Theory of Everything (intro)
Articles Blog

Theory of Everything (intro)

August 10, 2019

Suppose you’re ambitious enough to try to
describe everything in the observable universe in one single mathematical equation.
DONE. OK, so that doesn’t include gravity or a few
other little things… but the point is, this equation describes, with incredible precision,
what the earth is made of, what keeps the sun burning, what allows us to breath, taste,
mow the lawn, blow things up, and watch internet videos… all in one equation. And it’s humbly
called “The Standard Model” – because even when they discover the most accurate scientific
theory known to man, physicists are modest. Now, the universe is a pretty big place (maybe
even infinitely big), so it’s reasonable to think that you might need a lot more than
just one equation to describe it all – so why is the standard model so simple? For starters,
it’s more like a recipe – and just as a recipe for cake assumes you already know how to sift
flour, beat egg whites, build an oven and grow wheat, this equation assumes you already
know about path integrals, gauge theories and so on – so there’s a lot more than meets
the eye. As for why an incredibly small set of mathematical
rules appear to govern the universe? Well, that’s a deep and unanswered question. But
the data show that math is the language of the cosmos – pick a few elementary particles,
set them on a high-energy collision course, and BAM! When the sparks fly, the standard
model will describe the fireworks – to twelve-decimal places of precision! Anyway, in the next few MinutePhysics videos
we’ll explain all sorts of the cool ingredients that make up the standard model, like quantum
fields, fundamental forces, quarks, gluons, ghost particles, and of course, the higgs
field. It’s an ambitious task, and I hope you’re ready for it!

Only registered users can comment.

  1. However useful, the standard model or string theory can never be a complete Theory of Everything. Find out what can-

  2. I feel like the reason, math can describe everything, is because math is a manmade language, and this equation is a description of everything.Not to diminish the impressiveness of it. 😮  

  3. I dont get it… So we want an equation with everything in it and… then what… We get a number? Is that number suppose to be 42? 

  4. It's funny that the physicists think they have found the theory to everything. That assumes that we know everything, which is quite arrogant. Claiming to have discovered the most fundamental particle of the universe is similar to how scientists in the previous century believed that atoms were the most fundamental particle in the universe. But what are they made out of? more particles! What do you presume these Higgs bosons are made out of? Probably more particles. What are black holes? What is this dark matter and dark energy that makes up most of the universe? Where do we go when we die? Are there other dimensions? What do the stars and planets have in common with the atoms and electrons? We don't know everything. If you want a more comprehensive understanding of the universe, understand that the universe is truly infinite. Think of the universe not just as particles but as waves of particles. Understand that 150 years ago we were still traveling in covered wagons pulled by horses. We still don't understand the spirit, or how consciousness is generated. Understand that everything only exists relative to something else. Try some LSD and you'll understand that we don't know anything.

  5. I've done a bit of physics but mostly work with much more practical chemistry where the most complex thing in the equation might be a constant, it's all very obvious what it describes. Can anyone go into how an equation predicts all that? I've got an amateur interest in things like mathematics so I'd like to think i could follow along

  6. The cosmos have 13007 galaxies 1110875543674 planets and 10000000000000000000000000000000000s of stars
    if you font Belice country it tour self Belice me is true

  7. Oooh yes. The standard model is super simple. That's why left handed quarks are in an SU(2) doublet but right handed quarks are singlets. That's why they have different hypercharges too. And that's why almost as if by miracle they become components of the same massive particle after symmetry breaking. 

    It's so simple that every particle physicist hates it and wants to see how all the bullshit in it comes about in a more fundamental way.

  8. Flat means 2 D and anything with thickness or depth is not flat you stupid fucks. If you doubt me look up the word flat in a official Webster’s dictionary.

    You stupid fucks are like the uneducated people in the dark ages who thought the earth was flat. In 700 years people will laugh at stupid mother fuckers who thought the universe was flat.


    Son of a bitch! How god dam stupid can people get!

  9. Sorry y'all, the theory of everything has been disproved.

  10. Would you teach me the formula in simple steps or explain in simmple way (iam in grade 9) ok .Anyone help plz(sorry for my bad english)

  11. The higgs boson was already confirmed as the probability of finding it was already calculated? So the physicists were sure that they would discover(confirm) it.

  12. L = stuff??? Fluid theory (Reproduction/Alimentation/Rationality) decanted selfmultidimentionalover…
    The simultaneity polydynamics of the movement (Reproduction/Alimentation/Rationality generates pseudo-autonomy as material property, of the autogenous phenomenon; existing.(…)
    Simultaneous as my unidimensional variability…
    unidimensional variability = live-beings

  13. Wait wait wait… At 0:36,there are several galaxies in the depiction of the universe (I'm assuming that the swirly things are galaxies). And uh,the cat in the bottom right is as large as them. Therefore I conclude that,somewhere in the universe,there is a giant cat the size of a galaxy floating around in space. Also there's 42 in 0:37.

  14. Am I the only one who thought until now that it is 'Mine-yoot' Physics instead of 'Minit' Physics?

    And yes, I liked my own comment. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *