The Biggest Questions of Cosmology: Pondering the Imponderables
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2024
- PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Is our universe unique or one of many? What happened before the Big Bang? Why is there something rather than nothing? Physicists and cosmologists are closing in on how the universe operates at its very core. But even with powerful telescopes and particle accelerators pushed to their limits, experimenters struggle to keep up as theoreticians march forward, leaving grand theories untested. Some argue that if these deep questions can’t be answered empirically, they’re not relevant to science. Are they right? Join world-leading cosmologists, philosophers and physicists as they tackle the profound questions of existence.
PARTICIPANTS: David Z. Albert, George F. R. Ellis, Alan Guth, Veronika Hubeny, Andrei Linde, Barry Loewer
MODERATOR: Jim Holt
WATCH THE TRAILER: • TRAILER - Pondering th...
WATCH THE LIVE Q&A W/ DAVID ALBERT: • WSF CONNECT Q&A with D...
MORE INFO ABOUT THE PROGRAM AND PARTICIPANTS: www.worldsciencefestival.com/...
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
- Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel for all the latest from WSF
- Visit our Website: www.worldsciencefestival.com/
- Like us on Facebook: / worldsciencefestival
- Follow us on Twitter: / worldscifest
TOPICS:
- The Biggest Questions of Cosmology 00:00
- Participant Introductions 05:33
- Does eternity relate to infinity? 13:45
- Why is wrong to say the universe has a finite past? 24:15
- The two claims about inflation. 36:54
- Is 3D dimensional space the real space? 47:27
- The "measurement" problem 59:33
This program was recorded live on 6/3/17 and has been edited for our UA-cam channel. Watch the original livestream here: • LIVESTREAM - Pondering... - Наука та технологія
![[실시간] 전철에서 찍힌 기생생물 감염 장면 | 기생수: 더 그레이](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4nkFvwxGAfA/mqdefault.jpg)
Gotta say, in what little she spoke, Veronika Hubeny made one hell of a case for not taking too literally the claims of the description of reality in one particular formulation of physical theories vs another. I was completely convinced by her rather uncommon statement that even the classical 3D world is necessarily more "real" than what any other (mathematically equivalent) description might suggest.
You totally nailed that-also my observation.
Totally! I wish she had been given more chance to speak
The more complicated the math becomes, the more people believe it.
It’s heartwarming how none of the participants are interrupting each other... such a relief from basically every other conversation happening in both business and public television.
In these discussions the only way to guarantee that what you say isn't nonsense is if you say nothing...
Why not?
Don't you mean "... To the participants." ?
"Time is not infinite; it will be infinite in the future, which we will never reach"
Mind.blown.
Did they actually say that? Sad... and they were the best that humanity had to offer...
time is like shadow you can see it but it has no fucking particle for mathemagisians to count. so time and space doesn't exist because it is a posterior attribute and get off the crack
Time is the camera through which we view the world. It takes exactly one picture per moment that just passed. It never takes a picture of any moment other than the one that just passed. Our camera has an obvious limit in how fast it can take pictures. We call this the cosmic constant, the speed of causality or the speed of light. Since we and our camera exist inside the bubble that make up our reality we can only move through space moment by moment, which we our camera happily records as we move along. Since we are bound within this universe we are trying to observe we can never escape it and take pictures from the outside. So whether our universe is finite or infinite, for all practical purposes the part we have access to is all we will ever have access to. Now, here's the fun part. We can only ever experience the past. There is no "right now". We only notice the moment after our camera took the picture. ;)
Why? It's a simple concept. It may indeed be infinite into the past too, though. And time may come to an end some time in the future after all. So neither part is necessarily true. Well, time will probably not come to an end if the big bang wasn't actually the beginning, because that would imply a sort of cyclical universe.
@@medexamtoolsdotcom Time is not a thing. To illustrate, take a movie. Each frame is a moment in time but it is not time itself. Time is also not something outside of the movie (for the characters in the movie). It does not occupy the space between one frame and the next. Moving from one frame to the next is time. If I pause the movie half way and never play it again then time will stand still for the movie characters. This is exactly the same for us. Time is not some weird or mystical force. It is simply what we name the idea of moving from one moment to the next. So the real question is, will we keep moving from one moment to the next forever? If nothing destroys the universe then sure, why not? You don't need matter around for one moment to move to the next. Nobody will see it but time will still flow. Which begs the question. If a moment passed and nobody was there to see it did it happen? :p
Perfect timing, right when I'm heading to bed. Thanks .
Same here.
Haha I find these really relaxing too
Listening to these really helps me relax and sleep
@neil u Thanks for putting me onto that channel, just checked it out and subbed.
Same...
For those of you out there who, like me, are binge watching these physics lectures and presentations - I have to say that this one, in particular, is much more tense and lively a debate than the other WSF panels. I fell asleep a quarter of the way through the first time (not uncommon as I watch before bed) because I was a little turned off by the abstract nature of the conversation but upon a second go-around, am pleasantly intrigued by this powerhouse line-up and their politely tense parsing of words - when so much seems to be on the line - i've grown a little tired of watching Brian Greene chew his own scenery and this is a nice antidote.
Indeed. I'm personally looking to start another one of these programs myself, that's more based around psychology, neuroscience, potential realization, health and music. I plan to have it up and running in 5 years, let me know if you or anyone you know would be willing to help or contribute suggestions!
Greene convinces me with his pretty materialistic view when i read him. Its kinda baffling that there are competing ideas that seem just as valid, formulated by people with the same level of understanding of things.
Too many brilliant minds seem to forget, mathematics is merely a philosophical tool for logic and reasoning in the metaphysical realm and does not directly define the physical realm.
All the models of the physical realm in physics are just that, models, a rendition of our current understanding of reality. Just as an artist starts off drawing gibberish to making better and better models of reality to having a good rendition of it. However, these models will always be our perception of reality and not necessarily reality itself.
Warren R: Excellent point.
I think your attempt to condescend, by admonishing supposedly brilliant minds for missing an apparently trivial observation, itself underestimates the nuance and complexity of the question about whether Mathematics is invented or discovered.
This is like my dream dinner party guest list.
Which piece of smug pie does your “dream guest” favorite occupy?
Fun stuff. Albert is great. Never heard anyone who could state something so well - even beautifully - while speaking in a style where the main word is the hated "uh".
Alan Guth always makes me smile. What a champ!
He's got the smarts.
@@ianmangham4570....Yes he does!
The guy 2nd from our right looks like every crazy scientist in every movie I have ever seen.
He reminds me a lot of the crazy scientist from the intro theme from "Robot chicken"
He's the only non-scientist. lol
This seems so nicely fast-paced compared to some other WSF physics panels I've seen. Real real cool.
Yes, I had the same reaction. Looks they were having a great time, and def more lively than many other panels I've seen.
I think the moderate deserves a considerable amount of credit for that as well.
It's an edited version of the actual discussion, but it suffers from too may panelists trying to discuss too many topics,
the discussion of infinty can go on forever.
I see what you did there.
😂
Bourbon can make the discussion finite.
Bahaha I just got that I'm laughing so hard it hurts no not really but hey pretty funny tho
INfinity is within. Xfinity is the endless bullshit outside of you.
The discussion led to a place that might as well have been on the other side of an event horizon. The moderator seemed much more intent on lobbing controversial questions in order to push buttons than keeping things on track
?? They were on track.
The nature of these conversations simply lends itself to the fact that many fundamental issues are related and connect to each other, and the problems physics face today which need answering are also connected. Therefore, you cannot have a rigid, straightforward track to follow in any of these types of conversations.
So, the man who came up with inflation to satisfy the Big Bang theory, is now working on a model of an eternal universe?
That's really impressive.
We need more men like Alan Guth in science (and in politics?). Follow where curiosity and feasibility lead (as long as the funding lasts).
While Guth is crediting with originally proposing the idea, he didn't come up with *Cosmological Inflation* Theory on his own. Linde and Starobinsky (amongst others) also share credit.
It was an attempt to address problems created by *Big Bang* Theory in explaining the homogeneity of the large scale structure of the universe.
However, instead of solving the "Fine-Tuning" problem it created it's own version of it, necessitating the need for an extension to the Theory, known as *Eternal Inflation,* which has proved to be more controversial/divisive and hence is less is widely accepted.
Indeed, Paul Steinhardt, (mentioned at 30:27) one of Inflation's earliest proponents, who initially also supported *Eternal Inflation,* later became a critic of it and the "multiverse" predicted by it, for the reasons mentioned by David Albert (36:50) in the above video.
Regardless, *Eternal Inflation* is a consistent continuation of the original CI Theory, so Guth hasn't altered his position about it.
Excellent. I thought it might be a bit of a rehash, but this turned into one of my favorite talks from WSF. Nice work!
We don't even understand what gravity is, or how it works. But yet we think we know that space comes from a singularity. It's like seeing a wave coming in to shore, and assuming that it's travelled, and looked the same, for ever.
A better question than "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is: "Why do we wonder why the universe exists"? Why does it seem odd to us "that there is anything at all"? And why should it ever occur to us that somehow "nothing" existing should be more likely than "something"? (Nothing or "nothingness" if you like, is a concept without a referent. There is no reason to believe that "nothing" exists, ever did in any sense exist, or ever could exist.) Could it be because human language evolved to handle human scale experience, and when we think about the entire universe in language, our concepts are just not appropriate to apply? By stretching our human-scale-evolved concepts beyond the context in which they have meaningful functionality (indulging in a "misuse of language") we tie ourselves in conceptual knots, and create what are traditionally called "metaphysical problems". It's fun, for instance, to think concepts like "being", and "nothingness" have deep meaning. They are great for the romance offered by "continental philosophy". But, in reality they are just our own language concepts fooling us into thinking their misapplication is producing profundity.
Much as we might enjoy, or be captured by, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we would do much better to accept the fact that the likely-hood of "nothing" ever existing is zero, and the real task at hand is dealing with the "something" that does.
Sadly our brains only evolved to handle problems related to survival and procreation on this planet, so there are many paradoxes which we cannot even theorise about. If understanding the origin of existence ever becomes advantageous to procreation, then we may finally have a chance! Actually I think we'll get there sooner than that by using our tools of mathematics and computing, but whether we will really 'understand' it, I'm not so sure.
By definition, nothing cant exist because there is nothing to exist in nothing. It's impossible to be conscious of nothing. Therefore, something must always exist and you will always be conscious of something.
..spoilsport!
..thanx Bob,..that was worth more than the vid!
@Zurround100 theres nothing to comprehend though. It's nothing. If there was something to comprehend about it, then it wouldn't be nothing
Amazing how they seems to understand each other,,,
Exactly. Usually I'm on par, but this one was over my head. I don't know nor maybe never will higher dimensions, etc. Not to bad to listen to though.
They took out the part when the host Jim Holt was called out by an audience member for talking over the only woman on stage. An audience member screamed out "let her talk please!"
Every WSF video has one ( or sometimes even more ) obligatory female panelist . PC dictates that . Even mr Trump can't change that . Sorry . Life sucks some times .
The one on this panel is quite a breeze though , sometimes life is good :o)
💤💤
Good edit. What's your point tho?
@@FlockOfHawks Most times.
Alan guth with his back/forth symmetry quote seems to just make sense
The mathematician guy almost lost his shit when the lady said 1 divided by 0
She said there you go, he said where do I go. He was pissed 😤
Conformal cyclic cosmology is beautiful, so simple and logical, I would like to see a discussion on that.
Very true, it isn't brought up nearly enough, and it's the most elegant solution I've heard yet. The only one that makes any sense to me, at least. Though I think people shy away from it for a reason. Penrose inserted some bits to try and allow it to be proven, which seem to have turned out not quite right. Echoes of supermassive black holes in the cosmic microwave background, for example. Maybe it's my own lack of knowledge, but I still can't see why features like that would make it through to the other side. I can understand the desire to have it be provable, but I think he might have gone about it the wrong way, and it ended up being prematurely discredited.
Here's to hoping smarter minds than mine at least give it fair consideration.
Look up Skydivephil on UA-cam.
Is that the one that says "Big Bang === Big Crunch" ?
More like Big Bang -> Big Freeze -> Big Bang. As I understand it, after having read the book : All the matter in the universe will keep going in accelerated expansion and eventually decay into extremely diffuse redshifted radiation. (The "Big Freeze / Heat Death" theory.) But once all the particles with mass are gone, standard mechanics break down. The energy field starts acting like a singularity of sorts, because there's no real way for time or distance to exist. This puts all the energy in the universe into what equates to no space and kick starts the big bang. Nothing lost, nothing gained, but probably turns out differently each time.
+Aitch
Thanx for this elaborate explanation of a theory that's new to me . To be honest , it leaves me slightly baffled , as if it were way more complicated than necessary .
Personally i prefer to see the mess we're in as a 7+ dimensinal sphere where Bang and Crush are the poles and each incarnation of a new round / universe as a meridian .
I don't even care whether that's scientifically sensible , but for my personal peace of mind , it simply suffices . I'm crap in differential equations , that's why i flunked , ages ago .
But thanks mate , i truely value your reply .
so many phrases and principles in this discussion that flew right over my head. But still eyes glued. Possibly like a toddler watching a cartoon, not picking up on the plot and what will happen next, but just soaking it in.
when i was young i was introduced to the basic edition dungeons and dragons. You ask what has that to do with science?
the 5th book is the immortal rules and it introduced me to alternative realities and the laws of each universe that could be different....it had rules to create all this for a game ( it got into dimensions and a lot more then what qm talks of)....far from advanced...thanks for the upload
The laws are different even here - a dog does not see the world the way we do. A bug lives in a different world!
In particle physics, a photon has no one point in space while it's in wave form. But if the wave is interfered with, then the placement of the photon is known.
If you use this idea when dealing with space/time, the outcome is the same. We cannot know the future, because there has been no interference from the events in the now. Only until the collapse of the time wave can we come into contact with the new reality.
In mathematics, a physicist can create a probability graph based on known information. He then can use that information to determine where something ought to be. Still, until he can test his information, he cannot know whether or not he's right. So in this state, the physicist is building a house on an uncertain ground.
Kenny Taylor you are completely 100% wrong I would take the time to teach you but I would be 100% wrong as well. That is the Quantum world for you.
As a layperson, my understanding is that the waveform is a probability curve. It should not be interpreted as being in all places at the same time, but a particle has certain chance of being anywhere in the curve when it is measured.
@@TheWraithkrown
Well yes, and no. According to Schroeder's cat theorem, a particle can be in one place or in any place. But we can't know where the exact placement of a particle until we measure it. It's true that you could create a extrapolation of where the particle may be, but until you interfere with the quantum wave, you cannot know for certain.
@@TheWraithkrown according to the two split experiment, a single particle's wave was seen to go through both slits at the same time. The end result was 2 bands and not just one.
What you're explaining is the same rhetoric that is used to confuse most people & it's just not true. The particle exists somewhere prior to our measurement. It's only at that time when we know where it exists. When you're not looking at something is that thing not happening soley because you're unaware of it ?
I loved this talk! I feel like we're really getting things done!
While listening to this discussion, I am overwhelmed with how little I know. And, to add to this feeling of how little I know, these exceptionally knowledgeable people have areas where they, too, know very little. Knowledge gaps are universal thangs. I can imagine that in the not too distant future, there may be people along with a means to embelish their cognitive reach who will have the means to know more about the universe. I hope that we can survive our harmful propensities, so as to be able to observe as well as to explore a greater portion of what are our numerous current unknowns.
📦🐈
One word solves so much confusion... Cycle.
A cycle can be infinite, have a beginning and end, and become broken and die and be born again.
Once you know the cycle of existence and life those basic principles translate to every other thing in reality.
Cycle is only speculation. Things could be linear.
There has to be a reason for the cycle. Or are you at least want to know what the cycle is. This is the current area of studying physics.
I’m skeptical of the concept of infinity except in the abstract
I have that too!
I'm waiting for the day they introduce 'Dave' with a GCSE in social studies
Richard M You don’t even know... I am jumping out of my skin because I know a lot of the answers and I am in psychology 😳 Not even kidding. See my general comment on the video just now. But my name is Stephanie- you’ll probably hear it more within a year or so. I definitely have it. Way too coincidental and perfect and beautiful 😊
wow new talk with David Albert and Barry Lower! i read tons of these guys studying philosophy of physics
The sad thing is science will never adequately address the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life: "Why Bother?" That is a question for philosophy. (I've answered it adequately - read my philosophy). Science cannot even answer the Second Greatest Question of Life: "Now What?" That is also a philosophical question. Engineering answers the Fourth Greatest Question of Life: "How?" The Third Greatest Question of Life is "What is Out There?" which is the realm of science, which many philosophers do not understand, offering silly speculations as answers rather than mere wild possibilities.
I am infinitely amazed by how intelligent and creative these people are. Exemplars of the greatness of the human mind.
That's exactly the problem though, that they aren't supposed to create, they're supposed to find, that's the basis of science. I can make up some pretty convoluted concepts but the level of creativity has he bearing on actual science at all
Isn't it amazing how, of all the possible combinations of ways the collection of all the particles of the universe could come together, at its basic micro-wave constituents the visible universe ours was made up of looks like guano?
Possibly my favorite reaction from a WSF panel at 1:03:39 by Andrei Linde.
Ryan Roebuck
"But there is a Sheldon in BBT" 😂
The look of all participants of this forum proves unequivocally that the time goes one way only and entropy always grows
One of the most impressive books I've ever read was 'Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology' by Andrei Linde back in the early 80ties. Great discussion, thanks for sharing!
38:13 the universe has no obligation to make sense to you, sir.
of course it has , lol
neil??🥺💜 but this. this. is the perfect comment.😙👌
Amazing people, amazing program x
These guys are so incredibly smart they’ve never heard of exercise or sports, they’ve never heard of lululemon or Gucci. They are just zoned in to the universe and the physics and mathematics that encompasses it.
Very unusual assertion
My first daughter's favorite TV character was the Count on Sesame Street. She warned to grow up to became an elevator operator. When I asked why, she responded that because she was good with her numbers, she could help people get to their desired floor. When she realized the repetitive pattern in math, she constantly counted everything. One day, she came to me and asked"Dad, what is the biggest number?" I told her infinity. She responded "what about infinity and one, what about infinity and two...." I told her that infinity is a hypothetical construct. She asked, "what is a hypothetical construct?" I told her a hypothetical construct is something we invent in our minds to help us explain what we can't understand. Her next question was " Is G-d a hypothetical construct?"
“The infinity never occurs in physical reality.” ~ David Hilbert
Because physical reality is finite.
Such a simple, yet mind-blowing statement.
The event horizon of a black hole is an infinity that can never be reached.
The universe is finite, but our creator is not.
@@PMur66 there is no evidence for a Creator
@@PMur66 _citation needed_
I love Andre Linde,... He's ALWAYS got the perfect thing to say.
He IS one of the most magnificent members of our species.
It can feel emotion and pain.. do not be afraid of what u do not know..🙏🏻
the problem with infinity is that to prove anything is infinite requires an infinite amount of time to prove, but it goes both ways to prove something isnt infinite would also take an infinite amount of time to disprove therefore infinities nature ends with the the fact that it is impossible to either prove nor disprove so i think it leaves all arguments over the nature of infinity will always remain inconclusive.
Inflation seems to be trying to explain away the apparent fine tuning of the universe by introducing an infinite number of universes we can never observe or contact. It is philosophy, not physics. Other than that, very interesting discussion.
Well, MY brain is certainly splashed on the wall..
Thank you for sharing.
I'm so excited!!
George Ellis: 07:49 - 53:43 - 58:44 - 1:00:53
Amazing stuff thank you
Why do people often talk about a unified theory without thinking that all their notions and theorems are entangled? I loved her description.
"Love stuff like this to fall asleep to. (Not in a bad way)
Has to have the right kind of voice👍"
27:31 enjoy
I dont get it
@@taylorrice3183 It is nothing Taylor. He just says 'back' with very high pitched voice. I know it is just childish to 1) first, even notice that 2) have time to get the link at that point in time 3) post the link in the comment and 4) and tell people to enjoy. Waste of time. Isn't it?
Just to let you know, I have become better now. I have grown 2 years older and I have learned not to write shit in youtube. I have also gotten busier.
Btw, How is your day going Taylor?
@@getaasciesh1 long work day. off tommorow tho going to spend it with my daughter. :) thanks for asking
@@taylorrice3183 haha good
DON'T GET ANDREI STARTED LIKE THAT HE'S A MAD MAN!!
Amazing man
My Physics Conversation with Andrei
Andrei is a treasure. Surely one of the most beloved and lovable physicists
James Watson who co-discovered the existence and structure of DNA's double helix, said "it was so beautiful it had to be true" and that he "knew it would be pretty."
Metacomet Yes but that’s what supersymmetry was. And that’s dead so..:
'Salty towards the end." - Bob's Mom.
This is like my dream dinner party guest list.
I don’t think I’m smart enough to be watching this video but it’s still interesting 🤔😊
Me too 🤣😆
Intellectually stimulating.informative and entertaining way of passing time
When the smallest mark on your measuring stick is bigger than the object your trying to measure then you have reached the edge of reality, for instance, if you have a blade whos edge is the thickness of an unbound elementary particle then you can no longer cut an unbound elementary particle, the most you can do is bludgeon it, and when you do that you stop its periodical spinning altogether and it disappears.
In the end there was sound..
I think (not sure) I understand about 10% of the info talked about in this video. I wish I would've studied physics in school. It's amazing how much more interesting it is to me after I got out of that hellish existence of public education.
A school physics education wouldn't help you and for mathematical/theoretical topics such as these even a physics degree only helps superficially (I have one). These esoteric subjects can only be properly understood by someone with a PhD in a related field but I doubt that WSF expect the audience to understand much. Instead I think it's more about giving scientists publicity and visibility with the general public for their work.
@@GonzoTehGreat Haha. Yeah I kinda feel the same way..
If there's one thing I DO know.. it's that mankind actually doesn't know as much as we're sometimes led to believe...
Our discovery of the complexity of the cosmos, serves to reveal the underlying, staggering magnitudes of complexity of biological life .
Introducing the concept of 4-space, a fundamental difference between time x0 and spatial coordinates is allowed.
It supposedly consists of the fact that along the world lines corresponding to physical processes, x0 can only grow, whereas x1, x2, x3 can change as you please.
However, the unification of spatial coordinates and time into a single manifold is not formal but is a real reflection of the picture of the world, and self-closure does not take place for the 4-line.
The time coordinate pulls along with it the spatial coordinates, because if it is impossible to return to the past, then it is also impossible to return to where "there" is not with the spontaneous accumulation of space-time history.
In general, no law of conservation of time is known - this circumstance is connected with the fact that space-time is a manifestation of the spontaneous evolution of the grav-inertial field. Damping takes place - vibration damping in a dynamic system by dissipation (dissipation) of the vibration energy when d
From Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), and without the need to involve the concept of curvature of space-time, one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: фG=(-1/2)[Għ/с]^1/2(w)=-(1/2)[w/w(pl)]c^2.
By the way, to this expression for the gravitational potential: "Containing all information about the gravitational field." (Einstein), you can come according to the classics (G), SR. (c) and De Broglie's hypothesis (h), - without GR and QM.
This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present.
A lead ball suspended on a strong chain from the ceiling of the laboratory can serve as a test body; at radius r=27,6 cm, ball mass is m=1т.
According to the formula for the gravitational potential, the energy of quanta/photons of the field (photons are characterized by different parity and helicity, and it is not quite accurate to say that a photon has an integer spin equal to one) at a distance r from the center of gravity of the test body to the detector (practically on the surface of the ball) =66,3 keV.
The flow: J=0,45*10-8 quanta/сm2c; this is a measurable flux for modern world-class gamma detectors.
And to the question: where does the energy of the field (quanta) come from, it should be noted that, since the effect is ultrarelativistic, the source is a physical vacuum (see on the Kruskal diagram, regions V and VI, which are not even covered by global space-time).
Without taking into account the vacuum, the ordinary Universe cannot be considered (thermodynamically) a closed system.
A non-closed Universe can be represented as an oscillatory system, and if the time t is explicitly included in the differential equation of motion, then it is a non-autonomous system.
P.S. As a "measure of nonstationarity", one can use the residence time of the system Δt on the interval Δx on the 0x axis (in this case: along x0). Then the sought measure of the nonstationarity of the Universe is t = L (dt / dL) = 1 / H, the age of the Universe.
One can obtain a quantum expression for the cosmological redshift (for the case of the limiting value ΔT=тpl=Ht^2): w(relict)^2~Hwpl .
So according to dx0d|фG|=const it follows that background relict radiation is a manifestation of the G of the field. Intrametagalactic gravitational potential: |ф0|~(1/2)c^2/√n~Gmpl/λrelict. Accordingly, the tension: g~cH~|ф0|/λrelict., self-energy: E*~(1/2)nε(relict), where n=M(universe)/m(pl)=S(universe)/S(relict).
30:59 "Cosmologists - often in error, never in doubt." I like that. I'm going to write that down. :))
If you can prove that you've taken a step and also that you haven't moved - then you have proved infinity. Eg divide with multiple subtraction by zero 1/0 = count(1-0-0-0...). The moment you do the first subtraction and know that the next step is the same as the first, you know that you are looking at literal infinity. Sure, it may exist, you just can't get there from here.
Everything is in motion.
(Viv you beat me to it.) Immortal ... there is no relativity called stop. Thus you cannot divide by it. I can hand you nothing ... infinitely many times and never run out of it.
Mathematically, though, there is zero and there is infinity whether it's dividing by zero or calculating one third. The first scientist claiming that infinity is beyond comprehension and, therefore, could be approached philosophically rather than scientifically was somewhat jarring.
THIS GUY GETS IT
I can prove to have taken a step, and also that I haven't move, I just need to use diferent laps of time.
1:00 this actually exists online, just Google for Library of Babel. Its a procedurally driven system that uses hex codes to generate the books. And it's even searchable. It doesn't WRITE what you searched for, it merely finds the right page in the right book on the right shelf in the right room, that has the specific seed to generate the string of text you searched for. So in essence, anything you search for already exists
I could listen to Alan Guth talk about inflationary cosmology an infinite amount of time.
Is this a new talk? It seems familiar for some reason.
No, I'm pretty sure this is from 2 years or so ago. I recall hearing this talk as well. Also, you can match the set to other talks done back then.
Was thinking the same myself. I think I've saw it but, I can't remember a lot of it, I do remember when Andre is speaking though.
I seem to remember it as well, especially Veronika...though I dont recall Andrei having such white hair...weird...
I don't understand why the ones from this year haven't been uploaded yet, nor why they stopped streaming them live.
I think so. I came to the comments to see if anyone else thought that. The moderator telling Andrei "make it funny" is what clued me in. I specifically remember a moderator saying that to him in a previous talk, prompting me to scroll the comments.
"Oh time, thy pyramids."
That's it. It must be aliens.
Proof that Jim’i Hendrix is alive on Uranus
Your videos have ignited a passion for science and the mysteries of the universe within me. Thank you for being such an incredible source of inspiration.
I think Brian brought these together just for a giggle. Funnily enough, there's an 'Infinity documentary' coming out on Netflix soon😉
PS. I respect one of these men
You can't prove I'm right, and you can't prove I'm wrong. This is exactly how every discussion about the Universe ends up.
Only for that generation (which is clueless)...
@@wbiro you can't prove yourself with that assertion, you sound more clueless than a kid with an iq of 2
Sounds moreso like the cries of a religitard. "But you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" 😒😒😴
It amazes me how such smart people save one, don't understand what infinity means. It's a process that continues on forever and only exists in mathematics not reality. Just the same as the concept of zero/nothingness.
In fact, zero can only be perceived by using infinity to approach zero in mathematics.
Even black holes are finite and will eventually die.
Perhaps the reason for quantisation in particle physics is because we have found the smallest chunks of reality (spacetime)...
One of my favorite sit downs
I always find Jim Hilt highly entertaining
Does anyone else think that this panel would have been more interesting and informative without David Albert?
I don't understand how someone can talk so much and yet contribute so little?
He couldn't be any worse than George Ellis... (see 8:00 for a display of vapidness)... he is pretty bad, however...
They only have circular arguments as they have no facts.
Ahhh it's time to relax , a glass of wine , some herb, a nice comfy chair and this fine panel discussion at the World Science Festival .
What good is a discussion on controversial hypothesis like Multi-verse, when all the participants agree on it and pat each other's back on work well done, while there is not even a single serious opponent of the idea on the panel. The host mentions Paul Joseph Steinhardt as the father of Inflationary Multi-verse but who is now opposed to the whole idea. It would have been much interesting had he been invited to the program, although George Ellis does give opposing view point.
There was one very outspoken opponent of it in the panel, and was an opponent to any notions of infinity as being real states.
I have questions about the works of the Higgs boson in the genesis of the universe .The first question when did the particles appear massless? .second question When did particles get a mass of Higgs boson? How did the Higgs boson emerge after the creation of the universe? The third question How did the Higgs boson emerge after the creation of the universe? the fourth question What is the fate of the Higgs boson ؟ The fifth question What are the names of those particles that got their mass? Please send these five questions to cosmologists. We ask you to make a science fiction video about the birth of the universe From the great explosion that created the universe Hopefully this is a great film about the emergence of the Higgs boson We hope that the film will be translated into Arabic
بسمك اللهم اعني على قول الحق الحق يقال الحلال ينموا والله عزوجل يبارك به والحرام لا يدوم يهلك ويهلك صاحبه المعني ان الله سبحانه ليسى بغافل عن عباده احتى لو صاحب الحق مات فلله عزوجل يجازيه بلاخراان الله رحيم في عباده الله اكبر ولله الحمد اللهم لا توءاخذنا بما فعلو السفهاء منا ولا حول ولا قوة الا بلله العلي العضيم
In English? English unifies.
Regarding Linde's quote at 22:40, a more realistic characterization is as follows:
For the poor in the United States, everything not explicitly allowed is forbidden.
For the wealthy in the United States, everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed.
This is not specifically a statement about the United States, but a statement about capitalism and the nature of freedom therein.
The poor are poor because of bad decisions. I'm sick of this victim mentality. You must be a lazy fucking liberal. Don't blame others for your bad decisions.
@@TheGreatAlan75 Does your conscience bother you?
We heard these learned scientists discussing for an hour, and surely there was no commonly accepted conclusion. But then given the width of the topic a conclusion is not expected. It definitely gave us a rational path for enquiry.
One question that bothers me is that, they all agreed that "if something is possible, then it is sure to be". The the concept of probability loses its relevance, right?
Not quite all probabilities are possible with the most probable becoming possible. As mentioned by George Ellis the scattering measurement has a conclusion which is predicted but it’s individual measurements can’t be predicted.
The beginning of the video reminds me of the book 'A Short Stay In Hell' by Steven L. Peck. People get sent to this Hell (a vast library) because they didn't follow the one true religion and the only way to escape it is to find the book that has the story of your life. It's a quick read, but the story will haunt you for a lot longer.
Thank you for this reading suggestion , sir . I've added a note to my bucket list .
@@FlockOfHawks me2
Barry looks like hes been dragged through a row of hedges...
By the end of this discussion I am compelled to think that metaphysics is pseudoscience.
Add up an infinite amount of infinitesimals and you get something. Amazing. You can actually do this. Depending on how infinitesimal the infinitely small things are you get a different result.
It's why infinity is a state and not a number. Using ordinary mathematical functions don't always make sense, and opens up a solution that includes every possibility.
Some physiscist seem to have the tendency to assume whatever comes out of Mathematics must necesarily describe some physical relaity. The physcial world can be described by Mathematics, but Mathematics cannot by itslef describe any physical reality on the ground of self-consistentency or conformity to the presummed axioms. Emperical results and our intuitions are the ultimate tools to decide.
Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park must bee based off the guy with the sun glasses. 😂
CPO nah the guy with the sun glasses isn’t nearly as cool 😎😂
out the jump scientists discussing faith-based equations...just an observation
Sorry, I don't understand. What is a "faith based equation"? Again, sorry if I missed somerhing obvious here :)
My God "You Know" merchants with the World Science Festival!
The library could be pared down with a simple spell checker but it wouldn't make any difference. For every book that says "The value of pi is approximately three", there are just as many books saying that it is 2, 4 or any other number. One of them will be correct but figuring out which one isn't helped by any of them until the answer is known and that interpretation can be imposed on the information it contains. Like many "predictions", their meaning is superimposed on them with hindsight.
The host is sort of clueless, and I think that panels with this many people are somewhat ineffective.. cool choice of topics tho
I beg to differ. This is greatest host I have ever met.
Why do we want to hear a philosopher talk about elementary particles??? Let's ask a child about the stock market too...
The discussion is right at the edge of what science can explain or predict, philosophy has just as a valid answer as science here.
@@MRawash Your error in thinking, just as philosophers err, is in thinking that their blind speculations are 'answers' rather than 'suggestions'...
@@wbiro How are philosophers' speculations any blinder than the untestable and unfalsfiable hypothesis proposed by theoretical physicists? You don't need a degree in physics to see that everybody is completely lost here.
Alan Lloyd If that child happened to be Ray Dalio, who tripled his very first stock investment at age 12, than an intelligent man would shut up and listen.
@@MRawash get a life kid, come back and reply when you find a brain or half one
Someday I would like to see a panel just of Brian Greene, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku and Lawrence Kraus.
Entertaining mix
Yeh spot on terry..but i will add on some more gr8 physicists..brian greene.neil degrasse.kaku.krausse.bill nye.richard dawkins.ed witten.shermer.terence teo. (Deepak chopper - sum1 so they can hangshit on.and expose his mumble jumble shit he tries to explain to sound intelligent but really he cluessless).and sadaguru...
I've also had a thought that the universe is finite but expanding infinitely, I can imagine the universe being slippery like that but then again space time maybe an illusion that arises from a more fundamental state
I just think that all that all stuff in our universe has always been there. Our consciousness only seems to travel forward through time and not backwards. I think if we had consciousness that went immortally back in time, it would see infinite causes of effects as it went back; just like if it were to go forward in time, it would see infinite effects of causes.
But its proven that the universe is so and so old, do you mean you'll reverse beyond that and transcend big bang or whatever the start of inflation was?
(1 of 3). Our universe in my opinion started with a blossoming of matter perhaps from a huge "white" hole into the expanded collection of stars and galaxies and planets, moons etc that we observe today. In terms of universes, our big bang beginning is the same as others in an infinite group of new born and older universes that might occur very frequently in a similar manner as our own. Our universe (probably) Is similar to all the rest. One misconception is that our universe started from nothing. This makes no sense that from nothing, a multitude of galaxies are created. On the contrary, we do not know the size of this beginning state. Per a client of mine who is a particle physicist at UCLA, we are not sure of the size of that seed.
I have two questions about M theory
Theory-M organized five versions of string theory through the eleventh dimension
M theory is the theory of membranes
These membranes are parallel universes extending from the eleventh dimension
The first question is about membranes and calabi-yao spaces
Are membranes are spaces Kalapi-Yao?
The second question about the number of dimensions in space Kalabi-Yao?
Does it contain the eleventh dimension?
Please send the first and second question to space scientists
Answer: It is all conjecture, with a lot of stylish words. Don't waste your time with it.
Read the book, "Infinity, Time, Death and Thought" - It can be found on Amazon books.
Yes a good recommendation.