There is a question If entropy cannot decrease The big bank theory states disorder of energy decreased as energy collected at a point This contradicts as disorder decreased
"The multiverse is worse than useless as an explanation of the finely-tuned initial conditions because the multiverse predicts hyper-exponentially more tiny universes than large ones like ours." - Roger Penrose, Oxford physicist
But non life spawning universes wouldnt have observers to note their abundance. There could be infinitely more non-habitable than habitable universes, no matter.
@@kfurgie999 "There [could be] infinitely more..." "What does it mean for something to exist if you can't observe it?....I think that's a discussion that belongs safely in the realm of philosophy. People can believe in the multiverse all they want - but it's not science." - Sabine Hossenfelder, physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
"What does it mean for something to exist if you can't observe it?....I think that's a discussion that belongs safely in the realm of philosophy. People can believe in the multiverse all they want - but it's not science." - Sabine Hossenfelder, physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
I'd think not because time is boundless and everything would always be, like conservation of matter and energy, but if time dialates then it could look as if time approaches a point that is zero but it actually is 1 divided by infinitesimalness. However, matter or space could pop into existence and seemingly would always,, like the universes that are all in a space but have different governance are in space but have multiple universes or theres a multiverse that is actually one space, which would have laws like how conservation of energy is probably true in all universes but like charges can differ or whatever he said can differ. IM ACTUALLY WORKING ON THEORY THAT IS FOR ..that there are undeniable laws like Newtonain Laws, that govern all space and that its 3D space with 1 time but made of many overlapping fields which are like universes which are 3D with a time each and they make a hyperverse which we experience as a 3D space with time,, because of a law that space can only be 3D and there must be time. On Arvin Ash's we dont know what time is but it might be this, i answer what i think time is and it was that time is change as given from dx of integrals in Calculus and the change must be because it is mathematic like laws must be because they are logical so time is logical and that is self evident in this statement. I want to get a Nobel Prize and have email Sean Carrol before on March 9th 2019,, time has equivalence to space and space as well as time thusly must be different from 2 different points, causing locality, and because they change from point to point in locality. If youre not different points then you are the same, and if you have 1 point then it is either 0 which since it exists as we know we exist we know there is more than 0 and is earlier stated correlation that we are divided by infinitesimalness and so there is not just many but infinite points of space then time, and there is differences between different points which is probably how different fields arise but my theory that theres different fields that permeate a 3D space, (for at least our universe, cuz there cud be like a multiverse where things are correlated or intertwined or twirled together differently.. i think Sean Carrol would think this is genius) is that theres fields of fundamental basics which i thought or my centric rather than particle centric is e=mc² centric and there is an energy field, and massive matter and light matter aka massless matter like photons but those cud just be force carrying particles and this is a unification theory of those and then a basic law that the fields are unified as different points of space which interfere with eachother to make new realities of possible particles and forces and spaces with distance. See my other comments on this channel and channels ScienceClic English mostly and Arvin Ash has some. But my theories centric or for whatever is best suited for what your investigating, the different 3D plus time fields all have own times and the times' time is gravity. And this is supported by my math for gravity = force = mass x acceleration =mass x distance per time² and then one does Calculus the equation with respect to time variable and finds the derivative of gravity or force even is space × quanta divided by time and equals derivative of mass × distance per time ² which is = -2 mass × distance per time³ and then you can do derivative again and spacequanta time becomes a singularity (maybe) of a 6sided 4D point that is also a 4D universe with 6 directions that both have mass and distance. And that is that. Should be good enough for discussion and to get those interested in such to think hey, i should get this guy known so he can progress Science... physics and math!
@Edric alFali I do not think WLC performed poorly in their debate; overall, I don't think science has a say about the question of God, or other metaphysical problems. Whether the universe had a beginning or not is in my opinion irrelevant to theist metaphysicians, so if I ever talked to WLC, I think I would tell him that to me, it is not important at all to push in the direction of a cosmic beginning. Most scientists do think that the universe had a beginning, which leaves the philosopher in a very interesting playground, a playground that the scientist has no business interfering with. Carroll is a brilliant guy, and I think he did well on the debate. Except when he listed all the scientific question that theism cannot answer, that was absolutely ridiculous.
Imagine you're at the boundary between two 'universes' where particles from each universe interact. Would the laws of interaction be derived from both universes at the same time? Or would there be meta-laws dictating the interaction? If two such meta-systems interacted (four universes total) would there be meta-meta-laws to handle this?
Can anyone answer me a question? I've heard many physicists talk about bubble universes or multiple universes existing in that way. If thats possible, whats the space that the bubbles(universes) are occupying? Wouldn't that just be more space? He mentioned 2 bubble universes bumping into one another, so that means the bubbles are clearly floating or moving within some area of space.
Thank you tRI and S.C for the content. I was surprised the content was so focused on Multi U content - but guess in 5 minutes, you are risking getting sidetracked. One could list 100 questions of value to Sean to be covered. I would be interested in Sean qualifying the different types of Many Universes & how each differs in the obvious ways & S.C.'s comments on TIME, its dimensions and relationship across epochs
But is it really possible to observe other universes (if they exist, of course)? The instruments that function with the laws of physics in our universe may not be valid in other universes, assuming that they have different physics laws.
Can someone answer my question. According Roger P...today entropy is 10 tothe power 123. Good. After applying boatman equation, please space scome to 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. Lets xall is number T I understand upto here. I dont understand the following. Now as per Roger Penrose there is 1 in T chance that this could have happened. No clue how he came to that conclusion. Can someone comment
"The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed." - Vilenkin
"It is very difficult to devise a system - especially a quantum one - that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time." - Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias
This is very interesting, of course necessarily very speculative, especially for such a short video, but interesting regardless. I would've liked to hear a little bit more about the First Law of Thermodynamics and this idea that the whole universe might have a net energy of zero. What would that entail, would this involve negative energy in places or something along those lines?
I once heard that the multiverse explained the 'fine tuning problem', e.g., some universes are "duds" and ours is not. Is this still a thing or is 'fine tuning' not valid concept anymore?
If you're addressing the question "why are the physical constants exactly the way we humans need them to be?", the answer is yes. One way to argue about this "coincidence" is for sure that one might introduce a variety of universes (-> multiverse theory), so that these constants become a statistical distribution.
so if the total amount of energy of the universe is zero then it does not violate the law of energy conservation so when i make a perpetual motion machine i do not violate energy conservation either as nothing to infinite is one and the same.
I just finished reading "The Big Picture" a few days ago. Would simply love to have a discussion with this great mind of our time, enjoying a beer together. Disclaimer: I have no own "truths", "theories" or "hypotheses" I just would love to talk about what human, poetic and pleasant was for me and maybe offer on or two thoughts of feelings, which would be just personal and simple, but I do not think everything has to be complicated. I know I will never meet Sean and even less so have some time to chat with him while enjoying a beer. But the fact that I imagine it here uses the same neural networks in my brain as are used for memories, so I guess imagination is some sort of building false memories, but we still know that and act accordingly. I forgot the paper, so I will not cite it here now. Just enjoy the coming season, spend it with your family, loved ones and celebrate whatever you wish. Just do not be lonely or alone. It really hurts. Physically.
All the folks here that jump to conclusions accusing Carroll of unreasonable statements.. well, they clearly don't have a single clue about the titanic work behind these affirmations. They only hear these silly explanatory sentences intended especially for the understanding of 5 year olds, and they presume that this is how this man got to them. My dog is certain that i'm stupid and that i do stupid things. But unbeknownst to him i might be reading a very interesting book, and not just wasting time looking at a dead and tasteless piece of paper. Things are not so simple and certain as they appear.
anywherein12seconds lol exactly why I opened the Bible to look for myself! Tho Needless to say, he made a direct acknowledgment with the “maybes” he placed before his statements, that this is Theoretical science. Always search for the truth and keep working at it. But don’t look down on the dogs knowledge when u may very well be the same thing to the big guy up stairs.
Brammy007a well how is evolution not also a hypothesis? What is testable about 100million years of social Darwinism breeding the diversity of life we see today? I get we can breed all types of different dogs but how can I make a dog with in the available time assimilate the genetic material to produce gills or wings?
I remember our solar system was in the sagittarius arm of the milky way galaxy and now we are in the Orion Spur. 80,000 light years away.. can someone explain this to me please?
I honestly don't understand why the conservation laws haven't been broken? First he says it could be possible that the total energy of the universe is zero. Well if it could be possible, but we are not really sure at this point, shouldn't the answer be, we really don't know if the conservation laws have been broken at the beginning? He should not say it hasn't been broken when it is really just a theory that all the energy in the universe will equal zero energy. At best he should say we really don't know if they have been broken. Krauss I think does something similar. He speaks about particle/anti-particle annihilations that equate to zero energy (that and residual radiation), but somehow by the tiniest fractions there is an asymmetry on the side favoring matter, and more and more matter particles begin to gradually accumulate as the result of all these annihilations, and will eventually form all the matter of the initial singularity. Well why isn't that asymmetry considered to be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? If it does not equal zero (even if by the tiniest of numbers) then you don't have the law being followed. I read somewhere that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does allow for the breaking of the conservation laws for a very short period of time. I imagine something like virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence for the briefest moments of time, being allowed by this principle, at least in theory. However I think that is a big leap from a momentary asymmetry that is quickly resolved, and what Krauss and Carroll are speaking of which is long term violation of asymmetry in which matter either wins out, or the negative counterpart exists in theory. What we are speaking of in the beginning should be considered a different phenomenon than a quantum fluctuation if it results in long term violation. Both men are atheist and so probably resist the notion that we are dealing with something other than even what is allowed by quantum fluctuations for reasons that are not strictly speaking scientific. Of course if you are going to theorize that matter came about as a result of asymmetrical quantum fluctuations in which matter and anti-matter annihilate, then you might want to give a reason why this does not continue to happen all the time at random, but I have yet to hear what that reason is. Another thing about the eternal energy that these two atheist think has always existed, which I think people should find peculiar, is the question of why should eternal energy take the form of something that is subject to particle decay?
Altho I do argee with everything he says this is still an open discussion and I was thinking what if this wasn't the first time the universe has started would there eventually be only one whole thing that always was I am sort of confused
Think about it. How could the universe start more than once? That would defy the 2LOT. Also if it has always been we would not be here now as everything would have gone back to equilibrium where there would be no available energy anymore for life to exist. Also, as a side note he said that gravity was there that made the gas shrink, but gravity is a very weak force. Far too weak to overcome gas pressure.
What was energy state before singularity? This energy to create the singularity would have been equal to energy released during expansion...yet dark energy and matter cannot be defined in any way . It seems as in quantum mechanics our ability to use logic and known physical laws falls short.שלום
If people from this universe with this set of laws of physics cross to another universe with a missing law of physics, what would happen? E.g You cross to a universe where Coulomb's Law doesn't exist.
Perhaps its much closer curiously to our own thoughts than we think.. because you kind of wonder with thoughts.. where there is essentially nothing and then sudddenly there is a thought which brings time and space back into the picture,..
and the real recap is ...........the universe was incredibly condensed.....which is a fact .....and than it expanded ......and there r a few likely explanations that haven't been demonstrated to be true ....yet
+Artur Volkotrub nooooooooooooo that's just an observable fact like the earth going around the barycenter of the solar system........the part that hasn't been confirmed is the multiverse ...........go look up how we know it's a fact
The universe obviously has energy, not "zero energy" as Carroll says. As such, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, the universe is eternal, always existed and always will.
Zero energy would mean there is a balance of there being energy and a negative aka equal and opposite energy. And somehow that transformed into being a lot of different stuff... entropy growth started. It would of increased from nothing or just way lower to simply more and that made a universe expand,, read my other comments on this and ScienceClic English's channel, and on this video under roece jacobs comment of a quote by sean carrol. Please and thank you, im trying to get known to win a Nobel Prize!
Why didn't you mention the 3rd law that energy can't be created nor destroyed but only change forms, the big bangs contradicts this because its stating that the universe was created from nothing
I accept the answer that we dont know what kind of entropy the universe had right before and after the big bang and so it coulve been very low, but my brain thinks that the formation of a solar system from a nebula of gas, whether its the birth of the stellar age or a stellar nursary observable today, has got to be moving from high entropy to low entropy. Solar systems are more ordered than a ball of gas, right? If someone could answer this my nrain would be delighted. Entropy doesnt imply its impossible, so maybe we just live in a extremely unlikely part of the multiverse where stars actually form from the preferred chaos? Does the extreme gravity involved simply outweigh the desire to remain chaotic? That seems the most logical i guess
I struggled for a long time about this issue; "Has our universe bounced off another universe?" I believe we have not, but only for similar reasons we never actually touch anything ourselves. I believe we are in concert with a plethora of Universi floating together in what I like to call Cobalt Mercury (a spacial fluid metal w/static mass particles.) Our outer edge consist of an extremely large layer of frozen hydrogen (3 times the size of our current observable universe.) I believe the reverse gravitational polarity caused by the compacting of the CM keeps the Universes from colliding. - Do marbles in a bowl ever touch? ;O)- Disclaimer: This is part/parcel of my Grand Fission theory not proofed by current mainstream mathematics.
Something of that great energy in such a small place had to come from a higher dimension or like a hyper dimensional time crystal maybe it broke off and somehow floated down a black hole to here
No, it started with such a low entropy, because there was nothing physical yet and the non physical energy has no entropy and as far as the universe having net zero just means it was and is in a quantum perfect state of balance between the negative and positive numbers before and after the zero itself.
Some people are willing to admit that you have to prove something before you can claim it to be true and will admit where their proven knowledge ends and speculation/theory begin. Then there are ppl believe things with no proof and refuse to accept anything that goes against their belief system no matter how good the scientific proof is
@@jonhoge153 we all believe things without proof. Dr. Alvin Plantinga has done a lot of work in showing that one can have warrant and be rational for believing things apart from evidence. He calls such beliefs properly basic beliefs. And we all engage them. For instance, there is no way for us to prove we are not in a matrix and that reality is real. But we all believe we really do exist and that other minds exist. Well - at least most of us do. And so there are certain beliefs one can hold and be rational until what Dr. Plantinga calls a *defeater* shows up to overthrow our beliefs. For Santa Claus we have all experienced defeaters that helped us to overthrow our belief in Santa Claus. But when it comes to something like Christianity he shows that people can be rational for believing God exists as a properly basic belief. Someone would have to offer an overwhelming defeater if they wanted to overthrow a person's Christian belief. If there isn't a defeater powerful enough to do that then a person is perfectly rational for remaining in their belief in God apart from absolute proof.
i would say that your not to smart either neutron stars are made of neutrons with a thick crust of heavy element atoms , that they have a dual magnetic field a surface electron exchange magnetic field off those atoms a secondary field of electrons that are held by gravity orbiting the mass that it an over staturation of electrons in number that even at the speed of light and the number of heavy atoms on its surface it can not mechanically exchange all the electrons it contains in time
neutrons are not unstable in a magnetic field, environmental the central core mass is like the biggest orbiting electron field in the galaxy, so you are say neutrons can exist in an atom nucleus protected from decay by orbiting electrons buct they cant be manufactured by induction forces in side a magnetic field in a central core particle mass that has cooled off ove 100 billion years from its orbiting electron field.
The thing is that there are no reasonable interpretations of QM. The Copenhagen interpretation was famously rubbished by Schrodinger within hours and yet we still learn it as the mainstream view. The various multiverse interpretations might well be incorrect but at least they fit the mathematics. What interpretation do you suggest?
I studied under Lowell S. Brown in 1974. I have no excuse for being so ignorant, other than I learned enough science to make money. My ideas are always wrong. I need test data to get closer to the truth. Now I am an old man and watch Roger Penrose on youtube. There is little reason to believe he is right, but I can tell everyone else is wrong.
Conjuring up another universe to answer a question about this one doesn't really 'answer' anything. Only creates more questions... All to escape the existence of a God or Higher Power
No it's not! The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. So the guy in the video said it right. I seriously don't know where you got the "matter" part from...
well neutron stars are stable because of its magnetic field that encapsulates it over time in its core the process of fission like in a nuclear reactor takes place where those neutrons and positrons are under so much heat and pressure they turn that material into a particle plasma that eventually over time consumes the mass and produces a particle plasma mass that still. has a super magnetic field of electrons held by gravity orbiting it , and when inner galaxy has no more material for that mass to take apart in 100 billion years because its by itself in deep space the central core particle plasma mass cool off and that orbiting field thru induction fores and close proximity inducts those particles in the mass back into neutrons and protons and photons that takes apart that mass over a time span so that the anchor is not large enough to maintain the mass's locked in its grip and releases the outer perimeters mass
ahh, but consider that the universe as we know it could not exist without at least one imperfection. it might exist but it would be a featureless expanse of uniform density, much like Phoenix.
So basically, you don't know!! If there is zero matter and energy, and matter and energy come into existence, and the first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, how can you say that doesn't violate the law? And I noticed he said that entropy was low, He didn't say there was no entropy. Even if entropy was just low then Matter and energy could not be eternal because it would have reached Maximum entropy by now. So basically what you said didn't make any sense whatsoever. You just mentioned that "this could've happened" and "we don't know". Nothing with any scientific substance
well if a galaxy is the mother and the babies are orbiting the mother on its perimeter mini baby galaxies , then clusters of galaxies can run tracking each other into deep space over 2 or 3 hundred billion years to create a new universe with galaxy expansion by the conversion of its central core mass , back into neutrons
You blew my mind... in a negative way. That's so unscientific that i honestly don't know where to start. Well, just one easy thing: Neutrons are unstable. And going "back" to neutrons doesn't make any sense.
It really is quite incredible how folk with simply NO understand whatsoever feel perfectly justified running thier mouth off with the most idiotic and inane drivel, with not an iota of embarrassment or shame. In real life this kind of behaviour comes with a cost, or being ridiculed and laughed at; quite rightly in my opinion. Here on the internet it seems people don't worry about talking absolute and utter shite.
empty space exists right now space is not dependent on quantum parts assembling into hydrogen based matter for its existence our universe is dependent on space full of quantum parts for its existence so the quantum dimension of space could be trillions upon trillions of years old . and we are just new comers around these parts,
Cosmology is the only science in existence where every single answer is "we don't know". No point to ask a question if you already know the answer. Too complicated, okay? move on..
"simple really!" Wow, you will win a Nobel Prize in Physics if you can explain what the Big Bang is! Thousands of Physicists over 50+ years have tried to answer that question each failing spectacularly - I can't wait to hear your theory :)
7 років тому
its simple that they must be linked! black holes swallows up mass, they get more massive and become super massive black holes, eventually that mass causes a big bang, probably not in the same universe :D that's my guess and if i am right i will expect a prize haha!
Jay Mee Nice idea, but it's not new. It's called Cosmic Darwinism. Universes may give birth to baby universes via black holes, which have other sets of natural constants.
7 років тому
exactly, if a black hole dosnt get fed it can "die" but because of conservation of energy, the energy and mass has to go somewhere which would explain expansion and rotation and also it explains why you cant really observe what happened before the big bang but that we can realize if you play the current universe backwards why it all goes to the same point known as a singularity!
I am convinced that the laws of the universe have always existed. That's why God had no option but to fine-tuned the universe. Not even a miracle would have worked.
More precisely this is scientific speculation, based on current hypothesises. Speculation and trying to evaluate a hypothesis is part of the scientific process. This is not scientific "knowledge" though.
Yes it is scientific knowledge. The universe is expanding. The universe is mostly hydrogen and some helium. And there's cosmic background radiation. These are facts and these were all results of a Big Bang.
What does the big bang theory appear to be outlandish? And what theory about the start of the universe is not? We are speaking about a unique event, how can such a thing seem normal?
If Energies balance to equilibrium then we have zero energy? So the universe is nothing? Non sense Nothing means NO THING Not things that balance It's even if you have a multiverse unless it's an actual infinite then your energy's still gonna run out But even if it is an actual infinite energys going to run out Because you would have a average quantity of energy per unit of space Is of the energy and each unit of space would have run out given infinity past But if that multi verse is growing it's not an actual infinite it's only a potential infinite It's not growing then given infinity past every infinite point would have birthed a universe these would have converged by now to create an infinitely old universe An expanding multi verse would have a beginning if you could get a multiple verse by chance then given infinity past every infinite point would have birthed a multiple verse It's impossible to have an infinite past in the material world a person counting an infinite number of days would never reach the present The contradiction to that anything that could have happened would have happened infinity ago I think it's checkmate for the atheist
Redwave trance which god....... and virtual particals is just observation about nature.... and the current model about that phenomenon is called virtual particles
energy can not be created or destroyed yet the universe came from nothing full of energy from nothing. making a special case for creation of energy to only happend in the very beginning is a superstitous thinking.
lethimwhoboasts If I may step into the conversation, I would like to ask you how you think you're right about God creating the universe in and of itself and not some other force? What proof do you have of Him performing this act that wasn't just an interpretation of observations made in the Iron Age of humanity millennia ago? What observations of the present universe give evidence to suggest a divine Creator?
Perhaps its much closer curiously to our own thoughts than we think.. because you kind of wonder with thoughts.. where there is essentially nothing and then sudddenly there is a thought which brings time and space back into the picture,..
Oh please... In what way are the two things related? Other than our brain is composed of the matter/energy that was also present in the big bang. Just like rocks and everything else.
haha, you are comparing them using the usual linear conceptual paradigmn of reductionisitic logic.. yes they are seemingly the same because on one level they are both multulisitically connected in terms thatit apparently takes matter to think but we can think we are able to conceptualise matter through thought. so i think that indicates something much more instrinsic in their relationship..
“Almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang”- Stephen Hawkings
"Almost"
Sounds like he was trying to help people think for themselves
@@stasioser123 because thinking for yourself is rare
Why did you post so many quotes
I don't think that the Hartle-Hawking no boundary proposal is as popular now as it was in the 80s-90s.
There is a question
If entropy cannot decrease
The big bank theory states disorder of energy decreased as energy collected at a point
This contradicts as disorder decreased
"The multiverse is worse than useless as an explanation of the finely-tuned initial conditions because the multiverse predicts hyper-exponentially more tiny universes than large ones like ours." - Roger Penrose, Oxford physicist
wow, you seem pretty keen to demonstrate the existence of your deity!
But non life spawning universes wouldnt have observers to note their abundance. There could be infinitely more non-habitable than habitable universes, no matter.
@@goalski134 Huh, who mentioned a deity? lol it was just a quote from a famous atheist scientist
@@DarthMakroth thanks for your wisdom darth
@@kfurgie999 "There [could be] infinitely more..."
"What does it mean for something to exist if you can't observe it?....I think that's a discussion that belongs safely in the realm of philosophy. People can believe in the multiverse all they want - but it's not science." - Sabine Hossenfelder, physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
"What does it mean for something to exist if you can't observe it?....I think that's a discussion that belongs safely in the realm of philosophy. People can believe in the multiverse all they want - but it's not science." - Sabine Hossenfelder, physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany
Wonderful quote! Amen.
"The Big Bang, we don't know if it was the beginning of the universe or not" - Sean Carroll
I'd think not because time is boundless and everything would always be, like conservation of matter and energy, but if time dialates then it could look as if time approaches a point that is zero but it actually is 1 divided by infinitesimalness. However, matter or space could pop into existence and seemingly would always,, like the universes that are all in a space but have different governance are in space but have multiple universes or theres a multiverse that is actually one space, which would have laws like how conservation of energy is probably true in all universes but like charges can differ or whatever he said can differ. IM ACTUALLY WORKING ON THEORY THAT IS FOR ..that there are undeniable laws like Newtonain Laws, that govern all space and that its 3D space with 1 time but made of many overlapping fields which are like universes which are 3D with a time each and they make a hyperverse which we experience as a 3D space with time,, because of a law that space can only be 3D and there must be time. On Arvin Ash's we dont know what time is but it might be this, i answer what i think time is and it was that time is change as given from dx of integrals in Calculus and the change must be because it is mathematic like laws must be because they are logical so time is logical and that is self evident in this statement. I want to get a Nobel Prize and have email Sean Carrol before on March 9th 2019,, time has equivalence to space and space as well as time thusly must be different from 2 different points, causing locality, and because they change from point to point in locality. If youre not different points then you are the same, and if you have 1 point then it is either 0 which since it exists as we know we exist we know there is more than 0 and is earlier stated correlation that we are divided by infinitesimalness and so there is not just many but infinite points of space then time, and there is differences between different points which is probably how different fields arise but my theory that theres different fields that permeate a 3D space, (for at least our universe, cuz there cud be like a multiverse where things are correlated or intertwined or twirled together differently.. i think Sean Carrol would think this is genius) is that theres fields of fundamental basics which i thought or my centric rather than particle centric is e=mc² centric and there is an energy field, and massive matter and light matter aka massless matter like photons but those cud just be force carrying particles and this is a unification theory of those and then a basic law that the fields are unified as different points of space which interfere with eachother to make new realities of possible particles and forces and spaces with distance. See my other comments on this channel and channels ScienceClic English mostly and Arvin Ash has some. But my theories centric or for whatever is best suited for what your investigating, the different 3D plus time fields all have own times and the times' time is gravity. And this is supported by my math for gravity = force = mass x acceleration =mass x distance per time² and then one does Calculus the equation with respect to time variable and finds the derivative of gravity or force even is space × quanta divided by time and equals derivative of mass × distance per time ² which is = -2 mass × distance per time³ and then you can do derivative again and spacequanta time becomes a singularity (maybe) of a 6sided 4D point that is also a 4D universe with 6 directions that both have mass and distance. And that is that. Should be good enough for discussion and to get those interested in such to think hey, i should get this guy known so he can progress Science... physics and math!
11 people like William Lane Craig
Edric alFali WLC got a severe spanking from Carroll in their debate.
Eddie King I saw it. It was glorious.
@Edric alFali I do not think WLC performed poorly in their debate; overall, I don't think science has a say about the question of God, or other metaphysical problems. Whether the universe had a beginning or not is in my opinion irrelevant to theist metaphysicians, so if I ever talked to WLC, I think I would tell him that to me, it is not important at all to push in the direction of a cosmic beginning. Most scientists do think that the universe had a beginning, which leaves the philosopher in a very interesting playground, a playground that the scientist has no business interfering with.
Carroll is a brilliant guy, and I think he did well on the debate. Except when he listed all the scientific question that theism cannot answer, that was absolutely ridiculous.
@@KinemaReviews WLC got embarrassed
Did you round up or something?
Imagine you're at the boundary between two 'universes' where particles from each universe interact. Would the laws of interaction be derived from both universes at the same time? Or would there be meta-laws dictating the interaction? If two such meta-systems interacted (four universes total) would there be meta-meta-laws to handle this?
Can anyone answer me a question?
I've heard many physicists talk about bubble universes or multiple universes existing in that way. If thats possible, whats the space that the bubbles(universes) are occupying? Wouldn't that just be more space?
He mentioned 2 bubble universes bumping into one another, so that means the bubbles are clearly floating or moving within some area of space.
Dr. Carroll always does a great job explaining things.
Thank you tRI and S.C for the content. I was surprised the content was so focused on Multi U content - but guess in 5 minutes, you are risking getting sidetracked. One could list 100 questions of value to Sean to be covered.
I would be interested in Sean qualifying the different types of Many Universes & how each differs in the obvious ways & S.C.'s comments on TIME, its dimensions and relationship across epochs
for a five minute video i am impressed; well explained. thanks
But is it really possible to observe other universes (if they exist, of course)? The instruments that function with the laws of physics in our universe may not be valid in other universes, assuming that they have different physics laws.
What is very very low? Could it not be zero entropy? If not what were the thermodynamic processes before that?
Can someone answer my question. According Roger P...today entropy is 10 tothe power 123. Good. After applying boatman equation, please space scome to 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. Lets xall is number T
I understand upto here.
I dont understand the following.
Now as per Roger Penrose there is 1 in T chance that this could have happened. No clue how he came to that conclusion. Can someone comment
"The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed." - Vilenkin
If there is antimatter to matter? Could there be the opposite of entropy that we just cannot observe in this observable physical universe?
"It is very difficult to devise a system - especially a quantum one - that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time." - Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias
Particle accelerators contribution to this knowledge not mentioned? :-(
This is very interesting, of course necessarily very speculative, especially for such a short video, but interesting regardless. I would've liked to hear a little bit more about the First Law of Thermodynamics and this idea that the whole universe might have a net energy of zero. What would that entail, would this involve negative energy in places or something along those lines?
I once heard that the multiverse explained the 'fine tuning problem', e.g., some universes are "duds" and ours is not. Is this still a thing or is 'fine tuning' not valid concept anymore?
If you're addressing the question "why are the physical constants exactly the way we humans need them to be?", the answer is yes. One way to argue about this "coincidence" is for sure that one might introduce a variety of universes (-> multiverse theory), so that these constants become a statistical distribution.
Groink1 Thank you. That is what I meant.
@@TheTwick the multiverse theory creats more variables and questions than it solves that's why it's dismissed.
@@samimas4343 some might dismiss it, but it's not been discounted
so if the total amount of energy of the universe is zero then it does not violate the law of energy conservation so when i make a perpetual motion machine i do not violate energy conservation either as nothing to infinite is one and the same.
I just finished reading "The Big Picture" a few days ago. Would simply love to have a discussion with this great mind of our time, enjoying a beer together. Disclaimer: I have no own "truths", "theories" or "hypotheses" I just would love to talk about what human, poetic and pleasant was for me and maybe offer on or two thoughts of feelings, which would be just personal and simple, but I do not think everything has to be complicated. I know I will never meet Sean and even less so have some time to chat with him while enjoying a beer. But the fact that I imagine it here uses the same neural networks in my brain as are used for memories, so I guess imagination is some sort of building false memories, but we still know that and act accordingly. I forgot the paper, so I will not cite it here now. Just enjoy the coming season, spend it with your family, loved ones and celebrate whatever you wish. Just do not be lonely or alone. It really hurts. Physically.
Can you Bengali please subtitle? I can't speak English.
Google Translate used to read I here
All the folks here that jump to conclusions accusing Carroll of unreasonable statements.. well, they clearly don't have a single clue about the titanic work behind these affirmations. They only hear these silly explanatory sentences intended especially for the understanding of 5 year olds, and they presume that this is how this man got to them.
My dog is certain that i'm stupid and that i do stupid things. But unbeknownst to him i might be reading a very interesting book, and not just wasting time looking at a dead and tasteless piece of paper. Things are not so simple and certain as they appear.
anywherein12seconds lol exactly why I opened the Bible to look for myself!
Tho Needless to say, he made a direct acknowledgment with the “maybes” he placed before his statements, that this is Theoretical science.
Always search for the truth and keep working at it. But don’t look down on the dogs knowledge when u may very well be the same thing to the big guy up stairs.
@@peterturner345 lol, the Bible
I wish he wouldn't use the word "theory" when he really means "hypothesis". He knows better
Brammy007a well how is evolution not also a hypothesis? What is testable about 100million years of social Darwinism breeding the diversity of life we see today?
I get we can breed all types of different dogs but how can I make a dog with in the available time assimilate the genetic material to produce gills or wings?
I remember our solar system was in the sagittarius arm of the milky way galaxy and now we are in the Orion Spur. 80,000 light years away.. can someone explain this to me please?
I honestly don't understand why the conservation laws haven't been broken? First he says it could be possible that the total energy of the universe is zero. Well if it could be possible, but we are not really sure at this point, shouldn't the answer be, we really don't know if the conservation laws have been broken at the beginning? He should not say it hasn't been broken when it is really just a theory that all the energy in the universe will equal zero energy. At best he should say we really don't know if they have been broken.
Krauss I think does something similar. He speaks about particle/anti-particle annihilations that equate to zero energy (that and residual radiation), but somehow by the tiniest fractions there is an asymmetry on the side favoring matter, and more and more matter particles begin to gradually accumulate as the result of all these annihilations, and will eventually form all the matter of the initial singularity. Well why isn't that asymmetry considered to be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? If it does not equal zero (even if by the tiniest of numbers) then you don't have the law being followed. I read somewhere that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does allow for the breaking of the conservation laws for a very short period of time. I imagine something like virtual particles fluctuating in and out of existence for the briefest moments of time, being allowed by this principle, at least in theory. However I think that is a big leap from a momentary asymmetry that is quickly resolved, and what Krauss and Carroll are speaking of which is long term violation of asymmetry in which matter either wins out, or the negative counterpart exists in theory. What we are speaking of in the beginning should be considered a different phenomenon than a quantum fluctuation if it results in long term violation. Both men are atheist and so probably resist the notion that we are dealing with something other than even what is allowed by quantum fluctuations for reasons that are not strictly speaking scientific.
Of course if you are going to theorize that matter came about as a result of asymmetrical quantum fluctuations in which matter and anti-matter annihilate, then you might want to give a reason why this does not continue to happen all the time at random, but I have yet to hear what that reason is. Another thing about the eternal energy that these two atheist think has always existed, which I think people should find peculiar, is the question of why should eternal energy take the form of something that is subject to particle decay?
Altho I do argee with everything he says this is still an open discussion and I was thinking what if this wasn't the first time the universe has started would there eventually be only one whole thing that always was I am sort of confused
Think about it. How could the universe start more than once? That would defy the 2LOT. Also if it has always
been we would not be here now as everything would have gone back to equilibrium where there would be no available energy anymore for life to exist. Also, as a side note he said that gravity was there that made the gas shrink, but gravity is a very weak force. Far too weak to overcome gas pressure.
That suit Breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics though, it's burning my eyes ¦P
What was energy state before singularity? This energy to create the singularity would have been equal to energy released during expansion...yet dark energy and matter cannot be defined in any way . It seems as in quantum mechanics our ability to use logic and known physical laws falls short.שלום
If people from this universe with this set of laws of physics cross to another universe with a missing law of physics, what would happen?
E.g You cross to a universe where Coulomb's Law doesn't exist.
Perhaps its much closer curiously to our own thoughts than we think.. because you kind of wonder with thoughts.. where there is essentially nothing and then sudddenly there is a thought which brings time and space back into the picture,..
''where there is essentially nothing'' .....except a complex web of billions of neurons
but I get what u mean in a poetical way
“To give an explanation of the explanation, proves there is something to hide” -disk
If the big bang happened, It would be possible to run my car on nothing
🤯
that suit is dope
here is the quick recap of this video- there was nothing, nothing exploded and here we have everything.
That is not what he said.
and the real recap is ...........the universe was incredibly condensed.....which is a fact .....and than it expanded ......and there r a few likely explanations that haven't been demonstrated to be true ....yet
Artur Volkotrub what's not a fact ......the multiverse is just a possibility at this point .....just like black holes were
+Artur Volkotrub nooooooooooooo that's just an observable fact like the earth going around the barycenter of the solar system........the part that hasn't been confirmed is the multiverse ...........go look up how we know it's a fact
The evidence suggests that our universe began in such a state. It is conclusion based on the evidence.
If the big bangs really happened then we should have perpetual motion machines because it violates the 3rd law
The universe obviously has energy, not "zero energy" as Carroll says. As such, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, the universe is eternal, always existed and always will.
Zero energy would mean there is a balance of there being energy and a negative aka equal and opposite energy. And somehow that transformed into being a lot of different stuff... entropy growth started. It would of increased from nothing or just way lower to simply more and that made a universe expand,, read my other comments on this and ScienceClic English's channel, and on this video under roece jacobs comment of a quote by sean carrol. Please and thank you, im trying to get known to win a Nobel Prize!
Yes, he means net energy. Inflation theory posits that negative gravity has a repulsive effect.
Why didn't you mention the 3rd law that energy can't be created nor destroyed but only change forms, the big bangs contradicts this because its stating that the universe was created from nothing
You found the secret didn't you? Thought I was the only one. Like no one paid attention to their first physics classes lol.
Seriously, why are people debating things that aren't even true or let's say "proven", did you figure out an answer for every real question?
I accept the answer that we dont know what kind of entropy the universe had right before and after the big bang and so it coulve been very low, but my brain thinks that the formation of a solar system from a nebula of gas, whether its the birth of the stellar age or a stellar nursary observable today, has got to be moving from high entropy to low entropy. Solar systems are more ordered than a ball of gas, right? If someone could answer this my nrain would be delighted. Entropy doesnt imply its impossible, so maybe we just live in a extremely unlikely part of the multiverse where stars actually form from the preferred chaos? Does the extreme gravity involved simply outweigh the desire to remain chaotic? That seems the most logical i guess
Would the 1st law of thermodynamics prove Roger Penrose's "cyclic universe"??
No, but it wouldn't violate it either.
I struggled for a long time about this issue; "Has our universe bounced off another universe?"
I believe we have not, but only for similar reasons we never actually touch anything ourselves. I believe we are in concert with a plethora of Universi floating together in what I like to call Cobalt Mercury (a spacial fluid metal w/static mass particles.) Our outer edge consist of an extremely large layer of frozen hydrogen (3 times the size of our current observable universe.) I believe the reverse gravitational polarity caused by the compacting of the CM keeps the Universes from colliding. - Do marbles in a bowl ever touch? ;O)-
Disclaimer: This is part/parcel of my Grand Fission theory not proofed by current mainstream mathematics.
Something of that great energy in such a small place had to come from a higher dimension or like a hyper dimensional time crystal maybe it broke off and somehow floated down a black hole to here
Image of Sean Carroll stopping his car on rainy highway underpass and unloading a cardboard box on the road before hastily driving off.
So where did the Meta Universe come from that spawned our Universe? It pushes the question back, it's not a final answer.
And the Lord said "let there be bang."
The Big Bang is still just a creation myth brought to you by a Catholic cleric.
No, it started with such a low entropy, because there was nothing physical yet and the non physical energy has no entropy and as far as the universe having net zero just means it was and is in a quantum perfect state of balance between the negative and positive numbers before and after the zero itself.
Sean Carroll is so smart
this guy's intro reminded me of sheldon cooper
I love one of the first things he says is, we don't know. Lol Ty sir
Some people are willing to admit that you have to prove something before you can claim it to be true and will admit where their proven knowledge ends and speculation/theory begin. Then there are ppl believe things with no proof and refuse to accept anything that goes against their belief system no matter how good the scientific proof is
@@jonhoge153 we all believe things without proof. Dr. Alvin Plantinga has done a lot of work in showing that one can have warrant and be rational for believing things apart from evidence. He calls such beliefs properly basic beliefs. And we all engage them. For instance, there is no way for us to prove we are not in a matrix and that reality is real. But we all believe we really do exist and that other minds exist. Well - at least most of us do. And so there are certain beliefs one can hold and be rational until what Dr. Plantinga calls a *defeater* shows up to overthrow our beliefs. For Santa Claus we have all experienced defeaters that helped us to overthrow our belief in Santa Claus. But when it comes to something like Christianity he shows that people can be rational for believing God exists as a properly basic belief. Someone would have to offer an overwhelming defeater if they wanted to overthrow a person's Christian belief. If there isn't a defeater powerful enough to do that then a person is perfectly rational for remaining in their belief in God apart from absolute proof.
i would say that your not to smart either neutron stars are made of neutrons with a thick crust of heavy element atoms , that they have a dual magnetic field a surface electron exchange magnetic field off those atoms a secondary field of electrons that are held by gravity orbiting the mass that it an over staturation of electrons in number that even at the speed of light and the number of heavy atoms on its surface it can not mechanically exchange all the electrons it contains in time
neutrons are not unstable in a magnetic field, environmental the central core mass is like the biggest orbiting electron field in the galaxy, so you are say neutrons can exist in an atom nucleus protected from decay by orbiting electrons buct they cant be manufactured by induction forces in side a magnetic field in a central core particle mass that has cooled off ove 100 billion years from its orbiting electron field.
can you clean or re-upholster that seat please, it's really distracting!
...
I didn't notice 'till you pointed it out.
Multiverse = dog ate my homework
Go ahead, try to prove I just made it up.
The thing is that there are no reasonable interpretations of QM. The Copenhagen interpretation was famously rubbished by Schrodinger within hours and yet we still learn it as the mainstream view. The various multiverse interpretations might well be incorrect but at least they fit the mathematics. What interpretation do you suggest?
I studied under Lowell S. Brown in 1974. I have no excuse for being so ignorant, other than I learned enough science to make money. My ideas are always wrong. I need test data to get closer to the truth. Now I am an old man and watch Roger Penrose on youtube. There is little reason to believe he is right, but I can tell everyone else is wrong.
Conjuring up another universe to answer a question about this one doesn't really 'answer' anything. Only creates more questions...
All to escape the existence of a God or Higher Power
It’s energy and matter right for the first law
No it's not! The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.
So the guy in the video said it right. I seriously don't know where you got the "matter" part from...
well neutron stars are stable because of its magnetic field that encapsulates it over time in its core the process of fission like in a nuclear reactor takes place where those neutrons and positrons are under so much heat and pressure they turn that material into a particle plasma that eventually over time consumes the mass and produces a particle plasma mass that still. has a super magnetic field of electrons held by gravity orbiting it , and when inner galaxy has no more material for that mass to take apart in 100 billion years because its by itself in deep space the central core particle plasma mass cool off and that orbiting field thru induction fores and close proximity inducts those particles in the mass back into neutrons and protons and photons that takes apart that mass over a time span so that the anchor is not large enough to maintain the mass's locked in its grip and releases the outer perimeters mass
off topic, but the seat left of the guy with the dirt on it is a little bit annoying xD can't stop looking at it...
that was on your screen - LOL
nope, it's the evil dirty seat. and the cameraman knew it, he zoomed more and more on it! evil genius!
ahh, but consider that the universe as we know it could not exist without at least one imperfection. it might exist but it would be a featureless expanse of uniform density, much like Phoenix.
Daily reminder that God loves you all!
Too bad he not real. Jk
No one knows it just happened
So basically, you don't know!! If there is zero matter and energy, and matter and energy come into existence, and the first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, how can you say that doesn't violate the law? And I noticed he said that entropy was low, He didn't say there was no entropy. Even if entropy was just low then Matter and energy could not be eternal because it would have reached Maximum entropy by now. So basically what you said didn't make any sense whatsoever. You just mentioned that "this could've happened" and "we don't know". Nothing with any scientific substance
well if a galaxy is the mother and the babies are orbiting the mother on its perimeter mini baby galaxies , then clusters of galaxies can run tracking each other into deep space over 2 or 3 hundred billion years to create a new universe with galaxy expansion by the conversion of its central core mass , back into neutrons
You blew my mind... in a negative way. That's so unscientific that i honestly don't know where to start. Well, just one easy thing: Neutrons are unstable. And going "back" to neutrons doesn't make any sense.
It really is quite incredible how folk with simply NO understand whatsoever feel perfectly justified running thier mouth off with the most idiotic and inane drivel, with not an iota of embarrassment or shame.
In real life this kind of behaviour comes with a cost, or being ridiculed and laughed at; quite rightly in my opinion. Here on the internet it seems people don't worry about talking absolute and utter shite.
empty space exists right now space is not dependent on quantum parts assembling into hydrogen based matter for its existence our universe is dependent on space full of quantum parts for its existence so the quantum dimension of space could be trillions upon trillions of years old . and we are just new comers around these parts,
Cosmology is the only science in existence where every single answer is "we don't know". No point to ask a question if you already know the answer. Too complicated, okay? move on..
Is that Frank Skinner?
big bang theory is aka singularity, same goes for black holes! simple really!
"simple really!"
Wow, you will win a Nobel Prize in Physics if you can explain what the Big Bang is! Thousands of Physicists over 50+ years have tried to answer that question each failing spectacularly - I can't wait to hear your theory :)
its simple that they must be linked! black holes swallows up mass, they get more massive and become super massive black holes, eventually that mass causes a big bang, probably not in the same universe :D that's my guess and if i am right i will expect a prize haha!
Jay Mee
Nice idea, but it's not new. It's called Cosmic Darwinism.
Universes may give birth to baby universes via black holes, which have other sets of natural constants.
exactly, if a black hole dosnt get fed it can "die" but because of conservation of energy, the energy and mass has to go somewhere which would explain expansion and rotation and also it explains why you cant really observe what happened before the big bang but that we can realize if you play the current universe backwards why it all goes to the same point known as a singularity!
It's weird that you can believe that in unreal things like a "multiverse" But in the same time you find believing in God something absurd!
I am convinced that the laws of the universe have always existed.
That's why God had no option but to fine-tuned the universe.
Not even a miracle would have worked.
"The answer there is that Nobody Knows."
There, I saved you five minutes and twenty two seconds.
When you want to explain or affirm in anything never use the word “maybe”
this is not science. it is philosophy
Science is a sub-set of philosophy.
drsquash2003 the big bang itself is a fact...... exactly how it came about is not clear yet
More precisely this is scientific speculation, based on current hypothesises. Speculation and trying to evaluate a hypothesis is part of the scientific process. This is not scientific "knowledge" though.
Yes it is scientific knowledge. The universe is expanding. The universe is mostly hydrogen and some helium. And there's cosmic background radiation. These are facts and these were all results of a Big Bang.
kwanarchive I think he is talking about the hypothesises about how things got to the big bang
Big Bang is outlandish Theory, but to the humble/tiny humans, fits with their poor limited brain.
the big bang itself is a fact...... exactly how it came about is not clear yet
What does the big bang theory appear to be outlandish? And what theory about the start of the universe is not? We are speaking about a unique event, how can such a thing seem normal?
If Energies balance to equilibrium then we have zero energy? So the universe is nothing? Non sense
Nothing means NO THING
Not things that balance
It's even if you have a multiverse unless it's an actual infinite then your energy's still gonna run out
But even if it is an actual infinite energys going to run out Because you would have a average quantity of energy per unit of space
Is of the energy and each unit of space would have run out given infinity past
But if that multi verse is growing it's not an actual infinite it's only a potential infinite
It's not growing then given infinity past every infinite point would have birthed a universe these would have converged by now to create an infinitely old universe
An expanding multi verse would have a beginning if you could get a multiple verse by chance then given infinity past every infinite point would have birthed a multiple verse
It's impossible to have an infinite past in the material world a person counting an infinite number of days would never reach the present
The contradiction to that anything that could have happened would have happened infinity ago
I think it's checkmate for the atheist
Not sure where you are getting the infinite past of a universe from?
And really have no idea where you get “checkmate for the atheist” from.
Atropına sı dılatarea
ENERGY CANT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED BUT ONLY CHANGE FORMS. THEN HOW THE DID THE UNIVERSE COME FROM NOTHING?
First
WAIT ONE SEC. DOESN'T THE MAXIMUM of entropy equal the heat death of the universe?
Since it is illogical to have have something from nothing , we can imagine a higher power that made energy and/or matter.
Infinite regression.
Why so serious?
apparently virtual particles and "nothing" can get to particles .......aaand?
God is a virtual particle. He kinda doesn't exist... Although he kinda does. Atheists and religious people, rejoice.
Redwave trance which god....... and virtual particals is just observation about nature.... and the current model about that phenomenon is called virtual particles
energy can not be created or destroyed yet the universe came from nothing full of energy from nothing. making a special case for creation of energy to only happend in the very beginning is a superstitous thinking.
Where was it said that the universe came from nothing?
I don't doubt the big bang--I just know Who banged it. Genesis 1:1.
lethimwhoboasts you should not confuse knowing with belief.
Richard Collins How would you know what I know and what I believe?
lethimwhoboasts because ten years from now we had a chat about this.
Richard Collins Your memory is as bad as your logic. It was 11 years from now, and you will be as wrong then as you are now.
lethimwhoboasts If I may step into the conversation, I would like to ask you how you think you're right about God creating the universe in and of itself and not some other force? What proof do you have of Him performing this act that wasn't just an interpretation of observations made in the Iron Age of humanity millennia ago? What observations of the present universe give evidence to suggest a divine Creator?
Or just believe God created everything
Nothing that has ever happened has violated any of the physical laws.
Perhaps its much closer curiously to our own thoughts than we think.. because you kind of wonder with thoughts.. where there is essentially nothing and then sudddenly there is a thought which brings time and space back into the picture,..
Oh please... In what way are the two things related? Other than our brain is composed of the matter/energy that was also present in the big bang. Just like rocks and everything else.
haha, you are comparing them using the usual linear conceptual paradigmn of reductionisitic logic.. yes they are seemingly the same because on one level they are both multulisitically connected in terms thatit apparently takes matter to think but we can think we are able to conceptualise matter through thought. so i think that indicates something much more instrinsic in their relationship..
I see. So we are in the business of throw meaningless terms at each other. Gobledook!