Mindscape Ask Me Anything, Sean Carroll | April 2021
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 тра 2024
- Patreon: / seanmcarroll
Blog post with audio player, show notes, and transcript: www.preposterousuniverse.com/...
Welcome to the April 2021 Ask Me Anything episode of Mindscape! These monthly excursions are funded by Patreon supporters (who are also the ones asking the questions). I take the large number of questions asked by Patreons, whittle them down to a more manageable size - based primarily on whether I have anything interesting to say about them, not whether the questions themselves are good - and sometimes group them together if they are about a similar topic. Enjoy!
Mindscape Podcast playlist: • Mindscape Podcast
#podcast #ideas #science #philosophy #culture - Наука та технологія
Your voice is like honey and I love listening while falling asleep. It’s just so interesting that it keeps me awake. Thanks Sean, I watched a Joe Rogan podcast with you that was amazing and it’s where I first saw and heard you explain the world around us.
I have a habit of listening to podcasts to help me fall asleep. Yours is the one of the only podcasts that keeps me awake as it's super interesting. I can only listen to you during the day 🙁
I do the same
Me too...👌
Same here. The AMA episodes are the best.
I dont understand anything but I love this postcast!!! Thanks, from Chile 🇨🇱 you are great! Very clever, genius
Sean Carols manscaped is great. I always hear ads for it on other podcasts and stuff. Weird that he's not talking about shaving balls and hair trimmers, but I find these topics more intriguing that talking about maintaining body hair
Sean Carroll is a very high functioning individual. He's been putting out these podcast left & right and still took time to write an arXiv paper on how our physical reality emerges from a vector in Hilbert Space & the energy eigenspectrum of the Hamiltonian.
Could you put the link of this paper by Sean Carroll? Thanks.
I don't understand what a lot of those words toward the end of what you wrote are, but it sounds neat!
So he wrote a paper on how our physical reality arises from quantum mechanics? That doesn't sound innovative at all.
@@AkamiChannelAt the risk of being perceived as elitist or misanthropic I better choose my words wisely. All I will say is this, really thinking about the process of studying the ACT, SAT, GRE, getting your Bachelors, getting your Masters, and eventually getting your doctorate. Think about the day-by-day process of varying the conditions of learning, rather than keeping them constant and predictable. Think about the day-by-day process of having study sessions on a given topic; and using tests, rather than presentations, as study events. When you analyze these arXiv, NATURE, or APS papers semantically rather than mathematically it seems easy but in reality, people put a lot of hard work into those papers. Try actually doing it yourself.
@@ChavisvonBradfordscience I'm sure the paper is great and I'm a huge fan of Sean Carroll. I was just semi-trolling, but I was also being truthful in saying that how you described it did not sound innovative to me
Thanks for the video. Your presentations are very pleasing. I enjoy them greatly.
Thank you Sean for the tremendous inspiration. You have made me think harder than anyone else I've followed. You always seem to stay out of the corner and I respect that. When interpreting observational evidence one is always limited by the data - or the interpretation of that data. The problem I have with current physics goes much deeper. All of the current research seems to focus on matter and energy which is a very small portion of our reality. Space is the most fundamental component of our reality so why do we have so little research into the properties of space?
Thank you for these pod casts.
Thank you Sean you’re awesome! I appreciate everything you do brother.
Sir, Im from INDIA. Can you please talk about "Superconductivity" in a video. I tried to learn the basics, but itself in the first para it says we both can be in a same Quantum state. Damn I know I cannot move further without hearing from you talk about this great invention.
Hope you reply sir. You are absolutely wonderful. The way you talk about the world is really really beautiful. Lots of love from here 💕
Nothing beats a swift kick in the face with some serious philosophically driven physics contemplation, delivered by someone who knows their shit!
you can al,ost feel the gluons in that brain of his collapsing into a wave function of neurological enlightenment, his shit is entangled but coherent!
GOOD JOB, PROFFESSOR SEAN CAROL. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, RIGHT NOW.✌️👍
Pretty stoked I’ve worked my way up to understanding pieces and parts!
Ppp
Ppp
Pppp
Sean is the best.
Maybe I don't understand the simulation argument but I've always assumed that the argument doesn't require humans or life for that matter being the focus of a simulation. Maybe the simulator wants to simulate how universes begin and end and we are just a by-product of the simulation.
Until 2016 I was always located at the edge of the Sagittarius Arm, never in the Orion Spur. Geography is different here in all regions of the globe. Parts of history are not the same. The Moon isn't the same face. There's animals here that were extinct where i came from, everything is similar, yet this is definitely not my home earth.
Thx you professor
Thanks Sean, great stuff as always, glad you're getting your 2nd shot, got mine a few weeks ago with no horrible side effects, hope yours goes equally well
Amazing compendium of Information.
At 15:53 come watch Todd Desiato on APEC we have some breakthrough stuff unifying quantum gravity and the graviton with electromagnetism which answers these questions quite elegantly
Surely Sean's discussion on the simulation hypothesis does not suggest that the universe is not a simulation, just that if it is a simulation it was not constructed for the sake of contemporary/observable humanity alone.
Thank you for making these. Maybe you wont get the recognition you deserve right away but if you dont delete it this will be available for many many many years and might inspire people who are in kindergarten right now.
Question: My understanding of the best description on how the material world that we perceive arises from the underlying quantum fields is through a lexicographical matrix to what we call reality. First, is this roughly correct? Second, is a lexicographical matrix in essence, a game theory matrix? Lastly, if these are both yeses, I have a thought experiment for you. What would happen if the Nash Equilibrium we enjoy in our current orbit around the Son was suddenly moved out beyond Pluto's orbit and why? Hints: Nash Equilibrium = “negotiated peace” and what is in the middle of selflessness and selfishness? Thanks for indulging me.
No. :-)
What do you think about parallel universes?
Love these Q and A's, because you don't know what the subjects will be. Knowledge is always good, but sometimes not knowing is better. ;)
I'm no proponent of the simulation hypothesis, but I think the flaw in your argument is assuming the beings running the simulation only care about life on earth. They may have just set a universe in motion under certain laws just to see what happened, and we arose within in. Either as a fluke, or we're just one small portion of many those running the simulation are interested in.
As allways great great show! Thanks for doing this videos Sean 😀😀
who is this sean everyone is talking about? whats the podcast name?
Have you thought about interviewing Donald Hoffman?
8:40
It's possible that everything has already been together in the begining.
8:30 what about entanglement? Is entanglement an interaction? Could there be particles in my room that are entangled with particles beyond the observable universe? If so, would this "connection" "link" events here and there? O_O ... if the universe is infinte would that mean that most (if not all) particles are entangled to some other? Can there be entanglement between more than two particles?
Like your questions, my head is spinning.
Thanks !
Why is the many worlds theory favored over the possibility of a single parallel dimension? If we were to consider that during the bigbang the Universe split into two dimensions due to conflicting properties between the elements governed by the law of physics, relativity and the elements governed by quantum physics. Which meant that all physical matter ended up on one side and all its energy signature, vibration, frequencies and subatomic properties ended up in another dimension. And if both dimensions were entangled and overlayed on top of one another in a way where they operated in sync the same way hardware works together with software to run a program. Would that interpretation conflict with the equations that have lead to the many worlds interpretation?
Regarding the question asked about the speed of light calculated with EM constants ending up being the same speed as non-EM-interacting particles like the graviton, the more interesting question is why does the vacuum permittivity and permeability of the electric and magnetic fields respectively depend on the universal speed limit?
I'd be interested to understand how light can travel countless distances without losing energy, and, or how atomic particles don't lose energy in their structures... I saw a Richard Feynman TV program called 'fun to imagine' years ago in which he said that when thinking about atoms you have to imagine particles with perfect elasticity... and that never sat right with me, surely that violates thermodynamic laws of some sort...?
The first question is straightforward. Light doesn’t lose energy because photons have no mass & therefore no inertia. Given that atoms have mass and some motion they do lose energy from inertia. The exception here is at absolute zero where atomic motion stops, in which case you are left at the rest energy of mc-squared.
@@chemquests Thank you. I really do appreciate the reply.
I see what you mean regarding the first question on light (but it boggles my mind as surely the photon is still moving through spacetime which must involve some work being done somewhere a long the line...)
As for the second part of my question, I didn't phrase that well at all, and as a layman, I think I lack the language... I suppose what I am asking is how the particles within atoms keep doing their thing for such a long time after their creation (shortly after the big bang, as I understand it) without using up the energy that drives them...
I understand that electrons for example are more or less immortal and protons and neutrons can decay from losing energy by interacting with other particles or forces, but as an example, if a hydrogen atom is in deep space all on its own, the electron will orbit (for want of a better expression) the proton indefinitely and as both these particles have mass, surely this violates some thermodynamic principle...
You're awesome Sean, love from the UK
Cheers
Wow, so great!
Just starting video now. I have wondered if Sean has ever had any thoughts on Eric Weinsteins ~geometric unity~ paper.
Question of the moment
@@hujnbg pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0pppp0pppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
@@hujnbg ppppppppppppppppppppppppp0pppp0ppppppppppppppppppp0ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp0p00pppp0pppppppp0p0ppp0p⁰pp0p⁰⁰pp
He has been asked a couple times before. He said he doesn't have any thoughts or feelings on it, or something to that effect. Context tho, his wife wrote a very neg/critical article on Eric some years ago. I don't think the Carroll's respect Eric at all lol. (Just my guess)
Sean is another lost one like Sam harris. Ever wonder if maybe being on the same narrative as any (EVERY ONE) major corporation is suspicious? Whats his thoughts on china? Bet not much... Let's flag em boys. ⛳
I have a question Mr. Carroll. What do you think are the parameters that keep the speed of light at its current velocity?
Regarding inertia and artificial gravity: I suggest taking a look at either the "The Expanse" books by James S.A. Corey or the TV series for a take on what future space flight might look like more realistically than, say, in Star Trek.
How can one person know so much? Does he ever say, “I don’t know?”
He does say "I don't know" a lot. Often admitting he's not expert enough to give a good answer; sometimes because he knows that it's a matter of opinion, or because scientists are just not ready to settle a question, yet.
Been waiting for this
Hi Dr. Carroll,
At the final seconds to the spin of a Euler Disc.. could this be an observation of Schroedinger's equation at a very rapidly descending through spacetime, each electron/photon measurement from the rapidly spinning Euler Disc represented a multi-verse / maybe can be related to dark matter? Many multiverses is dark matter ultimately
Ok thank you
Hi Sean. Can you please do a mindscape about Donald Hoffmans anti Naturalism Theory. How do you answer him " there is no reality.
Of course there is "reality". It's just not as trivial as you were taught in high school. The limits of what we told you there were those given by the still pudding-like state of your brain, not by reality itself. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 So Mr, it seems that you have found some reality not even quantum physic, space time, Chemistry. Biology, Psycholoy have any clue about it. Then why you dont tell humanity about it, belive me you can be a Nobel price winner: 1 million dollar is not a little, I will talk to the Nobel academy here in Sweden that they arange it for you.
Have you watched Mr Donald Hoffman? He says literarily: Both Idealism and Naturalism dont be so happy about my Theory because you have wrong, there is no reality, no metaphysics. When they ask him whats reality then? He said I dont know!...In both philosophy and science it calls for bad argument!
@@Senazi08a Yes, they all have tons of clues about reality. All of those clues fill tens of thousands of textbooks in the science libraries, you simply haven't opened even a single one of them. That is your problem, kid. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Mr Frendo. The problem is that you cant read and understand my son
@@Senazi08a I have read a lot of textbooks, kid. They contain more interesting stuff than your bullshit. ;-)
I still don't get what's beyond edge of universe boundary. If we are in the membrane of an expanding balloon surface there is a distance we could travel to reach our edge of the membrane. We had spec start that expanded, at spec time there was no time/space outside of the spec. There must be still that boundary though we've been expanding. If we discover the graviton, why would we think we couldn't artificially create artificial gravity, or even simulated gravity fields (ones that work with gravity engines perhaps)? Star trek gives 1000 years to work it out, that's enough time...
I'm not an expert but here you go lol there may or may not be an actual "edge" to the universe but even if there is, it's outside of the observable universe. The entire universe may well be infinite, but the observable universe is how far light has travelled since just after inflation stopped, you can think of that as a 13ish billion light year radius bubble expanding out at the speed of light. But since inflation stopped, expansion has been accelerating. Now 13ish billion years later the expansion rate of space has outpaced the speed of light. This means that from our perspective the observable universe appears to be shrinking, as distant galaxies are redshifted into obscurity.
@@seionne85 I'm talking what's outside the particle horizon that was the edge of the spec before it inflated though.
@@captainzappbrannagan I struggled with this for a while, because you always hear the answer is nothing, but that's not easy to understand on an intuitive level. I think it really is that simple, though...
Sometimes it's easier to imagine the "outside" as a solid material that space expands into, if the "space expanding into space" is what keeps popping into your mind. But ultimately, even that's a bad way to look at it, because it really is nothing; not solid, not space... You have to think of it as reality itself is expanding, but it's not expanding INTO anything.
I think that's the best generic way to look at it, when you're not considering exotic models and stuff. I think there are models in which there really could be something else outside the boundary, though.
Our observable universe is only a small part of the expanding universe. When physicists calculate the center of the big bang, it is everywhere in our observable universe. The edge is as much the center as where we are. Imagine yourself living at the edge right now in a mature galaxy, looking towards the earth and seeing billions of years into the past to a time before galaxies formed.
@@WaxPaper Imagine the universe as an expanding loaf of bread and we are in some small part of the loaf.
I am smarter the moment I clicked on this video
Great respect to Sean Carrol 🙏
My brain hurts!
the artificial gravity problem is easy to solve, put stones in your pockets!
I would love to hear you talk with cosmic skeptic about morality
He also has a logical/psychological argument against free will which I think coupled with your ideas on free will would produce a very powerful argument
He also destroyed William Lane Craig in a debate that was legend... wait for it... dairy...
Well put. I've long been hoping that Sean or Alex can get the other on their respective podcast. It would be a treat.
@@captainzappbrannagan I haven't watched that in ages thanks for reminding me 😂
@@jonathansharir-smith6683 darn I had just thought maybe it happened before I got interested. Came to check but nope, maybe it will happen though!
@@seionne85 yUj
If you find a trillion hard to image, think of centimeter blocks, 10000cm high, 10000cm wide and 10000cm deep, which is 100m3. A quadrillion if 1km3. A quintillion if 10km3. A sextillion is the same as a quintillion, but instead of centimeters, you're using millimeter blocks, that's where small aircraft can get to. One sextillion miles is more than three times the distance to Andromeda, yet your mind can imagine it right in front of if you stack those miles into millimeter cubes. The local group of galaxies is easy to see.
Turn that 10km3 cube of millimeter blocks into 1mm3. Do the same again. The is mind vast and intuition is ******* awesome. If you know the laws of physics, you can render a universe within your imagination. As we grow as a species, we're going to tap into this and control our thoughts, so we can fly through the cosmos in our minds, perhaps.
We would defiantly know if dark matter suddenly disappeared when we look out into the stars.
Do you mean "definitely know"?
42 The answer is 42
Great stuff , Sean. Higherside chat sent me and oddly Tim Dillon sent me to him.
No way, you too.
Which epi-soda ???
@@Sirach-pv5xv 🤷♀️ the ones that mentioned them. 😉 Sub to my yt, I did yours. Water stuff looks cool. Will check it out asap and comment.
We should all thank Sean for calling the bottom quark the bottom quark!!!!!!! When I hear "truth" and "beauty" mentioned in the same sentence, I usually blow my top. I am reminded of the Star Trek episode: "Is There in Truth no Beauty?" My answer is: truth is truth and beauty is not a requirement when practicing actual science. I find it strange when physicists prefer a name called "beauty." I know regular people have their ups and downs but some lead charmed lives.
Having said that - At around 1:31:30 it is not correct to say that the speed of light is invariant for all observers no matter what. If light is propagating from a moving source, a stationary source will see the speed as either faster or slower than "c" depending on whether the traveler is moving toward or away from the observer.
I don't agree with everything Sean says (and am not a fan of many worlds theory) but Sean is a great educator and I hope his future podcast guests will return to a focus on physics. Lately he has had a departure from physics, but I think his podcast really shines when he has long-form discussions with other physicists.
Your 'correction' about SOL, can you give supporting info, as Sir's statement is
the accepted view consistent with special relativity and experiment.
@@keybutnolock Which experiment are you referring to that measures one-way light speed starting from a moving source and is measured by a stationary observer?
Supporting info is provided in many undergraduate physics textbooks (but conveniently in a different chapter than the chapter on relativity). Describing light propagation within the topic of relativity is always curiously without detail. Light velocity is usually represented with the ridiculous "triangle" model where the individual on the ship sees light start from the floor, bounce off the mirrored ceiling and back to the floor in a nice straight line while the poor onlooker sees the path as a triangle, due to the ship's motion. From there (with the help of time dilation) the speed is deemed the same for everyone, regardless of the circumstance, without a medium or ether, case closed.
But if you go to the chapter that describes EM wave generation and propagation, you will find it is simply an acceleration or energy change experienced by charged particles that then create a "kink" in their pre-existing field lines with the kink being the wave that travels at the speed of light. In short, charges all carry their own personal medium or ether that provide the framework for the "wave." With no field lines (that are always moving in unison with their charges before, during and after EM wave generation) there couldn't possibly be a wave.
So, if I am on a spaceship traveling at 1/4 the speed of light and turn on a flashlight and point it toward the front window, I will actually see that light travel exactly at the speed of light, because me, the flashlight and the field lines of all of the charged particles in the filaments of the flashlight are all traveling inertially, in unison at 1/4 "c" and I will see the wave propagate along those field lines at "c." But the stationary observer on the platform will see the field lines go past him with a velocity and then see the wave go by at a velocity faster than "c" because light's "medium" is actually moving toward him as the light moves at "c" along that very medium.
@@chriskennedy2846 Thank you for your reply.
I see your your way of looking at this.
The kink is 'in a way' it's own travelling
wave with a phase velocity. Thanks again,
food for thought.
What you said about light is incorrect. What Carroll said about light is correct. That's the whole raison d'être of special relativity.
@@AkamiChannel Yes, but be willing to explore old ideas anew. There is always
an opportunity to learn. Walter Lewin
802x lect' 28 - Poynting Vectors and
oscillating charges. Interesting computer
simulation.
I know there are citizen scientists working on experiments in relation to gravitomagnetism, but I don’t think they can obtain high sigma results without befriending a billionaire.
This is the second time an interesting aspect of muon interaction has been observed after Fermilabs announcement of a 4 sigma discrepancy.
Does that make three in total ? Two after Fermilab, can you recall the other ?
Discrepancies are not discrepancies they are events we don't understand but are perfectly as they should be
1:36:00 for the secret code to unlock all levels on Sonic
Humans in the future won’t wonder about the dimmer universe. They will chuckle at silly ideas from the past, like the Big Bang, black holes, neutron stars, and particles.
i'm listening in from a distant universe.....
it is already 2 light years away
10,000 years is nothing if you travel close to the speed of light. Your perception of the time it takes to get there can approach zero.
🙋🏼♂️ are we in a simulation?
Yes we are and spike Milligan is the creator and controller
Waste Heat 1:38:50 in the video! Waste heat also why laplace's demon is physically impossible! laplace's demon is actually like a collection of Perpetual Motion machines. It's physically impossible on multiple levels. It's impossible to have infinite computational power, impossible to know the position and momentum of every particle, impossible to have the ability to store infinite knowledge
Anyway always curious why Sean Carroll loves to pontificate on Laplace's demon when it is physically impossible by both the ideas of classical as well as quantum mechanics. There is waste heat in every action in the universe, and in order to observe things such as to gain info about the Earth's environment and try to predict the weather, you have to produce waste heat and therefore cannot have complete knowledge of a system
I would love to debate Sean Carroll about laplace's demon. I'm convinced it's just a cognitive fallacy to give it any thought. It would be like pontificating on perpetual motion machines and saying that this has some insight, when all it does is tell us what is impossible and why it is impossible
the more mass the stronger the gravity the stronger the gravity the slower the time , objects are attracted to slower areas of time
The phrase 'populism' is commonly misused in the way that it is here. The original populist movement is actually a left-leaning effort connected to the socialist traditions from large parts of the Midwest. The conflation of farmer- and labor-led solidarity movements with far right imposters is generally an intentional effort by corporate media that is used to undermine a resurgence of left-leaning politics in favor of their corporate advertisers. Historian Thomas Frank is an excellent reference on the topic of populism.
lol, all countries are weird. ever been to the UK??
The theories of entropy are sadly incomplete. Suck it up and correct those flaws before you try to teach it as fact
Ruwa...?
Iiiiiiiiiii
I would rather buy Elongate Coins and get rich. Buy Elongate or Safemoon and provide for your family and your friends. I only share this because I love you and wish you only the best. Keep on shining
Liar