Just came across this beautiful video of Richard Feynman.

That’s not how physics works. If you are really interested in such issues read a book on foundations of physics or history of physics to see how physicists arrived at the most famous equations (Einstein,Dirac, Schroedinger or Newton), they are basically “bets” guided by physical and mathematical assumptions, but that is far from being “proved” or “derived”, there are no rigorous proofs or derivations involved. The uncertainty remains until an experiment or observation confirms it or rejects it. There’s no such a thing as “proving” a physical theory, for the simple reason that any physical theory works in a limited regime or range of validity. Newtonian gravitation and General Relativity are both valid and succesfull theories within their range of validity, but they contradict each other mathematically, in one theory gravity is a scalar field and in the other is a tensor field, so you could use the mathematics of one theory to refute the other, so it makes no sense the concept of proving a physical theory mathematically. You only try to axiomize a theory once is well established, but it’s irrelevant concerning its validity.

“The bonus of string theory is that it has the tenets of a unified theory of all interactions, electro-magnetism, weak and strong interactions, and gravitation” https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.1036

You have no idea what you are talking about. You can’t prove mathematically Einstein’s equations. No fundamental equations in physics were proved mathematically.

I am a physicist. String theory already unified QFT and GR and that doesn’t mean it’s a verified physical theory, you need to validate it through experiment. It’s physics 101. Just watch some Sabine H. videos to see how she speaks about string theory being a failure besides being mathematically consistent.

Although the theory is promising, the duo point out that they have not yet completed its proof

Physics is not math, you can’t “prove” a physical theory. You make predictions and through experiment or observation Nature has the last word.

A center in two dimensions, in three dimensions an axis, in more dimensions…

I don’t know, but I really enjoyed reading his books.

deleted by creator

Imagine having that great idea and carefully crafting the edition of the book for that to happen. Or may be just unscrupulously fill up the book with white pages with the sentence “this page is intentionally left blank (see page 269)”

The universe is so unimaginable large and there are so many stars and planets that there are good chances of the existence of extra terrestrial life, but at same time there is a very small chance that they can find us, even if they are advanced enough to search for life in the universe. If they are much more advanced than us they probably don’t care, in the same way we don’t care to try to make contact with all the ants of the earth.

Recently I started playing chess and it came to my mind that it’s an impossible task for you.

I’ve never been in Reddit so I can’t talk about it but I wouldn’t have been so harsh if you hadn’t already stated that it seems only useful for illegal and immoral activities when it’s so easy to find, if you are “genuinely interested”, that it’s not the case.

With all the information available at your fingertips being ignorant is a choice.

“this parallel financial system can also serve a tangible social good, offering an onramp to the financial system for people who would otherwise be left out. In countries where the vast majority of the population is unbanked, national currencies are no longer a safe store of value, remittances comprise a hefty portion of GDP, and international sanctions complicate connections to the global economy, a virtual currency that doesn’t require an intermediary to approve transactions can be a vital lifeline for survival”

Bitcoin is poised to blow up Africa’s $86 billion banking system

That’s how he made the calculation, but it’s not what he said, because 5% of European jews each year it’s not the same as 5% of the initial European jews. The word initial is absent and in my view that make its numbers wrong. But yeah, may be I’m being too strict and most of you understood what he meant. By I think it’s misleading because it can give you the idea that in general if you have 60% in 12 years you can calculate the percentage for each year just by dividing by 12. And that is certainly wrong.

If you kill 5% of the population every year from 1933 to 1945, how much of the initial population >you end up killing?

This is the simple math problem you stated and the answer is 46%, not 60%. Nobody does the calculation the way you do. Or you think that a simple math problem has two contradictory answers? Show me a single example that someone does the calculation the way you do to answer such a problem, you have the whole internet. I accept my error if you find it.

That’s not how percentages work.

That’s correct.

You should try lemmy, it’s almost everything what you describe you are missing. Jokes aside, I think that what you refer is mainstream internet, which like music is usually shitty if it’s mainstream, to find the good stuff you have to take your time to dig deeper. Internet is an incredible tool and it’s being used both to enslave and to free people.