Chess will never be solved, here's why

Quantum mechanics is apparently used in a long list of practical sciences.
Relativity apparently used in more exotic applications.
Dirac apparently already merged them. In 1928.
And even pioneered the concept of antimatter.
With Anderson apparently confirming that four years later with experimental discovery of positrons.

I think it is fair to say that quantum mechanics has way more practical applications. There aren't many practical tasks where relativity is needed. Sure, there are some, but it's a matter of degree.

please someone help me i am losing to 700s please

You need to play better moves.

how

Try a different approach. Or approaches.
Want some ideas?
1) after your opponent moves ask yourself - 'why did he make that move?'
if you can't answer it for yourself quickly - don't worry.
if you get the reason wrong - don't worry. 
Enjoy playing.
Common mistakes:.
2) If you want to win (remembering its just a game) - then you're opponent's pieces and what they can do - matters just as much or more than what your pieces can do. 
The common mistake is to think that you're only 'responsible' for your own pieces - since you can't move his pieces.
But you can. You can move his pieces - right off the board! Among other things.
3) Always assume there are tactics in the position that you haven't seen yet.
Your tactics and his tactics. Try to find them. Before you move or before he moves.
If you can't find them - or you think you've looked enough - don't worry.
4) Learn how to use his clock time. See number 3. Also think - 'what are his most likely moves for his next move? Why? Try to be ready instead of surprised.
If you've done it well - you might be surprised by his Bad moves.
And if he's rated 700 - then Trust - he's going to make a lof of those.
-----------
there's that short list of four. Try it out. Just an idea. Not 'instructions'.
There's also 'donts'.
Don't worry about openings. That's the biggest pitfall probably.
Set your filters to play people that are 100 points lower or higher than you or in between -
but don't worry about your rating though.
Good luck and enjoy your Voyage through the wonderful game of chess - probably the most popular indoor game of the last 150 years.

Relativity and quantum mechanics are not unified. They convert to each other in limited sense (special situations on their respective extremes), but that requires magic coefficients to reconcile them.

General relativity is used throughout everyday life. we guide satellites snd spacecraft with it, synch our clocks with it, play chess on this website with it, navigate by gps with it. we'd use it much more if our space exploration programs were not so lame.

quantum mechanics is used just as much, but probably not more.

quantum mechanics used to be used more commonly than it is now. it was once in every living room, because cathode ray televisions operated on QM principles. Now we've gone to LCD flat panels, and QM based TVs clog landfills.

anyway, unification would require one system with no magic coefficients. m-theory is the closest to a leading contender at this point, but no one knows if branes/strings are fundamental. the true elements could be even smaller.

You're right in the sense that they seem to move along in separate paths and do not usually combine in their applications.
But there are some exceptions. It seems.
Including GPS - atomic clocks - particle accelerator science - and in at least one medical application. And others. 
Including in research as opposed to in ongoing practical applications.
And you're right to not place blind trust in AI.

i got on this weird non-chess tangent with the wild claim that interstellar species (as we will eventually be) are most likely immortal and vanishingly small. I used the image, populations within an atom.

that isn't just poetic conceit. it's necessary, for an essentially immortal and omnipotent interstellar species.

to achieve this requires femtoengineering-- ., manipulating reality at Planck Length scales. building with strings, or whatever strings are composed of.

unification is a necessary stepping stone.

it sounds wild and crazy, but nanoengineering was considered crazy about a century ago. In a universe this big and old, we can be certain it's already been done.

The first few sentences in your post talked about the just-world hypothesis. Considering it’s a literal cognitive bias, I can’t really disagree with you.

But is self-interested climbing really that bad? Today, everywhere you look, there are people condemning others for their selfishness. But what’s the difference between ambition and selfishness? Where is that line? Why would placing yourself over others be bad? After all, no matter how much you care about another person, you’ll never be them, and they’ll never be you. A certain amount of willingness to do that is needed to advance, arguably. Certainly, being mindlessly selfish isn’t commendable. But if you’re too empathetic, you’ll end so lost in their lives that you’ll stop living your own.

And I doubt DD’s alleged machiavellianism. He doesn’t make as many inflammatory remarks as alleged. Plus, he doesn’t have a high opinion of billionaires, generally, and aren’t billionaires usually more self-interested than the average person by a significant margin?

And yes, this is a closer to an unorganised ramble than an actual post, but I think sharing my opinion is a good idea this time.

When did that happen? Did I miss something?

'machiavellian' is a strawman. D's idea.
You're attacking his phony idea he wants to lionize himself with.
Maybe next you'll want to 'debate' that while claiming 'neutrality'.

The idea of a species within an atom isn't completely without merit.
If this galaxy is considered to be a kind of atom - then humanity is an almost infinitesmal speck inside it.
Would quantum theory allow for a 'species inside an atom'?
Earlier I mentioned the four men of QM in the 1920s.
Heisenberg Schrodinger Dirac Bohr.
But there was also Planck before them. 1900.
WIth 10 ^ (-35) meters being the smallest meaningful distance in physics?
That's quite a bit smaller than the supposed size of a proton.
Say 10 ^(-15) meter? Then there's all that space between particles. 
So there's room apparently.

@Elroch
Hi. I had edited my post just now. Adding some info.
And then saw your post.
My point is that considering Planck's 10^(-35) meter distance and comparing with the size of a proton and also the space between particles - then could a species (not DNA based) in theory - evolve inside an atom? How do we rule it out?
There might be 'room'.
---------------------
just some side notes about c (the speed of light) in famous equations.
Maxwell's 1865 equation - shockingly turned out to match 'measured c'.
Planck's 1900 equation has c^(3). 
Lorentz 1904 equation has c^2.
Einstein's 1905 equation has c^2. 
Einstein has c^4 in his 1915 equation.
Dirac has c 'straight up' in his 1928 equation. No exponent!
----------------
pi gets powered sometimes. And i (square root of minus one).
But e gets powered the most.

If you take the example of a photon, to have low uncertainty in position, you need to have high energy. If something is confined and has high energy it has high mass. There is a known amount of mass in an atom (and it is all accounted for by the electrons and the nucleus).

Hey

Hey

Hey