a grain of sand with a huge mass, is that object huge or is it tiny? under which laws should it operate? i think guys like michio kaku are going to figure this stuff out within our lifetime.
When scientists figure out that strings exists or what ever new theories that they prove to be true, they will find out that the world of the small does not stop there. It gets even smaller and smaller to infinity. The same goes with the world of the large. It gets bigger and bigger to infinity.
@bernhard12345 not right away. its still being developed. but for example the atom bomb was just a theory and fusan was also but than with experiment and as the technology came we tested it and it worked. so prity much yes and no.
@TonPappa The atombomb worked, but not very well. They needed 60 kilograms of uranium, to convert just 1 gram into energy. That does't sound like they understood it very well. Beside that it is a weapon an not the theory of everything. An atombomb can be tested, but how do you test string theory? The problem is... certain established facts in quantum mechanics, weren't facts at all. They made it look like facts to end the discussion. We need proof and until then it's just a theory.
dont you see what this means...maybe the strings arent the end of the line either..its like saying that space ends somewhere..well if it does..whats after that..there must be something..its too hard to imagine it not ending..but its too hard thinking that thats the border..there is always something smaller or bigger.etc..i dont think that the strings are the end..impossible..
we live in infinty..there is always a higher number..there is always a higher dimension..the strings cant be the end..4 forces...the strong force..the weak..gravity..and em..how are you so sure that they are only 4..i think that there are more than 4..INFINTY..
@fermerwuvu Yes there is always a higher number, but how can you prove that there is always a higher dimension, or more than 4 forces. Show me the proof you have for it.
@DukeNoche ..i dont have proof..im just sayin..but i am atleast 95% sure that they will find more..in the future..they tought that the atom was the smallest..then they split it..and they found even smaller particals..and now strings..there will be something even smaller..think about the olimpic games..every year a record is broken..like this year..usain bolt..which means that there is always something even smaller..faster..stronger..bigger..heavier..lighter..and so on..
@BlueBerryWizard yes..but theres always something new..thats how the universe works..infinty..They first tought that molecules are the tiniest thing..but then someone broke them and then the atom was the tiniest thing .but einstein split it and now quarks and strings? Please..im sure someone will find something even smaller..
Yes I love this - " I just had to continue I FELT the string theory was right!" What a beautiful paradox a scientist feeling my, my, my that would help suggest the form of emotion with physics furthermore upon such a discover do physicians feel perhaps the could understand God in it's most unspeakable form... We Ponder in Silence
look it up on the related video's box on your right side if you scroll down you'll see it goes to 17 then you'll get up to 19 or 20. it gets more and more interesting
Cliffhanger...!
brooksguillory 2 months ago
neutrinos may as well be a tackion particle with out the '' no mass '' property's , because they have now broken the speed of light !! :D
Dannafilms96 4 months ago
Craaaaaaaaaaaaazy but some how it was truuuuuuuue
Dolphidood 4 months ago
why 496? and im sorry i just dont believe that all life and everything that has ever existed or still exists is only made up of 4 forces. i believe the string part because in order for matter to exist, you need infinite amounts of energy that fit into the smallest subparticles. but in no way do those 4 laws cover everything. synapses in the brain? love? emotion? consciousness? there are so many things these scientists overlook. try to fit those things into one of the 4, and it makes no sense.
AcousticDude17 5 months ago
@AcousticDude17 love, emotion, consciousness, has nothing to do with this, that is just humain perspecive, is no love in Atoms..so you so wrong make me laugh hahaha.. and yes it make sense, so much. but you dont!
pulsare21 5 months ago
@pulsare21 do you even know how to speak proper english? i feel like im talking to an asian immigrant or a child. Yes, those are all separate functions, but if you say that the universe is described in "4 forces", then technically, youre saying that anything having to do with emotion, consciousness, or anything like that HAS to fit within those laws. which makes no fucking sense because how are you gonna describe a synapse, or being embarassed from tripping in public based on those 4? you cant
AcousticDude17 5 months ago
@AcousticDude17 No i said Human emothions have nothing to do with Atoms and particuls and energy. thats only a Human thing. you seam to mean that scientists overlook that part, thats why i said that.
and yes english not my first language.
pulsare21 5 months ago
@pulsare21
Fight ! Fight !! FIGHT !!!
I like fights between brainless hippies and asian nerds..
liveTrolling 4 months ago
@liveTrolling haha fights over... i won! ;)
pulsare21 4 months ago
@AcousticDude17 lol? These 4 forces describe how our universe works, not how something as inconsequential as emotions work. Here is a reality check. Everything you think and know is within your brain. Your brain is made of cells that are made of molecules and atoms. Every change in your brain is a consequence of a chemical or electrical reaction (actually its both if you study the brain cell). So, actually, in a way, these 4 forces in nature do describe everything.
jaykia 3 months ago
@jaykia i stand corrected
AcousticDude17 3 months ago
@AcousticDude17 Noted. And I am sorry if I came across as rude. That was not my intention. I was simply trying to argue a point you made.
jaykia 3 months ago
poor aspect ratio
Chris4400 6 months ago
stink theory :)
vasomanojlovic 8 months ago
The problem being is that in order to see strings, we would need a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way Galaxy so seeing an actual string Is very ulikely
goclbert 11 months ago
Why do we even need a theory of everything? We know now that the world of the big and the world of the small behave as polar opposites. So why would both worlds share the same laws?
LapisGarter 1 year ago
@LapisGarter because both the very big and the very small coexist in the same universe, which operates under a certain set of laws, so even though different forces apply in different scales, essentially all these forces / objects share the same universe with no physical boundry between them. it's just a matter of how far / close you're looking at things.
ikezao1 1 year ago
@ikezao1, @LapisGarter
Don't forget that there are at least predicted objects that are microscopic in size while having at least multiple stellar masses, i.e. black holes. As far as I know, they're likely to exist, similar objects were observed, and the current forms of these laws are incompatible. The same goes for the first moments of the universe's existence. Without a "Theory of Everything", there are unknowns in the observable, physical universe.
To say the least, it bothers people.
Jaxuhe 7 months ago
@Jaxuhe you're totally right, and that's why we need a comprehensive theory that can explain simultaneously the very big and the very small, not separating them at all, just adapting the one universal theory according to the object's scale or mass, because if you can have an object the size of a grain of sand with a huge mass, is that object huge or is it tiny? under which laws should it operate? i think guys like michio kaku are going to figure this stuff out within our lifetime.
ikezao1 7 months ago
When scientists figure out that strings exists or what ever new theories that they prove to be true, they will find out that the world of the small does not stop there. It gets even smaller and smaller to infinity. The same goes with the world of the large. It gets bigger and bigger to infinity.
efflectus 1 year ago
Because it works in theory... does that make it real?
bernhard12345 1 year ago
@bernhard12345 not right away. its still being developed. but for example the atom bomb was just a theory and fusan was also but than with experiment and as the technology came we tested it and it worked. so prity much yes and no.
TonPappa 1 year ago
@TonPappa The atombomb worked, but not very well. They needed 60 kilograms of uranium, to convert just 1 gram into energy. That does't sound like they understood it very well. Beside that it is a weapon an not the theory of everything. An atombomb can be tested, but how do you test string theory? The problem is... certain established facts in quantum mechanics, weren't facts at all. They made it look like facts to end the discussion. We need proof and until then it's just a theory.
bernhard12345 1 year ago
So, the answer for life, the universe and everything is not 42? It's 496!? Oh wow!
Eniacbc 1 year ago 2
The fat guy is rather... weird.
RockXStarEvan 1 year ago
The Theory of Everything (N=496)!!
AcePilot2009 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
Enter the Graviton!
AcePilot2009 1 year ago
OMG this guy was at my University doing my subject!
BreachedWall 1 year ago
dont you see what this means...maybe the strings arent the end of the line either..its like saying that space ends somewhere..well if it does..whats after that..there must be something..its too hard to imagine it not ending..but its too hard thinking that thats the border..there is always something smaller or bigger.etc..i dont think that the strings are the end..impossible..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
we live in infinty..there is always a higher number..there is always a higher dimension..the strings cant be the end..4 forces...the strong force..the weak..gravity..and em..how are you so sure that they are only 4..i think that there are more than 4..INFINTY..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
@fermerwuvu Yes there is always a higher number, but how can you prove that there is always a higher dimension, or more than 4 forces. Show me the proof you have for it.
DukeNoche 1 year ago
@DukeNoche ..i dont have proof..im just sayin..but i am atleast 95% sure that they will find more..in the future..they tought that the atom was the smallest..then they split it..and they found even smaller particals..and now strings..there will be something even smaller..think about the olimpic games..every year a record is broken..like this year..usain bolt..which means that there is always something even smaller..faster..stronger..bigger..heavier..lighter..and so on..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
@fermerwuvu
Don't you just have to keep breaking things down until you reach something that is everything and thus can't be broken down?
BlueBerryWizard 1 year ago
@BlueBerryWizard yes..but theres always something new..thats how the universe works..infinty..They first tought that molecules are the tiniest thing..but then someone broke them and then the atom was the tiniest thing .but einstein split it and now quarks and strings? Please..im sure someone will find something even smaller..
fermerwuvu 1 year ago
Yes I love this - " I just had to continue I FELT the string theory was right!" What a beautiful paradox a scientist feeling my, my, my that would help suggest the form of emotion with physics furthermore upon such a discover do physicians feel perhaps the could understand God in it's most unspeakable form... We Ponder in Silence
lucklepper 2 years ago
I am waiting for physicists to discover the 12th dimension
trickmastermonkey 2 years ago
If that wasn't a rotary phone, I would make a joke. "That's not weird. Now, a rotary phone would be weird." Greene knows how I think.
tenvol823 2 years ago 12
Kaypee: Fabulous.
Clearhighlighter 2 years ago 26
Where is The Elegant Universe -12 ???
just when it got interesting :(
HaasbiAllah 3 years ago
It should be there in the posters videos.
InsaneProject 3 years ago
look it up on the related video's box on your right side if you scroll down you'll see it goes to 17 then you'll get up to 19 or 20. it gets more and more interesting
maxsbartholdi 3 years ago 2
Its in the 12th dimension. Yes, I replied 1 year after this was posted.
snackynak 2 years ago
@HaasbiAllah check the playlist from the poster, they are all there
DukeNoche 1 year ago