Time Is Broken, According To This New Theory
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2024
- For 50% off with HelloFresh PLUS free shipping, use code JOESCOTT50 at bit.ly/3lCe7PY
The Big Bang Theory has become the most accepted theory for the origin of the universe for decades. And it still is. But there are a handful of theories - mostly mathematical models - that offer a steady-state explanation for the universe. One of them is called Causal Set Theory. It’s a little different, but interesting. And worth talking about.
Want to support the channel? Here's how:
Patreon: / answerswithjoe
Channel Memberships: / @joescott
T-Shirts & Merch: www.answerswithjoe.com/store
Check out my 2nd channel, Joe Scott TMI:
/ @joescott-tmi
And my podcast channel, Conversations With Joe:
/ @conversationswithjoe
You can listen to my podcast, Conversations With Joe on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Spotify 👉 spoti.fi/37iPGzF
Apple Podcasts 👉 apple.co/3j94kfq
Google Podcasts 👉 bit.ly/3qZCo1V
Interested in getting a Tesla or going solar? Use my referral link and get discounts and perks:
ts.la/joe74700
Follow me at all my places!
Instagram: / answerswithjoe
TikTok: / answerswithjoe
Facebook: / answerswithjoe
Twitter: / answerswithjoe
LINKS LINKS LINKS
www.livescience.com/33816-qua...
www.space.com/17661-theory-ge...
www.secretsofuniverse.in/quan...
astronomy.com/magazine/news/2...
www.space.com/17594-string-th...
www.quantamagazine.org/string...
www.space.com/loop-quantum-gr...
www.einstein-online.info/en/s...
perimeterinstitute.ca/people/...
link.springer.com/article/10....
www.rri.res.in/people/faculty...
aschoonerofscience.com/how-th...
www.livescience.com/universe-...
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - Intro
3:59 - Different Theories
4:40 - Causal Set Theory
8:17 - Why Causal Set Theory is Popular With Physicists
11:15 - Sponsor - Hello Fresh 
Наука
What about the giant tortoise? Huh?‽ Explain THAT brain boy!
I accept the tortoise, but can you explain the elephants on its back?
I think I just had a near Joe Scott experience...
YOU GOT HIM!!
You got him... 🥲
Watching for the 2nd time...
Brain boy!!!!! Lol 🎉
How did the universe begin, you ask?
Well, when two universes love each other very much....
I am 57, as a child I still recall when 1) continental shift was not widely accepted and 2) before any discussion of Big Bang and as you said infinite universe. They also believed the brain didn’t change much after puberty, neuroplasticity as it was later called didn’t exist.
Psychedelics solve that problem....
@@bujfvjg7222 They have potential for some mental health issues, but also bring risks. No one under 22 or so should ever indulge nor should people with family histories including schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. By the way the issue at that time was lack of information, not psychedelics which were in their heyday.
Also, rockets could not work in vacuum. Nothing for them to push against.
@@veramae4098 Lol it was not 1947…
People STILLL believe the brain thing and it drives me INSANE
Joe you do a super job. You're the most straightforward communicator I've seen on RUclips. I can watch your videos and not be messed around with hype or nonsense. You also have a great sense of humor. To be straightforward and humorous and entertaining that is a winning combination. Keep up the great work!
There's something on your nose..
As a nuclear engineer and physicist, I actually love the disclaimer and believe that we should all have them for multiple topics throughout life. Thank you for the engaging posts.
+
i think people should stopping with believing everything on the internet so joe doesnt have to use them anymore :') to me it sounds just natural to look up things before i believe them. i just believe joe did his homework, better then i could have done. but believing every word he saids as a truth is just foolish. there are only suggestions ;D
To see the fruits of their labor at S4 AREA 51 Google search Tr3b astra-hit the video icon-go to the night time footage of a Tr3b powering up its gravity wave propulsion system until it disappears.
U.S. space forces near stellar workhorse.
You probably understand what he was talking about; me, I got lost at quantum mechanics... ;)
@@tr7b410 lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololollolol
Lemaitre was also a professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was a priest and a legit scientist. Later in life he he became a computer programmer. He also got a Ph.D at MIT and fought in WW1
What a badass
I find it odd that certain individuals can hold two contradictory belief systems, and function within each one as if the the other temporarily stops existing.
@@dross4207 He very clearly didn't find them contradictory.
@@dross4207 I can't link directly by "The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître by Joseph R. Laracy" explain how Lemaitre felt there was no contradiction.
He even convinced the pope, who declared "the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation"
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan I meant the direct conflict between religion and science in general, because both contradict each other and both are mutually exclusive of each other. You can’t use “God” in science as nothing would never get explained, and science doesn’t deal with the supernatural and the imaginary. You must temporarily halt religious dogma to do science, and you have to stop being scientific to believe in a god.
I love that you can keep me engaged for over 13 minutes with a topic that is completely beyond my comprehension 😂.
It's not beyond your
comprehension. We say things like that because we define ourselves in terms of what we are and what we aren't. That is, we avow or disavow. We *must* do this, because the alternative is psychosis.
Inherent in this project is self-deception. Think about it: how is it possible to lie to oneself? In order to deceive someone else, you have to know something the other person doesn't. But how can we know something we ourselves don't know? I am not saying that you are lying to yourself--at least not with the moral connotation commonly attached to it. I am illustrating a peculiarity of the architecture of beliefs about ourselves, umm, itself. See, I was just going to say, "my brain is broken from years of disuse, and so I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it". I just did the thing I'm talking about.
What I'm getting at is that your comprehension itself is not immutable. You now understand *something* that you didn't understand before, right?
I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter@@bsadewitz
Talking about time passing, I just remembered i started to watch your channel when you had literally few hundreds of followers .. incredible how far you went, 1.69M !!! You are clear proof that hard work pays off !! For those years you created incredible amount of great content !
Bruh is it just me or does georges lemaítre look like Brendan Frazier
it's his brother, he has Fly's DeLorean..
A couple decades ago, I was having a random conversation about the beginning of the universe with some coworkers while working as a dishwasher at an Italian restaurant. I theorized the "Big Bang" was a local event, and our universe was one of many that naturally pop up throughout infinite space and time. I used a sponge covered in bubbles as a representation of how universes (bubbles) "pop" over time, or expand and pop up anew with a good squish. My fellow dishwashers nodded, whilst Mike the manager told us to, "Stop !%^%$#% around and get back to work!!". Couldn't stand that guy...
..........................Stephen Hawking wrote an entire book about this hypothesis lol. "Black Holes and Baby Universes". Great book! I wonder if you are actually Stephen Hawking. You said this was a couple decades ago and his book COINCIDENTALLY came out in 1993. OH NO I just stepped right into a conspiracy!!!!!!!! You bastard! You set me up :(
Johnny, he sounds like our civilian boss over a drafting crew we had at a base in Calif when I was in the USAF and we heard that JFK had been shot. We were all gathered around the radio listening to news when this SOB came in and loudly announced-Even if POTUS has been shot. Get back to work.- As if an hour would have made any difference that day.
You should reach out to Andrei Linde :D. I first read about his hypothesis in an issue of Scientific American back in 1994 and that brilliant model has gotten stuck in my mind till today.. and I wonder why no one has given it more serious thought
@@Wodz30 For the love of Honey-Nut Cheerios, don't start anymore conspiracy theories! We're at maximum capacity. I promise you I'm not Stephen Hawking's brain transplanted into a top secret deep state robot. Probably...😉
@@jerrylee8261 Yeah, I don't think I had it that bad, but higher-ups can be awful.
Joe is humble. Humility is a force multiplier when considering complex subject matter. Be like Joe.
I struggle with statements like this.
I'm autistic so I don't have a grip on the bizarre need for people to be relatable when presenting scientific knowledge. It's no less true or false because the person that says it is relatable.
Humility gives no advantage in interpretation or understanding of a subject.
If people are swayed on a premise because the presenter is likable, then their opinion has no value.
@@trubblebubble1 very true my man.
I agree with you… hubris does get in the way
@@trubblebubble1 I should also note that I agree with you. Arguments stand or fall on their own, internal, merits, not on the character, reputation or good looks of the argument maker.
Maybe It's because when someone is humble they're open minded and can adjust to deeper nuances. Some people think they know all the facts and becomes dogmatic/narrow minded or arrogant, which makes them unable to see the whole picture. Understanding requires empathy
Honestly the idea of an infinite steady state universe with no beginning or end makes much more sense than a big bang for whatever reason starting everything out of some kind of weird tiny "no space no time" state.
A lot of people these days find the idea of an infinite steady state universe way too boring since they’re so hooked up on the idea that the universe must’ve had a beginning, like according to whom?
So, why all things are happening now, and not a million years in the future, or in the past???
Why now is now?
@@claudiohess7692 Things will happen in a million years in the future and they did happen in the past, so what are you talking about exactly?
@@nickcunningham6344how come I'm in the present huh HUH? Like was that a real question
now is the moment, when on a quantum level uncertainty collapses, entangled with the entire universe. it increases entropy, another r reason for the arrow of time. @@claudiohess7692
for years i have watched your videos, never missed one, this is the best of all of them, you were throwing down truths that are often overlooked in science, this is how we really learn and advance,
good for you!
The fact you are honest and humble enough to acknowledge your lack of understanding in topics makes it more engaging for other people who are also learning. 🤙🤙
And anyone who thinks they know everything is an absolute fool.
So I already trust his judgement more after hearing the disclaimer 😄
Yeah I especially liked the part where he admitted it's basically all bs
@@cv6442 Anyone who thinks they know ANYTHING for sure is an absolute fool! Did I just contradict myself? I made a truth claim so yes I did. 'Houston we have a problem'.
@@nikthefix8918 hey now 50% of the time we are 100% correct!! 🤣🤣
I absolutely love how all of our lives we learn the basic building blocks of life, and then as we get older and more in-depth on subjects, we're like "ok, now forget everything you learned, because we actually know nothing" 😆😆😆
Yet willing to dismiss an idea as it comes from a priest.... Very classy.
Well, you know the old saying:
Even broken time is right twice a day.
broken clock not broken time!!
@@DendrocnideMoroides Whoa, you just broke my brain!
Does that mean my brain is only right twice a day? :)
There are days?
Well, space and time is linked so it's right, left, up, and down... Twice a day...
@@justinanderson267 Don't forget before and after. 😊
I was driving in my car recently. I have a terrible sense of direction. Been picked on about it all my life. I was headed somewhere, with the aid of my phone's GPS, trying very to remember how I'd get there in the future so next time I went there I would not need my phone as a guide. I was looking at all the physical things around me. Trying to remember the church that was on that corner and that weird looking sign that was on that other corner and that tree standing over there. All those things when you are trying to remember how you get to where you are going. But, a song came on the radio and I started singing. And, I started remembering all the reasons I absolutely love the song. And, by the time I got to my destination, I realized, I'd forgotten, even though I was looking and (at least on some level) really trying to concentrate on everything around me, much of what I'd seen... all manner of little steps I'd taken to get to where I was going. I tried to go back exactly the way I'd come without the aid of my phone and found myself lost fairly quickly. It was as though the song on my drive to the destination had transported me into a different dimension where Time... memory and emotion and reason... had been, to some extent, suspended. I was "transported" elsewhere in my mind. I'd obviously been aware enough of what I was doing to pay attention to danger coming from cars or animals running out into the street or the directions my phone was giving me, but not enough to really pay attention to where I was in the Now.
I couldn't shake the thought that this is relevant when it comes to my very perception of Time itself. I have been wondering, as a layman, if this mental ability to be, basically, in two headspaces at once, is not our biggest problem when it comes to understanding Time, its relationship with physical reality and causation? I recognize that I am terrible at spatial cognition. At concentrating and learning from the tasks I am engaging in, as I engage in them, when my mind wanders. The wandering itself often yields leaps in logic I would not have had, so it does have its merits. But yes, that is a far easier explanation. Still, could there be a correlation between when that happens and understanding Time itself and its relation to reality.
That disclaimer of yours is great, I finally subscribed :) I’ve watched videos of yours in the past. You are extremely well spoken and well read and I appreciate the humility.
Love your videos. I also want to say, just because you aren't an astrophysicist shouldn't downplay how important videos like these are. I did well in school but I didn't enjoy learning. Now as an adult when I get to pick topics I'm interested in I LOVE learning and since I consider myself pretty smart, but with no higher education more simply explained videos like these are a godsend to help me understand better and sate my curiosity.
Agree. My son learned computer programming for AI after dropping out of college because it was too slow. He’s now a senior software engineer with a team. He also loves theoretical physics and has taught himself.
College isn’t the end all be all.
While there were instances when some mathematical oddity led to discovery of physical phenomena (like negative energy solutions to Dirac equation that turned out to describe positron, the anti-matter counterpart of electron), it would seem that Nature has no obligation to follow all nice, consistent mathematical constructs with their physical realization. Just because we can _describe_ something it doesn't have to actually _exist._
In the words of Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
This is spot on. Math after all is just a language after all. We can use it to understand things, because the way the language is constructed is universal, but just because we can use the words to say something doesn't mean there will be a physical counterpart always. What exists is just a subset of what is describable.
Which is why the whole approach of finding superstring theories that explained anything specific led to a bunch of nothing from the practical standpoint. It's better to just always try to go back to what can be probed experimentally. If that shows itself impossible to even attempt, we should pursue other avenues for the time being until we can find something we can at least attest wrong or unlikely wrong. String theories can never be wrong because you can adjust endless parameters in the middle of the model.
Mathematics just describes relationships of cause and effect. The starting point in mathematics is a set of axioms. If the axioms (postulates) are true in the physical world, everything else you predict with mathematics is true. The mistaken theories in physics come from initial postulates that are false (time is absolute and space itself is just the setting in which things happen and does not act, are the erroneous postulates of classical mechanics, this was corrected with relativity).
We can describe anything mathematically. You can blindfold yourself and then randomly scribble a line with any number of curves and loops. You can then describe that line with a function. The more complex the line's path, the more complex the function. Because you can do this does not imply any significance to that line or curve. The only way math (or mathematical modelling) can indicate "existence" or understanding is if it is predictive. If a mathematical model cannot do this then it's simply mathematical exercise.
This is interesting, and on a philosophical level it's basically how I've already viewed the universe for a while now (I'm a mathematician). I didn't realize there was an actual physics theory that fleshed it out.
I share your experience!
Aren’t good mathematicians just called physicists? Lol
Don't you just love how upbeat and positive all of Joe's videos are😂
The idea that the larger exo-verse is a bunch of quantum membranes that have always existed and sometimes smack together to create a universe is a lot more satisfying of an answer than "There was nothing then singularity go bang."
Satisfying to you, maybe. Why quantum membranes? What produces them?
I'm saying they're _less_ satisfying, but without an explanation for the 'reason' you have not explained anything, you've just added layers.
@@boobah5643 The dude didn't say satisfying, but *more" satisfying. How can any explanation that involves singularity be satisfying at all? Singularity in any theory just means the theory doesn't work there, so replacing that with literally anything that has the slimmest chance of working is *more* satisfying.
I also don't understand your insistence that the reason have an explanation. After all that explanation then needs its own, and so on and so forth. Unless you see no value except for some root primal cause, every explanation is progress. Afaik literally no theory in physics even tries to explain the initial condition.
@@boobah5643 what is more satisfying is that the quantum membranea wouldnt neccessarily have to have a "start" so the question of what made them wouldnt make logical sense. It would make sense that there is a quantum medium, made of nothing, that eventually makes "something" when they interact in specific ways.
What is less satisfying abou the idea of simply a big bang from nothing is that there is no way to conceptualize the nothingness before the big bang because the moment there is a concept there is "something".
You know, while I'm in the "have to get up and go to work tomorrow" camp generally, I'm incredibly happy that we live in a world where people are able to devote their considerable expertise to this line of thinking. Keep it up, hypernerds!
Somebody's gotta grow the food, build the houses, pay the people growing the food, transport the food, manage money moving from one person to another, ek setter uh and what not, while the smart people think about these things
its better to get up the SAME day you go to work. you wont be nearly as tired
@@jeremyroland5602someone got triggered about their 9-5 life lol
@@99Plastics What? My comment is saying that the rest of us have to work jobs to help society function so that the smart people are able to focus on being smart. Read comments and understand them before you post things.
@jeremyroland5602 Don't feed the trolls Jeremy!!
“So let me explain it with a bunch of words I found I don’t understand” (he said coyly) lol 😂😂😂 you’re the best man!
Oh! I have been looking at time as a physically occurring, "floating point" blockchain, and causal set theory seems to fit that idea perfectly. Good vid. I think what we'll find is that existence creates the potential for space, matter creates space and the potential for causation, causation leads to the breakdown of wider diffuse frameworks into more complex systems of a lower order, higher complexity gives rise to life and the potential for time, and life creates time. At some point we'll likely be able to tell where there is and isn't life in the universe, simply by where there appear to be changes in the character of physical causation, just as you can tell where people have lived by changes in the nature of the area. We are time, each of us is a wormhole from the past to the future, and because we are conscious, some of that causation in our time stream is under our direct control. The less involved with consensus reality we are, the more our time stream can be under our own direction. But, of course, as long as we participate in existence, we cannot consciously control all causation.
One clarification. The Big Bang does not require that the universe was an "infinitesimally small point" at some point in its past. In fact the universe may have started off as infinite and expanded everywhere into the larger infinity that we see today.
Some infinities are larger than other infinities. 8^)
I think it could be an oscillation. It just happens to be expanding now.
@@Bryan-Hensley That's not a new idea either. There's a bunch of versions of cyclic universes and big bounces. None proven.
So it could technically be static and as large as it is now and then just expand into an even larger one, making the previous universe the infinitesimally small point of expansion?
We still hardly know anything - and that is exciting :)
Joe, I don't care about your academic background, nor the size of your forehead (it's fine, really). I like watching/listening to you because you seem enthusiastic about the things you talk about, you are fun and smart and you sum up interesting topics for our curious, lazy minds. Most of my conversations throughout the day are with my 2-year-old, so I'm just grateful for the impression of being included in a group of intelligent adults
Does he not like his receder? Not many any guys wake up and say I'm going baldrick today...l think pre-baldrick anxiety is a thing before full time baldrick is in play for good.
I would not know my hair is too thick and I hate it and there's a cost every two weeks to tame the mane. Baldrick wouldn't be so bad no haircut's to pay for ⛳
And if it wasn't fine, it'd still be fine.
that last sentence is way too real
Just make sure your 2 year old gets interested in science and stuff. Then very soon you'll always have somebody for interesting discussions. They grow up so effing fast.😎
As a single dad taking care of baby with a CHD, I spend four straight days isolated from anyone older than 18mo(outside of Ms Rachel, of course) and then work three 14hr days/shifts servicing gambling machines in bars(where I have found that no intelligent life resides), so these types of videos are my only solace and escape from “Hop Little Bunny” and drunken, gambling baboons.
That was an excellent segue into your advertizement.
Top notch.
"Don't be scured" at the end killed me 🤣🤣
As a person who also didn't understand most of those words that you said, I think you did a really great job of explaining what it was lol.
You might as well just say “even though I can’t read, I think War and Peace is a really good book.” 😂
Knowing that others are grappling with these issues (was there "a beginning" and will there be "an end", or is space-time "infinite").is reassuring. And knowing that Joe Scott is working to let the rest of us know. Well, it means that all is right with the world. Thanks.
Or it could just be a 'block' - finite but unbounded. All would be right with that kind of world for me.
So, "all is right with the world" because of Joe. Say that out loud 10 ten times... and just admit that's one of the dumbest things you've ever said!
Most people grapple with these issues if they actually think about it. What truly surprises me is that there are people out there who don't wonder about it. They learn that we have no idea why the universe exists and what tf is going on, then just think "huh, neat" and go on with their lives. I try not to think about it often, but sometimes I really just get hit with that feeling of derealization when I consider the scale of the universe and how little we as humans know about it
How can anything exist? Matter supposedly cannot be created or destroyed, which means matter could never have been created in the first place. Even if it can be created or destroyed, how the fuck did matter become a thing to begin with? Even if we imagine a god, or simulation hypothesis as having created matter, where did they come from? Where did it all truly start? It is a paradox with seemingly no possible answer. This boggles my mind every night.
@@synthemagician4686 This assumes a creation event in time which inevitably leads to the infinite regression problem you describe. Instead, if we consider space, time and mass-energy contents as representing a single manifold then the problem dissapears. In our terms, the Universe always was. The question of origins becomes meaningless.
Planck length's of time or space, don't actually mean that nothing is smaller. It just means we can't measure or use anything in a meaningful way smaller than that limit. It's so small that any event below that of any scale is effectively considered the same, or that it is completely unobservable/ non-interactive.
There absolutely no reason to assume that it's impossible for things smaller than those scales to be possible, and thus a infinitesimally smaller universe the further back in time, doesn't require a discrete beginning event as we would understand it. It's like that curve on a graph that gets closer to zero but never quite touches it.
New to your channel, your disclaimer and moral approach are great. You have a new subscriber. Interesting content !
Do Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology next. It's even crazier and the implications are wild. It might mean the previous universe was so small that the whole thing could fit in somebody's pocket, and our universe would be similarly small to an observer in a future universe.
“Honey? Have you seen my universe?”
I now understand why the world has gotten so bewildering the last decade or so. We went through the wash.
Neah,the real fucky part about that is that at the end of timelike infinity ,the end of time so to speak,distances and time don't matter anymore so the universe reverts basically to a hot singularity from a giant,cold and dead state.
@@comancostin4623 which, can't happen according to the principles in this video
They've mapped the dark matter of the Universe and it looks surprising like a map of neurons in a human brain...
So just for a second, imagine our universe is actually small and is the brain of a larger creature in a larger universe
🤯🤯
@@mknomad5 yeah,I guess it's why both are just unproven theories right now.
I don't comment often, but I regularly watch/listen to your stuff. The "giant forehead" disclaimer mad me chortle whilst in the midst of a episode of depression.
Thank you sir
Yeah that was definitely one of, if not THE, funniest disclaimers I've ever heard.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that they take place at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where you observe it from will be the closest to the present moment. When we look out into the universe, we see the past which is made of particles (GR). When we try to look at smaller and smaller sizes and distances, we are actually looking closer and closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start looking into the future of that particle. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse happens when we bring a particle into the present/past. GR is making measurements in the predictable past. QM is trying to make measurements of the probabilistic future.
I love Joe. His content is some of the best when I comes to taking complex crazy scientific news and info and making it into simple to understand digestible content.
Agreed - but this stuff is still WAY over my little pea brain!
hes the only science channel i watch besides vsauce
@@i_love_rescue_animals If you're interested, you might like to read Richard Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" book as a place to start.
Yeah Joe, my brain fell out on this one too. The part that made the most sense to me was “give us one miracle and we will take it from there”. Problem for me on that one is I don’t believe in miracles. 🤔
I understood the 'hello fresh' part of the video. The rest made no sense.
Back up a century and a half and there was talk of the Ether. A cloudy, vague soup from which matter was born. I think quantum foam is the modern incorporation of the same principle.
First was the ether, next came dark matter, now quantum foam with bubbles and strings. All are just different names for yet to be explained phenomenon.
Thanks Joe! You rock.
This made me think of Zeno's paradoxes. How about a vídeo about them?
It’s interesting to hear words in English, spoken in a clear voice, and in a familiar pattern, and yet not being able to understand them at all when put into a certain sequence.
Lemaître's deduction was a bit more complex than just thinking "It's expanding, so it came from a point"
He basically took Einstein's equations of general relativity and looked for parameters that made it fit current observations. Then found that all parameter sets started from a singularity.
How does that relate to the recent findings of the James Webb Telescope that seem (unconfirmed) to contradict the widely accepted Big Bang idea?
@@theman1860it doesn't, really. weren't those discoveries just that the oldest galaxies had more structure to them than we expected with current models?
@adoracline Either those galaxies formed really really fast after the big bang for how old they were (which contradicts everything we know about galaxy formations, all our theories on the big bang and physics) , or they were remnants of an older universe (pre Big Bang/ Dr. Roger Penrose) or we live in a steady state universe.
Shouldn't we change the name from Big Bang Theory to Cosmic Extrapolation Theory and Singularity to Asymptote?
iirc recently those “old galaxies” observed by JWST have been called into doubt and are already thought to be other celestial bodies just moving away from us faster than expected.
Substitute 'Expanding' for 'Evolving' gives more to consider
I really enjoyed your humble style, subbed!
As a character once said in a Woody Allen movie, 'How would I know what the meaning of life is? I don't know how a can opener works.'
The meaning of life is having your hands in the soil, the forest in your lungs and the sand between your toes. All proven to work better than antidepressants.
We should be growing our soil and planting trees that won't even reach maturity in our lifetimes. We should be growing to pass down to our descendants. That imo, is the meaning of life.
The soil is supposed to be alive with the same bacteria as our guts for one thing & same as in the ruminant animals guts, manure amends the soil. Circle of life.
These soil microbes are what is responsible for making the nutrients u consume plant available. Without them, the supermarket veggies lack 90% of their nutrients. The chemicals we use to grow food, kills these soil microbes. Even chlorinated water, Oops.
Well, if SHTF, we couldn't feed anywhere near this many people without these chemicals. Unfortunately, due to no soil microbes, we're feeding us food w the nutritional value of cardboard. I also have questions regarding hydroponics due to this. Perhaps psychedelic compounds aren't effected but nutrition sure is. Notice the taste difference in a home grown tomato vs dead chemical soil tomatoes? Taste = nutrients. They GMOd them to have more color, but can't make the have more taste yet apparently. Now they are spraying food w Apeel. Gonna make them even more nutritionally deficient sitting on the shelf indefinitely. Food is most nutritious freshly picked.
@@JennySimon206 This is YOUR meaning, not THE meaning of life. Life existed before farming, and there is also life outside of farming.
AFAIK the meaning of life is to exist.
Hey Joe, thank you for taking on these difficult topics. Your videos are truly entertaining and informative. I also have to go to work tomorrow, but I never want to stop learning so please keep taking on these challenging topics.
As always, excellent video. Thank you.
Nice video, I like the approach.
Also, 07:43 - beautiful escalation of difficult words 😆
Is "Give us one miracle, and we'll take it from there" yours? If so someone should totally gift you one of those mugs. Cheers!
I just want to say thank you. Your channel and a few others have kept me sane these last few months. Getting ready to start chemo next week. So thank you for all you do.
I hope Chemo goes well for you. Sending prayers.
@@Fire62Link thank you! I really appreciate it!
I’m sending prayers and positive vibes your way. You will do amazing! ❤
@@kellycroley6086 thank you so much!
Me too,🙏
I remember reading Hoyle in the early '50's. As a young child (born in '41) I found it very interesting: "Imagine the surface of a ballon with spots [galaxies] on it. As it gets bigger they move further away from one another. I believe new ones just appear to fill in the spaces ... ". Pretty heady stuff for a kid. 😎🎸🥃
What if the expansion of the universe only SEEMS to be accelerating because farther away not only means farther in the past but also moving away faster and it's just time dilation making it look like the universe was expansing slower in the past?
Mind you, this would still require expansion (whether steady or just slowing or accelarationg more slowly), which would mean that it might also still require a big bang beginning ... so maybe not quite "steady state" per se
Got my thumbs up with the disclaimer!
That did break my brain, it still gives me dread, regardless of which theory to choose from it invokes infinity, not that there's a difference between infinity and very very very large universe for someone who only can travel at 140 miles a second.
The craziness goes beyond just sheer size, because this sense of infinity actually applies to speed just as much as size; as in, what speed we're traveling at is actually relative to how far you zoom out our existence, so it's not true that we're _only_ travelling at 220 Km/s (140 mi/s), which is specifically at the level of the solar system travelling through the galaxy.
At the lowest level we care about, we're travelling at whatever speed we happen to be moving at as individuals at Earth-life level. Going beyond our base perception of reality, we're moving at 0.46 Km/s or 460 m/s in terms of Earth's rotation, 30 Km/s in terms of the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and the Milky Way itself (skipping the solar system since it's already been mentioned) is travelling through the universe at around 370 Km/s. This just keeps going and going.
Don’t worry. It’s all relative.
I am trying to find a relationship between all these theories and dreams. Dreams which warn you at that specific time or another date in the future. I know sounds weird and difficult to explain myself in any language.
@@champagnemls If you've ever been barely awake, you can probably imagine how bad the quality of thoughts can become if had even less energy. Dreams are the brain still attempting to think, including making predictions, with minimum energy available to it while the body is conserving energy during sleep.
@@Vaeldarg not sure what you mean but I do not think that brain ever stops thinking. We are just aware or not aware.
Hardcore (it's 'metal'?) science subjects have always been intimidating for me and very difficult to understand. You not only make me laugh but help me parse through the metal. You're a gem!!
The universe may have had a starting point (at least this version of it) but even more mind blowing is the fact that existence itself has always existed.
What if, its actually consciousness that has always existed and this universe is just a frequency that our consciousnesses are tuned to, allowing us to experience the the same reality.
Or perhaps we are in a simulation and the universe is only rendered into our existence when we can see it.
@@zchettaz either way, existence has never not existed. Not just talking about our existence as humans, but the act of something "being" overall
@@NKWTI
Well, yeah, it couldn't exist without actually existing. But im not just as our existence as humans either, which would be self-consciousness.
Im saying, what if consciousness is the overall act of "being", where our consciousness is a form of energy. Einstein once said: "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one state to another".
Now there's a T-shirt I need. "Give us one miracle, and we'll explain it from there." lol
I find it comforting that you, Joe, and the great, late Terry Pratchett both agree on this fundamental of the universe: Time is Broken. This explains my life so well, especially why everything always seems to happen at the same time. It’s not my ADHD at work. It’s just that time is broken. Thanks for that. 😂
Time is an illusion. Lunch time doubly so. Ford Prefect. Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.
Time gets confused with dysfunction.
@@davideyres955 Time out! What about day time and night time? Is it the Sun up there or is it my imagination?
@@ouknow1446 Well, the entire universe is translated through your senses to your mind, so it technically is all your imagination, in a way. It also really could be.
@@genostellar Time is movement and all movement is forward. This is why there is no going back in time. If it was possible to stop all movement time would stand still. The closest example is when objects are at absolute zero temperature no molecular change occurs because no movement occurs making time cease since it is measured by the rate of movement.
"Vesto Slipher" is the greatest supervillain name in science. The fact that his middle name was "Melvin" makes it complete.
I'm gonna name my next dog Vestaphalo Melvin Preston and call him Vesto Mel Pesto..
I had a thought recently...
Prolly not the first person to think this, but ive never heard anyone else say it.
It occurred to me when I read about the Great Attractor; an area in space we are all being pulled towards.
And i wondered how could everything be moving apart from everything else, yet still pulled towards the same thing.
And how does everything in the universe emerge from a point.
How can spacetime have a beginning and end and be infinite.
Or finite without a beginnig and end
And i thought about what if the universe collapsed in on itself.
Usually when i think of a star collapsing into a black hole, i imagine a sphere getting smaller and smaller til its a point.
But now i think of the universe like a sphere collapsing into a donut shape.
But not a donut with a hole.
So lets say the universe was like a spherical balloon of the earth and it collapsed at the "south" pole into the center of the globe, and this started a rotation of the surface downward towards the "southpole"
Where it then gets sucked down a hole towards the core, where it gets squeezed thru a hole as tight as a singularity.
Everything on the surface at that point is squeezed together.
Then, at the north pole, the surface of the globe emerges from a tiny point and everything that was packed together begins moving away from everything else
And the farther you get from the "north pole", moving south the faster everything on the surface will expand, until you hit the "equator" where everyting will be squeezed together again at the south pole.
But its a 4d surface, so its not really that the surface is rotating...its more like we're experience moving along the 4d surface at the speed of light
...or something.
I never really liked the idea of a start to the universe or for that matter an end. It seems to me that searching for the ultimate beginning and end of everything is only seen as useful and important to us as humans because we are conditioned to think that way by our own individual finite existence. In any case its always seemed a futile proposition because once you conceive of a beginning you are still left with the question of what existed before that point. If you answer is nothing, then how does something come from nothing. Conceptually I think it's easier to just accept that it's always been there in one form or another and ever will remain so.
It isn't an issue of humans viewing everything as finite because we are. It's an issue of viewing everything as finite because everything we can observe IS finite. Stars, black holes, all of it. All finite. We look for things to be finite because so far almost all evidence of anything points that direction.
If something exists, then how can nothing exist?
1:39 Yes, although one of the old mystic ideas is that the material universe grew from a "seed" (and there can be many "seeds" resulting in different universes according to this idea). In this sense then the Big Bang was not so much a "creation" event but more like a "crystallisation" or "phase transition" in the pre-existing form of matter (different than what we know as "elementary particles"). It's interesting that those ideas are so old, really the only thing people in ancient times didn't know was how to _quantify_ things (which enables modelling and predicting) but otherwise they were quite original in their thinking.
Joe Scott is one of the best. His vibe is super "regular" in a good way. Hope he gets happier and happier doing what he does. Hope he does it until the internet rusts over, flakes off and blows away in the wind.
*throws head back and laughs in entropy*
Well, I'm only an enthusiast, but I think its similar to Wolfram Physics, which I have been trying to make proper sense of and I think might be great. It new, and it is incomplete, but normal physics (mostly) emerges from the maths. The rules are very similar and the idea of causal logic at very small discrete intervals according to not yet known rules matches.
Joe is truly entertaining and I really enjoy learning about theories that don't get much air time. That's really enjoyable to me. One thing we have expiremently confirmed is the CMB, this video probably should have touched on that.
The CMB can be true with a big bang or with a causal set as both involve a universe expanding from something. So I'm not sure it's too important to bring up in this video as it doesn't provide evidence of one over the other. Though he could have touched on it to explain as much himself, I suppose.
Whats a CMB?
@@Marquis-Sade Cosmic Mircowave Background.
:) I'm just here because I can relate to his forehead...
What about the Higg’s Boson? Isn’t that a “gravity particle” though?
Whether it's steady state theory or Quantum, or whatever, if we weren't here to view or experience time, then it really wouldn't matter. Joe Scott, you're great with these videos. Keep them streaming ✌😊
True, but we are here and we are really curious. What doesn't matter to the universe quickly becomes a crisis for us, heh.
It always makes me happy to see people acknowledging an inherent meaning to life without invoking a god.
the threads and it’s tangles, doing and undoing like breath
I hate the way people talk about the BB like it was a given, like “when the BB” and “after the BB” etc etc.
It’s still a hypothesis and if history tells us anything is that a big big percentage of our hypothesis ends up changing.
People seem to forget that and act like we already know everything, just like they did 200 yrs ago, and 200 yrs before that etc
I’ve recently been using results from causal set theory in a knowledge representation domain - the mathematical structure is really useful in a bunch of other ways! I’d been meaning to try and get a better understanding of the physics application but hadn’t got around to it yet, so this was timely! Thanks for the great introduction.
Try construct theory, and read some from chiara marletto
I loved the brain bit, although mine dribbled out.
I like the idea of time having no beginning or end. I'm not a scientist, but the heat death of the universe is terrifying and maybe this means things will go on and on forever, which is comforting for me.
One of the many many confusing aspects of the big bang theory is that when everything was at a infinite point just before expanding, why didn't it all just collapse into a black hole?
because maybe it did?
Hmmmm!
YES, that much pure energy would HAVE to be a black hole IF there was any space to bend into, which there was not yet? Also, Guth's cosmic inflation posits that the "inflaton" field was more powerful than gravity, and so, the "primevel atom" expanded exponentially to some greater size and gave the nascent universe enough momentum to avoid collapsing onto itself. Actually, a lot of "just so" events had to take place to arrive where we are. Keep in mind that there is no "proof" of the inflaton field. Most cosmological origin "hypotheses" are nothing more than pure speculation. All we actually KNOW for sure is that this universe exists, and it had a beginning.
@@lastchance8142 wasn't gravity part of all the fundamental forces in the beginning, before it all cooled and became the four separate forces. If so wouldn't gravity have reduced power?
@@ididntagree Who knows? Can't probe anything prior to 380,000 years after the BB. Either way, need space to have gravity. Anyway, they'll just say the imaginary inflaton field was stronger.
As Carlos Santana sang, "life is just a passing parade", or Billy Joel, "life is just a series of hellos and good byes" or the Beach Boys, "God only knows". Thanks for the video, although the title was a little miss leading, in that I think I must have missed the bit about time being broken, but then again my PhD is in Industrial Relations history, so the social sciences, not mathematics.
I can honestly say most of what to talk about slightly confuses me but definitely enjoy learning more as like a sponge absorb the knowledge you give me.
I remember scientists saying, “Many people misunderstand the idea of the Big Bang. It did not happen at one point - it happened everywhere all at once.” That always stuck with me. We still hear it every once in a while.
Seems to me that the idea of a singularity is an example of a kind of sloppiness, or laziness, an unwillingness to really grapple with the evidence, concepts and issues. Or, a kind of hype, or sensationalism.
Yeah... also if there is big bangs everywhere why are all the galaxies moving in the same general direction? Also why have we not detacted more then one big bang? Which I believe their math is correct it's their asumestions are wrong... Which you can easily fix by throwing in Time is eternal and has existed before the universe and will after the universe... Which again is a "Biblical" concept like the big bang and solar system formation...
Im reasonably sure you misunderstood that statement. Or i misunderstood you. They were refering to how the singularity was all there is, and it expanded. The big bang is still happening, and is still happening everywhere, as it always did. There is nothing "outside" of it, it just used to be a lot smaller.
@@Yamyatos I understand what you are saying - the expansion is still ongoing... - but the physicists and astronomers who made this kind of remark were very clear - there was no singularity.
@@joedance14 Im not a physicist, so it's safe to assume most of them know better than we do, but there is always people who disagree, and sometimes for bad reasons too. Just think about all the religious scientists who disagree with stuff like evolution for no good reason. As a non-physicist it's hard to get a good idea of what the scientific consensus actually says and what is only individuals opinions. To my understanding the singularity is an implication of the universes expansion. The latter is pretty much a fact, and if you trace it back, you end up with a single point. I'm not sure how exactly we arrived at the conclusion that it's a singularity in the first place. I'd have to look that up. We did however start with larger estimates, several light years, which then were corrected downwards each time we learned something new, until the current conclusion would be the singularity. In that sense, it would be kinda funny if later theories re-adjust the estimation back upwards tho.
@@Yamyatos “...if you trace it back, you end up with a single point.”
Yes, if you extrapolate, without constraints, without any sense of the applicable range. In other words, if you take it to the extreme. But known physics do not work in that range, so why would we take it back to the extreme? An analogy: many(? some?) physicists who immigrated from the former USSR in the early 1990s found work on Wall Street, and developed new models for trading on stock markets, commodities markets, etc. Those models were valid over a certain range of values, under certain conditions. But markets changed, the economy changed, and Wall Street, as well as most big investment firms, kept using the same models. Which contributed directly or indirectly to market crashes, recessions, etc.
A growing number of scientists are suggesting new ideas about Einstein’s theories, quantum physics, dark matter, quantum foam, virtual particles, modified gravity, universes “bubbling up” from the quantum foam, axions, Bose-Einstein Condensate, etc.
The idea that the universe started as a singularity, then grew/changed/exploded/expanded/inflated...strikes me as an over simplification.
That’s all I was trying to say.
Good as always! A minor thing- Hoyle's Steady State was a complicated kludge to allow the universe to be expanding yet static with an unchanging density. Whatever was before the Big Bang it wasn't Hoyle's Steady State.
10 điểm 💥✨
Had me at the disclaimer. LOL
In the novel Tau Zero, Poul Anderson, talks about a universe continually cycling through “big bangs”.
7:48... 😁😁😁... Correlation does not equal causation, it is something to pay attention too... Synchronicities let you know you are on the right path.
Love the knock your brain into your hand trick. Spontaneous laughter!
Yeah I was feeling that way too then he knocked his brain out and I was like, "YEP that's how I'm feeling."
This reminds me when i was studying programming : My teacher said do not ask questions this is how it is and just follow what previous believe to true and while their is a consensus you cant debate if not create your own language and hope other follows and agree with your thinking....
As he points out the practical effects of the passage of time are observable. Do we really need a series of experiments proving all mater decays or that we live in a cause and effect universe.
Thanks for breaking this down, Joe! Always love your videos (and they inspire me to improve my own videos!)
I understood some of these words. Not a lot, but some
That disclaimer earned you a subscriber mate. Great work! Keep at it!
You should make a video about time being broken.
I think the biggest question we have to ask is: can we see Joe put his brain back in?
Thanks, Joe... breaking my brain just before a holiday! Now, I need an adult beverage to remove all this from my head. As always... great content!
Why not just magnetic, in a sense? Originally, all of the energy/matter was as one, like a snowball. Gravity did not exist, and wasn't needed. I'm not sure what started the expansion and acceleration but gravity gives me the sense of all the little bits trying to pull back together to be a tiny snowball again.
Joe? The phrase, just give us one miracle and we'll take it from there!, was proof one need not understand to explain like a genius.
This was pure genius, you at your pure honest best. And the brain ejection moment! Wonderment and instantly satisfying content!
Thanks as always Joe! Yours, Sam
I’ve wondered about the idea of thinking about time less as a line or plane but as a rate similar to heat, in which time is the measurement at which elements are able to interact with one another
Your humility is refreshing in a world growing towards entropy, with it's declining simple common sense or rational culture focus on never being wrong enough to admit it, to grow and change without obsessions for status or image and guilt to push a ridiculous equity hustle for diverse inclusion for lacking the effort of merit and hard work.
It seems to me that the idea of a steady state universe is similar to the idea that the concept of "nothing" is impossible because once you conceptualize "nothing," it becomes "something."
But nothing is no thing. It's kinda like zero, denoting none.
i find it somehow comforting imagining many physical universes existing next to each other.
My friends and I just had a discussion about if darkness actually exists and this whole thing makes me think of that. Super interesting. I have always loved the discussion on time.
Well yes and no, darkness, the absent of light, i mean its not like some big light bulb emits darkness, is it? Same counts for coldness. Coldness, the absent of warmth. Its not like we “cool” stuff, we extract heath out of it..
🤷idk I think its more an idea of such phenomena being present or not, or something in between. And we can use those by extracting them or placing them around us as an energy source in some way.
Respect for sponsor at the end of video. Thank you sir.
It just makes me feel smaller and smaller compared to the overall existence of everything. My question: If they actually prove any of these theories (if we ever can), how would we use it?
Perhaps there are things that we can know but never utilize, at least not directly. Like an ant flying an airplane. Ants can fly on an airplane, but they could never fly an airplane.
It is often the case that discoveries in theoretical science take time to be used in the applied sciences, but they frequently are applied in ways that are entirely unexpected.
For example, time dilation was first proposed by various authors in the 1890's, but it wasn't until over half a century later that we needed to take it into account in engineering. A great example of practical applications of this understanding is in GPS. I won't pretend to understand the details, but the difference in the passage of time between someone on Earth vs satellites in orbit needs to be accounted for when trying to accurately measure the location of something groundside.
Another example is quantum tunneling. While once a curious observation, today, we need to account for rates of quantum tunneling in nano-scale circuitry. Computers rely on switches that turn on and off to do calculations. Putting more of these transistors in a computer processor gives it more power, so engineers have been making them as small as they can. Now they're so small that electrons can sometimes jump past an open transistoes introducing errors. We are at the point where we need to program computers to compensate for a certain rate of misfiring.
There are plenty of other theoretical discoveries that took time to become practical. Radio, radioactivity, speed of light, speed of sound...
@@John-ir4idI am not a physicist but take your example and we discover things we can’t use directly, we may be able to use them indirectly. For eg we discover that it’s possible to travel through interstellar space using a certain type of quantum engine but we will never be able to produce such an engine. Scientists can use that knowledge as a jumping off point to look for evidence extraterrestrial life in a way we couldn’t before. Perhaps that type of engine would produce a signature we had seen before but hadn’t understood. Perhaps the way that engine works would mean we found a way to power our own engines here on earth. Like the ant seeing the airplane and knowing it could never use it, but using that knowledge to make gliders out of leaves. We can always use new knowledge about the world in ways we cannot yet conceive of. Think of some of the greatest technological innovations of the last few centuries. The building blocks to make them existed in our knowledge for thousands of years.
As Isaac Newton said: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
@@ClurTaylor Find me an organism that can travel at near the speed of light - or pass through a wormhole - without being obliterated in the process... But an interesting idea.
*I'm not saying it could not exist, but it would likely be so far beyond us that we would not even be able to communicate with it or detect its technology. Like the ants in my initial comment, perhaps we could be in the midst of alien life and technology without ever knowing it.
@@ClurTaylor my entire mindset is based on this.
I really enjoy being able to understand things, but I have learned to recognize what I can utilize on my own scale or for my own needs. I truck in information, basically, so a set goal or end point isn't a necessary requirement for me to play with an idea.
Not exactly what you said but hopefully close enough to sound somewhat kindred.
I have an old pendulum clock that picked up many years ago. When I got it home I wound the main spring and started the pendulum swinging. A few minutes later the clock stopped. I'm quite mechanical but have yet to figure out the problem. So, I have personal experience with time being broken. I can happen in mysterious ways!
I think it was Stephen Hawking who said time had to have a beginning, otherwise there would be an infinite amount of time before anything ever happened, which is impossible. I still find that argument compelling.
I happen to like having my science explained by a guy who could literally play a a part on Always Sunny In Philadelphia and no one would notice
Causal Set Theory makes alot of sense to me. I imagined before, little time vortices moving around microscopically, we only know that progression through the distribution of matter.... and it means like you know maybe the universe doesn't go lights on/off and reset everything....kind of sad thinking another big bang would reset every fundamental trace someday....
Interesting. Causal set theory sounds a lot like a theory I came up with a few years ago that I refer to as the "firefly theory".
The name has to do with how the idea came about. I was thinking about how fireflies synchronize their flashes, and it occurred to me that *because light has to travel,* the rate which each firefly needs to flash for them to synchronize is a function of the distance between them. So what you have here is a variable "clock rate" based on distance, with each firefly speeding up or slowing down it's flashes in an attempt to not flash at the same time as the other fireflies. For any configuration of fireflies, there is at least one "clock rate" at which the transmission of energy/signals is most efficient. This is what I referred to as the *causal resonant frequency* (CRF).
If you extrapolate this concept to smallest standing wave particles, there are some peculiar predictions that come about from it. One is that you can hypothetically shift the CRF for an object. Physically, this would result in certain quantum effects appearing on a macroscopic scale. Sort of like a Bose Einstein condensate. An outside observer would see what appears to be tunneling, teleportation, or impossible rates of acceleration. If you've ever played a glitchy video game, it's like when a drop in frame rate causes the discrete physics calculations to malfunction and your character ends up clipping through a wall.
Another idea was that the existence of a CRF could define an entire harmonic series, with each half cycle corresponding to what is effectively a parallel dimension. Locally controlling the CRF could perhaps be used perform a phase shift, resulting in interdimensional travel.
Wow wow 🎉👏
Any ideas how you could test said CRF? Would you look for resonance behavior? What could measure it?
@@philipm3173 I can't say that I know of a good way test it. My speculations about being able to control the CRF are based on simple observations about how waves interact with each other. In reality, trying to do this is a lot like trying to randomly sing the right pitch for the right amount of time to shatter a glass without having ever heard it and without even knowing how to sing. In theory, you're sure it possible, but you've never actually done it. The first time is dumb luck.
@@bitskit3476 it would be a very high frequency would it not? I imagine some kind of magnetic field could do the trick.
@@bitskit3476 have you looked at path integral theories like Ken Wharton's?