The LONGEST time - Numberphile
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июл 2012
- A paper by Don Page claimed to use the longest finite time ever calculated by a physicist - it's the time it will take the Universe to reset itself!?!
More links & stuff in full description below ↓↓↓
Video featuring Tony Padilla from the University of Nottingham.
Read the paper at arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411193
NUMBERPHILE
Website: www.numberphile.com/
Numberphile on Facebook: / numberphile
Numberphile tweets: / numberphile
Subscribe: bit.ly/Numberphile_Sub
Videos by Brady Haran
Patreon: / numberphile
Brady's videos subreddit: / bradyharan
Brady's latest videos across all channels: www.bradyharanblog.com/
Sign up for (occasional) emails: eepurl.com/YdjL9
Numberphile T-Shirts: teespring.com/stores/numberphile
Other merchandise: store.dftba.com/collections/n... 
Наука
love the fact that the guy just said "or whatever" in his scientifically paper :p
dude as a physicist i can tell you that at least half of physics is "or whatever"
@@tony58300 but isn't accuracy integral to physics? Or is this only needed in specific circumstances?
alan smithee it depends on the context. If you are measuring a universal constant you need as much precision as you can but in general, while researching on particle physics and in cosmology, a couple of orders of magnitude are not a big deal
It is a different story in applied physics and engineering
@@tony58300 "a couple of orders of magnitude"
I was expecting maybe 2, possibly even 1 significant figure. But 2 orders of magnitude? Imagine if architects did that. We'd have no buildings at all. I'm planning to go into physics so I'm sure I'll slowly get used to it.
@@alansmithee419 yes, I'm a physics student and it surprised me how physics is like the science of approximations. It bothered me at first, but I not only get used to it, but also got me in a lot of epistemological thinking.
Us plebs: e~3
Don Page, an intellectual: e~10
it might not be the "e" that we know of, physicists use a lot of different notations
@@mastershooter64 No it's the _e_ we know, Euler's constant. He really is being sloppy.
@@VivekYadav-ds8oz To be fair, that’s basically a difference of 10^10^10^10^119.6 to 10^10^10^10^120.2
@@VivekYadav-ds8oz no, in the video Tony says the e is exponential, not Euler's number
8:37
"10^10^10^10^2.08 Planck times, millenia [sic], or whatever" = Strangest units I have ever seen in a paper.
Excuse me? Scientists use metric whatevers all the time.
Doesn't 10^10^10^10^2.08 mean 10^2080 ? Why is it written in that weird way?
Alphabet Man
No it doesn't. It means 10^(10^(10^(10^2,08))). That's how you're supposed to order 'nested' exponents. 10^2,08 exuals roughly 10^2, which is 100. The number would then be roughly equal to 10^(10^(10^100))=10^(10^googol) = 10^googolplex. A googolplex is roughly a lot lot more than you could fit atoms in the observable universe. And it's in the exponent. Simply put, gigantic beyond comprehension and beyond any physical use (aside from this paper).
Edit: the googolplex has more digits than we estimate there are atoms in the observale universe, to put things into perspective.
*****
I was addressing Jonathan as a joke. Sorry for the ambiguity!
clearly "whatever" is an extremely important unit. if you're not aware of its existence just get out. it solved the 4th millenial problem by binding the atoms on the carbohydrate level and injecting (insert constant here) atoms of uranium-235 into a blender.
damn i wish all math was as forgiving as cosmological math.
≈
{∆~Π√r2(23^e)*W×m - V*r = e*r ÷ M^2 } = Xn * W ? Did i guess right
Ikr! Whats 30872764 times 491628494? 3 ofc. Its close enough
@@bryansuh1985 yeah, we only need to be accurate to 5o orders of magnitude!
(o=10^100)
Those two numbers are so massive that rounding e up to 10 makes no difference to us human beings
engineers get ridiculed for e=pi=3
e=10 is next level i love it!
I thought e=mc2 / phone can't do little 2 :(
Well, when you're an engineer, precision matters because the thing you are building will probably break if it's not built well. But if you're a theoretical physicist trying to calculate the longest finite time and the length of time is bigger than a googolplex no matter what, it really doesn't matter. With a number that big, the units don't even matter. Our minds cannot conceive of a number that big. It's not like having a precise number or even proper units is going to help put that into physical perspective, so might as well simplify a bit.
Super Mecha Death Christ no, E = mc2, not e = mc2
@@Wyattporter oh ok I always thought e = mc2 but I was wrong. So it's e = mc2
Super Mecha Death Christ capitalization matters
Mathematicians:
"I'm not interested in approximations"
Physicists:
"e=10"
Edit: Thanks for the likes ❤
Edit 2: the first quote is taken from the video: Trascendental Numbers from Numberphile
Mathematicians:
"I'm not interested in approximations"
Also mathematicians:
"Least square regressions"
e^e=15.15
10^10=10,000,000,000
Its even more wrong in its application
It's maybe the stupidest video on any educational channel so far!
@@wizard1117 an approximation thats useful sometimes is g=pi^2, its faster for rotational problems versus using g=10.
lol no dude an accurate thing would be
mathematicians and physicists: we don't like approximations
engineers : e=pi=3 , 3^3i = -1 lol
I have watched this an infinite number of times now and it never gets old.
well.. is the theory correct?
@@wademichalski768 As far as we can tell, it is. Have you found new data that procludes it?
The video gets old tho...
Love how sometimes he has to be enough precise to write 2.08 instead of 2.1 (or just 2), and then he can approximate e to be 10.
Yeah...it's almost like the published theoretical physicist knew what he was talking about.
@@ultimateman1234 as far as I understand, @Zoey said exactly that: the author is right to approximate e with 10 _and_ write the highest exponent to some digits after the comma, because the effect of the latter is much bigger.
To put it in numbers: approximating e with 10 leads to a factor of approx. log(e) ≈ 0.434 in the second exponent. So replacing only one e (the more significant one of them) 10^(e^(10^(10^2.08))) ≈ 10^(10^(0.43*10^(10^2.08))). This is what Zoey gets from only their first equation. replacing 2.08 with 2 yields a factor of 10^-20 at that position.
e^e is about 15.2 or something
10^10 = 10,000,000,000
@@skylardeslypere9909 you should really know the difference between . and ,
@@mohammadazad8350 yeah my bad, I'm in Europe so , is for decimals for us, I'll edit it
it is incredibly cool to see how passionate these people are about their study
7:23 it looks like a very satisfied pac-man.
^_)
So it's possible I've watched this video an infinite number of times ?
yup
+Егор Матук Mind is now broken.
+Daves Reality No. You have watched the video possibly multiple times but not an infinite amount of times.
+Daves Reality well, not an "infinite" number of times because in 10^10^10^10^2.08 years you will watch it again so you would have added 1 more time therefore it wouldn't be an "infinite" number of times......wait....actually the 10^10^10^10^2.08 number is aprox. when we will repeat this universe exactly.......so you might watch it several times before that because the universe doesn't have to repeat itself EXACTLY for you just to exist and watch this video a re-occurrence might occur where the only difference is that on Sept. 4 1998 you put splenda in your coffee instead of real sugar and that was the only difference in your existence compared to the one now......but wait....that might actually set in motion a chain of events prohibiting you from watching this.....dude STFU your breaking my brain.....
Theoretically, if the universe and everything outside the universe lasts forever, then we would watch it an infinite number of times, just as we would do anything else an infinite number of times, even things we haven't done before we would do an infinite number of times. But seeing as how we can't remember anything before our birth or foresee anything after our deaths, we could never prove it.
5:48 i see what you did there
xd
XD
This reply has been typed approximately 10^10^10^10^2.08 years ago.
This is great stuff! A wierd thought comes to my mind, as you die, your consciousness is erased, that means you no longer observe the universe in any sense because you simply no longer exist in it. Like a sort of extreme sleep, maybe... And if what this video's about is real then, as your vision fades from you dying, you'd instantly be back at the point where it all started, your birth. because this vast amount of time that will pass between you #1 dying and you #2 being born will be skipped like you skip about 8 hours every night...
***** Except about 98% of the atoms in our bodies get replaced every year, but you still "have the same perception", so that is not really a valid argument.
*****
Well, the _exact_ information (if there is such a thing) may be lost, but there is a lot of redundancy in the system. even if you omit a few atoms from each neuron, or misplace them by a minuscule amount, the neuron is functionally the same. or if you miss a few atoms from the soles of my feet - also not a problem. Given how much we recycle our components on a daily basis, the reorganization of matter does not change us from being who we are. Our memories and personalities are still continuous.
***** i wonder if this number takes consciousness and its effect on randomness into account.
then it would seem that nothing is random. yet I still think that consciousness is not simply the product of chemical combinations, that a thought can't be so easily reduced, and i am not sure that this number takes that into account. i think that this number assumes that conscious decisions are based on specific orientations of matter
After you die, you'll come back as a Boltzmann brain.
Great! I missed an episode of Mythbusters. Now I know that another version of me can catch up in 10^10^10^10^2,08 years-1 week. Swell!
or you could just watch it on the internet
The coolest thing about this topic is being able to fully understand what it means not only in terms of math but it's effects towards the rest of reality. It's brilliant.
A better example of this amount of time is how long before Half-Life 3 comes out
+Ron Mad there will be in fact even a Half Life 4 before there will be a HL 3, thats proven by the video above
I'd say, that's the time before next game in the Half Life series comes out, whatever the name of it would be.
(probably just Half Life)
It's coming in 2018 in 5 parts, each released@45-day intervals starting on January 1, &the final final boss will B in Half Life 4 released on Thanksgiving of that year. The real end of the story'll B in 3.5, some time in 2019. So U'll've 2 wait 3 years.
Fabelaz Nyan just give up. It will NEVER happen.
Hello, Pooper
So eventually after I've died I'll just respawn and live exactly same life as I'm living now and post this very same message right here at this time? Well that's convenient to know in some weird way, I guess...
But between now and then, there are an unimaginably large number of variations. So before you live the same life, you have to live billions of different lives, first. So, not really convenient. But it gives a special light to deja vu, doesn't it?
Psychentist I'm worried about those variations. It would mean that we will reach unimaginable heights in our next lives but also die painful deaths in many others before reliving our present lives.
Psychentist So wait does that prove reincarnation is true?
With infinite space containing matter , it's basically a multiverse
Nietzsche came with the idea firstly 👀
Just had a weird realization that sometime ... years from now or ... years ago I was sitting in this exact chair, typing this exact comment, thinking about my past or future self. The universe truly is an amazing place. :)
Eternal recurrence!
***** not actually implied at all in this video, all the video says is that 1 state can be repeated, it does NOT say that several states will always be repeated in the same order
a state is just the exact position of every single particle in this moment in time, this "could" repeat itself, but then a second later a completely different state might happen, that is different from what will happen a second from now.
sidewaysfcs0718 but after a really long time wouldn't a universe exactly like this one repeat?
BlackJoe23 yes sir it would. it's bizarre to think nothing happened before the universe and that there will be nothing after the universe. There has to be an infinitely recurring universe after an infinite amount of time.
***** its kind of hard for me to think the universe just "exists"
Billy Joel brought me here.
Hans Arvid Naustheller that was more than we hoped for!
+Hans Arvid Naustheller How? Did he mention it in a concert...?
+andrewxc1335 I think so............
+andrewxc1335 Google "Billy Joel longest time"
Len Arends
Booooo. :)
He is so precise about the 2.08 because changing the the 2.08 in the exponent to 2.07 changes the number a lot more than changing the lower base or second base from e to 10.
The exponent just eats up the factor:
10^10^10 = (e^2.3)^10^10 = e^(2.3 x 10^10) = e^10^10.36
yes, and that's also why the time unit (millennia, planck times or whatever) is so insignificant.
I love how Numberphile video titles at first glance seem to be clickbaity, but are 100% of the time, totally legit and not clickbaity at all.
For a more level comparison of those two vastly huge numbers, they can both be written with the same "nesting order" as:
10^(10^(10^(10^2.08))) and 10^(10^(10^(10^12.589)))
because 10¹·¹ ≈ 12.589
Or,
10^(10^(10^120)) and 10^(10^(10^3,884,000,000,000))
10^1.1=12.58925411794167210423954106395800606093617409466931069107923019526647615782502024121050966275946170388690602325144909383663361386688577362221605929121253766329865785786669766592263268143684956690543809568407485907313428057721650276349659138969652018411069690309268037392021958262623549989801429652723948576490203031153755165484463487403816229910418138451204765434440635127890332673395303083518616798660923435095205612111962976028980370547730402869231190398406496933287777720054801135127728791015971251381652394390．．．
Vastly different numbers, but both still unimaginably long periods of time
@@anishkrishnan9698 Let's just say that either one is longer than anyone has ever had to wait in line at the DMV.
As is their difference.
Fred
I love when a math or physics problem uses such exciting numbers that e and 10 might as well be the same thing.
Aaaaaah. This is where deja vu comes from.
this is my favorite comment
Brilliant!
Not really because it is a full representation of what happened before e.g you slipped up and dropped in a pile of sh**. after that time the same thing will happen including what is in your brain so you won't think it's deja vu.
Its complete nonsense but that is the inference of the theorem
+Josh Jeggs Gosh, I bet you're fun at parties!
+Josh Jeggs
The joke.
Your head.
2:20 I believe "[INAUDIBLE] space" was actually "phase space"
Brady haran has single handedly improved my studying through the channels he has made, a true legend
10:34-10:39 "There's no device, no observer, or anything that could survive this length of time..." And that's why we apply maths, yeah? :-D
-signed, an English major
P.S. I love his enthusiasm. In fact, I love the upbeat attitudes of many astrophysicists. So many people get morose when they talk about the universe, and I don't see why this field of study calls for bad attitudes. I think all of space and all of these things we don't know that we don't know is fantastic. They're an invitation to do perpetually more.
I don't think a specific volume of the universe can ever return to its original state! The universe is not like just any volume - it is expanding. You can't return to the same *state*, because you can't return to the same *size*.
You could apply the theory to small systems, like our solar system. But the expansion of the universe is accelerating, eventually it will be fast enough to pull the solar system apart, then pull the Moon away from the Earth, and finally it will be strong enough to pull electrons away from the atoms they belong to.
Yes but through quantum fluctuations it could start again, just in a different l;location.
I was going to say something allong those lines, but what governs the EXPANSION of space? what if the paper states that even the expansion of space will reset?
What hes saying is that due to quantum fluctuations randomly appearing, or how electrons can "quantum tunnel", in theory, this could be true after a very long amount of time.
I think the care for precision in the final exponent but not in the lower ones is entirely justified, because the lower ones have practically no effect on that final exponent. Let's just look at the top e for the one with a final exponent of 1.1:
e^(10^(10^1.1))=10^(0.43*10^(13))=10^(10^(13-0.37))=10^(10^(12.64))=10^(10^(10^1.1)
Changing the other e's will have an even less appreciable effect.
The reason he's precise about the 2.08 is because in a 'power chain' the power at the top of the chain has a much much larger effect on it than anything else. 10^10^10^2.08 is almost identical to even around 1000^1000^10^2.08, but it's very very different to 10^10^10^2.09
*watches video*
Entropy: AM I A JOKE TO YOU?
Over large scales of time, entropy can decrease because SLT can be violated if enough time passes
The answer is given at ~2mn mark. Even in the highest entropy state, so long as there is random motion happening in the system, there will always be local fluctuations of entropy, and at ridiculously large time scale, a low entropy state could emerge from this randomness.
@@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 That is a baseless assumption I would say.
At the lowest possible entropy state no gradient of any kind exists, therefore nothing remains to drive change.
Time stops so to speak, if you accept that time is representative of the rate of change in the system.
And obviously with time stood still, you will never actually arrive at that low probability state.
Now I am not familiar enough with quantum physics to know if they can still induce change in a totally homogenous infinite closed system, and if the rate of such ex nihilo entalpy would be sufficient to overcome the spontaneous growth of entropy.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents quantum fluctuations to stop, making 0K never ever achievable.
I'm not a physicist and my quantum mechanics courses are far behind me, but last time I checked this principle is nowhere near to be proven wrong.
My assumption was based on pure theory and virtually impossible to ever be observed by our kind... But yet as long as time flows and quantum fields fluctuates through an infinite time, entropy should fluctuate to any possible level at any scale and location at some point in time.
As far as I know, nothing in the current laws of physics prevents something as big as the spawning of a new universe out of randomness.
@@sapiensesciencecerveau2523 The question then I suppose is weather time is indeed intrinsically linked to entropy, and rate of change within a system, or it os merely an artefact of it by which we measure.
I would like to add, that a system need not be at 0 internal energy, 0K as you put it, in order for it to be at maximum entropy, but as I understand that would result in quantum physics more or less making anything possible on a long enough timeline?
All this is under the assumption that space is finite.
andrew sauer The observable universe is finite indeed. This is not an assumption. This is a fact.
The number of particles, the amount of energy, the available space and the time given initially defines how complex the universe can get.
This was an awesome video, nice job!
this is my all time favorite numberphile vid
The closest Nietzsche can ever get to the Eternal return
entropy is always mentioned. how do they calculate the entropy of something? more specifically, for example, in the T-s diagram of water, how do they determine experimentally/calculate the values of S at a specific state of water? can you make a video of that?
I imagine some person (theoretical) watching this universe change, and it gets REALLY close to fully repeating itself, except one kid somewhere tripped down the stairs, and the observer is like IT WAS SO CLOSE!!! >.
If you want to save time those numbers can be written as
E2.08#4
E1.1#5
There is no period of time longer than waiting for an elevator when you're in urgent need of a bathroom.
The context matters.
the longest time is waiting for a woman in the bathroom
??
or on the phone
So Buddha was right. I should go to temple now.
미친놈 ㅋㅋㅋ
Technically Buddha wasn't right because the atoms just arranged themselves for you to think Buddha was right. lol
its complete nonsense but that is the inference of the presupposition
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
They said its history is limited by the amount of entropy, but not that history must go in cycles.
pjohnston Or more than 2 Times a day, if you count plank times
So is this poincare conjecture also imply that, if we dissolved a cube of sugar in a cup of coffee, and stirred that cup for liquid for 10^n years, where n=10^10^10^10^on and on, we'd eventually get back our cube of sugar?
Omg what a great idea! THANK YOU!!!
The longest time was actually first calculated by physicist William Joel, and was described as the length of time since which he had last experienced love.
It took me a few seconds to get it lol
@@rebusd Ngl man, a year later it took me a second to remember the joke too 😅
So does this mean that everything has already happened an infinite amount of times and will happen again an infinite amount of times over basically an infinite amount of time?
+Matthieu Chretien If our Universe is part of an infinitely repeating cycle model then yes.
Well there can't be a negative universe I don't think, so there is a finite number of universes before ours but it's possibly a huge number or this might be the first one. But there is an infinite amount of times it will restart.
I think the author of the paper taked loots of liberties in writing this paper. Im not a phd, but I don't think you could apply the theory taking in count the accelerating expansion of the universe, or the fact that the observable universe is not a system in equilibrium (nor a closed one, as the cosmological horizon is shrinking I think)
From my hometown edmonton! awesome work coming out of the university of alberta
I had a massive déjà vu while watching this video. Not even the repeated scene.
I'm so spooked.
It's actually much bigger than what you got. The number has more than 10^10^10^12.5 digits, and if you divide it by the number of letters that will fit in the universe (about 10^29) that winds up having basically zero effect on an exponential tower of length 4 or more, so you will need more than 10^10^10^12.5 universes to write out 10^10^10^10^10^1.1
Does that mean that pi will eventually repeat itself?
No. It has infinite free space
No, it does not. Numbers are not objects of the universe.
It will repeat the first googolplex digits, a googolplex number of times, however.
But I don't know if it will ever repeat the first n digits, starting from the nth place
@C R repeating usually means that there is a pattern which comes back with some cycles.
Having the combination 123456789 come back over and over again in pi, but without any recognizable pattern doesn't mean the number repeat itself.
@@thehiddenninja3428
i think it will repeat first googolplex number 10^10^10^10^2.08 times
This video, like all of the videos on Numberphile, is very well done, terribly interesting and informative, and just simply awesome.
That being said, I am not above admitting that since I saw the title, I've had an almost irresistible urge to sing the Billy Joel song. I can't believe they didn't have it playing at some point.
The whole thing about heat death not actually being the end of the universe is kind of comforting to me
just approximate the tens as twenties, like he does with e, and voila you have calculated a bigger time.
+Fightclub1995 You have calculated a bigger number but not a bigger time units
The whole model is so inaccurate that such an approximation ultimately doesnt matter regarding the accuracy of the result.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384
actually, the number is so vast that such approximation won't largely affect the "representation" of the number
So Sid from Toy Story became a physicist.
Ryan Notyourbusiness well he seems like a very kind person. Not very nice of you to say that.
Lol this is why I thought I had seen this guy before 😂😂😂
Engineers: We should round pi to 3.1 to save time!
Physicists: e basically means 10, or something.
The fact that he starts with “let’s just write it down” means it may be big, but it’s definitely not in Graham, tree(3) or Rayo territory.
Wouldn't a poincare recurrence reduce violate the second law of thermodynamics? If something went back to a state that it was in before, it would decrease max entropy.
Clarification please?
The second law of thermodynamics is one of statistics it is not an absolute law.
MrJixies
Oh ok. Thank you!
Well from my understanding, it would be like there would be no observers to see this happen. And if you can't observer the law being violated, then the law isn't violated. Everything is still consistent with observations, it's just that by the time you get to the point of a being making observations, the universe is already increasing entropy again.
Perhaps given enough time any law can be bypassed, just by being a perverse amount of time.
The second law of thermodynamics, contrary to popular belief, does not quite hold once you begin to consider relativistic quantum field theory at either very cold temperatures, or very large speeds, or dramatic size scales, big or small. The law of thermodynamics is an artifact of classical thermodynamics. And in reality, there is no proof that entropy cannot increase. It's just that we haven't really observed situations in which it decreases. But there is nothing problematic about violating it.
So...If its true what they say, there will also be a state where ill marry jessica alba ? seems legit.
how high are u?
João Victor Pacífico 155 cm
Cant wait to tell my professor "Dont worry i just approximated, in the grand scheme of things its virtually the same thing"
3:06 "What it is is is its an ensemble of average..." the fact that so many 'is's strung together while still making sense cracks me up.
so basically that paper explain time is circular.... now i wonder, how many times the universe has restarted it self...
That's a question no one will ever know
The answer to
maybe there just never was a beginning
+Calvin Zero Sorry to burst the bubble but the paper assumes that time is cyclic, then estimates a recurrence time. In the video it's explained that some quantum effects will totally make that cycle more wibbly wobbly.
Calvin Zero The answer to your question is how many corners does a circle have
did anyone notice the repeat at 5:46?
The one who edited this vid definitely did that on purpose LOL.
I lost my shit after that.
No, I certainly did not notice any sort of a repeat. You must be imagining things. */s*
He said "You and I are gonna film this again twice."
Angel Knight /s is for sarcasm
Arseboth lol kappa
Is it okay to do this calculation for the "observable universe" though? It's often speculated that the actual universe is in infinite. So instead of comparing the universe to a closed box where all the particles will eventually meet back at their original point, if there is no box and no finite boundaries, how can particles come back to their original place if they'll never loop back?
that probably doesn't change much anyway
the reason that they aproximate e with 10 is because power towers don't need very much precision as it grows so fast
Wouldn't the universe have to be contained for this to work?
The universe _is_ contained, and has a specific boundary. However we cannot reach this point because we would need a spaceship that warps fast enough or travels faster than light is.
@@sicklymoonlightbut if im right, something in the boundary of the observable universe can actually pass throw the cosmological horizon, so it would get out of our observable universe
@@bautibunge737 Yeah, and we won't be able to see it.
also *through
He is talking about the observable universe, not the entire universe
see you again in 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 2.08 years.
idk why i am saying this to a 7 year old comment but please use ^
@@mtg_4606 it's the same thing
Checking in from Edmonton's neighbor, Calgary Alberta here!!
These truly epic timescales...
Well shit. Now I'm interested in the Gramham's number. I'll never get off this vicious cycle!
Which is equivalent to 10 double arrow 4 in knuth notation to the power of 1.1.
no
No because there are FIVE 10s in the power tower, not four. But because of the 1.1, we can't use Knuth notation. The 1.1 is not the exponent of the tower of 10s-it's the exponent of only the HIGHEST 10. In other words, you have to solve this from the top to the bottom.
"power tower" is just about the best name I've ever heard for something like that. I don't care if it's the official name for something like that or not, I'm using it.
"All of this has happened before. And all this will happen again."
I see, that makes sense actually, thanks!
How can things go back to a state of low entropy?
Through quantum fluctuations, I think.
CAN'T YOU SEE THE JOY OF LIFE IS RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES?
INFINITE BLISS, INFINITE LOVE
TAKE A CHANCE, CLOSE YOUR EYES AND JUST DREAM
Okay I'm sorry
The second law of thermodynamics is a statement about what is probable, not what is possible.
Probability. It's much less likely to happen, but freak accidents still do happen.
Screw Godot; let's go home!
Love how he says that the numbers are so big it doesn't matter what unit you measure them in, years, days or seconds!
While it's unimaginable how long this time scale is. It's incomprehensible and unfathomable how tiny this number is compared to Graham's number. And when I say incomprehensible and unfathomable, I literally cannot begin to fathom any way of giving you an intuitive feeling of how small it is in comparison. I myself can't conceive of how much smaller it is. A size comparison between the plank length and the observable universe is less than negligible to the difference between this time scale and Graham's number.
"what it IS is, is it's an"
what?
+david block 3:05 XD
hahha
what about heat death though? like there has to be a point in the universe's lifetime at which all existing energy is evenly distributed, thereby halting all motion for the rest of time (according to the second law of thermodynamics)... right? so I guess basically what I'm trying to ask (assuming that the universe will follow the cycle of morphing in and out of empty, black hole ridden space) is whether or not there will be an end to this process at some point? sorry for the crappy sentence structure lol
But sure that's a lot of time needed for that to happen.
+Andrew Gulbransen But remember that a quantum fluctuation can start the whole process of inflation and creation over again.
Just to be clear, a single repeated creation event wouldn't be enough to achieve recurrence of our circumstances, since the laws of physics can be scrambled each time there is a fluctuation. But since there are a finite number of states for the laws of physics, after a ludicrous amount of time, our universe recurs. The number in the paper is just ballparking it.
+2sheol theoretically, those universes already exist in the multiverse. so if you don't mind Im gonna one-up you a little. if there are infinite universes in the multiverse each with varying degrees of differentiating physical laws, assuming enough time has passed, (a pretty big assumption to be honest) isn't it more than likely that one universe has found a way to explore other universes? and if one universe has achieved trans-universal exploration, that probably means an infinite amount of different universes must have done the same. by slightly stretching that same logic, our universe must have some trans universal aliens hiding out somewhere in the cosmos. basically, we are left with at least 3 possibilities:
a) under no circumstances will trans universal exploration ever be possible
b) the multiverse as previously described simply doesn't exist
c) there are trans universal aliens living among us
feel free to correct any flaws in my logic it's just something to think about :)
imagine dying and you see "respawning in [that number]"
Awesome, what a great principle!
So what your saying is that when i die, i will wait that number of years or whatever for that moment to happen again...but will it be my consiousness in that body? Reminds me of that episode of Futurama....
I was thinking of the exact same thing XD u know the one where they keep going forward in time reach the wnd of the universe and it restarts
SocraticWerewolf If consciousness is purely matter, yes, you will die, born again, die again.....as it was in the infinite past....But there are philosophers who defend that 'mind' its not just 'matter' (you have a eternal soul)
Well... anyway, you will ''live'' forever...
I think you still haven't any idea about how large is 10^10^10^10^2.08
No wonder we don't remember our last lives. It was fucking ages ago.
BleedingLlama Is that also a reason that every now and then when people dream they see things that happen the next day? People dismiss this as "deja vu", but with this new info, it could possibly be your subconscious remembering what is going to happen. Interesting, same thing with fortune tellers, maybe they can tap in to previous lives to see what is going to happen?
Ooooh oh oh oh oh
For the longest time
This helps you realize how incomprehensibly large Graham's Number is.
♪ *_WHoooooaoaoaaAAAOoOOOOOhhh_* ♫
♫ *_For the 10^10^10^10^10^1.1_* ♪
"Graham's number is the daddy, right?"
- Tony Padilla, 18.07.2012
*Rayo's Number has entered the chat*
I don't think you've seen the continuation of that post. To be concise, it's like this: if this is the Fifth time, there must have been a 4th time, and a 3d., and a 2nd, and a First. So, what happened before the fist time? Nothing?... Either we accept Creation, or that this model is wrong, because if the first stage (a.e., the nothing) was different than the 2nd (the "first time" everything happened), then there was no repetition, and this Eternal Recurrence model is wrong.
Most intense episode of Numberphile ever created.
The Poincare recurrence time only applies to systems of particles that don't change over time. Using the gas bouncing around in a box demonstration, imagine that you set fire to the gas as it was bouncing around. Those gas particles would be forever changed; even after these truly enormous time periods, those gas particles would never revert to their pre-burned state - to say that they eventually would is to disregard one of the most important consequences of thermodynamics. Like the burning gas in the box, our universe is slowly changing over time, and cannot revert back to its initial state. No, we have never been here before, and we certainly won't be returning here ever again. After the universe has run out of Gibbs energy, and is at that bleak, boring, maximum entropy point the gentleman in the video makes reference to - only then can we use the Poincare recurrence time, because all of the particles in the universe will persist unchanged from that point onwards.
+Mark Richardson Except, the Universe will never exist in an unchanging state. It will always grow, particles will always decay, and events will always happen, no matter how far ahead you look. So it's equally valid to say that there will NEVER be a recurrence. Googals of years from now, thermodynamics will still hold, and energy will still flow downward. We simply can't reach that state in the Universe.
Mark Richardson thank you!!! This is exactley what I was thinking! What is all this nonsense of the universe being re birthed Bering stated as though it's a fact?
J.J. Shank what are you talking about? In a googol the universe will have reached maximum entropy
Mark Richardson Actually, through quantum fluctuations, poincare recurrence can occur.
So perhaps i've already watched this :D
If you said goodbye to me tonight
There would still be numbers left to write
What else could I do
I'm so inspired by you
That hasn't happened for the longest time
Thanks for the vid numberphile! Ill be exploring this topic for my IB math IA seems extremely interesting and I look forward to delving deep and researching more into it!
But Thermodynamics...
Zoravur Singh screw it who cares
The Second Law isn't violated because it is just of statistics and not absolute. Besides, if there were no observers around, the law technically wouldn't be violated.
it isn't soo easy to apply thermodynamics to the whole universe, becouse the universe isn't a system in equilibrium, so for example, it's not clear how you could even define its entropy. Also it's expanding in such way that it has a moveing event horizon (or cosmological horizon)
Bauti Bunge Actually, defining entropy for systems not in equilibrium is perfectly fine and doable. That is not a problem. The proper counterargument to consider is that the law of thermodynamics is a statistical statement, and that it also has been known to not hold under certain circumstances under relativistic quantum theory.
So how many times did i wrote this comment ?
Please stop, I'm really getting tired of answering this question! ;-)
i see what you did there !
***** dude Open your eyes to see the truth ! oh you can't literally haha.
HENNI Mohamed you wrote this comment an infinite number of times (in parallel universes lol)
Vasco Neto same for your reply :D
I've probably missed this at some point or I'm missing something else, but why the brown paper?
The whole thermalizing and being part of the recurrence sounds like a concept out of kamisama no inai nichiyoubi or indeed, the other way around
my grandfather wrote this comment.
our existence is so puny and irrelevant.
+epicboy69 Maybe yours is.
+Jordan Shank What makes you important? hahaha
Steven Moore Once we merge with the machine and reach transcendence by leaving our biological bodies will we be able to ascend.
Biological bodies make us slaves of our primal fears and urges.
We have to stop our biological needs and our fighting for them because of dire consequences to us and our surroundings, to do so we need to leave our physical bodies.
We need to evolve as one organism, serving a common cosmic goal to rise past type one civilization. Evolving biologically is long, risky and a strenuous endeavor, our a chances of success are higher if we transcend past our physical shells and self-centered goals of dominance over others and seek for validation.
Steven Moore quarks are everywhere in the universe.... we are not.... in fact we wont be able to leave our own local group which is somewhere. 000000000001 % of the universe ( dont quote me on this) so basically..... we mean nothing
woah-oh-oh, for the longest
if you said goodbye to me tonight
For some reason I've watched this a second time. Mind boggling.
I watched this video several Big Bangs ago. ;)