Fade layperson :)))

3:45 NOT OK DOOD

beautifully done work,keep it that way. all the best to the team .

Is a pants?

Kissy,kissy.

TheuthBe Told!

Intellectual intelligence is only one of many.

activelink activdisc Several of these videos go over my head, no doubt!

@Mister Sifter but it does humble you, as it should.

@Mister Sifter but listening to the concepts should be enough to understand the video?

Wondered why UKposts suggested ac2 year old video to me. Now I know, due to the initial g-2 results.

Yup

Yep 🙂

Yip :)

Yes

Yeah, my cats are pretty smart too. I root for them if we humans decline from our high position.

Don't feel too bad. My Alexis just blew a tube.

My cat doesn’t look me as before... did he understood something I didn’t ?

She did understand it as well as you did: Not at all (neither do I)

My kitty is chilling with me

Somebody really uses EPR spectroscopy in reality ?

We used EPR to determine protein folding (while two or more radicals are linked to certain amino acids). So yes, it has some use.

SIR. I must screenshot this moment. For it is as miraculous and rare as encountering a unicorn. None of my friends will believe I had contact with such a mythical and strange creature.

Yaldabaoth Really ? I'd have still gone with crystallization and X-ray scattering analysis for that, or using XANES and EXAFS for analyzing the active center or doing it just in the computer based upon secondary structure elements (alpha-helices, beta-sheats) and then calculating the thermodynamic folding optimum (assuming that chaperones don't play a major role), but I'm no expert on this and you'll know what you are doing.

Not the crystal structure. The change in folding during active catalysis in cells.

And all this has happened in the blip of human history

With a population of 7 billion people and almost as many computers, the rate of progress should continue to increase until physical equations appear to be updated in-realtime from the layman's perspective.

@@deusexaethera The scientific progress might speed up, slow down or come to a screeching halt. It's impossible to predict, because you can't know the complexity of knowledge we don't have yet. The more is known in any given field, the harder it is to pass down that knowledge using conventional education. It doesn't matter how many people and computational power we have if it takes them a lifetime to even read and understand what's already discovered. Unless we can enhance human intelligence, lifespan or learning methods, there is a looming limit to knowledge possible to obtain.

@@MortyrSC2: What you say is only true if _humans_ are learning the knowledge and performing the experiments. Computers already do most of the mathematical work for new scientific advancements, because they don't need to learn and remember knowledge -- they can just read data and apply rules to that data -- and they can do the math billions of times faster than humans can. Many recent advancements in particle physics have directly enabled the construction of faster computers, so I stand by my original comment that the pace of scientific discovery will continue to increase until humans can't keep track of the advancements anymore.

@@MortyrSC2 Things like quantum computing and AI should push us further at a faster rate than we are currently going. I think it is probable that our progress will continue exponentially. At the current time, we are at the segment of the exponential curve where the curve begins to really pick up. Also, with a larger population, we don't need everyone to be an expert at everything. We can divvy out work. Once an expert discovers something new in their field, they should be able to explain it to others in simple terms. Thus, the work doesn't need to be repeated to be taught by any means. For example, in geometry you may prove the Pythagorean theorem once to get a grasp of it, but after that you don't reprove it every time you use it. I also don't think we are any where near the limits of the human brain. In the future, when we can describe it easier, Quantum Field Theory will probably be at the level that the Pythagorean Theorem is today. Also, people live longer so we can gather more information in our lives and do more. I can go on and on, but the evidence is there that we still have the edge on knowledge and this will continue for the foreseeable future.

Anyone wants some science-youtuber-recommendations?

Wow...obv pre-COVID comment ;-)

I do the same, although I usually go back and watch them to (try to) learn afterwards

Evariste Galois omg he said tamagochi and i saw some in smyths yesterday!

Yeah, I tried once, too. Not done yet. Still learning remedial math so I'll be qualified to properly start.

Bb

that should tell you something about its accuracy in representing reality. even just trying to process these absurd ideas causes damage to your logic-processors

Once you eneter the Quantum realm. Your mind could never go back to normal. I went down the rabbit hole and now i see everything by there chemical compounds with imagination of there electron configurations.

Anyone wants to check out some yet-unkown-to-him/her science-youtuber?

Are you thinking of SciShow? This punist has great and varied tastes

MT If you emit a photon, does it make a sound and also a smell? If so - I know what you mean ;-)

Bro your jokes are weaker than the weak force.

Maybe Sebastian will release a photon first and it will cause you to LASE. That would make ME excited.

Everybody has a dipole moment.

LOL!!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ll%C3%A9n%E2%80%93Lehmann_spectral_representation

(rimshot)

In the immortal words of Piccolo... NEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDDD!!!! Nice one though!

Was this Avengers 3 script He talked about? ..

Every rotation is an oscillation in a sense -- imagine looking at the solar system on its side: you'd see the Earth just bobbing up and down. So, in that sense, yes, but I'm not sure that's what you mean by oscillation. What are you thinking of?

Hey there! Just yesterday I looked your channel up to see if there were any new videos. Still waiting ;) hope you're doing good! Also great comment. I also like the way spin arises as part of a Noether current whenever rotational symmetry is present. It solidifies its (already strong) relation with rotations.

What we call the spin of a particle s relates to the expectation value of the square of the angular momentum operator acting on a particle state with no orbital angular momentum, L |s> ∝ s(s+1) |s>. Then, measuring a component of this spin over each axis yields possible values in the range {-s, -s+1, ..., 0, 1, ..., s}. If you have an electron, s=1/2 means the possible values are ±1/2

Vacuum Diagrams what is energy?

that is actually a pretty cool picture of a spin. though I still have a question, what is the difference between a negative spin and a opposite spin ? isn't spin down measured as a negative spin from a spin up point of reference ?

In the case of pertubation theories the problem arises because you have a system where two things affect each other back-and-forth. If A changes B then the change in B will also change A. And the change in A will change B a second time.. The end result is a single, overall change, bu predicting that from the interaction of A->B requires working through the steps. The theory is simple enough and the step is as well, it just needs to be repeated in the same way you get to 1/3 by adding 0.3, 0.03, 0.003... (Or doing a stepwise calculation.) Epicycles were largely based on a need for perfection, in that case the circle. For some time people knew elipses would work, but they weren't godlike circles. It required custom-adjusted values for each planet and each epicycle. It's the difference between calculating pi place-by-place on a computer and measuring a big circle and going 'And one tenth, and four hundredths...' One approach is exact and simple, follow the simple rule long enough and you get an answer as exact as you want. The other requires you to measure first then come up with an additional rule for no real reason. Episcycles would have been much more interesting if there'd been a simple rule behind them, 'Each cycle is 1/100th the size and twice as fast' say. Instead they were a disorganized mess.

The issue is one of using the correct mathematical tools. Is it 'wrong' to use the summation of an infinite series to calculate something, rather than an exact analytical function? Neither are absolutely correct because nothing in nature is pure and simple. Everything in the universe is affected by everything else to diminishing degree. We don't have a mathematical tool that can encompass everything so we settle for approximations. We fit the nearest analytical function we can and call it a day - or we take the pertubations from sort of initial approximation (a circle or straight line) and work outwards to the desired accuracy. Given our current mathematical tools. Each method is as good as the other. It's a matter of which is more practical.

No, this is not what the old astronomers did with the Ptolemaic Worldview. This was just some kind of overfitting the data. What Feynman did with QED is more comparable to what Kepler did, with his three laws. It's a completely descriptive theory that fits the data nearly perfectly, with very few assumptions. The problem lies within, that we don't really understand, what we are calculating. Later Netwton was able to derive Kepler's laws from more general principles, but he still didn't understand, what was going on. Einstein made great progress with his General Theory of Relativity, but we still don't understand the underlying principles. Einstein understood how gravity works, but not why. The QED is a theory like Kepler's Laws. Don't think, just calculate...

@@jensstolpmann7275 this is a really good insight.

Indubitably.

Same as the earth and moon pulling on each other.

THE THEORETICAL, TOP DOWN, CLEAR, AND UNIVERSAL BALANCING OF E=MC2 AS F=MA: Ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. SO, time DILATION proves that E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. GREAT !!! INSTANTANEITY is thus FUNDAMENTAL to what is the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) I have mathematically unified and BALANCED physics/physical experience, AS E=mc2 is necessarily AND CLEARLY F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. "Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. INDEED, gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=MA; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Accordingly, the rotation of the Moon MATCHES it's revolution. Great. It is CLEARLY AND FULLY proven in what is a BALANCED fashion. E=mc2 IS F=ma. In fact, A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course); AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM ENERGY IS GRAVITY. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. Objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. It is CLEARLY proven. It is a very great truth in physics that the ability of thought to DESCRIBE OR reconfigure sensory experience is ULTIMATELY dependent upon the extent to which THOUGHT IS SIMILAR TO sensory experience, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. (THOUGHTS ARE INVISIBLE.) INDEED, E=mc2 IS DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma; AS time dilation proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Therefore, ultimately and truly, time is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. In fact, INSTANTANEITY is FUNDAMENTAL to the FULL and proper understanding of physics/physical experience; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. THE stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. A PHOTON may be placed at the center of what is THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. E=mc2 IS F=ma. GREAT !!! BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense. (Very importantly, outer "space" involves full inertia; AND it is fully invisible AND black.) The INTEGRATED EXTENSIVENESS of THOUGHT (AND description) is improved in the truly superior mind. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Consider the man who is standing on what is the Earth/ground. Touch AND feeling BLEND, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=mc2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND describes what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE. Time DILATION proves that electromagnetism/ENERGY IS GRAVITY, AS E=mc2 is DIRECTLY and fundamentally derived from F=ma. SO, the mathematical unification of Einstein's equations AND Maxwell's equations (given the addition of A FOURTH SPATIAL DIMENSION) proves that E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Great !!!! Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Look UP at what is the BLUE SKY. TIME dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Therefore, the PLANETS (including what is THE MOON) are understood to move away very, very, very, very slightly. Stellar clustering proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Indeed, HALF of the galaxies are "dead" or inert; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AND BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand !!!! Great !!!! By Frank DiMeglio

@@frankdimeglio8216 no

@@kevinmael3862 UNDERSTANDING TIME AND THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS “mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in BALANCED relation to what is THE SUN. (Also, carefully consider what is THE EARTH.) Great !!! This explains the cosmological redshift AND the “black hole(s)”. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course) !!! Time dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! GREAT. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. By Frank DiMeglio

@@aniruddhdeshpande7319 UNDERSTANDING TIME AND THE CLEAR MATHEMATICAL PROOF THAT E=MC2 IS F=MA ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity; AS “mass”/ENERGY IS GRAVITY; AS E=MC2 IS F=ma. Therefore, the planets will move away very, very, very slightly in BALANCED relation to what is THE SUN. (Also, carefully consider what is THE EARTH.) Great !!! This explains the cosmological redshift AND the “black hole(s)”. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. “Mass"/ENERGY involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE consistent with/as what is BALANCED electromagnetic/gravitational force/ENERGY, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. SO, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution; AND objects fall at the SAME RATE (neglecting air resistance, of course) !!! Time dilation ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! It all CLEARLY makes perfect sense, AS BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Balanced inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental. Time is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma ON BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!! GREAT. Stellar clustering ALSO proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. By Frank DiMeglio

If objects in the quantum world can be so complex that they can even think, that means that the immense number of subatomic particles we discovered was just scratching the surface, and that we need bigger and bigger particle (sub-particle?) accelerators to build models of what compose each subatomic particle...

fitnesspoint2006 Those are called bullets.

Marco Toselli You missed the light irony of the original comment. There's a reason why he started with 'would'.

Well, just look at the macro-macro world for your answer. As above, so below, man... Those living in the subatomic world experience newtonian laws just like we do. Everything is relative.

quantum object ask, "what's a wall?"

Whoop whoop

And dont tell me to talk to a sci-en-tist because they all lyin to me and makin' me pissed!

You have to fill their tanks with "magnet-gasoline"! ...if you want I can sell it to you - I don't have much, but for YOU I'l make an exception and won't even charge you. ...much! (It'll be always cheaper than buying it at the gas-station!).

R.I.P. Ass Dan

!!!

Wtf does that means

@@recipoldinasty he's good looking

Naum Rusomarov yeah hes kind lf good looking, but uncomfortably well built, wtf

IS THIS HOW TURBOVIRGINS FLIRT? THAT IS REALLY CUTE AND SWEET

Yes I am!

Yep.....what if the foundation of our math is completely wrong, a base 10 system isn't the answer... I've heard some theories of base 3 math as opposed to base 10 but I have no idea what that concept really means. But just because ours "works" doesn't mean it's perfect - perhaps a completely different approach to math would resolve the issues between Einstein's relativity and Newton's gravitational theory. In our math its almost like 2=1 but what if our math was different, and it wasn't an issue? Math itself is universal...which number divisions we start with are not..

He was certainly on to something with that perceptive comment!!

In QED, Feynman (1985) adds: "It took two 'independent groups of physicists two years to calculate this next term, and then another year to find out there was a mistake - experimenters had measured the value to be slightly different, and it looked for awhile that the theory didn’t agree with experiment for the first time, but no: it was a mistake in arithmetic. How could two groups make the same mistake?' It turns out that near the end of the calculation the two groups compared notes and ironed out the differences between their calculations, so they were not really independent (page 117)."

Technically he has just explained constantly growing material.

just get a book on it?

start with quantum photonics

Yeh man... that’s what we need... no other way when it’s this hard to learn🤝

But to know Quantum Field Theory you must first not understand Quantum Field Theory. Therefore, to not understand this you are halfway there to understanding.

Well............I heard taking, and words, so I am partway to understanding!

Your five senses were built for running away from predators on the African savanna.

@@Mark73 , Five? your forgetting the most important one CONSCIOUSNESS

@@frankboase7724 Consciousness isn't a sense. Senses are how you bring outside information to your brain.

@@Mark73 And you "bring outside information to your brain." because of consciousness

@@frankboase7724 Which does not make consciousness a sense.

I was wondering what that molecule was. Thanks :-). Do you know what specific quinolone is this?

Hi - it appears to be sparfloxacin an antibiotic that seems to have such serious potential side effects that it’s been withdrawn in the US...

And to think we let these physicists play with black hole machines! For shame...

This. Thank you lol

I have a short term vacancy for someone with your skills working from my small RV in the desert. Excellent pay. NDA applies. Hit me up.

Someone had to be that person. :)

It is not bad to 'be that person' since it opens up more avenues for learning which is objectively good

Damien W yeah. I meant that in such a great content I point out the only little error I found. :D

This is the guy who read to much Griffith’s books

Damien W Yes. Discussion is good. That's how we get to the truth.

The best response to these videos I've ever seen. It makes me sad how many people react by thinking they are too dumb to get it. Anyone reasonably intelligent can get science if they put in the time and work. Good for you, I hope you have a blast.

Take a picture of it, and make it a Black Metal album cover. *shrug*

Maxwell’s demon. It’s his job.

Epsilon Jay ɛɈ I think he's jus talking lazy, nothing which belongs to the material world can be sizeless.

Because "pointlike" is a first good approximation. Nobody knows how small electrons (or quarks) really are, but they must be damn small, smaller than anything we can (currently) measure ... on the other side does no physicist believe in infinities, so also not in truly pointlike (size of 0) particles. Thus pointlike is an abbreviation for: "really really small, but we don't know exactly how small".

You're mixing up mathematics with how we think about the everyday world. You may think of it like: An electron is more like a collection of behaviours than a ball. It's more like an area with slightly blurry edges than a "dot". The area is a space/spacetime depending if you're thinking pure math or physics, and when you're getting to that level... the thing you're looking at isn't a "thing in spacetime" it is "a bit of spacetime". Also, since every equation and bit of math we do on this level is comparative so the numbers are scalar representations anyway. They include the differences between energy levels and frequencies etc etc so there is an answer to what the size of an electron is, it is 1.60217662 × 10-19 coulombs. That's not in metres, but really, metres aren't relevant down there. Particularly when we're considering QFT, or even QED. Talking about an electron's "size" doesn't really mean anything. It's smaller than that concept. We broke "size" when we stepped into the realm of Quantum Mechanics and found out that there are things that behave like both waves and particles simultaneously. The Planck Length is really more of an energy scalar anyway, not a "distance". It's made up of other things itself. Very abstract things. You should look up Hilbert Spaces. Your question relies on concepts of how we consider discrete objects in mathematics, it's beyond physics to properly answer on its own.

Going back to Rutherford - he tossed charged particles at atoms and found they bounced off in a way that didn't involve any characteristic length. Just a simple dependence on angle and speed of the projectiles, similar to Raleigh scattering (why the sky is blue). This is true for any projectile tossed at any target, when the projectile's quantum wavelength is much longer than the size of the target. A few years later, with bigger particle flingers and higher voltages, physicists found that the scattering departed from the simple no-scale-involved formula. Faster particles = shorter quantum wavelength = more diffraction due to reaching a size similar to an atomic nucleus. We've gone way past that scale years ago. So how big are electrons? Physicists have been throwing electrons at electrons for many decades. They find adherence to the simple no-scale-involved formula. We've built Fermilab, and SLAC (I worked there!), and CERN. We've given electrons some very swift kicks, to make their quantum wavelengths so small, way smaller than single protons or neutrons, and still, we find no departure from the simple formula. No scale, or range of sizes, has been seen to characterize any departures from the formula. We haven't seen such departures at all! But who is to say, after the next upgrade to CERN, or maybe with the new International Linear Collider (there aren't enough videos about that, hint, hint) we will shoot beams of electrons so swift, so short of wavelength, that we finally do see a departure from the formula, and can say electrons have some sort of structure on a scale of (mumble mumble). Maybe something like 1/100,000th the diameter of a proton? We can only wait and see - or earn a PhD in high energy physics and help!

Vade Retro, except there is no 'material world'. It's energy, orbiting energy, creating the functional illusion of something being physically there. You've never actually touched anything that was physically there in your life. The energy of the atoms of your finger get as close as they can to the energy of the atoms of another surface before they can't go any further, and you interpret that as having 'touched' something. But you haven't. To answer Epsilon Jay's question, I would assume it is because scale itself is infinite, the electron must be omnipresent at all scales, hence it would have no finite dimensions. Even though we can't physically view something that small, we can still keep dividing the scale of the universe infinitely, which means an elementary particle can't have a finite size.

😿👍

Said Grasshopper, "But why master?"

There is no pebble

When you can quantum tunnel the pebble from my hand, you will be the master.

trefrog Well, lets take guesses. A. posted out of scheduled time. B. A MASSIVE discrepency was found. C. UKposts demonitized it because something triggered a takedown. Either by report (false or not) or a bot did it, or bot went stupid... yet again.

Well, if we assume the laws of thermodynamics are true, and everything breaks down, I would assume the universe would end by conflagration...

I don't think that the Universe can end because it doesn't have a beginning but it may be that it's just eternal to the beginning but could have an end but since the Universe appears to consist of nothing at it's most fundamental level, it seems that it could only be superimposed by something but why would there be something, where would something come from? 🤔

... Gerard, as far as we can tell, the Universe quite definitely had a beginning. --Dave, and something plus anti-something would come out of nothing at all

I should have said, existence has no beginning, Creation has a beginning and is made in the imagination of the Creator/existence. It seems to me that nothing is consciousness and Creation began with it's awareness.

*hmm, uh uh.....okay got it all what Matt says......Quantum weirdness equals MAJIKS* lol, actually my META is basic 'consciousness' started with the big bang energy particles But also can explain how 'random' DNA and Genetic changes happen in biochemistry between molecules as it goes next step macro changes from inert chemicals to biochemicals in the enclosed energy system of solar systems and properly situated planets. The work in fractal math demonstrates how random numbers into equations recursively create complex repetitive patterns that demonstrated into physical forms can handle distribute larger and larger amounts of contained energy in an organized=organism matrix ERGO called LIFE.

The Exoplanets Channel , I was a little disappointed by a previous episode which I understood completely. I don't come here to understand things. It just doesn't feel right if I go away unconfused.

Most people don't. Watch the video and if you don't understand a word used then look it up and, most important, memorize that word. Keep at it, keep watching , looking up/memorizing, rinse-repeat. One day in the not so distant future you'll realize you hardly ever have to look up a word.

Keep trying!

Let's break this one down: Quantum Theory's Most Incredible Prediction | Space Time Quantum Theory: theories dealing with behaviors of things at a scale so small that going below that scale would yield meaninglessness Most Incredible: the attribute of being more unbelievable than the other unbelievable videos on this channel Prediction: a model of events based on some observation Space Time: title of the channel. it's also a geometric model of the universe by combining the space and time coordinates

Chris Holdread quite a Tachy thing to say...

Last time I was this early saying "Last time I was this early..." was witty and funny.

@@IncipientClinic tachyons gravitons all fiction....

Gordana Nenkov as is your sense of humor.

The punchline arrives before the joke. How do you know you're hearing a joke about time travel?