How Many Universes Are There?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.c... to win a meteorite 💥
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Dr. Brian Keating in this captivating lecture as he explores the mind-boggling concept of the Multiverse, from its scientific evidence to its connection with religion and philosophy. He delves into topics like black holes, the different levels of the Multiverse, and the experimental confirmation that so far eludes us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📚 Get a copy of my books:
Think Like a Nobel Prize Winner, with life changing interviews with 9 Nobel Prizewinners: a.co/d/03ezQFu
My tell-all cosmic memoir Losing the Nobel Prize: amzn.to/2sa5UpA
The first-ever audiobook from Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican a.co/d/iZPi9Un
📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
Eric Weinstein vs. Stephen Wolfram • Stephen Wolfram vs. Er...
Sir Roger Penrose: • Nobel Prize in Physics...
Sabine Hossenfelder: • “I Don’t Care About Yo...
Avi Loeb: • UFOs & UAPs: The Situa...
Follow me to ask questions of my guests:
🏄♂️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 Subscribe www.youtube.co...
📝 Join my mailing list; just click here briankeating.co...
✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: briankeating.c...
🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: briankeating.c...
#universe #podcast #briankeating #intotheimpossible #science #astronomy #cosmology #cosmicmicrowavebackground #intotheimpossible #briankeating #multiverse #universe
![David Albert: Einstein Was Right About SPOOKY Quantum Mechanics! [Ep. 433]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ciLv8xGy33I/mqdefault.jpg)
Join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥
I thought the Jovian moons Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto contain the largest quantity of liquid water in the solar system?
Thank you Prof. Brian Keating.
It was a great presentation, we reviewed and refreshed our knowledge.
We look forward to great (and difficult) topics and guests.
Best regards 🙋🏻♂️
Always brilliant, great explanation
Thank you for this series ❗️❗️
How many universes/ multiverse does not interest me as much as what is the criteria or threshold for another universe/multiverse to come to be. Is it different physics, is it different choices by sentient creatures what demands the creation of a new universe or is the great and glorious creator a workaholic?
there's something very special about bubbles ✌️💚
I think One, that probably is a lot bigger then we think it is. Multiversum has several problems with scale and information location, self reference, the energy of the vacuum is way to low for a universe to pop out. Infinite entropy etc etc It simply is to complex imo and with a lot of holes in its construction.
Yes, only one by definition. Uni is one and it contains all other whateververse you want to come up with.
Jules Verne become a father of Science Fiction on the base of the discoveries of Electricity and advanced Engineering. Baseless discussions on "Multiverses" without even a single solid fact is called "Speculation" - Is this is the current trend in Physics?
The problem is it's an unanswerable question. If we have a bubble universe 10 trillion light years from ours we'll never know because it's unobservable.
Great video, Dr. Keating. Thank you so much. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Dr. Keating - tying into the discussion of eternal inflation: do you have anything to say about the possibility that the universe we inhabit may be very large/infinite in space or time dimensions, in light of the universe's expansion? Suffiicient separation of two regions will lead to them moving away from one another at a rate faster than the speed of light. Since information cannot pass between them, do they not become effectively separate universes?
I’m assuming at some point in history, the idea of splitting an atom was nonsensical, just speculation which could never be proved. I don’t think we can ever answer the multiverse question. But then again…
When do we get the B-mode polarization findings from the Simons Observatory? Won't that be a test that could falsify level 2 Universes?
The answer to your title's question is: one. There are hints and speculations and hypotheses galore imagining the possibility of other universes. But there is no well-established observable evidence for anything more than one universe. Call me when you have actual empirical evidence for a second universe.
Sure, our comprehension of all of existence has expanded over the millennia as our observational skills have been expanded with increasingly powerful technology. We started with living on a flat surface and an upside-down bowl covering it that had stars and a sun and moon and independent wanderers we called "planets" stuck to it. Sure, we went from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric universe. Sure, we came to realize the sun was just a close-up star that was so flaming bright compared to the stars only because the stars were so mind-bogglingly far away. Sure, we figured out that all these stars were grouped into a single system we call a galaxy floating in empty space. Sure, we finally realized that a bunch of fuzzy things we called nebula were actually more galaxies so distant that it made the distance between the individual stars we could perceive look like a walk around the block in comparison.
Then the floodgates opened as our technology became more and more advanced, and we discovered all sorts of fascinating things about the universe, how it was expanding from a mysterious origin moment in time where the entire kit and kaboodle decided for some reason to blast out into a spherical expansion of existence, how the random chaos of photons evolved into particles and fields of energy and gravitationally collapsing clouds of stuff that eventually swirled into galaxies and stars and planets and various other debris.
And here we are today, discovering more and more fascinating details on how the universe works. But after all this, we're still stuck in one limited observable universe, vast as that universe may be.
But we must remember that all these observable bits of data were there all along to be observed. It took us millennia to observe it all as we improved our natural eyesight with technological enhancements like telescopes and spectrometers and probes we shot into space. But everything was still always there from the beginning, ready to be observed.
But we've run straight into a brick wall now. We're able to observe the entire observable universe. We can tweak our technology and our observations, hone our understanding of the cosmos, even make new, surprising discoveries with our cutting edge telescopes that require us to rethink what we thought were established models of the universe. But these advancements are limited to the edges of the observable universe.
Sure, we can speculate and hypothesize new, unobserved guesses about the universe and beyond, using known data to help us anchor these flights of imagination to some possibility of being grounded in reality. We can get deeply "lost in the math," to borrow the title of a book written by a certain popular physicist, hoping that clinging to the math will be a lifeline to keep us from drifting too far into lala land. But the fact is, there is only one universe that we've empirically established with solid evidence to exist.
Now I have no problem with speculating, hypothesizing, looking for evidence that might maybe verify our educated guesses of what might be out there. But it disturbs me that so many scientists love to talk about speculations and hypotheses that have not been verified with empirical evidence as if they WERE well-established theories and models. And the multiple universes hypothesis, that we've yet to scare up a single piece of concrete empirical data that they might exist, seems to me to be the biggest offender of them all.
There is only one universe---at least for now.
In the comments, someone says "we have empirical evidence. Those who say there is no such thing are either ignorant of the subject or dinosaurs". 🤦🏻♂️😎
I think we are in a period where there is no distinction between Mathematics and Physics. In the past, Mathematics was something that completed physics and made physics real...
Nowadays, as hypotheses and speculations increase (which is natural and should be), I think physics is becoming more blurred and lost in the shadow of mathematics...
Or there is a problem with the meanings we give to concepts. The subject is very deep and complex!
We need help semantically and philosophically as well...
A would recommend the book Something Deeply Hidden by Swan Carrol. My first and only science book I have bought
Is it possible there are both multiple universes (level 1) beyond our horizon as as well many worlds (level 3)?
I hope there are multiple universes and that it is possible to contact these other realities.
If there is more than one universe, then there is no universe, because the root of the word universe is "uni" which means singular or one.
1 putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance = ((4 t_P)/(π G Planck mass^2)) ≈ 1 putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance = ((1. α G/t_Λ)(2π 1. α M_earth^2))^-1
The multiverse is a subatomic world replicating the macro scale in cosmology.
Could you develop what you mean by that final sentence?
A particle here on Earth can be on the other side of the Universe if scaled to precise rulial spacetime.
one.. with infinite probabilities of its state.. one but dual.. there is more antimatter out there.
One
Sliders
Skip the retrospectives we have heard 100 times. Just answer the question.
Just one universe, scientifically speaking. If there are other universe's then we apparently can't observe them or scientifically verify their existence, so it can't be anything more than a theory at this point. Maybe we can find something in our universe's wave function. But seeing as we're limited by the cosmic event horizon it probably won't ever matter. There are more important matters in quantum and AI right now than to waste time and money on this. But it is a fun ponderance.
"Just one universe, scientifically speaking."
Exactly! We only have proof of the existence of the universe we're in; as for those supposedly other universes, there isn't the beginning of the beginning of a proof of their existence, so this discussion is rather pointless.
🌒🌘🌑🕳️🌑🌘🌒
Both of you are wrong. Both mathematically, empirically, entropically.
We have mathematical AND empirical proof of the multiverse. In the models we're working in, a multiverse is an inevitability and a direct consequence of the physics we now operate in.
I don't have time right now to elaborate, but you guys need to update yourselves on our latest models. The energy levels we now have solid proof for is far, far beyond relativity. We're now well into a deeper understanding if higher dimensional spaces and they simply couldn't exist in Hypersymmetry and HyperTensored Holigraphy without a multiverse.
But the model(s) we now have are extremely complex and HyperTensored Spacetime (HtH) is a completely new way to model our understanding of lower and higher dimensional spacetime that leaves GR/SR in the dust, if we're talking Holography purely. Your way of thinking is already a dinosaur.
I can demolish your claim of there being only one universe with hard math and physics. If you're interested, I'm game.
But your claims are now far into ancient history in physics.
🌘🌐 *6.25 Hexyocto Hz (HyH)* 🌐🌒
🌒🌑 *-~0.00087Vp/0.38Zs~-* 🌑🌑🌑🌘
🌘🌘🌑 *6.25x10^(-124)Hz* 🌑(FTR)🌒
-🌑-🌒-~🌐~EAHT/HP~🌐~-🌘-🌑-
🌑🌘A🌑🌐 -5🔁3³3³- 🌐🌑Z🌒💫💫
Good luck! 😊😋🦋💃🦋😋😊💫✨⭐
@@theuniversewithin2065 Im going to call bologna on that one.. "In the models we're working in, a multiverse is an inevitability and a direct consequence of the physics we now operate in."
As a photon moves through phase space, described by the Wigner function. Where exactly is this multiverse of yours? Describe a simple vector in space. And do be thorough. This will be the part I hear crickets...
@Photons_arent_particles If you improve your attitude, I might be able to help. You're working in old school dust that we've left behind years ago.
I'm a theoretical physicist with a main focus on astrophysics + chaos theory, QM/QFT/HH with a speciality in Black Holes.
I'd be happy to share our findings in pure HyperTensored Holigraphy if you lose the attitude.
🌱💃💫💃🌱
@@theuniversewithin2065 Well.. Where is it? I keep hearing about a multiverse and how there's "evidence", yet no one ever ever ever never ever supplies any. I'm honestly curios, what could you possibly think is a multiverse? Superposition? If so then no.
How many universe's? Probably None.
Kinda symmetric. Space and time created super quickly and then destroyed super slowly. No one lnows the before or the after, maybe they are the same then.
Annoying and loud music, it disrupts concentration
For reasons mentioned here, there is little doubt that at least ONE of your categories are NEARLY certainly true.. Obviously, THIS logic suggests that many different universes (by category definition) IS our magnum reality... Is the universe Everettian? I like the idea, but it isn't falsifiable.. STILL, the history of science is one of a long sequence of startling insights.. You mentioned imagination early in Brian. As a species, we still have an insufficient supply of it.. Peace.
Isn’t all of mathematics an abstract concept that requires a conscious mind, so to argue mathematics is fundamental outside of our consciousness might require a fundamental conscious mind to exist and which made mathematics fundamental to the physical reality.
Well, it's one or the other either math is abstract and need a mind, or it's a fundamental of existence, in which case minds are not needed for it, we'd simply be conceputalising them as we do other external elements of the world
@ But it does mean the physical reality is arranged according to mathematics, which would imply design from a mind not a form a chaos theory where mathematical order arranges itself. For maths to exist in an abstract sense can only exist within a mind, whether invented or deduced.
@MarkPatmos that's the thing though, if math's is the basis of reality, then maths is not abstract.
That's the basis of old platonicism, whose adhérents believed that concepts and ideas existed separatly from us in a world of ideas, and that when we conceptualized them, we were accessing them rather than creating them.
If maths is the basis of reality, then we must rethink the very way we see math's, including it's abstract nature
@@thomasbardoux1692 How can reality actually be based on mathematics if a mind is required to have knowledge of it? Without a mind it can only be coincidence that it in any way corresponds to mathematics. Mathematics can't be a cause for why the physical reality is constructed the way it is without a mind because it is an abstract concept that can only exist within a mind.
@@MarkPatmos because if maths is not just an abstract, then it doesn't need a mind.
In such a scenario, we don't abstract math. We simply deduce it from existence.
10 ^^ 500
10^500 of possible multiverse universe 🌌
For starters i want you to know that dark energy as well as dark matter existed long before our visible universe did. it was the fuel [dark energy/dark matter] that ignited the first sequence of big bangs.
On what model do you base that?
Absolutely no way to prove it so why say it
Only through faith after having a DMT trip that show you another Universe. You in?
✨💕🌒🌑🕳️🦄🕳️🌑🌘💕✨
I left ages ago. Much more fun in this realm. Who's with me? 🦋🐬💫💃💫🐬🦋
🐬💫🌘🌑🕳️🦄🕳️🌑🌒💫🐬
🌒🌑🕳️🌑🕳️🌑🕳️🌘
Well, we've proven it both mathematically AND empirically. And I can prove it to you. You game? Or do you want to hang back in the dark ages?
🌒🌘🌘💿🕳️📀🕳️💿🌒🌒🌘🐬
you can't just give up that easy
Even asking the question is dumb. like if you or anyone else for that matter would ever have the capacity to know that [how many universes there are]. be humble and i might, just might pitch you ideas that make much, much more sense than your baseless ideas.
That's a baseless criticism. Asking questions even before having the means to resolve them is the basis of philosophy and science
I'M sorry mister i don't mean to be disrespectful but you must, i repeat you must think outside the box. stop being a follower by repeating like a parrot what others say and do some real, deep personal thinking.
Why assume he doesn't do that?