1:29:30, the intro of this video.

What is your basic idea on you working

Great conversation, thank you for having Dr. Sameer here. Subscribed to the channel !!!

We have been waiting for almost a year for your next lecture video. If the waiting time is so long then the learners will lost their interest

Space-time is elastic. This causes newtons action/reaction and continues until acted upon laws to be true. When a massive depresses on spacetime it leaves creates a well with sides, much like the ball on an elastic sheet analogy. However, if you exert a force on the mass, then it depresses on the spacetime ahead of it while the spacetime depresses. This is effectively and energy in and energy back motion that will continue until more energy is introduced to stop the motion.

It ended up being a scam

That theory this theory....If I understand correctly most of these contributions is self feeding. He contributes his ideas?

Great video. You help open science to all

i never heard of the non universality of the quantum light cone! Looked up his paper "Causality and Gravity" (equation 10) and it seems to involve a dependence on spin. Very interesting

5:18

Is he describing the electric universe theory?

Keep up the good interviews 👍

Such a brilliant mind! Mr. Witten is one of the most intelligent minds we've ever seen!

Loved the video Hassaan. This is by far the best structured video on Ed Witten and his achievements. Thanks for creating this. You are truly talented and a wonderful story teller 👍

What are you looking at dude.

Mathematical bullshit

please ask this question to every prof you interview.

keep up the good work

thanks for the question brother ...please make more videos on these topics..

Last time I checked, string theory is a lot of hype with no results.

To preface this, I do think that String Theory is the best developed and most promising of the QG theories. But, as Dr Padilla alluded to, criticism is part of science, we have to be able to take it. It is completely correct to say that all QG theories have the problem of not being immediately testable, but on one hand we celebrate that ST dominates QG, but if people criticize QG and ST by proxy, it is a problem? Comes with the territory. On string theory disinformation, as referenced at 16:25. The idea that there is an organized disinformation effort against string theory seems a reach. I realize that because these words have been normalized in our modern lexicon, the definitions can become blurred, but its important that we are careful with these strong accusations. Disinformation includes a very clear intent to deceive, not simply that someone says the wrong thing or is even mistaken in their views, which in this case the people referenced may not even be. Two names: Hossenfelder and Woit, whether they're misinformed about the state of String Theory can certainly be argued, but to suggest they're not only disinformation agents, but organized ones is completely slanderous. Is the accusation that these people, who are Physicists in their own respects, have not come to these "anti-String" opinions independently? do you have any evidence of this organized disinformation scheme you accuse them of participating in. It should go without saying, that a number of scientists looking at a body of work and coming to the same conclusion about its worth, does not immediately constitute an "organized" anything. I am left completely dismayed at this framing of critics. At 19:45 we seem to now be arguing by guilt by association that the reviewer of the grant says something that someone else who we don't like might have plausibly said so therefore it must be invalid. It seems like criticism that one would see in their books? does that imply that the criticism is bad? none of this is addressed. It seems to almost stem from a place of jealousy, that these individuals have been particularly successful in their science communication efforts in the recent past. I'm glad Dr Padilla seemed reluctant to follow this suspicious framing. Another point, the "do you think" questions in this section leave no subtlety whatsoever about what kind of response the interviewer wishes to evoke from the interviewee. At 26:50, I think there are many reasons why "people" think MOND is a promising and interesting theory independent of the "underdog" effect, and it insults them to suggest otherwise. Many, such as Stacy McGaugh, take it semi-seriously because it fits data: rotation curves and much more, and high redshift galaxies are more natural in this model over LCDM, for example.

Good job bro, love from 🇮🇳

From 52:23.. invaluable words from Prof.Antonio. Thank you Hassaan for bringing a very passionate person like Prof.Antonio for the podcast:)

LET'S GOOO

Ñiceeee

Thanks for asking/answering my question guys. Great video!

What’s the Spotify link? If there’s any

You belong to 0.0000000000001% of the youtubers who actually can simplify string theory

Why does he look so geeked out in this vid 😂

Que dice Jhon winter. .que ha pasado con su unificación de la física

Average Witten moment

Kya BAAT hai kich samjh hi nhi AA rhe

Bro I remember watching the lecture and thinking the same thing. Tbh was understandable and he knew it was clearly very high level but still very clear lecture.

He learned all of Quantum Mechanics in 10 days.

Agree, however i resonates most with RHK physics