A New View on Gravity and the Cosmos | Erik Verlinde
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- “Where did it all come from?” This eternal question has served as the driving force for human innovation and evolution. Curiosity continues to take progress from science to technology and back again. This new view on gravity, likewise, is motivated by that question.
In this talk, Erik Verlinde will offer a philosophical, an observational, and a theoretical argument for his theory of gravity, known as entropic, or emergent, gravity. Firstly, the particle physics paradigm is encapsulated in the the reductionist idea that, by reducing all physical phenomena to the smallest building blocks, we can obtain greater understanding. However, meaning often comes from the bigger picture. Emergence, defined as the observation of phenomena at a macroscopic scale which are derived from a microscopic scale, where they have no a priori meaning, is the foundation of this new theory.
Secondly, the truth value of theories often depends on their scale. Newtonian gravity works well for planets, but not for black holes. Einsteinian gravity works well for black holes, but not for galaxies, where dark matter and energy must be postulated to account for the speeds of orbiting cosmic objects. Emergent gravity should be able to account for all three. The third, theoretical argument, guides us through what it would be like to fall into a black hole, and uses this example to explain how emergent gravity works.
Erik Verlinde is a theoretical physicist and string theorist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the University of Amsterdam. He held the position of Senior Staff Member at CERN, before becoming a physics professor at his Alma Mater in 1996. He has held two subsequent Professor of Physics: at Princeton and, currently, at the University of Amsterdam.
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](/img/n.gif)
I'm a computer scientist and a software engineer but this talk makes me wish I would have pursued Physics in college. I love software but physics and mathematics are so fascinating!
I am a physicist and wish I knew more computer science when it comes to explaining the nature of the universe in terms of information. You might want to watch this ua-cam.com/video/dEaecUuEqfc/v-deo.html and this ua-cam.com/video/60P7717-XOQ/v-deo.html
Your case is easily diagnosed. Physics Envy.
Hey Nick, check out LIGO's website. They have tutorials walking you through the gravitational wave data assimilation and analysis in python, matlab, the usual suspects. If you don't know python, well... Well, why don't you know python? Check it out - it appears fairly complete for a layman's introduction. I think you may find it fulfilling. Cheers
@Enter the Bragn’
@Enter the Bragn'
Why's that?
@Enter the Bragn’
Sorry, since youtube correspondence is slow, the second question I meant to ask was "How do you know?"
Intuitively I would say Verlinde is on the right track. Reason: When Maxwell developped his Electrodynamics, in order to do so, he was in need of an ether. Einstein showed that this non observable ether was obsolete and wouldn´t exist. As an analog in order to explain rotational velocity of galaxies etc. one is in need of dark matter, which seems to be non observable. Verlinde shows here that it is as obsolete as Maxwells ether, if gravity emerges from an entropic force based on entangled Qubits. Those qubits in his theory largely belong to dark energy, which is not a particle but rather spacetime itself. Its current state of being is represented by the hubble constant. (74) the hubble constant derived from precise microwave background measurement (Plancksatellite 68) is lower, because it is the hubble constant of an earlier universe.
I read two pages of comments and I don't think people are seeing the bigger picture. This was an introduction, a first stepping stone. I see mapping the universe's gravitational properties and white wholes as the obvious direction of Verlinde's attention. Disproving the Dark Matter Strings that are seen in Matter distribution will be interesting to say the least. Nice fresh stuff...
Thanks for explaining black holes in such a fascinating manner!!!!! I love this lecture!l I wish I could share this with everyone, but it is not my area of expertise l! Again... thank you! I will let as many people as possible know about you, and your amazing lecture.
To me this explains that dark energy is time, this would explain why we cannot observe the other 95% of information, because at any one moment we would be in that 5% but it is constantly moving between the whole 100% of information/time. To me this could even be imagined by the picture of the wormhole to be an image of the time and the beginning of the universe would be the opening or the crossing over of the event horizon then the passage through the wormhole itself is time until it reached the other side until it ended at event horizon on the other side then constantly repeating itself maybe running into something like a multiple universe theory
@@zacharygoodson919 TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. I have also explained (or proven) why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to the Sun, AS I have explained the cosmological redshift as well !!! ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE).
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky.
By Frank DiMeglio
FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERSTANDING TIME AND WHAT IS BALANCED ELECTROMAGNETIC/GRAVITATIONAL FORCE/energy:
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. TIME is necessarily possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY (AND necessarily) proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE is fundamental (ON BALANCE). Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. E=mc2 is taken directly from F=ma. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE, AND consider what is the speed of light (c) ON BALANCE !! Accordingly, ON BALANCE, the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches it's revolution. I have explained why THE PLANETS move away very, very, very, very slightly in relation to what is the Sun !! I have explained the cosmological redshift. Since what is the Moon is about one quarter of the size of the Earth, the density of the Sun must be (and is) about one quarter that of the Earth ON BALANCE. It is proven, in fact. Indeed, given what constitutes DIRECT comparison, what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) Moon is the SAME SIZE as what is the orange (AND setting) Sun. They are, in fact, the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE ON BALANCE. (Notice what is the TRANSLUCENT blue sky ON BALANCE.) SO, the Moon is a land form that is necessarily about one quarter the size of what is THE EARTH. Indeed, think lava. Great. Carefully consider what is the BALANCED BODILY/VISUAL EXPERIENCE of the man AND THE EYE (ON BALANCE) who IS, in fact, standing on what is THE EARTH/ground (in what is a BALANCED relation to/with the MIDDLE DISTANCE in/of SPACE). Great. E=mc2 IS F=ma !! The average ocean tide is two meters. That is at EYE LEVEL/body height !! (Moreover, in the middle of the ocean, the tide is two feet, or maybe three feet.) The tides are CLEARLY and necessarily proven to involve what is BALANCED electroMAGNETIC/gravitational force/ENERGY ON BALANCE.
The BULK DENSITY of the Moon IS comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic LAVAs on the Earth. The energy density of LAVA IS about THREE TIMES that of water !! LOOK up at what is the blue sky (ON BALANCE) !! Think about it ALL. So, on balance, we would multiply times two in order to then derive the surface gravity of WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground (in direct comparison). The surface gravity ON the Earth is then accurately determined to be six times greater. A person weighs about one sixth as much on the Moon. Notice, on balance, that what is the Moon IS ALSO BLUE. The illumination regarding what is the orange AND setting Sun AND the illumination regarding what is the fully illuminated AND setting/WHITE MOON does appear to also constitute a match. Said Moon and said Sun CLEARLY manifest at EYE LEVEL/body height. Excellent. It is proven. Proportionally, on balance, the Moon is a LAND form. Excellent.
Notice that the curvature or shape of said Moon matches that of what is THE EARTH/ground (given what is a clear horizon, of course).
By Frank DiMeglio
Definitely one of the most revolutionary and inspiring lecture in the field of phisics I've ever listened to: simply awesome...
Can you answer why space time is flat plane of existence in the background picture....how is space flat ?
@@alexanderchiali are you serious? I heard a flat earther say that the Earth is flat because NASA has a cgi picture of Earth on its website
@@VonJay and your point is ? Or do you not use logic and rational to see through stupidity...?
@@alexanderchiali exactly, what is the point? Does the picture have anything to do with the validity of what he's saying? Did he ask the picture to go up? Was it his idea? and even if it was his idea, does it disprove what he's saying or is he just using that as an example. If you're not concerned with the validity of his theory, why are you concerned with a picture displaying space time/flat plane?
@@VonJay human you are not logical to engage in any further discussion would not be logical. Have a good night and enjoy yourself mindlessly believing in science when belief is for religion and science must be based on what is KNOWN not what we think or belive. Namaste
There is an analogy that comes to mind about the blind men feeling around an elephant trying to decipher what it is and the one grabbing the trunk says "it is a snake", the blind man feeling the legs says "it is a tree" and the one feeling the tale says "it is a snake". I hope that Erik is the one that can put all these pieces together and see the bigger picture.
just a hillbilly and am VERY motivated and find it no conflict in no field to expand my own forensic value of spiritual biblical study its the same alley. JUST LOVED THE PRESENTATION. An intensely interesting and handsome man. 10 of 10 talk
I love the "unanswered question" reply, worthy of very deep thought.
I hi Hi by it 7
ua-cam.com/video/KNvjBPzvm2g/v-deo.html
I am putting my own ideas together about what Gravity is and how Spacetime, Dark Matter and Dark energy work. I am a little angry that some of the work I am doing is similar to what he discusses...especially when he plugged in the Hubble constant and derived the math to explain how it effects gravity on the galactic scale, my heart dropped...but anyway I have been saying for awhile that the likely hood of us ever discovering dark matter or gravitons is very slim...and the reason why I think this is because there is a different explanation and this guy pretty much has it. Now that being said, I think he is on the right track and is about halfway there to explaining what is going on with gravity, space time, relativity and things occurring at the quantum level....but I feel there is something left to be explained. That being said, this to me, he is knocking on the door to the most logical answer of a unifying theory.
I don't know why people in the comments were giving harsh reviews of the presentation. I thought he was very clear and he did pull up the calculations explained the mathematics in a way that was clear and concise to me! It was definitely a presentation that does require a bit of physics knowledge but he is presenting to his intended audience right?
Interesting - did your ideas incorporate the linear Newtonian equations of the diminishing power of gravity.? One area you could expand upon is how it fits in with quantum coherence because the implications of emergent gravity is that it should break it. As he said, the theory is certainly not complete.
The dark matter thing is wrong and the time space thingy is also mythical science. While the description of gravity is incomplete and faulty. A black hole is a super mass event and has nothing to do with dark magical matter.
Gravity started with Newton's apple downward falling motion. The fact of downward falling motion is trapped/bonded together gas molecules, the make up contents of solid objects.
Burning of solid objects releases trapped gas molecules that once kept it grounded, which can be seem dancing it's way into the atmosphere as gas smoke !
@takeitindballs - So creative, Hollywood awaites U !
@@rayagoldendropofsun397 You need a LOT more education.
As usual I can't claim to understand it fully. But this offered a beautiful solution to unite quantum mechanics and black holes. From the smallest to the biggest, this is amazing. And I think it will make a difference to daily life more than he realises. It changes everything if his theory is true, and I saw nothing contradicting it. It just needs a lot of more testing. This is the best I've heard in years.
I liked this lecture immensely. I'm not trained in this field, but I can spot a bullshitter, and he is not one.
To me this explains that dark energy is time, this would explain why we cannot observe the other 95% of information, because at any one moment we would be in that 5% but it is constantly moving between the whole 100% of information/time. To me this could even be imagined by the picture of the wormhole to be an image of the time and the beginning of the universe would be the opening or the crossing over of the event horizon then the passage through the wormhole itself is time until it reached the other side until it ended at event horizon on the other side then constantly repeating itself maybe running into something like a multiple universe theory
If I try to interpret information, say letters, words, sentences etc. in a book from a distance, too close or too far where I cannot make out the letters, I cannot determine the meaning of the words etc. As I move to a distance where I can make out the letters, there is a moment where everything becomes clear, the meaning, semantics, subject etc. The moment of creation is when the book was opened. All the answers are in the book. Science endeavours to turn the pages and view the information from a perspective which delivers meaning. Props to Erik Verlinde for thumbing through the pages.
That very last question and his answer was the icing on the cake!
Awesome lecture - simple equations (how did he successfully avoid calculus). Great examples to simplify things without making scientifically inaccurate statements (called over-simplifying).
!
The Egyptians thought a boat carried the sun across the sky. The Greeks thought it was horses pulling a chariot. Medieval Europe thought it was angels. During the enlightenment, it was clockwork. Now in the computer age it's computational. IDK if that's a sign progress or just a Rorschach test.
Well, I guess you just discovered how communicating by analogy works. I think it is irrelevant if the analogy tries to convey math or unfounded superstition.
@@Diggnuts Not just for communication, though. It's the basis and inspiration for every contemporary model of nature.
I really do not see that. I see that understanding of nature and evolution of language are congruent processes that could bounce off of each other, but both being incremental and cumulative, I do not see how language develops the vocabulary before the discovery is made that needs said vocabulary.
These analogies that are used are very very crude compared to the subject proper and you could find analogies in any moment in time to approximate this lecture. That we choose examples that resonate the best at a certain moment in time is only logical, not a sign that the existence of the analogy somehow influences the science itself.
I know that this is not even true in alpha sciences which I know well. I would find it remarkable that this could ever be the case for exact sciences.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The stories you've read are personifications of the celestial objects so they could be told as a story to their children so their children could learn about the celestial movements. They don't literally mean the sun is being pulled by a chariot or a boat. Lmfao you're so gullible.
Right, but it's the form the analogy takes in the context of a given society. They used boat and chariot metaphors, we use computer metaphors.
If anyone's gullible it's the people who think the universe probably really is fundamentally computational, rather than clockwork or horse drawn. That was sort of my point. Good job jumping in with a misdirected insut, though. Maybe for you physics runs on anonymous verbal abuse?
Ik denk dat Verlinde op het goede spoor zit. Mijn logica zegt mij dat het uiteindelijk een formule zal opleveren die samenhangt met de theorie van de quantummechanica en dat er aspecten in verwerkt zitten die voor de mens niet te bevatten zijn zoals die nu eigenlijk ook al in de quantummechanica blijken (bijvoorbeeld dat éen te meten deeltje tegelijk op meerdere plekken aanwezig blijkt te zijn en bijvoorbeeld rondom de zogenaamde magie van kwantumverstrengeling). Tevens verwacht ik dat deze nieuwe formule de definitieve doodsteek van de relativiteitstheorie zal blijken omdat deze vanaf dan slechts gebaseerd blijkt op 'zichtbare' of beter gezegd schijnbare resultaten van de tot dan toe aangenomen natuurwetten. Succes Verlinde.
Excellent talk.
Someone please explain to me. We talk of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. But if energy and matter are the same thing, are not these two the same thing?
"Dark matter" is a reasonably passable name - it behaves like matter gravitationally, but doesn't interact with normal matter in any other way, so it's "dark" - we can't see it or detect it except through its gravitational effects. But "dark energy" is a very poor name. It does not behave like normal energy - it's almost like it's "negative energy." Furthermore, dark matter has a specific distribution throughout the universe - it actually has specific locations and so on. But dark energy isn't like that - there is no concept of having "a lot of dark energy here" and "not much dark energy there." It's an entirely uniform effect that's just woven into the vacuum. It's like "applying an offset" via adding a term to Einstein's field equation (what used to be called "the cosmological constant."). So the two things are entirely disparate and the fact that they have names that seem to relate them is misleading.
There is a lot to say about your question Jim.I would say it does come form mass an energy.Dark Matter could be data time placement.
Thank you both for this. It makes sense for the first time.
@tate rosemary You are very smart MAYBE.
@tate rosemary Uh, how am I supposed to take that? Back handed complement? Back handed insult? Damning with faint praise?
Gravity, a mysterious force that science cannot explain. Science has no clue what the four forces are. I think that's amazing.
@@rooter1 Your last statement just plays with two things: words and classification systems. As for classification systems, shadow can be classified as existing, or not existing, or in many other ways (dark/light, cause/effect, etc). As for 'words', you are just playing with definitions (meaning which classification you are referring to). Don't feel bad, academic philosophers do the same thing (I call it "playing semantic parlor games') as they hide from what they really should be doing - developing an overall life-guiding philosophy for humanity (humans still suffering from continued universal cluelessness) (enter me). As for gravity, Einstein explained it - with math (which the commenter here obviously does not understand). The commenter's second statement is childish, with 'the four forces'. Why 'four' if scientists do not know what they are doing? You just gave credence to a child mentality. Congratulations.
@@rooter1 99.99% of humanity can not even stop their thoughtflow at will for indefinite time. Yet thought is their main instrument for discovery and describing the world.
It is like hitting an anvil with a hammer that is tied to the tail of a dinosaur.
Stop the incessant rant inside the head, and all becomes simple and clear. And you´ll also understand who you are.
@@rooter1 ...and Time is a simply a method for observing the ratios between multiple series of events.
Just because we can measure a shadow's length, does not make it an object. It's very twisted to make it a dimension. And even more confounded, a piece of a dimension.
The problem is authoritarianism and people who say things like "Math is THE language of physics. "
Maybe for an authoritarian follower, who believes what is required, by the Wizatd of Oz, who tells us what the variables represent, regardless of any observations or connections to reality.
Try the electric universe theory . Makes more sense .
Thunderbolts project .
sreetips scientists have to look for another way to explain gravity, because something is missing or incomplete about General relativity.But we nobody want to think about it
There are so many clues sprinkles into the physics we have, that these concepts become emergent and obvious.
Its just that shoving emergent gravity into GR though statistical quantom entanglement/decoherence is complex to say the least.
I think the development of theories on gravity shows that these theories are in essence still Newtonian. Prof. Verlinde’s work is a contribution in calculus and shows the anomalies, but it has not yet led to a new model of the Universe. I found another anomaly and a proposal for a new model, but I am not an established insider and paradigms shifts can be tricky and risky.
Very good lecture by a very confident man. Verlinde states that dark matter doesn't exist and that for him the story of the big-bang is not believable (1:22:30). I'm not an expert in this subject so I cannot judge, but I would not be amazed if Verlinde turns out to be at least partially correct in his statements.
Roodborst Kalf big bang has been proven false... But when people are taught things by people they respect they become clingy and resist change. It is easier to believe in a lie than it is to accept you believed in a lie.
It is much easier to strike out and attempt to discredit those whose work confirms your beliefs to be false. So as Galileo had to tippy toe around the flat earthers, so must this guy tippy toe around the big bangers.
What??? Big bang has been proven false ?? By who?
Roodborst Kalf More than that - he is arguing that gravity is subject to entropy (ie quantum disorder). Be careful when you say 'big bang" though because I'm sure he still believes in inflation theory (ie the tiny pre-exisiting universe did suddenly expand)
Niriel: This old debate. I would have liked your above comment more if you had said that many QM physicists disagree that entropy should be 'first' thought of as measuring disorder, not, as you say, 'physicists don't think of it that way' because obviously many still do. Verlinde is defining it in 2 connecting parts 1) the number of micoscopic posssibilities and 2) the number of information needed to count them but he is not saying (at least in this presentation) entropy cannot also be defined as the measure of microstate disorder. I agree order and disorder are poorly defined but wouldn't you say the same for 'information' ? In that case, why not just hang on by common definition to what we can visualize, namely more posssibilities & more infromation needed to count them is an emergence of what we can picture as 'disorder'. This doesn't violate anything (ie The Law of Thermodynamics) for the sake of everyday language, unless you can show me how it does on a microscopic level. On a macroscopic level it may be confusing to understand how we get so much order within disorder, but you might picture as an analogy how much disorder it causes me to clarify my point.
@@ulrichofficial6498 hannes alfven, 1970 nobelprize...Halton Arp, famous astronomer, Anthony Perrat, (Los Alamos labs, showed in mega computer simulation that galaxies form via EM...no dark matter needed), Eric Lerner, David Lapoint primer fields ua-cam.com/video/9EPlyiW-xGI/v-deo.html to name a few.
enjoy
It must be remembered, that regardless of how elegant, an explanation of a thing is not the thing itself. One may remember Bohr's famous quote: “Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.”
Niels Bohr.
Nevertheless, the explanation IS elegant, although I wonder about how the term "information," the original use of which is 'something that informs,' is being used.
In its original semantic use "information," even a Qbit, has no value without meaning, (no meaning exists until the superposition collapses), and meaning requires consciousness, does it not?
In any case, a Qbit is an idea, a representation, whose only reality, therefore, exists in consciousness.
Please, someone explain what is being meant by "information" in this presentation...
@BLAIR M Schirmer Delivery? He needs to work on his grasp of reality first...
You are referring to the reification fallacy, which illustrates why most theoretical physicists need to take a course in logic, and why experimentalists need to do so, too (when they attempt to interpret data)...
Yes + No. Yet, symbols, models, maps & hypotheses are not what they seem to represent, approximately. Nor do they eliminate the anomalous artifacts of inadequate theory, inaccurate perceptual-conceptual phenomena and erroneous interpretations of data derived from incomplete observations of universal field effects. Hence, Bohr was wrong because he lacked complete understanding. Verlinde is much more confused by his own opinions & inadequate conceptualizations. For example, he bases everything on a belief about information that exists without mentality, awareness, and the conscious cognition of a knower. He also believes that the extent of the cosmos we can now detect is the whole of it or else that there is an outer "surface" of it. Yet, we may soon find that the detectable size of the universe is much larger than we've detected so far. That will demolish the interdependent notions of the Big Bang, Black Holes, QM particle physics and a spacetime dependent on an obsolete cosmological belief system.
@@MichaelMonterey IMVHO, Bohr has repeatedly been proven correct. Experimental evidence continues to show that reality is in the eye (mind) of, or created by, the beholder. As I understand, this is where John Wheeler left us.
More bizarrely, if one accepts the B-Theory of time, reality, whatever it is, all exists simultaneously (atemporally), there for us to encounter as we each experience the illusion of the flow of time.
BLAIR M Schirmer I
बहुत स्पष्ट और सटीक व्याख्यान, मुझे वास्तव में इसे सुनने में मज़ा आया।
This was a truly exciting and mind-expanding lecture. Thank you so much for sharing your work with us.
To me this explains that dark energy is time, this would explain why we cannot observe the other 95% of information, because at any one moment we would be in that 5% but it is constantly moving between the whole 100% of information/time. To me this could even be imagined by the picture of the wormhole to be an image of the time and the beginning of the universe would be the opening or the crossing over of the event horizon then the passage through the wormhole itself is time until it reached the other side until it ended at event horizon on the other side then constantly repeating itself maybe running into something like a multiple universe theory
Layman's question, but what would be needed to verify/falsify this work given its potential impact. How long and how much resource to do this?
This is an excellent question that everyone should ask. The Wikipedia article on entropic gravity talks about a few experiments that both do and do not support the theory.
You will not know how long and how much until after it is done. That does not mean that you should not begin.
I think there's a test that could be done in flat space/v low-G ...but tricky to get there
Omg, I don’t know if I can watch the rest of the questions. Verlinde was getting embarrassed realizing his talk was going right over the heads of pretty much every audience member. I mean, they didn’t even know basic physics.
Thankyou.
I don't know basic physics and I didn't think he was disturbed by the questions asked, at least up to the 1:11:45 mark which is where I chose to address your comment.
Thanks to TU DELFT for the update on Erik's work. His progress in mapping deviations from Newton's gravity equations as effects of "Dark Energy" is intriguing and thought provoking. I look forward to seeing what predictions can be made to test this new mapping. We are currently capable of measuring in the realm of 10^-23 meters to detect the gravity waves predicted by Einstein's general mapping of relativity. Perhaps he will find something that will require finer measurement that will push us to get closer to measurement at the Planck scale of 10^35 meters. (or was that mm?)
If so, you're only three zero's off...
To me this explains that dark energy is time, this would explain why we cannot observe the other 95% of information, because at any one moment we would be in that 5% but it is constantly moving between the whole 100% of information/time. To me this could even be imagined by the picture of the wormhole to be an image of the time and the beginning of the universe would be the opening or the crossing over of the event horizon then the passage through the wormhole itself is time until it reached the other side until it ended at event horizon on the other side then constantly repeating itself maybe running into something like a multiple universe theory
What certified theorists refer to as black holes appears more like huge 'clumps' of energy waves. Actually blocking, or impeding light. except for the light that can travel past its outer edges appearing bent or distorted.
A theory based upon actual observed facts would be a nice change.
What's observed at present has a blunt end - picture yourself on a dead-end road, where it ends in a cul-de-sac...you either go on imagining what continues or 180 into observed fact.
But often observations are after the math has been done, so you are missing the more important work...
I think that most of what this man presented went over the heads of all those that asks the questions
It only takes 6 years in grad school to suppose a complete stranger would grasp the conceptual framework of rarefied physics and advanced quantum theory immediately. Its not a physics problem, it is human nature to overload sensory information at the first encounter of a thing.
@@santyclause8034
Yeah, well, Mr. bigrockets (and a lot of others here in the comments) think they're immeasurably smarter than those in the audience that asked questions, and, by extension, those that hadn't. They must be real geniuses.
Yes, great lecture but appalled at the quality of the questions at the end...
It was a good watch. It's funny to me how when he's asked a solid question. He dismisses it in a defensive manner
18:00 There is a third possible explanation.
Two have been posited:
· A different gravity law
· A higher mass density around galaxies
The third possibility is the following:
· Less mass density than computed in the inner regions of galaxies.
Edit: I meant mass density, of course, not just mass. Corrected above.
Since 96% of the universe is made up of stuff we have no clue about, we should remain very humble.
in the past, when observation defies the theory, the theory goes out the window.
making up 96% of matter that nobody has ever seen to make the theory work...well...i do not buy it.
Science has gone astray badly.
it has become a religion with dogmas which can no longer be changed.
the holy prophet is Einstein, who, had he seen the universe is riddled with EM (10 to 37th times stronger than gravity) fields, would never have completed his equasions. (way too complex)
the highpriests are the theoretical physicists, who speak latin (math)
Now we will build a second Large Hadron Collider which will cost approx 100 billion and be ready in 2070. To find dark matter.
I think humanity is being robbed.
I have lost my respect for the scientific community.
try debunk this: ua-cam.com/video/9EPlyiW-xGI/v-deo.html
hands on, in the lab, explanation what a "black hole" really is.
modern cosmology sees an aeroplane, and thinks it is a very loud bird.
Then what? Do we just continue to sit around remaining humble? Get off the humble high horse and DO something.
@@wbiro yep, those 96% exist only on some blackboards,
so :
take a big brush, wipe it away, and start over...
@Pouty MacPotatohead I agree on the freedom to approach the problem any way one chooses. But when scientists start breaking their own rules, it becomes a big mess.
Now Nobelprizes are given to very bad science: Higgs Boson - not peer reviewed, (they´d need a second LHC ...13 billion dollars...ooops) or Cosmic Microwave Background, also not peer reviewed, and done with faulty instrumentation leading to faulty results.
ua-cam.com/video/i8ijbu3bSqI/v-deo.html
Here is an example by an eminent astronomer, ua-cam.com/video/EckBfKPAGNM/v-deo.html ( timestamp starts at the math part of it, he presents the observational evidence before that, best to see the entire lecture and start from beginning) who managed to prove (despite being gagged and ousted) that the interpretation of redshift, is wrong. Casting serious doubt on big bang and GR.
In the last part of his lecture he goes into the alternative explanation.
my own explanation ? I dont have one that i could mathematically prove. (dont speak that Ianguage, yet)so have to go by intuition.And personal experience.
If i could choose, i would rather spend the 100 billion dollars to find out more about the properties of plasma, and develop instrumentation to detect electricity in space.
And bring together scientists with open minds to try and start over, comparing results from all disciplines.
Looking at the pic of a brain of a mouse, and one of very large sections of the universe, there is a striking resemblance.
May be, the universe is Conscious. Some kind of living organism.
a quick and limited google search gave me this:
nautil.us/issue/50/emergence/the-strange-similarity-of-neuron-and-galaxy-networks
@Pouty MacPotatohead in the past, an experiment must be repeatable in another location and the instrument must be a copy of the original...since when did that go out the window??
did you watch the lecture of Halton Arp?
Why not give some intelligent response to that, instead of ranting away about how i dont understand physics.
read the comment section there..saves me a reply here.
If i do not understand math (show a perceived weakness and you´ll be destroyed) i listen to those that do.
I am interested in all views, not just the settled ones.
I subbed to Crackpotwatch, to get some intelligent answers to my queries...all i get is abuse...they say anyone who does not agree with the settled science, his books should be made to pulp.(not burned, climate change lol). How modern !!
My impression of the scientific class is one of Highpriests on High Horses lashing out on anyone who does not agree with their miracle big bang universe.
For the holographic theory of information and wormholes and emergence, Leonard Susskind can be referred.
and we can waste more of our time...
1:06:10 ... when you don't ask a question because you have a question but you want to impress
this is so f*ing plausible, so conclusive. breathtaking. I think this is IT. we go to the stars in less than 50 years. yeah, we will be able to curve space at will.
You are curving space just by being a physical object. Now the question is your free will...
@@wbiro
Over his head
Chinese proverb: one fool can ask more than 10 wise people can explain.
One fool can ask more questions with no meaning but that are captivating to poseurs than a million conspiracy theorists can exploit. I feel sorry for Erik- he's going to be dealing with idiots for the rest of his life
Physics has become the new tower of babel.
quite the exact opposite
Does this theory open relation between gravitational constant G and other fundamental constamts?
Mind blown... 👽
rolling a huge joint..
huh...imagine living outside of space and time..
My bet is, we have our new nobelprize right there!
He is the most interesting physicist of the 21st century so far.
Wait, for what? This isn't new. Everyone thinks this. It's also dumb to assign the most up to date computer tech to how the universe works, which makes me think he's not that innovative. Seriously though, his big idea is that dark energy acts on matter? That's exactly what everyone else is saying.
We're a long way from that, but for now his theory is promising. The fact that he predicts the Milgrom a0 acceleration is very interesting indeed. We now need much better observations of weak lensing, and the theory needs to be developed to predict the growth of structure after the Big Bang. Of course, the whole mystery of Inflation may be resolved by this development.
17:58: "you can measure this by red-shifts". do these measurements take into account the fact that time passes more slowly as we approach the center of the galaxy? to compare information received from the stars near the center of a galaxy with those further out, we need to take into account the time expansion applied to the sample as it crosses from a slow-time frame of reference to our faster time frame of reference.
Very good lecture and not very easy to perform, but well done by Eric Verlinde. The essence is explained bij Verlinde in the 35 seconds from 57:25 to 58:00.
Electromagnetism makes more sense than anything mentioned
@Horse Talk
The theory of relativity tells says that through what they call "gravitational time dilation," "time" actually moves slower the closer you are to a heavy object. It's preposterous - that doesn't make sense. Luckily, it is extremely easy to prove wrong. It's just laughably easy to prove without a doubt that it can't be true. This is all you have to do: pick a difference in height, say, 30,000 feet. Plug the number 30,000 into Einstein's space-time interval formula to get an exact value for how much faster the clock at 30,000 feet would tick if relativity were correct. Then, take two of the most sensitive clocks in the world, put one on a plane up at 30,000 feet, and then compare the times on the clocks. It's that easy! The one and only thing that would _not_ show that the theory of relativity is false is if the clock at the higher altitude ticked faster than the one on the ground by the _exact_ rate (It would have to be EXACT!) that was calculated ahead of time! The fact that the theory of relativity is SO easy to disprove is very powerful evidence that it is true, since every time this experiment is run, at any two altitudes, (even as small as 33 centimeters higher in the air!) the clocks tick at the different rates that were calculated using the space-time interval formula. Hm. Well, relativity _also_ says that this same time dilation has to happen to a clock that is accelerating relative to one that's standing still. So you could disprove it that way too. Put one of the clocks in a jet, or a car, or send it into space, leave one clock here, and make the measurements. But all of these experiments have been done as well. Oh yes, all of this is very easy to check, which is not to say that there aren't people out there who make videos that will tell you it isn't true. There are many, many of those. But you are too smart to be fooled by them because you know better than to let people who are not research scientists interpret scientific research for you. You know to go to the first-hand sources, read the articles yourself, and ask someone to help you understand the technical bits. For this, you will have to approach an actual scientist. Others will not be able to understand it themselves, so they will not be able to help you. And, while you go about that journey, why not learn the theory in the mean time? Here is a source that will teach it to you. I'll warn you that it isn't easy to understand at first. That's why it took so long for someone to finally figure it out. But the amazing thing is that, hard as it is to understand, it is _understandable_ to non-physicists like you and me, if we put in the work.
The reason you and I can know that the Electric Universe is false has little to do with the fact that no space agency is able to detect the cosmic electricity. Maybe it's just really hard to spot, or impossible to spot, invisible. But that wouldn't mean it isn't there. The reason we know the Electric Universe is false is that if it is true, then general relativity is false, which forces us to say that the accuracy of all of the measurements I described is somehow a coincidence, and even worse, the reasons that the clocks at higher altitudes or in an accelerating vehicle keep time more quickly than the ones at low altitude, or standing still, remains completely unexplained. Electromagnetism neither predicts, nor explains that. So the choice between the two is really very clear. Luckily, general relativity is far more interesting than the Electric Universe. It's hard to get your head around at first, but sooo worth it once it clicks.
I know it isn't easy or intuitive, but remember its predictive power, and its successful tests. This material is fun, but it is more dense than other youtube videos because it is a real bridge to _understanding_ the science, not just talking _about_ what the scientific conclusions are. Therefore it may help to take notes.
ua-cam.com/play/PLsPUh22kYmNAmjsHke4pd8S9z6m_hVRur.html
And this playlist gives some more background on time and mass that helps clarify everything. Stick with it!
ua-cam.com/play/PLsPUh22kYmNCLrXgf8e6nC_xEzxdx4nmY.html
That theory died in 1992 (the force is too weak).
@@lancetschirhart7676 : Radioactive decay rates also vary with full moons and seasons. Is that relativistic? Or electric field related.
@@wbiro nope--Anthony Peratt, From 1981 to the present he has worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, serving in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division. He used Los Alamos supercomputer to simulate the formation of galaxies, combining gravity and EM. He succeeded. No need for dark matter or other fairy dust.
@@lancetschirhart7676 thanks for the links, will give it a go.
but isnt general relativity incompatible with quantum mechanics? What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance"?
Wasnt the observer (double slit experiment) an influence ?
What if, at such a minute level, (nano to the x seconds) the clocks behave as we expect them to behave?
Why has Consciousness not been researched?
I think the final word on GR has not been said, and though it may be practical to use the theory, it is dangerous to turn it into a dogma.
It seems that the unknown increases exponentially.
@BLAIR M Schirmer Thanks, and then I realized the guy was a quack, and you saved me 1 hour and ten minutes more.
They don’t want us to know
My thinking is that the Universe is a fabric sphere on which the galaxies are emplaced on every part of the surface. At the centre of each galaxy a black hole develops and this eventually punctures
the fabric and all its mass enters the 'mantle' of the Universe sphere. The Universe sphere grows in time as more and more black holes enter. The enlarging sphere causes the galaxies
to separate from each other - in the way Hubble observed. i also suggest that Black Holes develop from very old stars and stars develop from isolated gas giants - and gas giants develop from
isolated rocky planets or asteroids which gravitationally attract cold hydrogen to develop gaseous envelopes. To sum up - the Universe is a sphere with a fabric surface in an enormous volume of emptiness.
Finalmente sei arrivato! Ora la Fisica diventa una cosa seria.
Approximately nine months after the big bang the universe was born
Clever and cute... and there is some intelligence in there (but none of those add up to philosophical enlightenment - which humans have never had, enter me)...
Yes, in the middle of nothing, from nowhere, nowhen, QM rock stars created space and time out of imaginary mental phenomena. Wow.
The diagrams are incorrect, so it takes me to wondering if we take it the equations are right then how comes the artist and computer generated images are so incomplete or incorrect. Can those equations not make for more comprehensive images? Example is how the latitude lines if you like thatare shown around the universe are always depicted in 1 or 2 dimensions is that for easy viewing, I visualize that grid in 3 and 4 dimensions and the picture looks somewhat different, as the speaker makes clear the bending of light around a so called black hole which gives a misconception of the image of one, as black would be more like a dim or bright star depending on what it has attracted recently, the horizon zone of a black hole can be millions of miles in measurement depending on its size, I would also propose the possibility that quantum entanglement occurs in black holes that teleports for lack of a better word almost all of the material into or out to another part of the universe, it may also be having a role to play in the expansion of the universe or an never ending recycling of material by means of entropy, off course this rules out a Big Bang Theory. Please try to imagine the speakers diagrams and Einsteins in 3 dimensions, create a box grid around the universe and try to construct the influence of the rest of the lines. Try doing it with the earth or solar system. One arrives at a problem with connectivity of those lines with other celestial bodies, One could say those lines don't exist and are only for reference just like our longitude and latitude, but they those of earth are complete references and we abide by them, how are conceptual and Theoretical scientist to be inspired by incorrect images.
Lol
Gravity is a major conundrum. It is so very powerful but when we measure the gravity that effects our world it seems way too weak. I am hoping that this guy will show how Gravity is shared between, ummm, dimensions?
When this guy opens his mouth, I'm always going to listen to what he has to say! Thank goodness for human beings this driven to make the world better.
It's something wrong with you? It's thanks to pseudoscientists like this we have lost a lot of our reality and the true scientific method!
Genius gives lecture & idiots ask Qs... At the end the only good one was of why entropy has to be a function of binary bit system.
And the answer was clear that it doesn't matter how you model the entropy, what kind of "function" you choose to model it with.
For example, if "you" "think", "talk" or "communicate" in any way, there's always an entropic dynamism.
if the audience already knew all the answers, there would be little point in giving the lecture. perhaps the information contained in the universe has implications related to quantum computing.
carlos goshn / Perhaps that's the way you think when you smoke too much weed.
Engineer Ahmed .....the essence of learning is based upon asking questions. Even in the trivial field of engineering questions are important in order for the field to move forwards. Although one needs to highlight the fact that Engineering moves the slowest of all disciplinary fields - in a par with sports like badminton or ice hockey
@Engineer Ahmed
I'm curious, would you have asked this lecturer a question if you had the opportunity?
My God, this audience.
My sympathies go to the professor. I'm not a physicist ...But even I could've asked better question than these bozos..
Looks like he was presenting to a bunch of boulders
Very sad questions... maybe they were pranking him.
Absolutely! Shame on them or just like Jason said: "maybe they were pranking him".
Indeed. Who are these people? How are these questions even possible after this lecture?
No wonder if the audience and even the host seems to be more interested in this 'rap battle' meme they made. I notice that the professor also seems to be kind of annoyed with the audience.
My theory, If a ball that repelled water was submerged, it couldn't repel it as there is nothing to take its place, therefore it would create a force pushing back, while warping the space around the ball, if a planet in space is taking up the area in space the same forces are created, as the area the planet is taking doesnt just disappear the space it takes has to go somewhere, the planets size and density would determine how much force is pushed back into the planet creating gravity. But the opposite also happens, if something is so dense it doesnt take up enough space which causes it to pull everything towards it like a black hole.
I've heard the ER=EPR from Leonard susskind about a year ago, is this the same work??
They're definitely exchanging ideas, at least.
physics is so lost in dogma they will never find their way out of the hole they have dug for themselves
It's a lot easier than doing the math... and you and your speculation can become popular, too...
Thank you!
Had the same idea. Math is a language. 1+1 doesn't exist. Two apples aren't the same. You can't say something is equal to another base unit.
Not quite lost, kinda stuck. The hole is an unknown/error region. Keep trying is what people tend to do🐸🌴
@@mildeluxe Stuck on the wrong path. It's time to backtrack and rethink some assumptions accepted as gospel.
Should have had an English-speaker edit his PP presentation.
The maximal information assumes that the surface area is finite, of Hausdorf dimensionality 2.
If it's a fractal (to the plank scale) surface with Hausdorf dimensionality 3, we get the maximal amount of information to be proportional to the volume.
You did not need math to deduce that.
According to Stochastic electrodynamics; E=hc. So h actually turns out to be an exact measurement of the "uncertainty" of electron trajectory. While the stability of the electron distance to the nucleus is directly dependent on the value of the energy level of h at any given moment ( or place in the universe) thereby maintaining its constant angular velocity. When looking at it in these terms, the ability of an electron to stay in orbit is no longer a mystery.
RIP Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dork Mathemagicians, Blech Holes, Big Bang.
Epitaph: "They died in our sleep, while the empty handed priest class scrambled in ignorance to replace them before we awoke."
The funeral was a highly charged, magnetic event. Morning has broken.
Spoken just like a true scientist.
The end question to any theory is, "Can we engineer to it?" If not, then the theory is still mere speculation, and a lot more work needs to be done on the theory.
@@wbiro And the evidence shows that most of our power infrastructure is built on the foundations of people like Tesla, who didn't get rid of EM without explanation, in some mystic-religious dualistic, infinite dimensional fairy story, that causes people to think that something created everything from nothing and reality changes based on our intentions.
I'd say EU passed the test, especially with that donut they snapped a picture of in yesterday's news.
Heres some falsification of big bang:
Watch "The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/video/p8lKQMEYYLw/v-deo.html
Watch "Blackbody Radiation, Planck's Law, and Kirchhoff's Law!" on UA-cam
ua-cam.com/play/PLnU8XK0C8oTCY9cJgtqhSR8OZc001T-bZ.html
Birkland currents describe the data that is currently described by the mythical dark matter. Scientists should seek simpler not explanations!
how
Birkland currents describe the earth not galaxies and hence the universe - plasma cosmology needs evidence and it has failed. I'd move on to another theory because there is not a single serious physicist or cosmologist that accepts it.
Birkeland*
Deganawidah Ayenwatha lol another theory like...dark matter?
...or, as Verlinde suggests, a new view of gravity which renders dark matter unnecessary - either theory has support and shortcomings but at least they are feasible, unlike the pseudo science plasma cosmology
OMG! The questions O.O
Lecture was wasted on them
Give me an example of a question you would have asked if you were there and had such opportunity.
ALs theory on gravity....
Gravity is caused by 2 things, by an object's mass displacing the fabric of space (spacetime) causing spacetime to now be accumulated around said object in multiples. And by the constant expansion of space.
An object in space causes spacetime to be displaced. Like a bowling ball in a pool. The ball now takes up the area that water once occupied. In space, objects now take up the area that spacetime once occupied. How much area an object takes up depends on the objects mass and density. A black hole for instance displaces the same amount of spacetime as the size of the black hole. Earth for instance may only displace an area about the size of our moon. Because only the center of earth has dense matter.
When spacetime is displaced it causes a warped space around the object displaced it and now spacetime is most abundant at the surface of the object, and thins out the further away you are from it. (BTW, THIS is what reaches out so far, that causes objects to attract).
Now that we have an abundance of spacetime around our object, we have a tiny pressure on the surface of our object. Include the constant expansion of space now in multiples, because of the abundance of spacetime, we have a stronger pressure on our object, we call this gravity.
Gravity, as weak as it is, how does it reach out so far across space? With the "mass attracts mass" theory.
Because it doesn't. It's the warping of spacetime that reaches out so far. When 2 objects warped spacetime co.es in contact with each other their paths are altered. Causing the objects to now travel towards each other.
If "mass attracts mass", why do we hardly ever see headon collisions with objects in space? Why do they always just miss each other and orbit each other? See above....
As & at scales where phenomena get too entangled & complex we feel like we can come up with any absurd explanation & prove it too be r8 like dark matter dark energy etc..... But there r some laws never get violated....Law of energy for 1 & the other one this genius has hit upon "the entropy" Entropy even Hawking had to accommodate into his model otherwise his model was going bizarre.
We will find out that space time is detached & time is fixed quantity & time travel & across worm holes etc not possible with entropy laws. We will eventually find that big bang is absurd too as this universe is just an explosion of ultra ultra massive black hole only & we don't know how infinitely many universes exist so no point. Just enjoy & implement laws of nature to build things for us to benefit us.
another armchair thinker... it is an opiate...
As an engineer I am more comfortable in a simple explanations is the most likely. The evidence shows the Electrical Universe is more likely.
A universe composed of particles with positive and negative electric charge that overwhelmingly cancels each other out is more likely? How?
I believe the Electric Universe gives explains what we see and test to verify, rather than relying we can't see or test
So the realities of the atomic nucleus composed of quarks interacting via the strong force's gluons and intermediate vector bosons doesn't mean anything to you? The fact that mass energy density alone demonstrably generates a time distortion field in the volume of space surrounding said mass is just a fairytale as far as you are concerned?
Two questions for Dr. Verlinde. 1. Dr. V says that humanity hasn't been around long enough to see how the universe evolves. Don't powerful telescopes give us that ability to look back in time and see how objects in the early inverse behave and compare them with more recent objects and phenomena? 2. As the expansion of the universe accelerates, won't the horizon of future observers shrink? Then so will the upper limit of wher entropy that future observers will calculate.
q1: yes that's what I would think… q2: the upper limit of what can be observed is lower than the final entropy limit of the universe, simply because there will be a point of entropy where observers cannot exist anymore but the universe hasn't reached it's own upper limit.
I am considerably less skeptical about this now.
Well done.
They are just so stuck. Go make another equation and please create more unknown math unicorns, rinse and repeat.
That's pretty good. I smiled. Very subtle. I appreciate that kind of humor.
I have a new view on Gravity also, but I am not qualified in physics etc. So no one will probably lend me an ear :(
Colin Maharaj just say it...
To me most of physics is just common sense. If you have experienced nature and you feel you have an observation worth mentioning, please share your common sense conclusion.
It can't be any more absurd than half the hacks claiming to be scientists these days.
Need to present a prepared paper with supporting diagrams.
cool, will put something together.....
Colin Maharaj I'm also interested. Can you upload it and post the link in a reply?
But what is your "new view?" I've been listening lately to a lot of lectures on gravity. One new understanding i've reached is that it's not a "force." It bends or curves light and time (the understanding is what's new to me). I've also begun to believe that past, present, future coexist together and may not be linear as we construct it to be. But I don't believe an object can travel faster than light only because it would be observed (by the same observer) as being in at least two places at once. I have yet to be able to wrap my head behind that possibility. Yet.
At about 23 min. My observation is that mass is decreased; that a mass is greater on the other side of the field, thus attracting all mass until it is equal, closing the hole.
Lawrence Krauss "Universe out of nothing" - this lecture is mindblowing and makes Verlinde's rejection of the big bang sound not very impressive.
What do cows have to do with this? He said he's going to give us some udder information.. 🙂
Someone explain how blackholes can "evaporate" and emit particles when nothing can escape a black hole?
McKeith Pearson II
It is called the conspiracy of the scientists. No one of them dares to say what has happened to the late prof. Hawkins theory. Out of respect is something different.
So there is something incorrect about blackhole evaporation? Or are you referring to string theory? (I'm not a physicist, just curious)
Matter/anti-matter particles generating at the event horizon. If the anti-matter particle generates just inside the event horizon, while the matter particle just outside. You'll remove mass from the black hole. (The anti-particle will annihilate a particle inside, since it can no longer reach it's original partner that was outside.) Leaving only a particle outside of the BH, which can then be accelerated to escape.
First of all black holes are not holes they are spheres and they are made up of dark matter this occurs after a fusion source with enough mass collapses under the surge of dark matter rushing in creating what we've come to think as gravity the fusion source then explodes creating a void and the dark matter fills that void and becomes a sphere of dark matter over time the particles of dark matter begin to release from the outer layer of the sphere which causes the sphere or black hole to begin to shrink
Is not a black hole but a super mass event. The laws of the finite repeat at astronomical level. We are made of finite black holes.
Yeay brains thaughts u present so genuinely has your own ideas like every channel latly
My conjecture is that we will have to supersede not the theories so much as the mathematics. The fact that the math works so well, yet never correctly, suggests there is a fundamental anthropic quantity we do not understand.
Do you find it odd that the milky way galaxy, or by that matter the telescope that views the edge of the universe, is always in the center of the universe? I pity the fool who clicks on "read more". You might want to sit down because mind blowing can be disorienting.
Here is a thought experiment for you. If you were to travel instantly to "the edge" of the universe, Would you suddenly see the big bang painted on a spherical wall in front of you? Would you be transported back in time to the moment of the big bang? Or would you simply be in the center of the universe billions of light years from where you started? (most likely answer is you would be in a new location looking out 13.8 billion years into the past from that location.)...
IMO there can't be an edge of the universe. We simply exist in a "time bubble" that explains the entropy from the infinitely small point of the observer to the massive amount of time that existed on that point. In essence every "observer" is the center of it's own universe, or time bubble.
It is entirely possible but truly unfathomable that an infinite amount time bubbles began in an infinitely small point and began expanding in an unknown (and most likely infinite) amount of dimensions.
Infinity just absolutely shatters my mind but what scares me more than anything is this theorized absolute nothing that would('nt) exist on the other side of "the edge of the universe"
Thought experiment number two. Imagine nothing... All that has ever existed "is" the universe, yet we think we have this concept of nothing. By literal definition "nothing" can not exist and never did exist. If nothing existed it would create a paradox that would mean the universe could not exist because the universe would be nothing. Infinitely small is not nothing, infinitely small is identical to finitely large.
The universe started 13.8 billion years ago and that's it. That is all that ever existed. You can't turn nothing into something for the reason that time simply didn't exist and because time didn't exist entropy didn't exist. Before the big bang there is a line that time itself can't cross. Similar to the speed of light you just can't go past that point.
(Disclaimer) What follows is a purely thought theory in how I understand it, there is some math behind it that I could not explain to you. But I am taking concepts proven as a possibility and running with it here.
I have read that the most fundamental particles exist as a wave function. For instance an electron is literally a cloud of possible locations of that electron. It's not a little dot of energy but exists naturally in all locations it can possibly be located at, simultaneously. The locations it can be is more probable near it's current shell around a nucleus of the atom it is located in.
Now here is where this gets interesting. When we look for an electron we detect it at a particular reality. And I used reality instead of point for a reason there. Because where the electron was in that moment was based off of the observers reality. What happens in that moment is that that infinite(?) wave function collapses to a single point in space based off of the observer. In this case the observer happened to be the thought of a human taking a measurement. If you take that literally, a thought turned a cloud of possibilities, that stretches across the universe, into a tiny point for a brief moment...
Thought experiment three. Wave your hand fast in front of your screen. Do you see how your hand exists in multiple locations as a hand cloud in front of you? Now close your eyes and open and close them as fast as you can. See how you remember it being at one spot? If your hand were to hit something, see how the hand cloud affected the outcome. This is just a lag in visual prepossessing. Your hand was not a cloud but you can get a better understanding of wave functions using this.
Now we know all matter and energy (oxymoron alert) is this fuzzy cloud of possibilities. What if the universe as a whole is that fuzzy cloud.
What would happen if there were no life in a particular configuration of that universe?... Without an observer, would it matter? Would such a universe truly exist?
Is it possible that, without observers the universe is a cloud of every possible configuration, and thought has the ability to create a settled location for things as large as a galaxy or cluster of galaxies, or a whole observable universe?
In this "Thought Theory", the reason why anything exists, is that a particular configuration gave rise to the observing consciousness itself. Each consciousness that could arise, from any configuration, gives a shape to a reality. And multiple realities exist in parallel to each other all looking at the same universe but configured differently.
If this were the case, then life doesn't merely exist in a universe. But a universe exists, the way that it does, for thought to arise. Thought creates the universe and the universe creates thought. It is an emergent response to create thought not to create an optimal life so don't go thinking you can prove this by wishing stuff into existence. We are all bound by the universe that created us. The universe is what it is because that is what gave rise to us.
HHDarkool - *"But a universe exists, the way that it does, for thought to arise. Thought creates the universe and the universe creates thought."*
Dr. John A. Wheeler was suggesting that the universe is a consciousness-driven self-excited circuit back in the 1980s. (He's the physicist who coined the term "black hole".) You should look it up, it very closely resembles your idea. But that the cosmos had its parameters set by the combined total of all possible retrocausal interaction potentials summed over the entire cosmic history, converging on time=0, thereby resulting in the inevitable emergence of the fermion/boson hyperplasma along with hyperinflating spacetime, and thereby guaranteeing the emergence of life, is pretty much an understood principle at this point. As far as our own importance goes, I suspect that we are likely not the greatest thing going in the cosmos sentience-wise, but rather merely a tertiary spinoff of a much greater process of sentience elsewhere. Kind of like, comparing the mind of a sparrow to our own: ua-cam.com/video/d35HnXGuIt4/v-deo.html
Ken Logsdon. I kinda think (by what I've heard), conciousness is a quantum effect much like a quantum computer. Our bodies process what we see and hear electrochemically then somehow the overall experience gets experienced by the quantum computer. It may be possible one day that humans can hack the universe.
Going a little more philosophical, I think human thought is separate from our conscious and it actually resides in a higher dimension. We are more than just a brain. Each of us are a unique quantum signature. We all have a signature just like the smartest being ever in the universe does, had or will have.
All human conciousness is a different "piece" of that conciousness. Each one so unique that even with the possibility of an infinite number of unique perspectives it is still only perceived in one location at any given time.
I believe that conciousness is impossible to copy, overwrite, erase or exist in more than one location at the same time. It seems to me infinitely small and always in the center of the universe.
Logically if each conciousness is always in the center of the universe, there is not more than one center. There are multiple universes. One for each.
To me brains seem to just be computers hardcoded to act like a neural network. Research in artificial intellegence shows "genetic algorithms" learning more and more sophisiticated behaviour, such as bipedal motion and dealing with obstacles. They even have virtual dogs learning real life gaits on their own just trying to optimize their speed. Our brain is not a sufficiently noiseless system on a quantum scale to realistically function as a quantum computer (it's too hot and dense), so unfortunately it's very unlikely that it is more than a classical computer.
This whole interpretation of the measurement problem you have is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what "observation" really is. There is no human needed to have "observation", if we do the double slit experiment in a black box in space for ten years and then fetch the results we'll see the results. There's just a certain class of quantum interactions that break entanglement - making them "quantum to classical interactions". Exactly how the measurement problem is solved with regards to these interactions is still up for debate, but for example decoherence theory is an interesting attempt at this.
Some of your thoughts are not completely misguided, for example
"Logically if each conciousness is always in the center of the universe, there is not more than one center. There are multiple universes. One for each."
is essentially what lead to the cosmological principle, a core tenet of modern cosmology. Of course, they considered only one universe in which everyone thinks they are in the centre, so it's more that every point is just a "central" as any other rather than there being many universes so that everyone can be central.
While I understand that it's fun to think about these things, it's never that productive unless you learn all of the machinery behind physics :p
Source: I study theoretical physics at a university.
Why do humans have to be so arrogant and self important? We can not never will be able to know EVERYTHING in this Universe. Humans have specialized organs with which to obtain information about the environment to be able to survive. Just enough. We got basic basic basic 'tools'; sight (within a very specific and tiny slice of the light spectrum); auditory, taste, smell and touch. There are animals with far 'cooler' tools such as sharks and rays that can 'see' electricity. Cats can hear the heart beat of a mouse across a room. Dogs experience their world by smell the same we do using sight. We don't experience ANYTHING directly. All information has to go through chemical changes to be interpreted by our brains using numerous 'filters' that are as unique as each person. I doubt the red I see is the red anyone else sees. Yet here we are yakking about a Universe we have barely begun to learn about using these wimpy 'tools' that evolved for use right here on this thin blue line. Thinking about the bigger picture is great practice on the path towards humility. How silly it is us arrogant humans think the universe was 'made' just for our 'use'? That we are so special. There are animals who have far better tools for survival. We humans got this big brain yet oh my! We use only 10% or 15% and don't know what the rest of our brain is being used for? Plants and animals we've evolved with all belong to ecosystems. We do not. Because we are so special there won't be a tear when we go extinct still sitting on our pedestals.
because you don't need to be able to see electricity to throw a pointed stick. You don't need to be able to hear a heartbeat to figure out where a mouse is. And what we can smell is sometimes unpleasant enough. No matter how good a smell is I have never thought that I should be able to smell the cinnabuns from 20 miles away. That's why dogs are our companions, Cats are our full time exterminators and, well sharks are just cool as long as they stay in the ocean.
What you are referring to is perception. While perception does give rise to consciousness and may be inseparable they are two different things. IMO.
I sense that you are a little disgusted by humanities hubris to accept the dominant position in the animal kingdom. Like it or not we are number one for a very good reason.
As far as the universe being made for humans, I would agree, that don't seem to be the case. But, I have seen more than enough proof that it is possible to hack the universe to improve and/or destroy life.
It is only natural that any life form follows the most optimal form of survival, humans actually are nearly at the top for adaptability. That should not even be in question other than to sound angsty or profound or environmentalist or naturist. blah blah blah...
Furthermore if we "used" 100% of our brains we would be having a seizure, not smarter. Basically you would chemically electrocute your brain. It's rather obvious why we got a bigger brain rather than a normal but more efficient brain. Our brains are as efficient as they can be.
Granted there will be developmental, environmental and genetic variance per individual. They can leave one mentally incapable of grasping the bigger picture and come to a philosophical and scientific debate armed with the points of, you all suck cuz yooz thinks you sooo important and animals are way cooler than you guys.
Seriously, I think there is some kind of handbook that has the illogical gotcha points in it, and 99% of activists cut and paste right from it to sound intellectual.
Extremely hard to follow. Presentation is not delivered coherently.
Perhaps your opinion is based on prior knowledge?
Is the cartoon displayed around 1 hour 20 minutes available?
What strikes me is that the black hole animation at 26:30 completely forgets about the effects of time dilation.
Let's say that we have a letter A. Due to the time dilation, from the point of view of the external observer, nothing actually falls beyond the horizon, it just slows down through redshift to blackness. Then it appears that not much happens for an extermely long time, during which you can reconstruct A by observing the hawking radiation, and get the rest when the mass of the black hole reduces to the point that it stops being black (it turns into a supernova)
From the point of A that is falling in, it never actually fall beyond the horizon, and instead, the visible, external world accelerates through blueshift. It is not pleasant. The incoming photons become more energetic burn you, and there forms a wall of hot particles that you can't quite push against, they are so damn heavy. However, then, over time, and not a particularly long time, the trend reverses. The "hawking radiation" effect from here, looks like a stream of anti-matter that eats away the wall so that it is less and less heavy. Eventually (but not necessarily), a stray anti-A particle combines with A, generating a flash of light, and reducing the mass. Then, the blue-white light from outside fades, gravity subsides, and A finds itself on the outer side of a supernova explosion. It is being blown away towards uncurved time-space. Time never actually stops for A, nor it ever goes beyond of point of no return, nor it ever hits any singularity.
The question that is unresolved, is whether you can reconstruct A in full by looking at the positive-A that was produced by the quantum fluctuations, (and it's negative-A recombined with the original A), or is it getting garbled beyond recognition in the process. But there is no such thing as hitting a singularity or point of no return in this view.
Makes sense to me . . . somehow you never see this effect in the "visualisations" ?? please correct me if I am wrong, preferably with some references.
I think if they modeled time dilation in it would take months or years just to watch it.
Technically something at the event horizon would appear to be standing still for quite a long time assuming speeds close to speed of light.
I’m not an expert just my thoughts on why this isn’t modeled accurately. I have seen some simulations with time/clocks in there and usually the last hundredths of a second cover hundreds of thousands of miles, so it’s happening fast from one perspective and painfully slow from the other perspective.
ok lecture but I didnt hear anything "New" or interesting
thanx,i almost watched that,
Let's make a bunch of guesses based upon what we can see and make up (imagine) things about what we cannot and force mathematics to agree with our presumptions and call it science...
Keep clinging to a 4 dimensional model and keep hitting the same wall.
Until you define the additional dimensions interwoven into our reality, you will never advance scientific understanding.
If your premise is false, everything built upon it is irrelevant.
3dw3dw yes and let's use those guesses to engineer transistors, computers and now quantum computers, just so you can claim how clearly wrong they must be while using them yourself.
I doubt you'd apply this same logic while sitting on an aircraft decrying the 'guesses' made by the wright brothers and how nothing can come of such guesswork. But that's basically what you are doing here.
Its just that you don't have a clue what your talking about, and the bits you didn't understand you simply labeled 'guess'. Everything you were unclear about you assumed nobody else understood, therefore a guess. You and I both know without looking into the math that this is practically everything discussed here. But in your case its leading to you labeling theorems as guesses. A theorem is not a guess right? I mean you don't think a mathematical theorem can be a guess right?
But worse, you are using technology based on quantum mechanics in your hand as you read this right? Thats a direct result of these guesses...there certainly wouldn't be a computer industry if we didn't understand Shannon's law, and its not like Claude Shannon could guess how information works and it would match up magically with reality. He must have put a fair bit of work, thought and confirmation into that before he won the Nobel prize for it right? So how can it be just wild guesses, unsupported assumptions if you are using it right now? That's some track record of guesswork that seems to pan out for science all the time there right?
Here's a clue... Its not guesswork.
And as you heard at the end there nobody is make ng any predictions yet using this model... But when they do, and the predictions are later demonstrated, well at that point it becomes a tool to be used since it'll give the right answer all the time.
Everything that does not follow this method is by definition guesswork. Cos if it can't be tested, its not an explanation.... Right?
Mickelodian Surname there is a huge difference between proven science and theory.
We now know that Newton was wrong and we know now that Einstein was wrong.
These guys were still closer to the truth than the guys before who thought the world was flat and the center of the universe.
See I think where you get confused is that you mistake evidence for proof.
But aren't you an arrogant condescending little shit?
nuff sed either Newton who theorized that gravity is a force transmitted instantaneously is wrong or Einstein who theorized that nothing transmits faster than 186,000 mps is wrong.
Both of them were wrong because we are now theorizing that some energies/forces transmit much faster than light but gravity is not one of them.
You asked how many times his predictions were confirmed.
What you should be asking is how many times has the real world broken his predictions.
At this point I would like to direct your attention to the field of quantum physics where Einstein's theories break down immediately. And his predictions are proven false repeatedly and frequently.
If we perform an experiment and the result matches our prediction, we have proven nothing. If we perform the same experiment 1000 times and 1000 times our prediction is confirmed 90% of the time, we have still proven nothing. Sorry!
But that is just the way science is. We as scientists must accept that fact. If we are not willing to accept that basic truth then we should find something more productive to do with our lives than pursue a truth that we are not willing to accept when it does not agree with our intellectual model.
For more details research Tesla, Oppenheimer, and Heisenburg.
But Tesla told Einstein he was wrong and Einstein didn't argue.
Heisenberg also told Einstein he was wrong. And that was ok, because Einstein's way of approaching space and time as inseparable constituents of the universe advanced the scientific worlds ability to communicate ideas and brought us to a point where this conversation is even worth having.
But Einstein was much closer than Newton, and we should hope so. I have nothing against Einstein or Newton, they did good work. So here is the difference between evidence and proof.
My main point is that none of these scientists are working to define the other dimensions that are inseparable constituents of the universe.
You cannot solve a rubics cube without the yellow and blue.
You may have 4 sides appear to be solved but if blue and yellow are ignored you may never discover a true solution.
If science isn't about truth then what is It?
If it is not true, it is false. It's ok to say I don't know. But it is not ok to present your fantasy as fact.
We can say, it's just a theory...
And that's fine, because that's what Einstein said to critics.
I'm grateful for his theories and their many shortcomings.
I am way more grateful for Planck and Tesla. Their proven technological discoveries are greater contributions to our lives than the imaginings of theorists who are more often wrong than right.
What I don't understand is why people get so upset when we point out that they are wrong.
They act as though we blasphemed their God's!
But these are only men....
And men are prone to fail.
So why should it be surprising that a man was mistaken.
And why should we go on believing what is known to be untrue for the sake of preserving the infallibility of science.
Remember it was scientists who once told us the earth was flat and that if you sailed too far you would fall off the edge.
I assume that you don't even notice that your premise about multiple dimensions interwoven into our reality is just a guess that you made on what you could imagine. I also don't see anything you presented that wouldn't make me think your premise is false.
nuff sed, relativity doesn't explain the rate of rotation of galaxies. That was the reason for the dark matter hypothesis in the first place. While there is a cosmological constant, there isn't anything in the theory to explain why that number is not 0 or why that number is actually growing at an accelerated rate. This falls under the hypothesis of dark energy.
I don't get the rubik's cube analogy either.
I'm sure this is simple and can be derived from the equations given or maybe it was even said, but what would the temperature of a black hole be according to hawking? very hot? or very cold?
Joseph Beatty around the event horizon is hot. Right before it crosses the event horizon matter is so compressed, dense and hot, it radiates brighter than some stars. Across that threshold, on the inside however, they don't know. Black holes don't radiate anything. They *think* it's cold. Cold inversely proportional to mass, so the smaller the warmer, the larger the colder. But is all guess work. The main issue was none had ever been directly observed until last year. Theyd been theorized, they'd been "detected", they'd been proven to be in the galactic interior, but it was only last summer (2017) when one was finally directly observed by Magellan without much obstruction. it appeared cold, but again, that's because it doesn't radiate. But they don't actually know. They could be very hot, but none of the radiant energy can escape. Not that it would matter anyway.
The origin of momentum creation is founded on the application of energy. Momentum serves as the initial cause of pushing and pulling. The energy, emanating from the internal core of a planet, is what gives rise to momentum, commonly referred to as gravity, and not due to the planet’s size, mass, or space-time curvature. For example, when energy is applied, it generates the necessary momentum for the actions of pushing and pulling. Without the application of energy, momentum cannot be established. Consequently, force cannot be exerted for pushing and pulling, as it lacks a physical existence. This, in turn, clarifies why force is not gravity. ~Guadalupe Guerra
Gravity is emergent, but there's nothing dark about it. Just a complex relativistic interaction between known particles.
Gary Barbour II
Well put.
Entropy and entanglement and expansion of randomness.
Albert Einstein let's put it this way, there is no gravitational constant
If you jump off a bridge, you will fall at a constant rate of 32 feet per second per second.
Martin Zitter don't forget about terminal velocity. And your rate would halt abruptly when you hit the ground.
But more importantly what you're talking about is completely out of context for by reference to gravitational constant.
The only terminal velocity in the universe is the speed of light. Do you dispute that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate?
I went down to the shore last week. As I sat watching the waves hit the shore I noticed that the water was coming up onto the shore. After measuring this phenomena for a couple of hours, I worked out that the water progressed 8 feet ahead per hour.
By extrapolating backwards and using google to find out how wide the ocean is on average etc, I worked out that approximately 188 years ago the Atlantic Ocean did not exist!
I am thinking of doing this same experiment and calculations with the entire universe. So far I have observed that the other galaxies are accelerating away from us here in the Milky Way.
By extrapolating backwards....
Ya good one.......As & at scales where phenomena get too entangled & complex we feel like we can come up with any absurd explaination & prove it too be r8 like dark matter dark energy etc..... But there r some laws never get violated....Law of energy for 1 & the other one this genius has hit upon "the entropy" Entropy even Hawking had to accommodate into his model otherwise his model was going bizzare. We will find out that space time is detached & time is fixed quantity & time travel & across worm holes etc not possible with entropy laws. Wew will eventually find that big bang is absurd too as this universe is just an explosion of ultraultra massive black hole only & we don't know how infinitely many universes exist so no point. Just enjoy & implement laws of nature to build things for us to benifit us.
Sorry, I didn't know UA-cam erased my comment on your computer. Here it is...
I went down to the shore last week. As I sat watching the waves hit the shore I noticed that the water was coming up onto the shore. After measuring this phenomena for a couple of hours, I worked out that the water progressed 8 feet ahead per hour.
By extrapolating backwards and using google to find out how wide the ocean is on average etc, I worked out that approximately 188 years ago the Atlantic Ocean did not exist!
I am thinking of doing this same experiment and calculations with the entire universe. So far I have observed that the other galaxies are accelerating away from us here in the Milky Way.
By extrapolating backwards....
Have a nice day! :-)
The way I see physics, comes down to a question of free will.
When the big bang happened, there were initial fluctuations. The largest fluctuations became the centers of galaxies.
The smaller disturbances began the formation of stars.
Even smaller became the planets.
And on the planets were the ingredients which set forth the formation of life.
I am here because my soul chose to take on a body to experience consciousness.
My soul was a fluctuation in the big bang.
Now we can trace back this very moment to a fluctuation in the original plan.
Every position and momentum of every particle has followed the cascade of bombardments since the big bang.
As I sit here, I can choose what words I am to write.
The question is, was what I wrote writ beforehand in the information of the original plan or did it spontaneously arise freely?
In other words, does free will exist independently of physics or is it all preordained?
Please choose to respond to this comment!!!!
The stars and the planets were formed from the same accretion disks - not from different levels of fluctuations of the Big Bang. If the universe is deterministic then an intelligence should be able to foresee the entire future of reality given the starting conditions. For that you would need to know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe. To do all the calculations you would then need storage capacity (memory) that exceeds all the matter and energy in the universe.
My bet is on free will. I see no condition that implies that free will is independent of the physical laws of the universe.
As for your assumptions about "souls" and "consciousness", I see no evidence that they are not emergent phenomena in this universe. In fact, I do see evidence that neither of them are hard and true phenomena. After all, if I remove a small part my (or your) physical brain, I can completely alter our souls and turn us both into raging murderers. It has also been shown one can acheive these results through psychological manipulation as well.
These accretion disks are instantiated by pure random quantum fluctuations?
If the visible Universe is finite, which I've seen numbers as large as 10^80 particles, then what can prove or disprove something with the memory capacity of up to 10^10^100^1000 bytes? I mean you are assuming that time began at the big bang and therefore there was an infinite amount of time passing before it banged?
Infinity is just slightly smaller than infinity after all.
As to whether there is a soul, look into your mother's eyes and tell her she doesn't have one.
Consciousness is the final frontier, so you'll have no quarrel with me about it's existence. We may NEVER explain it.
I suspect that you are a scientific adherent, and you do not take kindly to "woo woo" ideas.
I understand where the materialist comes from, if you can't see it or measure it, it doesn't exist.
But like in this video, he admits we have only been here for the shortest amount of time, and how we can pretend to know everything is just hopeless tom foolery.
I remain agnostic.
It sounds like you are saying that the hubble sphere(the distance at which things are moving faster than the speed of light) is the same as the cosmological horizon. I know I must have misunderstood you. Can someone please clarify this for me?
(~51 minutes in)
Intersting... A physicist who doesn't believe in the 'big bang' or 'dark matter'. This will raise a few eye brows in the scientific community for sure.
Even Feynman would find this comment challenging to some his cosmic paradigms, so let's just keep it local: "So, I'm on a spinning globe. Earth's centrifugal spin force wants to throw me off & gravity keeps me grounded. So, if the velocity of earth's spin at the equator, AKA zero degrees latitude, is approximately 1000mph or 1660kph, thank goodness for gravity! However, gravity, as an opposing vector to centrifugal force, causes for e.g. one liter of water to weigh one kilogram at the equator. OK. So, how come a liter of water still weighs one kilogram, at say 45 degrees latitude north or south of the Equator? And do so despite the reduced centrifugal force caused by the reduction in earth's diameter (& surface speed) at that 45 degrees N or S latitude. At points along these latitudes, should not the centrifugal force reduce proportionately to the reduction in surface velocity? If so, with this now reduced counter force to gravity, what effect should we observe on the weight of matter at the surface at (say) 45 degrees N or S, compared to the equator?" The math & geometry are simple. Such things however are hidden in plain sight for those with eyes to see, but like I wrote at the beginning, let's keep it 'down to earth'.
Embarrassing introduction....
Why?
Not really - just a glitch -it's just that the ball seemed to already have changed so he had to scurry to make it like the other so that it bounced the same.. We had to consequently imagine that the ball would change over time. But that wasn't so hard was it? Gravity is more like the 2nd ball - it changes and elastically pushes away dark energy making it seem like it bounces more (ie causes galaxies to rotate faster). Perhaps next time he needed to create the ball out of stuff on the stage and then bounce the two balls simultaneously. Then an hour later he bounce the two balls the same way resulting in vastly different bounces- thus, making the analogy the conclusion!
Kinda agree, I feel we don't put enough emphasis on public speaking in dutch education. US and UK do much better.
Nervous as hell.
and Q&A period.
I do not buy into these general lectures. Just give the derivation.
Show the mathematics used to derive these results.
146maxpain
Just Google it if you want to know. ;-)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Lol read his published papers, that's what they are there for.
the second article of Verlinde is just a pile of rubbish.
146maxpain k
Good interesting lecture into a possible new understanding of physics, followed by unrelated and unscientific questions about religion and philosophy. I do wonder if the question givers understood at all what the professor was talking about.
I need a little clarification on one point: If the universe is expanding and accelerating and the observable "event horizon" is gradually getting further away and is limited by our ability to see the light coming from that horizon, does that mean that our universe cannot hold as much information as it has in previous times? In short, is our universe getting smaller in it's capacity to hold information?
I think you may have some confusion in your Analysis of information.
The Universe (total), and the Visible Universe, which is a smaller portion visible to us, and inside the Universe (total).
The Universe (total) IS expanding faster than the speed of light [this does not break any speed of light relativity limits], so some info in the Universe (total) will never reach us due to the limits on its max speed (= speed of light), but is still contained in the Universe (total).
@@martinpickard6043 Thank you for your concern Mr. Pickard. I still communicate better when people use complete sentences. For instance, you stated, "The Universe (total), and the Visible Universe, which is a smaller portion visible to us, and inside the Universe (total)" which is not a complete sentence because it lacks a verb and a direct object. How can you analyze the entire Universe when you cannot even construct a complete sentence? Are you associated with Mr. Erik Verlinde, or are you just another viewer making a comment?
Terribly presented. Horrible host. I kept hearing whispering while they asked a question and the people asking questions were talked over, interrupted. Rude. I like mr. Verlinde and his theory but this was horrible. Anyway thats my two cents.
Well, MK ULTRA, give them a break Delft is in Holland and Dutch is their first language. I think that since they are NOT presenting in Dutch, they are actually accommodating you. That is my first point. Second the audience many of whom may not be physicists are entitled to their differing opinions.
This is probably the worst possible way to present this topic. Too vague, too general, too unconvincing. Prof. Verlinde is presenting topics that are simply too overwhelming for people who are not already familiar with GR, Entanglement and BH theory. However, this presentation is very frustrating for people who do know a bit about it and that would just like to see the equations, the assumptions, the implications, the validation...in other words: the Physics. Prof. Verlinde never dives deep enough. The presentation is so frustrating and badly structured that if I was not aware of the brilliant career of Prof. Verlinde and the prestige of the TUDelft, i would dismiss this stuff as "pseudo-science". Furthermore, i find that his way of speaking out big stuff (like "the Big Bang is a lie") without providing any sound justification or alternative is simply unacceptable for someone in his position and it does not do any good to the credibility of the scientific community.
Well said. I think you should not ever give credit to any community at all..only to the data it submits.
In an ideal world were everyone is able to analyze and understand any kind of data by himself in an infinitesimal amount of time, I would agree. However, as a scientist I can tell you...you simply can't. You need a reliable authority that is also a community based on a few well defined and accepted principles. Every scientific information contained in every book, magazine, documentary or talk that you read/watched/attended most likely comes (if it is serious) from years or decades of research and piles and piles of data. Good luck sorting all of them out by yourself!!
Which part of 'Public Lecture' (depicted on the opening slide, in red, with the outline of a red square around it) did you fail to comprehend?
What part of my comment did you fail to understand? At least everything except the third and fourth sentences, which are the only ones where I criticize how poor the technical explanations are.
You are a scientist? Which part of this being a public lecture don't you get? It is dumbed down for the lay person specifically, by intention. Saying a public lecture is too vague, too general, doesn't dive into the technical details enough is like criticizing chocolate because it tastes like chocolate.
No love for Susskind? Read Blackhole Wars by Leonard Susskind. @32:00 Leonard said information is not lost, and figured out some very important properties. Anybody who is interested in this should definitely read that book.
He did a straight forward job. If you can't follow some concepts, research for them. Don't expect him to explain it from scratch.
Some of the questions asked to him were so naive that he had to pause for a moment as they were out of context especially the 'God/Creationist' one.
I agree with his information theory. Everything if made of atoms only differ cz of the information/entropy they contain. Remove the info and things will perish into their fundamental form(with least info).
I also noticed it. The audience was just too ignorant to even grasp what was being said.
Information is only one way to classify something, so the notion is only playing with classification, and there are many ways to classify, which is a tool of perception. The question is, how useful is it, meaning with respect to engineering (and not with respect to bamboozling people for social gain).
The trouble with these lectures is you either know it or you don't. Watching the JSWT videos now, it's the same thing: Either I've heard it or know it; it's hard to find one that's advanced
I see nothing really 'new' here - more of a recent update really. We now _know_ that gravitational waves are real and Einstein's predictions in this area were correct. We know that hidden dark matter works with galaxies to give the kind of rotations that we see; and that gravitational lensing is also a real phenomena. Further current work on dark matter is under way. It will be interesting to see where that goes.
seriously? I think you missed the point.
The Dew point? The melting point? Point of no return? What point?
Adam Mangler exactly, as a theorist if you can't provide tests for your theory, you really have no theory. These ad hoc theories are nothing new but have some value in that, however improbable, can be eliminated from the possibilities! Cheers
Please, what was the point? You won't answer because you don't understand what you are talking about.
Even Feynman would find this comment challenging to some his cosmic paradigms, so let's just keep it local: "So, I'm on a spinning globe. Earth's centrifugal spin force wants to throw me off & gravity keeps me grounded. So, if the velocity of earth's spin at the equator, AKA zero degrees latitude, is approximately 1000mph or 1660kph, thank goodness for gravity! However, gravity, as an opposing vector to centrifugal force, causes for e.g. one liter of water to weigh one kilogram at the equator. OK. So, how come a liter of water still weighs one kilogram, at say 45 degrees latitude north or south of the Equator? And do so despite the reduced centrifugal force caused by the reduction in earth's diameter (& surface speed) at that 45 degrees N or S latitude. At points along these latitudes, should not the centrifugal force reduce proportionately to the reduction in surface velocity? If so, with this now reduced counter force to gravity, what effect should we observe on the weight of matter at the surface at (say) 45 degrees N or S, compared to the equator?" The math & geometry are simple. Such things however are hidden in plain sight for those with eyes to see, but like I wrote at the beginning, let's keep it 'down to earth'.
Great lecture but lame questions from some religious nuts and ignoramuses
Lame questions, I think not. If the universe is made out of information or managed and regulated by it, than the question follows; From where does this information comes from? Our Collective experience tells us that information is only generated by intelligence. So logically, the universe is replete with information, there for, this information, based upon this experience, must emanated from an super intelligence. And when considering its scale and sophistication it must be of a superlative nature. So by definition "God" would fit the bill or if you prefer a "Super Intellect". Note:The notion that energy or matter may be secondary, and that information is primary and more fundamental to the physical universe, is not a new concept.
Information is generated by many things that don't require intelligence. The air in the place you are sitting and typing generates huge amounts of information regarding the velocity of each individual atom, the collisions of atoms, the number of atoms etc. No intelligence is required, therefore no super intelligence is required.
Yes.. I heard that if you put in ink and paper pulp with some glue and than mix it in water you get a book, that is according to evolutionist, it's called science magic.
No, you get a strawman as no scientist in the world has made such a preposterous claim. Only people who believe in tooth fairies in the sky, talking snakes, miracle rib women and magic fruit spout such nonsense.
No, A Strawman requires billions and billions of years of random juggling of amino acids.
Since the CMB radius (hence area) is always increasing as the universe expands, does that mean the emergent gravity is also changing with it?
He doesn't think it is expanding be doesn't believe in the big bang which helps theory ,To me this explains that dark energy is time, this would explain why we cannot observe the other 95% of information, because at any one moment we would be in that 5% but it is constantly moving between the whole 100% of information/time. To me this could even be imagined by the picture of the wormhole to be an image of the time and the beginning of the universe would be the opening or the crossing over of the event horizon then the passage through the wormhole itself is time until it reached the other side until it ended at event horizon on the other side then constantly repeating itself maybe running into something like a multiple universe theory
that visual in25:40 is crazyyyyyyyyyyyyyy