why its just what he does for a living, science fiction, its pseudo-science for the phantasmal type, if you want real astronomy that will blow your mind you go to sky scholar who is actually pushing the boundaries and providing actually science that makes sense for what they are putting out there, not the clownish ideas of the cosmologist who waste money non stop on fairy tales. The EXACT reason science has stalled is because they introduced fairy tales
Nothing implies something. We are stuck on the universe, part of it, and in essence, we are IT. This adventure of experience never ends, it only changes in its infinite expression of the same "old" and "desireable" eternal and inherent fundamental principle. Your teeth cannot bite themselves. This finger can not touch this (same) finger. You are the thing in which there is no whicher.
yeah guys if it wants to do work on itself, just go with it, who cares if it violates the laws of thermodynamics and is based on utter fairy tales like gravitational collapse.
@@noxaeventide8845, your words sound wise - but upon further examination you aren't saying anything at all. It's just word salad. If l am wrong, please tell me! But that would require a clarification of your initial statement.
@Light_910, l know someone who tried to create a new school of physics by declaring that zero and the infinite are the same. That might've given the universe something to work with 😉
I'm so glad you asked about why physicists are so afraid of infinities. As a laymen, I can't help that infinities are something we just have to learn to deal with, even if we have no hope of comprehending them.
If the universe was infinite in size and age the nightsky would be brighter than day. physicist use math to try to discribe the reality they observe and math doesn't really works Well with infinities.
@@rayluca123Not necessarily, because infinite or not, we still would only be able to see up to the universal horizon, the observable universe would look the same to us regardless of if an inch existed beyond it, or infinity.
@@rayluca123 Is that true? Seems like the inverse square law would prevent most of it from reaching us. I mean there’s already light that’s so faint or red-shifted that we couldn’t see it until more powerful sensors like JWST were created.
Great episode and wonderful interview. I like how you moved from the topic of the Universe's characteristics to other realms of physics and then ended up discussing AI. It not only flowed well, but it was very easy to digest. Excellent presentation all around John.
When I think of a metaphor for our expanding universe, I think of an air bubble rising through the water. As the pressure of the water decreases the volume in the bubble (and therefore the area of the surface of the bubble where we live) expands. But this leads to disquieting thoughts about what happens when the bubble reaches the surface of the water.
Funny, ideas like that don't bother me at all. If the universe goes poof, I can't do a thing about that and it would be the end of all my troubles. It's all the dumb, destructive, and avoidable things that humans do that bug the heck out of me.
The TV story mentioned at 55:30 is from a book of short stories I read many years ago - it may have been Asimov (because it was about robots), or someone like Poul Anderson (because i read lots of his stories), but the conclusion was excellent - the hero, despite being afraid of punishment if discovered, got his domestic robots to do the consuming for him. What he hadn't considered was that all the robots shared information. Happily, the authorities recognised it as a brilliant solution they hadn't thought of and he was well rewarded!
I used to read those as a teenager in the 70's but can't recall that particular one - BTW if he was sick of over-consumption how was he rewarded? A cave, peace and quiet and a tatty old paperback?
The separation of disciplines is EXACTLY what A.I. should be perfect for, being able to find relationships in the data that we simply cannot keep up with. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds! Fantastic video! 😊🌎❤️🕺🏻🐶🚀🖥️
I very much enjoyed the part about how Lewis and John keep their knowledge up to date. It inspired me to be more methodological about how I keep my own professional knowledge up to date. Thanks Event Horizon, for the rest it was all very entertaining as always.
Every time someone says impossible, someone else says, "Hold my beer!". What is impossible today might be taught in Kindergarten in a few years. The moment you come to a point you don't know, you don't know if it's impossible either. I don't understand why people question the costs of learning basically. Learning will always pay off. 😊🌎❤️🕺🏻🐶
Some things are likely impossible, for instance what lies behind observable universe or what was before the big bang, if this question even makes sense or if there are other universes. Some particle physics require insane amounts of energy and colliders of the size of entire star systems if not galaxies. These things are functionality impossible and without data we will never know.
19:01 || I think the prerequisite of being a professor of astrophysics is saying you have to be careful. I don’t think it’s a science of caution: I have no problem with the infinite. Raised a Christian Scientist with the emphasis on science. Visible and Invisible Quantum Oceans / Waves breaking at irregular universe boundaries. If oceans are flat, Quoceans are at minimum 3D. The universe is still creating itself. [I thought of this at age 12 (1967), and I have changed my mind very little since then. I’m not saying why or what it is, I’m just saying what it looks like. It’s gorgeous! The biggest surprise is it moves gasses - possibly air - some within the human hearing range]
These days I find it easier to believe in UAPs than dark matter. We have collected data on UAPs! Still not convinced these mathematicians didn’t come up with all this “dark” stuff after one too many down the pub as your guest suggested. I’m with him on that!
@@friscostreetstories5403 gravityis a theory , you first need to prove that one ,before you use it to prove another point . whatever is up there who knows..but it is all theory and assumptions in the model this professor is talkin about , and theyre running into bigger problems every time becouse theyre using the wrong model , earths pressure system coexisting next to the vacuum of space is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics .,and that is a natural law!!! we need models that dont violate natural laws imo : ) cheers..
@@intomusicable Flat Earth Alert! A man took a small submarine to the bottom of the ocean. A mermaid was swimming around, observing. That submarine was so dangerous, she thought, because if there was any failure then high pressure water would slam inside the submarine, killing the man instantly. And how did he get the craft through the barrier? Any hole in the barrier between the sea and the air would instantly result in high pressure water rushing into extremely low pressure air, killing many land creatures. The different pressures coexisting next to each other would violate the second law of thermodynamics, a natural law. I wrote this little parable for the next person who reads it. I am sure that you will understand why the mermaid is wrong, but will still be convinced that you are right. But the mermaid is wrong for the same reason you are.
Guys, this isn't really that complicated. Gravity does not exist in its full form in our four dimensional universe. It "bleeds" through, about at 1/10,000th strength, from the 5th dimensional bulk, from where it is native. Mass objects in space do not "generate" gravity any more than a flag generates its own wavy motion in a breeze. The rotational motion of celestial objects acts as a reference frame for the gravity to weakly interact with our universe. If astrophysicists were to create a massive object in space (1/2 lunar mass), and prevent it from rotating, it would literally generate no gravity. Every celestial object rotates, and therefore has gravitic properties. I suspect that if that 1/2 lunar mass were to stop being prevented from rotating, that it would rotate on its own. Then, at that point, gravitic properties would manifest. Gravity needs mass to interact with the universe in a meaningful way. Electrons in orbitals around a nucleus have very complicated properties. They don't rotate like hands do around a clock, or a satellite in orbit around Earth....
So what ideas do you have to offer to the conversation in this comment section, besides thanking them, hoping they'll see your comment.? I'm genuinely curious on your take. There's a reason it's called a comment section. You comment on the subject of the video or conversation. Not thank them. The like button does that perfectly fine. Not trying to be mean so please don't look at it like that. Just tired of not getting any insight from anyone in the comments.
Space is expanding. Space-time isn't... necessarily*. In GR, the volume element (hypervolume of proper time and space) is invariant. Space and proper time always change inversely to one another. * I say not necessarily because it comes down to the philosophical issue of presentism vs growing block time. I find the latter linguistically problematic along with its non-expanding cousin, eternalism. Whenever you ask if something exists, implicit in that is that it exists now. The future will exist, and the past existed but neither of them exist and it's not even clear what that could possibly mean if they did.
💭 A thought to sleep on 💭 If Ai is truly dangerous, this should mean our current reality is either or: [ 1 ] We still exist, thus Ai will never win. [ 2 ] Ai is already won & we actually live in a matrix🤏😳
I love the idea that we should not like the word "infinity" in any astrophysical and cosmological contexts. It just firmly pushes back on any legitimate speculation the universe might go on infinitely.
53:40 - Imagine AI being asked to save the planet! The first thing it would do, if it were fully autonomous is try and remove all the people not required to keep AI alive! 😮
That bit at 47:20 when the guest is talking about the Douglas Adams's Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy supercomputer "Deep Thought" and it kind of goes over Mr. Godier's head made me giggle
Very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
It does matter if the cosmos ends. Death is part of life. If the cosmos ends after I die, it will not matter to me, especially since there will be no me. I can not care about what happens after I die. Nobody can care after we die about anything. Death is the great liberator. Nothing can go wrong after we die. I am looking forward to my eventual death. I am tired of living. It is mainly all about hate, oppression, lies, users, ungratifying work, and illness. I did not sign up did this.
@@carlbell2226 The part described about life was not very optimistic. But all the negatives of life will pass very soon. Death is our unconditional, magnanimous, unable to ever be equalled, reward for serving a life sentence none of us deserve. There can be nothing better than to return to being nothing. I routinely try to remember as far back as I can. I have not been able to remember past being in a crib, with a mosquito net over it, and my legs hurting a lot because I was trying to crawl and my legs were too weak. I started crying because my legs hurt. Then I force myself to try to think before that. There, an amazing, uncomprehensible, euphoric, blank is drawn. It is the closest there is to returning to nothing and still be alive. I have absolutely no fear of death because the emptiness beckons me. I yearn for it. I want to become it again.
The rate at which I am aging is most definitely accelerating (just like the expansion of the universe) and I know for sure my personal universe could end any day now.
The reason why univers is expanding is because we live in an explosion and its not finished yet. We just experience time differently than it actually happens. Imagine the explosion is only one second and everything what happens is within this second but we experience it as billions of years.
Seeing how it takes so long for even light to move through the universe, i still think itd take just as long for a catastrophic event to end the whole universe. Maybe in some part of the universe the true end may already have started.
Expansion since the big bang? Is that whole theory in question now with the discoveries of James Webb Space Telescope? Galaxies too large to exist at the alleged dawn of time put the whole theory as I understand it in question. If physics are not constant through time, then how do we know anything related to science?
Dark energy isn’t a thing; it’s a rhetorical trick. Something is causing the universe to expand but we don’t know what. Calling the thing making the universe expand “dark energy” tells us nothing.
When I try to formulate a question “what dark energy _really_ is?” but I've inevitably stumbled over an apparently innocent question: “what ‘normal’ energy _really_ is?” I have no answer to the latter. Wikipedia gives the same explanation that undergrad text books do; on the grad level, no one even tries. Its, like, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it's (waving hands), energy. In GR, all form of “normal” energy converge into a single tensor; there is no unique division into the body's rest mast-energy, kinetic and potential energy: it's coordinate-dependent. Energy arises as a conserved quantity in classical physics, and that's all to it, IMO. We like nice equation, and come up with those that make them nice. (Wheeler: “Time is _defined_ such that motion looks simple [italics mine -Cy]) GR disposed of the notion of time and space as absolute, independent of events in spacetime; it's the other way around. The Λ is a constant that Einstein initially added to the EFE to fine-tune the Universe from gravitational collapse, when expansion was not yet known. It wasn't the random act. Simply speaking, on the left side you have a 4-tensor expression with the Riemann curvature, on the right 2-tensor of momenergy density at every point in space. It's not an equation. The Ricci tensor is a 2-tensor contraction of Riemann tensor; the Ricci scalar is the further contraction of Ricci tensor. These are not random at all: the most important is that their sum (R+1/2 Rg) preserve not only static geometry, but, crucially, the Bianchi identity, a differential property. Obviously, adding a constant to the differential equation is the most natural thing to do: you specify the initial condition (“today, in 1918, the Universe in neither expanding nor contracting“ - diff. eqns. require it, in a sense). I don't see what's so mysterious about the Λ that would be more than about the momenergy T. I don't have a sensible answer as to what energy is. It's a thing that is conserved on small scales, good. It's a thing that corresponds to time-symmetry of physics on the small scale, excellent! But this is all properties of energy; they don't say _what it really is._ Energy is defined so that our equations look simple. 48:20 ~CPUs are designed by computers, and… we don't really know what they're doing - John, I highly recommend inviting an Intel engineer to explain how profoundly horrible, damaging and misinforming this notion is. They _perfectly_ know, in intricate detail, how their CPUs work. Bookkeepers know everything about their balance, even if they used Excel to compute it, instead of an abacus,. My trousers are made by machines designed with computers from fabric made by machines designed by machines and built by robots, designed by machines each with a CPU designed by machines. Still, the last thing I want to go back a couple thousand years ago. _Almost_ everybody was “employed,” but it's far form certain that I could afford trousers back then-the _sans culottes_ were making the said _culottes_ but didn't wear them. And don't forget the riots and burning the first automated loom machines. BTW, I discovered that I'm totally misunderstanding the meaning of the word “futurist.” I'll research the meaning when I have time. Looks like I have a profound misconception about the meaning of the word. I'm not qualified, but w.r.t. AI, we don't have it. AI and ML are synonyms. Having worked in AGI for the past 20 years, I'm extremely sceptical that we're any closer to it than in the 1980. Save for a earth-shattering discovery, I don't think that we'll see it soon, like in-my-life soon. The news have blown up the nonsense-babbling LLMs that people began thinking that this is “intelligence” (I'm reminded of late Minsky definition: “intelligence is akin to ‘unexplored areas of Amazonia’: as soon as we explore them, they are no longer ‘intelligence’” [inexact quote] We don't even know what it is. It's an excellent tool for a writer, as far as I understand what you do: in a dialogue, it may hint on an interesting plot twist. But no, it's not going to write sensible books. Recall that both Q and A are limited, 2048 characters in ChatGPT, if I'm not mistaken. That's the limit of short-term memory of the LLM. Unfortunately, we cannot make them better than even that. Unlike the CPU, I very well understand how they work. They wont overcome the world; neither they will leave trousersmiths unemployed. P.S. John, I just realized I know a few people at NVIDIA, working on the GPU computing. Just LMK if you want to connect.
I don't know what energy is either, but I know you're english. As far as I know only the english say "trousers"...as for the technical part of this, I am only familiar with the terms and notations but I don't understand it. But, I still found it interesting. What do you think of Eliezar Yudkowsky's end-of-biological-life scenario (via AGI)?
I always think about the event that may end the universe already happened, and it just hasn't gotten here yet. I also think about The Great Attractor a lot.
So if our universe exists in the skin of a bubble and it expanded from the big bang it would be like standing on an island and our visible universe would disappear on the horizon. The inside of the bubble being an internal dimension and the outside would be an external one not visible to us. And surface tension would play a large part in holding everything together. This 3.14 might and the curvature of our universe might be a thing 🤔. I'm sure people living on an island 10k years ago thought they could see there universe 😉
The topology is believed to be flat or if the universe is spherical it has to have a minimum size to appear flat within the measurement error. The space extends, which primarily applies to space between galaxies.
I'm ignorant in physics but very interested about it and the universe. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the thought that something that had a beginning can be infinite. I never found anything that could explain this in a comprehensible manner (and english is not my first language so that doesn't help). Anyway, very good content right here.
That’s a good concept to get stuck on. The concept of infinite tends to imply something that always existed and always will exist. So how does something that popped into existence last week fall into that concept. In math it is something similar to the difference between a infinite line verses an infinite vector.
You might be "ignorant", which only means you have not collected a lot of information, but you are obviously smart. I think your intuition is exactly right. Anything that has a beginning can't be infinite? I'm not a physicist either, but you make sense.
@@richb2229 if you don't mind, could you explain the difference between infinite line versus infinite vector? I'm not exactly sure what a vector is, but it sounds interesting.
Nearly similar story with Gravity. We know it exist, what it does and can see n feel it affects, but no clue what it is. The paradox of weakest force in universe (particle physics don't even bother adding it in calculations) has such strong affect.
One thing i don't understand is, why do we assume that the universe should have been slowing down after the big bang explosion??? In every explosion, particles are initially accelerated due to the force of explosion, then after, it slows down.. what if the universe is still in that accelerated phase from the force of the big bang and yet to reach the phase where it starts to slow down... what makes scientist think that it should already be in she slowing down phase??
Everything that is exists in the intestinal tract of an entity so large that it's true scale would completely defy human comprehension. Our perception of time would mean nothing to a being whose heart beats only once every billion years. Galaxies are nutrients being processed. Everything is destined for the cosmic crapper.
I beg to differ sir ....we started a game we didn't get to finish....say when.... There is always a beginning and end. Even if one leads to other ad infinuim
@@johnnyringo35 This is an I.Q. test. We are talking about the infinite universe, not baseball game:) What comes before you "beginning"? Any portion of infinity, is also infinite.
The idea of AI machines doing science for us and making scientists obsolete reminds me of the adeptus mechanicus from 40k or comstar from battletech. Scientists become little more than priests who interpret answers that computers tell us, despite not at all knowing how the machines work or why they’re arriving at certain answers
I guess that's the relatively near future. I imagine a world populated by humanoid machines, all linked by a kind of world wide web. It would be akin to telepathy, but more like a global mind. Science, technology, engineering, government - the whole kit and caboodle - would be handled at warp speed, faster than humans could keep track of. Humanity might either be saved from their own limitations and savagery, or face extinction.
Can the force that prevents infinite mass be dark energy? Can dark energy be anti-gravity which scales only in places like the voids where there is no mass?
Ok I've been sitting on this hypothesis for over 2 decades now because no one has ever suggested it before and I thought I must be stupid but has anyone calculated the solar solar sail effect? So here it is. What is the effect of all the solar radiation pushing against every other star in the universe? Considering the fact that every star also constitute a huge surface to push agents. Ie a solar Sail. But with gravitational affecting mass. Could this not be dark energy that everyone has been looking for?
Actually there is something called galaxy wind and this is thought to contribute to S8 discrepancy. Although it is thought to be too small contributor anyway, since distances between galaxies are huge compared to the amount of radiation.
Ok but how long ago were the calculations made. I'd like to see the maths updated with our current estimates for the total number of stars plus taking into account, the full span the star formation, how densely packed they were in the past, how fast everything was already traveling when the first star formed, our new estimates on Stella numbers, the added boost's caused by the more frequent super Nova's of predicted hyper giant stars etc etc. Basically we need a super computer and all current knowledge and let's double check that assumption 🤔
19:00 - Interestingly, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics presumes an infinity of what?.... ORDER! 25:00 - Hyperspecialization has its limits, particularly in fields that are stalled between Domain Epochs. I would argue that Generalism is required to "break up the constipation" of a few too many comfortable ideas. 40:11 - The reference from the film "Contact" was that the Alien Transmission Frequency was at "Hydrogen times Pi".
" AI gonna happen, they making it happen," it making it happen" ". We literally risking it all with AI without fully understanding where can it lead. And we not talking about 1000s or 100s of years. Things can turn nasty within decades.
Decades? How did you arrive at decades? It can "turn nasty" in months. Weeks. Days. In an instant. Everything is changing faster than society can adjust or acclimate to those changes. Everyone, everything, everywhere, is in for an increasingly wild ride. We are on a rollercoaster, and the long, slow climb to the crest of the first drop is over. Now we begin the increasingly accelerating descent
You cant quantize gravity because gravity isnt a particle, the reason why Gravity appears weak is because most of the energy or mass with in matter that makes up planets, and stars arent massive enough to over come the 3 other forces of the universe. But if a photon would to get near a black hole, the strength of the black hole’s gravity will over come electric magnetic forces, and with in the singularity itself, not even the strong force can with stand or even escape the songularity of a black hole.
I think it's a fallacy that there are no new ideas in Hollywood. I think there are plenty of idea, but they are rejected by the studios who want low risk investments.
16:00 - Perhaps Gravity can explain all the other correlations, forces and particles - if it is conceded a "philosophical" nature. If the creation of time, led to the creation of gravity, and if Gravity is no more than the desire of the "creation particles" to return to a space-time coordinate in which they were created, then their forced seperation would lead to compensatory impulses, analogous to "whirlpools" (centripetal or centrifugal forces) that would allow remnants of antimatter (possibly electrons) to eternally revolve around protons. The strong force exhibits similar "compensatory characteristics", but on the quark level - which must also correlate with the electron behaviour. Even Electromagnetism can be seen as "balancing" (compensatory behaviour). All these properties must have been created in the same creation and dispersion process, which turned the "pressure" of returning to the origin into counter-reactions to the forceful seperation occuring during the "Biggest Bang" and/or other "previous Bangs".
I agree, however, the more nomadic peoples or individuals have very little impact on the environment , so just lumping everybody together is quite inaccurate. @@AlexKarasev
@@BillDusty are you perhaps twisting what I'd said? Saying "if the universe does disappear, it's not like people didn't richly deserve it" doesn't equate to "kill everything for what a few in one species has done" any more than watching a Die Hard on Christmas or NYE to actually shooting up a building. And note how I said "a building" - it doesn't equate to "a building full of good guys", it means "a building".
If the Universe weren't expanding it would have to collapse. And, that apparent speeding up of the expansion might be necessary to keep the Universe from collapsing. Logically, if gravitation experiences a "red shift", then distant masses must be less attracted to "us"(?), and thus, like water running off the edge of a fountain, the more distant objects would appear to be accelerating. However, this is only possible if there is a continuous creation of matter within the Universe. It's easy to explain this effect by realising that matter and antimatter are continually appearing and annihilating in "empty space". If there is the tiniest flaw in this creation/destruction process, the balance will fall slightly to retain matter, thus creating a constant increase in the space-time dimensions.
If there is indeed a constant creation of matter in "empty space", then "our" Universe (in general) might be "eternal", while apparently matter (or mass) is accelerating over the "event horizon". Indeed, if we apply the "Schwarzschild limits" to the mass of our Universe it is likely to be contained within a "black hole" - which would not be evident as such an object when analysed from within it. The constant creation of matter (v. Antimatter) would not contradict the "Big Bang Theory", as the Universe would have arisen from many basic matter creation iterations, until it reached an appropriate amount of matter, that "analogous" to a primordial supernova, would have dispersed that matter outwards, then recollected it through "gravitation" - and then after a great many repetitions of these "explosion/contactions", together with the ever increasing amount if matter, would have eventually pulled enough mass together to create an "explosion" forceful enough to "kick start" eternal expansion. The continued matter v. antimatter imbalance would then only serve to accelerate expansion - without the risk of a "recollapse". Of course, we only are inside such a Universe, because all the previous iterations of the "big bang" weren't sufficiently forceful enough to allow an adequate lifespan for 3rd population stars to develop into 1st population stars, with intermediate novas, supernovae, binary supernovae, etc., without which process we could not be here to observe the Universe ("Anthropomorphic Principle"). Also, such a theory is similar, though not identical to Fred Hoyle's "Steady State Theory" (correct ke if I'm wrong). The original "creation of gravity" necessitated by this theory is more of a "philosophical creation", necessitated by the fact that the original "matter creation" event must have taken place in a Universe without time, thus allowing the process (which caused a "backstep" in time) to repeat an identical creation process in exactly the same space-time coordinates. This would have necessitated the previously deposited "matter" to move over unwillingly. That would be the reason why all matter inherently (and futilely) attempted to return to its "birthplace" - with this "desire" to increase as older matter was immensely displaced - allowing for the final, "biggest bang" to finally occur.
what I don't get about the uncertainty principal, is that if we know for a fact that the Planck length and the Planck time are indeed the smallest units and are indivisible, then WHY is it impossible to determine a particles position or momentum and it's energy simultaneously? I know that light doesn't care about time, but surely even light must travel forward in values of Planck lengths and keep it's quanta of energy if the space it is in is a perfect vacuum...I can't help but think we have something wrong here...
Soooo...they don't like infirmities. He said himself there are possible infinities but here is how we can work around those. Cosmological version of placing your hands over you ears and saying la-la-la-la when the figures don't come up to your liking. I agree that infinities are probably the equivalent of the hidden areas on a game map, but to not consider the possibilty that there infinities means denying that the cat is indeed just a cat and is not being very open minded. Still love the episode and as always thought provoking and fascinating...
We realize if we nail down big bang that won't tell us anything? A process? Is there a why? Or what led to a BB? And what before? All observation, conclusions, where does that get us??
Maybe this is actually happening to us all the time but by definition we can never find ourselves to be in a version of the present where we observe it.
Technically, we don't actually know the past is real. We could've been created moments ago and given fake memories about our lives and the history of the universe we find ourselves in. Like when you generate a new game of dwarf fortress for example. 😂 Sometimes it feels like I'm living in a memory. It's hard to explain, but I've googled it and apparently a lot of people say they felt that way before.
Could be your subconscious and conscious mind being more interwoven and less established than reality and fiction because im forever having realistically dreams or memories that sometimes take a minute to distinguish between the two subjects 😂😂
16:39 I think you're on the right, John. Here's why: I understand that a zero radius leads to the dreaded Infinity. In other words, You can't divide by zero. My snag is: Why are you dividing by zero, anyway? Doesn't Pauli's Exclusion Principle dictate that we shouldn't be trying to divide by zero in the first place? If two Fermions can't occupy the same quantum state, shouldn't there be s "nugget" of compressed matter, literally, not Quite at, but as close as possible (given the limited options for phase spaces and such) to the center? And, since my typing is so abysmally slow, I've been hearing quite a bit of your conversation as I type...lol Maybe the topology change described by your guest can be applied to what I'm saying..? Maybe it's necessary to change the POV of something, somewhere, so why not redefine the landscape but with no actual singularity? Wth do I know, though...lol Great interview, btw. Thanks!
Maybe the reason why we can't solve for everything is just because of the fact that to do so would be to solve for infinity. Just like trying to draw a perfect circle seems like it should be a relatively easy and achievable task but you can't simply because of the fact that drawing a perfect circle would be the same as solving for circular infinity. Or if you can solve for circular infinity it should take just as long as solving for linear infinity despite the fact that circular infinity seems like it's much easier to observe the entire equation or theory in its entirety compared to linear infinity.
The universe is solving itself. It would take as much energy to actually predict every particle. In that sense our universe is a simulation, but not the digital kind. The kind of simulation where you sit back and wait for the result to be computed. You can know the outcome of the universe by being there as it unfolds. This is how a computer scientists dive deep into the smallest computable unit in the universe when devising sub-microscale computer hardware. You end up with a view that sees the universe as a simulation. Not a digital computer simulation from an alien civilization, but a simulation as the unfolding of the physics in real time.
Personally I think we over estimate our intelligence sure we’ve been consciously aware for millions of years but the world is literally billions of years old (that we know of) it’s just incomprehensible by size power and meaning And the faster it expands the faster we must indulge in the knowledge of it Kind of like trying to catch up to a fast car with the answers while chasing it on foot… the first second was the easiest moment to understand but the faster the car goes the less realistic you are to walk up and open the door 😂😂
As a lay person I'm wondering, in regards to dark energy, if all we know is that dark energy is a field that causes exponential expansion... Couldn't we just say that there is exponential expansion and leave dark energy out of the verbiage?
Wrong there was no beginning to the universe only a beginning to how we can measure it through observation. The big bang was not a beginning, just a period of rapid expansion.
Everything has a beginning and an end from our perspective in 3 dimensions so we need everything to be quantified. What if infinity doesn't need to be banished but included in our theory's. What if space time and infinity are linked and that is the 4th dimension or the field that that or 3 dimensions exist
I see at the end of the next decade that Physics, Astrophysics and astronomy will all be tied together through Artificial General Intelligence. AGI is the only thing that can keep up with all of the advancements being made today. For now specialists can advance specific areas however even that will become increasingly problematic in the sheer volume of data. It will be a very powerful tool for scientists of the future.
I've always thought of black hole singularities simply as, maximum possible density. Infinite density just doesn't compute in the brain. That, or we live in the matrix. I also acknowledge my ignorance in the finer mathematics, so I have at best, a layman's understanding of the subject matter.
It's refreshing to hear a scientist understand how much of the "specialization problem" is just a result of every walled garden having its own internal language. I'm still not convinced that information is what has become beyond what an individual can understand in multiple disciplines - I think it's much more feasible that the sum total of specialized jargon, growing simultaneously but in isolation in every walled garden of academia, is what has actually exceeded individual human understanding (especially with how often terms in one language are contradictory or simply subtly incommensurable). I do worry that some of what preserves the lack of polymaths is a fear in certain walled gardens that interdisciplinarians won't allow their ideas to exist without justifying themselves beyond simply how old and how popular they are - in short, interdisciplinary efforts are a threat to entrenched belief systems that they won't simply take at face value.
I love your thinking! I don't have a snappy answer for you, but keep that wonderful brain going! The comment before me comes from a person that can't be bothered with thinking.
AI will dumb down humans - computers already have dumbed down folks - few "research" anything. they just look up the answer. AI will make it worse. Even now its hard to find employees the exhibit common sense and the ability to use discernment!
I find it hard to believe the fact that this channel doesn't have a million subscribers.
why its just what he does for a living, science fiction, its pseudo-science for the phantasmal type, if you want real astronomy that will blow your mind you go to sky scholar who is actually pushing the boundaries and providing actually science that makes sense for what they are putting out there, not the clownish ideas of the cosmologist who waste money non stop on fairy tales. The EXACT reason science has stalled is because they introduced fairy tales
If the universe wants to divide by 0 don't judge it guys
Noice!
Nothing implies something. We are stuck on the universe, part of it, and in essence, we are IT. This adventure of experience never ends, it only changes in its infinite expression of the same "old" and "desireable" eternal and inherent fundamental principle. Your teeth cannot bite themselves. This finger can not touch this (same) finger. You are the thing in which there is no whicher.
yeah guys if it wants to do work on itself, just go with it, who cares if it violates the laws of thermodynamics and is based on utter fairy tales like gravitational collapse.
@@noxaeventide8845, your words sound wise - but upon further examination you aren't saying anything at all. It's just word salad. If l am wrong, please tell me! But that would require a clarification of your initial statement.
@Light_910, l know someone who tried to create a new school of physics by declaring that zero and the infinite are the same. That might've given the universe something to work with 😉
One of my favorite channels. Maybe my all time favorite. Excellent content.
I could listen to Professor Lewis all night. He's so engaging and makes everything easier to understand. ❤
He is so interesting that I am actually staying AWAKE for it.
Terrific episode! I'm always stoked to hear Dr. Lewis. If he's reading the comments, please give us another episode of Alas, Lewis and Barnes! ☄🌌🔭😎🙌
Dr Lewis here! Just want to say SMD! 😘
I'm so glad you asked about why physicists are so afraid of infinities. As a laymen, I can't help that infinities are something we just have to learn to deal with, even if we have no hope of comprehending them.
If the universe was infinite in size and age the nightsky would be brighter than day. physicist use math to try to discribe the reality they observe and math doesn't really works Well with infinities.
The singularity of a black hole is described as infinite mass & density and infinitely small.
Infinity = uncertainty
The world has always been gray & uncertain. Learn to look at the world in gray🤏
@@rayluca123Not necessarily, because infinite or not, we still would only be able to see up to the universal horizon, the observable universe would look the same to us regardless of if an inch existed beyond it, or infinity.
@@rayluca123 Is that true? Seems like the inverse square law would prevent most of it from reaching us. I mean there’s already light that’s so faint or red-shifted that we couldn’t see it until more powerful sensors like JWST were created.
+1 for The Prisoner. My parents turned me on to it as a kid. What a masterpiece.
Work of genius
that is a sick count chocula/black metal organ riff that hits around 33:00
for real though, JMG's content is phenomenal.
Great episode and wonderful interview. I like how you moved from the topic of the Universe's characteristics to other realms of physics and then ended up discussing AI. It not only flowed well, but it was very easy to digest. Excellent presentation all around John.
EH content is amazing. It relaxes and expands my mind.
Totally agree. Takes someone with a good working knowledge to get the best out of an expert
Galactic cannibalism!?
Yes a good one.
Maybe this is why I, an integrated circuit "chip" layout designer, haven't found work since January.
When I think of a metaphor for our expanding universe, I think of an air bubble rising through the water. As the pressure of the water decreases the volume in the bubble (and therefore the area of the surface of the bubble where we live) expands. But this leads to disquieting thoughts about what happens when the bubble reaches the surface of the water.
Funny, ideas like that don't bother me at all. If the universe goes poof, I can't do a thing about that and it would be the end of all my troubles. It's all the dumb, destructive, and avoidable things that humans do that bug the heck out of me.
The TV story mentioned at 55:30 is from a book of short stories I read many years ago - it may have been Asimov (because it was about robots), or someone like Poul Anderson (because i read lots of his stories), but the conclusion was excellent - the hero, despite being afraid of punishment if discovered, got his domestic robots to do the consuming for him. What he hadn't considered was that all the robots shared information. Happily, the authorities recognised it as a brilliant solution they hadn't thought of and he was well rewarded!
I used to read those as a teenager in the 70's but can't recall that particular one - BTW if he was sick of over-consumption how was he rewarded? A cave, peace and quiet and a tatty old paperback?
The separation of disciplines is EXACTLY what A.I. should be perfect for, being able to find relationships in the data that we simply cannot keep up with. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds! Fantastic video! 😊🌎❤️🕺🏻🐶🚀🖥️
I very much enjoyed the part about how Lewis and John keep their knowledge up to date. It inspired me to be more methodological about how I keep my own professional knowledge up to date. Thanks Event Horizon, for the rest it was all very entertaining as always.
Really great episode and fantastic interview. Hope we get Prof. Lewis again in EH , in nearest future. Thank you.
Every time someone says impossible, someone else says, "Hold my beer!". What is impossible today might be taught in Kindergarten in a few years. The moment you come to a point you don't know, you don't know if it's impossible either. I don't understand why people question the costs of learning basically. Learning will always pay off. 😊🌎❤️🕺🏻🐶
Some things are likely impossible, for instance what lies behind observable universe or what was before the big bang, if this question even makes sense or if there are other universes. Some particle physics require insane amounts of energy and colliders of the size of entire star systems if not galaxies. These things are functionality impossible and without data we will never know.
19:01 || I think the prerequisite of being a professor of astrophysics is saying you have to be careful. I don’t think it’s a science of caution: I have no problem with the infinite. Raised a Christian Scientist with the emphasis on science. Visible and Invisible Quantum Oceans / Waves breaking at irregular universe boundaries.
If oceans are flat, Quoceans are at minimum 3D. The universe is still creating itself. [I thought of this at age 12 (1967), and I have changed my mind very little since then. I’m not saying why or what it is, I’m just saying what it looks like. It’s gorgeous! The biggest surprise is it moves gasses - possibly air - some within the human hearing range]
I was enjoying every second of this interview. Great discussion.
These days I find it easier to believe in UAPs than dark matter. We have collected data on UAPs! Still not convinced these mathematicians didn’t come up with all this “dark” stuff after one too many down the pub as your guest suggested. I’m with him on that!
We can see "dark matter", for a lack of a better term, affecting planets through gravity. So there is something there.
@@friscostreetstories5403 gravityis a theory , you first need to prove that one ,before you use it to prove another point . whatever is up there who knows..but it is all theory and assumptions in the model this professor is talkin about , and theyre running into bigger problems every time becouse theyre using the wrong model , earths pressure system coexisting next to the vacuum of space is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics .,and that is a natural law!!! we need models that dont violate natural laws imo : ) cheers..
@@intomusicable Flat Earth Alert! A man took a small submarine to the bottom of the ocean. A mermaid was swimming around, observing. That submarine was so dangerous, she thought, because if there was any failure then high pressure water would slam inside the submarine, killing the man instantly. And how did he get the craft through the barrier? Any hole in the barrier between the sea and the air would instantly result in high pressure water rushing into extremely low pressure air, killing many land creatures. The different pressures coexisting next to each other would violate the second law of thermodynamics, a natural law.
I wrote this little parable for the next person who reads it. I am sure that you will understand why the mermaid is wrong, but will still be convinced that you are right. But the mermaid is wrong for the same reason you are.
@@intomusicable Gravity as such is not a theory .It's measurable . What gravity actually is ,those are theories.
@@spiritualanarchist8162 its not measurable.., complete nonsense..: ) , put the proof in next time..tc
Fascinating to listen to Prof. Lewis from my home country. Great interview, good job.
I am puzzled. The Universe is very strange as compared to what other universe?
Guys, this isn't really that complicated. Gravity does not exist in its full form in our four dimensional universe. It "bleeds" through, about at 1/10,000th strength, from the 5th dimensional bulk, from where it is native. Mass objects in space do not "generate" gravity any more than a flag generates its own wavy motion in a breeze. The rotational motion of celestial objects acts as a reference frame for the gravity to weakly interact with our universe. If astrophysicists were to create a massive object in space (1/2 lunar mass), and prevent it from rotating, it would literally generate no gravity. Every celestial object rotates, and therefore has gravitic properties. I suspect that if that 1/2 lunar mass were to stop being prevented from rotating, that it would rotate on its own. Then, at that point, gravitic properties would manifest. Gravity needs mass to interact with the universe in a meaningful way. Electrons in orbitals around a nucleus have very complicated properties. They don't rotate like hands do around a clock, or a satellite in orbit around Earth....
Oh I love it when a rational mind takes dark matter out behind the woodshed.
Thank you both for a splendid interview.
So what ideas do you have to offer to the conversation in this comment section, besides thanking them, hoping they'll see your comment.? I'm genuinely curious on your take. There's a reason it's called a comment section. You comment on the subject of the video or conversation. Not thank them. The like button does that perfectly fine. Not trying to be mean so please don't look at it like that. Just tired of not getting any insight from anyone in the comments.
Space is expanding. Space-time isn't... necessarily*. In GR, the volume element (hypervolume of proper time and space) is invariant. Space and proper time always change inversely to one another.
* I say not necessarily because it comes down to the philosophical issue of presentism vs growing block time. I find the latter linguistically problematic along with its non-expanding cousin, eternalism. Whenever you ask if something exists, implicit in that is that it exists now. The future will exist, and the past existed but neither of them exist and it's not even clear what that could possibly mean if they did.
commenting for the algorithm. great vid as always. appretiate the commitment and work you put into all these vids
💭 A thought to sleep on 💭
If Ai is truly dangerous, this should mean our current reality is either or:
[ 1 ] We still exist, thus Ai will never win.
[ 2 ] Ai is already won & we actually live in a matrix🤏😳
I love the idea that we should not like the word "infinity" in any astrophysical and cosmological contexts. It just firmly pushes back on any legitimate speculation the universe might go on infinitely.
53:40 - Imagine AI being asked to save the planet! The first thing it would do, if it were fully autonomous is try and remove all the people not required to keep AI alive! 😮
I was about to go to bed and this popped up in my feed and there's no way I can sleep before listening to this! Hahahaha best outro ever!
That bit at 47:20 when the guest is talking about the Douglas Adams's Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy supercomputer "Deep Thought" and it kind of goes over Mr. Godier's head made me giggle
I'm sure that John understood. Did you understand the joke he made in response?
@@AndrewBlucheryeah, yeah maybe. Lol
Very impressed with this video. I have always been interested in astronomy and physics. It was things like this that drove me to enter those professions. Thank you for feeding my insatiable curiosity about the universe and the wonders that we discove
...he was almost done! He was about to type "r.", and he fell through a rip in spacetime....
It does matter if the cosmos ends. Death is part of life. If the cosmos ends after I die, it will not matter to me, especially since there will be no me. I can not care about what happens after I die. Nobody can care after we die about anything. Death is the great liberator. Nothing can go wrong after we die. I am looking forward to my eventual death. I am tired of living. It is mainly all about hate, oppression, lies, users, ungratifying work, and illness. I did not sign up did this.
You only mentioned the good bits, I love optimism
@@carlbell2226 The part described about life was not very optimistic. But all the negatives of life will pass very soon. Death is our unconditional, magnanimous, unable to ever be equalled, reward for serving a life sentence none of us deserve. There can be nothing better than to return to being nothing. I routinely try to remember as far back as I can. I have not been able to remember past being in a crib, with a mosquito net over it, and my legs hurting a lot because I was trying to crawl and my legs were too weak. I started crying because my legs hurt. Then I force myself to try to think before that. There, an amazing, uncomprehensible, euphoric, blank is drawn. It is the closest there is to returning to nothing and still be alive. I have absolutely no fear of death because the emptiness beckons me. I yearn for it. I want to become it again.
The rate at which I am aging is most definitely accelerating (just like the expansion of the universe) and I know for sure my personal universe could end any day now.
Nice 👍
I can hardly wait.
The reason why univers is expanding is because we live in an explosion and its not finished yet. We just experience time differently than it actually happens. Imagine the explosion is only one second and everything what happens is within this second but we experience it as billions of years.
Seeing how it takes so long for even light to move through the universe, i still think itd take just as long for a catastrophic event to end the whole universe. Maybe in some part of the universe the true end may already have started.
Oh boy after good work day even greater news an amazing episode of Event Horizon thank you for this great series keep em up ! :)
Expansion since the big bang? Is that whole theory in question now with the discoveries of James Webb Space Telescope? Galaxies too large to exist at the alleged dawn of time put the whole theory as I understand it in question. If physics are not constant through time, then how do we know anything related to science?
Dark energy isn’t a thing; it’s a rhetorical trick. Something is causing the universe to expand but we don’t know what. Calling the thing making the universe expand “dark energy” tells us nothing.
When I try to formulate a question “what dark energy _really_ is?” but I've inevitably stumbled over an apparently innocent question: “what ‘normal’ energy _really_ is?” I have no answer to the latter. Wikipedia gives the same explanation that undergrad text books do; on the grad level, no one even tries. Its, like, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it's (waving hands), energy. In GR, all form of “normal” energy converge into a single tensor; there is no unique division into the body's rest mast-energy, kinetic and potential energy: it's coordinate-dependent. Energy arises as a conserved quantity in classical physics, and that's all to it, IMO. We like nice equation, and come up with those that make them nice. (Wheeler: “Time is _defined_ such that motion looks simple [italics mine -Cy]) GR disposed of the notion of time and space as absolute, independent of events in spacetime; it's the other way around. The Λ is a constant that Einstein initially added to the EFE to fine-tune the Universe from gravitational collapse, when expansion was not yet known. It wasn't the random act. Simply speaking, on the left side you have a 4-tensor expression with the Riemann curvature, on the right 2-tensor of momenergy density at every point in space. It's not an equation. The Ricci tensor is a 2-tensor contraction of Riemann tensor; the Ricci scalar is the further contraction of Ricci tensor. These are not random at all: the most important is that their sum (R+1/2 Rg) preserve not only static geometry, but, crucially, the Bianchi identity, a differential property. Obviously, adding a constant to the differential equation is the most natural thing to do: you specify the initial condition (“today, in 1918, the Universe in neither expanding nor contracting“ - diff. eqns. require it, in a sense). I don't see what's so mysterious about the Λ that would be more than about the momenergy T. I don't have a sensible answer as to what energy is. It's a thing that is conserved on small scales, good. It's a thing that corresponds to time-symmetry of physics on the small scale, excellent! But this is all properties of energy; they don't say _what it really is._ Energy is defined so that our equations look simple.
48:20 ~CPUs are designed by computers, and… we don't really know what they're doing - John, I highly recommend inviting an Intel engineer to explain how profoundly horrible, damaging and misinforming this notion is. They _perfectly_ know, in intricate detail, how their CPUs work. Bookkeepers know everything about their balance, even if they used Excel to compute it, instead of an abacus,. My trousers are made by machines designed with computers from fabric made by machines designed by machines and built by robots, designed by machines each with a CPU designed by machines. Still, the last thing I want to go back a couple thousand years ago. _Almost_ everybody was “employed,” but it's far form certain that I could afford trousers back then-the _sans culottes_ were making the said _culottes_ but didn't wear them. And don't forget the riots and burning the first automated loom machines. BTW, I discovered that I'm totally misunderstanding the meaning of the word “futurist.” I'll research the meaning when I have time. Looks like I have a profound misconception about the meaning of the word.
I'm not qualified, but w.r.t. AI, we don't have it. AI and ML are synonyms. Having worked in AGI for the past 20 years, I'm extremely sceptical that we're any closer to it than in the 1980. Save for a earth-shattering discovery, I don't think that we'll see it soon, like in-my-life soon. The news have blown up the nonsense-babbling LLMs that people began thinking that this is “intelligence” (I'm reminded of late Minsky definition: “intelligence is akin to ‘unexplored areas of Amazonia’: as soon as we explore them, they are no longer ‘intelligence’” [inexact quote] We don't even know what it is. It's an excellent tool for a writer, as far as I understand what you do: in a dialogue, it may hint on an interesting plot twist. But no, it's not going to write sensible books. Recall that both Q and A are limited, 2048 characters in ChatGPT, if I'm not mistaken. That's the limit of short-term memory of the LLM. Unfortunately, we cannot make them better than even that. Unlike the CPU, I very well understand how they work. They wont overcome the world; neither they will leave trousersmiths unemployed.
P.S. John, I just realized I know a few people at NVIDIA, working on the GPU computing. Just LMK if you want to connect.
I don't know what energy is either, but I know you're english. As far as I know only the english say "trousers"...as for the technical part of this, I am only familiar with the terms and notations but I don't understand it. But, I still found it interesting. What do you think of Eliezar Yudkowsky's end-of-biological-life scenario (via AGI)?
I always think about the event that may end the universe already happened, and it just hasn't gotten here yet. I also think about The Great Attractor a lot.
How long will it be until entropy is 100%? Will that be the end of the universe?
So if our universe exists in the skin of a bubble and it expanded from the big bang it would be like standing on an island and our visible universe would disappear on the horizon.
The inside of the bubble being an internal dimension and the outside would be an external one not visible to us. And surface tension would play a large part in holding everything together. This 3.14 might and the curvature of our universe might be a thing 🤔. I'm sure people living on an island 10k years ago thought they could see there universe 😉
The topology is believed to be flat or if the universe is spherical it has to have a minimum size to appear flat within the measurement error. The space extends, which primarily applies to space between galaxies.
That was a wonderful interview.
As per Prof. Lewis's assertion, "dark energy causes expansion to accelerate." What then causes the expansion to slow down or shrink?
Love listening to Prof. Lewis especially when he talks to Dr Karl.
I'm ignorant in physics but very interested about it and the universe. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the thought that something that had a beginning can be infinite. I never found anything that could explain this in a comprehensible manner (and english is not my first language so that doesn't help).
Anyway, very good content right here.
That’s a good concept to get stuck on. The concept of infinite tends to imply something that always existed and always will exist. So how does something that popped into existence last week fall into that concept. In math it is something similar to the difference between a infinite line verses an infinite vector.
You might be "ignorant", which only means you have not collected a lot of information, but you are obviously smart. I think your intuition is exactly right. Anything that has a beginning can't be infinite? I'm not a physicist either, but you make sense.
@@richb2229 if you don't mind, could you explain the difference between infinite line versus infinite vector? I'm not exactly sure what a vector is, but it sounds interesting.
@@richb2229 vector sounds to me like two lines that start from a shared point with the space between them. Like a triangle with an open end?
@@richb2229 I guess I could look it up, but it's more fun to get the answer from a human being. Call me old-fashioned. 🙂
Nearly similar story with Gravity. We know it exist, what it does and can see n feel it affects, but no clue what it is. The paradox of weakest force in universe (particle physics don't even bother adding it in calculations) has such strong affect.
He was a great guest..
One thing i don't understand is, why do we assume that the universe should have been slowing down after the big bang explosion??? In every explosion, particles are initially accelerated due to the force of explosion, then after, it slows down.. what if the universe is still in that accelerated phase from the force of the big bang and yet to reach the phase where it starts to slow down... what makes scientist think that it should already be in she slowing down phase??
Been waiting since 1970s and later but no luck but keeping my fingers crossed plenty of hope lately
maybe our Universe is far larger than light can illuminate for our eyes to perceive in the limited frequencies our eyes can see it with...
We have made artificial eyes, to sense those other frequencies.
We even just made artificial ears that can hear Spacetime itself ringing.
Everything that is exists in the intestinal tract of an entity so large that it's true scale would completely defy human comprehension.
Our perception of time would mean nothing to a being whose heart beats only once every billion years.
Galaxies are nutrients being processed. Everything is destined for the cosmic crapper.
If it ends suddenly, who cares, you’ll never know it.
Favorite horror movie: Psycho
Favorite British spy TV: 2--Secret Agent (Danger Man) and The Avengers with Diana Rigg
Theory of Everything: Some aliens told their Super AI to visualize all that is/makes you, and so the big bang appeared for the spawned in beings.
When I have a panic attack that's what it feels like.. the universe will just end instantly or something
There was no "beginning" and there will be no "end". Infinity can not have a beginning or end.
I beg to differ sir ....we started a game we didn't get to finish....say when....
There is always a beginning and end. Even if one leads to other ad infinuim
@@johnnyringo35 This is an I.Q. test. We are talking about the infinite universe, not baseball game:) What comes before you "beginning"? Any portion of infinity, is also infinite.
A moment in time could be a million years in cosmic terms. I don't think we should be worried.
I say take gravity out of the conversation. Let’s pretend it does not exist. Now unify everything!
The idea of AI machines doing science for us and making scientists obsolete reminds me of the adeptus mechanicus from 40k or comstar from battletech. Scientists become little more than priests who interpret answers that computers tell us, despite not at all knowing how the machines work or why they’re arriving at certain answers
I guess that's the relatively near future. I imagine a world populated by humanoid machines, all linked by a kind of world wide web. It would be akin to telepathy, but more like a global mind. Science, technology, engineering, government - the whole kit and caboodle - would be handled at warp speed, faster than humans could keep track of. Humanity might either be saved from their own limitations and savagery, or face extinction.
That answer is 42 of this, i am sure..
As intriguing and amazing as this is, the outro really got me. 😅
...more likely to begin at any moment. Like one universe on top of another!!
Can the force that prevents infinite mass be dark energy? Can dark energy be anti-gravity which scales only in places like the voids where there is no mass?
The appearing and disappearing of virtual particles is the source of 'dark energy'. They appear and annihilate one another, leaving heat behind.
Ok I've been sitting on this hypothesis for over 2 decades now because no one has ever suggested it before and I thought I must be stupid but has anyone calculated the solar solar sail effect? So here it is. What is the effect of all the solar radiation pushing against every other star in the universe? Considering the fact that every star also constitute a huge surface to push agents. Ie a solar Sail. But with gravitational affecting mass. Could this not be dark energy that everyone has been looking for?
Actually there is something called galaxy wind and this is thought to contribute to S8 discrepancy. Although it is thought to be too small contributor anyway, since distances between galaxies are huge compared to the amount of radiation.
I thought something similar to that, including neutrinos & gravity waves, within a galaxy, which I called ambient mass.
Ok but how long ago were the calculations made. I'd like to see the maths updated with our current estimates for the total number of stars plus taking into account, the full span the star formation, how densely packed they were in the past, how fast everything was already traveling when the first star formed, our new estimates on Stella numbers, the added boost's caused by the more frequent super Nova's of predicted hyper giant stars etc etc. Basically we need a super computer and all current knowledge and let's double check that assumption 🤔
19:00 - Interestingly, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics presumes an infinity of what?.... ORDER!
25:00 - Hyperspecialization has its limits, particularly in fields that are stalled between Domain Epochs. I would argue that Generalism is required to "break up the constipation" of a few too many comfortable ideas.
40:11 - The reference from the film "Contact" was that the Alien Transmission Frequency was at "Hydrogen times Pi".
40:11 did anyone account for the Doppler shift?
" AI gonna happen, they making it happen," it making it happen" ". We literally risking it all with AI without fully understanding where can it lead. And we not talking about 1000s or 100s of years. Things can turn nasty within decades.
Decades? How did you arrive at decades? It can "turn nasty" in months. Weeks. Days. In an instant. Everything is changing faster than society can adjust or acclimate to those changes. Everyone, everything, everywhere, is in for an increasingly wild ride. We are on a rollercoaster, and the long, slow climb to the crest of the first drop is over. Now we begin the increasingly accelerating descent
You cant quantize gravity because gravity isnt a particle, the reason why Gravity appears weak is because most of the energy or mass with in matter that makes up planets, and stars arent massive enough to over come the 3 other forces of the universe. But if a photon would to get near a black hole, the strength of the black hole’s gravity will over come electric magnetic forces, and with in the singularity itself, not even the strong force can with stand or even escape the songularity of a black hole.
I don't think I ever heard about "parity asymmetry". Thank u very much ❤
I think it's a fallacy that there are no new ideas in Hollywood. I think there are plenty of idea, but they are rejected by the studios who want low risk investments.
It's pleasing to learn that piling papers higher and deeper cannot have an infinity, either. This is in re: ArXiv being too fire-hosey.
8:29 JMG mixes up unit of work with unit of energy. Watt is SI standard of work, profesor Lewis talked about energy per volume.
When you die - its all gone as far as you or anything you ever knew are concerned.
16:00 - Perhaps Gravity can explain all the other correlations, forces and particles - if it is conceded a "philosophical" nature. If the creation of time, led to the creation of gravity, and if Gravity is no more than the desire of the "creation particles" to return to a space-time coordinate in which they were created, then their forced seperation would lead to compensatory impulses, analogous to "whirlpools" (centripetal or centrifugal forces) that would allow remnants of antimatter (possibly electrons) to eternally revolve around protons. The strong force exhibits similar "compensatory characteristics", but on the quark level - which must also correlate with the electron behaviour. Even Electromagnetism can be seen as "balancing" (compensatory behaviour). All these properties must have been created in the same creation and dispersion process, which turned the "pressure" of returning to the origin into counter-reactions to the forceful seperation occuring during the "Biggest Bang" and/or other "previous Bangs".
Watts is an MKS unit. A watt is a joule per second. In the English system power would be ft-lb/sec.
If it does disappear, it's not like we didn't richly deserve it.
Who is "we"?
@@jessehoffman2726 people. I mean, look at us & what we're doing to the planet, each other, the animals, the plants, everything.
I agree, however, the more nomadic peoples or individuals have very little impact on the environment , so just lumping everybody together is quite inaccurate. @@AlexKarasev
@@AlexKarasev So, kill everything for what a few in one species has done to some animals and plants. All life.
Wow.
@@BillDusty are you perhaps twisting what I'd said? Saying "if the universe does disappear, it's not like people didn't richly deserve it" doesn't equate to "kill everything for what a few in one species has done" any more than watching a Die Hard on Christmas or NYE to actually shooting up a building. And note how I said "a building" - it doesn't equate to "a building full of good guys", it means "a building".
If the Universe weren't expanding it would have to collapse. And, that apparent speeding up of the expansion might be necessary to keep the Universe from collapsing. Logically, if gravitation experiences a "red shift", then distant masses must be less attracted to "us"(?), and thus, like water running off the edge of a fountain, the more distant objects would appear to be accelerating. However, this is only possible if there is a continuous creation of matter within the Universe. It's easy to explain this effect by realising that matter and antimatter are continually appearing and annihilating in "empty space". If there is the tiniest flaw in this creation/destruction process, the balance will fall slightly to retain matter, thus creating a constant increase in the space-time dimensions.
If there is indeed a constant creation of matter in "empty space", then "our" Universe (in general) might be "eternal", while apparently matter (or mass) is accelerating over the "event horizon".
Indeed, if we apply the "Schwarzschild limits" to the mass of our Universe it is likely to be contained within a "black hole" - which would not be evident as such an object when analysed from within it.
The constant creation of matter (v. Antimatter) would not contradict the "Big Bang Theory", as the Universe would have arisen from many basic matter creation iterations, until it reached an appropriate amount of matter, that "analogous" to a primordial supernova, would have dispersed that matter outwards, then recollected it through "gravitation" - and then after a great many repetitions of these "explosion/contactions", together with the ever increasing amount if matter, would have eventually pulled enough mass together to create an "explosion" forceful enough to "kick start" eternal expansion. The continued matter v. antimatter imbalance would then only serve to accelerate expansion - without the risk of a "recollapse".
Of course, we only are inside such a Universe, because all the previous iterations of the "big bang" weren't sufficiently forceful enough to allow an adequate lifespan for 3rd population stars to develop into 1st population stars, with intermediate novas, supernovae, binary supernovae, etc., without which process we could not be here to observe the Universe ("Anthropomorphic Principle").
Also, such a theory is similar, though not identical to Fred Hoyle's "Steady State Theory" (correct ke if I'm wrong).
The original "creation of gravity" necessitated by this theory is more of a "philosophical creation", necessitated by the fact that the original "matter creation" event must have taken place in a Universe without time, thus allowing the process (which caused a "backstep" in time) to repeat an identical creation process in exactly the same space-time coordinates. This would have necessitated the previously deposited "matter" to move over unwillingly. That would be the reason why all matter inherently (and futilely) attempted to return to its "birthplace" - with this "desire" to increase as older matter was immensely displaced - allowing for the final, "biggest bang" to finally occur.
what I don't get about the uncertainty principal, is that if we know for a fact that the Planck length and the Planck time are indeed the smallest units and are indivisible, then WHY is it impossible to determine a particles position or momentum and it's energy simultaneously? I know that light doesn't care about time, but surely even light must travel forward in values of Planck lengths and keep it's quanta of energy if the space it is in is a perfect vacuum...I can't help but think we have something wrong here...
why do vacuum and continuum have 2 u's each?
what does it matter to youse--?
Soooo...they don't like infirmities. He said himself there are possible infinities but here is how we can work around those. Cosmological version of placing your hands over you ears and saying la-la-la-la when the figures don't come up to your liking.
I agree that infinities are probably the equivalent of the hidden areas on a game map, but to not consider the possibilty that there infinities means denying that the cat is indeed just a cat and is not being very open minded.
Still love the episode and as always thought provoking and fascinating...
We realize if we nail down big bang that won't tell us anything? A process? Is there a why? Or what led to a BB? And what before? All observation, conclusions, where does that get us??
Maybe this is actually happening to us all the time but by definition we can never find ourselves to be in a version of the present where we observe it.
Technically, we don't actually know the past is real. We could've been created moments ago and given fake memories about our lives and the history of the universe we find ourselves in. Like when you generate a new game of dwarf fortress for example. 😂 Sometimes it feels like I'm living in a memory. It's hard to explain, but I've googled it and apparently a lot of people say they felt that way before.
Last Thursday ism
Could be your subconscious and conscious mind being more interwoven and less established than reality and fiction because im forever having realistically dreams or memories that sometimes take a minute to distinguish between the two subjects 😂😂
16:39 I think you're on the right, John.
Here's why:
I understand that a zero radius leads to the dreaded Infinity.
In other words, You can't divide by zero.
My snag is: Why are you dividing by zero, anyway?
Doesn't Pauli's Exclusion Principle dictate that we shouldn't be trying to divide by zero in the first place? If two Fermions can't occupy the same quantum state, shouldn't there be s "nugget" of compressed matter, literally, not Quite at, but as close as possible (given the limited options for phase spaces and such) to the center?
And, since my typing is so abysmally slow, I've been hearing quite a bit of your conversation as I type...lol
Maybe the topology change described by your guest can be applied to what I'm saying..? Maybe it's necessary to change the POV of something, somewhere, so why not redefine the landscape but with no actual singularity?
Wth do I know, though...lol
Great interview, btw.
Thanks!
Maybe the reason why we can't solve for everything is just because of the fact that to do so would be to solve for infinity. Just like trying to draw a perfect circle seems like it should be a relatively easy and achievable task but you can't simply because of the fact that drawing a perfect circle would be the same as solving for circular infinity. Or if you can solve for circular infinity it should take just as long as solving for linear infinity despite the fact that circular infinity seems like it's much easier to observe the entire equation or theory in its entirety compared to linear infinity.
The universe is solving itself. It would take as much energy to actually predict every particle. In that sense our universe is a simulation, but not the digital kind. The kind of simulation where you sit back and wait for the result to be computed. You can know the outcome of the universe by being there as it unfolds. This is how a computer scientists dive deep into the smallest computable unit in the universe when devising sub-microscale computer hardware. You end up with a view that sees the universe as a simulation. Not a digital computer simulation from an alien civilization, but a simulation as the unfolding of the physics in real time.
Personally I think we over estimate our intelligence sure we’ve been consciously aware for millions of years but the world is literally billions of years old (that we know of) it’s just incomprehensible by size power and meaning
And the faster it expands the faster we must indulge in the knowledge of it
Kind of like trying to catch up to a fast car with the answers while chasing it on foot… the first second was the easiest moment to understand but the faster the car goes the less realistic you are to walk up and open the door
😂😂
As a lay person I'm wondering, in regards to dark energy, if all we know is that dark energy is a field that causes exponential expansion... Couldn't we just say that there is exponential expansion and leave dark energy out of the verbiage?
Wrong there was no beginning to the universe only a beginning to how we can measure it through observation. The big bang was not a beginning, just a period of rapid expansion.
Thanks John for the content cheers from Toronto 🙃
Everything has a beginning and an end from our perspective in 3 dimensions so we need everything to be quantified. What if infinity doesn't need to be banished but included in our theory's. What if space time and infinity are linked and that is the 4th dimension or the field that that or 3 dimensions exist
This one was especially good.
I see at the end of the next decade that Physics, Astrophysics and astronomy will all be tied together through Artificial General Intelligence. AGI is the only thing that can keep up with all of the advancements being made today. For now specialists can advance specific areas however even that will become increasingly problematic in the sheer volume of data. It will be a very powerful tool for scientists of the future.
I've always thought of black hole singularities simply as, maximum possible density. Infinite density just doesn't compute in the brain. That, or we live in the matrix.
I also acknowledge my ignorance in the finer mathematics, so I have at best, a layman's understanding of the subject matter.
A lot of things are already not understood by most people.
Thought provoking.
Superluminal gravitational blast wave maybe. It smishes the vacuum and the universe flat to zero size! We live in the recoil maybe.
It's refreshing to hear a scientist understand how much of the "specialization problem" is just a result of every walled garden having its own internal language. I'm still not convinced that information is what has become beyond what an individual can understand in multiple disciplines - I think it's much more feasible that the sum total of specialized jargon, growing simultaneously but in isolation in every walled garden of academia, is what has actually exceeded individual human understanding (especially with how often terms in one language are contradictory or simply subtly incommensurable).
I do worry that some of what preserves the lack of polymaths is a fear in certain walled gardens that interdisciplinarians won't allow their ideas to exist without justifying themselves beyond simply how old and how popular they are - in short, interdisciplinary efforts are a threat to entrenched belief systems that they won't simply take at face value.
Ya, what ever 😆!!
I love your thinking! I don't have a snappy answer for you, but keep that wonderful brain going! The comment before me comes from a person that can't be bothered with thinking.
@@babartahir9004 why do you even watch videos like this? I think you would find professional wrestling much more satisfying.
You made me learn a new word. I love that. "incommensurable". Kind of like apples and oranges.
Great talk!
And the outro.. seems scarily familiar 😬
AI will dumb down humans - computers already have dumbed down folks - few "research" anything. they just look up the answer. AI will make it worse. Even now its hard to find employees the exhibit common sense and the ability to use discernment!
Having watched all the episodes of Ahsoka ( Yeah I was the one that did.) I'm all for A.I writing scrips.
I appreaciate that he was trying to go for the foot-pound per cubic yard energy density for imperial units.