Quantum cosmology has been the object of so much criticism, discussion, and debate? SAY WHAH?!!! So much criticism and so little ridicule; it's hard to decide who makes the best word salad, politicians or scientists. It's "...the only working theory we have...." That is so funny! That's exactly what my astrologer told me just yesterday! I told her that "working" was the operative word in her statement. She gave me a dirty look and said something about her looking up an incantation appropriate to my insolence. 😂
Did you ever have a toy called Shoot The Moon? I have always thought of that toy when imagining the quantum fluctuation that may or may not expand into a universe.
5:10 Timelessness and immutability of the physical state of the system are different concepts, since immutability is a manifestation of a kind of causality, since it requires a certain amount of work on the system to ensure that the condition of its immutability is met, for example, to maintain the state: 0= 0. The accuracy with which the law of conservation of energy can be verified by experience depends on the time of observation, however, systems that "live" for any length of time in a single quantum state can have precisely specified energy. This is a stationary state of the system, which obviously needs to be energized by third-party forces for its own "survival". P.S. For some reason it seems that some spontaneous process (for example, to survive), which is "given to us for free", is not the result of hard work - even if the source has not yet been discovered. { The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces.}
No, Ive seen other extracts from the same interview (same location, clothes, etc) but on different topics before. What CTT does it interview a person on a whole load of different topics at the same time, then release the interviews with a load of people on a particular topic as a series. So they recently did a long series of snippets on consciousness for example. They seem to be also running one on cosmology now.
Count me among the skeptics. When the guest said we know the universe was initially the size of the Planck volume by extrapolating backward in time from the present, my "bs detection" sense began tingling. When she spoke about a timeless evolution, which seems like an oxymoron, it tingled more. I wonder what she meant at the end when she claimed Quantum Cosmology is a "working" theory... Does it make predictions? Is it falsifiable?
I strongly sympathise with your 'bs detection' system, though I think that such exquisitely painful oxymorons as 'timeless evolution' arise when physicists try to simplify and translate their mathematical models into a language we ordinary mortals can understand. The only language physicists can legitimately use in due accordance with their expertise and training is that of mathematics. Even the slightest deviation from that strict and austere language results in, at best misleading imagery, which is prolific in popular science education, and at worst total conceptual nonsense, which would be laughable but for the fact that it is uttered in such serious and profound sounding tones - as happens here. I suspect further, to say something highly provocative, that mathematical models provide little literal understanding of reality at all and trade exclusively in the business of making predictions (already hard and admiral enough, of course) though whether that works here is another can of worms. In fairness, though, some speculation is often a necessary preliminary to testing - as Karl Popper (the philosopher who developed the notion of falsifiability in science) acknowledged.
I took 'working theory' to mean a theory that's helpful and partially explanatory but still undergoing revision. As in a working hypothesis, or a working definition.
Big problems here are her quantun Cosmology Not describes Universe though math model proceedings. She show her picture of quantun Cosmology are lacking math true evidence.
We have no way to know that the universe was this small. Observations from HST and JWST show that the expansion hypothesis may not be valid, so the big problem of the Big Bang should be thought as an interpretation problem of the redshift.
Yes, she's pretty. And what am I supposed to take away from quantum quackery? "You're just not smart enough to understand" Maybe I'm just smart enough not to fall for it. I do understand that quantum persons are trying to get rid of the Great Metaphysics.
Yes, quantum cosmology equations on one end of the golden mean or bar and the high probabilities, according to the sets of values at its pre-collapsed states on the other end. Idk but it's a good imaginary exercise though hhh
Quantum Cosmology has been demonstrated to work so it is far from an imaginary exercise. Quantum Physics is poorly understood by the public because it is far removed from our everyday experience of reality.
And then if the starter of the visible universe was operating past the speed of light and sparked off our little display of forces everyone can contemplate their naval in the universe instead of figuring out simple things like + and - and velocity locks. Don't count on what you were taught. It didn't get cavemen very far. Not that I'm talking about today :) Maybe :)
Existence, a "timeless entity"? Well! I for one still had my breakfast today _before_ I tucked unto my lunch and _after_ (just about) I woke up. I've been following that tiresome routine for decades. Yep, for a timeless entity, existence has been around for an awful lot of it. But perhaps I'm missing half an our somewhere.
@@browngreen933 So, my brief existence takes time but the larger entity, of which my meagre existence is but a short part, does not. Is that what you are saying? But wait,! The whole of reality has been around a lot longer than I have (or so I modestly proclaim). But if the shorter thing has been around for _less_ time, hasn't the longer thing been around for _more_ time? And if the longer thing is eternal, in the sense of being without beginning or end (and how could we know that) doesn't that just mean it has been around infinitely longer than I have? If not, then what can make it true to say that my existence is shorter than the existence of the whole of reality? Existing without temporal beginning or end does not mean the same as 'timeless'. It seems to mean the very opposite. But don't get me wrong. I would agree that what applies to the whole does not always apply to its parts. However, how can a timeless whole have timed parts? Whether one appeals here to Einstein or some version of mysticism, we have a problem Houston, and in the case we have nothing on board Spaceship Earth that can cobble together to fix it - I equally modestly think.
@@theophilus749 "How can a timeless whole have timed parts?" I think that's exactly what it is. It's a combination of the seemingly contradictory philosophies of the PreSocratic Greek thinkers Heracleitus and Parmenides.
@@theophilus749 It is wrong to think the Cosmos has parts. The Cosmos is one singular whole and because of language we mentally divide the Cosmos into parts.
Observations do not cause reality. Reality is one whole without parts. We perceive reality from our own point of view and with language we categorize reality. God is a fictional entity that we created to explain away our phenomena that we did not understand.
It's not zero, it's Eternity. The reason this matters is because time is an illusion, it's a matter of perspective. There is a constant law that we recognize. This is why we believe it is zero at the top. Our physical laws are not eternal, they are temporary. I saw this in an 8 hour meditation while suicidal about 20 years ago. We can't conceptualize Eternity in the material realm. Mathematics will never lead to God or the highest Truth because of this. This is the allegorical conflict of Nimrod vs the Eternal God of Jesus. I'm not religious but I recognized this allegory in my vision. I know this doesn't matter to anyone but I know I've had several accurate visions over the years...
Absolutely wrong physics , Why : because these outcomes are of general relativity , Logicaly physics will destroy GR in the next decades and the geometric universe theory will not persist.Thus the punctual beginning of the universe will be a joke.
Our grandparents standardized time for choo choo trains, imposed it on space/time we know its a man made tool so why would you ever lie to yourself about as being any more or less ? Its a great human tool . We develop ideas with it in the now and future and even build mythology of the past but thats all that this is. We can assume but don't treat to objectively.
Quantum cosmology has been the object of so much criticism, discussion, and debate? SAY WHAH?!!!
So much criticism and so little ridicule; it's hard to decide who makes the best word salad, politicians or scientists.
It's "...the only working theory we have...." That is so funny! That's exactly what my astrologer told me just yesterday! I told her that "working" was the operative word in her statement. She gave me a dirty look and said something about her looking up an incantation appropriate to my insolence. 😂
Beautiful!
how far back in time, or how small in space, can classic gravity / general relativity be detected?
Did you ever have a toy called Shoot The Moon? I have always thought of that toy when imagining the quantum fluctuation that may or may not expand into a universe.
5:10 Timelessness and immutability of the physical state of the system are different concepts, since immutability is a manifestation of a kind of causality, since it requires a certain amount of work on the system to ensure that the condition of its immutability is met, for example, to maintain the state: 0= 0.
The accuracy with which the law of conservation of energy can be verified by experience depends on the time of observation, however, systems that "live" for any length of time in a single quantum state can have precisely specified energy. This is a stationary state of the system, which obviously needs to be energized by third-party forces for its own "survival".
P.S. For some reason it seems that some spontaneous process (for example, to survive), which is "given to us for free", is not the result of hard work - even if the source has not yet been discovered.
{ The fundamental difference between inertia forces and ordinary forces of interaction of bodies is that for inertia forces it is impossible to specify the action of which specific bodies on a material point they describe, they cannot be confused with the Dalembert force of inertia, and they are always external forces.}
Great mind makes world clear
I wonder if we could take model abd apply loop gravity theory to it or of she has done that already
high energy inflation happens from the development of time?
Is this a recent interview ?
No, Ive seen other extracts from the same interview (same location, clothes, etc) but on different topics before. What CTT does it interview a person on a whole load of different topics at the same time, then release the interviews with a load of people on a particular topic as a series. So they recently did a long series of snippets on consciousness for example. They seem to be also running one on cosmology now.
@@simonhibbs887 By recent I mean in the past year or so. They often recycle interviews from decades ago.
Love your show.
for zero energy, could timelessness have a zero point time? uncertainty principle for zero energy has zero time?
Count me among the skeptics. When the guest said we know the universe was initially the size of the Planck volume by extrapolating backward in time from the present, my "bs detection" sense began tingling. When she spoke about a timeless evolution, which seems like an oxymoron, it tingled more. I wonder what she meant at the end when she claimed Quantum Cosmology is a "working" theory... Does it make predictions? Is it falsifiable?
I strongly sympathise with your 'bs detection' system, though I think that such exquisitely painful oxymorons as 'timeless evolution' arise when physicists try to simplify and translate their mathematical models into a language we ordinary mortals can understand. The only language physicists can legitimately use in due accordance with their expertise and training is that of mathematics. Even the slightest deviation from that strict and austere language results in, at best misleading imagery, which is prolific in popular science education, and at worst total conceptual nonsense, which would be laughable but for the fact that it is uttered in such serious and profound sounding tones - as happens here.
I suspect further, to say something highly provocative, that mathematical models provide little literal understanding of reality at all and trade exclusively in the business of making predictions (already hard and admiral enough, of course) though whether that works here is another can of worms. In fairness, though, some speculation is often a necessary preliminary to testing - as Karl Popper (the philosopher who developed the notion of falsifiability in science) acknowledged.
I took 'working theory' to mean a theory that's helpful and partially explanatory but still undergoing revision. As in a working hypothesis, or a working definition.
Good discussion.
does quantum mechanics have a role in producing classic gravity?
Brilliant scientist and very attractive
deep times!🌎🧭
First in this reality
What reality?
😂
Big problems here are her quantun Cosmology Not describes Universe though math model proceedings. She show her picture of quantun Cosmology are lacking math true evidence.
If you wonder how they know just know that intelligence goes plenty high enough to group people together and figure it out
They know nothing
Keep drinking the Kool aid or start reading some real science books
we cant run life backwards ergo doesnt that mean we cant run backwards the Universe too: maybe that´s the cardinal aberration...
Everything we can observe is lego's; there for the smallest particles in the universe are lego's.
The fact that such a net zero entity created all this variety means it is alive, and should be described as God
The Cosmos is the net zero entity.
@@kos-mos1127 Quite right. And No-Cosmos would therefore be the same zero entity, reclining.
We have no way to know that the universe was this small. Observations from HST and JWST show that the expansion hypothesis may not be valid, so the big problem of the Big Bang should be thought as an interpretation problem of the redshift.
Exactly. And it’s supremely counter intuitive
Yes, she's pretty. And what am I supposed to take away from quantum quackery?
"You're just not smart enough to understand"
Maybe I'm just smart enough not to fall for it.
I do understand that quantum persons are trying to get rid of the Great Metaphysics.
Correct
You are not smart enough to understand.
i forgot: no one would ever base a theory on such a assumption...
Yes, quantum cosmology equations on one end of the golden mean or bar and the high probabilities, according to the sets of values at its pre-collapsed states on the other end. Idk but it's a good imaginary exercise though hhh
Quantum Cosmology has been demonstrated to work so it is far from an imaginary exercise. Quantum Physics is poorly understood by the public because it is far removed from our everyday experience of reality.
At some point in the future they will find it hard to believe that we actually thought some of the things we believe today.
Some? All.
And then if the starter of the visible universe was operating past the speed of light and sparked off our little display of forces everyone can contemplate their naval in the universe instead of figuring out simple things like + and - and velocity locks. Don't count on what you were taught. It didn't get cavemen very far. Not that I'm talking about today :) Maybe :)
Yep, "timeless entity" is what Existence is. They just need to parse the Quantum details.
Existence, a "timeless entity"? Well! I for one still had my breakfast today _before_ I tucked unto my lunch and _after_ (just about) I woke up. I've been following that tiresome routine for decades. Yep, for a timeless entity, existence has been around for an awful lot of it. But perhaps I'm missing half an our somewhere.
@@theophilus749
That's because you briefly exist as a human. But Existence itself is without beginning or end, eternal, timeless.
@@browngreen933 So, my brief existence takes time but the larger entity, of which my meagre existence is but a short part, does not. Is that what you are saying? But wait,! The whole of reality has been around a lot longer than I have (or so I modestly proclaim). But if the shorter thing has been around for _less_ time, hasn't the longer thing been around for _more_ time? And if the longer thing is eternal, in the sense of being without beginning or end (and how could we know that) doesn't that just mean it has been around infinitely longer than I have? If not, then what can make it true to say that my existence is shorter than the existence of the whole of reality? Existing without temporal beginning or end does not mean the same as 'timeless'. It seems to mean the very opposite.
But don't get me wrong. I would agree that what applies to the whole does not always apply to its parts. However, how can a timeless whole have timed parts? Whether one appeals here to Einstein or some version of mysticism, we have a problem Houston, and in the case we have nothing on board Spaceship Earth that can cobble together to fix it - I equally modestly think.
@@theophilus749
"How can a timeless whole have timed parts?"
I think that's exactly what it is. It's a combination of the seemingly contradictory philosophies of the PreSocratic Greek thinkers Heracleitus and Parmenides.
@@theophilus749 It is wrong to think the Cosmos has parts. The Cosmos is one singular whole and because of language we mentally divide the Cosmos into parts.
Maybe, maybe, anything is possible, right? I doubt everything will happen though ; )
observation does cause reality, but its not our observation rather observation of God.
Observations do not cause reality. Reality is one whole without parts. We perceive reality from our own point of view and with language we categorize reality. God is a fictional entity that we created to explain away our phenomena that we did not understand.
Dr. Batwing Eyebrows
It's not zero, it's Eternity. The reason this matters is because time is an illusion, it's a matter of perspective. There is a constant law that we recognize. This is why we believe it is zero at the top. Our physical laws are not eternal, they are temporary. I saw this in an 8 hour meditation while suicidal about 20 years ago. We can't conceptualize Eternity in the material realm. Mathematics will never lead to God or the highest Truth because of this. This is the allegorical conflict of Nimrod vs the Eternal God of Jesus. I'm not religious but I recognized this allegory in my vision. I know this doesn't matter to anyone but I know I've had several accurate visions over the years...
It does matter to me. You just gave me a lot of answers and that you aren't the only person to have a vision like that.
@@diviner54 Thank you! I get ignored most of the time so your feedback means a lot!
*Note to self - Sign up for theoretical physics at UNC Chapel Hill.
Did you laugh at the zero moment?
For the second time......I admit I did not understand a word!!!!! don't ask me of the first time plz.
an! sry...
Absolutely wrong physics , Why : because these outcomes are of general relativity , Logicaly physics will destroy GR in the next decades and the geometric universe theory will not persist.Thus the punctual beginning of the universe will be a joke.
Dude needs to stop interrupting her.
Our grandparents standardized time for choo choo trains, imposed it on space/time we know its a man made tool so why would you ever lie to yourself about as being any more or less ?
Its a great human tool . We develop ideas with it in the now and future and even build mythology of the past but thats all that this is. We can assume but don't treat to objectively.
Really ?? Force of gravity ? I thought mastering Principia should be mandatory for pure theoretician ???
Gravity isn't a force